Krugman says conservatives win elections by exploiting racial tensions...he is an outright liar. Any time a liberal is backed into a corner, they pull the race card....they are just as guilty as conservatives when it comes to talking about race.
I just watched this and didn't realize it was from 2007.
Krugman has little credibility to me now after studying economics and how capital flows in and out of the country, including the monetary policy, he might sound smart but he has a great many flaws in his thinking.
He also seems to have the ability to be very political and use buzzwords.
I wonder if he is smart enough to figure out where he had it wrong and will start listening to the previously ignored professors who predicted everything.
Krugman is an idiot to say that republicans "really hate the idea of helping people"....I've known my share of republicans who would give the shirt off their back to anyone in need. Farmers are a perfect example...hardworking, republicans, and charitable. Elitist libtards like Krugman are some of the last people who would ever help anyone in need. Krugman is a fucking cooze.
@meccaturbo Oh heaven forbid if Krugman were talking about individual Republicans instead of the party leadership! Because right wing policymakers are always so careful in their criticisms and never make generalizations of the Left right? Don't be so thin-skinned. You only make yourself look like an idiot when you call a respected economist names. Argue the theory, not the person. If you'd listen carefully you'd realize that his ideas are wholly compatible with American economic values.
@gnomechomskylives That's okay, we have already confirmed that you are an idiot. Your petulant ranting, and whiney retarded commentary make my 2 year old son sound like an adult compared to you. Krugman is not universally respected, and neither are you. Anyone who makes gross generalizations about a given party is a narrow minded fool, and Krugmand has proven himself to be just that.
@meccaturbo Once again you make an idiot out of yourself (when you point a finger, you have three pointing back at you).
Krugman is pointing out facts: The Southern Strategy, "Welfare Queens," Willy Horton, Birtherism, Islamophobia, immigration, dog whistle/identity politics; all inventions of the Right.
But your continued use of insults betrays your conscious efforts to deflect away from a debate you know you cannot win. I hope your son doesn't grow up to be as dimwitted as his poor father.
@gnomechomskylives Wrong, as usual. Krugman says that all GOP members hate donating to charity, which is a complete lie. Farmers, primary GOP constituents, are some of the most charitable contributors of all. Krugman is a former coke-head in his past life- he's an idiot who's proven again and again that he doesn't know anything about the economy. The massive stimulus he advocated resulted in what? A continuation of 9% unemployment...proof that he, like you, is an idiot.
@gnomechomskylives There's nothing in this debate to lose - Krugman's advocation of a massive "stimulus" resulted in our same unemployment rate....he has advocated failed solutions again and again. You can't argue with that fact, you fucking low intelligence shill.
@meccaturbo Are you insane or just ignoring the facts that don't suit you? The nationwide unemployment rate at its peak was +10% and now sits around 8 percent. Michigan had +14% and is now in the single-digit 9% (obviously not a great number but better than before). This, considering the anemic stimulus bill; imagine if they'd passed the full amount needed?
If you don't think government creates jobs, just look at the outrage the GOP expresses when there's talk of slashing defense spending.
@gnomechomskylives Trillions spent and still around 9% unemployment. It is not "around 8%" - quit with your lies already. I just looked it up, and it's currently 8.6%. Like i said, Krugman doesn't know anything about what it takes to make this country competitive. He and all the know-nothing "progressives" think infrastructure is the way to go with stimulus money. It is not, it does nothing to make this country competitive, the way manufacturing does. I rest my case, you are an idiot.
@meccaturbo Infrastructure isn't important? Tell that to Eisenhower. He oversaw economic growth, built the interstate highway system (among other things) and had a top marginal tax rate of 90 percent. Being called an idiot by someone so willfully ignorant of history, so benighted of reason, so dulled of senses that I am not at all offended. I'm amused. It's like the story of the Emperor with no clothes. The more you insist you're right the more it's obvious you know nothing of which you speak.
@gnomechomskylives This is not 1956, you moron....in the 50's we had a strong manufacturing base and the threat of China was nonexistant. Different times now, you douchebag. Manufacturing is far more important of an investment than infrastructure is. You're the one who doesn't know anything, it's clear that you suffer from mental retardation by the childish ranting in your pathetic posts.
@StatelessEuphoria We already look like Cuba - Batista's Cuba (Pre-Castro) that is - what with the corrupting power of money controlling the branches of our government, the middle and poor working class are left unrepresented while the moneyed interests control everything.
And we have idiots like you - who don't know their fascistic assholes from their corporate welfare-loving elbows - for enabling these private tyrannies all in the name of "capitalism."
You ask him to defend his views, how far are you willing to take things, "Paul Krugman" healthcare healthcare healthcare healthcare....
that's all he says, and then it starts to get good when he criticizes republicans on all their issues but can only seem to say one thing about defending liberalizm........Journalists, i hate them bring out the BLOGS.
Stop being a pussy krugman and accept peter schiff challenge to debate the economy !!! If you actually believe the non-sense your saying then man up and fight for it !! Maybe krugman knows he has no chances in a debate against peter schiff and maybe he doesn't actually believe what hes saying..
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."
The post office thing is a fucking stupid idea Americans have. If you elect people who hate a public service, they're not gonna make it good. In the Netherlands, people complain the same way about former government services that were privatised. Dutch people have very high expectations of government services, and if public institutions make big mistakes, it's always a scandal sparking public debate and causing the public to put pressure on the government. Result: top notch public services.
People complaining about welfare "killing initiatives" actually mean: "I don't wanna clean up after myself in the office, so some immigrant woman should be forced to choose between extreme poverty or cleaning up my crap."
@StatelessEuphoria It IS a crazy thought. Isn't welfare for mothers with dependant children? Why force those people to work, and not even for a real wage or even a decent income? A fair amount of people could play a better role in society if wage labor wasn't imposed on them the way it is.
@StatelessEuphoria You also apparently think cleaning is not work. Do you realize how grotesquely elitist that is? You're a typical bloodsucking capitalist, completely disregarding the people you depend on, and the irony is you probably think of yourself as recognizing the strenghts of ordinary people and being against the 'liberal elite' who think ordinary people are idiots.
Sigh..obviously I mean it is a better use of resources for me to do the work I get paid to do and pay someone to "clean up after me". I get paid $A an hour for producing $A+B of value. If I had to clean as well, I would produce $D of value, and it costs $E an hour to pay someone to clean. If my employer pays someone to clean instead of me, then it is necessarily true that E < (A+B-D), or else they would be losing money by paying someone to clean. lrn2economics.
...but that's admitting free market capitalism doesn't actually mean freedom for all working people. It only means freedom for those people having the luxury to be able to work on a career.
I don't like that argument of SS, unemployment benefits etc "killing initiative". People want to do work they like regardless of taxes (ever heard anyone say: 'God, if it wasn't for those taxes, I would work so much harder...'?. Ever told yourself that? No.) It is true however that people who hate their jobs wouldn't do them if they weren't forced to,...
well Krugman, the 90's = 20's, 00's = 30's and next decade will be like the 40's (and yes that means a true world war) so the 20's = 50's. Makes sense. We are living through that time much like the 30's and what is next, like one key economist said "a good old world war would be good for our economy' so not because I want it but there are many would benefit and there is many in the world who have real reasons to be anti-american based on american policies so chances are 10's = 40's
No economist will ever tell you that a war is good for the economy. It depends on what kind of war. If it's fought overseas during a crisis and not on your territory, it's good -- but it's good because it gives you the political agreement to increase governmental spending...
So, the actual truth is: a huge fiscal expenditure program may be what you need in a time of crisis. It's the most gigantic proof of concept ever realized.
The idea that the private sector is more efficient than the government. I got pink eye while in the Navy and then when I left the military it costs me 100 dollars (50 viisit/50 med eye drops). That doctor makes less than his private counterpart. Gov health care = cheaper and more efficient. Instead what the government should do is provide to pay off all the loans or simply give scholarships to those who wish to be doctors and get 10 years of service from them. That would make a huge difference
That is why it is morally justified to take wealth from the extremely wealthy. Let them live in extreme fear and spend more and more of their income in security. The prime goal is to eliminate their children since most of that wealth collection is about inheritance, defeat that purpose and simply eliminate those they wish to leave their money too. People who work around the rich are best to make those decisions. Make the rich paranoid, reinforce that psychological trait, let them mentally suffer
Ask Paul how the welfare state started in Israel. We supply them with a LOT of foreign aid and they support the Hasidic Jews of their nation with basically welfare. So did they learn our welfare system?
Ok while this sounds great we should consider what was the perscription he gave us
"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." Paul Krugman, 2002
How funny is it that they didn't predict the Tea Party movement? 4 years later the far right wing has not only not disappeared, they're more up in arms in our faces than ever.
cmon think just a little bit people.how can a small government work for a huge amount of people? that's like a 2bdrm house for octo mom.why not a national min wage? walmart pays $4.50 in bama and $7.50 in penn,wake up.why do poor and lower middle class whites,support the rich stealing and dodging taxes?business does well when people have money to spend.If you let go of racsim your eyes will open to so many of the other bullshit plots,scams and schemes they use on us dumb whites wake bro's
think about this.. I am going to start a business. I invest my savings and start my business, if this business is not successful and I go bankrupt, the government will never come and help me out. But once I start making money, the government comes in and forcefully becomes my partner, and asks for my share of the income in terms on income tax!! 70% is not crazy high?!?! what the fuck is wrong with you Krugman?!?!?!
@dumbokks First, If you try to start a business with your own capital, you're an idiot. You should be financed by venture capitalists and other business partners. Second, the government doesn't tax your business income at 70%, Krugman is referring to personal income tax. Also, he's talking about the highest MARGINAL tax rate. So, you would have to be making massive amounts of money to even pay close to 70%, this makes sense as individuals experience diminishing marginal utility from income.
@wolfcaster If you are talking business, what would you do if you had a major share of the income from your SOLE or FAMILY business (self employed), which generates a profit (which should be your/family income) of $1,000,000 per year? Would you rather give 70% or more to the government? or use the profits to grow the business, to employ more people, invest in equipment that will increase productivity of your business and ultimately get you bigger profits? lets talk common sense, not just econ.
@dumbokks First, my backgrounds are in finance and economics, not accounting and law, but... I support (I would guess Krugman would too) a low business tax rate of 15-20%. You should incorporate your business. Then pay yourself dividends, and reinvest the rest into your business. Now, if the law doesn't work that way, I would simply argue to change it when we make this mythical change in the tax law. Dividends, cptl gains, and all other income would be subject to high progressive rates
@dumbokks Let's look at this scenario, you have 1 million net. Let's take out 20% from business tax. This gives you 800,000, you can decide what goes to you in income and what goes to your business. Existing costs are already factored in so we don't have to worry about that. So, let's take 300,000 back into the business. Now we got 500K to give to ourselves. This will be subject to our nasty progressive taxes.We don't know how much will be taken out though without the brackets.
@dumbokks okay, let's say the brackets are 10,000 - 10%; 30,000 - 20%; 60,000 - 30%; 120,000 - 40%; 240,000 - 50%, 500,000 - 60% and 1 million and up is 70%. (I just made these up on the fly, but I think it's a good estimate). Okay, so under this tax scheme, of the 500,000 you gave to yourself, you would owe 204,000 in tax, giving you just shy under 300,000 for you income, not bad at all IMO. The fact that the tax rates are marginal makes the big difference.
@dumbokks One last thing, see how cool this is? It gives you the incentive to invest in your business, because if you took all 800K for your self the next tax bracket would eat up a lot of it (60% percent of that 300K, Ouch!), so it makes sense to actually invest more money into your business to avoid tax. Of course hopefully the investment pays off and you make even more money.
Please note that my book Keynes Hayek: The Clash That Shaped Modern Economics is published by W.W.Norton in October.
Professor John B.Taylor says that: “Nicholas Wapshott brings the Keynes-Hayek fight of the 20th century back to life, making the clash both entertaining and highly relevant for understanding economic crises of the 21st century.”
Read an extract at: sites.google.com/site/wapshottkeyneshayek/
@JImmy4336 i'm not sure where krug stood regarding bailing out banks, but he's an open check book, to be sure. the post war prosperity was due to a competitive advantage in manufacturing over war-torn europe, and greater private savings. fdr's spending extended the depression, through the war. was reagan restraining gov't as a private citizen in the 70s? how on earth can wealth trickle down with gov't making free enterprise and labor unaffordable. krugman is best at this game of softball.
Okay, so he doesn't factor in that at the WW2 when we had the great "prosperity", the entire world economy was demolishedt, and so everyone was buying everything from United States, all their currencies were pegged to ours,and we were sole manufacturer in he world. Maybe that had something to do with it...?
The only debt is false fiat banking scheme loans made fraudulently in my opinion, so do it like france did during Napoleon and take the bankers money. Communists always take the peoples companies, and the peoples public works and the peoples labor... that sucks. I say take the financial sector, and restructure it. But dont bother the small-time worker, who owes nothing to begin with.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Paul Krugman stop running and debate Peter Schiff! He is willing to give you money to debate and you can bring your nobel prize for moral support. This guy is a joke and shouldn't be allowed to lecture anyone on economics...or history for that matter...a true clown under failed Keynesian policies
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"I will pay Paul Krugman to debate with me. He can even bring his nobel prize with him for moral support (because he doesn't have a clue about economics or history for that matter)" -Peter Schiff...................Keynesian policies are a total failure. Another 600 billion the fed is printing up in the name of quantitative easing II (inflation). I'm willing to bet my savings that this is an utter failure. You can have my savings when the dollar isn't worth the paper it is printed on, Paul.
Wow I love in that completely cherry-picked history lesson he left out the complete failure of bretton-woods agreement and the great stagflation that led to Reagan's win. Why did the conservatives become so popular Paul? Because your system was an abject failure.
When Reagan took office , the national debt was 900 billion and when he left office it grown to 2,6 trillion . So, Reagan Increase govnt spending and not cutting . Bonfierjovi , When was the last republican President that balance the Budget . Meanwhile , what happend to small government republican in the 2001 to 2008
@steve75ca false dichotomy. both parties are beholden to special interests: increasing public deficit spending, and encouraging private wasteful consumption especially. gov't has also been keen in hollowing out our comparatively expensive workforce and potential tax contributions, if only to close the gap between spending and revenue. only an independent, or close to one, riding a market-like wave of protests, will undo all the spending and interference of gov't. when do we start?
@steve75ca Hey bro some hack "Free Market economist" wants to debate krugman, he's even gonna give a foodbank in NY 60k if he'll debate him!!! look up robert murphy Paul Krugman debate
I just finished this book last month. The marginal tax rate for the rich is explained as such: If you earn $3 million in today's money, you will be taxed at the regular rate. Everything over the $3 million would be taxed a progressive rate which was 91% under Republican President IKE and 70% under Democratic President Carter.
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!
It's an ironic coincidence how Krugman and other liberal economists point out that the average American family might not be better off since the early 1970s and we went off any semblance of the gold standard in 1971. Blaming right wing political ideas is ridiculous given the massive increases in government spending and the scope of government bureaucracy since Reagan.
@underdg22 Do you know ANYTHING about History? Ronald Reagan, the God of the Right-Wing, actually INCREASED TAXES on the working Middle Classes and the Poor in 1986, in his so-called "Tax Reform." Don't believe me? Do something different than getting all your History from Fox News and look it up! The Right-Wing does not represent your interests unless you happen to be ultra-Rich, or run a large Corporation!
@bestgodzillaman I know Reagan wasn't a real tax cutter and I was including him as a government expander. There hasn't been a president since Coolidge that actually practiced the idea of limited government. But I'll challenge another popularly held idea; that tax cuts for upper income brackets and big corporations don't benefit the poor. Keeping money in the hands of those who use it most efficiently in business allows the rapid accumulation of capital that raises living standards.
@ncurran1987 You are wrong, that's not how the tax system works. 91% was the top MARGINAL tax rate. It only applied to earnings above $400000 (equivalent to over $1million today).
So if you earn $400100, only $100 of your income is taxed at 91%. The rest of your income is taxed at lower rates. You will end up paying much less than 91% of your income in tax.
Here's the problem. Krugman is spot on in so many ways...but the people victimized the MOST by the Right Wing (and to some degree the Tea Party) are the ones MOST ON BOARD with right wing causes!!
Aren't Leftists naive and wrong to help these numb nuts? Shouldn't we just let the evolution they don't believe in run its course, since they've chosen to vote to their own detriment?!
Keynes was an elitist and all his work is directed toward the goal of creating excuses for expanding despotism and control of people's earning. This is well understood by most Keynesians including Paul Krugman
Krugman is right that Europe has cheaper socialized healthcare than our partially-socialized healthcare. But, Europe's system is much more expensive and wasteful by comparison if we would simply privatize all of it. He's also a blind zealot if he wants to claim public bureacracies are as efficient as private.
State's rights is one and the same with segregation? Wtf?
Whenever someone doesn't have to pay for something (i.e. Medicare), you will have uneconomized use of the program. This is true whether 2% of the country is on it or 100%. Krugman should know about demand-pull inflation. It's why college tuition has gone up 93% since 1992 and healthcare costs all of a sudden started exploding magically after 1965 when they signed Medicare and Medicaid into law.
Egalitarianism does not help an economy. This, again, is a contradiction in terms. Economics is all about results-oriented resource allocation. You do not put undue economic responsibility in the hands of some bum simply because it's his "right" and think prosperity will abound.
Peer-reviewed 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.
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.
As the way of all things, what effect do you suppose its question, knowledge, understanding and application by billions of persons would have on the state of global economics, science, the humanities, education, government and business?
Isn't it funny that we never actually had a great depression until we got Krugman's beloved federal reserve bank? He holds cuba up as a the great example? People in Cuba live in poverty, well, at least most of them. What caused the 70's? Krugman's beloved great society, the moon landings and Vietnam. Right wing idealogy came along in the 70's? Isn't that the decade Nixon said "We are all Keynesian now!"? The main reason that the income gap has widened so much is because of inflation.
@christo930 the FED was in no way tied to the great depression. no economist will tell you it was other than the delusional die hard austrians that worship ron paul (not saying i totally disagree with austrian ec, it has some good things to offer, but it's not a complete theory by any means.) Without a credible FED, we go back to the 1880s when we had mafia control, monopolies, and worsening recessions every 7 years.
@marth193 The fed was responsible for the inflationary boom in the 20's and the deflationary bust in the 30's. The mafia got it's stranglehold on the US in the 20's during prohibition with all that drug (alcohol) money. Look at what has happened to the quality of life since the gold window was closed by Nixon. We were the largest manufacturer in the world, paid the highest wages, had the highest quality of life and was the largest creditor nation in the world. Look at life NOW.
@NihilTico None were as severe or as long as the ones since the federal reserve. I don't know much about the bank run of 1873, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was caused by the inflation of the Civil war and reconstruction.
@christo930 There were around a dozen panics during the 1800's, so I don't think that you could make a good argument that the economy was more stable during the years prior to the establishment of the Federal Reserve.
@selfrealizedexile And full reserve banking is unrealistic, but you ignorant people don't understand this. Also, we don't have to worry about this "irrational exuberance", as Greenspan would call it, in respect to panics because of the FDIC, which has been a tremendous success. However, if we would have continued with the stupid idea that markets "self regulate", then we would still be suffering from a highly volatile financial sector, which plagued much of the 19 century.
Unrealistic? Wtf? When a bank makes loans in such a way as it can't honor its contracts and suspends specie payments, that's called fraud. The FDIC has merely caused more overleveraging of the sector. The problem with your reasoning is that, if it were true, it should be carried out to its logical conclusion which is more and more gov't regulation of the economy. The financial sectors were no way as volatile as they are today. Today so much loss is collateralized so that
@selfrealizedexile Really? The "financial sectors were no way as volatile as they are today"? Google panics and you will find out that there were nearly a dozen panics during the 19 century, But of course, we shouldn't have a FDIC to prevent such unnecessary panics (sarcasm). Also, regulations of the financial sector have been proven to be very successful. For example, after the Roosevelt administration's regulations were put in place in the 30's Continued...
There is no danger of a bank run when a currency warehourse actually is an honest currency warehouse. It is the fraudulent warehouses that experienced bank runs and they were legitimate checks on the banks breaching contract.
It's interesting you have to stop at 40 years. What happened the 41st year? Surely it wasn't an economic phenomenon that disproved the crux of your theory, right? And, surely, what the Federal Reserve did leading up to the '70s had no effect on
@selfrealizedexile I didn't mean exactly 40 years of stability, I meant around 40 years, but that should have been fairly obvious. But with all of this set aside, you still weren't able to give a good explanation for why we had all of this stability in the financial sector for about 40 years, from your austrian perspective. The only reason we have seen this instability in the financial sector, as of late, is primarily because of deregulation.
My argument is not that we had 40 stable years. If you study the data in detail, you see mounting inflation and its inability to solve unemployment. It came to a head in the '70s, but it wasn't out of the blue and unrelated to the distortions the gov't imposed prior.
With respect to the present situation, in my view the Fed always causes distortions through its cartelization of what would be a natural interest rate in its absence, but the GSEs played a truly sinister
@selfrealizedexile Actually, you are wrong about the 40 years, after the Roosevelt regulations had been put in place, being characterized by high inflation to lower unemployment. Inflation was pretty moderate most of those years, until the mid 70's. As far as giving loans to poor people goes, I think that it is very naive to put so much blame on the community reinvestment act because there is a bit of a time problem. Continued...
role in acting as the moral hazard. And it was only possible through this misconceived egalitarian economics mindset that Krugman has. "Everyone deserves an 'affordable' education, everyone deserves a house, everyone deserves to not be in debt for too long, etc." So, the Fed as usual gave cheap money which allowed investors to invest on the margin (malinvestments), but when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac backed the loans, it really magnified it. If you follow the regulatory
bodies well, you know Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had record fines for embezzlement. And that was just what little they discovered after the fact. Your "regulation" really isn't regulation, but a carte blanche for legal plunder. It can be demonstrated to be unnecessary a priori and is proven ineffective and counter-productive in reality.
Currency warehouses are entitled to charge costs for the service of title exchange, but they have no moral claim to extract assets out of
what happened in the '70s--it merely came out of the blue, no cause-effect at all, right? I'm not trying to demonize you as a person, but you Keynesians are simply ad-hoc theoriests. You really do not understand what grows an economy. Japan was about as much of a lab test of your guys' theory as it gets--BOJ followed textbook Keynesian manipulation contrasted with their high-savings/investment approach which yielded them 10% growth year over year prior to stimulating.
@selfrealizedexile Banking used to be a rather boring business, until regulations were peeled off. And that is a big problem, you want a boring financial sector and not one where the atmosphere is casino like, which is what you will get with unfettered markets. Furthermore, can you show me any evidence of success in commercial banking, as a result of 100% reserve banking?
the clients. To do so would be fraud. It's not that you have stagnated investment under a full-reserve system. It's that you have it done between the investor and the invested. The bank is merely a vehicle, it isn't the main investor of its own assets. No one would rationally give resources to an entity which will claim it as mostly its own. You can have brokers. That's fine, but the bank model itself is not in essence that. It's merely a convenience of title exchange.
How exactly are you defining "success in commercial banking" ? It's not about the benefits of one party; it's about the growth rate of the economy and private property being protected. And if we're going to talk about growth rates, 3% year over year is nothing compared to what it could be in a freer society.
@selfrealizedexile The act had been around since the 70's without any problems. So the problem is not giving loans to poor people, it is lack of regulation.
It goes beyond one act. It is the culmination of the every distortion the gov't has put on the financial sector including the FDIC itself among others. Your folly is in rejecting a prior analysis--logic itself. We can do the inductive game if you like, however in simply studying the case of Japan which took the Keynesian medicine further than we did. I'm not economic or legal scholar like the Austrians, so if you want proof-positive evidence (which is impossible in economics
@selfrealizedexile I am aware of Rothbard, but have not read his books. However, I know how he and most austrians think because I've read my fair share amount of books on the austrian school of economics. In fact, I used to read articles from the Mises institute online religiously, until I found out that many of the austrians, including hayek and mises, supported fascism. If you don't believe me, then look it up for yourself.
I don't believe you and I've read thousands of pages that demonstrate otherwise. What's more, Rothbard was the culmination of the school imo. If you don't read him, you're missing out on the Anarcho-Capitalist tradition. Mises, Bohm-Bowerk, and Menger all contributed a tremendous amount, but, again, Rothbard was the addition of all these achievements. Finally, what does this have to do with the methodological debate?
) you should consult one who has called himself one or any of the volumes of the history on economic thought written by Murray N. Rothbard. For me, I study political economy as a hobby. I found it fascinating and I grasped the material quickly. It is not my long-term career goal (theoretical physics), however; so, I don't go around memorizing dates or the infinite amount of statistical minutia possible (I do know my fair share though in the course of reading 10-15 books on it
). You have to remember the inherent problem in the Keynesian vs Austrian debate and it's pure a methodological one. Keynesians claim Austrians aren't epistemologically rigorous and Austrians claim Keynesians have drowned themselves in inductive analsis whereby anything can be correlated with anything, being liable to incorrect cause-effect conclusions if they don't heed a prior logic. So, with this in mind, you must see the weakness in challenging an Austrian to a
statistical show-and-tell. Me being a natural scientist at heart, I don't fault you for going this avenue. But, you must realize that economics is a social science, not a natural science. Using the scientific method is near-impossible in economics if not absolutely impossible. What we must instead do is utlize logic from a set of axioms like mathematics does (who challenges a mathematician to an a posterori debate? it's simply an endeavor within logic itself). If you want
properly challenge an Austrian, you must find fault in one of their axioms or how they apply logic from those axioms. It is, by virtue of the method, unassailable from a posteriori challenges. But, again, I won't limit myself to strict defense in this debate. Let's work through the a posteriori defense of your own school. The most telling example is Japan which exhibited a 10% growth year over year from the 1950s to 1980s through, by and large, the deregulated approach
@selfrealizedexile It would be fair to say that one of the primary reasons that Japan's economy went down the tubes in the 90's, was because of deregulation. Japan deregulated many of the sectors of its economy, including the financial sector. Japan is a great example of how deregulation, especially of the financial sector, can be very dangerous for an economy.
@selfrealizedexile I'm not wrong about Japan. Japan's monetary and fiscal policy were not tight enough during the good times to be considered keynesian. However, according to you, Japan's economy during the 70's and 80's, was very keynesian, which shows how ignorant you are of keynesianism. The only time that Keynes advocated for loose fiscal and monetary policy, was during the bad times. But you are making it look like keynesianism always advocates for loose monetary and fiscal policy.
wherein the Japanese saved and invested a third of their income in capital goods that were naturally in demand (not stimulated to be in demand). This continued until the BOJ started the Keynesian agenda where they tried to smooth out cycles, lower unemployment with inflation, etc., but all it accomplished was creating cycles and even more volatile ones. I don't think I need to get into the details of their Nikkei movements and the lost decade. It is my claim that this data
@selfrealizedexile I'm curious why inflation scares you so much? You are aware that inflation is much less dangerous than deflation? You austrians tend to ignore how dangerous deflation can be for an economy.
The absolute quantity of money has no effect in and of itself in the long run--prices simply adjust if everyone's salaries were given two extra zeroes. The problem I do have with inflation, deflation--any arbitrary modification of the money supply--is the nature of how the money is distributed. It isn't instantaneous and it is given to politically-connected entities first. Therefore, investment is misallocated to the margin as investors are fooled and incentivized to do so
and it is a form of wealth redistribution in the short-term (if adjustments are always occurring, however, it is forced to become long-term) from those who get the money last to those who get it first. So, I oppose it because it hijacks the price system / incentive structure and it does so in the two aforementioned ways.
@selfrealizedexile You are aware of the fact that Schiff, who I'm sure you are fond of, has implied numerous times that he is smarter than the markets, especially about inflation?
Yes, but it's from a different respect, you see. And, as evidenced by his accurate prediction of the housing bubble (he wasn't the only one ofc), he obviously was write where the "market" was wrong. The difference between this example and Keynes is that Keynes that it was wrong in its natural state. Schiff is saying that individual actors are being deceived and herded into investments that are of gov't construct. Very critical distinction.
right*, "is that Keynes said that it was wrong in its natural state."**
The main problem I have with Keynesianism and his personal endeavor in the field of economics is that he averaged away the cause-effect interrelationships between different productions into "aggregates." He was a demand-side nut who believed spending was wealth-creation and savings (investment) was "hoarding." His interest rate theory left much to be
@selfrealizedexile Keynes did certainly NOT believe that investment was hoarding. You could only say a thing like that if you had never actually read anything by him. Keynes believed investment was the key to economic growth, but that economies had a tendency to under-invest, that is, saving WITHOUT investing. Those un-invested savings are what constitutes hoarding, according to Keynes. Do a little homework.
I've read more pages of Keynes than I'd care to. What I said was he thought savings was one and the same as hoarding which is simply false. Keynes did not believe investment was the key to growth, at least not the modern definition of investment and its fluctuations as evidenced by the legislation he'd like to see past regarding it. Keynes was not rigorous even from an inductive standpoint. His theory was backed up by virtually no statistical analysis, just anecdotal
@selfrealizedexile Once again, I am willing to bet you have not in fact read, as I have, the General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money in its entirety. If you had, you would know that Keynes' concern was not that savings are bad, but that they are not necessarily translated into investment. Beyond that, try reading his Essays in Persuasion, where he discusses the needed levels of savings to create enough capital to sustain a growing population at high living standards. Seriously, read.
@selfrealizedexile You still have not answered the rather glaring problem of the fact that you have not read a word of what you are seeking to criticize. That is the problem with people, you think economics is like a football game, you can learn a few facts and names and then sit around and give your opinion. But its not. These ideas are complex, and to understand them you must first read them in their entirety. If you are interested in Keynesian monetary theory, read A Tract on Monetary Reform.
Same lame response yet again. In your tiny world, the only possibility is I "haven't read it" for me to disagree with it. Surely, it's impossible for someone to have read every chapter of it and thought it was about as useful as toilet paper. This conversation was going nowhere fast anyways and rather boring. I'm out.
@selfrealizedexile Its certainly possible that you had read it, but you never answered me when I asked if you had. And I was forced to conclude that you had not by your lack of elementary knowledge of Keynesian theory. Anyway, I refuse to apologize for recommending that people read more books.
speculation. What he actually believed grew an economy is stimulated consumption. This belief requires that one believe that hundreds of millions of actors don't know what's good for them but the few, brilliant central-planners. He was one of the most overrated intellectuals in academic history, but that's probably not saying much. As I was discussing with another below, a posteriori analysis even disproves your school via stagflation and Japan. You guys simply don't
don't grasp fundamental economics. As a friend said, you are anti-economics. Period. Your policies only entail capital consumption. You might have accepted micro axioms, but you throw them out with your macro claims. From a scientic standpoint, you guys are inconsistent and grossly sloppy. Your theories fail on so many levels. You insult natural scientists like myself by pretending you can be in our league and use our methods in a social science.
@hoodoo961 Sure Keynes believed this, but it is a preposterous notion that legislators will be more wise with money they get with their monopoly on violence than people who actually worked for that money.
Why is investment always a good thing? sometimes it's a good idea to save and hoard your money. Growth is not always a good,thing. What if there aren't enough savings in the economy to justify it? there are many people who get wealthy not through investment but through savings over time
@Sam26100 You seem to be confused about how savings and investment actually works, otherwise your "point" is unintelligible. Most savings you are thinking of are in fact investments. If you put your money in a bank, you are "saving" but the bank invests that money for you. If you save by buying bonds, that is "saving" but also investing. Savings and investment ought to be equal, but when savings run ahead of investment, a recession occurs. And no one gets wealthy without investing.
refutes your school (a posteriori, which is your method). This isn't even getting into the formal logic objections Austrians classically undertake because I know you will inherently object to a priori claims.
@selfrealizedexile Oh, and I forgot to point out that Keynes never advocated for loose monetary and fiscal policies during the good times. In fact, he advocated for tight monetary and fiscal policies during the good times. So, Japan's economy wasn't a poster child for keynesianism because the monetary and fiscal policy weren't tight during the good times. I recommend you read keynes.
I've read his General Theory through Hazlitt's line-by-line critique of it. Even his theory itself had tremendous holes to it and contradictions within his concept of savings vs investment. Keynes was simply an intellectual who didn't fully grasp the market and thought it had to be something wrong with hundreds of millions of people and not himself, and thus the market should be centrally-planned by wise overlords like himself or at least how he perceived himself.
@selfrealizedexile Read Keynes' General Theory of Employment instead of reading Hazlitt's critique of it. You will learn a lot more about keynesianism than if you just read Hazlitt's spin on it.
How can Hazlitt spin it when the entire book is quoted within his book? That's what I meant to imply to you by "line-by-line" critique.
They tried tightening once the Nikkei prices quadrupled, but it was too late. From my standpoint, it is always necessarily too late. To use a poor analogy, it's like murdering someone and then trying to recuscitate them afterwards.
What I'm advocating for is a private interest rate and, thus, natural supply of loanable funds--no
arbitrary incentivization for overconsumption and underinvestment of real funds.
I know what Keynes believed outside of his ill-conceived General Theory. I know how he later partially rebuked the book. Many times when criticisms are laid against Keynesianism, it is more against his disciples and gov't policy than the man himself although much of it is still in line with what he wrote. I would call Keynes a partial-fascist, definitely not a socialist.
@selfrealizedexile Keynes did not advocate for overconsumption, as evidence of his support for tight fiscal and monetary policy during the boom phase of the business cycle. And loose fiscal and monetary policy couldn't create overconsumption during a recession because there usually is underconsumption during recessions.
I realize you believe in the irrationality of the market (a necessarily false axiom in my view) and, thus, a possibility of "underconsumption" / "capacity under-utilization" as a kind of spiral, but in practice what have we discovered? We've discovered the Fed is always off by years when it should have stopped stimulating (even in your view; my view is they're guilty as is). Do you not see this for the ad-hoc theory that it is?
@keynesian42 Right.. too bad the whole boom and bust cycle is created by government's distortion of credit in the first place. Also the fractional reserve system which wouldn't be possilbe without government control of money in the first place.
Umm also loose fiscal and monetary policy always creates more consumption than would be without said policy. Example would be today's consumption rates which may not seem inflated but still are compared to what the market would allow if untampered
@keynesian42 Your response just proves you have no real argument to counter what I'm saying. If you had one you'd put it out there but you don't. That's why you say things like: "sad that anybody takes you seriously" etc instead of actually saying something of substance.
Good luck trying to rape the rest of us economically but we'll do what we can to fight you
@Sam26100 Your argument was weak, which is why I didn't feel like refuting it. However, if you really want me to, I will. You said that the fractional reserve system wouldn't be possible without government control of monetary policy, but this simply isn't true. During the "Free Banking" era, which was a period during the 1800's where the U.S. didn't have a central bank, fractional reserve banking was still in existence and common. Continued...
Krugman says conservatives win elections by exploiting racial tensions...he is an outright liar. Any time a liberal is backed into a corner, they pull the race card....they are just as guilty as conservatives when it comes to talking about race.
meccaturbo 2 days ago
I just watched this and didn't realize it was from 2007.
Krugman has little credibility to me now after studying economics and how capital flows in and out of the country, including the monetary policy, he might sound smart but he has a great many flaws in his thinking.
He also seems to have the ability to be very political and use buzzwords.
I wonder if he is smart enough to figure out where he had it wrong and will start listening to the previously ignored professors who predicted everything.
Dethreid 2 weeks ago
18:32 its not country like "sweeping" its sweden!! the person who is a typer has a little knowledge about the rest of the world no f doubt!
but this proves the points american needs to put less money into the army and more into ur public schools.
hansson2000 2 weeks ago
Krugman is an idiot to say that republicans "really hate the idea of helping people"....I've known my share of republicans who would give the shirt off their back to anyone in need. Farmers are a perfect example...hardworking, republicans, and charitable. Elitist libtards like Krugman are some of the last people who would ever help anyone in need. Krugman is a fucking cooze.
meccaturbo 2 weeks ago
@meccaturbo I think that he is talking about the party not necessarly the voters.
MrLecam21 2 weeks ago
@MrLecam21 I hope that's the case, because otherwise Krugman is a total idiot.
meccaturbo 2 weeks ago
@meccaturbo Oh heaven forbid if Krugman were talking about individual Republicans instead of the party leadership! Because right wing policymakers are always so careful in their criticisms and never make generalizations of the Left right? Don't be so thin-skinned. You only make yourself look like an idiot when you call a respected economist names. Argue the theory, not the person. If you'd listen carefully you'd realize that his ideas are wholly compatible with American economic values.
gnomechomskylives 2 days ago
@gnomechomskylives That's okay, we have already confirmed that you are an idiot. Your petulant ranting, and whiney retarded commentary make my 2 year old son sound like an adult compared to you. Krugman is not universally respected, and neither are you. Anyone who makes gross generalizations about a given party is a narrow minded fool, and Krugmand has proven himself to be just that.
meccaturbo 2 days ago
@meccaturbo Once again you make an idiot out of yourself (when you point a finger, you have three pointing back at you).
Krugman is pointing out facts: The Southern Strategy, "Welfare Queens," Willy Horton, Birtherism, Islamophobia, immigration, dog whistle/identity politics; all inventions of the Right.
But your continued use of insults betrays your conscious efforts to deflect away from a debate you know you cannot win. I hope your son doesn't grow up to be as dimwitted as his poor father.
gnomechomskylives 2 days ago
@gnomechomskylives Wrong, as usual. Krugman says that all GOP members hate donating to charity, which is a complete lie. Farmers, primary GOP constituents, are some of the most charitable contributors of all. Krugman is a former coke-head in his past life- he's an idiot who's proven again and again that he doesn't know anything about the economy. The massive stimulus he advocated resulted in what? A continuation of 9% unemployment...proof that he, like you, is an idiot.
meccaturbo 23 hours ago
@gnomechomskylives There's nothing in this debate to lose - Krugman's advocation of a massive "stimulus" resulted in our same unemployment rate....he has advocated failed solutions again and again. You can't argue with that fact, you fucking low intelligence shill.
meccaturbo 23 hours ago
@meccaturbo Are you insane or just ignoring the facts that don't suit you? The nationwide unemployment rate at its peak was +10% and now sits around 8 percent. Michigan had +14% and is now in the single-digit 9% (obviously not a great number but better than before). This, considering the anemic stimulus bill; imagine if they'd passed the full amount needed?
If you don't think government creates jobs, just look at the outrage the GOP expresses when there's talk of slashing defense spending.
gnomechomskylives 21 hours ago
@gnomechomskylives Trillions spent and still around 9% unemployment. It is not "around 8%" - quit with your lies already. I just looked it up, and it's currently 8.6%. Like i said, Krugman doesn't know anything about what it takes to make this country competitive. He and all the know-nothing "progressives" think infrastructure is the way to go with stimulus money. It is not, it does nothing to make this country competitive, the way manufacturing does. I rest my case, you are an idiot.
meccaturbo 19 hours ago
@meccaturbo Infrastructure isn't important? Tell that to Eisenhower. He oversaw economic growth, built the interstate highway system (among other things) and had a top marginal tax rate of 90 percent. Being called an idiot by someone so willfully ignorant of history, so benighted of reason, so dulled of senses that I am not at all offended. I'm amused. It's like the story of the Emperor with no clothes. The more you insist you're right the more it's obvious you know nothing of which you speak.
gnomechomskylives 15 hours ago
@gnomechomskylives This is not 1956, you moron....in the 50's we had a strong manufacturing base and the threat of China was nonexistant. Different times now, you douchebag. Manufacturing is far more important of an investment than infrastructure is. You're the one who doesn't know anything, it's clear that you suffer from mental retardation by the childish ranting in your pathetic posts.
meccaturbo 3 hours ago
Hilarious, Krugman wants America to be more like Cuba.
Just be paitent, buddy. In a decade or two, America will be cuba. We'll all be equal and poor, and probably hispanic too.
StatelessEuphoria 3 weeks ago
@StatelessEuphoria We already look like Cuba - Batista's Cuba (Pre-Castro) that is - what with the corrupting power of money controlling the branches of our government, the middle and poor working class are left unrepresented while the moneyed interests control everything.
And we have idiots like you - who don't know their fascistic assholes from their corporate welfare-loving elbows - for enabling these private tyrannies all in the name of "capitalism."
gnomechomskylives 2 days ago
You ask him to defend his views, how far are you willing to take things, "Paul Krugman" healthcare healthcare healthcare healthcare....
that's all he says, and then it starts to get good when he criticizes republicans on all their issues but can only seem to say one thing about defending liberalizm........Journalists, i hate them bring out the BLOGS.
miliniumjava 3 weeks ago
LOL Cenk in this video is funny: "am I wrong on this?" Do I need to change my opinon ... please tell me what to think...
erelpc 3 weeks ago
Stop being a pussy krugman and accept peter schiff challenge to debate the economy !!! If you actually believe the non-sense your saying then man up and fight for it !! Maybe krugman knows he has no chances in a debate against peter schiff and maybe he doesn't actually believe what hes saying..
Zokshao31 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
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."
trapedd 1 month ago
Politics aside- what is up with the subtitles? They're so off!
strat127 1 month ago
The post office thing is a fucking stupid idea Americans have. If you elect people who hate a public service, they're not gonna make it good. In the Netherlands, people complain the same way about former government services that were privatised. Dutch people have very high expectations of government services, and if public institutions make big mistakes, it's always a scandal sparking public debate and causing the public to put pressure on the government. Result: top notch public services.
Ollie9402 1 month ago
People complaining about welfare "killing initiatives" actually mean: "I don't wanna clean up after myself in the office, so some immigrant woman should be forced to choose between extreme poverty or cleaning up my crap."
Ollie9402 1 month ago
@Ollie9402
people having to work to recieve my money what a crazy thought
and it's not a matter of not wanting to clean up after myself, it's a matter of my time being better spent doing work than cleaning
StatelessEuphoria 4 weeks ago
@StatelessEuphoria It IS a crazy thought. Isn't welfare for mothers with dependant children? Why force those people to work, and not even for a real wage or even a decent income? A fair amount of people could play a better role in society if wage labor wasn't imposed on them the way it is.
Ollie9402 3 weeks ago
@StatelessEuphoria You also apparently think cleaning is not work. Do you realize how grotesquely elitist that is? You're a typical bloodsucking capitalist, completely disregarding the people you depend on, and the irony is you probably think of yourself as recognizing the strenghts of ordinary people and being against the 'liberal elite' who think ordinary people are idiots.
Ollie9402 3 weeks ago
@Ollie9402
Sigh..obviously I mean it is a better use of resources for me to do the work I get paid to do and pay someone to "clean up after me". I get paid $A an hour for producing $A+B of value. If I had to clean as well, I would produce $D of value, and it costs $E an hour to pay someone to clean. If my employer pays someone to clean instead of me, then it is necessarily true that E < (A+B-D), or else they would be losing money by paying someone to clean. lrn2economics.
StatelessEuphoria 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
...but that's admitting free market capitalism doesn't actually mean freedom for all working people. It only means freedom for those people having the luxury to be able to work on a career.
Ollie9402 1 month ago
Comment removed
Ollie9402 1 month ago
I don't like that argument of SS, unemployment benefits etc "killing initiative". People want to do work they like regardless of taxes (ever heard anyone say: 'God, if it wasn't for those taxes, I would work so much harder...'?. Ever told yourself that? No.) It is true however that people who hate their jobs wouldn't do them if they weren't forced to,...
Ollie9402 1 month ago
I love this!
MrBobbi1980 2 months ago
well Krugman, the 90's = 20's, 00's = 30's and next decade will be like the 40's (and yes that means a true world war) so the 20's = 50's. Makes sense. We are living through that time much like the 30's and what is next, like one key economist said "a good old world war would be good for our economy' so not because I want it but there are many would benefit and there is many in the world who have real reasons to be anti-american based on american policies so chances are 10's = 40's
Foreshadow44 3 months ago
I'm going to debunk some of this as it goes
1.) High Progressive Income, Herbert Hoover actually rose bracket to 63%
2.) everything he talked about that happened in the 1970s actually happened in the 1980s.
3.) The peak was 1968, don't lie Cenk
4.)Biggest factor was Bretton-Woods working.
5.)Concerning Healthcare, it was very cheap up until the HMO act of 1971
6.) 70% was to much? Does this guy ever talk about Run-away inflations factor in collapse of the middle class
7.)
Salvysahagun 1 month ago
@Foreshadow44
No economist will ever tell you that a war is good for the economy. It depends on what kind of war. If it's fought overseas during a crisis and not on your territory, it's good -- but it's good because it gives you the political agreement to increase governmental spending...
So, the actual truth is: a huge fiscal expenditure program may be what you need in a time of crisis. It's the most gigantic proof of concept ever realized.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
The idea that the private sector is more efficient than the government. I got pink eye while in the Navy and then when I left the military it costs me 100 dollars (50 viisit/50 med eye drops). That doctor makes less than his private counterpart. Gov health care = cheaper and more efficient. Instead what the government should do is provide to pay off all the loans or simply give scholarships to those who wish to be doctors and get 10 years of service from them. That would make a huge difference
Foreshadow44 3 months ago
That is why it is morally justified to take wealth from the extremely wealthy. Let them live in extreme fear and spend more and more of their income in security. The prime goal is to eliminate their children since most of that wealth collection is about inheritance, defeat that purpose and simply eliminate those they wish to leave their money too. People who work around the rich are best to make those decisions. Make the rich paranoid, reinforce that psychological trait, let them mentally suffer
Foreshadow44 3 months ago
Ask Paul how the welfare state started in Israel. We supply them with a LOT of foreign aid and they support the Hasidic Jews of their nation with basically welfare. So did they learn our welfare system?
Foreshadow44 3 months ago
6:54 Did Paul Krugman just say "pure win"?
gbushimprov 4 months ago
Americans need to sort out their political terminology
Coolguyrob2006 4 months ago
Who the fuck did these fucking captions?
mistermoen 5 months ago
LOL
FDR was a tyrant
Keynes was wrong on everything.
Let's start smashing the windows with Krugmans
I bet according to him Englands economy is going to kick off
RyanR3volution 5 months ago
Ok while this sounds great we should consider what was the perscription he gave us
"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." Paul Krugman, 2002
Salvysahagun 5 months ago
Krugman says FDR and Keynes where his Hero's.
FDR hated Keynes they couldn't stand each other!
Salvysahagun 6 months ago
How funny is it that they didn't predict the Tea Party movement? 4 years later the far right wing has not only not disappeared, they're more up in arms in our faces than ever.
Phi1618033 6 months ago
cmon think just a little bit people.how can a small government work for a huge amount of people? that's like a 2bdrm house for octo mom.why not a national min wage? walmart pays $4.50 in bama and $7.50 in penn,wake up.why do poor and lower middle class whites,support the rich stealing and dodging taxes?business does well when people have money to spend.If you let go of racsim your eyes will open to so many of the other bullshit plots,scams and schemes they use on us dumb whites wake bro's
kevhun1 6 months ago
great interview
Fusionx916 7 months ago
think about this.. I am going to start a business. I invest my savings and start my business, if this business is not successful and I go bankrupt, the government will never come and help me out. But once I start making money, the government comes in and forcefully becomes my partner, and asks for my share of the income in terms on income tax!! 70% is not crazy high?!?! what the fuck is wrong with you Krugman?!?!?!
dumbokks 7 months ago
@dumbokks First, If you try to start a business with your own capital, you're an idiot. You should be financed by venture capitalists and other business partners. Second, the government doesn't tax your business income at 70%, Krugman is referring to personal income tax. Also, he's talking about the highest MARGINAL tax rate. So, you would have to be making massive amounts of money to even pay close to 70%, this makes sense as individuals experience diminishing marginal utility from income.
wolfcaster 6 months ago
@wolfcaster If you are talking business, what would you do if you had a major share of the income from your SOLE or FAMILY business (self employed), which generates a profit (which should be your/family income) of $1,000,000 per year? Would you rather give 70% or more to the government? or use the profits to grow the business, to employ more people, invest in equipment that will increase productivity of your business and ultimately get you bigger profits? lets talk common sense, not just econ.
dumbokks 6 months ago
@dumbokks First, my backgrounds are in finance and economics, not accounting and law, but... I support (I would guess Krugman would too) a low business tax rate of 15-20%. You should incorporate your business. Then pay yourself dividends, and reinvest the rest into your business. Now, if the law doesn't work that way, I would simply argue to change it when we make this mythical change in the tax law. Dividends, cptl gains, and all other income would be subject to high progressive rates
wolfcaster 6 months ago
@dumbokks Let's look at this scenario, you have 1 million net. Let's take out 20% from business tax. This gives you 800,000, you can decide what goes to you in income and what goes to your business. Existing costs are already factored in so we don't have to worry about that. So, let's take 300,000 back into the business. Now we got 500K to give to ourselves. This will be subject to our nasty progressive taxes.We don't know how much will be taken out though without the brackets.
wolfcaster 6 months ago
@dumbokks okay, let's say the brackets are 10,000 - 10%; 30,000 - 20%; 60,000 - 30%; 120,000 - 40%; 240,000 - 50%, 500,000 - 60% and 1 million and up is 70%. (I just made these up on the fly, but I think it's a good estimate). Okay, so under this tax scheme, of the 500,000 you gave to yourself, you would owe 204,000 in tax, giving you just shy under 300,000 for you income, not bad at all IMO. The fact that the tax rates are marginal makes the big difference.
wolfcaster 6 months ago
@dumbokks One last thing, see how cool this is? It gives you the incentive to invest in your business, because if you took all 800K for your self the next tax bracket would eat up a lot of it (60% percent of that 300K, Ouch!), so it makes sense to actually invest more money into your business to avoid tax. Of course hopefully the investment pays off and you make even more money.
wolfcaster 6 months ago
Cenk, the republican congress balanced the budget not Clinton
Salvysahagun 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please note that my book Keynes Hayek: The Clash That Shaped Modern Economics is published by W.W.Norton in October.
Professor John B.Taylor says that: “Nicholas Wapshott brings the Keynes-Hayek fight of the 20th century back to life, making the clash both entertaining and highly relevant for understanding economic crises of the 21st century.”
Read an extract at: sites.google.com/site/wapshottkeyneshayek/
Nicholas Wapshott
nhwapshott 7 months ago
Paul Krugman should have been President Obama's secretary of the treasury instead of Geithner.
JImmy4336 7 months ago
@JImmy4336 i'm not sure where krug stood regarding bailing out banks, but he's an open check book, to be sure. the post war prosperity was due to a competitive advantage in manufacturing over war-torn europe, and greater private savings. fdr's spending extended the depression, through the war. was reagan restraining gov't as a private citizen in the 70s? how on earth can wealth trickle down with gov't making free enterprise and labor unaffordable. krugman is best at this game of softball.
pobaldy66 7 months ago
Comment removed
TheRacistsMustDie 8 months ago
Krugman is an economic illiterate, reactionary.
qwertypoiu4321 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@qwertypoiu4321
Yes... The Princeton economics prof with a Nobel Prize is an "economic illiterate".
You do realize that you are an excepionally ignorant cunt?
Don't Despair: Start with "The Hungry Capertillar" and work your way up to "The Wealth Of Nations".
seiryoden 8 months ago
"Britain is doing pretty well"....has this guy any fucking clue?
jpkm123 10 months ago
@jpkm123 This was recorded back in 2007, and yes Britain isn't doing very well... mainly because the conservatives took over
DigginInTheCrates1 10 months ago
@DigginInTheCrates1
Labour drobe the UK into a financial crater rwhich the Conservatives have to pull the country out of
Labour were rightly chucked out aftet the disastrous direction of Brown and Blair
jpkm123 10 months ago
Comment removed
TheRacistsMustDie 8 months ago
Okay, so he doesn't factor in that at the WW2 when we had the great "prosperity", the entire world economy was demolishedt, and so everyone was buying everything from United States, all their currencies were pegged to ours,and we were sole manufacturer in he world. Maybe that had something to do with it...?
Beckett125 11 months ago
excelent interview very indepth
mgalore 11 months ago 5
The only debt is false fiat banking scheme loans made fraudulently in my opinion, so do it like france did during Napoleon and take the bankers money. Communists always take the peoples companies, and the peoples public works and the peoples labor... that sucks. I say take the financial sector, and restructure it. But dont bother the small-time worker, who owes nothing to begin with.
deceiver123m 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Somebody shoot this little Marxist.
AroundSun 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Krugman = MORON...
helltrackrider 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Paul Krugman stop running and debate Peter Schiff! He is willing to give you money to debate and you can bring your nobel prize for moral support. This guy is a joke and shouldn't be allowed to lecture anyone on economics...or history for that matter...a true clown under failed Keynesian policies
tonyg0123 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"I will pay Paul Krugman to debate with me. He can even bring his nobel prize with him for moral support (because he doesn't have a clue about economics or history for that matter)" -Peter Schiff...................Keynesian policies are a total failure. Another 600 billion the fed is printing up in the name of quantitative easing II (inflation). I'm willing to bet my savings that this is an utter failure. You can have my savings when the dollar isn't worth the paper it is printed on, Paul.
tonyg0123 1 year ago
Maragaret Thatcher one 3 times based on her economic policies and taking Britain out of the dark ages.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi: Do you mean "won"? Speaking of the dark ages, typical conservative...
OmarAlQaseer 1 year ago
Wow I love in that completely cherry-picked history lesson he left out the complete failure of bretton-woods agreement and the great stagflation that led to Reagan's win. Why did the conservatives become so popular Paul? Because your system was an abject failure.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
When Reagan took office , the national debt was 900 billion and when he left office it grown to 2,6 trillion . So, Reagan Increase govnt spending and not cutting . Bonfierjovi , When was the last republican President that balance the Budget . Meanwhile , what happend to small government republican in the 2001 to 2008
steve75ca 1 year ago 12
@steve75ca all presidents are big government, if you were president why would you make it smaller? No one will make government smaller ever.
deceiver123m 11 months ago
@steve75ca false dichotomy. both parties are beholden to special interests: increasing public deficit spending, and encouraging private wasteful consumption especially. gov't has also been keen in hollowing out our comparatively expensive workforce and potential tax contributions, if only to close the gap between spending and revenue. only an independent, or close to one, riding a market-like wave of protests, will undo all the spending and interference of gov't. when do we start?
pobaldy66 7 months ago
@steve75ca I'll say it again, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that politicians say what ever to get elected.
Amadeus5150 1 month ago
@steve75ca Hey bro some hack "Free Market economist" wants to debate krugman, he's even gonna give a foodbank in NY 60k if he'll debate him!!! look up robert murphy Paul Krugman debate
AnunEnt 4 days ago
Hoover introduced progressive taxation and Teed Roosevelt before him. What a dolt.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Oh dammit. I can't refresh through ads anymore
metaserve 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
metaserve 1 year ago
I just finished this book last month. The marginal tax rate for the rich is explained as such: If you earn $3 million in today's money, you will be taxed at the regular rate. Everything over the $3 million would be taxed a progressive rate which was 91% under Republican President IKE and 70% under Democratic President Carter.
stretchluv 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
It's an ironic coincidence how Krugman and other liberal economists point out that the average American family might not be better off since the early 1970s and we went off any semblance of the gold standard in 1971. Blaming right wing political ideas is ridiculous given the massive increases in government spending and the scope of government bureaucracy since Reagan.
underdg22 1 year ago
@underdg22 Do you know ANYTHING about History? Ronald Reagan, the God of the Right-Wing, actually INCREASED TAXES on the working Middle Classes and the Poor in 1986, in his so-called "Tax Reform." Don't believe me? Do something different than getting all your History from Fox News and look it up! The Right-Wing does not represent your interests unless you happen to be ultra-Rich, or run a large Corporation!
bestgodzillaman 1 year ago
@bestgodzillaman I know Reagan wasn't a real tax cutter and I was including him as a government expander. There hasn't been a president since Coolidge that actually practiced the idea of limited government. But I'll challenge another popularly held idea; that tax cuts for upper income brackets and big corporations don't benefit the poor. Keeping money in the hands of those who use it most efficiently in business allows the rapid accumulation of capital that raises living standards.
underdg22 1 year ago
91% of your income being taxed? Am I wrong here or is that MENTAL for anyone
ncurran1987 1 year ago
@ncurran1987 You are wrong, that's not how the tax system works. 91% was the top MARGINAL tax rate. It only applied to earnings above $400000 (equivalent to over $1million today).
So if you earn $400100, only $100 of your income is taxed at 91%. The rest of your income is taxed at lower rates. You will end up paying much less than 91% of your income in tax.
mrkirb 1 year ago 2
@mrkirb That does not make it right
AroundSun 1 year ago
Here's the problem. Krugman is spot on in so many ways...but the people victimized the MOST by the Right Wing (and to some degree the Tea Party) are the ones MOST ON BOARD with right wing causes!!
Aren't Leftists naive and wrong to help these numb nuts? Shouldn't we just let the evolution they don't believe in run its course, since they've chosen to vote to their own detriment?!
mowriter 1 year ago
@mowriter You are so right
splicedenergy 1 year ago
Young Turkeys
wbradss 1 year ago
george bush snr. no probs with his foreign policy?? let's start with the invasion of panama...
dontliethetruth 1 year ago 2
Keynes was an elitist and all his work is directed toward the goal of creating excuses for expanding despotism and control of people's earning. This is well understood by most Keynesians including Paul Krugman
Sam26100 1 year ago
Krugman is right that Europe has cheaper socialized healthcare than our partially-socialized healthcare. But, Europe's system is much more expensive and wasteful by comparison if we would simply privatize all of it. He's also a blind zealot if he wants to claim public bureacracies are as efficient as private.
State's rights is one and the same with segregation? Wtf?
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
Whenever someone doesn't have to pay for something (i.e. Medicare), you will have uneconomized use of the program. This is true whether 2% of the country is on it or 100%. Krugman should know about demand-pull inflation. It's why college tuition has gone up 93% since 1992 and healthcare costs all of a sudden started exploding magically after 1965 when they signed Medicare and Medicaid into law.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
Egalitarianism does not help an economy. This, again, is a contradiction in terms. Economics is all about results-oriented resource allocation. You do not put undue economic responsibility in the hands of some bum simply because it's his "right" and think prosperity will abound.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
Young turks sold out with all these ads.
powerpsi 1 year ago
Peer-reviewed 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.
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
People in Cuba don't live in poverty. People in Cuba live a better life than most of the other Latin American developing countries.
andyx1205 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION OF ALL:
.
What is the underlying law of nature.
.
As the way of all things, what effect do you suppose its question, knowledge, understanding and application by billions of persons would have on the state of global economics, science, the humanities, education, government and business?
TedDGPoulos 1 year ago
Isn't it funny that we never actually had a great depression until we got Krugman's beloved federal reserve bank? He holds cuba up as a the great example? People in Cuba live in poverty, well, at least most of them. What caused the 70's? Krugman's beloved great society, the moon landings and Vietnam. Right wing idealogy came along in the 70's? Isn't that the decade Nixon said "We are all Keynesian now!"? The main reason that the income gap has widened so much is because of inflation.
christo930 1 year ago
@christo930 the FED was in no way tied to the great depression. no economist will tell you it was other than the delusional die hard austrians that worship ron paul (not saying i totally disagree with austrian ec, it has some good things to offer, but it's not a complete theory by any means.) Without a credible FED, we go back to the 1880s when we had mafia control, monopolies, and worsening recessions every 7 years.
marth193 1 year ago
@marth193 The fed was responsible for the inflationary boom in the 20's and the deflationary bust in the 30's. The mafia got it's stranglehold on the US in the 20's during prohibition with all that drug (alcohol) money. Look at what has happened to the quality of life since the gold window was closed by Nixon. We were the largest manufacturer in the world, paid the highest wages, had the highest quality of life and was the largest creditor nation in the world. Look at life NOW.
christo930 1 year ago
Comment removed
NihilTico 1 year ago
@christo930 There have been recessions since the Great Bank Run of 1873
NihilTico 1 year ago
@NihilTico None were as severe or as long as the ones since the federal reserve. I don't know much about the bank run of 1873, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was caused by the inflation of the Civil war and reconstruction.
christo930 1 year ago
@christo930 There were around a dozen panics during the 1800's, so I don't think that you could make a good argument that the economy was more stable during the years prior to the establishment of the Federal Reserve.
keynesian42 1 year ago
@keynesian42
When you correlate those panics with banks who issued notes beyond their gold reserves, yes you can. Fractional-reserves is simply fraud.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile And full reserve banking is unrealistic, but you ignorant people don't understand this. Also, we don't have to worry about this "irrational exuberance", as Greenspan would call it, in respect to panics because of the FDIC, which has been a tremendous success. However, if we would have continued with the stupid idea that markets "self regulate", then we would still be suffering from a highly volatile financial sector, which plagued much of the 19 century.
keynesian42 1 year ago
@keynesian42
Unrealistic? Wtf? When a bank makes loans in such a way as it can't honor its contracts and suspends specie payments, that's called fraud. The FDIC has merely caused more overleveraging of the sector. The problem with your reasoning is that, if it were true, it should be carried out to its logical conclusion which is more and more gov't regulation of the economy. The financial sectors were no way as volatile as they are today. Today so much loss is collateralized so that
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile Really? The "financial sectors were no way as volatile as they are today"? Google panics and you will find out that there were nearly a dozen panics during the 19 century, But of course, we shouldn't have a FDIC to prevent such unnecessary panics (sarcasm). Also, regulations of the financial sector have been proven to be very successful. For example, after the Roosevelt administration's regulations were put in place in the 30's Continued...
keynesian42 1 year ago
@keynesian42
There is no danger of a bank run when a currency warehourse actually is an honest currency warehouse. It is the fraudulent warehouses that experienced bank runs and they were legitimate checks on the banks breaching contract.
It's interesting you have to stop at 40 years. What happened the 41st year? Surely it wasn't an economic phenomenon that disproved the crux of your theory, right? And, surely, what the Federal Reserve did leading up to the '70s had no effect on
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile I didn't mean exactly 40 years of stability, I meant around 40 years, but that should have been fairly obvious. But with all of this set aside, you still weren't able to give a good explanation for why we had all of this stability in the financial sector for about 40 years, from your austrian perspective. The only reason we have seen this instability in the financial sector, as of late, is primarily because of deregulation.
keynesian42 1 year ago
@keynesian42
My argument is not that we had 40 stable years. If you study the data in detail, you see mounting inflation and its inability to solve unemployment. It came to a head in the '70s, but it wasn't out of the blue and unrelated to the distortions the gov't imposed prior.
With respect to the present situation, in my view the Fed always causes distortions through its cartelization of what would be a natural interest rate in its absence, but the GSEs played a truly sinister
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile Actually, you are wrong about the 40 years, after the Roosevelt regulations had been put in place, being characterized by high inflation to lower unemployment. Inflation was pretty moderate most of those years, until the mid 70's. As far as giving loans to poor people goes, I think that it is very naive to put so much blame on the community reinvestment act because there is a bit of a time problem. Continued...
keynesian42 1 year ago
@keynesian42
role in acting as the moral hazard. And it was only possible through this misconceived egalitarian economics mindset that Krugman has. "Everyone deserves an 'affordable' education, everyone deserves a house, everyone deserves to not be in debt for too long, etc." So, the Fed as usual gave cheap money which allowed investors to invest on the margin (malinvestments), but when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac backed the loans, it really magnified it. If you follow the regulatory
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@keynesian42
bodies well, you know Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had record fines for embezzlement. And that was just what little they discovered after the fact. Your "regulation" really isn't regulation, but a carte blanche for legal plunder. It can be demonstrated to be unnecessary a priori and is proven ineffective and counter-productive in reality.
Currency warehouses are entitled to charge costs for the service of title exchange, but they have no moral claim to extract assets out of
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@keynesian42
what happened in the '70s--it merely came out of the blue, no cause-effect at all, right? I'm not trying to demonize you as a person, but you Keynesians are simply ad-hoc theoriests. You really do not understand what grows an economy. Japan was about as much of a lab test of your guys' theory as it gets--BOJ followed textbook Keynesian manipulation contrasted with their high-savings/investment approach which yielded them 10% growth year over year prior to stimulating.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile Banking used to be a rather boring business, until regulations were peeled off. And that is a big problem, you want a boring financial sector and not one where the atmosphere is casino like, which is what you will get with unfettered markets. Furthermore, can you show me any evidence of success in commercial banking, as a result of 100% reserve banking?
keynesian42 1 year ago
@keynesian42
the clients. To do so would be fraud. It's not that you have stagnated investment under a full-reserve system. It's that you have it done between the investor and the invested. The bank is merely a vehicle, it isn't the main investor of its own assets. No one would rationally give resources to an entity which will claim it as mostly its own. You can have brokers. That's fine, but the bank model itself is not in essence that. It's merely a convenience of title exchange.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@keynesian42
How exactly are you defining "success in commercial banking" ? It's not about the benefits of one party; it's about the growth rate of the economy and private property being protected. And if we're going to talk about growth rates, 3% year over year is nothing compared to what it could be in a freer society.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile The act had been around since the 70's without any problems. So the problem is not giving loans to poor people, it is lack of regulation.
keynesian42 1 year ago
@keynesian42
It goes beyond one act. It is the culmination of the every distortion the gov't has put on the financial sector including the FDIC itself among others. Your folly is in rejecting a prior analysis--logic itself. We can do the inductive game if you like, however in simply studying the case of Japan which took the Keynesian medicine further than we did. I'm not economic or legal scholar like the Austrians, so if you want proof-positive evidence (which is impossible in economics
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile I am aware of Rothbard, but have not read his books. However, I know how he and most austrians think because I've read my fair share amount of books on the austrian school of economics. In fact, I used to read articles from the Mises institute online religiously, until I found out that many of the austrians, including hayek and mises, supported fascism. If you don't believe me, then look it up for yourself.
keynesian42 1 year ago
@keynesian42
I don't believe you and I've read thousands of pages that demonstrate otherwise. What's more, Rothbard was the culmination of the school imo. If you don't read him, you're missing out on the Anarcho-Capitalist tradition. Mises, Bohm-Bowerk, and Menger all contributed a tremendous amount, but, again, Rothbard was the addition of all these achievements. Finally, what does this have to do with the methodological debate?
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@keynesian42
I should also state the irony of you disliking tyranny when the Federal Reserve, when properly understand, is a form of fascism.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@keynesian42
) you should consult one who has called himself one or any of the volumes of the history on economic thought written by Murray N. Rothbard. For me, I study political economy as a hobby. I found it fascinating and I grasped the material quickly. It is not my long-term career goal (theoretical physics), however; so, I don't go around memorizing dates or the infinite amount of statistical minutia possible (I do know my fair share though in the course of reading 10-15 books on it
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@keynesian42
). You have to remember the inherent problem in the Keynesian vs Austrian debate and it's pure a methodological one. Keynesians claim Austrians aren't epistemologically rigorous and Austrians claim Keynesians have drowned themselves in inductive analsis whereby anything can be correlated with anything, being liable to incorrect cause-effect conclusions if they don't heed a prior logic. So, with this in mind, you must see the weakness in challenging an Austrian to a
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@keynesian42
statistical show-and-tell. Me being a natural scientist at heart, I don't fault you for going this avenue. But, you must realize that economics is a social science, not a natural science. Using the scientific method is near-impossible in economics if not absolutely impossible. What we must instead do is utlize logic from a set of axioms like mathematics does (who challenges a mathematician to an a posterori debate? it's simply an endeavor within logic itself). If you want
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@keynesian42
properly challenge an Austrian, you must find fault in one of their axioms or how they apply logic from those axioms. It is, by virtue of the method, unassailable from a posteriori challenges. But, again, I won't limit myself to strict defense in this debate. Let's work through the a posteriori defense of your own school. The most telling example is Japan which exhibited a 10% growth year over year from the 1950s to 1980s through, by and large, the deregulated approach
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile It would be fair to say that one of the primary reasons that Japan's economy went down the tubes in the 90's, was because of deregulation. Japan deregulated many of the sectors of its economy, including the financial sector. Japan is a great example of how deregulation, especially of the financial sector, can be very dangerous for an economy.
keynesian42 1 year ago
@keynesian42
The facts are simply the opposite: their gov't spending ballooned at record rates throughout the 90s as they sought to centrally-plan their way out.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile I'm not wrong about Japan. Japan's monetary and fiscal policy were not tight enough during the good times to be considered keynesian. However, according to you, Japan's economy during the 70's and 80's, was very keynesian, which shows how ignorant you are of keynesianism. The only time that Keynes advocated for loose fiscal and monetary policy, was during the bad times. But you are making it look like keynesianism always advocates for loose monetary and fiscal policy.
keynesian42 1 year ago
@keynesian42
wherein the Japanese saved and invested a third of their income in capital goods that were naturally in demand (not stimulated to be in demand). This continued until the BOJ started the Keynesian agenda where they tried to smooth out cycles, lower unemployment with inflation, etc., but all it accomplished was creating cycles and even more volatile ones. I don't think I need to get into the details of their Nikkei movements and the lost decade. It is my claim that this data
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile I'm curious why inflation scares you so much? You are aware that inflation is much less dangerous than deflation? You austrians tend to ignore how dangerous deflation can be for an economy.
keynesian42 1 year ago
@keynesian42
The absolute quantity of money has no effect in and of itself in the long run--prices simply adjust if everyone's salaries were given two extra zeroes. The problem I do have with inflation, deflation--any arbitrary modification of the money supply--is the nature of how the money is distributed. It isn't instantaneous and it is given to politically-connected entities first. Therefore, investment is misallocated to the margin as investors are fooled and incentivized to do so
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@keynesian42
and it is a form of wealth redistribution in the short-term (if adjustments are always occurring, however, it is forced to become long-term) from those who get the money last to those who get it first. So, I oppose it because it hijacks the price system / incentive structure and it does so in the two aforementioned ways.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile You are aware of the fact that Schiff, who I'm sure you are fond of, has implied numerous times that he is smarter than the markets, especially about inflation?
keynesian42 1 year ago
@keynesian42
Yes, but it's from a different respect, you see. And, as evidenced by his accurate prediction of the housing bubble (he wasn't the only one ofc), he obviously was write where the "market" was wrong. The difference between this example and Keynes is that Keynes that it was wrong in its natural state. Schiff is saying that individual actors are being deceived and herded into investments that are of gov't construct. Very critical distinction.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile
Excellent sentence construction, I must say.
right*, "is that Keynes said that it was wrong in its natural state."**
The main problem I have with Keynesianism and his personal endeavor in the field of economics is that he averaged away the cause-effect interrelationships between different productions into "aggregates." He was a demand-side nut who believed spending was wealth-creation and savings (investment) was "hoarding." His interest rate theory left much to be
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile Keynes did certainly NOT believe that investment was hoarding. You could only say a thing like that if you had never actually read anything by him. Keynes believed investment was the key to economic growth, but that economies had a tendency to under-invest, that is, saving WITHOUT investing. Those un-invested savings are what constitutes hoarding, according to Keynes. Do a little homework.
hoodoo961 1 year ago
@hoodoo961
I've read more pages of Keynes than I'd care to. What I said was he thought savings was one and the same as hoarding which is simply false. Keynes did not believe investment was the key to growth, at least not the modern definition of investment and its fluctuations as evidenced by the legislation he'd like to see past regarding it. Keynes was not rigorous even from an inductive standpoint. His theory was backed up by virtually no statistical analysis, just anecdotal
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile Once again, I am willing to bet you have not in fact read, as I have, the General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money in its entirety. If you had, you would know that Keynes' concern was not that savings are bad, but that they are not necessarily translated into investment. Beyond that, try reading his Essays in Persuasion, where he discusses the needed levels of savings to create enough capital to sustain a growing population at high living standards. Seriously, read.
hoodoo961 1 year ago
@hoodoo961
What a lame response. You don't even mention his nutjob ideas of money velocity, hatred of gold and speculators, etc.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile You still have not answered the rather glaring problem of the fact that you have not read a word of what you are seeking to criticize. That is the problem with people, you think economics is like a football game, you can learn a few facts and names and then sit around and give your opinion. But its not. These ideas are complex, and to understand them you must first read them in their entirety. If you are interested in Keynesian monetary theory, read A Tract on Monetary Reform.
hoodoo961 1 year ago
@hoodoo961
Same lame response yet again. In your tiny world, the only possibility is I "haven't read it" for me to disagree with it. Surely, it's impossible for someone to have read every chapter of it and thought it was about as useful as toilet paper. This conversation was going nowhere fast anyways and rather boring. I'm out.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile Its certainly possible that you had read it, but you never answered me when I asked if you had. And I was forced to conclude that you had not by your lack of elementary knowledge of Keynesian theory. Anyway, I refuse to apologize for recommending that people read more books.
hoodoo961 1 year ago
@hoodoo961
speculation. What he actually believed grew an economy is stimulated consumption. This belief requires that one believe that hundreds of millions of actors don't know what's good for them but the few, brilliant central-planners. He was one of the most overrated intellectuals in academic history, but that's probably not saying much. As I was discussing with another below, a posteriori analysis even disproves your school via stagflation and Japan. You guys simply don't
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@hoodoo961
don't grasp fundamental economics. As a friend said, you are anti-economics. Period. Your policies only entail capital consumption. You might have accepted micro axioms, but you throw them out with your macro claims. From a scientic standpoint, you guys are inconsistent and grossly sloppy. Your theories fail on so many levels. You insult natural scientists like myself by pretending you can be in our league and use our methods in a social science.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@hoodoo961 Sure Keynes believed this, but it is a preposterous notion that legislators will be more wise with money they get with their monopoly on violence than people who actually worked for that money.
Why is investment always a good thing? sometimes it's a good idea to save and hoard your money. Growth is not always a good,thing. What if there aren't enough savings in the economy to justify it? there are many people who get wealthy not through investment but through savings over time
Sam26100 1 year ago
@Sam26100 You seem to be confused about how savings and investment actually works, otherwise your "point" is unintelligible. Most savings you are thinking of are in fact investments. If you put your money in a bank, you are "saving" but the bank invests that money for you. If you save by buying bonds, that is "saving" but also investing. Savings and investment ought to be equal, but when savings run ahead of investment, a recession occurs. And no one gets wealthy without investing.
hoodoo961 1 year ago
@keynesian42
refutes your school (a posteriori, which is your method). This isn't even getting into the formal logic objections Austrians classically undertake because I know you will inherently object to a priori claims.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile Oh, and I forgot to point out that Keynes never advocated for loose monetary and fiscal policies during the good times. In fact, he advocated for tight monetary and fiscal policies during the good times. So, Japan's economy wasn't a poster child for keynesianism because the monetary and fiscal policy weren't tight during the good times. I recommend you read keynes.
keynesian42 1 year ago
@keynesian42
I've read his General Theory through Hazlitt's line-by-line critique of it. Even his theory itself had tremendous holes to it and contradictions within his concept of savings vs investment. Keynes was simply an intellectual who didn't fully grasp the market and thought it had to be something wrong with hundreds of millions of people and not himself, and thus the market should be centrally-planned by wise overlords like himself or at least how he perceived himself.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile Read Keynes' General Theory of Employment instead of reading Hazlitt's critique of it. You will learn a lot more about keynesianism than if you just read Hazlitt's spin on it.
keynesian42 1 year ago
@keynesian42
How can Hazlitt spin it when the entire book is quoted within his book? That's what I meant to imply to you by "line-by-line" critique.
They tried tightening once the Nikkei prices quadrupled, but it was too late. From my standpoint, it is always necessarily too late. To use a poor analogy, it's like murdering someone and then trying to recuscitate them afterwards.
What I'm advocating for is a private interest rate and, thus, natural supply of loanable funds--no
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@keynesian42
arbitrary incentivization for overconsumption and underinvestment of real funds.
I know what Keynes believed outside of his ill-conceived General Theory. I know how he later partially rebuked the book. Many times when criticisms are laid against Keynesianism, it is more against his disciples and gov't policy than the man himself although much of it is still in line with what he wrote. I would call Keynes a partial-fascist, definitely not a socialist.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile Keynes did not advocate for overconsumption, as evidence of his support for tight fiscal and monetary policy during the boom phase of the business cycle. And loose fiscal and monetary policy couldn't create overconsumption during a recession because there usually is underconsumption during recessions.
keynesian42 1 year ago
@keynesian42
I realize you believe in the irrationality of the market (a necessarily false axiom in my view) and, thus, a possibility of "underconsumption" / "capacity under-utilization" as a kind of spiral, but in practice what have we discovered? We've discovered the Fed is always off by years when it should have stopped stimulating (even in your view; my view is they're guilty as is). Do you not see this for the ad-hoc theory that it is?
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@keynesian42 Right.. too bad the whole boom and bust cycle is created by government's distortion of credit in the first place. Also the fractional reserve system which wouldn't be possilbe without government control of money in the first place.
Umm also loose fiscal and monetary policy always creates more consumption than would be without said policy. Example would be today's consumption rates which may not seem inflated but still are compared to what the market would allow if untampered
Sam26100 1 year ago
@Sam26100 Bla bla bla, I've heard all of this austrian babble before. Frankly, it is sad that anybody still takes the austrians seriously these days.
keynesian42 1 year ago
@keynesian42 Your response just proves you have no real argument to counter what I'm saying. If you had one you'd put it out there but you don't. That's why you say things like: "sad that anybody takes you seriously" etc instead of actually saying something of substance.
Good luck trying to rape the rest of us economically but we'll do what we can to fight you
Sam26100 1 year ago
@Sam26100 Your argument was weak, which is why I didn't feel like refuting it. However, if you really want me to, I will. You said that the fractional reserve system wouldn't be possible without government control of monetary policy, but this simply isn't true. During the "Free Banking" era, which was a period during the 1800's where the U.S. didn't have a central bank, fractional reserve banking was still in existence and common. Continued...
keynesian42 1 year ago