Paul Krugman is an expert. Rule number on how to get people to listen to you in America: don't be no goddamn expert! Just look good, sound good, and smile great!
Seriously, if we could get our government to listen to people like this we'd better off. I think they don't listen because they think it will deflate their power. Like people would ask; hey Mr. Important Leader, why didn't you think of that!? Maybe they fear that people would rather have those experts in power instead. Looking worried
@lafharris As an expert, he misses the basics of economics. When a man argues that destruction(war, 9/11 etc(look it up)) will benefit the economy, he forgets the absolute fundamentals of economics, opportunity cost, Bastiat's "the broken window fallacy".
And when Krugman disregards basics like these, I won't even trust him with one of my dollars.
About time people start to pick up books of Mises and Hayek.
@Andersll11 That's right it's time for people to start reading Austrian econ, the 9/11 truthers of economics. And by that I mean Mises and the like have about as much understanding of the basics of economics as a 9/11 truther does of common sense.
@Andersll11 Hey, you're the troll here pal. You're one of many blind Austrian drones who goes around and harasses Krugman, the 14th most cited economist in the world. There is ample evidence that war benefits economies in recession. WWII spending, despite what your precious (and wrong) evidence-distorting revisionist Austrian economist pseudo-history books say, stimulated the US economy back to recovery. War utilizes human resources.
@Andersll11 That's right, when you can't come up with a good rebuttal (typical of Austrian economists when faced with facts) just start childish name-calling and using slurs against those disabilities. Real good argument pal. Keep it coming, you're hilarious.
Liberals 2006: "if you ask me why did the economy begin to show some life in 2003, look at those housing charts, its the housing boom that is behind everything, and I don't think the Bush administration, for better or for worse, had anything to do with that"
Liberals 2008: "The entire housing bubble is George Bush's fault becasue he deregulated everything"
where were these deregulation people in 2003-2007. Looks like paul just passed up a golden opportunity to blame Bush before the crash
love the out of context quotes austrians keep bringing up about krugman. go read the FULL article. he never supported greenspan creating bubbles. this man predicted the housing bubble years before paul.
@AliceInWonderlandSyn Grocery store prices are representative of headline inflation which is up and down all of the time. You need to look at core inflation, which is quite low, and in fact below target.
@ssmith5342 Yeah... i'm looking at more of a long term trend! Inflation is not good in general. Even if it was 2% per year and never went above that, that's still exponential growth which is bad!
@AliceInWonderlandSyn Moderate inflation is natural and can have positive effects, especially during recessions. Deflation can be just as much of a threat as inflation. What I keep hearing is overstated fears of inflation which simply isn't the case. Peter Schiff famously hyperinflation at the end of 2010. He is yet another boy crying wolf. When unemployment is high, overall core inflation tends to be low. Demands for treasury notes goes down since wages aren't paid.
inflation is not natural, where moderate inflation is good or not is another question but its not natural, inlation is created by printing money, during the 19 th cnetury you never had any constant inflation.
During the 70s you had both high inflation and high unemployment so unemployment doesnt always mean low inflation
@unfad1ng Sure, but in the world of fiat currency-based nation-states in which we live, inflation and deflation are natural byproducts of banks trying to calculate the amount of currency needed to circulate in the economy against a large number of complex and somewhat unpredictable and uncontrollable variables. The stagflation of the 1970s was more of an anomaly. However, it is generally the case that inflation is low when unemployment and deficits (I should add) are high.
.No, majinspy I don't misunderstand... which is why I said we're different because we have the US dollar. The problem is that inflated money is still money with declining value. This will go on longer than if we were a small island, but it will still crash
No, majinspy I don't misunderstand... which is why I said we're different because we have the US dollar. The problem is that inflated money is still money with declining value. This will not work for us forever. Printing our way out of debt works LONGER than if we were on a small island, but it also means the results will be much worse when we have to face reality.
This is old obviously. But how interesting that he says the only reason we aren't Argentina is because we have the US dollar. Aside from the fact that Krugman thought we could inflate our way out of this, I wonder if he thinks the US dollar can hold its false value forever?
@ironwoman05 You misunderstand. The US owes its debt in dollars, a currency that it can print more of. All other countries owe their debt in dollars as well, a currency they cannot print more of. A nation whose currency is used as the default international currency has a major advantage global economics. We could print our way out of debt. Now this would have many negative consequences and piss a lot of people off, but it IS an option no other nation on the planet has.
You know, it's weird...I remember when this guy was saying this stuff at the time, and everyone was like, "oh doom and gloom Krugman. Can't accept the economy is good, can you?" Everyone laughed when he predicted a downturn. Now, after the downturn...suddenly it's supposed to be all his fault (and you have a couple soundbites out of context of him quoting the Onion to make it sound like he "wanted" a bubble).
Krugman in fact was one of the biggest cheerleaders of the monetary pumping that caused the housing bubble. He even stated that causing a housing bubble was a desirable effect. Now he's advocating even more of the same bad economic policies that got us into this mess, only on steroids.
@sakidd1 No... He grossly understated and underestimated the mess we were headed for. Search for "Ron Paul was right" or "Peter Schiff was right" to see videos of these two men ACCURATELY predicting the crash, and the talking heads literally laughing at them.
If every economist knew that the housing bubble was going to burst, why exactly was everyone caught with their pants down? Why were people predicting the bust getting laughed at on financial talk shows by other economist? Citing one article from Fortune doesn't make your point. Also what were the time frames given by Schiff regarding those predictions (how many years until they came true)? What has gold done since he made those predictions and what has the dollar been doing?
@burger4nati because nobody knew exactly "when" it was going to burst. Nobody who had any economics background at all would have been totally surprised by the housing market collapse. And FYI timeframes for peter shciff are absolutely meaningless. Any respected economist of any economic theory will tell you that it is impossible to make predictions with any sort of accuracy beyong 6-9 months. But then again, Peter Schiff ISN'T and economist! Gold is nowhere near 10k and the dollar is ok!
As many others have said it was Paul Krugman that was actually calling for and supporting a housing bubble. Absolute quantifiable fact. He's obsessed by short term growth rather than the foundation for long term growth which would have been not to call for any bubbles. QUOTE "Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble"
@wikichris way to take that quote totally out of context. Arnold Kling, a libertarian himself, has defended Paul Krugman on this one...and for good reason. Just because you disagree with his political views doesn't mean he has to be wrong about everything. He was making that quote in total jest and had consistently throughout the 2000s been writing about the factors leading to a housing bubble
@shutuprafa That's a very common retort from Krugmanites. In fact even Kling's argument has been ripped to shreds because the evidence isn't based on that one blog entry. Read "Ben"'s reply on Kling's blog. Kling's argument is that Krugman couldn't have caused it because interest rates aren't that important. "Consumers, who already have low savings and high debt, probably can't contribute much. But housing, which is highly sensitive to interest rates, could help lead a recovery" + there's more
@wikichris I think that is probably right. The interest rates really couldn't do too muc hat that point, because people were already spread as thin as possible with practically 0% savings. It is impossible to say what caused a bubble to collapse, but we can see that what helped inflate it was a combination of runaway fiscal and monetary expansionist policy and deregulation of the mortgage companies that made half of the toxic mortgage loans.
This keynesian cretin is the reason housing is still in the shitter.....what a bozo.......oh, but all his stroke buddies in academia gave him a award...a "prize" pffft
@LogicalFlawDetector No they don't create job, you ignorant tool. They INVEST their money, and give a few dribbles to enterprise. More businesses are started with GOVERNMENT funds than any other kind. Even the rich are holding out their hands for business welfare.
It's nobody's fault but your own that you're so fucking stupid that you'd be a tool for the rich like so many stupid Americans,.
@Aquaria I actually never heard that government funds start the most enterprises. Would you mind explaining how entrepreneurs get loans from the government to start businesses? That's very interesting. Would you mind sharing where you get your information so people can find out more?
John McCain issued a memo in 2005 about a Housing industry collapse. In 2003, 2005, 2007 Bush & the Repubs sought to rein in FannieMae & FreddieMac to prevent a housing collapse or at least minimize the fall out, but the Dems stopped them.
The Y = C + I + G +NX should be re-written to reflect reality.
Y = C + (1.10) I + (-0.8) G and leave off the NX.
The coefficient in from of government and investment changed as the country's need for capital and the % of GDP consumption by government changes. Wouldn't it be nice if the Keynesian employed at the Federal Reserve put their minds to use figuring out the exact negative affect government spending has on the economy?
Paul Krugman is not an economist, he is a Keynesian. I hope that makes sense!
Plus, he is a moron who cannot define " MONEY". He actually believes that wealth can be created by merely printing pieces of paper and spreading them in the market.
@boubs87 Well, if the Mafia was to congratulate the best criminal in the world, it wouldn't exactly pick mother theresa! The Nobel prize is issued by the Swedish Central Bank! Central banking is fundamental to keynesianism as it is supposed to be the lender of last resort for bankers and their allied corporations. Talking about a scam!
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!
Krugman was advocating a housing bubble back in 2002:
"To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. 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 put a soda in the fridge and predicted it would get cold. He was promoting the housing bubble in the first place calling for lower interest rates to create demand.
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 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.
Hey Paul, how about admitting that you advised Greenspan to drastically cut interest rates which is what caused this housing bubble. At least you see the bubble, but a shame you don't understand what causes them. Keyne's fails. Austrians knew this was going to be a long term, painful recession/depression and Paul only sees a recession as a maybe and a short one at that?
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.
Government did it! Executives from Governmental agencies, Fannie and Freddie, BOTH admit that they were pressured by Government to use subprime loans in order to increase home ownership. And you are her saying Greenspan did it!. Yes, but his contribution to the mess was manipulating interest rates to help create the bubble. More than the Fed manipulating interest rates; it was ALWAYS Government incentivizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to take too much risk.
Krugman basically plagiarized the Austrians in his prediction. He predicted along the trend while Austrians were predicting before. He is a flavor of the month economist. he was for the creation of that bubble, then rejected it and now he is currently supported government intervention to keep prices artificially high to to create another bubble.
Krugman is part of the problem. He is a Keynesian.
Yes he did advocate it. He copied the work of Austrians in "predicting the collapse." Then when he wanted a Czar position in the Obama Junta, he blasted Austrians and started saying sub prime lending and government interference and price fixing was necessary, and freedom was the cause. He didn't get it, he is back to agreeing with the Austrians that we need to cut spending. BTW note that he only said a recession is a possibility. Austrians flat out stated it would be a collapse.
@ketogenisis - you don't understand about the foreclosure. When they take the house, they take a loss if the house value has declined to below the value of the mortgage minus any downpayment and interest paid. WIth price declines of 50% or more, they have lost some money.
Also, in a bubble, evening out the supply, by increasing production, will only cause a surplus when the bubble deflates. That can be okay. If they simply overbuilt houses, we could have really cheap new houses today.
No, the bubble would deflate as the production went up. It wouldnt burst all of a sudden like magic one day. It can all be monitored with charts and production can be adjusted accordingly like OPEC does oil.
How bout I burst her bubble by sticking my hard cock up her tight chubby snatch ?? Thrust in and out a bit .... and she'll end it by being KNOCKED UP with a baby boom and housing crisis for single mothers of epic proportion !!
@DeRocco21 The irony is that it's the Austrian/Chicago school that's given us these overwhelming national debts. It's really them who throw money out. The real Keynsians don't go into deficit spending to stimulate the economy rather the theory says take money out of circulation in good times and put it into a slush fund (as would also be done for natural disasters) and then spend it into circulation through infrastructure development when times are tough.
@sandrofrei1 I'm glad someone other than me get this. The problem is people forget saving. Good regulation is also needed to keep the economy from getting completely out of whack as it has gotten with houses. They were severely overvalued by average citizens who used them in a speculative way. If we wish to have a society that does something more than just throw people in the street, then there should be laws to keep them from treating their homes like ATM's or taking on loans based on faith.
@sandrofrei1 Nonsense. For one, the Chicago school has nothing whatsoever to do with the "Austrians". For two, it is the Keynesians who run the government. Capitalism is based on savings not borrowing.
Increasing minimum wage only feeds the recession in the long term, it makes the crash that much harder for lower and middle income Americans when you do that (because of the crash being harder). The way to go about it is to go after the root of the problem to begin with, you can't keep sweeping it under the rug like that. "Taxes and minimum wage" is all political talk - it's garbage talk. You need to get serious. You need to stop the bubble from forming to begin with, so there are no crashes!
@ketogenesis - increasing the MW only helps poor people catch up with inflation.
It won't affect the recovery. The recovery is not driven by the profit margins gained on minimum wage labor, which largely is the pay for jobs with minimal "value add." For better or worse, these jobs only serve to thin out the welfare rolls.
The big value adds come from the remaining factory jobs, and skilled laborers and white collar workers. These are in the $10 to $30 an hour range.
@wildgift2 The real problem is the cost of living and more evidently in the housing market. Supply and demand rules any (real and fair) market and so the problem could be solved within the realm of supply and demand.
You could rent an apartment for around $45 back in 1950 according to the census government website. Using an inflation calculator, $45 converted into today's dollars would be about $405.
Today's (U.S.) national average is around $650, which is 38% more than $405. Quite a jump.
So when you even out the supply and demand: you STOP these bubbles from forming, and people can buy houses safely without worrying about foreclosures. The banks just love these bubbles because not only do they get to make money off of you when you borrow to buy the houses but they get to actually take your house from you and buy it back at a cheap price when it forecloses.
the answer to the housing bubble may come as a surprise because you actually need to add more houses = make the cities bigger = no more bubble. I have to explain how the bubbles are formed to begin with. Supply and Demand: demand for the houses increases, which makes the prices go up. People who need to buy homes have no choice but to pay the RIDICULOUS money for these homes even if they can't afford them. The bubble pops, prices fall, scam artists get rich quick.
If you own a home and you think you are going to get rich? think again, because the next house you want to buy will be just as expensive, all houses increase at the same time. The price of your home increased half a million dollars in 5 years? So did all the others. The only people who really get rich are the big banks who lend out the money. See, when demand out-weighs supply: thats when these massive bubbles are formed. People need to understand that we need to even out the supply and demand.
The problem I have with people saying he's a joke is that it seems kind of unbelievable that he'd be a world-renowned Professor of Economics at Princeton if he were a "joke" which is an opinion I see espoused usually by people on youtube. I mean you can have your opinion of him I don't care, but that's hard for me to take seriously when he has those types of credentials in the economics community. And I'm not saying anyone's right or wrong, because credentials don't = right, I'm just saying.
It wasnt that long ago that the world was flat. When you actually start reading into Austrian Economics vs Keynesians. Time will reveal only one right. trtnec
Printing money to buy votes is always popular with whoever the current party in power is. Do remember that the systematic bailout of failing companies hasnt been around very long.... If I were to stack a dollar, a second without sleep or breaks it would take me 32 000 years to stack one trillion dollars.
That analogy has a problem, because back then it wasn't groups of open-minded intellectuals who claimed the world was flat, they were actually the ones claiming otherwise, while the religious anti-intellectuals were the ones claiming so and threatened those who questioned any of their nonsensical dogma. Today, we don't have religious nuts threatening open scientific debate (in the western world). Simply put - submit and publish papers if you think you're so right.
I dont really want to get dragged into somekind of generalizing / stereotyping of religion (or your verson of history).
The analogy was not wrong, what was once a common fact (flat) is not the same fact (round) that we know today. There are many arguments for both sides already, do you want a reading list ?
Relax, I'm not stereotyping all religion, but the fact is during those times, theocracies were prevalent and the few that were considered heretics by these theocracies were actually the ones who were right. Anyway, you're right, I'd rather not debate that. However, I am just saying that all these people on youtube that are so sure of themselves should start submitting papers to the economics community instead of sharing their opinions on youtube. Again, I am not criticizing anyone's views.
I assume that your talking about european veiws 500 years ago. (there is alot more than just europe even at that time)
Im looking for opinions (and information) to better hone my views. Debate itself is a tool of education.Not really learning anything from you except that everyone who has an opinion should be writing papers.
Maybe you should write a paper, on how everybody with an opinion should write papers .
You're incorrectly implying that I came in here attempting to explain to you how the economy should be run, and if you read through any of my posts they have nothing to do with that. I was simply addressing all the people that I see in every video involving economics saying "such and such is a moron, THIS is how the economy works". I've acknowledged I don't know enough about economics to make statements as arrogant. My only point is whoever is so arrogant to make those statements (cont.)
(cont.) should be able to come up with a landmark theory in the world of economics rather than bitch, for lack of better term, on youtube. And hey it doesn't even take a so-called "expert" with tons of experience in the field to change the world. One word: Einstein. He was only a patent clerk when he changed all the laws of physics. So all you youtube economists, get out there and make Krugman look like an idiot!
Than I suggest that you read the books that make Krugman look like an idiot, including his book. Impling nothing, I already knew you were just talking, for the sake of talking :(
No, actually, I'm giving the most valuable advice anyone can give to anyone on youtube, I'll say for the last time: If you care so much and think you are so right and all these world-renowned intellectuals are idiots do something about it. Calling them idiots on youtube (as you typically did, right on cue) won't change anyone's opinion. If you figure something out in the academic world, you publish a paper. That's just how it works. (not a book, anyone can write a book and call someone an idiot)
Education comes in all forms debate, lectures and even books. Your knowledge on this subject, is non existant, yet for some reason you continue to talk. You just dont get the fact that people could write a million papers but if people such as yourself wont read them then it is lost. This stuff is important, pick up a book, read it, become educated (have an opinion) and vote for a government that best represents your newly educated self.
If so can you explain how trtnec "trounced" me? By his own admission he didnt know anything about economics? Folksy bullshit? You have nothing? Why do you back up a person whos only point is that he doesnt know anything about economics but thinks that books are for tools and everyone with an opinion should only write papers?
I cant believe this idiot won a noble prize on that bullshit .... "the return of depression economics..." He can take those babysitter cupons and shove them up his ass. At least he would be something more productive for the american people. The biggest threat americans face right now is inflation and the destruction of the American dollar confidence. What happens when no one want to buy your "AAA" treasurys (lol), when the monetary creation and poor fiscal bugets destroy you...
How on earth could inflation be our biggest threat? Unemployment is at 10% and there are few signs that it will improve in the next year. We're nowhere near inflation right now
Imagine that your a retiree on a fixed income. ( or upcoming retiree) All your savings gets wiped by high inflaton. This will put even more pressure on the governments unfunded future liabilitys.
Just keep printing money and selling debt and you will see high inflation. ( via devalued dollars)
Unemployment is realistically higher if you look at the bigger picture numbers (but at least it is keeping inflation in check for now...)
~2:54 - "the foreign debt is in dollar. That's the safety valve."
Well, the safety valve is starting to malfunction. The euro, yen, real, etc are replacing the USD as the reserve currency and therefore the amount of money that will be going into US sovereign debt.
It's funny how Krugman 'predicted' the housing bubble - even though he called for it. It's like he's often so close, yet keeps missing a couple key points which result in problems down the road.
World Factbook info, California as an independent state, it would have had the 10th largest economy in the world in 2007.
July 09 California #1 foreclosures at 108K
U.S. 360,000 for 1 month!
Go To: Google maps, select REAL ESTATE @ right options box. Check FORECLOSURES, zip code 91739 and watch the search area w/PINS of homes in foreclosure. MINDBLOWING! zip 91739 the Inland Empire. Ground zero
CA CML RE @ 30% vacancy rate! 5 yr bloodbath more at: CaliforniaRE2009 blogspot
Paul Krugman predicted the housing meltdown back when Neo-Hooverites like Larry Kudlow and the Faux News GOPers were still crowing about the "Bush Boom".
"Economic policy should encourage other spending to offset the temporary slump in business investment. Low interest rates, which promote spending on housing and other durable goods, are the main answer."
It was leftist policies of "affordable housing" that caused this crisis. Keynesians like Krugman need to listen to the Austrian school that predicted these boom and busts.
lol you know Krugman just predicted the housing bubble in this video right? As did Schiff, who believes the opposite of Krugman, in other videos. People need to realize it's possible that two different sides can both be right. Something as complex as the economy probably doesn't only have one way of working.
My moneys on Schiff I read Krugmans stuff, time will show Krugman a fool. A noble prize for a fool :( Austrian economics promote stability in the monetary systems of the world. Krugman wants to race to the next bubble to throw money no one can afford at it. God forbid poorly run companies like AIG , GM, Dodge, ect ect go under. I need to start a business blow the shareholders money (hookers, booze, vacations) Then demand bailout money from future taxpayers...
Wow. You might be the first person who ever posted anything open-minded regarding economics on youtube. Bravo.
I however am not so open-minded. I am of the Austrian Tradition, and I'd like to point-out that Krugman's "prediction" occurred just when the housing-market began showing signs of a contraction. Peter Schiff, Ron Paul, and the economists of the Austrian School predicted it well before Krugman because I believe Austrian theory is much more solid than Krugman's.
(cont.) meanwhile, the Austrian school of economics isn't really taken seriously by anyone with intellectual clout (generalizing here). Again, I'm not saying anyone's right or wrong, I just find it odd if the Austrian school considers itself so right. Do they just know something no one in academia knows and just can't express it to them well enough intellectually to be taken seriously?
@gunsandbullhorns It sounds like you think that the austrian school is more valid than the keynesian school, but you do understand that the austrians ideology is outdated? Some examples are 100% reserve banking and a currency backed by gold, all outdated beliefs. The keynesians, unlike the austrians, have changed with time, and that is why the keynesians will always be more relevant.
No dude, you're confused. Austrian Economics is not outdated. As long as Human Action is purposeful, and we employ means in order to attain desired ends, then the Austrian Method is sound.
What you're talking about is policy prescription. The Gold standard and 100% backed currency are advocated by the likes of Ron Paul because he's a congressman, and he's keeping his prescriptions within Constitutional constraints. Most Austrians are more radical than Ron Paul.
So, you're partial to the Keynesian School, eh? Should I assume Neokeynesian?
Wanna' debate me on something? I've read Keynes's 'General Theory', I've read most of Paul Krugman's books, and I've been thumbing through Samuelson's book all week.
If Keynesianism is to stay relevant, then y'all—at least—need to grapple with Austrian Business Cycle Theory. Are you familiar with it?
@gunsandbullhorns I also do not concur with them when it comes to the dollar being backed by gold. A gold standard could not keep up with aggregate demand and because of this, there would be drastic deflation. Unless, the value of gold kept being revalued, but at that point there would be no real reason for not having a fiat currency.
@gunsandbullhorns I am very well aware of Ron Paul. In fact, I used to be a supporter of his, until recently. He considers himself an austrian economist and his beliefs match a lot of what the Austrian advocate for, such as their theory of the business cycle. Also, I do not consider myself a keynesian when it comes to monetary policy. My beliefs on monetary policy match the austrians in many respects. One of the few things that I do not concur with the austrians on, is full reserve banking.
Alright, that was presumptuous of me. Based on what you've said, now I'm assuming that you are some variety of Monetarist.
1) How do you define deflation?
2) Why (or how) would returning to a gold-standard result in drastic deflation? I don't deny that it would cause a sharp spike in interest-rates initially, if we were to go back to 100% gold-backing overnight. But this would be temporary. If we went back to gold-standard gradually, I don't see how it would cause a problem.
3) Do you subscribe to Milton Friedman's theory that attributes the Great Depression on the Federal Reserve for allowing the money-supply to contract?
4) You say a gold standard could not keep up with aggregate demand (demand for money, i assume). Why not allow the price of money (i.e. "purchasing power") to rise (as I believe it naturally will) in order to meet aggregate demand?
@gunsandbullhorns Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that the deflation would not be as drastic in the short-term (assuming the value of gold is revalued), it would be drastic in the long-term
@gunsandbullhorns Well, I would define deflation as too little money chasing too many goods, as most economists would define it. This is exactly what would happen with gold because the economy is usually growing annually and a fixed quantity of money could not keep up with the increasing aggregate demand . It is because of the this that we would see drastic deflation.
If a situation arose in which too little money were chasing too many goods, then wouldn't that bid-up the price of money (resulting in "price deflation")? What is wrong with allowing the value of money to adjust naturally in accordance with the laws of supply & demand?
QUOTE:
"...a fixed quantity of money could not keep up with the increasing aggregate demand."
I believe it can, and that it does *except* in situations in which the gov't is enforcing price-fixing schemes.
@gunsandbullhorns The price deflation might sound good, but it isn't. In fact, deflation is much scarier than inflation because deflation makes debt less manageable. And with all the debt that our government has accumulated, it would make the transition from fiat to gold that much harder. The government would have to eventually default on their liabilities because they wouldn't have an elastic currency. I wish a gold currency could work, but it can't.
@gunsandbullhorns continued... Also, to say that a fixed quantity of money wouldn't result in drastic deflation in the long-term, as a result of the money not keeping up with the aggregate demand, is false. Unless, the economy just didn't grow.
Monetary deflation, eh? Zeldovich, if you read the correspondence between clevebrowns3 and myself, you'll come across the phrase, "...a fixed quantity of money...". This should be a clue that we're talking about price-deflation — not monetary deflation.
My position is that price-deflation due to natural growth is not something to worry about, and that it's actually a good thing. Assuming I understand clevebrowns3 correctly, he believes otherwise. Care to weigh in on this debate?
@gunsandbullhorns do you even know what the Austrian school of economics is? Or are you just watching Peter Schill and Ron Paul on youtube?.... Krugman has a nobel fucking prize in economics, you're a nobody on youtube...
Buddy, I eat, breath and sleep economics. I can't claim to be anything greater than a vocational coffee-shoppe economist, but I'm well overqualified to criticize Krugman. I'm not attacking his nobel prize. I'm not impressed by it, but there's nothing fundamentally wrong about his int'l trade & economies of scale theory. It's everything else about him that irritates me. Do you wanna' debate/quiz me on Krugman or the Austrian School ? ...or are you just here to troll?
See, it's that kinda shit right there "I'm not impressed by it", who the hell are you? Yeah you might read about the austrian school on wikipedia or w.e, but when push comes to shove Krugman vs. you, you lose. I'm not saying that there aren't qualified people to defend the austrian school or criticize Krugman. I'm just saying they aren't you...
@gunsandbullhorns what do you say about the letting the free market rule when pretty much every economic crisis has been caused by letting the free marker do as they please? The Great Depression, The S&L Crisis, Black Monday, The "housing bubble" the Dot.com bubble, and the quadrillion $ in derivatives, not to mention the hundreds of workers killed in refineries and mines because these corporations were allowed to do as they please for the last 30 years
I'm surprised you're not familiar with the boiler-plate retorts to those accusations against the market. Let's try and have a quick debate about the Great Depression, alright? HOW did the free market contribute to (or cause, or facilitate) the Great Depression? Which theory of the Business Cycle do you subscribe to? I believe the Austrian Theory of Mises & Hayek is the only correct one.
@lisabob22 Keynesian economics (AKA: Socialism on Demand) is a perpetual motion machine, where government spending is timed and turned on and off according to central planners. However, Keynesian spending eventually degrades into an unstable pyramid scheme that feeds stagflation
@gunsandbullhorns Actually, Krugman predicted the housing bubble in 2005 (he wrote an Op-ed about it then) and Schiff in late 2006. Besides, Schiff always says there will be a recession, every year. And Schiff is on the record saying that this recession would be worse than the Great Depression. Well, no Great Depression II, though maybe a bit of stagnation (Krugman's prediction).
You're right. I found a Krugman op-ed entitled 'Running Out of Bubbles' (May 27, 2005) in which he tacitly admits at least three times that there is a housing bubble.
Have you read 'Dubya's Double Dip' (August 2, 2002) in which Krugman suggests "To fight this recession... Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble"?
I can't find that Schiff quote. Do you remember where you heard/read it?
@gunsandbullhorns if you're going to play that game, dean baker predicted the housing bubble before peter schiff. it's really childish to play that game. peter schiff happened to be right this time but he's been wrong time and time again about gold prices and he predicted a crisis that never came at the turn of the century
1) I'll thank you to pay attention to the context in which I said that, before accusing me of "playing that game".
2) I'm talking about the Austrians. Peter Schiff doesn't forecast the price of gold in his capacity as an Austrian. Austrian Theory doesn't deal with quantitative predictions. Only qualitative predictions, predicated upon an "if".
3) To quasi-quote Paul Krugman, "Alan Greenspan created a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble". Did you forget about that?
4) I'm not talking about Dean Baker. I'm criticizing Paul Krugman, and Proselytizing for the Austrian Tradition, because they understand the science of booms, busts & depressions. If you wanna' point me in the direction of some good Dean Baker works, then feel free to do so. From what little I've read about him, he seems to have a good head on his shoulders.
@gunsandbullhorns i really respect that you have an open mind. it's a fallacy to construe peter schiff's faulty predictions (of which there are a few) as not being in the capacity of his austrian school thinking. that is known as making an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion or, in the layman's terms, Antony Flew's "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Dean Baker has written more than a few books and articles on the housing crisis and he predicted the bubble (as I mentioned earlier) from an..
@gunsandbullhorns continued... entirely different perspective from the austrian school. to praise the austrian school on the basis of prediction i think is being childish. we can debate all we want but the fact is that proselytizing an economic theory is like proselytizing a religion...it's annoying and shows that you are one-sided in the way you look at things
The word you're looking for is "post hoc" — not "ad hoc". Apparently, you're not familiar with Austrian economic methodology. My point about quantitative vs qualitative predictions is important. EVERY school of economic thought worth mentioning pays lip-service to this key tenet of economic science. Some are more consistent than others.
Economic Forecasting is an ART. There are no quantifiable constants in economics. Do you disagree?
@gunsandbullhorns we can quibble over semantics (btw, the no true scotsman fallacy is defined as an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion). i'm quite familiar with the austrian school. that being said, to say that economic forecasting is not at all quantitative is to misunderstand the field. economics involves a vast amount of calculation. i'm kind of sick of reading your comments where you talk down to people when you're simply a nobody who acts like a know it all
This guy is a psycho. He is a tool of the bankers. Goldman Sucks got his back and hes got theirs.
aem945532 3 days ago
Paul Krugman is an expert. Rule number on how to get people to listen to you in America: don't be no goddamn expert! Just look good, sound good, and smile great!
Seriously, if we could get our government to listen to people like this we'd better off. I think they don't listen because they think it will deflate their power. Like people would ask; hey Mr. Important Leader, why didn't you think of that!? Maybe they fear that people would rather have those experts in power instead. Looking worried
lafharris 2 weeks ago
@lafharris As an expert, he misses the basics of economics. When a man argues that destruction(war, 9/11 etc(look it up)) will benefit the economy, he forgets the absolute fundamentals of economics, opportunity cost, Bastiat's "the broken window fallacy".
And when Krugman disregards basics like these, I won't even trust him with one of my dollars.
About time people start to pick up books of Mises and Hayek.
Andersll11 1 week ago
@Andersll11 That's right it's time for people to start reading Austrian econ, the 9/11 truthers of economics. And by that I mean Mises and the like have about as much understanding of the basics of economics as a 9/11 truther does of common sense.
ssmith5342 1 week ago
@ssmith5342 Go troll somewhere els!
Andersll11 1 week ago
@Andersll11 Hey, you're the troll here pal. You're one of many blind Austrian drones who goes around and harasses Krugman, the 14th most cited economist in the world. There is ample evidence that war benefits economies in recession. WWII spending, despite what your precious (and wrong) evidence-distorting revisionist Austrian economist pseudo-history books say, stimulated the US economy back to recovery. War utilizes human resources.
ssmith5342 1 week ago
@ssmith5342 You're right, we shouldn't harass Krugman, we all know that it is not nice to make fun of FUCKING RETARDS! That includes you buddy!
Andersll11 1 week ago
@Andersll11 That's right, when you can't come up with a good rebuttal (typical of Austrian economists when faced with facts) just start childish name-calling and using slurs against those disabilities. Real good argument pal. Keep it coming, you're hilarious.
ssmith5342 1 week ago
Liberals 2006: "if you ask me why did the economy begin to show some life in 2003, look at those housing charts, its the housing boom that is behind everything, and I don't think the Bush administration, for better or for worse, had anything to do with that"
Liberals 2008: "The entire housing bubble is George Bush's fault becasue he deregulated everything"
where were these deregulation people in 2003-2007. Looks like paul just passed up a golden opportunity to blame Bush before the crash
interstate317 3 weeks ago
love the out of context quotes austrians keep bringing up about krugman. go read the FULL article. he never supported greenspan creating bubbles. this man predicted the housing bubble years before paul.
maozebong100 1 month ago
Does this guy sound Conservative ?
We shouldn't depend on the foreign investment.
Tax cuts added demand.
Minimum wage is not the best plan for helping poor class
jinkz2608 1 month ago
Peter Schiff, an Austrian economist, predicted the housing bubble 2 years before this hack.
sellsjeeps 2 months ago
@sellsjeeps Peter Schiff also predicted hyperinflation by the end of 2010. I think we know who the real hack is.
ssmith5342 1 month ago
@ssmith5342 Have you been to a grocery store lately? It's not hyper inflation but 9% from last year isn't good!
AliceInWonderlandSyn 1 month ago
@AliceInWonderlandSyn Grocery store prices are representative of headline inflation which is up and down all of the time. You need to look at core inflation, which is quite low, and in fact below target.
ssmith5342 1 month ago
@ssmith5342 Yeah... i'm looking at more of a long term trend! Inflation is not good in general. Even if it was 2% per year and never went above that, that's still exponential growth which is bad!
AliceInWonderlandSyn 1 month ago
@AliceInWonderlandSyn Moderate inflation is natural and can have positive effects, especially during recessions. Deflation can be just as much of a threat as inflation. What I keep hearing is overstated fears of inflation which simply isn't the case. Peter Schiff famously hyperinflation at the end of 2010. He is yet another boy crying wolf. When unemployment is high, overall core inflation tends to be low. Demands for treasury notes goes down since wages aren't paid.
ssmith5342 1 month ago
@ssmith5342
inflation is not natural, where moderate inflation is good or not is another question but its not natural, inlation is created by printing money, during the 19 th cnetury you never had any constant inflation.
During the 70s you had both high inflation and high unemployment so unemployment doesnt always mean low inflation
unfad1ng 1 week ago
@unfad1ng Sure, but in the world of fiat currency-based nation-states in which we live, inflation and deflation are natural byproducts of banks trying to calculate the amount of currency needed to circulate in the economy against a large number of complex and somewhat unpredictable and uncontrollable variables. The stagflation of the 1970s was more of an anomaly. However, it is generally the case that inflation is low when unemployment and deficits (I should add) are high.
ssmith5342 1 week ago
@ssmith5342
well thaths not entirely true.
Monaco has an unemployment rate at 0 % and an inflation rate at about 2 %
Both low inflation and low unemployment.
Argentina has an inflation rate at 22 % and an unemployment rate at about 8 %, high unemployment and high inflation.
(facts taken from CIA)
This would suggest that there isnt much of a correlation
so its
unfad1ng 1 week ago
@sellsjeeps Ron Paul knew it in 2001!
AliceInWonderlandSyn 1 month ago
@sellsjeeps And he predicted hyperinflation by the end of 2010. Some genius huh?
ssmith5342 1 week ago
Turned out Krugman was right in predicting the burst in the housing bubble and recession.
LaughingLefty 2 months ago
sorry, confusion with 2 user names.
Krugman has been invited to debate Robert Murphy, an Austrian economist. Let's see if he's up to the challenge.
ironwoman05 3 months ago
.No, majinspy I don't misunderstand... which is why I said we're different because we have the US dollar. The problem is that inflated money is still money with declining value. This will go on longer than if we were a small island, but it will still crash
kimdvm 3 months ago
No, majinspy I don't misunderstand... which is why I said we're different because we have the US dollar. The problem is that inflated money is still money with declining value. This will not work for us forever. Printing our way out of debt works LONGER than if we were on a small island, but it also means the results will be much worse when we have to face reality.
kimdvm 3 months ago
This is old obviously. But how interesting that he says the only reason we aren't Argentina is because we have the US dollar. Aside from the fact that Krugman thought we could inflate our way out of this, I wonder if he thinks the US dollar can hold its false value forever?
ironwoman05 4 months ago
@ironwoman05 You misunderstand. The US owes its debt in dollars, a currency that it can print more of. All other countries owe their debt in dollars as well, a currency they cannot print more of. A nation whose currency is used as the default international currency has a major advantage global economics. We could print our way out of debt. Now this would have many negative consequences and piss a lot of people off, but it IS an option no other nation on the planet has.
majinspy 3 months ago
You know, it's weird...I remember when this guy was saying this stuff at the time, and everyone was like, "oh doom and gloom Krugman. Can't accept the economy is good, can you?" Everyone laughed when he predicted a downturn. Now, after the downturn...suddenly it's supposed to be all his fault (and you have a couple soundbites out of context of him quoting the Onion to make it sound like he "wanted" a bubble).
jjrs3youtubification 5 months ago 2
Krugman in fact was one of the biggest cheerleaders of the monetary pumping that caused the housing bubble. He even stated that causing a housing bubble was a desirable effect. Now he's advocating even more of the same bad economic policies that got us into this mess, only on steroids.
ReligionOfNice 5 months ago
he was pretty much spot on
sakidd1 7 months ago
@sakidd1 No... He grossly understated and underestimated the mess we were headed for. Search for "Ron Paul was right" or "Peter Schiff was right" to see videos of these two men ACCURATELY predicting the crash, and the talking heads literally laughing at them.
klaptongroovemaster 3 months ago
Hardcore Keynesian.
lancertriangle 9 months ago
WOW! THIS IS FROM 2006
3guysANDadiva 9 months ago
Ask Peter Schiff's minions Peter is the only one who predicted the bubble.
anana88 9 months ago
Comment removed
durhamdf 9 months ago
@durhamdf
If every economist knew that the housing bubble was going to burst, why exactly was everyone caught with their pants down? Why were people predicting the bust getting laughed at on financial talk shows by other economist? Citing one article from Fortune doesn't make your point. Also what were the time frames given by Schiff regarding those predictions (how many years until they came true)? What has gold done since he made those predictions and what has the dollar been doing?
burger4nati 9 months ago
@burger4nati because nobody knew exactly "when" it was going to burst. Nobody who had any economics background at all would have been totally surprised by the housing market collapse. And FYI timeframes for peter shciff are absolutely meaningless. Any respected economist of any economic theory will tell you that it is impossible to make predictions with any sort of accuracy beyong 6-9 months. But then again, Peter Schiff ISN'T and economist! Gold is nowhere near 10k and the dollar is ok!
durhamdf 9 months ago
This was in '06, earlier that year Krugman also predicted a housing bust (I think the column was in August).
hoodoo961 11 months ago
As many others have said it was Paul Krugman that was actually calling for and supporting a housing bubble. Absolute quantifiable fact. He's obsessed by short term growth rather than the foundation for long term growth which would have been not to call for any bubbles. QUOTE "Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble"
wikichris 1 year ago
@wikichris way to take that quote totally out of context. Arnold Kling, a libertarian himself, has defended Paul Krugman on this one...and for good reason. Just because you disagree with his political views doesn't mean he has to be wrong about everything. He was making that quote in total jest and had consistently throughout the 2000s been writing about the factors leading to a housing bubble
shutuprafa 11 months ago
@shutuprafa That's a very common retort from Krugmanites. In fact even Kling's argument has been ripped to shreds because the evidence isn't based on that one blog entry. Read "Ben"'s reply on Kling's blog. Kling's argument is that Krugman couldn't have caused it because interest rates aren't that important. "Consumers, who already have low savings and high debt, probably can't contribute much. But housing, which is highly sensitive to interest rates, could help lead a recovery" + there's more
wikichris 11 months ago
@wikichris I think that is probably right. The interest rates really couldn't do too muc hat that point, because people were already spread as thin as possible with practically 0% savings. It is impossible to say what caused a bubble to collapse, but we can see that what helped inflate it was a combination of runaway fiscal and monetary expansionist policy and deregulation of the mortgage companies that made half of the toxic mortgage loans.
durhamdf 9 months ago
This keynesian cretin is the reason housing is still in the shitter.....what a bozo.......oh, but all his stroke buddies in academia gave him a award...a "prize" pffft
dirtyshortsPU 1 year ago
This isn't really a prediction since it was already occuring when he finally woke up.
theedge202 1 year ago
Ron Paul has been predicting this for years since he ran for president on the Libertarian ticket in 1988.
Paul Krugman is the worst thing to happen to economics with him favoring Keynesian economics, which caused this god forsaken mess!
ruvvjub 1 year ago
The Republicans/Libertarians WILL ALWAYS PROTECT THE RICH.
.
More equality in healthcare is actually offensive to them.
.
Someideasandstuff 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Someideasandstuff
You must be one of those filthy poor bastards without healthcare. Get it yourself, jerk. Rich people FTW! They create jobs.
LogicalFlawDetector 8 months ago
@LogicalFlawDetector No they don't create job, you ignorant tool. They INVEST their money, and give a few dribbles to enterprise. More businesses are started with GOVERNMENT funds than any other kind. Even the rich are holding out their hands for business welfare.
It's nobody's fault but your own that you're so fucking stupid that you'd be a tool for the rich like so many stupid Americans,.
Aquaria 8 months ago
@Aquaria I actually never heard that government funds start the most enterprises. Would you mind explaining how entrepreneurs get loans from the government to start businesses? That's very interesting. Would you mind sharing where you get your information so people can find out more?
alexamasan 8 months ago
Comment removed
LogicalFlawDetector 8 months ago
John McCain issued a memo in 2005 about a Housing industry collapse. In 2003, 2005, 2007 Bush & the Repubs sought to rein in FannieMae & FreddieMac to prevent a housing collapse or at least minimize the fall out, but the Dems stopped them.
Aegius 1 year ago
This dude supported the creation of housing bubble a few years earlier.
whoisleipo 1 year ago 25
@whoisleipo link?
Fusionx916 7 months ago
@whoisleipo what the hell are you talking about? I love how you people just make stuff up
thesparitan 5 months ago
@whoisleipo No he didn't.
ssmith5342 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Y = C + I + G +NX should be re-written to reflect reality.
Y = C + (1.10) I + (-0.8) G and leave off the NX.
The coefficient in from of government and investment changed as the country's need for capital and the % of GDP consumption by government changes. Wouldn't it be nice if the Keynesian employed at the Federal Reserve put their minds to use figuring out the exact negative affect government spending has on the economy?
I am not going to hold my breath.
Truthpolice9698 1 year ago
Paul Krugman is not an economist, he is a Keynesian. I hope that makes sense!
Plus, he is a moron who cannot define " MONEY". He actually believes that wealth can be created by merely printing pieces of paper and spreading them in the market.
Utter imbecile!
AFRIKTODAY 1 year ago
@AFRIKTODAY I guess that's how you earn nobel prizes
boubs87 1 year ago
@boubs87 Well, if the Mafia was to congratulate the best criminal in the world, it wouldn't exactly pick mother theresa! The Nobel prize is issued by the Swedish Central Bank! Central banking is fundamental to keynesianism as it is supposed to be the lender of last resort for bankers and their allied corporations. Talking about a scam!
AFRIKTODAY 1 year ago
Krugman's an idiot, bottom line.
treysparker 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
wtf. dont call this country thr strongest in the world. fucking recession and stress everywhere
DetectiveRonak 1 year ago
Krugman was advocating a housing bubble back in 2002:
"To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble."
whoisleipo 1 year ago 8
it is amazing that nobody saw lehman brothers coming, the effects of deregulation..
alex30085 1 year ago
@alex30085 Lehman brothers collapse had nothing at all to do with so-called de-regulation.
rickfisk 1 year ago
Krugman put a soda in the fridge and predicted it would get cold. He was promoting the housing bubble in the first place calling for lower interest rates to create demand.
mt6686 1 year ago
Predicts it when even my parents were already seeing it a year before it happened? Wtf?
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
Where was everyone before this started to bust. Now, after the bust, everyone is stepping up to me on TV.
HopeValleyRI 1 year ago
bubblicious!
flagrantsake 1 year ago 19
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
This has been flagged as spam show
@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
This has been flagged as spam show
@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
Hey Paul, how about admitting that you advised Greenspan to drastically cut interest rates which is what caused this housing bubble. At least you see the bubble, but a shame you don't understand what causes them. Keyne's fails. Austrians knew this was going to be a long term, painful recession/depression and Paul only sees a recession as a maybe and a short one at that?
razerfish 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
Government did it! Executives from Governmental agencies, Fannie and Freddie, BOTH admit that they were pressured by Government to use subprime loans in order to increase home ownership. And you are her saying Greenspan did it!. Yes, but his contribution to the mess was manipulating interest rates to help create the bubble. More than the Fed manipulating interest rates; it was ALWAYS Government incentivizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to take too much risk.
islandmuffin 1 year ago
In fact, Krugman is more of a politician than an economist.
mongoose704 1 year ago
Krugman is a sharp dude...but he gets way too much credit for this.
Peter Schiff and Ron Paul were saying the same things as early as 2003...yet this dude gets the Nobel prize.
BigAlbinoDonky 1 year ago
@BigAlbinoDonky
He didn't get the noble prize for predicting anything, but for his economic theorizing. You've got a nonsequitur going...
gavrilo2007 1 year ago
Krugman basically plagiarized the Austrians in his prediction. He predicted along the trend while Austrians were predicting before. He is a flavor of the month economist. he was for the creation of that bubble, then rejected it and now he is currently supported government intervention to keep prices artificially high to to create another bubble.
Krugman is part of the problem. He is a Keynesian.
mongoose704 1 year ago
Funny that he is calling the housing bust since he advocated a housing bubble in 2001 in the first place!
Justbeatit999 1 year ago
Yes he did advocate it. He copied the work of Austrians in "predicting the collapse." Then when he wanted a Czar position in the Obama Junta, he blasted Austrians and started saying sub prime lending and government interference and price fixing was necessary, and freedom was the cause. He didn't get it, he is back to agreeing with the Austrians that we need to cut spending. BTW note that he only said a recession is a possibility. Austrians flat out stated it would be a collapse.
mongoose704 1 year ago
@ketogenisis - you don't understand about the foreclosure. When they take the house, they take a loss if the house value has declined to below the value of the mortgage minus any downpayment and interest paid. WIth price declines of 50% or more, they have lost some money.
Also, in a bubble, evening out the supply, by increasing production, will only cause a surplus when the bubble deflates. That can be okay. If they simply overbuilt houses, we could have really cheap new houses today.
wildgift2 1 year ago
No, the bubble would deflate as the production went up. It wouldnt burst all of a sudden like magic one day. It can all be monitored with charts and production can be adjusted accordingly like OPEC does oil.
ketogenesis 1 year ago
How bout I burst her bubble by sticking my hard cock up her tight chubby snatch ?? Thrust in and out a bit .... and she'll end it by being KNOCKED UP with a baby boom and housing crisis for single mothers of epic proportion !!
sebbbo77 1 year ago
and his keynesian background will say that more money on the problem is the solution
DeRocco21 1 year ago 9
@DeRocco21 The irony is that it's the Austrian/Chicago school that's given us these overwhelming national debts. It's really them who throw money out. The real Keynsians don't go into deficit spending to stimulate the economy rather the theory says take money out of circulation in good times and put it into a slush fund (as would also be done for natural disasters) and then spend it into circulation through infrastructure development when times are tough.
sandrofrei1 1 year ago
@sandrofrei1 I'm glad someone other than me get this. The problem is people forget saving. Good regulation is also needed to keep the economy from getting completely out of whack as it has gotten with houses. They were severely overvalued by average citizens who used them in a speculative way. If we wish to have a society that does something more than just throw people in the street, then there should be laws to keep them from treating their homes like ATM's or taking on loans based on faith.
majinspy 1 year ago
@sandrofrei1 Nonsense. For one, the Chicago school has nothing whatsoever to do with the "Austrians". For two, it is the Keynesians who run the government. Capitalism is based on savings not borrowing.
rickfisk 1 year ago
Home prices will never fall, they only go up
This is a price adjustment. The area has been under priced for years.
Indutrial321 2 years ago
I like how he corrects "bubbly" with "bubbalicious".
ralph435z 2 years ago
Increasing minimum wage only feeds the recession in the long term, it makes the crash that much harder for lower and middle income Americans when you do that (because of the crash being harder). The way to go about it is to go after the root of the problem to begin with, you can't keep sweeping it under the rug like that. "Taxes and minimum wage" is all political talk - it's garbage talk. You need to get serious. You need to stop the bubble from forming to begin with, so there are no crashes!
ketogenesis 2 years ago 2
@ketogenesis - increasing the MW only helps poor people catch up with inflation.
It won't affect the recovery. The recovery is not driven by the profit margins gained on minimum wage labor, which largely is the pay for jobs with minimal "value add." For better or worse, these jobs only serve to thin out the welfare rolls.
The big value adds come from the remaining factory jobs, and skilled laborers and white collar workers. These are in the $10 to $30 an hour range.
wildgift2 1 year ago
@wildgift2 The real problem is the cost of living and more evidently in the housing market. Supply and demand rules any (real and fair) market and so the problem could be solved within the realm of supply and demand.
You could rent an apartment for around $45 back in 1950 according to the census government website. Using an inflation calculator, $45 converted into today's dollars would be about $405.
Today's (U.S.) national average is around $650, which is 38% more than $405. Quite a jump.
ketogenesis 1 year ago
Inflation. That's a word to think about.
mongoose704 1 year ago
So when you even out the supply and demand: you STOP these bubbles from forming, and people can buy houses safely without worrying about foreclosures. The banks just love these bubbles because not only do they get to make money off of you when you borrow to buy the houses but they get to actually take your house from you and buy it back at a cheap price when it forecloses.
ketogenesis 2 years ago
the answer to the housing bubble may come as a surprise because you actually need to add more houses = make the cities bigger = no more bubble. I have to explain how the bubbles are formed to begin with. Supply and Demand: demand for the houses increases, which makes the prices go up. People who need to buy homes have no choice but to pay the RIDICULOUS money for these homes even if they can't afford them. The bubble pops, prices fall, scam artists get rich quick.
ketogenesis 2 years ago
If you own a home and you think you are going to get rich? think again, because the next house you want to buy will be just as expensive, all houses increase at the same time. The price of your home increased half a million dollars in 5 years? So did all the others. The only people who really get rich are the big banks who lend out the money. See, when demand out-weighs supply: thats when these massive bubbles are formed. People need to understand that we need to even out the supply and demand.
ketogenesis 2 years ago
it could be pretty bad? its been a disaster and getting worse
Seano71 2 years ago
He predicted this in 2006. ...which is when the market started to show signs of contraction.
The Austrian Economists (Ron Paul, Peter Schiff) were YEARS ahead of the curve. Paul Krugman is a joke.
gunsandbullhorns 2 years ago
The problem I have with people saying he's a joke is that it seems kind of unbelievable that he'd be a world-renowned Professor of Economics at Princeton if he were a "joke" which is an opinion I see espoused usually by people on youtube. I mean you can have your opinion of him I don't care, but that's hard for me to take seriously when he has those types of credentials in the economics community. And I'm not saying anyone's right or wrong, because credentials don't = right, I'm just saying.
trtnec 2 years ago
It wasnt that long ago that the world was flat. When you actually start reading into Austrian Economics vs Keynesians. Time will reveal only one right. trtnec
Printing money to buy votes is always popular with whoever the current party in power is. Do remember that the systematic bailout of failing companies hasnt been around very long.... If I were to stack a dollar, a second without sleep or breaks it would take me 32 000 years to stack one trillion dollars.
Turnedleaf 2 years ago 3
@Turnedleaf
That analogy has a problem, because back then it wasn't groups of open-minded intellectuals who claimed the world was flat, they were actually the ones claiming otherwise, while the religious anti-intellectuals were the ones claiming so and threatened those who questioned any of their nonsensical dogma. Today, we don't have religious nuts threatening open scientific debate (in the western world). Simply put - submit and publish papers if you think you're so right.
trtnec 2 years ago
I dont really want to get dragged into somekind of generalizing / stereotyping of religion (or your verson of history).
The analogy was not wrong, what was once a common fact (flat) is not the same fact (round) that we know today. There are many arguments for both sides already, do you want a reading list ?
Turnedleaf 2 years ago 2
Relax, I'm not stereotyping all religion, but the fact is during those times, theocracies were prevalent and the few that were considered heretics by these theocracies were actually the ones who were right. Anyway, you're right, I'd rather not debate that. However, I am just saying that all these people on youtube that are so sure of themselves should start submitting papers to the economics community instead of sharing their opinions on youtube. Again, I am not criticizing anyone's views.
trtnec 2 years ago
I assume that your talking about european veiws 500 years ago. (there is alot more than just europe even at that time)
Im looking for opinions (and information) to better hone my views. Debate itself is a tool of education.Not really learning anything from you except that everyone who has an opinion should be writing papers.
Maybe you should write a paper, on how everybody with an opinion should write papers .
Turnedleaf 2 years ago 3
You're incorrectly implying that I came in here attempting to explain to you how the economy should be run, and if you read through any of my posts they have nothing to do with that. I was simply addressing all the people that I see in every video involving economics saying "such and such is a moron, THIS is how the economy works". I've acknowledged I don't know enough about economics to make statements as arrogant. My only point is whoever is so arrogant to make those statements (cont.)
trtnec 2 years ago
(cont.) should be able to come up with a landmark theory in the world of economics rather than bitch, for lack of better term, on youtube. And hey it doesn't even take a so-called "expert" with tons of experience in the field to change the world. One word: Einstein. He was only a patent clerk when he changed all the laws of physics. So all you youtube economists, get out there and make Krugman look like an idiot!
trtnec 2 years ago
Than I suggest that you read the books that make Krugman look like an idiot, including his book. Impling nothing, I already knew you were just talking, for the sake of talking :(
The empty can rattles the most.
Turnedleaf 2 years ago
No, actually, I'm giving the most valuable advice anyone can give to anyone on youtube, I'll say for the last time: If you care so much and think you are so right and all these world-renowned intellectuals are idiots do something about it. Calling them idiots on youtube (as you typically did, right on cue) won't change anyone's opinion. If you figure something out in the academic world, you publish a paper. That's just how it works. (not a book, anyone can write a book and call someone an idiot)
trtnec 2 years ago
Education comes in all forms debate, lectures and even books. Your knowledge on this subject, is non existant, yet for some reason you continue to talk. You just dont get the fact that people could write a million papers but if people such as yourself wont read them then it is lost. This stuff is important, pick up a book, read it, become educated (have an opinion) and vote for a government that best represents your newly educated self.
Turnedleaf 2 years ago
i second trtnec. he trounces you, and you are defensive and bring out some folksy bullshit. seriously, you have nothing.
marzilyas 1 year ago
@marzilyas Were you talking to me ?
Turnedleaf 1 year ago
If so can you explain how trtnec "trounced" me? By his own admission he didnt know anything about economics? Folksy bullshit? You have nothing? Why do you back up a person whos only point is that he doesnt know anything about economics but thinks that books are for tools and everyone with an opinion should only write papers?
Turnedleaf 1 year ago
Where has this guy been? Did he just find out about the housing bubble now? Jeeze.
brothermikefan 2 years ago
I cant believe this idiot won a noble prize on that bullshit .... "the return of depression economics..." He can take those babysitter cupons and shove them up his ass. At least he would be something more productive for the american people. The biggest threat americans face right now is inflation and the destruction of the American dollar confidence. What happens when no one want to buy your "AAA" treasurys (lol), when the monetary creation and poor fiscal bugets destroy you...
Turnedleaf 2 years ago
@Turnedleaf
How on earth could inflation be our biggest threat? Unemployment is at 10% and there are few signs that it will improve in the next year. We're nowhere near inflation right now
tluv42 2 years ago
Imagine that your a retiree on a fixed income. ( or upcoming retiree) All your savings gets wiped by high inflaton. This will put even more pressure on the governments unfunded future liabilitys.
Just keep printing money and selling debt and you will see high inflation. ( via devalued dollars)
Unemployment is realistically higher if you look at the bigger picture numbers (but at least it is keeping inflation in check for now...)
Turnedleaf 2 years ago
~2:54 - "the foreign debt is in dollar. That's the safety valve."
Well, the safety valve is starting to malfunction. The euro, yen, real, etc are replacing the USD as the reserve currency and therefore the amount of money that will be going into US sovereign debt.
It's funny how Krugman 'predicted' the housing bubble - even though he called for it. It's like he's often so close, yet keeps missing a couple key points which result in problems down the road.
00dfm00 2 years ago 2
Krugman wanted a bubble after 2001... in fact he wants one after 2009 too
njedinjedi 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
World Factbook info, California as an independent state, it would have had the 10th largest economy in the world in 2007.
July 09 California #1 foreclosures at 108K
U.S. 360,000 for 1 month!
Go To: Google maps, select REAL ESTATE @ right options box. Check FORECLOSURES, zip code 91739 and watch the search area w/PINS of homes in foreclosure. MINDBLOWING! zip 91739 the Inland Empire. Ground zero
CA CML RE @ 30% vacancy rate! 5 yr bloodbath more at: CaliforniaRE2009 blogspot
BizReporter1 2 years ago
Paul Krugman predicted the housing meltdown back when Neo-Hooverites like Larry Kudlow and the Faux News GOPers were still crowing about the "Bush Boom".
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago
"Bushies"? Really dedicated to the science of economics there. Don't smell any political influence to his world view do we?
1kings1918 2 years ago
"Economic policy should encourage other spending to offset the temporary slump in business investment. Low interest rates, which promote spending on housing and other durable goods, are the main answer."
Krugman in an interview in 2001.
KommanderWill 2 years ago
This is hardly germaine. He was talking about handling a pending recession post 9/11. Far more conservative economists thought the same thing.
podperson17 2 years ago
What is a "conservative" economist? Bush employed keynesian economics, which is the norm for the Republicans.
Austrian economists are the opposite of keynesians, and they weren't saying anything close to Krugman.
KommanderWill 2 years ago
It was leftist policies of "affordable housing" that caused this crisis. Keynesians like Krugman need to listen to the Austrian school that predicted these boom and busts.
Libertarian71776 2 years ago 4
lol you know Krugman just predicted the housing bubble in this video right? As did Schiff, who believes the opposite of Krugman, in other videos. People need to realize it's possible that two different sides can both be right. Something as complex as the economy probably doesn't only have one way of working.
trtnec 2 years ago 2
Beginning of video the host "more evidence today on increasing weakness on the housing market." Schiff called it back in 2002, its here on youtube.
Libertarian71776 2 years ago
Krugman actually advocated a housing bubble after the 2001 recession. he's full of it.
Libertarian71776 2 years ago 2
My moneys on Schiff I read Krugmans stuff, time will show Krugman a fool. A noble prize for a fool :( Austrian economics promote stability in the monetary systems of the world. Krugman wants to race to the next bubble to throw money no one can afford at it. God forbid poorly run companies like AIG , GM, Dodge, ect ect go under. I need to start a business blow the shareholders money (hookers, booze, vacations) Then demand bailout money from future taxpayers...
Turnedleaf 2 years ago
Wow. You might be the first person who ever posted anything open-minded regarding economics on youtube. Bravo.
I however am not so open-minded. I am of the Austrian Tradition, and I'd like to point-out that Krugman's "prediction" occurred just when the housing-market began showing signs of a contraction. Peter Schiff, Ron Paul, and the economists of the Austrian School predicted it well before Krugman because I believe Austrian theory is much more solid than Krugman's.
Cheers! ;D
gunsandbullhorns 2 years ago 20
(cont.) meanwhile, the Austrian school of economics isn't really taken seriously by anyone with intellectual clout (generalizing here). Again, I'm not saying anyone's right or wrong, I just find it odd if the Austrian school considers itself so right. Do they just know something no one in academia knows and just can't express it to them well enough intellectually to be taken seriously?
trtnec 2 years ago
@gunsandbullhorns It sounds like you think that the austrian school is more valid than the keynesian school, but you do understand that the austrians ideology is outdated? Some examples are 100% reserve banking and a currency backed by gold, all outdated beliefs. The keynesians, unlike the austrians, have changed with time, and that is why the keynesians will always be more relevant.
clevebrowns3 1 year ago
@clevebrowns3
No dude, you're confused. Austrian Economics is not outdated. As long as Human Action is purposeful, and we employ means in order to attain desired ends, then the Austrian Method is sound.
What you're talking about is policy prescription. The Gold standard and 100% backed currency are advocated by the likes of Ron Paul because he's a congressman, and he's keeping his prescriptions within Constitutional constraints. Most Austrians are more radical than Ron Paul.
gunsandbullhorns 1 year ago
@clevebrowns3
continued...
So, you're partial to the Keynesian School, eh? Should I assume Neokeynesian?
Wanna' debate me on something? I've read Keynes's 'General Theory', I've read most of Paul Krugman's books, and I've been thumbing through Samuelson's book all week.
If Keynesianism is to stay relevant, then y'all—at least—need to grapple with Austrian Business Cycle Theory. Are you familiar with it?
gunsandbullhorns 1 year ago
@gunsandbullhorns I also do not concur with them when it comes to the dollar being backed by gold. A gold standard could not keep up with aggregate demand and because of this, there would be drastic deflation. Unless, the value of gold kept being revalued, but at that point there would be no real reason for not having a fiat currency.
clevebrowns3 1 year ago
@gunsandbullhorns I am very well aware of Ron Paul. In fact, I used to be a supporter of his, until recently. He considers himself an austrian economist and his beliefs match a lot of what the Austrian advocate for, such as their theory of the business cycle. Also, I do not consider myself a keynesian when it comes to monetary policy. My beliefs on monetary policy match the austrians in many respects. One of the few things that I do not concur with the austrians on, is full reserve banking.
clevebrowns3 1 year ago
@clevebrowns3
Alright, that was presumptuous of me. Based on what you've said, now I'm assuming that you are some variety of Monetarist.
1) How do you define deflation?
2) Why (or how) would returning to a gold-standard result in drastic deflation? I don't deny that it would cause a sharp spike in interest-rates initially, if we were to go back to 100% gold-backing overnight. But this would be temporary. If we went back to gold-standard gradually, I don't see how it would cause a problem.
gunsandbullhorns 1 year ago
@clevebrowns3
3) Do you subscribe to Milton Friedman's theory that attributes the Great Depression on the Federal Reserve for allowing the money-supply to contract?
4) You say a gold standard could not keep up with aggregate demand (demand for money, i assume). Why not allow the price of money (i.e. "purchasing power") to rise (as I believe it naturally will) in order to meet aggregate demand?
gunsandbullhorns 1 year ago
@gunsandbullhorns Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that the deflation would not be as drastic in the short-term (assuming the value of gold is revalued), it would be drastic in the long-term
clevebrowns3 1 year ago
@gunsandbullhorns Well, I would define deflation as too little money chasing too many goods, as most economists would define it. This is exactly what would happen with gold because the economy is usually growing annually and a fixed quantity of money could not keep up with the increasing aggregate demand . It is because of the this that we would see drastic deflation.
clevebrowns3 1 year ago
@clevebrowns3
If a situation arose in which too little money were chasing too many goods, then wouldn't that bid-up the price of money (resulting in "price deflation")? What is wrong with allowing the value of money to adjust naturally in accordance with the laws of supply & demand?
QUOTE:
"...a fixed quantity of money could not keep up with the increasing aggregate demand."
I believe it can, and that it does *except* in situations in which the gov't is enforcing price-fixing schemes.
gunsandbullhorns 1 year ago
@gunsandbullhorns The price deflation might sound good, but it isn't. In fact, deflation is much scarier than inflation because deflation makes debt less manageable. And with all the debt that our government has accumulated, it would make the transition from fiat to gold that much harder. The government would have to eventually default on their liabilities because they wouldn't have an elastic currency. I wish a gold currency could work, but it can't.
clevebrowns3 1 year ago
@gunsandbullhorns continued... Also, to say that a fixed quantity of money wouldn't result in drastic deflation in the long-term, as a result of the money not keeping up with the aggregate demand, is false. Unless, the economy just didn't grow.
clevebrowns3 1 year ago
@gunsandbullhorns
That's because you're ignorant.
Zeldovich 1 year ago
@Zeldovich
No dude, I'm not ignorant. Are you going to give me the courtesy of telling me how you think I'm wrong? ...or are you just here to troll?
gunsandbullhorns 1 year ago
@gunsandbullhorns
Monetary deflation destroys aggregate demand.
Zeldovich 1 year ago
@Zeldovich
Monetary deflation, eh? Zeldovich, if you read the correspondence between clevebrowns3 and myself, you'll come across the phrase, "...a fixed quantity of money...". This should be a clue that we're talking about price-deflation — not monetary deflation.
My position is that price-deflation due to natural growth is not something to worry about, and that it's actually a good thing. Assuming I understand clevebrowns3 correctly, he believes otherwise. Care to weigh in on this debate?
gunsandbullhorns 1 year ago
@gunsandbullhorns
Deflation within the consumer electronics market is a good thing. Deflation across the board, due to a drop in money velocity is not.
Zeldovich 1 year ago
@gunsandbullhorns do you even know what the Austrian school of economics is? Or are you just watching Peter Schill and Ron Paul on youtube?.... Krugman has a nobel fucking prize in economics, you're a nobody on youtube...
madblueplanet 1 year ago
@madblueplanet
Buddy, I eat, breath and sleep economics. I can't claim to be anything greater than a vocational coffee-shoppe economist, but I'm well overqualified to criticize Krugman. I'm not attacking his nobel prize. I'm not impressed by it, but there's nothing fundamentally wrong about his int'l trade & economies of scale theory. It's everything else about him that irritates me. Do you wanna' debate/quiz me on Krugman or the Austrian School ? ...or are you just here to troll?
gunsandbullhorns 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
See, it's that kinda shit right there "I'm not impressed by it", who the hell are you? Yeah you might read about the austrian school on wikipedia or w.e, but when push comes to shove Krugman vs. you, you lose. I'm not saying that there aren't qualified people to defend the austrian school or criticize Krugman. I'm just saying they aren't you...
madblueplanet 1 year ago
@madblueplanet
Either debate me, or else shut-up. Alright?
gunsandbullhorns 1 year ago
@madblueplanet
F.A. Hayek won a nobel price on ABCT in '74. Checkmate?
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@gunsandbullhorns what do you say about the letting the free market rule when pretty much every economic crisis has been caused by letting the free marker do as they please? The Great Depression, The S&L Crisis, Black Monday, The "housing bubble" the Dot.com bubble, and the quadrillion $ in derivatives, not to mention the hundreds of workers killed in refineries and mines because these corporations were allowed to do as they please for the last 30 years
lisabob22 1 year ago
@lisabob22
I'm surprised you're not familiar with the boiler-plate retorts to those accusations against the market. Let's try and have a quick debate about the Great Depression, alright? HOW did the free market contribute to (or cause, or facilitate) the Great Depression? Which theory of the Business Cycle do you subscribe to? I believe the Austrian Theory of Mises & Hayek is the only correct one.
Have you seen this yet? It's fun.
watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk
gunsandbullhorns 1 year ago
@lisabob22 Keynesian economics (AKA: Socialism on Demand) is a perpetual motion machine, where government spending is timed and turned on and off according to central planners. However, Keynesian spending eventually degrades into an unstable pyramid scheme that feeds stagflation
islandmuffin 1 year ago
@gunsandbullhorns Actually, Krugman predicted the housing bubble in 2005 (he wrote an Op-ed about it then) and Schiff in late 2006. Besides, Schiff always says there will be a recession, every year. And Schiff is on the record saying that this recession would be worse than the Great Depression. Well, no Great Depression II, though maybe a bit of stagnation (Krugman's prediction).
crambo0349 1 year ago
@crambo0349
You're right. I found a Krugman op-ed entitled 'Running Out of Bubbles' (May 27, 2005) in which he tacitly admits at least three times that there is a housing bubble.
Have you read 'Dubya's Double Dip' (August 2, 2002) in which Krugman suggests "To fight this recession... Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble"?
I can't find that Schiff quote. Do you remember where you heard/read it?
What's your definition of "stagnation"?
gunsandbullhorns 1 year ago
Well, I think his point was that there's no way to sustain demand without a housing bubble, not that it's necessarily good.
Schiff said it on a video on YouTube. I don't want to spend much time searching for it. There are so many Schiff videos on here.
By "stagnation" I mean GDP and employment growth greater than zero, but not enough to sustain full-employment.
crambo0349 1 year ago
@gunsandbullhorns Apparently the video I was looking for was deleted. But here's something:
digg(dot)com/political_opinion/Far_Worse_than_the_Great_Depression_Peter_Schiff
crambo0349 1 year ago
@gunsandbullhorns if you're going to play that game, dean baker predicted the housing bubble before peter schiff. it's really childish to play that game. peter schiff happened to be right this time but he's been wrong time and time again about gold prices and he predicted a crisis that never came at the turn of the century
Itsrothytime 1 year ago
@Itsrothytime
1) I'll thank you to pay attention to the context in which I said that, before accusing me of "playing that game".
2) I'm talking about the Austrians. Peter Schiff doesn't forecast the price of gold in his capacity as an Austrian. Austrian Theory doesn't deal with quantitative predictions. Only qualitative predictions, predicated upon an "if".
3) To quasi-quote Paul Krugman, "Alan Greenspan created a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble". Did you forget about that?
gunsandbullhorns 1 year ago
@Itsrothytime
Continued...
4) I'm not talking about Dean Baker. I'm criticizing Paul Krugman, and Proselytizing for the Austrian Tradition, because they understand the science of booms, busts & depressions. If you wanna' point me in the direction of some good Dean Baker works, then feel free to do so. From what little I've read about him, he seems to have a good head on his shoulders.
gunsandbullhorns 1 year ago
@gunsandbullhorns i really respect that you have an open mind. it's a fallacy to construe peter schiff's faulty predictions (of which there are a few) as not being in the capacity of his austrian school thinking. that is known as making an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion or, in the layman's terms, Antony Flew's "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Dean Baker has written more than a few books and articles on the housing crisis and he predicted the bubble (as I mentioned earlier) from an..
Itsrothytime 1 year ago
@gunsandbullhorns continued... entirely different perspective from the austrian school. to praise the austrian school on the basis of prediction i think is being childish. we can debate all we want but the fact is that proselytizing an economic theory is like proselytizing a religion...it's annoying and shows that you are one-sided in the way you look at things
Itsrothytime 1 year ago
@Itsrothytime
The word you're looking for is "post hoc" — not "ad hoc". Apparently, you're not familiar with Austrian economic methodology. My point about quantitative vs qualitative predictions is important. EVERY school of economic thought worth mentioning pays lip-service to this key tenet of economic science. Some are more consistent than others.
Economic Forecasting is an ART. There are no quantifiable constants in economics. Do you disagree?
gunsandbullhorns 1 year ago
@gunsandbullhorns we can quibble over semantics (btw, the no true scotsman fallacy is defined as an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion). i'm quite familiar with the austrian school. that being said, to say that economic forecasting is not at all quantitative is to misunderstand the field. economics involves a vast amount of calculation. i'm kind of sick of reading your comments where you talk down to people when you're simply a nobody who acts like a know it all
Itsrothytime 1 year ago