tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post6392216347544294468..comments2024-03-27T05:23:48.855-04:00Comments on Krugman-in-Wonderland: Was Reagan a Keynesian -- or a "Liquidationist"?William L. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802990642236807359noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-34630925642934164162012-06-14T12:44:13.988-04:002012-06-14T12:44:13.988-04:00This only works if the items produced are actually...This only works if the items produced are actually useful. Stockpiling weapons during a period of relative peace is not very productive. If they get used then that is definitely destructive.Anthony Limahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15923530382897881718noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-54187529974988893442012-06-12T17:39:53.337-04:002012-06-12T17:39:53.337-04:00The fact is that the Fed induced a liquidation in ...The fact is that the Fed induced a liquidation in 1980 which helped propel the later expansion. But the world still does not work the way LK or the Keynesians say.<br /><br />And LK still does not understand the basic Austrian concept of economic calculation.<br /><br />http://bobroddis.blogspot.com/2012/06/lord-keynes-again-demonstrates.htmlBob Roddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17263804608074597937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-84406602672505216052012-06-11T16:03:49.357-04:002012-06-11T16:03:49.357-04:00I lived during this time as well and I remember pa...I lived during this time as well and I remember pay 18.8% interest on the first car I bought. It is amazing how you totally disregard his main argument that the 2 recessions are completely different. 1980's basically caused buy inflationary controls on monetary policy and the this last one caused buy to much debt in the private sector similar to the great depression.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-30567348036937855512012-06-11T15:20:51.380-04:002012-06-11T15:20:51.380-04:00Perhaps Obama is like Reagan than we think, or at ...Perhaps Obama is like Reagan than we think, or at least adheres to his philosophy. Ronald Reagan said "the government that governs least, governs best". Since his inauguration, Barack Obama has spend most of his time fundraising, on the golf course or on vacation. Even when he is in the White House, he spends most of his time watching football or basketball. No modern president has spent less time governing than Barack Obama!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-69510011440415666992012-06-10T20:57:33.090-04:002012-06-10T20:57:33.090-04:00And so what, HiddenBait? That simply results in mo...And so what, HiddenBait? That simply results in more and more resources being consumed to produce less and less of what people need. This results in rising prices and wasted material, not prosperity.Fearsome Piratehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12171985273546955313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-42624990129082721702012-06-10T16:26:12.694-04:002012-06-10T16:26:12.694-04:00HiddenBait
Ummmm You're kidding right???HiddenBait<br /><br />Ummmm You're kidding right???Mike Mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-27752506514215097632012-06-09T14:38:59.783-04:002012-06-09T14:38:59.783-04:00"if ramping up military spending truly were a..."if ramping up military spending truly were a pure benefit rather than a cost, then I guess the key to prosperity today would be for the USA to invade yet another hapless Third World country."<br /><br />That's not the point; the point is to stimulate aggregate demand by buying goods/services. This flows money towards businesses, who spend it. That money then goes to other businesses, who spend it, and so on.<br /><br />This grows investment, as more people spend more, and consumption, for the same reason. So the economy kicks back up to life.HiddenBaithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06901488356749798440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-88984228002389172462012-06-09T05:26:06.357-04:002012-06-09T05:26:06.357-04:00Yes, Lord K, this is an incredible rewriting of hi...Yes, Lord K, this is an incredible rewriting of history by Professor Anderson, unrecognizable to anyone who was alive and observant at the time. Thought it was an accepted fact that Reagan, though he pretended to be a budget-balancer, was actually a drunken-sailor spender, and the recovery was due to his drunken-sailor spending. Because it happens to be the truth. <br /><br />Although it was the worst kind of spending. Welfare-for-the-rich death-toys, used for murdering people in the 3rd world, to maintain the pretense of necessity. Remember Star Wars? And of course he made and continued major structural changes to the US economy, all negative, destroying necessary programs like "revenue sharing". Mostly stupid and destructive changes extolled here as causing the recovery from the 82 recession, which was entirely a "Keynesian" government-spending recovery.Calgacushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06031818010224747000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-54226098843210713952012-06-09T01:32:05.357-04:002012-06-09T01:32:05.357-04:00Krugman's Nobel Prize is worth about as Obama&...Krugman's Nobel Prize is worth about as Obama's Nobel Peace Prize.<br /><br />Both need to goMarco2006https://www.blogger.com/profile/01235104902243866449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-64186111921706696052012-06-09T00:46:07.257-04:002012-06-09T00:46:07.257-04:00When progressive statists have to graft themselves...When progressive statists have to graft themselves to the image of Reagan, you know its almost over for themMike Mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-29401989448081423292012-06-09T00:22:13.933-04:002012-06-09T00:22:13.933-04:00Krugman, as a scholar, is an excellent debate-team...Krugman, as a scholar, is an excellent debate-team enthusiast: the personality that is intrigued by nothing more than the challenge of arguing both sides of any proposition.<br /><br />Given: Reagan was a failure. Blame supply-side economics and Austrians.<br /><br />Given: Reagan was a success. Credit Keynes and high taxes.<br /><br />This, I think, more than any ideology or party identification, is what drives him. He is a character worthy of Sinclair Lewis; a Babbit of the left, loving nothing more than the sound of his own voice in his head bending words -- for the sake of bending them. All that's missing is the "Look what I wrote, Mommy!" at the end of every essay.Dannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-36104916209730356332012-06-08T17:31:30.885-04:002012-06-08T17:31:30.885-04:00Krugman now says Reagan was a Keynsian, he used to...Krugman now says Reagan was a Keynsian, he used to say Reagan's economic policies failed:<br /><br />http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/opinion/21krugman.html<br /><br />For [Reaganomics] did fail. The Reagan economy was a one-hit wonder. Yes, there was a boom in the mid-1980s, as the economy recovered from a severe recession. But while the rich got much richer, there was little sustained economic improvement for most Americans...<br /><br />When the inevitable recession arrived, people felt betrayed...Some good things did eventually happen to the U.S. economy — but not on Reagan’s watch.C. Van Carterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09918883799053031223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-45675630649490385812012-06-08T10:05:00.026-04:002012-06-08T10:05:00.026-04:00"Second, and even more important, Krugman is ...<i>"Second, and even more important, Krugman is claiming that temporary tax increases by state governments played an important role in bringing about economic recovery."</i><br /><br />Only in that this avoided sharp budget cuts.<br /><br /><i>"there actually was substantial free-market growth in the economy, and by the beginning of 1984, it was clear that the economy was in strong recovery mode."</i><br /><br />The recovery occurred in December 1982 <i>after</i> the turn to loose monetary policy and fiscal stimulus.<br /><br />In particular, in October 1982, Volcker abandoned his quasi-monetarism and returned to a discretionary interest rate policy, through the Federal funds rate. The Federal funds rate was lowered significantly by the end of 1982. <br /><br />Shouldn't this have caused just another Austrian business cycle?<br /><br />The depth of your ignorance is such that you are unaware that even Rothbard regarded Reagan as a Keynesian:<br /><br />http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard55.html<br /><br /><i>"Yes, there was some growth in government, but certainly nothing like the massive spending that Keynesians claim would have been necessary for real economic recovery to have occurred. "</i><br /><br />That is utter garbage.<br />Under Reagan, countercyclical fiscal policy was significantly increased by (1) Reagan’s discretionary spending on defence and (2) the 1981 tax cut.<br /><br /><i>"Keynesians would have us believe that the amount of liquidation that happened in 1982 and beyond would have dragged the U.S. economy into oblivion, but that clearly is not what happened"</i><br /><br />A straw man. No Keynesian has ever asserted that "the amount of liquidation that happened in 1982 and beyond would have dragged the U.S. economy into oblivion".<br /><br /><i>" and the rate of inflation fell sharply during that time, something that Keynesians would argue is not possible during a recovery."</i><br /><br />Wrong again. Maybe you're thinking of crude neoclassical synthesis Keynesianism. <br /><br />But cost push inflation can fall even with economic expansion. The main cause of general price inflation 1979-1981 was the second oil shock: when the price of oil fell, so did general prices.<br /><br />More here:<br /><br />http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2011/02/reaganomics-analysis.html<br /><br />http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2011/09/reaganomics-as-keynesianism.htmlLord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-56668997269059939832012-06-08T08:33:29.505-04:002012-06-08T08:33:29.505-04:00Regan's military spending had the surprising a...Regan's military spending had the surprising and useful side effect that it bankrupted the USSR and forced them to reconsider their central planning strategy (and a long and unsuccessful Soviet Afghan campaign also contributed to this). It's hard to say whether Regan planned this or fluked it.<br /><br />After the fact Regan admitted that he would have liked to reduce government spending and that he didn't achieve what he set out to do.Telhttp://lnx-bsp.net/noreply@blogger.com