What do you all think of Fannie & Freddie Mac execs recently getting sued for subprime fraud by the SEC? These are the first charges brought against those responsible for the financial meltdown.
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/
@Visfen Oh yes this tenured economics professor at Yale, who you say makes no sense because what he says makes sense. It does make sense, when the mass of people have more money the top do a lot better. Govt should have a stake and get the upside when it has bailed people out. What has happened is Uncle Sam has been beaten up by these peole, then he rescues them and is now being attacked with knives. It is your knowledge which is shallow.
@Meade556 But his knowledge of any broader subject is based on nit-pickying data that supports this democratic epos he's so partisan to support. There's no other way of putting it, his knowledge is shallow. He's a blind ideologue! He doesn't care about the truth.
What does it matter if he went to an ivy leauge college? He's still wrong on economics all the damn time.
Government shouldn't bail out anyone!
I don't really see the point in debating this with you, as your knowledge is even worse.
@Visfen He is not a graduate of Princeton. HE TEACHES THERE. His knowledge is hardly shallow, just because someone comes along and says "In practice this is what works" without omitting data does not make their argument simplistic, usually they are right. He, like others does not support the Democratic Party anymore. Time and time again we put our faith in them to save us from the depredations of the Republicans and their supporters and they have failed us.
@Meade556 You know what they say? Those who can't, they teach
His knowledge is extremely shallow. Like his support of fiscal stimulus. He must have missed literary 50 years of economic science on the subject. Tax cuts is a better stimulus. (Though I don't believe in stimulus at all, I think it is prolonging corrections)
Yes he does. He's been a typical limousine liberal for quite some time
Of course they fail, their policies don't work. Which is what economics teaches us
@Visfen Not always true, it requires great skill to teach, to explain the fundamentals and how it works. Besides he tried to work in the priv sec and I have personal experiences with the problems he faced. if you don't toe the orthodox line you never get promoted and often you get fired. Tax cuts are not a better stimulus because people when their confidence has been eroded will save, they will not spend. More than 50% of the last great Bush tax cut of '08 was put into savings.
@Meade556 The skills required to teach are not the same skills that are required to find the truth. Charisma and structured plans are important for teaching. While introversion, analytical skills and creativity are important to get to the truth. Krugman doesn't have these skills, he barely has Charisma, what he has is a narrative that suits the op-ed pieced in NYT
Tax cuts are a better stimulus. The science is very clear on this. You just don't know any of it because you don't care to.
@Visfen I do know it and David Stockman worked out that it did not work. I suppose we can abrogate Friedman and Hayek because they taught then. Krugman, if you cared to ever read his work is very charismatic.
@Meade556 What are you talking about?! David Stockman criticized Republican fiscal policy. Not monetarism or Austrian economics. If anything he criticized Keynesianism, as deficit spending is a Keynesian idea.
I've read his work, but more importantly I've seen him speak. He's not fun to listen to. To me he just comes of as this down the middle guy that has nothing interesting to say because he's busy trying to fit in. In order to be a good teacher you have to be more like Olberman or Limbaugh.
@Visfen I'm sorry if rationality does not fit in with you, but we are henceforth terminating this conversation. Viagra using, terrorist inciting, lying Rush Limbaugh? Come back please when you are serious, have read history, Krugman and Stiglitz. Do not waste my time with what Limbaugh says because he is merely playing a character and a sinister one at that. Lloyd Blankfein liberal? GE liberal? Come down to reality.
@Meade556 How does that in any way refer to what I said? What I said was that Limbaugh has charisma. Do you not agree with that? I never referenced anything Limbaugh said. Learn how to read and understand the actual sentence, not just respond to words
I have read Krugman and Stiglitz. Krugman hasn't written anything interesting at all. Stiglitz doesn't apply his same theory of institutional failures to government as he does to the market, even though he has seen the problems by his own account
@Visfen Krugman writes plenty of interesting things. I enjoy his articles and Stiglitz criticizes Govt for failing to do what any business would do, which is what Krugman is arguing in this clip. A bailout should happen, but in such a way as is guaranteed it is not just a reinforcement of failure. Stiglitz is not nice to the Treasury and the Fed so dont be ridiculous and assume that because I am left wing I am stupid. We tend to be a lot smarter than you lot.
@Meade556 I've never seen him write anything interesting at all. It's all mainstream jargon that I'm all too familiar with. Same goes for Stiglitz.
The latest nobel prize winners had interesting works. How conditions for property rights can change our behavior and how we take care of things. Not just "the government should do this because private industry is bad".
No bailout should ever happen.
Stiglitz needs to analyze the government like he analyzes markets. Rothbard has done that
@Visfen You read his work and saw what you wanted to see, please do not waste my time anymore. I am tired of "dynamic" people from the priv sec screaming for help when your gambling goes awry while people like me are shunted to the side and true dynamism is kept outside of the loop where we WOULD DO GOOD.
@Meade556 I've never screamed for help. I hate that the government bails out people that I compete with who fails. But then they are bigger so they can buy more lobbyists than I can. And they have such good connections in the democratic party in particular so they get to be disease that cures their own existence as so many people are clueless and think "more regulation" in anti-anything but small businesses and competition. Regulations help the big guy, as do bailouts.
@Meade556 Tend to be smarter than you lot? Who is my lot? Libertarians? No I doubt it. Libertarianism is the most over-representated and was for some time the most common ideology in MENSA. I'm a double major, economics and engineering. I work in finance while studying and I live of what I make in the stock market. I'm also involved in politics on a local level here in Sweden. Don't try to label me as a conservative. Conservatives are just as stupid as you left wing liberals are.
@Visfen Thank you. At least you are not American. I am sorry Hitler did not win and achieve your fantasy of a race of "supermen" ruling the world. Who was that Swedish Scientist who contributed so much to the understanding of Acids and Bases but during his life was more acknowledged for a racist work on how white people were superior to others. People are people.
@Meade556 So now I'm a racist/nazi. Yes, that seems to be what you lunatics on the left turn to when you have realized your delusions of idealism are nothing but utopianism and naivete.
What is so absurd is that you're branding me for something I have no part in, only because of my nationality. That kinda tells me how brainwashed and utterly uninteresting you are to have a discussion with. If you can't even see trough that kind of narrative you're completely lost to the propaganda.
@Meade556 Omg! Savings is what stimulates growth you imbecile. We save and invest it in scientific research or building factories. Simply increasing consumption is not growth, it makes stuff more expensive and we have less money to build and research new stuff.
No, what I say about Hoover and FDR is the truth. You simply haven't read any real history on the subject. The New Deal was a disaster. Those who believe otherwise simply don't know their history or basic economics. Like Krugman and you
@Visfen I have read Leuchtenburg and the Lion and the Fox by McGregor Burns, so don't get me started, it is you who has read a bunch of theory. BTW I have never seen the private sector inclined to invest, even when interest rates were low so there was ostensibly less pressure for higher return yields.
@Meade556 You don't even understand what low interest rates do. It changes the time preference and capital structure. You get lots of investment in long term projects like housing or manufacturing, at the expense of short term. Basically, if we save less we have less money for large products (as interest rates is a function of savings in a free monetary system).
How can you see you never seen the private sector invest when we just had a credit boom and collapse?That's absurd.
@Visfen I do I was right up there with the powerful and saw these idiots argue all for going into the toxic mortgage market instead of investing the money we had in creating jobs, instead we focused on taking a lot of money from the bottom of the pyramid instead of figuring out how to help them and still make a profit. Krugman and Stiglitz are right. Good so you have not read the book or Leuchtenburg, then come back when you do.
@Meade556 "In creating jobs". What are you even talking about? Do you understand how finance works? We don't give a shit about creating jobs, we care about making money and we're very good at it.
Either way, the largest buyer in the market was the government GMO's, Fannie and Freddie. They created the entire boom and then later the market for securitized mortgages.
What pyramid? The economy is not a zero sum game. I wonder why I'm even bothering with you, you don't know basic economics 101.
@Visfen No you're not. People like me were sidelined and were told "You're not a team player. You don't know how to handle risk." I should point out also that Govt issued mortgages had a lower default rate because they were better structured. The economic system is like a pyramid, with each ascending level you have improved living standards and we charged poor people exorbitant interest rates on their credit cards and did a lot of stupid things that facilitated the crash.
@Meade556 So what if the government loans had a lower default risk? You don't understand what I just said if that is your response. Issuing the loans isn't all that matters. If you check F&F part of the market up to 2004 you can see how it goes up, while there should have been a correction, this is where the bubble really started taking of (it started in like 98-99) then they stopped buying into the market and moved over to the securitization market where they were the largest buyer in the world
@Meade556 The economic system is not like a pyramid. The economic system is volountary exchange between people for mutual benefit, a biological create of spontaneous order.
Your abstraction of a pyramid is the result of victimization ideology and critical theory dominating the media, culture and academia. This marxist frankfurt-school of thought about categorizing people after absurd categories like race, sex, income groups etc. instead of looking at real oppressive structures like government
@Meade556 James MacGregor Burns have no understanding of economic history. I haven't read that book, but I reckon it talks about the policies he implemented without looking at the implications, focusing on the man and his intentions. Right? That's how most historians work, but that just touches the surface. Without theory you don't understand the world, all you're seeing is pretty colors and events. Without theory you end up seeing the world as a child.
I want to hear an actual Keynesian help me here. How does spending and artificial infusion of credit / monetary supply not result in destructive inflation? Aren't the Consumer Price Indexes going up? Aren't oil and gold and other commodities at all time highs? Can someone explain what increased spending will do but increase consumption and demand, not savings and production? I am an economics neophyte drawn more to Austrian economics, but want to hear the other side of the story fairly.
@finarrykahn13 Because you are not printing more money, you are going on the faith and credit of a nation. I would be happy to discuss the faith and credit idea more. Also bear in mind Hayek might well have opposed deregulation, in the snippets of him I have read he argues for Govt to not run businesses, but to regulate business and ensure that consumers are protected.
David Gregory is a typical Villager. He puts on Republicans and lets them speak their talking points and then grills Democrats about the latest Republican charges and interrupts them when they try to tell their ideas.
My advice to you is to ditch this unfalsefiable, fraudulant school of pseudo-economics and go put yourself through school on the subject. Study the real schools of economics, you know ones which provide evidence for their claims. I have actually taken advanced econ courses for my business degree. They require competancy in math, which makes the discipline difficult. It's worth the effort though.
@Newenlightenmentnow "I have actually taken advanced econ courses for my business degree. They require competancy in math"
"Math"? Since when does math have anything to do with the economy? Republicans tell us it's all about "confidence". They would tell you to dump the math and take psychology. You can work in their Ministry of Plenty.
@SpitfireOFatj Math does, in working out how a financial product will function. But seriously when the Govt withdraws its spending when the private sector has been so slack, how much confidence do you think there will be then?
@Meade556 Republicans decided to fall back on their penny pinching reputation to distract America from the fact that they created this mess in the first place and lied us into Iraq. They don't CARE about creating jobs. They WANT the government to go broke so it is powerless to go up against the international corporations that have no loyalty to this country.
@Meade556 Well, since you're open to that, try this: What is the number one, well documented business expense a company can declare? Payroll. Therefore, if you want to "create jobs" you should do the OPPOSITE of what Republicans claim. Raising corporate taxes will cost companies to hire to claim the deduction.
We also need to change the law so customers come before shareholders. That's what's driving the phenomenon of having your Fritos stock go up while the bag is mostly air.
@Meade556 The Blue Dogs lost big time in the last election and the DLC closed up shop so there is a strong possibility that we could see idiots like Harold Ford go away.
Or land on FOX "News" thus making them even more of a joke.
Absolutely spot on. It still amazes me some people fail to (or perhaps refuse to) notice that the corporate lobbying network pushes constantly for a less efficient, less powerful government with no restrictions on the actions of those who can afford to buy their own legislation.
And yet, curiously, despite the crystal clear agenda of the corporate sphere to depower the government, somehow section of idiots think that depowering government even MORE will defeat corporatism. :p
Capitalism is the final chapter in historic evolution of THE TYRANNY OF PRIVATE PROPERTY RELATIONSHIP of alienation,exploitation and suffering of humanity, a Market mechanism where minority interest is the NEGATION OF OUR COMMON HUMANITY IN COOPERATION and HARMONY. We shall overcome the structure of minority power and oppression and reclaim our planet for a world of cooperation for our common needs and well being, expressing our energetic creative divinity in freedom of being.
@MrBishopWalters The whole world needs it, yet taxes have been decreasing world wide for 30-40 years. And everyone HAS to keep decreasing taxes to "stay competitive". It's a race to the bottom and the bottom is anarcho-capitalism. It's crazy. The UK/US lowered taxes and the rest of the world followed and now we're in a downward spiral. We need a public sector at about 45-50% to keep demand reasonably stable.
YES we NEED more taxes. I have WAY too much money and have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what to do with it. I would only trust THE GOVERNMENT to spend money on things. They have all the GOOD IDEAS about HIGH SPEED RAIL and which COUNTRY TO INVADE NEXT. After all we NEED stable demand of COMPLETELY USELESS SHIT otherwise the economy might actually produce GOODS AND SERVICES and people might INCREASE THEIR STANDARD OF LIVING.
@MrBishopWalters The reasons for those historically high tax rates were 1) nobody was actually paying that amount because there were so many loopholes-- even though Reagan dramatically cut tax rate % on the wealthiest Americans, tax receipts still doubled from 1980 to 1990 because he closed loopholes as well. 2) Because of technological developments, it is much easier for U.S.-headquartered businesses to offshore some operations to a low-tax country. Indeed, higher taxes promote offshoring.
@Trimbler00 Not so. Think about it "Cut my taxes or I will offshore" and then they go ahead and do it anyway because it increases profit. So it does not work. Even Stockman admits that the increase in Federal revenues only occurred because they realized how bad things were by cutting so fast and deep. Taxes actually had to be increased again and loopholes closed and Federal tax revenue made up a greater percentage of the GDP in 1985 than in 1979. Stockman admits he was wrong.
@Polypropylganda That's a pretty bold statement. You austrians claim that your theories are superior to keynsianism. Why don't you support it with math, statistics, and evidence? Either economics is a science or it isn't. I say it is a science, and therefore you need to follow the scientific method. Your hypothesis must be falsifiable (that is testible, and there must premises if true, disproves your theory). Austrianism is more in line with the magical thinking you find in religion.
@Newenlightenmentnow Ludwig von Mises said, "Science does not give us absolute and final certainty. It only gives us assurance within the limits of our mental abilities and the prevailing state of scientific thought."
Keynes made assumptions such as treating consumption and investment equivalently and added them together in his aggregate demand equations. Economists have made false assumptions since.
@Polypropylganda Then it seems to me, what the "Austrian school" argues is, if you can't prove it with math, then argue against using math and the scientific method. That's very suspicious, and in my mind discredits the entire Austrian School. I don't care that Keynes made mistakes. So did Isaac Newton. The Scientific Method discovered or will discover these errors. The moment you say, "the scientific method doesn't apply" and propose untestable theories, you have no credibility.
@Newenlightenmentnow To the contrary. The best application of the scientific method is first identifying what the limits of your methods are. The Austrians apply math, but do so understanding economics is a social science.
My research is in the physical sciences, not economics, which became an interest only recently. When I evaluate literature in my field, I look at the methods first, before I even permit myself to read the conclusions.
@Polypropylganda Right except that just because economics is a social science does not excuse it from the scientific method. The scientific method is used to devolop theories in other social sciences, which is 100% dealing with "unpredictable" human behavior. The test of a sound theory is whether it can be repeated, if it's falsifiable, and more importantly if it can make accurate predictions. My biggest problem with Austrian economics is that it's not falsifiable.
@Newenlightenmentnow Repeatable? History is on our side, fiat currency always ends.
What's happening in the world today is the end of an era of global fiat currency that began in 1971 with the Nixon shock. There is another global financial event coming that will eclipse the one in 2008, namely the bond/dollar bubble.
NeoKeynesians think they can replace the failing fiat currencies of the world with another fiat currency. It won't work for the same reason it has never worked.
@Polypropylganda No history isn't on your side. Your side makes the absurd claim that just because there is inflation in the history of a monetary unit, the currency is doomed to collapse. Provide evidence. You have none. Provide a solitary shred of evidence that going on the gold standard will help anything. You haven't. I'm unconvinced by anything the Austrians have to say, and apparently real economis, whether they be keynsians, neo-classical, monetarists agree.
@Newenlightenmentnow Furthermore, I find it laughable that you try to take credit for the 2008 collapse. Really? Well if you keep making the same nonsense prediction over and over, eventually you will be right. I also laugh at your assertion (yes they are assertions until you provide evidence) that inflation is our greatest problem. Really? According to the CPI , the US faced .34% deflation. Your idea falls on its head.
The inflation of the past two decades is due to and has gone unnoticed because of Asian markets buying FRNs and Tnotes for their foreign exchange reserves. They realized our politicians burgeoned the deficit too much, the dollars and bonds are overvalued, and they are dumping them. All that pent-up inflation will land on our investment-neglected economy hard. Bernanke's job is only to make it a controlled demolition.
Listening to this makes me sick, If only Paul Krugman had been put in charge. The bad debt is still out there and sooner or later it has to be accounted for. The investment banks took the taxpayers money and stashed it away without lending it to businesses which starved for capital laid off workers. Wall Street lied to the president and lied to the American people while raking in the profits.
Alan Greenspan (former Federal Reserve Chairman) now works for John Paulson's fund. Guess what John Paulson's fund's BIGGEST position is right now? GOLD. . Don't say you weren't told. Protect your families wealth. Visit: goldsave.co/
check my channel for video's about daytrading and trade like me in forex (EUR/USD, CAD/JPY etc.), stocks (coca-cola, phillips etc.), commodities (gold, silver, oil etc.) and indices (Nasdaq, Nikkei etc.
"Almost everyone agrees that we need a rescue of some kind."
It's not a question of how many people. It's whether these are the same people that were convinced housing prices would keep going up. It seems the people who created the problem are still the ones in power (both democrats and republicans). How about getting someone like Peter Schiff, who saw this all coming, to take it on?
Krugman in 2002 after the Tech Bubble "... And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan NEEDS TO CREATE a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble."
Krugman is responsible for the housing bubble! He has made a lot of people poor and is offering more destructive advice! Shame on you Krudman!
Study finds Paul Krugman is the most partisan economist. Krugman was the only economist to "significantly" change his stances for partisan reasons. Krugman has even gone so far as to contradict his own findings to bash Republican politicians. - Brett Barkley, Econ Journal Watch, May 2010
yeah because all wealth and power should be held by a plutocracy of the top 5 percent and we should all be working for them and do what they say because obviously if they have all the money they're better than most of us. just keep plugging your ears and shouting socialism and everything will be just the way you like it.
@islandmuffin please stop making idiotic generalities. to simply say socialism is tyranny goes against many of the working social democracies that exist in europe. and only idiots say capitalism is a perfect system.
@tiburcio9999 I know the economic destruction under socialism, and that people who call themselves socialists are the world’s greatest mass murderers, with 140 hundred million dead in the name of socialism.
"The road of bones, the red army and the collectivization in farms.."
Those were communists, not socialists as in Sweden, Norway etc.
They were also lead by a dictator, where the real problem was at. It's like saying Democracy killed millions because Hitler was an elected politician.
Socialism is simply public ownership of the means of production and property. It's actually the tax payers who own them.
And Europeans fled socialism back in 1492 A.D., when there was no socialism? Marx was born in the 1800s. You are the typical conservative nut who doesn't know any acquaintance with reality. I bet you think the Earth is 6000 years old and evolution didn't happen.
Keynesian economics is socialism on demand, that you can turn on and off. It is also a perpetual motion machine that must be timed properly. And we know economist cannot time markets, so the foundational basis is easily proven false.
Everything I claim is backed up by research. For example, I reference economic freedom, Transparency and GDP per capita indexes. And I reference peer reviewed research by Nobel Prize winning economists. I represent the scientific intellectual majority of economists. The free market is supported by thousands of research papers, and multiple dozens of Nobel prizes.
Only say things you can prove with empirical data, or you end up a dogmatic ignoramus.
What does research tell us about the best balance between economic liberty and socialist quasi-slavery? The indices of economic freedom measure economic freedom, and empirical studies based on these rankings have found them to be correlated with higher living standards, economic growth, income equality, less corruption and less political violence.
Chile was one of the most corrupted state in the world under Pinochet (established by the American)
Singapore ins't Chinese nation state. Then I think it's quite laughable to compare a city state to a global economy. Why not Lichtenstein, Monaco or cayman silands ?? lol
@LogicalFlawDetector No, liberals support Keynesianism, which is not capitalism or socialism. Capitalism is just the Austrian school of economics (free market) and socialism is the Marxist school (public/common ownership). Keynesian is an entirely different school which is a mixed economy and where public dollars are used to account for and prevent declines in private spending on the private sector.
@gipcambero Pinochet, the tyrant, created the most prosperous economy in South America, because he liberated markets. See any GDP, transparency and economic freedom index.
See the Economic Freedom Indexes. China is not free n any scale, but as they become freer, and reject socialism, they become wealthier. Marxism killed 65 million. Capitalism raised hundreds of millions out of poverty.
What a kook! Krugman admitted Bush had nothing to do with the housing bubble, which was the catalyst for this mess, and then his solution was to raise taxes and the minimum wage. Are Government agents more rational than private agents? His dogma is irrational. Lets hope in the future he gets a Nobel Prize like The Dixie Chicks for displaying his profound stupidity. Keynesian economic has never worked ever, so where does Paul get his economics from? Class warfare & economic envy, not science
@gipcambero If you consider Europe as a whole, the system does NOT work very well with entrenched perpetually higher unemployment rates and significantly lower per capita incomes, on average.
How did one nation surpass all of Europe combined in nearly every measurable category that matters?
Why should Americans adopt the SAME failed ideologies that made all of Europe so very inferior?
Europe is only an example in the negative, of what not to do.
All European nation that have praticed Keynesianism for quite a moment like Scandinavia, Germany etc have amongts the highest GDP per capita of the World
@gipcambero All have unstable pyramid schemes that will eventually crash. The perpetual motion machine of Keynesians economics will crash. That is why Europe has been liberalizing NOT socializing their markets.
Well it's true tha before the crisis there was a certain tendency to liberaloze some markets but ut was mialy due to American pressure on GATT rounds and to a result of Nixon's decisoin to end fixed currncy rate.
Then USA is getting more and more socialized, the trend is changing side
@gipcambero Johnson, FDR and Obama are Americas worst Presidents, and have harmed our economy the most. Lots of Nobel Prize winning economists prove this. No economist has ever provided and empirical evince supporting New Deal.
Reagan was half right, because he needed to decrease spending too.
"Lots of Nobel Prize winning economists prove this. " LOL you seem to be very naive, Nobel Prize in economy are only the result of the dominant economic ideology, that's why it went to Krugman in 2008.
The strong dollar and low defficit is due to Volcker policies under Carter (democrat). The highest amount of defficit was under the presidency of Reagan.
"There is no empirical research supporting Keynes"
Again, you are very naive to believe that any economical theory can be supported empirically. Economy isn't like Mathematics or physics, it's just a question of faith in an ideology
@islandmuffin "Johnson, FDR and Obama are Americas worst.." Google, "presidents and prosperity Forbes" 1 Clinton (D) 2 Kennedy (D) 3 Johnson (D) 4 Reagan (R) 5 Ford (R) 6 Carter (D) 7 Truman (D) 8 Nixon (R) 9 Eisenhower (R) 10 Bush Sr. (R) 11(^_^) Bush Jr. (R) Where's your source?
@allgoo19 That doesn't sound accurate. What about the roaring 20s, they were equally as prosperous as the 90s. Also Carter was the worst economic president prior to Bush. Forget about Stagflation? The fact that Bush and Carter are ahead of Coolidge is laughable. Also regardless of whether FDR got us out of the depression (took a long time), his presidency was not prosperous.
It lasted only a few years(highest tax rate 25%), followed by a market crash caused great depression. Compare to that, economic boom after the great depression lasted 3 decades. During that time, highest tax rate was over 90%.
So, you disagree with Fobes magazine which says Carter better than 4 other (R) presidents. What's your credentials? And what data your opinion is based on?
@Visfen "The crash didn't cause the great depression, it preceded it. What caused it was FDR and Hoover's interventionism."
No reply?
Does that mean you have no knowledge of the history? Then how did you come up with the conclusion that you just said? Is that what you read else where?
What's the point of telling somebody else's opinion as if like your own? You just want to act smarter than you actually are?
@Visfen Govt was not doing anything in 1920-1929. Crash happens in '29, the economy continues to plummet because private industry did nothing. The New Deal and then WWII saved the economy and I think people are unfair to Hoover, even though he did not do nearly enough, he did not do in effect, the New Deal. He did at least recognize that Govt needed to try and do something instead of just being passive. FDR was right, and those who opposed ND were wrong.
@Meade556 Hoover was the most interventionist president up to that time. Unemployment was actually going down before he instituted the smooth-hawley tariff, which then caused unemployment to go up again.
Most of the problems was with the FED though. They kept interest rates too low for too long preceding the crash (problems build up and then you restructure, that's how an economy works), then they didn't follow the rules of the gold standard to increase the Money Supply. So the banks crashed.
@Visfen I do not care, unemployment was coming down for a bit, in 1930, but Hoover did not undertake any action because people's confidence had been destroyed by the crash, they pulled their money from the banks in a panic precipitating a second collapse. This money is too cheap argument is nonsense and for this simple reason. Would a steel manufacturer ever claim that the reason he failed was that the price of iron ore was too low?
@Meade556 Of course it was coming down "a bit", people were employed to nothing of productive value, but it was still unacceptably high. If Hoover or FDR had just let the correction take its' course it would have been over much sooner.
Peoples confidence? This is animal spirit nonsense.
You know why people pull their money out of banks? Because the FED failed.
Oh my, you know nothing. Interest rates are a PRICE. PRICES matter, they have information about important things in the economy
@Visfen Interest rates in effect determine how costly a loan is to a lender, so people were complaining that credit was too plentiful, but considering how badly mortgages were structured low interest rates served the interests of these people as they could extract a lot of money from their borrowers and lend to each other with low interest further inflating the bubble. Yes people because an economy is just people interacting with each other.
@Meade556 Lower interest rates induces bubbles. We've known this for quite some time. Because of ABCT we also know why. Interest rates are a price and when you set or change prices without market forces, you distort the market.
Krugman doesn't know any monetarism, he doesn't understand classical economics, micro economics and certainly not Austrian economics. Which is why he remains a partisan hack.
The New deal did not save anyone, it prolonged the depression. Learn some economics will you.
@Visfen What you say about Hoover and FDR is simple nonsense. I know you wish to ignore the fact that the New Deal was good and it rescued the country, especially since a lot of the 'employment' in 1932 was people in part time jobs and even then the workforce had been reduced the New Deal put people back into full time employment, it saved the country. People pulled their money out of banks because they were not sure banks had enough capital not because of the Fed.
@Meade556 They would have enough capital if the FED did step in. They didn't step in because the FED was looking out for the larger banks at the expense of the smaller ones. This is how centralization and government planning works. The big guys win and the smaller guys loses. You lose entrepreneurship and you get high unemployment. The poor stay poor and the rich become richer. There's no such thing as government with corporatism, government is corporation. Just open your eyes you blind fool.
@Visfen Government is corporation. Paul Krugman would agree with you. It works that way not because of central planning but because of the political influence those people are able to bring because of their money. It is also why FDR although he had a bailout, through job creation and aiming to raise the price of food, and offsetting adverse affects by putting people back into work and feeding people, thus recapitalizing the banks.
@Meade556 Yes, government is a corporation. Which is why we shouldn't give it monopoly power, which Krugman doesn't understand at all. His esthetic view of the government is that it is this godlike institution with supreme morality. Very much like Stiglitz he doesn't apply the same criticism he aims to the private sector the government. A typical modern progressive that is, clueless about political structures. Central planning breeds corruption, without central planning there's no one to bribe.
@Visfen Hello there Grover! You JERK! Govt is a great idea, a not-for profit insurance corporation. He does criticize the Govt (Stliglitz) you fool, have you even read "Freefall"? Have you ever considered the way Govt works, the way it actually is? Also I would point out Friedman was tried in Chile and he failed. 1982 is a clear failure of CHicago school economics.
@Meade556 No they are not. They are blinded by their esthetic view of the economy to understand the broader picture. While should I read that book on FDR when there are so many other books on the economy of that time, which is what matters? I'm not interested in history, I'm interested in economic history.
He criticizes the government for "not regulating enough". That's moronic. Regulations increased extensively.
I'm partly in politics so I have some idea how government works. :D
@Visfen All history is tied together you fool. What increase in regulation? Over the period 1981-2009? No wonder we're so messed up you are out of your mind.
@Meade556 Well regulation is by any healthy person not measured by simply Glass Steagall, there are so much more to the financial industry than that law (and if that caused the problem would have occurred in the banks first, it didn't). Regulatory budget and staffing levels grew by almost 50%. The federal register grew in pages, the Code of Federal Regulation grew by 4500 pages. 28 billion more in regulatory costs. 98 rules implemented with a greater cost than a hundred million.
@Meade556 My criticism of Stiglitz is that his research of market failures see failures in markets (duh, humanity is flawed) but he identifies the very same problems in the government - only they are worse there because it is a monopoly. His moronic solution is to "fix government". By his own accounts you have to disagree with his ridiculous conclusion. That's like getting cancer to cure a cough and then fix the cancer.
It's because he's trapped in his esthetic view of the market.
@Visfen That is a stupid argument. Banks too big to fail have a monopoly. Corporations that can be rechartered so easily have a monopoly. Don't get all anti-Govt when it saved us.
@Meade556 No, they don't have a monopoly. Then you don't even know what a monopoly is. What's the point in trying to have a discussion with you if you can't even understand the proper usage of words? Besides, you should read The Myth of the Robber Barons, Burton W. Folsom.
The government doesn't save anyone you fool. As a progressive you need to read at least marx, bakunin, prodhon and spencer. Learn some political economy, you're stuck in a bubble. The mainstream bubble of ridiculousness
@Meade556 What Friedman tried in Chile didn't fail. It was implemented very slowly, by a dictator, that much is sure, but it didn't fail. Chile is South Americas richest country by far. And all Friedman did was to write a letter when asked what could help Chile. He hardly worked with Pinochet. What have you done, read Klein's ridiculous hit piece?
Chicago school economics is far to left wing for me, but at least it's not underconsumptions theories debunked in the early 19th century.
@Visfen In 1982 the economy crashed in Chile! It did not recover its 1973 output until 1989, a lost two decades. The Chileans are prosperous due to their post '82 policies, don't argue theory and say it works when everything shows, but the theory itself that it does not.
@Meade556 You're measuring government ouput in 73. Which is useless. In 73 the economy was going into hyperinflation, it took a decade to get inflation and the debt under control. Then the fruition of the polices implemented by Pinochet in line with Friedman started baring fruit. (And it was a several step plan, so they were still being implemented in the 80s).
You need to read economic history and stop reading hit-pieces like Naomi Kleins book on neoliberalism. She's clueless about economics
@Meade556 FDR didn't create jobs, he created make work projects. People literary digging ditches and filling them up. It's called capital destruction for us that understand finance and business, for ivy league professors that don't know squat about economics, this is called "stimulus", just wasting money. It's utter and complete crap. You need productive work.
FDR is by far the worst president in US history. A complete psycho.
Recapitatlizing? You don't even know what the word means.
@Visfen Oh yes I do. You also are ignorant of what the New Deal is. He put people into productive work. People built roads, improved railways, and built power station, this demanded materials which stimulated industry, suddenly businesses had money and they spent it on their projects and had guaranteed income from the demand the Govts work created. Instead of throwing money at finance we should have spent more time repairing and upgrading infrastructure.
@Meade556 Government is not a not-for-profit insurance corporation. It is a for-power corporation that works to help the friends of whomever is elected. It's a monopoly on force. A vile institution.
Productive by what measure? By your measure? Not by the markets measure, that's for sure, and the markets measure is what matters because that is how intersubjective consensus is reached for what marginal utility and prices should be.
Your understanding of the new deal is that of a child.
@Visfen I am not going to debate this any further when you come at me with simplistic platitudes like New Deal work was "digging holes and filling them" If you won't take this seriously then I will not continue anymore.
@Meade556 You're absurdly unaware of what it says in the theory of money and interest by Keynes if you think that is simplistic platitudes. It LITERARY says that in Keynesian economics. And you know what, some programs FDR did engage in was exactly that. Like subsidizing farmers and burning the crops.
If you don't even know where you yourself are coming from. Then how is it even possible to criticize your position? You have this soft position that floats around and sticks to anything you like.
@Meade556 The New Deal did nothing to help the economy. The underlying structural problems were still there, which unemployment was indicating. All it did was prolong the correction by pumping in debt into the economy and boosting GDP trough this dishonest fashion. Sort of like a person that lives of his credit card instead of changing his habits, or keep taking drugs instead of going into remission.
Read about the depression of 1920 to get a comparison.
@Visfen That was a recession, not a depression and 1929 like 2008 was a credit bubble. Besides Govt induced growth is as valid as private induced growth. It saved my Grandfather and Alan Grayson's grandfather and probably you as well, so don't bash the New Deal. Were it not for it, the economy would not have recovered, probably.
@Meade556 Please read Milton Fridmand and Anna Schwartz paper on this, then read Rothbards book on the depression.
It was a depression. All recessions are depression. It's the same thing, they have just changed the word. Before that it was called a panic.
The first year of 1920 was worse than the stock market crash of 29. But the government did nothing, the FED did nothing, so the market restructured. That's what downturns are for, flushing out the bad investments.
@Meade556 Government growth is an oxymoron and quite incomprehensible.Read Rothbards argument on GDP. If something is not market evaluated how can we determine its' value?They solve this by saying that the cost is the value.Like if I built a giant cement dildo in the desert with the governments money, the value it whatever it cost. That's why war increases GDP. Value is not increased however, economic efficiency is not
Krugman and Keynesians don't understand this. They are lost in abstractions
@Meade556 After WWII the budget was cut by a third, Keynesians predicted the economy would spiral into another depression, that it would be the worst year ever. The US then recovered and had its' best year in all of history in 1949 (while aggregate demand was lower)
FDR was a crazed psychopath. He burned food and killed livestock while people were starving in a delusional attempt to get the price up. He put people in concentration camps and persecuted civilians.
@Visfen I am not going to lie, razing crops and killing livestock to help bail out the farmers was not a genius idea perhaps and it did not work too well, except in the sense that farmers were able to pay back their mortgages and without a massive govt handout, the banks were recapitalized. Success. Besides Keynes predicted there would be a problem with cut backs in Govt spending as he had not reckoned on the fact that people had accumulated many savings during WWII
@Meade556 "not work too well". Get real! It was psychotic! It was completely insane. To use any other words is an insult to the thousands of people who starved to death.
Mortgages for farms? What the hell are you talking about?
Banks were supposed to be recapitalized trough the FED, but the FED failed the banks.
People didn't accumulate savings during WWII. Keynesians believe war and natural disasters are good fort the economy. They don't understand what they are measuring.
@bonfirejovi Booms don't = prosperity, rather the illusion of it, ie illusion of real wealth created on credit expansion. FDR's new deal did not bring the U.S. out of the depression.
@gipcambero At least 4 economists have produced Nobel Prize winning research, supporting Supply Side economics. There is no empirical research supporting Keynes. None.
@gipcambero Bad government and corruption has harmed South America.The freest economy in South America, Chile, is also the best.
You are partially correct: The freest economy (per the Economic Freedom Index) is either are wealthy Chinese nation/states of Hong Kong and Singapore.
This has been flagged as spam show
What do you all think of Fannie & Freddie Mac execs recently getting sued for subprime fraud by the SEC? These are the first charges brought against those responsible for the financial meltdown.
CrowdPleeza 3 weeks ago
Holy shit? you can look at who is around them? four words: cast sunstien...van jones.... just saying
mixmastermeeks 5 months ago
Put the money of the interest made off TARP and the Auto bailouts. in too every American who filed a 1040's pocket
Salvysahagun 6 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 7 months ago
Listening to Krugman is like listening to a freshman in college. His knowledge is so damn shallow.
Visfen 8 months ago
@Visfen Oh yes this tenured economics professor at Yale, who you say makes no sense because what he says makes sense. It does make sense, when the mass of people have more money the top do a lot better. Govt should have a stake and get the upside when it has bailed people out. What has happened is Uncle Sam has been beaten up by these peole, then he rescues them and is now being attacked with knives. It is your knowledge which is shallow.
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 But his knowledge of any broader subject is based on nit-pickying data that supports this democratic epos he's so partisan to support. There's no other way of putting it, his knowledge is shallow. He's a blind ideologue! He doesn't care about the truth.
What does it matter if he went to an ivy leauge college? He's still wrong on economics all the damn time.
Government shouldn't bail out anyone!
I don't really see the point in debating this with you, as your knowledge is even worse.
Visfen 7 months ago
@Visfen He is not a graduate of Princeton. HE TEACHES THERE. His knowledge is hardly shallow, just because someone comes along and says "In practice this is what works" without omitting data does not make their argument simplistic, usually they are right. He, like others does not support the Democratic Party anymore. Time and time again we put our faith in them to save us from the depredations of the Republicans and their supporters and they have failed us.
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 You know what they say? Those who can't, they teach
His knowledge is extremely shallow. Like his support of fiscal stimulus. He must have missed literary 50 years of economic science on the subject. Tax cuts is a better stimulus. (Though I don't believe in stimulus at all, I think it is prolonging corrections)
Yes he does. He's been a typical limousine liberal for quite some time
Of course they fail, their policies don't work. Which is what economics teaches us
Check econjwatch org
Visfen 7 months ago
@Visfen Not always true, it requires great skill to teach, to explain the fundamentals and how it works. Besides he tried to work in the priv sec and I have personal experiences with the problems he faced. if you don't toe the orthodox line you never get promoted and often you get fired. Tax cuts are not a better stimulus because people when their confidence has been eroded will save, they will not spend. More than 50% of the last great Bush tax cut of '08 was put into savings.
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 The skills required to teach are not the same skills that are required to find the truth. Charisma and structured plans are important for teaching. While introversion, analytical skills and creativity are important to get to the truth. Krugman doesn't have these skills, he barely has Charisma, what he has is a narrative that suits the op-ed pieced in NYT
Tax cuts are a better stimulus. The science is very clear on this. You just don't know any of it because you don't care to.
Visfen 7 months ago
@Visfen I do know it and David Stockman worked out that it did not work. I suppose we can abrogate Friedman and Hayek because they taught then. Krugman, if you cared to ever read his work is very charismatic.
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 What are you talking about?! David Stockman criticized Republican fiscal policy. Not monetarism or Austrian economics. If anything he criticized Keynesianism, as deficit spending is a Keynesian idea.
I've read his work, but more importantly I've seen him speak. He's not fun to listen to. To me he just comes of as this down the middle guy that has nothing interesting to say because he's busy trying to fit in. In order to be a good teacher you have to be more like Olberman or Limbaugh.
Visfen 7 months ago
@Visfen I'm sorry if rationality does not fit in with you, but we are henceforth terminating this conversation. Viagra using, terrorist inciting, lying Rush Limbaugh? Come back please when you are serious, have read history, Krugman and Stiglitz. Do not waste my time with what Limbaugh says because he is merely playing a character and a sinister one at that. Lloyd Blankfein liberal? GE liberal? Come down to reality.
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 How does that in any way refer to what I said? What I said was that Limbaugh has charisma. Do you not agree with that? I never referenced anything Limbaugh said. Learn how to read and understand the actual sentence, not just respond to words
I have read Krugman and Stiglitz. Krugman hasn't written anything interesting at all. Stiglitz doesn't apply his same theory of institutional failures to government as he does to the market, even though he has seen the problems by his own account
Visfen 7 months ago
@Visfen Krugman writes plenty of interesting things. I enjoy his articles and Stiglitz criticizes Govt for failing to do what any business would do, which is what Krugman is arguing in this clip. A bailout should happen, but in such a way as is guaranteed it is not just a reinforcement of failure. Stiglitz is not nice to the Treasury and the Fed so dont be ridiculous and assume that because I am left wing I am stupid. We tend to be a lot smarter than you lot.
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 I've never seen him write anything interesting at all. It's all mainstream jargon that I'm all too familiar with. Same goes for Stiglitz.
The latest nobel prize winners had interesting works. How conditions for property rights can change our behavior and how we take care of things. Not just "the government should do this because private industry is bad".
No bailout should ever happen.
Stiglitz needs to analyze the government like he analyzes markets. Rothbard has done that
Visfen 7 months ago
@Visfen You read his work and saw what you wanted to see, please do not waste my time anymore. I am tired of "dynamic" people from the priv sec screaming for help when your gambling goes awry while people like me are shunted to the side and true dynamism is kept outside of the loop where we WOULD DO GOOD.
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 I've never screamed for help. I hate that the government bails out people that I compete with who fails. But then they are bigger so they can buy more lobbyists than I can. And they have such good connections in the democratic party in particular so they get to be disease that cures their own existence as so many people are clueless and think "more regulation" in anti-anything but small businesses and competition. Regulations help the big guy, as do bailouts.
Good is subjective btw.
Visfen 7 months ago
@Meade556 Tend to be smarter than you lot? Who is my lot? Libertarians? No I doubt it. Libertarianism is the most over-representated and was for some time the most common ideology in MENSA. I'm a double major, economics and engineering. I work in finance while studying and I live of what I make in the stock market. I'm also involved in politics on a local level here in Sweden. Don't try to label me as a conservative. Conservatives are just as stupid as you left wing liberals are.
Visfen 7 months ago
@Visfen Thank you. At least you are not American. I am sorry Hitler did not win and achieve your fantasy of a race of "supermen" ruling the world. Who was that Swedish Scientist who contributed so much to the understanding of Acids and Bases but during his life was more acknowledged for a racist work on how white people were superior to others. People are people.
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 So now I'm a racist/nazi. Yes, that seems to be what you lunatics on the left turn to when you have realized your delusions of idealism are nothing but utopianism and naivete.
What is so absurd is that you're branding me for something I have no part in, only because of my nationality. That kinda tells me how brainwashed and utterly uninteresting you are to have a discussion with. If you can't even see trough that kind of narrative you're completely lost to the propaganda.
Visfen 7 months ago
@Visfen I grant you Limbaugh has charisma in the same way Hitler did.
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 Omg! Savings is what stimulates growth you imbecile. We save and invest it in scientific research or building factories. Simply increasing consumption is not growth, it makes stuff more expensive and we have less money to build and research new stuff.
No, what I say about Hoover and FDR is the truth. You simply haven't read any real history on the subject. The New Deal was a disaster. Those who believe otherwise simply don't know their history or basic economics. Like Krugman and you
Visfen 7 months ago
@Visfen I have read Leuchtenburg and the Lion and the Fox by McGregor Burns, so don't get me started, it is you who has read a bunch of theory. BTW I have never seen the private sector inclined to invest, even when interest rates were low so there was ostensibly less pressure for higher return yields.
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 You don't even understand what low interest rates do. It changes the time preference and capital structure. You get lots of investment in long term projects like housing or manufacturing, at the expense of short term. Basically, if we save less we have less money for large products (as interest rates is a function of savings in a free monetary system).
How can you see you never seen the private sector invest when we just had a credit boom and collapse?That's absurd.
Visfen 7 months ago
@Visfen I do I was right up there with the powerful and saw these idiots argue all for going into the toxic mortgage market instead of investing the money we had in creating jobs, instead we focused on taking a lot of money from the bottom of the pyramid instead of figuring out how to help them and still make a profit. Krugman and Stiglitz are right. Good so you have not read the book or Leuchtenburg, then come back when you do.
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 "In creating jobs". What are you even talking about? Do you understand how finance works? We don't give a shit about creating jobs, we care about making money and we're very good at it.
Either way, the largest buyer in the market was the government GMO's, Fannie and Freddie. They created the entire boom and then later the market for securitized mortgages.
What pyramid? The economy is not a zero sum game. I wonder why I'm even bothering with you, you don't know basic economics 101.
Visfen 7 months ago
@Visfen No you're not. People like me were sidelined and were told "You're not a team player. You don't know how to handle risk." I should point out also that Govt issued mortgages had a lower default rate because they were better structured. The economic system is like a pyramid, with each ascending level you have improved living standards and we charged poor people exorbitant interest rates on their credit cards and did a lot of stupid things that facilitated the crash.
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 So what if the government loans had a lower default risk? You don't understand what I just said if that is your response. Issuing the loans isn't all that matters. If you check F&F part of the market up to 2004 you can see how it goes up, while there should have been a correction, this is where the bubble really started taking of (it started in like 98-99) then they stopped buying into the market and moved over to the securitization market where they were the largest buyer in the world
Visfen 7 months ago
@Meade556 The economic system is not like a pyramid. The economic system is volountary exchange between people for mutual benefit, a biological create of spontaneous order.
Your abstraction of a pyramid is the result of victimization ideology and critical theory dominating the media, culture and academia. This marxist frankfurt-school of thought about categorizing people after absurd categories like race, sex, income groups etc. instead of looking at real oppressive structures like government
Visfen 7 months ago
@Meade556 James MacGregor Burns have no understanding of economic history. I haven't read that book, but I reckon it talks about the policies he implemented without looking at the implications, focusing on the man and his intentions. Right? That's how most historians work, but that just touches the surface. Without theory you don't understand the world, all you're seeing is pretty colors and events. Without theory you end up seeing the world as a child.
Visfen 7 months ago
David Gregory is a certifiable moron, all the years in the WH press corp could never come up with a worthy question for Bush pawns,.
nickmantas 8 months ago
I want to hear an actual Keynesian help me here. How does spending and artificial infusion of credit / monetary supply not result in destructive inflation? Aren't the Consumer Price Indexes going up? Aren't oil and gold and other commodities at all time highs? Can someone explain what increased spending will do but increase consumption and demand, not savings and production? I am an economics neophyte drawn more to Austrian economics, but want to hear the other side of the story fairly.
finarrykahn13 8 months ago
@finarrykahn13 Because you are not printing more money, you are going on the faith and credit of a nation. I would be happy to discuss the faith and credit idea more. Also bear in mind Hayek might well have opposed deregulation, in the snippets of him I have read he argues for Govt to not run businesses, but to regulate business and ensure that consumers are protected.
Meade556 7 months ago
David Gregory is a typical Villager. He puts on Republicans and lets them speak their talking points and then grills Democrats about the latest Republican charges and interrupts them when they try to tell their ideas.
SpitfireOFatj 1 year ago
My advice to you is to ditch this unfalsefiable, fraudulant school of pseudo-economics and go put yourself through school on the subject. Study the real schools of economics, you know ones which provide evidence for their claims. I have actually taken advanced econ courses for my business degree. They require competancy in math, which makes the discipline difficult. It's worth the effort though.
Newenlightenmentnow 1 year ago
@Newenlightenmentnow "I have actually taken advanced econ courses for my business degree. They require competancy in math"
"Math"? Since when does math have anything to do with the economy? Republicans tell us it's all about "confidence". They would tell you to dump the math and take psychology. You can work in their Ministry of Plenty.
SpitfireOFatj 1 year ago
@SpitfireOFatj Math does, in working out how a financial product will function. But seriously when the Govt withdraws its spending when the private sector has been so slack, how much confidence do you think there will be then?
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 Republicans decided to fall back on their penny pinching reputation to distract America from the fact that they created this mess in the first place and lied us into Iraq. They don't CARE about creating jobs. They WANT the government to go broke so it is powerless to go up against the international corporations that have no loyalty to this country.
SpitfireOFatj 7 months ago
@SpitfireOFatj Three years ago I would have said you were a well-intentioned conspiracy theory nut. Today I say you are absolutely correct.
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 Well, since you're open to that, try this: What is the number one, well documented business expense a company can declare? Payroll. Therefore, if you want to "create jobs" you should do the OPPOSITE of what Republicans claim. Raising corporate taxes will cost companies to hire to claim the deduction.
We also need to change the law so customers come before shareholders. That's what's driving the phenomenon of having your Fritos stock go up while the bag is mostly air.
SpitfireOFatj 7 months ago
@SpitfireOFatj I never thought of either those solutions. Solution 2, not so much. Number 1 count me in!
BTW I think the Democrats are broken and far too corrupt and right wing? Third Party anybody?
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 The Blue Dogs lost big time in the last election and the DLC closed up shop so there is a strong possibility that we could see idiots like Harold Ford go away.
Or land on FOX "News" thus making them even more of a joke.
SpitfireOFatj 7 months ago
@SpitfireOFatj
Absolutely spot on. It still amazes me some people fail to (or perhaps refuse to) notice that the corporate lobbying network pushes constantly for a less efficient, less powerful government with no restrictions on the actions of those who can afford to buy their own legislation.
And yet, curiously, despite the crystal clear agenda of the corporate sphere to depower the government, somehow section of idiots think that depowering government even MORE will defeat corporatism. :p
Lodatzor 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Capitalism is the final chapter in historic evolution of THE TYRANNY OF PRIVATE PROPERTY RELATIONSHIP of alienation,exploitation and suffering of humanity, a Market mechanism where minority interest is the NEGATION OF OUR COMMON HUMANITY IN COOPERATION and HARMONY. We shall overcome the structure of minority power and oppression and reclaim our planet for a world of cooperation for our common needs and well being, expressing our energetic creative divinity in freedom of being.
arzoyan 1 year ago
We need a tax rate on the rich more reflective of historical precedence. ie 40-60% Close the loop holes.
MrBishopWalters 1 year ago 6
@MrBishopWalters The whole world needs it, yet taxes have been decreasing world wide for 30-40 years. And everyone HAS to keep decreasing taxes to "stay competitive". It's a race to the bottom and the bottom is anarcho-capitalism. It's crazy. The UK/US lowered taxes and the rest of the world followed and now we're in a downward spiral. We need a public sector at about 45-50% to keep demand reasonably stable.
freedomthrough 10 months ago 3
YES we NEED more taxes. I have WAY too much money and have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what to do with it. I would only trust THE GOVERNMENT to spend money on things. They have all the GOOD IDEAS about HIGH SPEED RAIL and which COUNTRY TO INVADE NEXT. After all we NEED stable demand of COMPLETELY USELESS SHIT otherwise the economy might actually produce GOODS AND SERVICES and people might INCREASE THEIR STANDARD OF LIVING.
PLEASE GREAT KRUGGERMAN. SHOW US THE WAY.
edwinorc 5 months ago 3
@freedomthrough ANARCHO- CAPITALISM?!? I'd like that!!!
truevoice08 5 months ago
@truevoice08 Good for you. Have a biscuit.
freedomthrough 5 months ago
@MrBishopWalters The reasons for those historically high tax rates were 1) nobody was actually paying that amount because there were so many loopholes-- even though Reagan dramatically cut tax rate % on the wealthiest Americans, tax receipts still doubled from 1980 to 1990 because he closed loopholes as well. 2) Because of technological developments, it is much easier for U.S.-headquartered businesses to offshore some operations to a low-tax country. Indeed, higher taxes promote offshoring.
Trimbler00 7 months ago
@Trimbler00 Not so. Think about it "Cut my taxes or I will offshore" and then they go ahead and do it anyway because it increases profit. So it does not work. Even Stockman admits that the increase in Federal revenues only occurred because they realized how bad things were by cutting so fast and deep. Taxes actually had to be increased again and loopholes closed and Federal tax revenue made up a greater percentage of the GDP in 1985 than in 1979. Stockman admits he was wrong.
Meade556 7 months ago
@MrBishopWalters u mad?
BirgirZ 4 months ago
Silly progressives.
Silly Paul Krugman.
Silly government response.
Mises > Keynes.
Polypropylganda 1 year ago
@Polypropylganda That's a pretty bold statement. You austrians claim that your theories are superior to keynsianism. Why don't you support it with math, statistics, and evidence? Either economics is a science or it isn't. I say it is a science, and therefore you need to follow the scientific method. Your hypothesis must be falsifiable (that is testible, and there must premises if true, disproves your theory). Austrianism is more in line with the magical thinking you find in religion.
Newenlightenmentnow 1 year ago
@Newenlightenmentnow my personal hypothesis as to why austrians don't use math is because you can't do it. Notice this is a testable hypothesis.
Newenlightenmentnow 1 year ago
@Newenlightenmentnow Ludwig von Mises said, "Science does not give us absolute and final certainty. It only gives us assurance within the limits of our mental abilities and the prevailing state of scientific thought."
Keynes made assumptions such as treating consumption and investment equivalently and added them together in his aggregate demand equations. Economists have made false assumptions since.
Polypropylganda 1 year ago
@Polypropylganda Then it seems to me, what the "Austrian school" argues is, if you can't prove it with math, then argue against using math and the scientific method. That's very suspicious, and in my mind discredits the entire Austrian School. I don't care that Keynes made mistakes. So did Isaac Newton. The Scientific Method discovered or will discover these errors. The moment you say, "the scientific method doesn't apply" and propose untestable theories, you have no credibility.
Newenlightenmentnow 1 year ago
@Newenlightenmentnow To the contrary. The best application of the scientific method is first identifying what the limits of your methods are. The Austrians apply math, but do so understanding economics is a social science.
My research is in the physical sciences, not economics, which became an interest only recently. When I evaluate literature in my field, I look at the methods first, before I even permit myself to read the conclusions.
Polypropylganda 1 year ago
@Polypropylganda Right except that just because economics is a social science does not excuse it from the scientific method. The scientific method is used to devolop theories in other social sciences, which is 100% dealing with "unpredictable" human behavior. The test of a sound theory is whether it can be repeated, if it's falsifiable, and more importantly if it can make accurate predictions. My biggest problem with Austrian economics is that it's not falsifiable.
Newenlightenmentnow 1 year ago
@Newenlightenmentnow Repeatable? History is on our side, fiat currency always ends.
What's happening in the world today is the end of an era of global fiat currency that began in 1971 with the Nixon shock. There is another global financial event coming that will eclipse the one in 2008, namely the bond/dollar bubble.
NeoKeynesians think they can replace the failing fiat currencies of the world with another fiat currency. It won't work for the same reason it has never worked.
Polypropylganda 1 year ago
@Polypropylganda No history isn't on your side. Your side makes the absurd claim that just because there is inflation in the history of a monetary unit, the currency is doomed to collapse. Provide evidence. You have none. Provide a solitary shred of evidence that going on the gold standard will help anything. You haven't. I'm unconvinced by anything the Austrians have to say, and apparently real economis, whether they be keynsians, neo-classical, monetarists agree.
Newenlightenmentnow 1 year ago
@Newenlightenmentnow Furthermore, I find it laughable that you try to take credit for the 2008 collapse. Really? Well if you keep making the same nonsense prediction over and over, eventually you will be right. I also laugh at your assertion (yes they are assertions until you provide evidence) that inflation is our greatest problem. Really? According to the CPI , the US faced .34% deflation. Your idea falls on its head.
Newenlightenmentnow 1 year ago
@Newenlightenmentnow Anyway, I'm off to spend some of my flat currency. I have stuff to do you know. All the same, have a good holiday!
Newenlightenmentnow 1 year ago
@Newenlightenmentnow Happy holidays to you as well!
Polypropylganda 1 year ago
@Newenlightenmentnow Time will tell.
The inflation of the past two decades is due to and has gone unnoticed because of Asian markets buying FRNs and Tnotes for their foreign exchange reserves. They realized our politicians burgeoned the deficit too much, the dollars and bonds are overvalued, and they are dumping them. All that pent-up inflation will land on our investment-neglected economy hard. Bernanke's job is only to make it a controlled demolition.
You are the frog in the pot.
Polypropylganda 1 year ago
Listening to this makes me sick, If only Paul Krugman had been put in charge. The bad debt is still out there and sooner or later it has to be accounted for. The investment banks took the taxpayers money and stashed it away without lending it to businesses which starved for capital laid off workers. Wall Street lied to the president and lied to the American people while raking in the profits.
Bullettube 1 year ago
Why do we need to do something Paul?? We need a free market. Not some knee-jerk reaction that bury's people.
AussieAustrianBlog 1 year ago
Alan Greenspan (former Federal Reserve Chairman) now works for John Paulson's fund. Guess what John Paulson's fund's BIGGEST position is right now? GOLD. . Don't say you weren't told. Protect your families wealth. Visit: goldsave.co/
Efficacious24 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
check my channel for video's about daytrading and trade like me in forex (EUR/USD, CAD/JPY etc.), stocks (coca-cola, phillips etc.), commodities (gold, silver, oil etc.) and indices (Nasdaq, Nikkei etc.
i0am0a0daytrader 1 year ago
"Almost everyone agrees that we need a rescue of some kind."
It's not a question of how many people. It's whether these are the same people that were convinced housing prices would keep going up. It seems the people who created the problem are still the ones in power (both democrats and republicans). How about getting someone like Peter Schiff, who saw this all coming, to take it on?
greenforce888 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Krugman in 2002 after the Tech Bubble "... And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan NEEDS TO CREATE a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble."
Krugman is responsible for the housing bubble! He has made a lot of people poor and is offering more destructive advice! Shame on you Krudman!
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
This dummy only blames Gramm because he is a republican, what about the Democrats that help repeal Glass Steagall like Pelosi, Clinton and Summers?
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
I'LL HAVE A HARVEY WALLBANGER OR gLENMARY sCHOTCH ON THE HOUSE, ON THE ROCKS, HOLD MINTS.
masterman2324 1 year ago
"Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble."
- Paul Krugman, 8/2/2002 in his NY Times blog
julebuggy 1 year ago
thank u so much for posting that.. fantastic piece..
alex30085 1 year ago
I blame Paul Krugman for having a microphone full of lies, and also blame Greenspan and Helicopter Bernanke who only know how to print money.
edusalcedo 1 year ago
If banks expect future +ve cash flow sufficient to re-establish +ve equity, then we can bail them out, if not, then they should go bust.
Agree that capital infusion should be rewarded with an equity stake. No need to remove bad debts, just inject capital & take equity.
dfjpr 1 year ago
i blame paul krugman and alan greenspan
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Study finds Paul Krugman is the most partisan economist. Krugman was the only economist to "significantly" change his stances for partisan reasons. Krugman has even gone so far as to contradict his own findings to bash Republican politicians. - Brett Barkley, Econ Journal Watch, May 2010
islandmuffin 1 year ago
@islandmuffin The peer-reviewed research was published in May 2010 issue of the Econ Journal Watch (EJW), edited by Daniel B. Klein.
Seven Nobel laureates are members of the EJW Advisory Council
islandmuffin 1 year ago
Krugman is an idiot.
Full of double-speak, and he doesn't even know it.
irritablearchitect 1 year ago
Socialism = Government control of people and property. Europeans fled government tyranny to America. France was freer than Russia.
Like people, money flees tyranny and goes to liberty. Freer economies attract people and money.
islandmuffin 1 year ago
@islandmuffin please define what you think makes a "free" economy.
mwells219 1 year ago
@mwells219 The separation between state and business, like the separation of church and state.
Laissez Faire
islandmuffin 1 year ago
yeah because all wealth and power should be held by a plutocracy of the top 5 percent and we should all be working for them and do what they say because obviously if they have all the money they're better than most of us. just keep plugging your ears and shouting socialism and everything will be just the way you like it.
mwells219 1 year ago
@mwells219 You ever why more Europeans and Canadians immigrate to he USA, than Americans emigrate?
Economic freedom is good for the soul.
Socialism is tyranny.
People want freedom over human zoo socialism.
islandmuffin 1 year ago
@islandmuffin please stop making idiotic generalities. to simply say socialism is tyranny goes against many of the working social democracies that exist in europe. and only idiots say capitalism is a perfect system.
mwells219 1 year ago
@islandmuffin you dont know shit about socialism...
tiburcio9999 1 year ago
@tiburcio9999 I know the economic destruction under socialism, and that people who call themselves socialists are the world’s greatest mass murderers, with 140 hundred million dead in the name of socialism.
islandmuffin 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@islandmuffin
"socialists are the world’s greatest mass murderers, with 140 hundred million dead in the name of socialism..."
Can you name one or two of such incidents in the history?
allgoo19 1 year ago
@allgoo19 The road of bones, the red army and the collectivization in farms.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi
"The road of bones, the red army and the collectivization in farms.."
Those were communists, not socialists as in Sweden, Norway etc.
They were also lead by a dictator, where the real problem was at. It's like saying Democracy killed millions because Hitler was an elected politician.
allgoo19 1 year ago
@islandmuffin as ideology maybe, but as a economic system has never exsisted, I think you're confusing socialism with communism
tiburcio9999 1 year ago
@islandmuffin
You are a moron!
Socialism is simply public ownership of the means of production and property. It's actually the tax payers who own them.
And Europeans fled socialism back in 1492 A.D., when there was no socialism? Marx was born in the 1800s. You are the typical conservative nut who doesn't know any acquaintance with reality. I bet you think the Earth is 6000 years old and evolution didn't happen.
LogicalFlawDetector 1 year ago
Keynesian economics is socialism on demand, that you can turn on and off. It is also a perpetual motion machine that must be timed properly. And we know economist cannot time markets, so the foundational basis is easily proven false.
islandmuffin 1 year ago
Everything I claim is backed up by research. For example, I reference economic freedom, Transparency and GDP per capita indexes. And I reference peer reviewed research by Nobel Prize winning economists. I represent the scientific intellectual majority of economists. The free market is supported by thousands of research papers, and multiple dozens of Nobel prizes.
Only say things you can prove with empirical data, or you end up a dogmatic ignoramus.
islandmuffin 1 year ago
What does research tell us about the best balance between economic liberty and socialist quasi-slavery? The indices of economic freedom measure economic freedom, and empirical studies based on these rankings have found them to be correlated with higher living standards, economic growth, income equality, less corruption and less political violence.
You feel. But you do not think
islandmuffin 1 year ago
Bad government and corruption has harmed South America.The freest economy in South America, Chile, is also the best.
You are partially correct: The freest economy (per the Economic Freedom Index) is either are wealthy Chinese nation/states of Hong Kong and Singapore.
islandmuffin 1 year ago
@islandmuffin
Chile was one of the most corrupted state in the world under Pinochet (established by the American)
Singapore ins't Chinese nation state. Then I think it's quite laughable to compare a city state to a global economy. Why not Lichtenstein, Monaco or cayman silands ?? lol
Liberalism works in none Big economies.
gipcambero 1 year ago
@gipcambero
Liberalism is not synonymous with communism. Liberals support a capitalist society with a bit of socialism.
LogicalFlawDetector 1 year ago
@LogicalFlawDetector No, liberals support Keynesianism, which is not capitalism or socialism. Capitalism is just the Austrian school of economics (free market) and socialism is the Marxist school (public/common ownership). Keynesian is an entirely different school which is a mixed economy and where public dollars are used to account for and prevent declines in private spending on the private sector.
ModerateGuy738 1 year ago
@islandmuffin
The only true Global liberal economy is Communist China
gipcambero 1 year ago
@gipcambero Pinochet, the tyrant, created the most prosperous economy in South America, because he liberated markets. See any GDP, transparency and economic freedom index.
See the Economic Freedom Indexes. China is not free n any scale, but as they become freer, and reject socialism, they become wealthier. Marxism killed 65 million. Capitalism raised hundreds of millions out of poverty.
islandmuffin 1 year ago
What a kook! Krugman admitted Bush had nothing to do with the housing bubble, which was the catalyst for this mess, and then his solution was to raise taxes and the minimum wage. Are Government agents more rational than private agents? His dogma is irrational. Lets hope in the future he gets a Nobel Prize like The Dixie Chicks for displaying his profound stupidity. Keynesian economic has never worked ever, so where does Paul get his economics from? Class warfare & economic envy, not science
islandmuffin 1 year ago
In Europe it works
gipcambero 1 year ago
@gipcambero If you consider Europe as a whole, the system does NOT work very well with entrenched perpetually higher unemployment rates and significantly lower per capita incomes, on average.
How did one nation surpass all of Europe combined in nearly every measurable category that matters?
Why should Americans adopt the SAME failed ideologies that made all of Europe so very inferior?
Europe is only an example in the negative, of what not to do.
islandmuffin 1 year ago
@islandmuffin
"How did one nation surpass all of Europe combined in nearly every measurable category that matters? "
Europe is the biggest exporter in the world, Europe has a higher GDP than USA.
" lower per capita incomes, on average."
It mean nothing since USA higher income per capita is the result of the holding of the majority of Wealth in the hand of few people
gipcambero 1 year ago
@islandmuffin
All European nation that have praticed Keynesianism for quite a moment like Scandinavia, Germany etc have amongts the highest GDP per capita of the World
gipcambero 1 year ago
@gipcambero All have unstable pyramid schemes that will eventually crash. The perpetual motion machine of Keynesians economics will crash. That is why Europe has been liberalizing NOT socializing their markets.
islandmuffin 1 year ago
@islandmuffin
Well it's true tha before the crisis there was a certain tendency to liberaloze some markets but ut was mialy due to American pressure on GATT rounds and to a result of Nixon's decisoin to end fixed currncy rate.
Then USA is getting more and more socialized, the trend is changing side
gipcambero 1 year ago
@islandmuffin
The New deal, Kennedy's new frontier, Johnsonn's new society have all features of Keynesianism
Then even Regan decreased taxes and increased government defecit spending, so in a sense he applied Keynesian policies
gipcambero 1 year ago
@gipcambero Johnson, FDR and Obama are Americas worst Presidents, and have harmed our economy the most. Lots of Nobel Prize winning economists prove this. No economist has ever provided and empirical evince supporting New Deal.
Reagan was half right, because he needed to decrease spending too.
islandmuffin 1 year ago
@islandmuffin
"Lots of Nobel Prize winning economists prove this. " LOL you seem to be very naive, Nobel Prize in economy are only the result of the dominant economic ideology, that's why it went to Krugman in 2008.
gipcambero 1 year ago
@islandmuffin
"he needed to decrease spending "
The strong dollar and low defficit is due to Volcker policies under Carter (democrat). The highest amount of defficit was under the presidency of Reagan.
gipcambero 1 year ago
@islandmuffin
LOL Greenspan's policies were inspired by the thought that Free market are naturally efficient, it fails, admit it
gipcambero 1 year ago
@islandmuffin
"There is no empirical research supporting Keynes"
Again, you are very naive to believe that any economical theory can be supported empirically. Economy isn't like Mathematics or physics, it's just a question of faith in an ideology
gipcambero 1 year ago
@islandmuffin
Tell me one country except USA where liberalism succeeded ???
China ??
gipcambero 1 year ago
allgoo19 1 year ago
@allgoo19 That doesn't sound accurate. What about the roaring 20s, they were equally as prosperous as the 90s. Also Carter was the worst economic president prior to Bush. Forget about Stagflation? The fact that Bush and Carter are ahead of Coolidge is laughable. Also regardless of whether FDR got us out of the depression (took a long time), his presidency was not prosperous.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi
"What about the roaring 20s, "
It lasted only a few years(highest tax rate 25%), followed by a market crash caused great depression. Compare to that, economic boom after the great depression lasted 3 decades. During that time, highest tax rate was over 90%.
So, you disagree with Fobes magazine which says Carter better than 4 other (R) presidents. What's your credentials? And what data your opinion is based on?
allgoo19 1 year ago 7
@allgoo19 The crash didn't cause the great depression, it preceded it. What caused it was FDR and Hoover's interventionism.
Visfen 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Visfen "The crash didn't cause the great depression, it preceded it. What caused it was FDR and Hoover's interventionism."
Do you know what year was the peak of the depression in terms of the unemployment?
If you do, what year was it?
allgoo19 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Visfen "The crash didn't cause the great depression, it preceded it. What caused it was FDR and Hoover's interventionism."
No reply?
Does that mean you have no knowledge of the history? Then how did you come up with the conclusion that you just said? Is that what you read else where?
What's the point of telling somebody else's opinion as if like your own? You just want to act smarter than you actually are?
allgoo19 8 months ago
@Visfen Govt was not doing anything in 1920-1929. Crash happens in '29, the economy continues to plummet because private industry did nothing. The New Deal and then WWII saved the economy and I think people are unfair to Hoover, even though he did not do nearly enough, he did not do in effect, the New Deal. He did at least recognize that Govt needed to try and do something instead of just being passive. FDR was right, and those who opposed ND were wrong.
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 Hoover was the most interventionist president up to that time. Unemployment was actually going down before he instituted the smooth-hawley tariff, which then caused unemployment to go up again.
Most of the problems was with the FED though. They kept interest rates too low for too long preceding the crash (problems build up and then you restructure, that's how an economy works), then they didn't follow the rules of the gold standard to increase the Money Supply. So the banks crashed.
Visfen 7 months ago
@Visfen I do not care, unemployment was coming down for a bit, in 1930, but Hoover did not undertake any action because people's confidence had been destroyed by the crash, they pulled their money from the banks in a panic precipitating a second collapse. This money is too cheap argument is nonsense and for this simple reason. Would a steel manufacturer ever claim that the reason he failed was that the price of iron ore was too low?
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 Of course it was coming down "a bit", people were employed to nothing of productive value, but it was still unacceptably high. If Hoover or FDR had just let the correction take its' course it would have been over much sooner.
Peoples confidence? This is animal spirit nonsense.
You know why people pull their money out of banks? Because the FED failed.
Oh my, you know nothing. Interest rates are a PRICE. PRICES matter, they have information about important things in the economy
Visfen 7 months ago
@Visfen Interest rates in effect determine how costly a loan is to a lender, so people were complaining that credit was too plentiful, but considering how badly mortgages were structured low interest rates served the interests of these people as they could extract a lot of money from their borrowers and lend to each other with low interest further inflating the bubble. Yes people because an economy is just people interacting with each other.
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 Lower interest rates induces bubbles. We've known this for quite some time. Because of ABCT we also know why. Interest rates are a price and when you set or change prices without market forces, you distort the market.
Krugman doesn't know any monetarism, he doesn't understand classical economics, micro economics and certainly not Austrian economics. Which is why he remains a partisan hack.
The New deal did not save anyone, it prolonged the depression. Learn some economics will you.
Visfen 7 months ago
@Visfen What you say about Hoover and FDR is simple nonsense. I know you wish to ignore the fact that the New Deal was good and it rescued the country, especially since a lot of the 'employment' in 1932 was people in part time jobs and even then the workforce had been reduced the New Deal put people back into full time employment, it saved the country. People pulled their money out of banks because they were not sure banks had enough capital not because of the Fed.
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 They would have enough capital if the FED did step in. They didn't step in because the FED was looking out for the larger banks at the expense of the smaller ones. This is how centralization and government planning works. The big guys win and the smaller guys loses. You lose entrepreneurship and you get high unemployment. The poor stay poor and the rich become richer. There's no such thing as government with corporatism, government is corporation. Just open your eyes you blind fool.
Visfen 7 months ago
@Visfen Government is corporation. Paul Krugman would agree with you. It works that way not because of central planning but because of the political influence those people are able to bring because of their money. It is also why FDR although he had a bailout, through job creation and aiming to raise the price of food, and offsetting adverse affects by putting people back into work and feeding people, thus recapitalizing the banks.
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 Yes, government is a corporation. Which is why we shouldn't give it monopoly power, which Krugman doesn't understand at all. His esthetic view of the government is that it is this godlike institution with supreme morality. Very much like Stiglitz he doesn't apply the same criticism he aims to the private sector the government. A typical modern progressive that is, clueless about political structures. Central planning breeds corruption, without central planning there's no one to bribe.
Visfen 7 months ago
@Visfen Hello there Grover! You JERK! Govt is a great idea, a not-for profit insurance corporation. He does criticize the Govt (Stliglitz) you fool, have you even read "Freefall"? Have you ever considered the way Govt works, the way it actually is? Also I would point out Friedman was tried in Chile and he failed. 1982 is a clear failure of CHicago school economics.
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 No they are not. They are blinded by their esthetic view of the economy to understand the broader picture. While should I read that book on FDR when there are so many other books on the economy of that time, which is what matters? I'm not interested in history, I'm interested in economic history.
He criticizes the government for "not regulating enough". That's moronic. Regulations increased extensively.
I'm partly in politics so I have some idea how government works. :D
Visfen 7 months ago
@Visfen All history is tied together you fool. What increase in regulation? Over the period 1981-2009? No wonder we're so messed up you are out of your mind.
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 Well regulation is by any healthy person not measured by simply Glass Steagall, there are so much more to the financial industry than that law (and if that caused the problem would have occurred in the banks first, it didn't). Regulatory budget and staffing levels grew by almost 50%. The federal register grew in pages, the Code of Federal Regulation grew by 4500 pages. 28 billion more in regulatory costs. 98 rules implemented with a greater cost than a hundred million.
Visfen 7 months ago
@Meade556 My criticism of Stiglitz is that his research of market failures see failures in markets (duh, humanity is flawed) but he identifies the very same problems in the government - only they are worse there because it is a monopoly. His moronic solution is to "fix government". By his own accounts you have to disagree with his ridiculous conclusion. That's like getting cancer to cure a cough and then fix the cancer.
It's because he's trapped in his esthetic view of the market.
Visfen 7 months ago
@Visfen That is a stupid argument. Banks too big to fail have a monopoly. Corporations that can be rechartered so easily have a monopoly. Don't get all anti-Govt when it saved us.
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 No, they don't have a monopoly. Then you don't even know what a monopoly is. What's the point in trying to have a discussion with you if you can't even understand the proper usage of words? Besides, you should read The Myth of the Robber Barons, Burton W. Folsom.
The government doesn't save anyone you fool. As a progressive you need to read at least marx, bakunin, prodhon and spencer. Learn some political economy, you're stuck in a bubble. The mainstream bubble of ridiculousness
Visfen 7 months ago
@Meade556 What Friedman tried in Chile didn't fail. It was implemented very slowly, by a dictator, that much is sure, but it didn't fail. Chile is South Americas richest country by far. And all Friedman did was to write a letter when asked what could help Chile. He hardly worked with Pinochet. What have you done, read Klein's ridiculous hit piece?
Chicago school economics is far to left wing for me, but at least it's not underconsumptions theories debunked in the early 19th century.
Visfen 7 months ago
@Visfen In 1982 the economy crashed in Chile! It did not recover its 1973 output until 1989, a lost two decades. The Chileans are prosperous due to their post '82 policies, don't argue theory and say it works when everything shows, but the theory itself that it does not.
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 You're measuring government ouput in 73. Which is useless. In 73 the economy was going into hyperinflation, it took a decade to get inflation and the debt under control. Then the fruition of the polices implemented by Pinochet in line with Friedman started baring fruit. (And it was a several step plan, so they were still being implemented in the 80s).
You need to read economic history and stop reading hit-pieces like Naomi Kleins book on neoliberalism. She's clueless about economics
Visfen 7 months ago
@Meade556 FDR didn't create jobs, he created make work projects. People literary digging ditches and filling them up. It's called capital destruction for us that understand finance and business, for ivy league professors that don't know squat about economics, this is called "stimulus", just wasting money. It's utter and complete crap. You need productive work.
FDR is by far the worst president in US history. A complete psycho.
Recapitatlizing? You don't even know what the word means.
Visfen 7 months ago
@Visfen Oh yes I do. You also are ignorant of what the New Deal is. He put people into productive work. People built roads, improved railways, and built power station, this demanded materials which stimulated industry, suddenly businesses had money and they spent it on their projects and had guaranteed income from the demand the Govts work created. Instead of throwing money at finance we should have spent more time repairing and upgrading infrastructure.
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 Government is not a not-for-profit insurance corporation. It is a for-power corporation that works to help the friends of whomever is elected. It's a monopoly on force. A vile institution.
Productive by what measure? By your measure? Not by the markets measure, that's for sure, and the markets measure is what matters because that is how intersubjective consensus is reached for what marginal utility and prices should be.
Your understanding of the new deal is that of a child.
Visfen 7 months ago
@Visfen I am not going to debate this any further when you come at me with simplistic platitudes like New Deal work was "digging holes and filling them" If you won't take this seriously then I will not continue anymore.
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 You're absurdly unaware of what it says in the theory of money and interest by Keynes if you think that is simplistic platitudes. It LITERARY says that in Keynesian economics. And you know what, some programs FDR did engage in was exactly that. Like subsidizing farmers and burning the crops.
If you don't even know where you yourself are coming from. Then how is it even possible to criticize your position? You have this soft position that floats around and sticks to anything you like.
Visfen 7 months ago
@Meade556 The New Deal did nothing to help the economy. The underlying structural problems were still there, which unemployment was indicating. All it did was prolong the correction by pumping in debt into the economy and boosting GDP trough this dishonest fashion. Sort of like a person that lives of his credit card instead of changing his habits, or keep taking drugs instead of going into remission.
Read about the depression of 1920 to get a comparison.
Visfen 7 months ago
@Visfen That was a recession, not a depression and 1929 like 2008 was a credit bubble. Besides Govt induced growth is as valid as private induced growth. It saved my Grandfather and Alan Grayson's grandfather and probably you as well, so don't bash the New Deal. Were it not for it, the economy would not have recovered, probably.
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 Please read Milton Fridmand and Anna Schwartz paper on this, then read Rothbards book on the depression.
It was a depression. All recessions are depression. It's the same thing, they have just changed the word. Before that it was called a panic.
The first year of 1920 was worse than the stock market crash of 29. But the government did nothing, the FED did nothing, so the market restructured. That's what downturns are for, flushing out the bad investments.
Visfen 7 months ago
@Meade556 Government growth is an oxymoron and quite incomprehensible.Read Rothbards argument on GDP. If something is not market evaluated how can we determine its' value?They solve this by saying that the cost is the value.Like if I built a giant cement dildo in the desert with the governments money, the value it whatever it cost. That's why war increases GDP. Value is not increased however, economic efficiency is not
Krugman and Keynesians don't understand this. They are lost in abstractions
Visfen 7 months ago
@Meade556 After WWII the budget was cut by a third, Keynesians predicted the economy would spiral into another depression, that it would be the worst year ever. The US then recovered and had its' best year in all of history in 1949 (while aggregate demand was lower)
FDR was a crazed psychopath. He burned food and killed livestock while people were starving in a delusional attempt to get the price up. He put people in concentration camps and persecuted civilians.
Worst.president.ever.
Visfen 7 months ago
@Visfen I am not going to lie, razing crops and killing livestock to help bail out the farmers was not a genius idea perhaps and it did not work too well, except in the sense that farmers were able to pay back their mortgages and without a massive govt handout, the banks were recapitalized. Success. Besides Keynes predicted there would be a problem with cut backs in Govt spending as he had not reckoned on the fact that people had accumulated many savings during WWII
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 "not work too well". Get real! It was psychotic! It was completely insane. To use any other words is an insult to the thousands of people who starved to death.
Mortgages for farms? What the hell are you talking about?
Banks were supposed to be recapitalized trough the FED, but the FED failed the banks.
People didn't accumulate savings during WWII. Keynesians believe war and natural disasters are good fort the economy. They don't understand what they are measuring.
Visfen 7 months ago
@bonfirejovi Booms don't = prosperity, rather the illusion of it, ie illusion of real wealth created on credit expansion. FDR's new deal did not bring the U.S. out of the depression.
AussieAustrianBlog 1 year ago
@AussieAustrianBlog An illusion of prosperity feel pretty good in your pocket. If you play the markets right, you can turn it into real prosperity.
baigandine 1 year ago
@baigandine Define/expand on what you consider to be "real prosperity"
AussieAustrianBlog 1 year ago
@gipcambero At least 4 economists have produced Nobel Prize winning research, supporting Supply Side economics. There is no empirical research supporting Keynes. None.
islandmuffin 1 year ago
@islandmuffin
Economic Liberalism has bankrupted almost all south american countries.
Actually the country that is the most Liberal economically speaking is maybe China
gipcambero 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gipcambero Bad government and corruption has harmed South America.The freest economy in South America, Chile, is also the best.
You are partially correct: The freest economy (per the Economic Freedom Index) is either are wealthy Chinese nation/states of Hong Kong and Singapore.
islandmuffin 1 year ago
@islandmuffin
Then lower interest rates like those practised by Greenspan are also recommended by Keynes
gipcambero 1 year ago
@gipcambero Greenspan violated his Objectivist training. Ayn Rand would punish him.
islandmuffin 1 year ago
@islandmuffin
The fact that EU is not only 1 country creates the illusion that european have weaker economic policies but as a Whole, Europe is more efficient
gipcambero 1 year ago