For more than a year, this blog has dealt almost exclusively with Paul Krugman's columns, blog posts and public statements. I will continue to follow what Krugman writes, but I also would like to deal with economic subjects and the economy as a whole without always having to reference Krugman.
The blog's name, Krugman-in-Wonderland, will stay the same, at least for now, but the subject matter will be broader. Part of this change comes because of suggestions from readers who would like to see a larger discussion of economic issues, and part of the change, frankly, comes because of the New York Times' new policy of making people pay for access. (I guess that the NYT is following the policies of their nemesis, Rupert Murdoch, who has a pay-to-read policy at the Wall Street Journal.)
I do have access to Krugman's columns through Lexis-Nexis via the Frostburg State library site, and have 20 "free" articles a month at the NYT. So, I won't completely ignore the guy, but am not going to be dealing with the refutation of particular columns or posts unless it is germane to the larger argument.
We all know where Krugman stands. He is an inflationist who actually believes that government can create wealth via printing of money. That is the bottom line with him, and we are now going to be reaping a huge whirlwind because of the funny money that Ben Bernanke has showered around the world.
The irony is that Krugman believes that Bernanke has not inflated enough, and as prices of food, fuel, and (soon to come) consumer goods rise rapidly, Krugman will insist that we really are not experiencing inflation at all, but rather that a rush of "corporate greed" has swept the nation, and that massive price controls will save the day. So, there is much more to come.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
A change in direction on this blog
Posted by William L. Anderson at 8:50 AM
Labels: Ben Bernanke, Inflation, New York Times
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Glad to hear of the subject expansion. I look forward to learning more about Austrian economics and how it relates to things like the monetarist school. Specifically, I'm curious about why so many Austrians seems to feel gold is required to establish sound money. I can understand that money needs to be backed by SOMETHING...but what, in principle, would be bad about backing it with silver, some bimetallic standard, oil, or basically any valuable commodity?
Krugman has become a deranged hack who spouts such incoherent gibberish that is so disconnected from reality that it is no longer possible to make a cogent rebuttal to his arguments without risking looking like a fool myself for engaging his foolishness, so I will try and stick to more mainstream events and how they relate to Austrian viewpoint and offer my thoughts from that angle.
Indeed! Maybe the new name of your blog will be www.krugman-is-completely-off-his-rocker-now-so-its-time-to-move-to-something-else.blogspot.com
"We all know where Krugman stands. He is an inflationist who actually believes that government can create wealth via printing of money."
No, it is a Keynesian who supports fiscal stimulus and he knows the severe limits of QE, like any good Keynesian.
Ever heard of the expression "pushing on a string"?
When money is borrowed by the state on private markets for deficit spending, it is not being "printed".
That process puts people to work, uses idle recoures, and gets the private wealth-creating sector properly going again.
At least have the honesty to get your opponent's positions right, if you want to taken seriously yourself.
"uses idle recoures"
Just a reminder that anyone who uses this phrase can safely be ignored...
Especially when they do such a horrible job of spelling resources.
"and part of the change, frankly, comes because of the New York Times' new policy of making people pay for access. "
If it's linked, you're allowed to read it for free. All you have to do is google the title of the column or blog post in order to get free acces. In fact, if you link it on this blog, people who click it will be able to read it with no problem no matter how many previous articles they've read.
"(I guess that the NYT is following the policies of their nemesis, Rupert Murdoch, who has a pay-to-read policy at the Wall Street Journal.)"
"but rather that a rush of "corporate greed" has swept the nation"
Why do you continually make up your own imaginary positions for Krugman? First you attribute Krugman to blaming speculation and now corporate greed? Are you ever going to address his position of global demand from emerging makets raising commodity prices? Is he wrong? At the very least, to what degree would you acknoledge that his point is partially correct?
First Robert Murphy decides to critique MMT and now William Anderson decides to start doing economics again. Must be a dream come true for our friend AP Lerner!
In response to Jonathan Finegold Catalan’s outstanding article on government spending, LK wrote:
If, say, a fiscal program is supported by 55% or 60% of the community, then it is a realization of the important and preferred goals of a majority of people.
If these socialist democrats are really so concerned with “democracy” and winning percentages, why not allow 100% of the population the ability to set their own interest rates and prices 100% of the time?
We know exactly why:
When behavior is restricted to the voluntary and cooperative, there is no room for overseers, chains, paddy wagons and cages. With a prohibition on the initiation of force in effect, what’s the bossy Keynesian busybody to do?
And since we’re probably on the verge of another round of price controls, let’s not forget Newsweek’s last misinterpretation of cause and effect from 1973:
Lord Keynes writes,
"No, it is a Keynesian who supports fiscal stimulus and he knows the severe limits of QE, like any good Keynesian. "
Krugman does support monetary policy. Krugman believes that if the Federal Reserve promised a certain level of inflation in the future, and showed credibility, then it would stimulate people to spend.
From the Big Bucks of Soros:
Essentially, Bernanke's response was that the Fed could do more but won't due to worries about inflation getting out of control. However, as many economists have noted, inflation at the moment is exceedingly low (the Fed isn't meeting its own inflation targets, and its forecasts show inflation is contained for the foreseeable future), while unemployment remains stubbornly high. In fact, as Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman noted, "there is no tradeoff: more expansionary monetary policy is good in terms of both unemployment and achieving the Fed's inflation target.”
From the mouth of Soros:
Friedrich Hayek is generally regarded as the apostle of a brand of economics which holds that the market will assure the optimal allocation of resources — as long as the government doesn’t interfere. It is a formalized and mathematical theory, whose two main pillars are the efficient market hypothesis and the theory of rational expectations.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53885.html#ixzz1KsQa5oe2
I know. Picky picky picky.
Soros funded Yglesias reports that SURPLUSES ARE GOOD:
Contrary to the beliefs of nearly all anti-Keynesians—and, regrettably, some Keynesians, too—Keynesianism demands more, not less, fiscal rectitude in normal times than does the orthodox theory of balanced budgets that underpins the EU. John Maynard Keynes argued that surpluses should be accumulated during good years so that they could be spent to stimulate demand during bad ones.
Where’s APLerner? I thought surpluses are what caused depressions because deficits are necessary for and CAUSE savings. What could be more obvious?
National Review figured out how to get past the paywall.
Post a Comment