tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post1601960863767283836..comments2024-03-27T05:23:48.855-04:00Comments on Krugman-in-Wonderland: Fallacy of Composition, or a Non Sequitur?William L. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802990642236807359noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-5133129064408918672011-04-04T23:34:20.421-04:002011-04-04T23:34:20.421-04:00Really? You are so good that you are at F State tr...Really? You are so good that you are at F State trying to challenge a Noble prize winning economist, a professor at Princeton and London School - with an MIT PhD. Sorry, nice try but you aren't in the same league. And it's obvious.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-25772611993123843772010-09-17T23:24:03.637-04:002010-09-17T23:24:03.637-04:00"mitigate" that is, for some at the expe..."mitigate" that is, for some at the expense of others.<br /><br />Unless you're prepared to demonstrate where all the free lunches are being given away.Seanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07123994206923598585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-80384211837465719142010-09-17T23:21:48.052-04:002010-09-17T23:21:48.052-04:00"Spending can mitigate a depression, but it c..."Spending can mitigate a depression, but it cannot propel a recovery."<br /><br />To be more precise, government spending can mitigate a depression---though at the price of extending a depression's length and increasing its depth. Indeed, does government spending fail to "propel a recovery".Seanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07123994206923598585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-6248726179883744592010-09-08T21:28:57.741-04:002010-09-08T21:28:57.741-04:00@Bob -- As usual with these posts you do nothing t...@Bob -- As usual with these posts you do nothing to address the claims that I made besides claiming that they are standard responses! <br /><br />First, Krugman's blog is not called "Friedman in Wonderland." You want to make yourself more credible - change your blog title because otherwise it makes you seem petty and obsessed.<br /><br />Second, Krugman has never denied that WWII spending raised aggregate demand and helped get us out of the depression. I depart from Krugman because he is not a structuralist. Spending can mitigate a depression, but it cannot propel a recovery.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-37514411174608484582010-09-06T13:49:44.494-04:002010-09-06T13:49:44.494-04:00a man who has dedicated himself to debunking one m...<em>a man who has dedicated himself to debunking one man</em><br /><br />One can presume that Prof. Anderson spends most of his spare time saving the citizens of NW Georgia from the ravages of the various state employees of the <a href="http://williamlanderson.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow"><br />Lookout Mountain Judicial Circuit</a> such as falsely accused people like Tonya Craft. A person of average intelligence with both halves of their brain tied behind their back could debunk the absurd claims of the Krugmaniac with minimal time and effort. It’s just that Krugman makes his fraudulent claims on a daily basis from the “prestigious” NYT.<br /><br /><em>Don't you think we borrowed money to fight WWII? What does that have to do with the New Deal? He meant borrowing for the War.</em><br /><br />In the event a statist will admit that The New Deal did not end the depression, the fall-back position is that World War II ended the depression. That is also a completely false and fraudulent claim. It’s always important to debunk it at every opportunity.<br /><br />Again, everyone should listen to <a href="http://antiwar.com/radio/2010/08/28/robert-higgs-6/" rel="nofollow">Robert Higgs being interviewed by Scott Horton.</a>Bob Roddisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-55942044447430872522010-09-06T03:09:14.347-04:002010-09-06T03:09:14.347-04:00Here is a 100 trillion dollar bill:
http://www.yo...Here is a 100 trillion dollar bill:<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98_n6wmH3CM<br /><br />Remember, the government is not revenue constrained.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-54397229957997956742010-09-06T02:43:01.911-04:002010-09-06T02:43:01.911-04:00I guess one should expect such paltry analysis fro...I guess one should expect such paltry analysis from a man who has dedicated himself to debunking one man. <br /><br />I mean Krugman doesn't assert that WWII was a time of prosperity, and the evidence you present is solely anecdotal. Aren't you an economist? I could not find the word prosperity in Krugman's blog post. <br /><br />Don't you think we borrowed money to fight WWII? What does that have to do with the New Deal? He meant borrowing for the War. <br /><br />You have presented no alternative explanation for the GDP-debt ratios during and after WWII. Where Krugman does stumble is his assumption that following the war it was government spending that put us on the road to prosperity rather than international economic conditions that do not exist today.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com