Nobody Listens To Paul Krugman

[DaisyDay]

He did say it on camera. I watched and heard it. I don't have link either. Saving Hawaii (aka Paul Krugman?) thinks it was a joke. From what I remember the general reaction was that he meant it. I'm just going by memory.

Anyway, I can't stand him. I try to read his columns and blog but his air of arrogance is too much for me. I would post some links to some criticism of him if I could, but I can't since I don't have 50 posts yet.

How odd to take seriousness for arrogance.

 

[Saving Hawaii]

OK "A Faulty Chromosome". Thanks for the advice.

My chromosomes are as faulty as they get. Hopefully you're a little luckier.

 

[Niemander]

So this happens...

Haha!

I guess I don't get it - he's unable to reason with people so he burns their cars?

 

[alexamasan]

I guess I don't get it - he's unable to reason with people so he burns their cars?

I think that since Krugman believes that destruction stimulates the economy, he decided to blow up some cars for the good of America.

However, I actually believe Krugman is a really nice person. I just think he's wrong on everything about the economy. And it's not that it is he specifically that's wrong, but it is the economic school of thought that he believes in (Keynesianism). He didn't predict the economic collapse, he didn't see the housing bubble, during the midst of it, as a bad thing. Again, it's not really him, but its Keynesian Economics that is wrong. However, I digress...

 

[Ton80]

I think that since Krugman believes that destruction stimulates the economy, he decided to blow up some cars for the good of America.

However, I actually believe Krugman is a really nice person. I just think he's wrong on everything about the economy. And it's not that it is he specifically that's wrong, but it is the economic school of thought that he believes in (Keynesianism). He didn't predict the economic collapse, he didn't see the housing bubble, during the midst of it, as a bad thing. Again, it's not really him, but its Keynesian Economics that is wrong. However, I digress...

whatever

5. "If housing prices actually started falling, we'd be looking at an economy pushed right back into recession. That's why it's so ominous to see signs that America's housing market ... is approaching the final, feverish stages of a speculative bubble." — Paul Krugman, May 2005

 

[Ton80]

I guess I don't get it - he's unable to reason with people so he burns their cars?

It is a joke

 

[Christopher14]

How odd to take seriousness for arrogance.

Have you read his blog?

 

[Christopher14]

I sense that this statement was supposed to be a slur against Krugman, but nothing you said here actually hurts his reputation. Within a conservative worldview where liberal = bad, Keynesian = bad, economist = bad, writes = bad, and New York Times = bad, I can understand the attempted slander, but not everybody views the world through your spectacles.

Keynsian does not equal bad nor is it true of any your other equalities you mentioned. That is except for liberal = bad. That is true.

We in the U.S. are obsessed with economics. We vote with our pocketbook. When the economy is good, we vote for the party that is in power. When the economy gets bad, we vote for the other party. What a sick society we live in. We have become so focused on our personal wealth and have lost focus on what really matters. This is why our civilization is in decline. Even some preachers I've listened to say that prayer can bring worldly blessings.

Face it, folks. When we as a people get to the point where economists are worshiped as heroes, when we look to people like Paul Krugman or any other economist as our saviors, we are lost. This goes for both Republicans and Democrats. Both the "left" and the "right."

 

[SOAD]

Keynsian does not equal bad nor is it true of any your other equalities you mentioned. That is except for liberal = bad. That is true.

We in the U.S. are obsessed with economics. We vote with our pocketbook. When the economy is good, we vote for the party that is in power. When the economy gets bad, we vote for the other party. What a sick society we live in. We have become so focused on our personal wealth and have lost focus on what really matters. This is why our civilization is in decline. Even some preachers I've listened to say that prayer can bring worldly blessings.

Face it, folks. When we as a people get to the point where economists are worshiped as heroes, when we look to people like Paul Krugman or any other economist as our saviors, we are lost. This goes for both Republicans and Democrats. Both the "left" and the "right."

Who is saying that Krugman is a savior? It looks to me as if people are simply saying the guy is right regarding most of his predictions. Let's not forget the OP is supposed to be a joke.

By the way, conservative = ignorant. There you go. I figured I would toss out some meaningless comment. just like you did.

 

[Grizzly]

I guess I don't get it - he's unable to reason with people so he burns their cars?

It's funny. Paul Krugman is an economist. And not a very aggressive person. And he has been urging people (and the government) to act in a certain way to benefit the economy - and no one really listens to him. So its kinda funny to think of Krugman going around blowing up cars.

 

[DaisyDay]

However, I actually believe Krugman is a really nice person. I just think he's wrong on everything about the economy.

Except the study showed that he actually, truly in real life has been wrong less often than any of the popular conservatives studied. Objectively, he has often been correct.

And it's not that it is he specifically that's wrong, but it is the economic school of thought that he believes in (Keynesianism).

There is a difference between your disagreement with his economic philosophy and whether his predictions have been more correct overall than other popular economists' have been.

He didn't predict the economic collapse, he didn't see the housing bubble, during the midst of it, as a bad thing.

He did see the housing bubble, so perhaps it is you who are wrong:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/05/me-and-the-bubble/

 

[Christopher14]

Who is saying that Krugman is a savior?

I don't know for sure if anyone involved in this discussion thinks that. But the way the OP responded to several replies reminds me of the way Krugman is almost religiously advocated and defended, whether it is Krugman himself or the school of economics he belongs to.

And it is not just the left that to which economics has become an almost religion. Capitalism-free-markets-Libertarianism-Globalism has become a religion to some on the right. This is more dangerous than socialism, in my opinion. And I am saying this as a former libertarian.

I am not saying all this to necessarily criticize anyone in this thread. I am just telling you what I have seen and heard. The talking heads on TV, the newspapers and magazines we read, the movies we watch, and the rest of the mass media influence us all more than we think. That, and University academia influence us more than we think, directly and indirectly.

We think we have free minds, that we can think for ourselves. This is true, but one must be aware of and know, metaphysically, the Zeitgeist. And one must truly understand that in order to release themselves from it and truly be free.

 

[Grizzly]

Keynsian does not equal bad nor is it true of any your other equalities you mentioned. That is except for liberal = bad. That is true.

Really? Liberal=bad? Do you think woman should have the right to vote? How about African-americans? Do you enjoy drinking clean water and breathing clean air? Do you like not worrying about the food you buy at a grocery story? How about weekends? Do you enjoy weekends? Are you glad that your grandparents don't have to worry about healthcare or dying in the streets due to lack of money?

If you said yes to any of those things, then it means that liberal doesn't always equal bad.

 

[Saving Hawaii]

I think that since Krugman believes that destruction stimulates the economy, he decided to blow up some cars for the good of America.

Aujourd'hui, ce qu'on ne voit pas est ce qu'on n'est pas. Capiche? Bastiat's parable about the broken window is only applicable if Say's Law isn't being tortured. The problem is that Say's Law frequently breaks down. An excess demand for money will cause a general glut of all other things, a recession. Even Say realized this years after he originally formulated his famous theory, recognizing that the Panic of 1825 had proven him wrong. He admitted as much to Malthus.

Bastiat makes the case that the shopowner "had [he] not had a window to replace... [would] have replaced his old shoes or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way..." but this fails to be true when Say's Law is being tortured such that there is an excess demand for money and a general glut throughout the rest of the economy. If the shopowner would have hoarded his six francs, the broken window does in fact create real and valuable economic activity that would not have otherwise existed. The glazier's work perhaps not for reasons that Bastiat illustrated (that which is unseen), but the six francs are put into circulation and the Keynesian multiplier can provide a net benefit.

Broken windows are the worst possible way to create that Keynesian effect, but many economists have utilized them as examples to highlight the Keynesian multiplier. Both Krugman and Keynes himself have made this sort of argument. When we talk about serious Keynesian proposals (say building a bridge or sending a child to school) that point often gets lost. People see the value of the investment and they often don't notice the multiplier right next to it, even though creating the multiplier is the primary objective of the proposal. When Keynes jokes about something as useless as burying money at the bottom of mine shafts and then leasing the land to savvy entrepreneurs, he does so to eliminate any perceived investment which makes the multiplier more noticeable. Neither Keynes nor Krugman want to break windows, but it's an effective example they use to highlight the Keynesian effect. Krugman is able to torture Bastiat's parable because Say's Law is being tortured in the real world.

However, I actually believe Krugman is a really nice person. I just think he's wrong on everything about the economy. And it's not that it is he specifically that's wrong, but it is the economic school of thought that he believes in (Keynesianism). He didn't predict the economic collapse, he didn't see the housing bubble, during the midst of it, as a bad thing. Again, it's not really him, but its Keynesian Economics that is wrong. However, I digress...

Umm, that's so wrong I don't know how exactly to respond.

Ton80 quoted a blog post written by econ professor Mark Perry (University of Michigan) in early 2008. Perry concluded that "In other words, to paraphrase Megan McArdle, Paul Krugman has predicted nine out of the last none recessions". Perry made fun of Paul Krugman's worries abotu the housing bubble and the impact it's crash could have on the economy. Perry and McArdle both ate crow after subsequent events in 2008 made them look like fools. The NBER eventually dated the start of the recession back to late 2007.

Though Ton80 doesn't make this point, it's a great example of just how wrong you are. We have a reasonably well-known conservative economist (got a spot at the AEI) who is making fun of Krugman for his concerns about the housing bubble. Very few economists called the housing bubble and Krugman was probably the most prominent of the handful that did. Before the crash of 2008 proved him right, Krugman took a tremendous amount of flack for staking out that position. But he was right.

 

[Saving Hawaii]

the broken window does in fact create real and valuable economic activity... [because] the Keynesian multiplier can provide a net benefit

I dislike it when people bludgeon strawmen so I'd rather not set them up for you. "Can" is a major qualifier in that statement. In this example, Bastiat's "what is seen" primarily consists of the shopowner paying the glazier to replace the window. "What is unseen" is primarily a Keynesian multiplier effect, the additional economic activity generated by the six francs circulating through the economy. Bastiat's concerns about opportunity costs and the like aren't applicable here because we suffer from an excess demand for money and a general glut of everything else. Say's Law is tortured and broken.

You need a rather substantial Keynesian multiplier to overcome the waste involved in breaking windows. That may not be realistic. Less wasteful pursuits (building bridges or sending kids to school) require a much smaller Keynesian multiplier to provide a net benefit though, and that's what guys like Krugman would actually like to see.

 

[Christopher14]

Really? Liberal=bad? Do you think woman should have the right to vote? How about African-americans? Do you enjoy drinking clean water and breathing clean air? Do you like not worrying about the food you buy at a grocery story? How about weekends? Do you enjoy weekends? Are you glad that your grandparents don't have to worry about healthcare or dying in the streets due to lack of money?

If you said yes to any of those things, then it means that liberal doesn't always equal bad.

Liberal=bad because liberals are relentless, and the mainstrem so-called conservatives actually defend liberal institutions. Liberalism today faces no symmetric opposition. Why did communism fail in the USSR? Because it was better implemented in the West. The West, led by the US is now on its way of fulfilling Trotsky's dream.

 

[KarateCowboy]

A group of students recently compiled a list of 18 prognosticators and analyzed their success to fail ratio. What do you know, Paul Krugman came out on top!

Nobody should listen to Cal Thomas



Hamilton College - News, Sports, Events - Talking Heads or a Coin Flip?

That is one bizarre 'study'. It reminds me of one physicists 'proof' that Hell is endothermic. Thank you for sharing, though. I am grateful because recently I was thinking about what it would be like to apply rigorous, rigid logical and scientific principles to things in daily life which are common but exceedingly complex and not made for scientific scrutiny.

 

[alexamasan]

I stand corrected. However, what are his solutions to the economic problem?

 

[Niemander]

I guess I don't get it - he's unable to reason with people so he burns their cars?

It is a joke

I assumed that's what the "Haha!" implied - only I still don't get it - the joke that is.

Maybe he's burning his theories, which are a joke.

 

[Saving Hawaii]

I assumed that's what the "Haha!" implied - only I still don't get it - the joke that is.

Maybe he's burning his theories, which are a joke.

I'd suggest you give up. A joke depends on context. Every joke is reliant upon the audience understanding its context. If you're not especially familiar with Krugman, this joke isn't going to make sense unless you become familiar with Krugman. I can't fix that for you in a short reply beyond what's already been tried.