how much is not enough. how foolish. keynes or pseudokeynes as i see it since they donot practice pure keynes does not work. big government is our real enemy.
On the 70's i give you Brad Delong econ161.berkeley.edu/econ_articles/theinflationofthes.html That "stagflation" is put in its proper historical context here.
Again, there are only two periods in modern economic history of the United States being against the zero lower bound. This crisis and the great depression. Everything that was learned thanks to the great depression went down the toilet for this crisis due to politics and ideology.
What Ferguson is describing is my previous comment is the believe that we must do the "right things" and be virtuous and "austere". In other words he believes in the confidence fairy. Now we have 4 years to see how that has worked out for greece, england, italy, spain and portugal. as they cut spending, economic forecasts revised downwards, borrowing cost went up, they cut more, outlook gets worst, rates increase. track records matter.
@fausto412 Somehow you skipped the part where Europe embarked on massive stimulus plans(proportionately larger in the PIGS than in America because the Northern European nations who had embarked on successful austerity programs since the '90s subsidized them for fear of their shared currency collapsing). Maybe you did because this didn't produce long-term growth but instead frightened bond markets and pushed up borrowing costs. It's never easy to pay up, but at some point someone will make you.
@RandomFunctionality Were we against the zero lower bound in the 90's? NO...that is what makes that example different from what is currently happen. Google Zero Lower Bound...it changes everything and is the reason why people who knew better didn't say that back in 2008 and 2009. As long as unemployment is high and growth is weak inflation will not show itself. that's the criteria. remember that.
all people need to know about Ferguson is right here bloombergcom/news/2010-10-13/krugman-clashes-with-niall-ferguson-over-u-s-fiscal-stimulus-second-round.html
"The risk is that at some point your fiscal policy loses credibility in the eyes of investors,” Ferguson said at the World Knowledge Forum in Seoul. “Then, very quickly, you will find yourself in a debt spiral of rising rates, widening deficits, crumbling credibility and yet more rising rates.” today's rate was 2%...
I don't understand all the hate on Krugman, the man has a track record and his predictions have been pretty much dead on since the beginning of this mess. What he says isn't much different than what Roubini, Simon Johnson, Robert Johnson, Joseph Stilglitz have been saying. Now i realize everyone isn't up to speed on the subject of macro economics but the usual suspects have been wrong and continue to command respect and air time. ask yourselves why do you listen to people who have been wrong??
krugman and his keynsist leftist friends are wrong they will always be wrong and government stimulus never will work. sorry but human nature always and will always be supreme.
Krugman you idiot! After WWII they cut spending by about 50% and sent home millions of people from Europe. Did unemployment rise and the economy tank? NO! It was the greatest prosperity the US experienced throughout the whole 20th century.
@OutlawTomFantastic When has Krugman said that increased government spending would on indefinitely? He talks of increased spending during periods of economic crisis, not indefinitely.
@OutlawTomFantastic This isnt talked about much unfortunately, because it represents what happens when government spending is cut and the government gets out of the way, politicians dont like this, they like power, hence why keynesianisn is so widespread despite its obvious failures
@OutlawTomFantastic They did however put in very strong wage controls during the war that leveled out income for everyone, cheap housing flooded the market, not to mention we spent massive amounts of money on a bailout of Europe (The Marshall Plan anyone?) to get them going again, and had a tax rate for the rich in the 70% range. Median and Mean income were closer than they have been in 30 years of freshwater economic experimentation.
If you assume people make choices like that you're assuming we're a world of machines, it's the fallacy of perfect people. Let's flip it on our end, if my business doesn't have a lot of customers, and the government cuts my taxes by an amount equal to hiring 2 new employees. I guarantee the last thing my business would do is hire more people, without demand more jobs are pointless. The government can hire people who will buy things, make demand. Just make sure their job is an investment.
@BlindeyeZero The fallacy of perfect people also applies to government/politicians even more so. Special interests dictate where the money is spent, the spending is never temporary--just try cutting anything in government once people are dependent on them. Good luck! People spend their own money far more wisely than they spend someone else's money. The government is always spending someone else's money. Also, these so called government "investments" are utter crap.
@OutlawTomFantastic Tell that to the people served by the TVA's power, or for that matter try road tripping without the interstate highway system. Hell why not try having cheap clean tapwater without a government built distribution system. All of these things are crumbling because people like you think they magically will meet our needs forever. Not everything is about will this directly create a profit, or else you'd be charging your kids interest for college costs.
He forgot to mention that the fed doesn't have to buy bonds in order to print money and finance things the american public (holders of the notes) has no idea about, and can not find out. The continental dollar fell, and so will this 'federal reserve note'. Look at France, Germany, Zimbabwe, etc....
It's a real education listening to Krugman types who have so much influence and then to discover they're full of bs. When you are 10 trillion+ in debt and borrow another trillion, how does 1.7% interest make it so attractive when the debt itself remains untouched?
Krugman's whole theoretical outlook is based on the assumption that government spending helps the economy. That's where i lose him. Right at the beginning.
its called going into shortterm debt, the US government can borrow at a cheaper price. Read the General THeory on unEmployment.
Krugman's arguments aren't theoretical because Keynesian theories(short term government stimulus) are the only way to stimulate demand when during crises like this.
NIall Ferguson is very overrated, his financial knowledge beyond the 1940,s is very sketchy. He hasn't even done archival work in years, so his books.
@echoplex89 Ye they can borrow at a cheaper rate, but you have to factor in that they arent exactly not borrowing already. They are constantly borrowing and then they borrow even more to "stimulate" the economy. They begin to crowd out private investment which has an overall negative effect on the economy. Just look at US recessions since like 1920. When the government took a hands off approach recessions have traditionally been shorter.
Also, considering the US has a recession every 4-6 years, this means they will be borrowing these astronomical sums of money around twice a decade. How many more 800 billion dollar stimulus do you think the US has if it uses it to correct a recession every time? These theories all sound good on paper, but they dont work is practice. 9% unemployment is not a success, especially when you factor in how much money has been spent, and the size of the debt
@Tracywithafacey But it does, it worked with FDR, when FDR created the new deal it was a spending plan and even though it took a while to break out of our depression in the 1930's we were still able to create jobs to some extent. You have to spend money to create jobs because you basically have to invest in something. How else do you think we can create jobs without spending. Jobs dont magically just pop up, to create something new you have to spend and the government has to invest in that idea
@Mizu40k FDR's policies prolonged the depression. Search it on google, a UCLA research group came to that conclusion. Your understanding of economics is flawed.
@roysensei except not, it helped to some extent, economic policies dont take effect right away, they take time and money. To create jobs you have to spend to create jobs thats just a fact.
It matters under what circumstances money is spent and by whom and what it is spent on.
Only way to create real jobs is to under consume and investment the money. You cannot spend the same money twice. And creating more money does not create wealth either.
@Mizu40k It's a well know fact, books are written about it, that it was WWII which rescued US economy. Most economic indicators were as bad, or worse, in 1937-38, after FDR's first term, then they were before he was elected in 1933. His policies did not end depression, War did. That's when unemployment finally fell. Please read and research before you post. Your love for FDR is no substitute for facts.
If you want your voice to be validated, "search it on google, a UCLA research group came to that conclusion" is not the best response. You must understand that kaynsian economics is as american as apple pie and the only reason we are objecting to it is because the economy has been politicized.
@jbt4673 Keynesian economics is as failed as Cuba and the Soviet Union. Free market economics is as American as the constitution. Notice article 1 section 8 only gives congress 17 enumerated powers to tax for and spend on? The were followers of Adam Smith at the time, and started a new country in part because England was debasing their currency.
@jbt4673 Yes, unfortunately it is. That is the problem... The great depression, the guns and butter of the 60's, the inflationary 70's, and the current recessions aren't exactly events that I consider 'loved'. It is Keynesian by the way...
Hilarious how you (i assume) love all the positives of the past century in economics and yet only the negatives are attributed to keynesianism. Nice you'd include the great depression too..the antithesis of keynesian econ and the reason for its existence. next time you drive on the interstate thank john maynard keynes for me
@jbt4673 Yes, the negatives did attribute to Keynesian policies. It is blatantly obvious to anyone who studies the economy or economics in general. The free market, the private sector, is what is responsible for production and growth of the economy. Taxing and spending; and printing more money, are responsible for the depression and recessions in our economy. Along with the bumbling wasteful inefficient bureaucracy that is BIG GOVERNMENT. The record of history is absolutely crystal clear.
@Mizu40k Your fallacy ("How else do you think we can create jobs without spending") is that you think Gov't creates jobs. It does not. By some calcs, in Obama's stimulus, each job created or "saved" cost over $500K! To create jobs, look at what Reagan did in 1981-82: lower taxes, remove regulations. Entrepreneurs allowed to keep their money will invest them into new job-creating enterprises, factories, companies, etc. The prescription is straight-fwd, but Keynesian philosophy gets in your way
@mcmh1988 Right, ok. So first, where does the government get the money from? It can borrow, but where does the borrowed money come from? The private sector. $1 the government borrows is $1 the private sector no longer has. There is a total misconception amongst Keynesian believers that the money is new. Second, the Gov. can print money. This is immensely undesirable, especially considering the fed has doubled the money supply already, more printing would be horrific. (part 1...)
(Part 2) Printing money is dangerous, and every increase in the money supply is by definition inflation. The third option the government has is to raise revenue, by raising taxes, but as the US is 14trillion in debt, this wouldnt work. The stimulus cost the US $787 billion, and what does it have to show for it. It didnt work, thats that. Another thing is, when the government spends money, it crowds out the private sector, as it can always borrow at lower rates. Keynesianism isnt evidence based
(Part 3) You need to understand rational expectations. If the public know that the money flowing around the economy is borrowed and therefore must be paid back, then they realise that taxes are going to increase in the future. Therefore, they realise that it is not the best thing to do to just spend it all. Stimulus spending prevents the correction from taking place. It Encourages people to carry on living beyond their means. You have to take away the punch bowl, and let the economy get sober
@harrymjackson FA Hayek won a nobel prize (when nobel prizes in economics meant something) and he spent much of his career taking on Keynes and battling with him for whose theories were correct. Just because Krugman won a nobel prize does not mean he is right, not by a long shot
One need not say that all govt. spending is good for the economy to be a Keynesian. Krugman has never affirmed this. In times where there is strong economic growth and full employment, government spending has serious adverse effects on said growth. However, when there is a massive fall in consumer demand (as there was in this current recession), government needs to offset the fall in spending with fiscal stimulus.
@migkillertwo Classic Keynesian rhetoric. What happens though, when we get pretty much nothing from the stimulus plan apart from a shed load of debt? What about the long term? What you are doing with a stimulus is saying pretend your not in a recession, spend spend spend. You might get some very minor short term effects, but it makes things worse in the future. Economies are driven by savings, investment and production. Not just consumer spending. All you get is an indebted nation aka the USA
The lack of positive effects from the stimulus package prove nothing, IMHO. Keynesian economists, Krugman and co. have demanded far larger stimulus programs, on the order of 1.5 trillion and up.
Now I, and Krugman, agree that a rising debt/GDP ratio is a serious problem in the long term, and structural reforms to entitlements are absolutely necessary to dampen the coming fiscal/demographic armageddon that is medicare (cont.)
...(cont.) and social security, but that is no reason to categorically shun fiscal stimulus. Govt. spending only causes problems because, over the long run, it causes inflation (which is because of the bond markets). Temporary fiscal stimulus does not mean long-term spending (another reason why fiscal criticisms of the wars are totally off base), and the bond markets know this.
"savings, investment..."
Those are all great, but the economy is a system, and both supply and demand are needed
@migkillertwo A 1.5 trillion stimulus, that is laughable. It gives economics a really bad name to see Nobel prize winning economists literally saying all you need to do is spend more money. I mean, as if Obama hasn't spent enough! If economics is a system of supply and demand, why are you so fixated on demand being the problem. You see, you cant keep saying spend more money, because it does not create anything material a year or two down the line. The economy needs correcting.
This is very true, the economy does need a massive correction and we are in the midst of serious frictional unemployment. However the immediate downturn has caused a massive decline in consumer spending and labor and capital is idled, that much is a fact. To dampen and accelerate this market correction, we need fiscal policies, like unemployment benefits and tax rebates for the consumer class, which cause more spending.
I have to remind you, not all recessions are created equal. In many, even most recessions, keynesian stimulus would be counter-productive. A supply shock or a currency crisis would warrant fiscal austerity, but a recession like ours warrants stimulus.
@migkillertwo If the economy needs a correction, why push more of the same. Stimulus plans encourage the notion of debt is good. Spend more money even though you havnt really got it, and it will help. We do not need more benefits for the unemployed, they already have wayyy to many. You are also making a very bold assumption: that stimulus money causes people to go out and spend a lot of money. Individuals know that the jobs "created" from stimulus money are short term and so dont spend their...
income. They dont spend like you think. They anticipate. When you look at the history of the most recent recession, the government said if they did nothing, unemployment would be at 9%, but with the stimulus they said it would be 8% and fall rapidly. What actually happened is unemployment went to 9% and is still there today. You are making the assumption that demand is always increased with a stimulus, but this isnt really the case because individuals understand permanent and short term jobs
@Tracywithafacey get educated, honestly. government expenditure is a part of gdp; so an increase in government expenditure will increase economic growth. in practice that means higher government expenditure will boost incomes which will boost consumption and so on. you sound like a typical us american who labels anything with the word "government" on it as bad
@stuckinamiddlewithyo i'll show you why government spending is absolutely detrimental with a series of arguments/questions. first: where does the government get the money to increase spending?
@Tracywithafacey Government spending has always boosted the economy. The debt-ration during WWII was astronomically high. Business and the government worked hand in hand to get the government out of the depression. Lincoln's Administration gave land grants to the railroads at a cheap price. Government has always extended a helping hand to corporations. It rescues some of the Fortune 500 when they get in trouble.
@USASecretHistory "Government spending has always boosted the economy. "
WRONG
in fact, it has never boosted the economy lol. FDR took that recession and turned it into a depression. A fifteen year depression. That depression wasn't over until after world war 2, believe me! The war itself is not what ended it either
@USTreasuryBond First, FDR inherited a depression. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 made the economic crisis worse. Hoover was still president. During FDR's Administration unemployment decreased. It increased after he stopped government spending due to fears over the debt. Unfortunately, the US had not made a full recovery. Unemployment increased again. The war did end the depression. After years of fighting with the business interests the government made a pact with business.
@ericfeinberg28 A BA is impressive yes, it is not a Phd or an MA or whatever, but yes an Honours degree is impressive, especially if you do well. And no, the University of Manchester
@Tracywithafacey id understand if you were an american who had been battered by conservative propaganda for the last 20 years, but a brit should know better after what happened with your austerity program
@ericfeinberg28 - Conservative propaganda? First of all there is no such thing as a Conservative in American politics and there hasn't been one for many decades. Republicans are just 'progressive light'. Secondly it is the heavily jewish influenced, and controlled left that has pushed the entitlement system to it's breaking point for purely political reasons. You have to create cadres of victim groups from which you can be ensured legions of programmable foot-soldiers that vote 'democratic'.
@soakthisup you've got it backwards. the republican party today is far to the right of where it was 50 years ago. richard nixon would be a democrat today. if you cant see that, you either don't know shit about our domestic political history or you're a total ideologue. frankly im not interested in having a conversation with either one, they rarely can remain civil
@soakthisup if he were one of today's conservatives, he would have invaded cuba in 1962 and we'd all be dead. thank god he had actually seen war first hand and didnt have a hollywood caricature in his mind like these guys who pushed for war in iraq and are pushing for war again with iran
@ericfeinberg28 - Neo-Cons, are just progressives that peeled off from the radical elements of the red diaper baby revolution bullshit of the sixties, they are not true Conservatives. Besides, both parties have their heads up Israel's ass and are controlled by a kosher crime syndicate.
Ferguson was allowed to write the biography of Sigmund Warburg at Harvard. To get that he had to sell his soul and it shows. Some choice. Krug: borrow for unemployment benefits and relief. Ferg: liquidate, cut taxes on corporations, value added tx cutting govt to fit the reduced tax incidence. Kr: borrow more from Rothschild now and forget the consequences. Ferg: let deflation & austerity raise Rothschild bond and dollar wealth. Here is 3rd (repudiation + no-debt fiat) way: p_wv4NTNrxU
Keynes must be literally rolling in his grave when he hears this guy. He read his theory and took it took it to outer space. Even Keynes would admit that his theory did apply to situations like the current one here in the United States. The US relies so heavily on capital and trade flows to and from other large economies. Active monetary policy responses from the public sector like stimulus only creates bubbles and doesn't stabilize any business in the private sector. Krugman you fool.
Its a real shame people lack the humility to admit that they don't truly understand complex economic issues and forcefully propose, with the best intentions no doubt, their uninformed view of whats best for their suffering country. Keynesian stimulus is a temporary measure to help when the economy is imbalanced (ie 9% unemployment) and business investment below its potential. Once it recovers, tax receipts rise and long term fiscus can be tackled. A country is not the same as a person!!
@BarrySlisk There's a difference between a Nobel peace prize, which is political, and a Nobel prize for economics. Krugman has been proven right time and again for espousing basic Keynsianism. I don't know how you can argue with his track record. That's how you ultimately distinguish the prophets from pretenders.
How has he been proven right? He says we should spend even more money we don't have (more of the same). This fortunately has not been tried.....yet. All we know is that spending and printing more money than ever before has not helped the economy. So far his ideas does not seem to work, although he can always claim that he wanted more money spent.
Btw. What exactly did Krugman get a nobel prize for? Hayek got it for his theories on the Business Cycle.
Paul admits that "we have a long run budget problem". Listen people ... none of you understand the real viewpoints of Krugman. He even admitted as far back as 2008 that the stimulus was not enough. If you look at the facts you'll see that Krugman has in fact been consistently right on. There is no real debate between him and Ferguson .. essentially they both agree that that the U.S. has a long-term problem. They are both right!!
@shotsky94 The stimulus passed was weak. However it seemed to have the effect of buffering the economy from falling further despite it falling short of giving consumers a real boost. A focused strong effect on propping consumers along with restructuring mortgage debt would have had a better outcome. Krugman argued this point and he is right. Added Ferguson is right too.
@makeithappen42zx Krugman is aretard. He doesnt realize that when government puts money into an economy, it also takes out from the economy hence no increase in his beloved aggregate demand. He also commits broken window fallacy at every opportunity. He is a pseudo-intellectual charlatan with the brain the size of a peanut. Besides we dont have any more money for stimulus. China aint loanin no more. All we can do is print and therefore beware of the INFLATION!!!!!!....HAHAHAHHAHA
Why do people dislike videos like this? Even though you might not like one of the debater's views (or either of theirs) it's enlightening to hear conflicting views or how one approaches an issue.
Growth cannot not be sustained in a heathy manner if it is based on unmanageable debt. The American economy grew a third under Ronald Reagan, but debt had tripled. The banks are always and have always been bailed out by the government (taking on that debt). The Market is superior to any economic system, but it is always being saved by the Feds. Most people think China owns the majority of our debt when in reality 9.8 trillion is domestic.
In 2008 you voted for Obama to prove you weren't a racist. In 2012 you'll vote AGAINST Obama to prove you're not an idiot.
Even Obama's former fans know his policies of massive govt spending, bailouts, Obamacare govt takeover of healthcare have & continue to do serious long-term damage to our economy. Countries like Germany & the UK have chosen to cut spending, rejecting Obama's wreckless strategy of ever more govt spending. To see more jobs & for our economy to rebound, Obama needs to go!
@sndblstr Compared to whom is Obama a failure?! Not compared to Ronald Reagan. Reagan had 10.1% unemployment in June 1983. Now it's 9.1%. Reagan lost 2.5 million jobs in 1982, Obama GAINED 1.2 million in 2010. Corporate profits were up 28% in 2010. Obama's mistake is EXACTLY the OPPOSITE of what you are accusing him: HE HAS NO FISCAL POLICY. He created all this growth and told CEOs to pay themseves instead of their workers because they still get the Bush taxcuts if they do.
@szatmar666, this is getting tiresome. If u're so partisan that ur kneejerk reaction is to try to deflect attention from Obama's failed fiscal policy by bringing up past Republicans, then you're a sad case. U care more about politics than the good of the country. If u're only happy when defending someone with a "D" next to their name, why not laud people like Brown in CA and Cuomo in NY who are doing the hard, necessary job of cutting spending, & NOT Obama, who quadrupled the national deficit!
@sndblstr No, I am the one with the facts and numbers backing my case and you are about accusations and empty insults. If you have an actual number proving your case that Obama is a disaster we can discuss it, but so far you are about repeating GOP talking points and calling me a partisan when I inject some facts and perspective in this pure partisan diatribe.
"actual number proving your case that Obama is a disaster"
--I'm guessing you haven't checked the latest (and ongoing) unemployment rate and/or our national debt. Obama's answers to those two things are ANOTHER "stimulus" (all of which have failed miserably) and hiking taxes. Yeah, what a winning strategy!
@NoGuff Obama's job numbers today (July 2011) are better than Reagan's job numbers in July 1983 (10.1%) so I guess good or bad is relative. However I do agree that instead of another stimulus what we need is a sound fiscal policy. Obama has no fiscal policy: we still have the Bush tax rates from 2002 that's basically telling corporations who saw a 28% increase in profits to give away that pile of cash to exec bonuses, not wages or R&D because they can take advantage of the Bush taxcuts
@NoGuff how did Obama close down free markets and how did then corporations increase their profits by 28% in 2010 anyway?! Again: you people make shit up with no respect to facts truth or your country. You just offer partisan diatribe, no numbers no sources no facts!
--He's closing them down, I didn't say he has closed them. He's doing this through added government regulation and intervention (coal production, forcing companies to close), moratoriums on industry (oil drilling & coal production), government mandates which steer companies rather than letting them steer themselves ("green" mandates). But thanks for the total misrepresentation. Talk about liars!
@NoGuff what regulations are you talking about?! I wish he would ban offshore drilling, he's not! You people are full of BS plus you still haven't answered how did companies increase their profits by 28%?!
@NoGuff BTW, did republican policies EVER work since Reagan?! Name the year and let's see if the GDP grew faster or the debt by the end of that fiscal year?! You people are INSANE!
@NoGuff The national debt was 90% created by the last 3 republican presidents and their taxcuts. $13 of the $14 trillion debt did not exist before 1981. 1982 was the first year since WW2 that the US grew its debt faster than its GDP and after that year it does so every year except for the 90s. The big difference between pre1981 and post 1981 econ is supply side taxcuts and deregulation that tells the rich to take their money out of US industry and put it either offshore or on Wall Street spec
"The national debt was 90% created by the last 3 republican presidents"
--The last 3? There were 3 Republican Presidents between Clinton and Obama? Didn't Clinton work the debt down to zero by the end of his term? Because that's what Democrats keep telling me.
And BTW, we're not comparing Reagan to Obama, we're talking about Obama.
@NoGuff U don't understand English: the last 3 republican presidents since 1981!
The debt in 1981 was less than $1 trillion dollars. In 1993, the last HW Bush budget it was $4.35 trillion ie 4X of what Reagan-Bush inherited. In 2001, the last Clinton budget it was $5.6 trillion. In 2009, the last W Bush budget: $12 trillion and today it's $14. In other words 3 republicans: $10 trillion out of $13: OK that's 75%, not 90% but most of the Clinton/Obama debt was to clean up the republican mess.
I'm not responding anymore because my messages keep disappearing by the time I'm almost finished and I don't feel like writing them 10 times like my last message. So this is it. YOU are an indoctrinated moron spewing bullshit. All you've got are misrepresentations of the facts and doubletalk. Goodbye!
@NoGuff The reason why you cons believe the nonsense in the media is because you are all gullible and ignorant of the facts. Do yourself a favor and go to GPO dot GOV and search on "2012 budget historical tables pdf" and go to Section 7, That's the primary source info about the National Debt. You'll be amazed how much "conservatives" (ie. traitors) lied to you the last 30 years about the debt and how it was created.
--And the reason you Libtards are wrong about everything is because you believe any & all lies by other Liberals, especially if they disparage Conservatives & America.
I've seen the debt info. Obama tripled it after he took office. He wants to spend more all while saying we have to reign in spending. Typical Liberal doubletalk. He's trying to raise taxes, but, as typical for him, he previously said we should never raise taxes in a recession.
@NoGuff So your response to facts is more propaganda and lies: what was the national debt after the last Bush budget and what is it today?! You people are liars like the commies, that's not a disparagement, it's a fact you prove every time you open your mouth.
@NoGuff Oh, but I never said that "it didn't add to it". You said IT TRIPLED IT!!!! What I said was that 90% of teh debt was created by republican spending priorities since 1981 and I offered proof to that effect.
@sndblstr .Yeah.Bailed out the banks and saved from a collapse which would have been far worse.Im no nobel prize winning economist or whatever nor am i a partisian hack like you.The republicans throughout 2008 had no clue what to do about the economy.ONly rron paul was even talking about the issue fully and his idea were a joke is well.
Typical keynesian argument : Stimulus and more money printing and if it fails print more and spend more. We must get rid of that hair of the dog, the party is over it's time to deleverage and cut spending , you don't solve debt by adding more debt !
@hamzyboy Wow, I am sure you read the "typical keynesian argument" you pretend to understand from "The General Theory of employment interest and money"...what caves do you ppl crawl out of, is there a high school someplace where they mass produce morons?!
Please note that my book Keynes Hayek: The Clash That Shaped Modern Economics is published by W.W.Norton in October.
Professor John B.Taylor says that: “Nicholas Wapshott brings the Keynes-Hayek fight of the 20th century back to life, making the clash both entertaining and highly relevant for understanding economic crises of the 21st century.”
Read an extract at: sites.google.com/site/wapshottkeyneshayek/
Krugman is so full of it.He doesn't appreciatethat the American economic system cannot be sustained when the US consumes 33bbls per capita and the rest of the world just 1 bbls per capita. The party is over.There is no oil. The US has just 2 years of reserves..
Face it....Krugman belongs to the same club as Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and theTooth Fairy. "Take me to your leader... "
We are done!!! 44.5 million on foodstamps, twice that many on welfare or social security, real unemployment at over 15%, 1/3 of America's children are fat and diabetic, and 1.5 million abortions anually. This is the end. I hope all you liberal democrats are happy. You have successfully ruined the greatest country in the world. Freedom has been flushed down the drain. I told my 9 and 11 year old sons today that they will soon have no country. How's that hope and change going???
"It would have been worse!" Always a nice cop out... I prefer honest economists like Jeffrey Sachs who are "liberal" but at least know when they screwed up
@celer1ty2 As Krugman himself said: To have an opinion and not express it is moral failure. I personally believe Krugman is right and that "IF" our initial stimulus helped infrastructure and not just banks and teachers, then we would be better off. But, while he may be right, it may also be too late to make any real change. The die is caste.
Obama should have had Stiglitz and Krugman as advisors. The US is going bankrupt because the right wing is pushing the country to insane Herbert Hoover policies and the dems are not strong enough to resist them. Spending on the green economy wouldn't be a problem if the rich SOBs paid their fair share of taxes. The fact is the top % is stealing the wages of the bottom 99% for at least the last 30 years in the USA and the result is demand in the economy is supported by plastic: private debt.
@szatmar666, you sound like the kind of person who'd vote for Obama. Obama = NO JOBS, higher taxes, govt takeover of healthcare, record trillion dollar spending. FACT: Obama's fiscal policies have failed. For the economy to recover, we need to get rid of Obama. He'll be a one-term president. Obama may have been considered "cool" once, but today the country wants to see jobs created... & we know Obama, the guy who people once chanted to in cult-like rallies, stands in the way of that happening
@sndblstr Obama's fiscal policies = Bush's fiscal policies simply because taxes haven't changed singe 2002. You sound like a terribly uninformed person who nevertheless seems to know exactly what's going on because he just heard it on talk radio. You need to think for yourself. In order for the economy to recover americans have to screw their heads on straight again and find a year when they had a faster GDP growth than the growth of the national debt and go back to those policies.
@szatmar666, I realize the truth hurts. 3 yrs after 2008, when Obama ran as, above all things, "Not Bush," we now hear desperate Obama worshippers like u try to defend the failed Obama presidency by saying he's just like Bush. NEWSFLASH: Bush, no benchmark for anything today, is not in office anymore. Obama must be held accountable for his own failures. U're obviously not familiar w/ Obama's DISASTROUS fiscal policy. (google the failed stimulus fiasco, bailouts, vow to repeal Bush tax cuts, etc)
@panhandlepatriots Actually, Mr. Krugman has a rather impressive record. A study published on the HuffingtonPost, which was conducted by Hamilton College (Are Talking Heads Blowing Hot Air), showed Paul Krugman is the most accurate columnist and opionator.
@youfatstinkypoo The stimulus had went to Asia. The property prices in Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan are crazily high, and affect our everyday costs of living. Your moronic finance minister should be fired~!!!
sheeesh... reading all these comments shows me either none of y'all took basic econ classes or slept through them... And to think politicians have the same mindset... yikes!
All we need to prevail against these idiots is to let them continue to say things like Mike Moore - this no crisis or the NY Times...there is no crisis. The data is overwhelming against these socialists. Sooner or later the sheeple will wake up... But then again - they did vote for the inexperienced marxist we now suffer...
We are in this crisis because of right wing efficient market myths. This is not the time to start talking about the failures of the left, the only section of the political culture to warn about the dangers of financial speculations. Before whining about that toothpick in the eye of the left, remove that ornate Victorian oak wardrobe from yours.
@TheVideoRepo there is no political left in the USA: Obama is clearly a conservative: he is slightly to the right of Angela Merkel. All his advisers are conservative democrats and corporate types: that's the main reason for his failures.
@pilot5501 which is why the right is known to never be able "demonstrate" anything if you by that we mean "prove". Supply side economics has been failing since 1981: producing more debt than GDP growth every singe year it was applied. I think Keynesian ideas did exactly the opposite EVERY SINGLE year before 1981.
2:45 Wow, Krugman is such a fool. The idea of saving money for future spending being attacked, as opposed to just throwing it away now shows how much of a 'vulgar Keynesian'--as Robert Higgs calls these idiots--Krugman really is.
krugman dumb
bluediablo9 1 day ago
how much is not enough. how foolish. keynes or pseudokeynes as i see it since they donot practice pure keynes does not work. big government is our real enemy.
davidmaren2000 1 month ago
This guy's ears can't be real. wtf.
HydraGoesPro 1 month ago
@HydraGoesPro
I guess Mr Krugman can say the same about your IQ. . . . .
MikeKay1978 1 month ago
a trillion dollars at 1.7% Yeah, and how long is that going to last. Ask Italy how cheap their borrowing was.
theslimeylimey 1 month ago
On the 70's i give you Brad Delong econ161.berkeley.edu/econ_articles/theinflationofthes.html That "stagflation" is put in its proper historical context here.
Again, there are only two periods in modern economic history of the United States being against the zero lower bound. This crisis and the great depression. Everything that was learned thanks to the great depression went down the toilet for this crisis due to politics and ideology.
fausto412 2 months ago
What Ferguson is describing is my previous comment is the believe that we must do the "right things" and be virtuous and "austere". In other words he believes in the confidence fairy. Now we have 4 years to see how that has worked out for greece, england, italy, spain and portugal. as they cut spending, economic forecasts revised downwards, borrowing cost went up, they cut more, outlook gets worst, rates increase. track records matter.
fausto412 2 months ago
@fausto412 Somehow you skipped the part where Europe embarked on massive stimulus plans(proportionately larger in the PIGS than in America because the Northern European nations who had embarked on successful austerity programs since the '90s subsidized them for fear of their shared currency collapsing). Maybe you did because this didn't produce long-term growth but instead frightened bond markets and pushed up borrowing costs. It's never easy to pay up, but at some point someone will make you.
RandomFunctionality 2 months ago
@RandomFunctionality Were we against the zero lower bound in the 90's? NO...that is what makes that example different from what is currently happen. Google Zero Lower Bound...it changes everything and is the reason why people who knew better didn't say that back in 2008 and 2009. As long as unemployment is high and growth is weak inflation will not show itself. that's the criteria. remember that.
fausto412 2 months ago
@fausto412 So how do you explain the stagflation of the 1970's?
nickdeb2 2 months ago
all people need to know about Ferguson is right here bloombergcom/news/2010-10-13/krugman-clashes-with-niall-ferguson-over-u-s-fiscal-stimulus-second-round.html
"The risk is that at some point your fiscal policy loses credibility in the eyes of investors,” Ferguson said at the World Knowledge Forum in Seoul. “Then, very quickly, you will find yourself in a debt spiral of rising rates, widening deficits, crumbling credibility and yet more rising rates.” today's rate was 2%...
fausto412 2 months ago
I don't understand all the hate on Krugman, the man has a track record and his predictions have been pretty much dead on since the beginning of this mess. What he says isn't much different than what Roubini, Simon Johnson, Robert Johnson, Joseph Stilglitz have been saying. Now i realize everyone isn't up to speed on the subject of macro economics but the usual suspects have been wrong and continue to command respect and air time. ask yourselves why do you listen to people who have been wrong??
fausto412 2 months ago 5
Hmmm....this Keynesian still believes government-created "money" spent somewhere somehow leads to real wealth.
jfulm12 2 months ago
Ohh.. fuck it... let's forget about future consumption.
pawlo881012 2 months ago
krugman and his keynsist leftist friends are wrong they will always be wrong and government stimulus never will work. sorry but human nature always and will always be supreme.
davidmaren2000 2 months ago
@davidmaren2000 Government stimulus has worked. Even Republicans spend more on the budget when it comes to military spending and tax cuts.
USASecretHistory 2 months ago
*DO NOT WATCH THIS IF YOU WANT TO SEE NIALL FERGUSON. THIS VIDEO IS 100% KRUGMAN.
JoeJC 3 months ago
Krugman you idiot! After WWII they cut spending by about 50% and sent home millions of people from Europe. Did unemployment rise and the economy tank? NO! It was the greatest prosperity the US experienced throughout the whole 20th century.
OutlawTomFantastic 3 months ago
@OutlawTomFantastic When has Krugman said that increased government spending would on indefinitely? He talks of increased spending during periods of economic crisis, not indefinitely.
jazzgtrplayer 3 months ago
@OutlawTomFantastic This isnt talked about much unfortunately, because it represents what happens when government spending is cut and the government gets out of the way, politicians dont like this, they like power, hence why keynesianisn is so widespread despite its obvious failures
Tracywithafacey 3 months ago
@OutlawTomFantastic They did however put in very strong wage controls during the war that leveled out income for everyone, cheap housing flooded the market, not to mention we spent massive amounts of money on a bailout of Europe (The Marshall Plan anyone?) to get them going again, and had a tax rate for the rich in the 70% range. Median and Mean income were closer than they have been in 30 years of freshwater economic experimentation.
BlindeyeZero 3 months ago
@OutlawTomFantastic You understand so little of economics that it makes me fearful for the future.
oeddawg 2 months ago
so where's Niall Ferguson in this clip?
juandenz2008 3 months ago 20
@juandenz2008 This guy is a Left-Wing Jew liar. He's also a retard: Look at the tie knot he's got on.
vince33x 1 month ago
If you assume people make choices like that you're assuming we're a world of machines, it's the fallacy of perfect people. Let's flip it on our end, if my business doesn't have a lot of customers, and the government cuts my taxes by an amount equal to hiring 2 new employees. I guarantee the last thing my business would do is hire more people, without demand more jobs are pointless. The government can hire people who will buy things, make demand. Just make sure their job is an investment.
BlindeyeZero 3 months ago
@BlindeyeZero The fallacy of perfect people also applies to government/politicians even more so. Special interests dictate where the money is spent, the spending is never temporary--just try cutting anything in government once people are dependent on them. Good luck! People spend their own money far more wisely than they spend someone else's money. The government is always spending someone else's money. Also, these so called government "investments" are utter crap.
OutlawTomFantastic 3 months ago
@OutlawTomFantastic Tell that to the people served by the TVA's power, or for that matter try road tripping without the interstate highway system. Hell why not try having cheap clean tapwater without a government built distribution system. All of these things are crumbling because people like you think they magically will meet our needs forever. Not everything is about will this directly create a profit, or else you'd be charging your kids interest for college costs.
BlindeyeZero 3 months ago
800 billion could house and feed alot of people, instead the bankers used it to wipe thier asses
slimchancejw 4 months ago
He forgot to mention that the fed doesn't have to buy bonds in order to print money and finance things the american public (holders of the notes) has no idea about, and can not find out. The continental dollar fell, and so will this 'federal reserve note'. Look at France, Germany, Zimbabwe, etc....
AroundSun 4 months ago
Krugman = failure...'we didn't spend enough' LMAO
AroundSun 4 months ago
It's a real education listening to Krugman types who have so much influence and then to discover they're full of bs. When you are 10 trillion+ in debt and borrow another trillion, how does 1.7% interest make it so attractive when the debt itself remains untouched?
Yariten 4 months ago
Krugman's whole theoretical outlook is based on the assumption that government spending helps the economy. That's where i lose him. Right at the beginning.
Tracywithafacey 5 months ago 9
@Tracywithafacey
its called going into shortterm debt, the US government can borrow at a cheaper price. Read the General THeory on unEmployment.
Krugman's arguments aren't theoretical because Keynesian theories(short term government stimulus) are the only way to stimulate demand when during crises like this.
NIall Ferguson is very overrated, his financial knowledge beyond the 1940,s is very sketchy. He hasn't even done archival work in years, so his books.
echoplex89 4 months ago
@echoplex89 Ye they can borrow at a cheaper rate, but you have to factor in that they arent exactly not borrowing already. They are constantly borrowing and then they borrow even more to "stimulate" the economy. They begin to crowd out private investment which has an overall negative effect on the economy. Just look at US recessions since like 1920. When the government took a hands off approach recessions have traditionally been shorter.
Tracywithafacey 3 months ago
Also, considering the US has a recession every 4-6 years, this means they will be borrowing these astronomical sums of money around twice a decade. How many more 800 billion dollar stimulus do you think the US has if it uses it to correct a recession every time? These theories all sound good on paper, but they dont work is practice. 9% unemployment is not a success, especially when you factor in how much money has been spent, and the size of the debt
Tracywithafacey 3 months ago
@Tracywithafacey But it does, it worked with FDR, when FDR created the new deal it was a spending plan and even though it took a while to break out of our depression in the 1930's we were still able to create jobs to some extent. You have to spend money to create jobs because you basically have to invest in something. How else do you think we can create jobs without spending. Jobs dont magically just pop up, to create something new you have to spend and the government has to invest in that idea
Mizu40k 4 months ago
@Mizu40k FDR's policies prolonged the depression. Search it on google, a UCLA research group came to that conclusion. Your understanding of economics is flawed.
roysensei 4 months ago
@roysensei except not, it helped to some extent, economic policies dont take effect right away, they take time and money. To create jobs you have to spend to create jobs thats just a fact.
Mizu40k 4 months ago
@Mizu40k
It matters under what circumstances money is spent and by whom and what it is spent on.
Only way to create real jobs is to under consume and investment the money. You cannot spend the same money twice. And creating more money does not create wealth either.
BarrySlisk 4 months ago
Not right away? hehe right. The economy was fucked for a decade.
BarrySlisk 4 months ago
@Mizu40k It's a well know fact, books are written about it, that it was WWII which rescued US economy. Most economic indicators were as bad, or worse, in 1937-38, after FDR's first term, then they were before he was elected in 1933. His policies did not end depression, War did. That's when unemployment finally fell. Please read and research before you post. Your love for FDR is no substitute for facts.
FreedomFighter52 4 months ago
@roysensei
If you want your voice to be validated, "search it on google, a UCLA research group came to that conclusion" is not the best response. You must understand that kaynsian economics is as american as apple pie and the only reason we are objecting to it is because the economy has been politicized.
jbt4673 4 months ago
@jbt4673 Keynesian economics is as failed as Cuba and the Soviet Union. Free market economics is as American as the constitution. Notice article 1 section 8 only gives congress 17 enumerated powers to tax for and spend on? The were followers of Adam Smith at the time, and started a new country in part because England was debasing their currency.
AroundSun 4 months ago
@AroundSun
The american economy that you know and love from the past 80 years is based on kaynesian principles
jbt4673 4 months ago
@jbt4673 Yes, unfortunately it is. That is the problem... The great depression, the guns and butter of the 60's, the inflationary 70's, and the current recessions aren't exactly events that I consider 'loved'. It is Keynesian by the way...
AroundSun 4 months ago
@AroundSun
Hilarious how you (i assume) love all the positives of the past century in economics and yet only the negatives are attributed to keynesianism. Nice you'd include the great depression too..the antithesis of keynesian econ and the reason for its existence. next time you drive on the interstate thank john maynard keynes for me
jbt4673 4 months ago
@jbt4673 Yes, the negatives did attribute to Keynesian policies. It is blatantly obvious to anyone who studies the economy or economics in general. The free market, the private sector, is what is responsible for production and growth of the economy. Taxing and spending; and printing more money, are responsible for the depression and recessions in our economy. Along with the bumbling wasteful inefficient bureaucracy that is BIG GOVERNMENT. The record of history is absolutely crystal clear.
AroundSun 4 months ago
@AroundSun
you're delusional.
jbt4673 4 months ago
@jbt4673 You mean, you're just an idiot? That's what I thought. Keep voting for the free lunch, see if it comes lol
AroundSun 4 months ago
@roysensei Thankyou some body else who understands :)
Tracywithafacey 3 months ago
@Mizu40k Your fallacy ("How else do you think we can create jobs without spending") is that you think Gov't creates jobs. It does not. By some calcs, in Obama's stimulus, each job created or "saved" cost over $500K! To create jobs, look at what Reagan did in 1981-82: lower taxes, remove regulations. Entrepreneurs allowed to keep their money will invest them into new job-creating enterprises, factories, companies, etc. The prescription is straight-fwd, but Keynesian philosophy gets in your way
FreedomFighter52 4 months ago
@Tracywithafacey SPENDING helps the ECONOMY. What is so confusing?
mcmh1988 4 months ago
@mcmh1988 Right, ok. So first, where does the government get the money from? It can borrow, but where does the borrowed money come from? The private sector. $1 the government borrows is $1 the private sector no longer has. There is a total misconception amongst Keynesian believers that the money is new. Second, the Gov. can print money. This is immensely undesirable, especially considering the fed has doubled the money supply already, more printing would be horrific. (part 1...)
Tracywithafacey 3 months ago
(Part 2) Printing money is dangerous, and every increase in the money supply is by definition inflation. The third option the government has is to raise revenue, by raising taxes, but as the US is 14trillion in debt, this wouldnt work. The stimulus cost the US $787 billion, and what does it have to show for it. It didnt work, thats that. Another thing is, when the government spends money, it crowds out the private sector, as it can always borrow at lower rates. Keynesianism isnt evidence based
Tracywithafacey 3 months ago
(Part 3) You need to understand rational expectations. If the public know that the money flowing around the economy is borrowed and therefore must be paid back, then they realise that taxes are going to increase in the future. Therefore, they realise that it is not the best thing to do to just spend it all. Stimulus spending prevents the correction from taking place. It Encourages people to carry on living beyond their means. You have to take away the punch bowl, and let the economy get sober
Tracywithafacey 3 months ago
@Tracywithafacey sorry if I don't take a womans opinion on the markets or trading seriously.
WinkyMaeve 3 months ago
@Tracywithafacey Nobel Prize winning economist vs some libertarian retard on the internet. Think I know who I'll listen to.
harrymjackson 3 months ago
@harrymjackson FA Hayek won a nobel prize (when nobel prizes in economics meant something) and he spent much of his career taking on Keynes and battling with him for whose theories were correct. Just because Krugman won a nobel prize does not mean he is right, not by a long shot
Tracywithafacey 3 months ago
@Tracywithafacey
One need not say that all govt. spending is good for the economy to be a Keynesian. Krugman has never affirmed this. In times where there is strong economic growth and full employment, government spending has serious adverse effects on said growth. However, when there is a massive fall in consumer demand (as there was in this current recession), government needs to offset the fall in spending with fiscal stimulus.
migkillertwo 3 months ago
@migkillertwo Classic Keynesian rhetoric. What happens though, when we get pretty much nothing from the stimulus plan apart from a shed load of debt? What about the long term? What you are doing with a stimulus is saying pretend your not in a recession, spend spend spend. You might get some very minor short term effects, but it makes things worse in the future. Economies are driven by savings, investment and production. Not just consumer spending. All you get is an indebted nation aka the USA
Tracywithafacey 3 months ago
The lack of positive effects from the stimulus package prove nothing, IMHO. Keynesian economists, Krugman and co. have demanded far larger stimulus programs, on the order of 1.5 trillion and up.
Now I, and Krugman, agree that a rising debt/GDP ratio is a serious problem in the long term, and structural reforms to entitlements are absolutely necessary to dampen the coming fiscal/demographic armageddon that is medicare (cont.)
migkillertwo 3 months ago
...(cont.) and social security, but that is no reason to categorically shun fiscal stimulus. Govt. spending only causes problems because, over the long run, it causes inflation (which is because of the bond markets). Temporary fiscal stimulus does not mean long-term spending (another reason why fiscal criticisms of the wars are totally off base), and the bond markets know this.
"savings, investment..."
Those are all great, but the economy is a system, and both supply and demand are needed
migkillertwo 3 months ago
@migkillertwo A 1.5 trillion stimulus, that is laughable. It gives economics a really bad name to see Nobel prize winning economists literally saying all you need to do is spend more money. I mean, as if Obama hasn't spent enough! If economics is a system of supply and demand, why are you so fixated on demand being the problem. You see, you cant keep saying spend more money, because it does not create anything material a year or two down the line. The economy needs correcting.
Tracywithafacey 3 months ago
@Tracywithafacey "The economy needs correcting"
This is very true, the economy does need a massive correction and we are in the midst of serious frictional unemployment. However the immediate downturn has caused a massive decline in consumer spending and labor and capital is idled, that much is a fact. To dampen and accelerate this market correction, we need fiscal policies, like unemployment benefits and tax rebates for the consumer class, which cause more spending.
migkillertwo 3 months ago
@Tracywithafacey
I have to remind you, not all recessions are created equal. In many, even most recessions, keynesian stimulus would be counter-productive. A supply shock or a currency crisis would warrant fiscal austerity, but a recession like ours warrants stimulus.
migkillertwo 3 months ago
@migkillertwo If the economy needs a correction, why push more of the same. Stimulus plans encourage the notion of debt is good. Spend more money even though you havnt really got it, and it will help. We do not need more benefits for the unemployed, they already have wayyy to many. You are also making a very bold assumption: that stimulus money causes people to go out and spend a lot of money. Individuals know that the jobs "created" from stimulus money are short term and so dont spend their...
Tracywithafacey 3 months ago
"If the economy needs a correction, why push more of the same."
The effect of more spending is to quickly align industry with consumer demand.
"that stimulus money causes people to go out and spend a lot of money"
Well that's what the empirical evidence says; unemployment benefits have caused a rise in consumer spending.
migkillertwo 3 months ago
income. They dont spend like you think. They anticipate. When you look at the history of the most recent recession, the government said if they did nothing, unemployment would be at 9%, but with the stimulus they said it would be 8% and fall rapidly. What actually happened is unemployment went to 9% and is still there today. You are making the assumption that demand is always increased with a stimulus, but this isnt really the case because individuals understand permanent and short term jobs
Tracywithafacey 3 months ago
@Tracywithafacey get educated, honestly. government expenditure is a part of gdp; so an increase in government expenditure will increase economic growth. in practice that means higher government expenditure will boost incomes which will boost consumption and so on. you sound like a typical us american who labels anything with the word "government" on it as bad
stuckinamiddlewithyo 3 months ago
@stuckinamiddlewithyo i'll show you why government spending is absolutely detrimental with a series of arguments/questions. first: where does the government get the money to increase spending?
guidobambino 3 months ago
@Tracywithafacey Government spending has always boosted the economy. The debt-ration during WWII was astronomically high. Business and the government worked hand in hand to get the government out of the depression. Lincoln's Administration gave land grants to the railroads at a cheap price. Government has always extended a helping hand to corporations. It rescues some of the Fortune 500 when they get in trouble.
USASecretHistory 2 months ago
@USASecretHistory "Government spending has always boosted the economy. "
WRONG
in fact, it has never boosted the economy lol. FDR took that recession and turned it into a depression. A fifteen year depression. That depression wasn't over until after world war 2, believe me! The war itself is not what ended it either
USTreasuryBond 2 months ago
@USTreasuryBond First, FDR inherited a depression. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 made the economic crisis worse. Hoover was still president. During FDR's Administration unemployment decreased. It increased after he stopped government spending due to fears over the debt. Unfortunately, the US had not made a full recovery. Unemployment increased again. The war did end the depression. After years of fighting with the business interests the government made a pact with business.
USASecretHistory 2 months ago
@USTreasuryBond why did the war end it? WAR SPENDING IS A STIMULUS. artard
ericfeinberg28 2 months ago
@Tracywithafacey maybe thats because you don't know the first thing about economics. signed, someone who does
ericfeinberg28 2 months ago
@ericfeinberg28 Ok... I am not going to be getting my BA Economics degree next year...
Tracywithafacey 2 months ago
@Tracywithafacey 1) is a BA supposed to sound impressive? 2) and from where? dick armey university?
ericfeinberg28 2 months ago
@ericfeinberg28 A BA is impressive yes, it is not a Phd or an MA or whatever, but yes an Honours degree is impressive, especially if you do well. And no, the University of Manchester
Tracywithafacey 2 months ago
@Tracywithafacey id understand if you were an american who had been battered by conservative propaganda for the last 20 years, but a brit should know better after what happened with your austerity program
ericfeinberg28 2 months ago
@ericfeinberg28 - Conservative propaganda? First of all there is no such thing as a Conservative in American politics and there hasn't been one for many decades. Republicans are just 'progressive light'. Secondly it is the heavily jewish influenced, and controlled left that has pushed the entitlement system to it's breaking point for purely political reasons. You have to create cadres of victim groups from which you can be ensured legions of programmable foot-soldiers that vote 'democratic'.
soakthisup 2 months ago
@soakthisup you've got it backwards. the republican party today is far to the right of where it was 50 years ago. richard nixon would be a democrat today. if you cant see that, you either don't know shit about our domestic political history or you're a total ideologue. frankly im not interested in having a conversation with either one, they rarely can remain civil
ericfeinberg28 2 months ago
@ericfeinberg28 - By today's standards JFK would be a Conservative.
soakthisup 2 months ago
@soakthisup if he were one of today's conservatives, he would have invaded cuba in 1962 and we'd all be dead. thank god he had actually seen war first hand and didnt have a hollywood caricature in his mind like these guys who pushed for war in iraq and are pushing for war again with iran
ericfeinberg28 2 months ago
@ericfeinberg28 - Neo-Cons, are just progressives that peeled off from the radical elements of the red diaper baby revolution bullshit of the sixties, they are not true Conservatives. Besides, both parties have their heads up Israel's ass and are controlled by a kosher crime syndicate.
soakthisup 2 months ago
Ferguson was allowed to write the biography of Sigmund Warburg at Harvard. To get that he had to sell his soul and it shows. Some choice. Krug: borrow for unemployment benefits and relief. Ferg: liquidate, cut taxes on corporations, value added tx cutting govt to fit the reduced tax incidence. Kr: borrow more from Rothschild now and forget the consequences. Ferg: let deflation & austerity raise Rothschild bond and dollar wealth. Here is 3rd (repudiation + no-debt fiat) way: p_wv4NTNrxU
oldickeastman 5 months ago
Keynes must be literally rolling in his grave when he hears this guy. He read his theory and took it took it to outer space. Even Keynes would admit that his theory did apply to situations like the current one here in the United States. The US relies so heavily on capital and trade flows to and from other large economies. Active monetary policy responses from the public sector like stimulus only creates bubbles and doesn't stabilize any business in the private sector. Krugman you fool.
paynesm2 5 months ago
@paynesm2 Didn't Apply****
paynesm2 5 months ago
BREAKING NOW: Fareed Zakaria has the kinda face ya just wanna smash with a cinderblock.
jkovert 5 months ago
where is Niall Fergerson as named in this clip ? There's just waffle from PK
Avidcomp 5 months ago
Its a real shame people lack the humility to admit that they don't truly understand complex economic issues and forcefully propose, with the best intentions no doubt, their uninformed view of whats best for their suffering country. Keynesian stimulus is a temporary measure to help when the economy is imbalanced (ie 9% unemployment) and business investment below its potential. Once it recovers, tax receipts rise and long term fiscus can be tackled. A country is not the same as a person!!
mvlaric 5 months ago
@mvlaric
Finally someone who understands economics.
GnomesAmok 5 months ago
wow i had no ideas his ears were like that lol his column picture is not like that at all haha
axlrod05 6 months ago
Madre del Amor Hermoso!!!!!!
Y a este tio le han dado un Nobel para Economia...no si... asi nos va y es lo que nos merecemos
Zapatero, Obama, Krugman...panda inutiles que no sabeis ni cuantos duros llevaís en la catera
Joé a este habia que darle dos Nobel, uno por idiota ... y otro por si pierde el primero
TheMaggath 6 months ago
The only reason Krugman won the Nobel in 2008 is because Milton Friedman died in 2006. Of course, Krugman's ideas died about 1937
dmowings 6 months ago
to morons that dislike Krugman....where is your nobel prize?
twistedrunes 6 months ago
@twistedrunes
Hayek won the Nobel prize. His ideas are opposed to Krugman's. So what about morons who disagree with Hayek? Btw.
Who cares about Nobel prizes? Even the scumbag Obama has got one. They are worthless these days.
BarrySlisk 6 months ago
@BarrySlisk There's a difference between a Nobel peace prize, which is political, and a Nobel prize for economics. Krugman has been proven right time and again for espousing basic Keynsianism. I don't know how you can argue with his track record. That's how you ultimately distinguish the prophets from pretenders.
el80ne 4 months ago
@el80ne
How has he been proven right? He says we should spend even more money we don't have (more of the same). This fortunately has not been tried.....yet. All we know is that spending and printing more money than ever before has not helped the economy. So far his ideas does not seem to work, although he can always claim that he wanted more money spent.
Btw. What exactly did Krugman get a nobel prize for? Hayek got it for his theories on the Business Cycle.
BarrySlisk 4 months ago
@twistedrunes With Krugman and Obama, the Nobel committee is losing credibility.
UponInfinity 6 months ago
Paul admits that "we have a long run budget problem". Listen people ... none of you understand the real viewpoints of Krugman. He even admitted as far back as 2008 that the stimulus was not enough. If you look at the facts you'll see that Krugman has in fact been consistently right on. There is no real debate between him and Ferguson .. essentially they both agree that that the U.S. has a long-term problem. They are both right!!
makeithappen42zx 6 months ago
@makeithappen42zx There's zero evidence that a bigger stimulus would have done things differently. Keynesian Economics is an oxymoron
shotsky94 6 months ago
@shotsky94 The stimulus passed was weak. However it seemed to have the effect of buffering the economy from falling further despite it falling short of giving consumers a real boost. A focused strong effect on propping consumers along with restructuring mortgage debt would have had a better outcome. Krugman argued this point and he is right. Added Ferguson is right too.
makeithappen42zx 6 months ago
@makeithappen42zx Krugman is aretard. He doesnt realize that when government puts money into an economy, it also takes out from the economy hence no increase in his beloved aggregate demand. He also commits broken window fallacy at every opportunity. He is a pseudo-intellectual charlatan with the brain the size of a peanut. Besides we dont have any more money for stimulus. China aint loanin no more. All we can do is print and therefore beware of the INFLATION!!!!!!....HAHAHAHHAHA
shotsky94 6 months ago
Why do people dislike videos like this? Even though you might not like one of the debater's views (or either of theirs) it's enlightening to hear conflicting views or how one approaches an issue.
MrJs1G 7 months ago
Growth cannot not be sustained in a heathy manner if it is based on unmanageable debt. The American economy grew a third under Ronald Reagan, but debt had tripled. The banks are always and have always been bailed out by the government (taking on that debt). The Market is superior to any economic system, but it is always being saved by the Feds. Most people think China owns the majority of our debt when in reality 9.8 trillion is domestic.
iFullMetalJacket 7 months ago
Mr Krugman, debate Peter Schiff, please.......he would love to have you on his radio show.
texndaisy 7 months ago
In 2008 you voted for Obama to prove you weren't a racist. In 2012 you'll vote AGAINST Obama to prove you're not an idiot.
Even Obama's former fans know his policies of massive govt spending, bailouts, Obamacare govt takeover of healthcare have & continue to do serious long-term damage to our economy. Countries like Germany & the UK have chosen to cut spending, rejecting Obama's wreckless strategy of ever more govt spending. To see more jobs & for our economy to rebound, Obama needs to go!
sndblstr 8 months ago
@sndblstr Compared to whom is Obama a failure?! Not compared to Ronald Reagan. Reagan had 10.1% unemployment in June 1983. Now it's 9.1%. Reagan lost 2.5 million jobs in 1982, Obama GAINED 1.2 million in 2010. Corporate profits were up 28% in 2010. Obama's mistake is EXACTLY the OPPOSITE of what you are accusing him: HE HAS NO FISCAL POLICY. He created all this growth and told CEOs to pay themseves instead of their workers because they still get the Bush taxcuts if they do.
szatmar666 8 months ago
@szatmar666, this is getting tiresome. If u're so partisan that ur kneejerk reaction is to try to deflect attention from Obama's failed fiscal policy by bringing up past Republicans, then you're a sad case. U care more about politics than the good of the country. If u're only happy when defending someone with a "D" next to their name, why not laud people like Brown in CA and Cuomo in NY who are doing the hard, necessary job of cutting spending, & NOT Obama, who quadrupled the national deficit!
sndblstr 8 months ago
@sndblstr No, I am the one with the facts and numbers backing my case and you are about accusations and empty insults. If you have an actual number proving your case that Obama is a disaster we can discuss it, but so far you are about repeating GOP talking points and calling me a partisan when I inject some facts and perspective in this pure partisan diatribe.
szatmar666 8 months ago
@szatmar666
"actual number proving your case that Obama is a disaster"
--I'm guessing you haven't checked the latest (and ongoing) unemployment rate and/or our national debt. Obama's answers to those two things are ANOTHER "stimulus" (all of which have failed miserably) and hiking taxes. Yeah, what a winning strategy!
NoGuff 7 months ago
@NoGuff Obama's job numbers today (July 2011) are better than Reagan's job numbers in July 1983 (10.1%) so I guess good or bad is relative. However I do agree that instead of another stimulus what we need is a sound fiscal policy. Obama has no fiscal policy: we still have the Bush tax rates from 2002 that's basically telling corporations who saw a 28% increase in profits to give away that pile of cash to exec bonuses, not wages or R&D because they can take advantage of the Bush taxcuts
szatmar666 7 months ago
@szatmar666
"better than Reagan's"
--Reagan turned it around completely by opening up the free markets. Obama has made things worse by closing them down.
"give away that pile of cash to exec bonuses"
--Actually most of that money goes to the investors, most of which are middle class Americans. But thanks for the total misrepresentation.
NoGuff 7 months ago
@NoGuff how did Obama close down free markets and how did then corporations increase their profits by 28% in 2010 anyway?! Again: you people make shit up with no respect to facts truth or your country. You just offer partisan diatribe, no numbers no sources no facts!
szatmar666 7 months ago
@szatmar666
"how did Obama close down free markets"
--He's closing them down, I didn't say he has closed them. He's doing this through added government regulation and intervention (coal production, forcing companies to close), moratoriums on industry (oil drilling & coal production), government mandates which steer companies rather than letting them steer themselves ("green" mandates). But thanks for the total misrepresentation. Talk about liars!
NoGuff 7 months ago
@NoGuff what regulations are you talking about?! I wish he would ban offshore drilling, he's not! You people are full of BS plus you still haven't answered how did companies increase their profits by 28%?!
szatmar666 7 months ago
@NoGuff BTW, did republican policies EVER work since Reagan?! Name the year and let's see if the GDP grew faster or the debt by the end of that fiscal year?! You people are INSANE!
szatmar666 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@szatmar666
"did republican policies EVER work since Reagan?!"
--Yes, under George W. Bush. And you tell me this: Have keynesian policies EVER worked, anywhere? We need more freedom, less Marxism.
NoGuff 7 months ago
@NoGuff The national debt was 90% created by the last 3 republican presidents and their taxcuts. $13 of the $14 trillion debt did not exist before 1981. 1982 was the first year since WW2 that the US grew its debt faster than its GDP and after that year it does so every year except for the 90s. The big difference between pre1981 and post 1981 econ is supply side taxcuts and deregulation that tells the rich to take their money out of US industry and put it either offshore or on Wall Street spec
szatmar666 7 months ago
@szatmar666
"The national debt was 90% created by the last 3 republican presidents"
--The last 3? There were 3 Republican Presidents between Clinton and Obama? Didn't Clinton work the debt down to zero by the end of his term? Because that's what Democrats keep telling me.
And BTW, we're not comparing Reagan to Obama, we're talking about Obama.
NoGuff 7 months ago
@NoGuff U don't understand English: the last 3 republican presidents since 1981!
The debt in 1981 was less than $1 trillion dollars. In 1993, the last HW Bush budget it was $4.35 trillion ie 4X of what Reagan-Bush inherited. In 2001, the last Clinton budget it was $5.6 trillion. In 2009, the last W Bush budget: $12 trillion and today it's $14. In other words 3 republicans: $10 trillion out of $13: OK that's 75%, not 90% but most of the Clinton/Obama debt was to clean up the republican mess.
szatmar666 7 months ago
@szatmar666
I'm not responding anymore because my messages keep disappearing by the time I'm almost finished and I don't feel like writing them 10 times like my last message. So this is it. YOU are an indoctrinated moron spewing bullshit. All you've got are misrepresentations of the facts and doubletalk. Goodbye!
NoGuff 7 months ago
@NoGuff You NEVER ONCE responded anyway to my points: and nice projecting there, calling me names while spewing republican propaganda.
szatmar666 7 months ago
@NoGuff The reason why you cons believe the nonsense in the media is because you are all gullible and ignorant of the facts. Do yourself a favor and go to GPO dot GOV and search on "2012 budget historical tables pdf" and go to Section 7, That's the primary source info about the National Debt. You'll be amazed how much "conservatives" (ie. traitors) lied to you the last 30 years about the debt and how it was created.
szatmar666 7 months ago
@szatmar666
"you are all gullible and ignorant"
--And the reason you Libtards are wrong about everything is because you believe any & all lies by other Liberals, especially if they disparage Conservatives & America.
I've seen the debt info. Obama tripled it after he took office. He wants to spend more all while saying we have to reign in spending. Typical Liberal doubletalk. He's trying to raise taxes, but, as typical for him, he previously said we should never raise taxes in a recession.
NoGuff 7 months ago
@NoGuff So your response to facts is more propaganda and lies: what was the national debt after the last Bush budget and what is it today?! You people are liars like the commies, that's not a disparagement, it's a fact you prove every time you open your mouth.
szatmar666 7 months ago
@szatmar666
Talk about "Commie liars!" WOW!
NoGuff 7 months ago
@NoGuff what are you, 12?! where is your proof that "Obama tripled the debt"?! Until then you are just another "commie liar" for everybody.
szatmar666 7 months ago
@szatmar666
If you can't acknowledge the fact that Obama's stimulus plans added to the debt, then you should just go away.
NoGuff 7 months ago
@NoGuff Oh, but I never said that "it didn't add to it". You said IT TRIPLED IT!!!! What I said was that 90% of teh debt was created by republican spending priorities since 1981 and I offered proof to that effect.
szatmar666 7 months ago
@sndblstr .Yeah.Bailed out the banks and saved from a collapse which would have been far worse.Im no nobel prize winning economist or whatever nor am i a partisian hack like you.The republicans throughout 2008 had no clue what to do about the economy.ONly rron paul was even talking about the issue fully and his idea were a joke is well.
laudrup90 8 months ago
Typical keynesian argument : Stimulus and more money printing and if it fails print more and spend more. We must get rid of that hair of the dog, the party is over it's time to deleverage and cut spending , you don't solve debt by adding more debt !
hamzyboy 8 months ago
@hamzyboy Wow, I am sure you read the "typical keynesian argument" you pretend to understand from "The General Theory of employment interest and money"...what caves do you ppl crawl out of, is there a high school someplace where they mass produce morons?!
szatmar666 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please note that my book Keynes Hayek: The Clash That Shaped Modern Economics is published by W.W.Norton in October.
Professor John B.Taylor says that: “Nicholas Wapshott brings the Keynes-Hayek fight of the 20th century back to life, making the clash both entertaining and highly relevant for understanding economic crises of the 21st century.”
Read an extract at: sites.google.com/site/wapshottkeyneshayek/
Nicholas Wapshott
nhwapshott 8 months ago
Krugman is so full of it.He doesn't appreciatethat the American economic system cannot be sustained when the US consumes 33bbls per capita and the rest of the world just 1 bbls per capita. The party is over.There is no oil. The US has just 2 years of reserves..
Face it....Krugman belongs to the same club as Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and theTooth Fairy. "Take me to your leader... "
MrNycbigdog 8 months ago
We are done!!! 44.5 million on foodstamps, twice that many on welfare or social security, real unemployment at over 15%, 1/3 of America's children are fat and diabetic, and 1.5 million abortions anually. This is the end. I hope all you liberal democrats are happy. You have successfully ruined the greatest country in the world. Freedom has been flushed down the drain. I told my 9 and 11 year old sons today that they will soon have no country. How's that hope and change going???
09geauxtigers 9 months ago
"It would have been worse!" Always a nice cop out... I prefer honest economists like Jeffrey Sachs who are "liberal" but at least know when they screwed up
Trimbler00 9 months ago
It's funny how everyone here seems to know better than a Nobel Prize winner in economics.
celer1ty2 10 months ago
@celer1ty2 As Krugman himself said: To have an opinion and not express it is moral failure. I personally believe Krugman is right and that "IF" our initial stimulus helped infrastructure and not just banks and teachers, then we would be better off. But, while he may be right, it may also be too late to make any real change. The die is caste.
japandata 10 months ago
Obama should have had Stiglitz and Krugman as advisors. The US is going bankrupt because the right wing is pushing the country to insane Herbert Hoover policies and the dems are not strong enough to resist them. Spending on the green economy wouldn't be a problem if the rich SOBs paid their fair share of taxes. The fact is the top % is stealing the wages of the bottom 99% for at least the last 30 years in the USA and the result is demand in the economy is supported by plastic: private debt.
szatmar666 10 months ago
@szatmar666, you sound like the kind of person who'd vote for Obama. Obama = NO JOBS, higher taxes, govt takeover of healthcare, record trillion dollar spending. FACT: Obama's fiscal policies have failed. For the economy to recover, we need to get rid of Obama. He'll be a one-term president. Obama may have been considered "cool" once, but today the country wants to see jobs created... & we know Obama, the guy who people once chanted to in cult-like rallies, stands in the way of that happening
sndblstr 8 months ago
@sndblstr Obama's fiscal policies = Bush's fiscal policies simply because taxes haven't changed singe 2002. You sound like a terribly uninformed person who nevertheless seems to know exactly what's going on because he just heard it on talk radio. You need to think for yourself. In order for the economy to recover americans have to screw their heads on straight again and find a year when they had a faster GDP growth than the growth of the national debt and go back to those policies.
szatmar666 8 months ago
@szatmar666, I realize the truth hurts. 3 yrs after 2008, when Obama ran as, above all things, "Not Bush," we now hear desperate Obama worshippers like u try to defend the failed Obama presidency by saying he's just like Bush. NEWSFLASH: Bush, no benchmark for anything today, is not in office anymore. Obama must be held accountable for his own failures. U're obviously not familiar w/ Obama's DISASTROUS fiscal policy. (google the failed stimulus fiasco, bailouts, vow to repeal Bush tax cuts, etc)
sndblstr 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The tide is turning on the rights nonsense. Time will tell, but I think people like Krugman as well as men like Joe Stiglitz
Ermal8711 10 months ago
Comment removed
Ermal8711 10 months ago
complete drivel
mojoriser9 11 months ago
Paul Krugman is the typical spend and tax regressive, he has a track record and it ain't pretty ....
panhandlepatriots 11 months ago
@panhandlepatriots Actually, Mr. Krugman has a rather impressive record. A study published on the HuffingtonPost, which was conducted by Hamilton College (Are Talking Heads Blowing Hot Air), showed Paul Krugman is the most accurate columnist and opionator.
EmichEagle 9 months ago
"The stimulus wasn't big enough", usual rhetoric.
youfatstinkypoo 11 months ago
@youfatstinkypoo The stimulus had went to Asia. The property prices in Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan are crazily high, and affect our everyday costs of living. Your moronic finance minister should be fired~!!!
stephentsang2000 10 months ago
This guy won a Nobel prize????...thats 2 strikes against those Nobels now.
DanMonDab 11 months ago
sheeesh... reading all these comments shows me either none of y'all took basic econ classes or slept through them... And to think politicians have the same mindset... yikes!
tfiasco88 11 months ago 11
Idiot.....................
zuzupetals1999 11 months ago
Commie Pinko...
stopstickers 11 months ago
Krugman is a total F-ing idiot.
CTSBeast 11 months ago
Krugman PhD Ha Are you Kidding me.
edmundmb 1 year ago
Krugman perfectly demonstrates the utter failure of the left.
pilot5501 1 year ago 2
@pilot5501 amen!
All we need to prevail against these idiots is to let them continue to say things like Mike Moore - this no crisis or the NY Times...there is no crisis. The data is overwhelming against these socialists. Sooner or later the sheeple will wake up... But then again - they did vote for the inexperienced marxist we now suffer...
nord98 11 months ago
@pilot5501
We are in this crisis because of right wing efficient market myths. This is not the time to start talking about the failures of the left, the only section of the political culture to warn about the dangers of financial speculations. Before whining about that toothpick in the eye of the left, remove that ornate Victorian oak wardrobe from yours.
TheVideoRepo 11 months ago
@TheVideoRepo there is no political left in the USA: Obama is clearly a conservative: he is slightly to the right of Angela Merkel. All his advisers are conservative democrats and corporate types: that's the main reason for his failures.
szatmar666 10 months ago
@pilot5501 which is why the right is known to never be able "demonstrate" anything if you by that we mean "prove". Supply side economics has been failing since 1981: producing more debt than GDP growth every singe year it was applied. I think Keynesian ideas did exactly the opposite EVERY SINGLE year before 1981.
szatmar666 7 months ago
2:45 Wow, Krugman is such a fool. The idea of saving money for future spending being attacked, as opposed to just throwing it away now shows how much of a 'vulgar Keynesian'--as Robert Higgs calls these idiots--Krugman really is.
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
Niall Ferguson? Where? Krugman is a fool
Craighill9 1 year ago