Part 1: Battle Of The Economic Juggernauts (D)Krugman Vs (R) Taylor

[jayda5956]

this is NOT a left vs right debate.....this is Big Governement vs Limited Constitutional Governemnt, it is Keynesian Economics vs Austrian Economics, This is Top-Down Central Planning Statist view vs. True Free-Markets and Capitalist view

[kennedyt]

Milton Friedman is the only economist/"public intellectual" I will ever respect or refer to

[antonio3p1]

Paul Krugman is the man that in 2007 said the economy was in brilliant shape and that nothing was wrong. Why would you listen to him?

[bennynewton38]

Your video is a favorite on Japan



[ridewave444]

Wow, Taylor is an economic juggernaut?? It's obvious he's wrong on almost everything and doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. The facts 2 years after this make it even MORE obvious. You can't be this wrong philosophically and have any credibility. Unfortunately, there are many economists like this though, I think. Krugman evaluates things much more scientifically and has much better logical and reasoning skills which is why he's usually right and makes much better predictions.

[svvmichael1]

@ridewave444 Krugman has never been right. Obama/Krugman mismanagement of the economy has caused the double-dip recession. Go take some economics classes. If you need help figuring that out let me know, i'll direct you to the correct courses.

[FletchforFreedom]

@ridewave444 Two years after the crisis, no rational analysis can find Taylor fared worse than Krugman in ANY particular. The fact that Krugman's stimulus suggestions have never worked a single time in history, which is why, despite being a darling of the Left, he's a laughingstock in the profession and his predictions - dating back to the "inevitable tidal wave of inflation" following the Reagan tax cuts - is a major reason for this.

He's incompetent.

[Visfen]

"We need to do drastic things, we need to do something". No we don't, what an absurd assumption to even start with mr most-partisan-economist-in-the­-country.

[tommynoble5643]

It's great to watch this two years later and see how Taylor was wrong on just about everyting he says? Where are those higher interest rates he promised?

[svvmichael1]

@tommynoble5643 you do understand interest rates are artificially low right? I mean, you aren't dumb enough to think the FED's interference isn't the sole reason. Silly liberals, don't understand economics in the least.

[razerfish]

they sound like two Keynesians arguing.

[Newenlightenmentnow]

@razerfish That shows that you haven't even opened an economics book. You clearly know nothing. Let me guess, you read some bullshit wannabe austrian school economics book.

[infokemp]

I have subscribed to your channel.

[infokemp]

Thanks for allowing my video response.

All the best

David

[MrMustard12345]

As a student of economics, I am upset by Krugman: he is mostly normative, should be positive. I am actually surprised he won a Nobel. Can someone direct me to the research he did to win the Nobel? I'm actually curious.

[brentknol29]

@MrMustard12345 He won it for his analysis of comparative advantage, quite interesting.

[jessemaurais]

@MrMustard12345 If you go to college or university then you probably have access to collections of research papers online (Jstor for example). My school even lets me access them from home.

From what I understand, what he won the prize for has little to nothing to do with his liberalism or his Keynesian orthodoxy. It had to do with the concentration of large industries, and supposedly solved a long outstanding (but somewhat fringe) part of trade theory.

However, I'm no economist myself.

[thesparitan]

@MrMustard12345 Wow im a surprised you have an opinion when you are so ignorant. Look up international trade theory. If you knew anything about economics or Krugman you would know that.

[jimbobanalbeats]

Before judging the concept of stimulus, you have to look at what the morons in government spent it all on! FAIL!

[MomSaysImCool]

I agree with Krugman, that if we're going to have a stimulus package we have to commit! But according to the comments here liberals are beeg morans, so I'll withdraw.

[SvenBenson]

What's funny is the description of Krugman's policy "fixing" has proven to been an oxymoron.

[aviomaster]

Nobel  prize for PEACE to DUMBAMA the Puppet who is still continuing killing poor and deffensless IRAQI people, Nobel prize for economics fr Krugman who has no clue about economics,

THIS prize has been degraded.

[jtizz711]

Well, look who was right....

[jimbo525SE]

Eh.....Taylor is small time. Bring in Peter Schiff, Tom Woods, or Murphy. Then lets see what happens. My dream would be Milton Friedman, but as he is no longer with us....

[DWGuitar111]

It's funny to me how they put - Nobel Prize winning Economist - next to Krugman's name, as a sort of credential that he's some kind of expert... B.S. He just looks like a shifty con-artist to me. He may have a Nobel, but so does Obama....so there you go.

[MrFarcry1966]

@DWGuitar111

And you're...who, precisely? Why don't you lay out your scholarly credentials for us, Professor?

It's funny to me how know-nothings spew on youtube and believe they should be taken seriously.

[DWGuitar111]

@MrFarcry1966 " It's funny to me how know-nothings spew on youtube and believe they should be taken seriously."....then why do you do it?

[triviumecj]

i would suggest people watch the free to choose series by friedman or read his book free to choose. I guarantee he'll make you think.

[twistedrunes]

@triviumecj considering the neoclassical school is more or less toast I'm at a loss as to why people still like Milton Friedman. His ideas didn't work, he was brilliant mathmatician and libertarian but he fell too in love with his own theoretical models. Efficient Markets was and is a sham ideology. The idea that somehow our collective action is any less retarded than our individual action makes no sense.

[utubehayter]

@twistedrunes

"The idea that somehow our collective action is any less retarded than our individual action makes no sense."

Actually it does, only if you let failures fail, and successes succeed. Unfortunately, only the bad aspects of Friedman's philosophy were adopted, not the good ones. Mostly because people still believe "if my neighbor is getting wealthier, then he must be stealing from me".

[cuse88]

Here comes the dollar collapse.....

[funisverygood]

What a debate! Have to say i'm just on Krugman's side.

[FreakishDonQuixote]

taylor is a fucking joke and a disgrace for stanford.

[jscottupton]

There is a SCIENCE of economics but the temptation to make political judgements is hard to resist. At least some economists (like Friedman) make clear which books he writes are political/economic and which are pure economics.

[pcuimac]

Economists are no scientists at all. They are all witchdoctors. Economies are not ruled by scientific laws. They are at best like dynamical systems with deterministic chaotic phase changes. They wobble for some time like random walk (chaos) and then you get an episode of big upward or downward moves (order) because of all people doing the same at the same time. It´s main causes are called PANIC and HOPE with ignite a self enforcing feedback loop. It can not be calculated in advance.

[pacappell]

@pcuimac No, no, and no. This type of thinking will get us nowhere. People skeptical of the field of philosophy say the same thing you just said. Without the "witchdoctor" economists you lambaste we wouldn't be able to understand why Hoover's policies failed to get us out of the depression. Just because economics is difficult and doesn't provide a finite answer for our problems doesn't justify you dismissing it as a field.

[Vidar1979]

What rational economist suggests PERMANENT tax cuts. This is just completely and totally dishonest. He does not really think this it is not possible.

[roger6060]

It proves with the continued down turn, Krugman was wrong and is still is wrong.

[bonfirejovi]

So a year later and the Stimulus and Keynesianism in general has been proven to be a massive failure. Easy money and low interest rates got us into this mess, so what is the solution? More easy money and lower interest rates... Krugman is an idiot.

[casienwhey]

Krugman would probably advocate government control of all aspects of the economy. Deficits don't even seem to register with him.

[k2133100]

SORY TO SAY THAT BUT WE NEED AN OTHER DEPRESSION , TO KOCK OFF SOME GREEDY ASS HOLE ON TOP, IF CAN LEARN TO SHARE AN TAKE 5 MIN OF YOUR TIME A LOOK AROUND WHAT YOU DO TO PEOPLES LIFE , MABE YOU NEED THIS ECONOMY BRING YOU BACK ON YOUR KNEES, AN SEE WHAT YOU DID , TO PEOPLES LIFE , YOU CAN HAVE THE ALL MONEY IN THE WOLRD WHEN THIS DEPRESSION IT , YOU WON`T BE ABLE TO BY SHIT LIKE THE 30 S KRUGMAN IS RIGHT

[MrBloody32]

A year later, Krugman was right, there hasn't been inflation.

[MillzTheAthlete]

@MrBloody32 There is inflation... it just hasn't hit the market yet. Most of the bailout money is suck at the fed, but the credit handed out from that bailout money is not. If the interest rates don't go up soon, its a matter of time when that credit catches up to the market. A high interest rate is the only way the Fed can stop the inflation from hitting the market and right now the interest rates are at 0%. Its impossible to add over a trillion dollars to the system without inflation.

[bonfirejovi]

@MillzTheAthlete "Its impossible to add over a trillion dollars to the system without inflation."

I guess if the banks continue not lend forever then you won't have inflation.

[MillzTheAthlete]

@bonfirejovi Its seems thats the plan. Keep bailing out banks that refuse to lend. Bernanke and Krugman would love to see more stimulus. Its obviously not creating jobs. These morons can't connect dots. Middle class is broke- so they cant buy crap- so businesses fire ppl to cut cost. Its simple, the wealthier the middle class is, the more jobs there will be. The trick is wealth. Can the average person have real wealth in a forever inflating fiat currecy & fractional reserve system?

[fdutjklr]

@MillzTheAthlete You're incorrectly equating stimulus with financial stabilization. TARP and the Stimulus were two totally different things. The stimulus focused too much attention on Tax cuts rather than investment. Adequate Investment in long term infrastructure would have brought aggregate demand to recovery levels. As Krugman said, Nationalize the banks with the object of getting credit flowing again.

[MillzTheAthlete]

@fdutjklr You're playing semantics. A stimulus is money created at the fed and used as gov't intervention on the economy. Stimulus obviously doesn't stabilize finances bcuz its been tried and it failed. Whether it goes to "tax cuts" or investment, the fact that more money was created is the problem. Consumers are broke and nobody wants to fix the problem. They just hope whatever they pass through somehow trickles down. Create positive incentives & boost the wealth of the middle class.

[Finnbar01]

@MrBloody32 That's his goal though he wants inflation to take over.

[bonfirejovi]

@MrBloody32 That is only because the Banks aren't lending. Inflation is only visible once the banks start lending and the easy money makes it way through the system. Also some people define inflation as the rise in prices and others define it as an increase in the money supply, the latter is definitely happening. At the moment there are inflation and deflation forces battling each other however in the long term there will definitely be inflation as the fed will monetize the debt.

[MillzTheAthlete]

Pumping money into the middle class in short burst does not work. You must stabilize & grow the middle class in order the stabilize and grow the economy. To put it in simple terms... The middle class are 90% of the consumer base and now they are broke. That is why small businesses are getting crushed. Our gov't would rather fight wars than to fix the economy. Soon, the massive inflation from all this spending will end the currency (Zimbabwe). I hope you guys remembered how to mine for gold.

[jcomd]

@MillzTheAthlete Read Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals". The middle class is what prevents radicals from having their way. Ergo, they must be destroyed. They are the "have some want more" rather the the haves or have-nots. Look at the absence of a strong middle class in all tyrannical societies. The growing middle class in China is a future major headache for the tyrants.

[robbob35]

@HaroldHardsCat wtf???

[robbob35]

@HaroldHardsCat wow. subtract the disgusting antisemitism and you might have actually made a few good points. sadly, you destroy your own credibility when you get that far into the mud.

[robbob35]

I want to see Krugman debate Walter Williams.

[jeremyemilio]

Wow. How could two guys who disagree with one another so much both be so wrong?

[asavagemike]

Paul Krugman is a genius. Also, shout out to Fareed Zakaria, a foreign policy genius.

[robbob35]

@asavagemike Krugman's a jackass. The flaw in his thinking is he thinks its all the government's money. It's not. It's OUR money. Cut taxes, cut spending, cut regulation, and trust the free market. The business cycle is not an excuse for panic. If government stays out of it, the market is self correcting. Read Adam Smith.

[asavagemike]

@robbob35 I have read Adam Smith. Even he said the market is only self correcting if any one company or segment of the market was not allowed to monopolize. Also, far as I know Krugman has never made the mistake of thinking tax dollars didn't come from citizens. Right now, taxes on middle class Americans are the lowest they've been in decades. You want to fix the economy and the deficit? Cut MILITARY spending.

Our tax dollars should go toward programs that help us, not just corporate interests.

[bonfirejovi]

@asavagemike Anti-trust is a disaster... free markets, low compliance costs, lower barriers to entry and repealing of all subsidies would be a good way to get rid of monopolies. Wal-mart receives 1.2 billion in subsidies.

[asavagemike]

@bonfirejovi I agree that corporate subsidies must be ended, but I also favor strong antitrust/anti-monopoly legislation to help foster innovation & competition.

[asavagemike]

@robbob35 I'm also not sure how you can call him a jackass. He did win the Nobel Prize in economics. What have you done that makes you so much smarter than him?

[bonfirejovi]

@asavagemike MIlton Friedman also won it and says exactly the opposite.

[asavagemike]

@bonfirejovi well conservative-style "supply side" economics have gotten us in the mess we're in how, as well as the mess we were in in the 30's. I think it's time to call this one in favor of liberal economists, since those policies have always worked to pull us out of recessions/depressions. ie John Maynard Keynes

[R0773N]

@asavagemike Bullshit, liberal economics prolong the natural expansion/recessionary business cycle. Keynesian economics was proven a failure in the 70's and seriously, look for yourself: Obamanomics has been a complete and total failure.

[asavagemike]

@R0773N What is "Obamanomics"? You mean TARP? That was Bush. You mean the stimulus? That was too small. The only thing that was proven in the 70's is our unsustainable addiction to foreign oil. Keynesian policies brought us out of the Great Depression and fair labor laws created the middle class. I think you also need to look for yourself.

[R0773N]

@asavagemike Bullshit. Didn't Obama vote for tarp? The stimulus was too small? Are you kidding, nobody with a brain believes that. And if the 70's was about oil, why did the economy suddenly do well under Reagan? Obamanomics is a complete failure and so is Keynesian economics.

[asavagemike]

@R0773N So the New Deal never happened? It didn't work? You don't have Social Security, unemployment benefits and a minimum wage? Didn't most senators vote for TARP? And the economy didn't do well under Reagan for most of us, just the top 10%. The economy did markedly better under Clinton. Thanks for your comments. Keep drinking the conservative Kool Aid.

[darkmiles22]

TARP was mostly a brick wall on the downhill slope of a mountain stopping the economy from tanking.

Labor unions may arguably cause inefficiency, but they improve working conditions and wages. Ultimately the economy is a tool for improving the lives of humans, not the other way around.

Also arguably, Jews may be in positions of power more than any other religious group, but correlation does not imply causation. That's probably whizzing over your head though...

[darkmiles22]

Krugman makes sense. Half a bridge is no good. And the rosy picture by Taylor of stabilization and growth has only occurred because the market has been assured a strong demand for the forseeable future by the stimulus bill. Without that reassurance we'd be much worse off, mostly due to fear and self-fulfilling expectations.

[stealthswimmer]

not-sure-if-serious....

[stealthswimmer]

Ah, you're correct. Hayek wasn't.

But anyways, you're still saying that Mises and Rothbard loved Keyneds?

None of what you posted has any scientific or factual basis to it and is outright anti-semitic.

[edubctown]

@stealthswimmer they didnt love keynes, but hayek professed considerable respect for the man and even said "He was the one really great man I ever knew, and for whom I had unbounded admiration. The world will be a very much poorer place without him."

[stealthswimmer]

@edubctown

yeah, in terms of personal relationship Hayek did like Keynes. They were friends. They just disagreed on really important stuff in economics, lol.

[edubctown]

@stealthswimmer well that goes without saying

[robbob35]

@edubctown keynes was brilliant, but there is no substitute for the free market. once you start tampering with it, you are on the road to oblivion or totalitarianism, whichever comes first.

[stealthswimmer]

That's pretty interesting since Keynes was a fascist, meanwhile Mises, Rothbard, and Hayek were jews....

not to mention Milton Friedman, David D. Friedman, and Walter Block.

[TheCe1ebrity]

Thanks for the input Adolf.

[stealthswimmer]

What's your point?

[stealthswimmer]

strong anti-semitism

[stealthswimmer]

lol @ the description saying Krugman mopped the floor with Taylor. Economist George Selgin pointed out that if the Fed followed the Taylor Rule, the housing boom would've been at least 1/3 smaller and we most likely wouldn't have had a massive bust.

Krugman's statement that the stimulus wasn't big enough flies in the face of the Keynesian multiplier, not to mention that fiscal stimulus has been debunked numerous times by the economics profession.

[jcomd]

Krugman, a "juggernaut"??? Don't make me laugh. Morganthau declared after all the gov. spending after the great depression, nothing good happened. Dr. Thomas Sowell should have been on. He eats mental pissants like Krugman for lunch.

[FrickinLaserBeam]

Sowell or Paul or ANY Austrian could eat Krugman alive.

[scout6686]

WOW THIS IS SICK>>>>>>PROPS for whoever set this debate up.

[jackfruit22]

free market works - I agree. But the big and powerful players always cheat, like take billions from taxpayer when they fail. We need social safety net for the not so powerful.

There can never be completely free market because power is not equally distributed, and those with more power will always cheat in a free market system by lobbying the government. Economists discuss theory but ignore the greed and corruption of the powerful..,

[Sivels]

It is true that many big business people are corrupt (there are many good ones too! like Bill Gates who donates huge sums of money to good causes) but they're all greedy! which is good, as long as the risk of failing and competition keeps it a balance. May I remind you that it is the government that hand out bailouts.

there are many 'free-market' safety nets.. If you are interested in pro-free-market solutions to almost everything I suggest you look up the Cato Institute, they are quite smart..

[jackfruit22]

Thanks for reply Sivels, looked up Cato, interesting...

No government wants to a do a bailout - they were forced to pass it, for fear of colossal consequences by the same guys at wall street - who preach free markets. Of course, they wanted to use their leverage/coerce their way out of that calamity.

So free market is a theoretical concept, think about it. In practice, it is distorted, always; to power players advantage. Our democracy dosen't yet have a weapon against this.

[Sivels]

wall street doesn't preach the free-market! THEY like corporatism! because they know if they fail they'll get bailed out, furthermore the federal reserve (Created by the congress 1913) has lowered interest rates artificially low contributing to a deadly moral hazard.

A weapon against corporatism (I suggest you look up corporatism), I think is either a limited government constitutional democracy, but the ideal would be no government at all, lol, a government is only a monopoly on force..

[Bellator656]

They're shrills.

[hbar1212]

Do you mean shills or shrill shills? Yes some of them are paid from neoconservative think tanks, an apt name since they think "tanks" or the money to be made through neocon politics.

[Bellator656]

Shill, yes.

[mexaguil]

Paul Krugman is living in an upside down world where up is down and down is up. Hahaha, the ratchet effect has always worked the other way round, that's self evident..

"Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program." -- Dr. Milton Friedman

[jerthemessiah]

I wonder what Krugman is going to do for a living when his ideas crash the dollar. Hopefully not spew this nonsence for a living.

[kraskata2012]

Krugman is an idiot. Please, give back the Nobel prize. You are a disgrace!

[JP2times2007]

The power of the bail-out is its symbolism. The US government did what the leading capitalist state would do - protect the assets of the people who have deposits in their banks. The bail outs arent about saving Goldman Sachs, the CEOs, the shareholders - its about the US being, above any other state, the state that will protect your private property. During WWII, european gold filled Fort Know, because the US wasn't going to expropriate the wealth. Rick Rubin's book talks all about this.

[mexaguil]

@JP2times2007 Feeding on the propaganda? Bailouts are definitely not protection of private property. It is absolutely the opposite. Do you think the money grows on trees? It is either taken by tax or by inflation.

[JP2times2007]

I don't understand your point. My point is this: the bailouts where to reinforce that the US is a safe place to put your money. This is why during most economic crises, the US treasury bond is the safest place to put your money. The reason why the US is the safest place is because the state will guarantee your investment from market failure. Yes the US taxpayer lost out huge, BUT re-capitalization of the banks meant those with assets in them, pensions/mutual funds, wouldn;t become valueless.

[mexaguil]

Saving people from their own risk distorts insentives and encourages risky investment sowing the seeds for the next financial collapse. Bad investments will occur again and again for as long as investors rip all the profits when things go well and foot the bill to the taxpayer when things go bad. What is important is not the amount of investment but the quality of investments. Bankruptcies and losses are healthy and normal for the economy it reveals and frees up resources from what doesn't work

[JP2times2007]

I agree with you that business cycles free resources and in most cases you are right. But this financial crisis is different-for example, despoit insurance (FDIC) doesn't protect against losses on investment but 'brokerage failure'; not because of people's poor investment choices but because of systemic failure like liquidity contractions. This came about in the 1930s to restore confidence to the banks and prevent bank runs. 2007-09 is similar to this. The bail-outs were to restore faith

[supermex449]

Speaking as an economist myself i must tell you thatTaylor is also not a "right-wing economist" . Both Krugman and Taylor are New Keynesian economists and they actually embrace much of the same economic theories. Taylor is just saying that the cause of the recession was a wrong attitude of the Fed, concrning interest rates for too long (by the way under Republican administration ). His point is not that the crisis was caused by too much government, but by its wrong behavior.

[Sivels]

left wing economists really have no clue

[caltrop69]

Economics is SUPPOSED to be a science.

It's aggravating to hear either "left-wing" OR "right-wing" attached to the word.

Economics and economic solutions should be based on objective facts, rather than political ideology.

[Sivels]

Most economists build their theories on some rather simple principles or beliefs. And their economic theories build on a lot of philosophical theories about humans not directly linked to economics...

[caltrop69]

Are you suggesting that Democrats purchase goods and services differently than Republicans?

[Sivels]

well, economics is a lot more than ppurchasiing goods and services..

[caltrop69]

What are you suggesting, then?

Mind you...I'm not the one who said that there is such a thing as a "left-wing economist."

Krugman is an economist. He's obviously Liberal, as well.

He picks and chooses whichever theories will support his politics, of course...But the underlying science, and it's methods, should remain objective.

See what I mean?

When you rob a science of the veracity that the method lends it, it no longer means anything.

[Sivels]

yeah, but the question is what the goal/objective is, I guess you build your models from some pretty simple ideas... People like Paul Krugman, when it comes to it doesn't really believe in human freedom, many keynesian economists favor an elite 'know-what's-best-for-you' parental, central government, and this is terrible...

[caltrop69]

Well...I would presume the goal is to figure out how economies actually work.

The ironic thing about Keynesian economics was that it was originally designed by Keynes to decrease the power Unions had over wages by decreasing their value, while giving investors the first use of a non-debased issue of money.

What's more left wing than a Union?

The problem with Keynesian economics is that it IS political. The problem with left-leaning individuals is that they appear to hate themselves.

[Sivels]

Yes, haha.. One of the greatest tragedies was that Keynes died soon after his theories had bee 'published', and his 'disciples' have taken things much too far..

[caltrop69]

Sadly true...And Economics has been relegated to a "theory of opinion" ever since.

Even "Political Science"...Being the study of the arrangement of societal power structures, could have worked well without subjectivity.

Opinions don't hurt the sciences, if the scientific method is employed.

How the sciences are used after the conclusion...Is probably a different question.

[whoo689]

A truly worthy gold standard, not a pseudostandard, would benefit our economy greatly. The monetarists are WRONG- the gold standard did not contribute to the Depression. It was a badly-crafted standard that did it. Fiat money creates too many problems, one of which is allowing gov't to spend almost infinite amounts on programs.

Fractional-reserve banking may not be such a good idea, either, in hindsight. That is what allows the Fed to create so much money out of thin air.

[whoo689]

Post-Fed recessions since 1913/1914 were primarily created by bad monetary policy. Inflationary monetary booms can't go on forever. And then it hits us hard, and the economy has to correct itself. Does anyone here REALLY think a gov't central bank manipulating interest rates for the entire country has no deleterious effects? Come on! Of course it does. You're supposed to let banks determine their rates based on the state of the economy and the banks' assets, not some central planner.

[whoo689]

Who foretold the Depression? Primarily the Austrian economists. The pre-Keynesian big gov't people and institutionalists and non-Austrian neoclassicals were pretty much surprised. It's because they underestimated the Federal Reserve's impact on the economy. They didn't realize what a Leviathan they had created.

If you ask me, it is IMMORAL for any one agency to manipulate the currency as much as the Fed does. It damages our prosperity and does little good for the econ.

[whoo689]

Look up Peter Frank

[whoo689]

Paul Krugman's a moron. He doesn't take the profession seriously and is more of a political pundit than a true economist, if you ask me. His columns are a joke. He's just another typical Keynesian who has infected our academic system with that bullshit, who doesn't think outside the box and actually get real-world experience in business to find out whether or not what he claims is true. Mark Skousen, a brilliant economist, however, HAS real-world experience. He knows Keynesianism is bs.

[whoo689]

I could find a bazillion better economists than Krugman: Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, John Taylor, Milton Friedman, Henry Hazlitt, Friedrich Hayek, Mark Skousen, James Buchanan, Arnold Kling, just to name a few. And yet, Krugman gets to teach at a prestigious institution like Princeton? Please! The only reason, I think, the NY Times hired him is b/c they reinforce the paper's own liberal views on economics. They don't care about the facts. Their healthcare economist is also a liberal.

[davejoe75]

How come not one of these guys is talking about the Fed's role in causing this "crisis" with their loose monetary policies since 1982? Interest rates, like prices, send signals to borrowers for when to borrow for long-term projects. If you create false signals, you'll get massive entrepreneurial errors...just like we have now.

Right vs. left, D vs R...blah blah blah. Cut spending, raise interest rates (or free them), start saving, work smarter and let's get on with this painful readjustment.

[eatandtravel]

@davejoe75

I agree. When you have excess capital, it gets mis allocated. We went from bubble, to bubble--tech and housing. God, they teach at our top schools. Lord help us all.

[islandmuffin]

@davejoe75 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.

[MillzTheAthlete]

@davejoe75 You are 100% right. But that doesn't address the problem. Its the right thing to do short term, but long term it will just happen all over again. We must end the price fixing & debt monetization in the country by ending the fed. Let the treasury control the monetary system and not some independent bank posing as a national central bank thats bailing out failed companies. The Fed has too much control over the world economy and its failed keynesian economic policies need to stop.

[davejoe75]

@MillzTheAthlete Amen. I'm on the side of Hayek on this one. Let the market decide which currencies to use. The Treasury would never go to a commodity backed currency, but ya never know. END THE FED!

[GaiusIuliusTaberna]

@davejoe75 Because that has nothing to do with anything. The reason we have a trade deficit with china is because their central bank prints extra money, devaluing their currency, and allowing them to flood our markets with exports.

If anything inflation will help us until we have some international system to regulate trade.

[davejoe75]

@GaiusIuliusTaberna Don't forget - in return for us buying their exports, they buy our bonds, which keep interest rates low. Without Asians buying our bonds, this whole debt pyramid would implode. Also, when we devalue USD, bond holders get pissed b/c they're paid in USD. When your creditors are upset, they'll ask 4 more interest or stop buying. This leads to all subsidized US sectors declining 2 mkt clearing rates.

Huge centralized organizations don't work. How much more proof do u need?

[Staticnz]

America is so so far from socialist it's stupid.

[alex30085]

@Staticnz soooooooooooooooooootrue

[hotdogwell]

Don't you think your being a little no alot pessimistic and bizarre ?

[hotdogwell]

The stimulus is creating jobs through these tough times.Just long enough to get credit flowing again .

[hotdogwell]

The market is still free just not free to rob people .

[hotdogwell]

Do you know how much of a "socialist" country we are ? Less then one percent . So stop crying wolf Weeth .

[Weeth]

ugh.. if i hear the statement "creating demand" one more time..... you do not "create demand" by taking peoples money and spending it on political interest projects. that is, at best, "recycling demand". in reality, it is diverting resources from free market activity into government-dictated activities. that does not stimulate anything but government.