tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post2224448290468019085..comments2024-03-27T05:23:48.855-04:00Comments on Krugman-in-Wonderland: Krugman Freezes Out ObamaWilliam L. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802990642236807359noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-48438132679046459822010-12-06T15:31:36.216-05:002010-12-06T15:31:36.216-05:00cutting govt spending won't solve the bigger p...cutting govt spending won't solve the bigger problem which is that globalists are orchestrating the intentional collapse of the US. Cutting spending on entitlements isn't going to change that fact or save/rally the economy.lennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-28141879098253971112010-12-05T16:14:44.375-05:002010-12-05T16:14:44.375-05:00Lerner, I took a moment to check a few things, and...Lerner, I took a moment to check a few things, and you made your prediction on this blog on the day of Nov 10. Historical records show the DXY was hovering between 77 and 78, nowhere near 75.<br /><br />Besides that, the DXY is mostly weighted to Euros, and Euros have their own instability issues (e.g. Ireland), your original Nov 10 prediction did not specifically mention DXY, you merely predicted a "big dollar rally". The DXY really doesn't give much indication of any of the BRIC economies, nor any commodity backed currencies.<br /><br />(I sent a longer comment which vanished, apologies if it does pop up sometime in future, making this redundant).Telhttp://lnx-bsp.net/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-33845695630401259792010-12-05T13:28:01.391-05:002010-12-05T13:28:01.391-05:00Welcome to the Blog, Bill Greene!!!
Very nice intr...Welcome to the Blog, Bill Greene!!!<br />Very nice introduction!burkll13https://www.blogger.com/profile/00458192777661669534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-24176348430014457902010-12-05T12:03:42.766-05:002010-12-05T12:03:42.766-05:00@bill greene Well said.@bill greene Well said.Mike Cheelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-57808557680630100022010-12-05T11:06:08.169-05:002010-12-05T11:06:08.169-05:00The primary failing of Keynesian economists is tha...The primary failing of Keynesian economists is that they let their virtuosity with abstract thinking take precedence over simple logic. A recent article in my newspaper suggested that such experts were in favor of extending unemployment benefits because it would increase consumer spending. <br /><br />Apparently such theoreticians have studied past statistical data and concluded that when the public is spending freely, the economy is robust, and when they are spending sparingly, the economy is not all that strong. Thus, when a prior month shows an increase in spending they say the economy is improving (or was improving) and if the next month spending declines, they conclude the economy is deteriorating--but they never admit that they have no way of knowing whether next month it will go up or dowm!<br /><br />Nevertheless, ignoring any attempt to link causation with their supposed correlations, they assume that if there is someway they can get that monthly consumption number to be a higher amount they will have turned the economy around and made it stronger. <br /><br />Now any practical mind knows that consumer spending does not build national economic strength. Thrift, investments in productive infrastructure, and R&D spending are what will over the long-term build a strong and productive economy. In fact,less spending on consumer expendables, luxuries, imports from China, and reduced payrolls for unproductive (almost all) government employees are what are needed for real growth.<br /><br />But the abstract thinking geniuses like Krugman just want to raise that monthly number--consumer spending--because that number, however poorly assembled by the government statistical department, and no matter how much it gets revised a few months later, that number alone will indicate whether the economy is getting stronger.<br /><br />So, in their fantastical minds, if the government prints money, then distributes it to the public, consumer spending should increase, and that will indicate (to them)that they have made things better. Of course if there was any merit to their logic, we should not just extend unemployment benefits, we should double them, perhaps triple them. Then that beloved number would skyrocket! It might go up almost as fast as the deficit and our national debt<br /><br />There should be a government warning emblazoned on all Krugmanesque economic policy: "Do not try this at home!"bill greenehttp://www.thecommongenius.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-47443135911210044502010-12-05T02:41:23.910-05:002010-12-05T02:41:23.910-05:00The dxy was at 75 when I made that prediction in e...<i>The dxy was at 75 when I made that prediction in early Nov. It's now @ 79</i><br /><br />LMAO. Wow, did you get a medal for that prediction? That's quite the resume builder. <br /><br />What other amazing predictions have the MMT crowd made? Did you predict the rise in gold prices? The rise in the PPI? The rise in other commodity prices? The rise in taxes? The rise in education costs? The rise in medical costs? The rise in the JOC-ECRI Industrial Price Index (23%!)?<br /><br />Or did you predict DEFLATION? <br /><br />Why don't you walk us through some significant MMT predictions that have come true, not your middling 5% temporary gain of one piece of paper against another?<br /><br />And then, why don't you explain to us what the word SAVINGS mean, and how your economic framework accounts for the ACT of savings?Davidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-39193186508093825222010-12-04T23:58:45.200-05:002010-12-04T23:58:45.200-05:00@ tel:
"Lerner, you congratulate yourself fo...@ tel:<br /><br />"Lerner, you congratulate yourself for predicting a rising US dollar... rising against what?"<br /><br />The dxy was at 75 when I made that prediction in early Nov. It's now @ 79. Take 5 minutes and google what it's up against. FYI-it's up against the yen, which I'm short.<br /><br />Pay attention before criticizing me.sb101https://www.blogger.com/profile/05719317618259246022noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-55584420420130245982010-12-04T18:09:49.061-05:002010-12-04T18:09:49.061-05:00Lerner, you congratulate yourself for predicting a...Lerner, you congratulate yourself for predicting a rising US dollar... rising against what?<br /><br />The Australian Dollar has been kicking the backside off the USD. Brazil (another resource-backed currency) has been doing the same. The Japanese Yen keeps getting stronger and stronger. Oil prices are back up and the SPDR Gold Trust shows an almost straight line up for the past 5 years. iShares Silver Trust also generally upwards over five years but with sudden acceleration in the past 6 months.<br /><br />So the only rising US dollar is the rising pile of banknotes you need if you want to buy a stick of gum.Telhttp://lnx-bsp.ne/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-75079505033537701952010-12-04T06:14:15.500-05:002010-12-04T06:14:15.500-05:00Another Anonymous 1:33 am
"The universal exp...Another Anonymous 1:33 am<br /><br />"The universal experience of mankind is that governments provide healthcare superior to the a private system, at lower cost."<br /><br />Which "private system" are you comparing government healthcare with? Do you realise that you ought to compare government healthcare with a free-market in healthcare? Are you aware of the distortions induced by government intervention in the market for healthcare and how they adversely affect the economics of healthcare and thus ordinary people seeking healthcare? Do you realise that the US is NOT and has not been (for quite some time now) an example of a free-market in healthcare? Have you read this?<br /><br />http://mises.org/daily/3737Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-89538454402902841432010-12-04T06:03:11.443-05:002010-12-04T06:03:11.443-05:00Hey bandit,
You are certainly the biggest moron I...Hey bandit,<br /><br />You are certainly the biggest moron I have ever engaged in any sort of discussion. I said <br /><br />"When the money is taken through coercion, the person who is robbed is losing in utility." <br /><br />Did you notice the little word "when" in the beginning of that sentence? That word indicates that the conclusion I have drawn in that sentence is applicable to those who need to and are being coerced to pay. So, when you say<br /><br />"Which one is it, for ***$#* sake."<br /><br />you are revealing that you have completely failed to understand that the statement<br /><br />"The majority don't "feel" harmed because they do not understand economics."<br /><br />applies to the majority (though the sentence includes this word) that, as per your claim, does not see anything wrong in taxes and, I presume, pays voluntarily.<br /><br />It is especially stupid to pick up 2 sentences that apply to 2 different sets of people and claim that there is a contradiction.<br /><br />That apart<br /><br />"So now they don't feel harmed??? They don't feel it was theft?"<br /><br />applies to the brainwashed majority that (like you) has no idea of economics. They (like you) think taxes are moral, see the "public goods" being provided and pay happily. What they fail to see (on account of their ignorance of economics) is how they are harming themselves. Since they do not know the downsides of taxation, they do not feel harmed. Why is this this difficult to grasp? Maybe because you have a brain less capable than that of a jelly-fish?Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-27824801968577119952010-12-04T04:58:45.952-05:002010-12-04T04:58:45.952-05:00There is something subtle here.
AP Lerner said &q...There is something subtle here.<br /><br />AP Lerner said "You can't even accurately misrepresent me" instead of "you can't even accurately misrepresent him".<br /><br />Is he Paul Krugman in disguise?<br /><br />Just joking, but that was a strange and funny choice of words.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-73065672051198053492010-12-04T04:33:21.932-05:002010-12-04T04:33:21.932-05:00Bala, et al, does the real world ever intrude upon...Bala, et al, does the real world ever intrude upon your abstractions?<br /><br />The universal experience of mankind is that governments provide healthcare superior to the a private system, at lower cost. Having a private healthcare system adds up to more death and fewer dollars & real resources in the short run. It is often forgotten that Americans have a healthier lifestyle overall than Europeans & Japanese - they smoke much less, which outweighs every other lifestyle difference. But the benefit of socialized medicine outweighs even the effect of smoking. And in the long run this adds up to many more deaths and much fewer dollars and resources. What is the long run damage that outweighs all the death & waste caused by a laissez-faire, entrepreneurial, fringe of Austrian-economics favored or USA-type system?<br />I'm awfully glad personally that I have a dual citizenship thanks to my dad, so I won't rely on sh*tty - even for the well-to-do - US healthcare in my old age.Another Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-41031796074101709752010-12-04T02:59:32.300-05:002010-12-04T02:59:32.300-05:00When the money is taken through coercion, the pers...<i>When the money is taken through coercion, the person who is robbed is losing in utility.</i><br /><br />Pure rubbish. You been shown again and again the MAJORITY of voters do not regard taxes as "robbery" - if they did they would vote for abolition for taxes.<br />Taxes are payment for public goods - this is how most people see them.<br /><br />And now your final comment here totally destroys you:<br /><br /><i>The majority don't "feel' harmed because they do not understand economics.</i><br /><br />So now they don't feel harmed??? They don't feel it was theft?<br />Yet you say actually that above, you complete idiot!<br />Which one is it, for ***$#* sake.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-86023886777533144512010-12-04T02:56:38.791-05:002010-12-04T02:56:38.791-05:00Hey bandit,
'The majority don't "fee...Hey bandit,<br /><br />'The majority don't "feel' harmed because they do not understand economics."<br /><br />And neither do you. Incidentally, how's your economic chronicling going?Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-15584877765149665282010-12-04T02:55:07.713-05:002010-12-04T02:55:07.713-05:00Hey bandit,
"The majority supports taxes and...Hey bandit,<br /><br />"The majority supports taxes and the basic state welfare."<br /><br />Yeah!! We know this. That's the problem. Too many victims have sanctioned their own sacrifice.Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-27681847683217990432010-12-04T02:52:27.787-05:002010-12-04T02:52:27.787-05:00Hey bandit,
You are the one being really stupid.
...Hey bandit,<br /><br />You are the one being really stupid.<br /><br />'Giving up a little bit of tax money now to hedge against starving when you are unemployed IS rational and right."<br /><br />When the money is taken through coercion, the person who is robbed is losing in utility. If he weren't, he wouldn't have to be coerced in the first place.<br /><br />"It doesn't "harm" you, anymore than payment of private insurance harms you."<br /><br />You still fail to see the difference between a voluntary purchase and a coercive expropriation.<br /><br />"If the majority felt "harmed" they would vote in Ron Paul or some other libertarian to abolish taxes and the state."<br /><br />The majority don't "feel' harmed because they do not understand economics.Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-75572911172526963352010-12-04T02:34:12.274-05:002010-12-04T02:34:12.274-05:00In a rational moral framework where the individual...<i>In a rational moral framework where the individual's own life is the standard of value, such a choice would be irrational and wrong.</i><br /><br />How stupid can you get.<br />Giving up a little bit of tax money now to hedge against starving when you are unemployed IS rational and right.<br /><br /><i>Not if the means you choose harms you, as would be the case with state unemployment insurance and health care</i><br /><br />It doesn't "harm" you, anymore than payment of private insurance harms you. <br /><br />The majority supports taxes and the basic state welfare.<br />If the majority felt "harmed" they would vote in Ron Paul or some other libertarian to abolish taxes and the state.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-47350075092020475022010-12-04T02:21:07.337-05:002010-12-04T02:21:07.337-05:00Hey bandit,
"So now you just run away from t...Hey bandit,<br /><br />"So now you just run away from the argument about morality??"<br /><br />No, you moron! I am talking of a rational moral framework where man uses his MIND to know right from wrong.<br /><br />"You have just conceded my point."<br /><br />Nonsense.<br /><br />"If there ethical choice that it was moral was really subjective, then you have NO moral argument against taxes and basic welfare."<br /><br />No. The choice is irrational and actually harmful. In a rational moral framework where the individual's own life is the standard of value, such a choice would be irrational and wrong. They can't claim that their life is the standard of value and simultaneously choose something that harms them.<br /><br />"The fact you now shift the argument to talk of it being "irrational" shows total defeat."<br /><br />You moron! You still don't seem to realise that I am talking of a rational moral framework.<br /><br />"And as I said: it is entirely rational to give up a small part of your income now (say, in taxes) for protection against uncertainty in the future"<br /><br />Not if the means you choose harms you, as would be the case with state unemployment insurance and health care.Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-23969769262319744002010-12-04T01:59:53.622-05:002010-12-04T01:59:53.622-05:00Subjective does not mean irrational.
So now you j...<i>Subjective does not mean irrational.</i><br /><br />So now you just run away from the argument about morality??<br /><br /><i>It is not about my "belief" vs their "belief". It is that their choice is irrational and poorly-made and will not help them meet their objective while my choice is rational and well-made and will therefore help meet my objective.</i><br /><br />You have just conceded my point.<br /><br />This evasion and shift of the argument to ideas about choices being "irrational and poorly-made" evades the point that your earlier <br />statement about ethics being subjective is nonsense.<br /><br />If there ethical choice that it was moral was really subjective, <br />then you have NO moral argument against taxes and basic welfare.<br /><br />The fact you now shift the argument to talk of it being "irrational" shows total defeat.<br /><br />And as I said: it is entirely <i>rational</i> to give up a small part of your income now (say, in taxes) for protection against uncertainty in the future (e.g., state unemployment insurance and health care).<br /><br />You lose again.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-37704748434066431532010-12-04T01:47:05.740-05:002010-12-04T01:47:05.740-05:00Hey bandit,
"Taxation for public goods is mo...Hey bandit,<br /><br />"Taxation for public goods is moral."<br /><br />Only if you use a moral framework divorced from rationality, i.e., irrational, and choose a standard of value other than the life of the choice-making individual.<br /><br />"You are already exposed as a fool who believes that morality is subjective."<br /><br />Subjective does not mean irrational. In fact, your "ethical' code is the irrational one for all your claims that it is "objective".<br /><br />"then when the majority believes that taxes and state welfare is moral, you have ABSOLUTELY no means and no argument against their subjective belief that it is right."<br /><br />Rationality backed by sound economics shows that choice to consider taxes and state welfare as as moral is an irrational one because such support diminishes their well-being in the long-run. Hence, while they are free to believe that it is moral and hence support it, they are not free to escape the detrimental consequences of such support.<br /><br />"if 90% of the public "subjectively" think taxes are right, your subjective belief that it is not is totally irrelevant to them."<br /><br />It is not about my "belief" vs their "belief". It is that their choice is irrational and poorly-made and will not help them meet their objective while my choice is rational and well-made and will therefore help meet my objective. The poor souls don't realise how much they are hurting themselves.Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-26388743878757387822010-12-04T01:22:01.660-05:002010-12-04T01:22:01.660-05:00The difference is that private insurance is volunt...<i>The difference is that private insurance is voluntary while taxation is coercive.</i><br /><br />Taxation for public goods is moral.<br /><br />You are already exposed as a fool who believes that morality is subjective.<br /><br />Your statement:<br /><br /><i>Bala said... 3:54 PM <br />He however completely ignores the point that morality is the subjective assessment of "right" and "wrong".</i><br /><br />If our assessment of right and wrong is 'subjective,' then when the majority believes that taxes and state welfare is moral, you have ABSOLUTELY no means and no argument against their subjective belief that it is right.<br /><br />All arguments like yours above are utterly pointless - if 90% of the public "subjectively" think taxes are right, your subjective belief that it is not is totally irrelevant to them.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-4552810318423166792010-12-04T01:21:29.150-05:002010-12-04T01:21:29.150-05:00Hey bandit,
"People have tremendous benefits...Hey bandit,<br /><br />"People have tremendous benefits from old age pension, unemployment payments and universal health care."<br /><br />Your complete lack of understanding of economics is totally exposed. You have spoken of the "seen" while completely ignoring the "unseen". You have taken short-term effects into account while completely ignoring the long-term effects. How Keynesian!!!<br /><br />"That's why they vote for them 0 they succeed and people are better off."<br /><br />The moot point is whether people become better off BECAUSE OF or IN SPITE OF the intervention.<br /><br />So, you are the one spraying rubbish all over the place.Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-7752851259892919262010-12-04T01:14:09.089-05:002010-12-04T01:14:09.089-05:00It is irrational to expect that government using c...<i>It is irrational to expect that government using coercion to make this happen would either succeed or leave people better off.</i><br /><br />What utter rubbish.<br />People have tremendous benefits from old age pension, unemployment payments and universal health care.<br /><br />That's why they vote for them 0 they succeed and people are better off.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-68309364729541959652010-12-04T01:03:24.145-05:002010-12-04T01:03:24.145-05:00Hey bandit,
"It is entirely rational to give...Hey bandit,<br /><br />"It is entirely rational to give up a small part of your income now (say, in taxes) for protection against uncertainty in the future (e.g., state unemployment insurance and health care)."<br /><br />It is irrational to expect that government using coercion to make this happen would either succeed or leave people better off.<br /><br />"If that were irrational, then all forms of private insurance would also be irrational, you idiot."<br /><br />No. It wouldn't, you jelly-brain. The difference is that private insurance is voluntary while taxation is coercive. Your attempt to equivocate reveals your stupidity in its entirety.Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-52060161078462071042010-12-04T00:44:28.967-05:002010-12-04T00:44:28.967-05:00What this shows is that the majority is acting irr...<i>What this shows is that the majority is acting irrationally.</i><br /><br />Wrong.<br />It is entirely <i>rational</i> to give up a small part of your income now (say, in taxes) for protection against uncertainty in the future (e.g., state unemployment insurance and health care).<br /><br />If that were irrational, then <i>all forms of private insurance</i> would also be irrational, you idiot.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.com