tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post4225378485459549482..comments2024-03-27T05:23:48.855-04:00Comments on Krugman-in-Wonderland: Goldstein Halts the Recovery!!William L. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802990642236807359noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-83779439825288381462010-09-08T11:26:22.521-04:002010-09-08T11:26:22.521-04:00* clarification*
whats absurd is equating what im...* clarification*<br /><br />whats absurd is equating what im saying with APs. again nobody is against lowering taxes.burkll13https://www.blogger.com/profile/00458192777661669534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-63430339842903224962010-09-07T10:57:51.706-04:002010-09-07T10:57:51.706-04:00thats absurd and circular on several levels.thats absurd and circular on several levels.burkll13https://www.blogger.com/profile/00458192777661669534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-32194307538554863102010-09-01T23:26:44.515-04:002010-09-01T23:26:44.515-04:00What you're saying isn't anything differen...What you're saying isn't anything different from what AP Lerner is saying. Lower taxes to and people will do what they wish with their money and reallocate as needed. Increase savings so the market could figure it out.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-77933366513602004182010-09-01T23:16:03.900-04:002010-09-01T23:16:03.900-04:00its not a "do this and fix it immediately&quo...its not a "do this and fix it immediately" thing. you do it, individuals will react and reallocate their resources accordingly.burkll13https://www.blogger.com/profile/00458192777661669534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-84810575405045138942010-09-01T22:48:54.780-04:002010-09-01T22:48:54.780-04:00Reagaon and Bush Sr. also had massive deficits, ye...Reagaon and Bush Sr. also had massive deficits, yet the economy recovered quickly during the two recessions before the Clinton years. Perhaps the government spending will slow down potential "real growth" in the long run, but I think it's stretch to think the immediate problem right now is keeping government spending in the same level temporarily as in the bush years. Once employment improves, gut the military budget all you want to free resources for the private sector. Whatever debate about the rest of the government spending and its role, could be left after recovery because that's not the immediate problem.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-23243658637053521482010-09-01T22:14:21.184-04:002010-09-01T22:14:21.184-04:00umm...
"Both of you think people need saving...umm...<br /><br />"Both of you think people need savings."<br /><br />well, thats not entirely accurate. im not saying that savings are bad, i just refuse to accept that premise that any entity should be persuading individuals, one way or another. i believe that individuals need to do whatever they need to do to put themselves in a better financial position. if that mean saving, fine. if that means borrowing to buy capital, fine. consumption will return when people are more stable.<br /><br />to you and/or AP, i have a question; does it matter at all WHO "saves"? is there any economic difference, because APs formula is based on the premise that it doesnt matter.<br /><br />"If you're worried about the deficit, cut the the military budget after the economy recovers or now preferably"<br /><br />by all means. no argument from me.<br /><br />"It has been positive analysis, not normative. "<br /><br />IMHO, its an incomplete analysis, based on the absense of factors: (using Mr. Roddis' list) acting man, subjective value, economic scarcity, ethics and economic calculation.<br /><br />"I don't know why you want to demonize the guy."<br /><br />im not out to demonize the guy. ive read what he has to say, and given it honest consideration. i just think its wrong, from the standpoint of whats right, not what is. thats really where the gap lies. Prof. Anderson and the other austrians have more or less argued right and wrong, and often from the logical end of Krugmans viewpoints. AP has argued procedure and accounting methods. that said, i really cant stand his uppity attitude, and have knowingly come across as hating the guy, but again, i HAVE given his views honest consideration.<br /><br />"In the end of the day, you could both agree that all that's needed is massive tax cuts."<br /><br />WRONG. at the end of the day, we need massive SPENDING AND TAX CUTS, and to allow the free market to calculate where resources are best distributed. it has been stated several times before; government spending (intervention) lends to miscalculations and misallocations of resources.burkll13https://www.blogger.com/profile/00458192777661669534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-16213983316506323572010-09-01T21:30:51.959-04:002010-09-01T21:30:51.959-04:00AP Lerner doesn't seem** very happy aboutAP Lerner doesn't seem** very happy aboutAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-72096248733665209502010-09-01T21:23:27.955-04:002010-09-01T21:23:27.955-04:00In his theory, all that matters is that government...In his theory, all that matters is that government has a temporary deficit. He thinks government spending will accomplish this, but obviously he would endorse tax cuts over spending because it's more politically feasible. Both of you think people need savings. If you're worried about the deficit, cut the the military budget after the economy recovers or now preferably, which AP Lerner would also endorse. You think trimming the military budget is an unrealistic prospect? So is ending the FED. Anyway, AP Lerner doesn't very happy about the FED either. I think he even said the FED was to blame for bubbles like you guys. Most of what I read from him about the monetary system has not been endorsement. He has just been trying to explain how the monetary system works. It has been positive analysis, not normative. <br /><br />I don't know why you want to demonize the guy. In the end of the day, you could both agree that all that's needed is massive tax cuts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-44239119224074886732010-09-01T20:38:37.494-04:002010-09-01T20:38:37.494-04:00@ Anon
while he has stated that lower taxes are a...@ Anon<br /><br />while he has stated that lower taxes are a good thing (something we can all agree on), he also has NUMEROUS times pointed out the "benefits" of government spending, which IS interventionist.burkll13https://www.blogger.com/profile/00458192777661669534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-45331634217803030622010-09-01T15:23:30.885-04:002010-09-01T15:23:30.885-04:00"justify a desired goal (government intervent..."justify a desired goal (government intervention)"<br /><br />When you get down to it, all AP Lerner has been suggesting is to lower taxes ton. Wow, whatever an interventionist that guy is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-66700222806698245902010-09-01T10:17:33.881-04:002010-09-01T10:17:33.881-04:00@ the last anon:
APs way (chartalism) seems to me...@ the last anon:<br /><br />APs way (chartalism) seems to me to be nothing more than an accounting trick designed to justify a desired goal (government intervention). <br /><br />its flawed for the same reasons that keynsianism is, ignoring scarcity and human action, while viewing the economy as an amorphous blob.<br /><br />only chartalism, as AP has pointed out an annoying number of times, links private savings with government spending, again treating 'savings' as an amorphous blob where the levels are the only characteristics that matters.burkll13https://www.blogger.com/profile/00458192777661669534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-1764172797135961432010-08-31T15:13:10.067-04:002010-08-31T15:13:10.067-04:00AP Lerner:
Now that you've given me an entire...AP Lerner:<br /><br />Now that you've given me an entirely different way of looking at public debt (and thank you), do you have sources that tell you optimal ways to manage the level of public debt/private savings, hopefully with some historical back testing?<br /><br />I have ordered but not yet received Wray's Understanding Modern Money.<br /><br />Thanks ...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-24628053854233123042010-08-31T08:34:27.622-04:002010-08-31T08:34:27.622-04:00For starters, the statists still refuse to prove t...For starters, the statists still refuse to prove that a market economy stalls out because a lack of debt and/or money dilution. That's because there is no evidence of such a stalling out, but the debt and money dilution statist advocate sure cause the economy to stall out. <br /><br />Further, seizing money from the private sector, where investment can be guided by economic calculation, for forced transfer to the "public" (donut eating) sector, traps resources in a milieu where economic calculation is impaired, or more likely impossible.<br /><br />"Stimulus" is attempting to solve a problem that does not exist and is, in fact, the CAUSE of the problem.<br /><br />Finally, 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> which has particular emphasis on the mutual looting and kleptocracy of the modern democratic state.Bob Roddisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-49979803100915063462010-08-30T14:09:55.795-04:002010-08-30T14:09:55.795-04:00"The size of the stimulus was determined by t..."The size of the stimulus was determined by the President's economic team - at the time, did Romer, Summers, et al argue that it should have been larger? No, they did not. "<br /><br />Actually, I'm pretty sure the size of the stimulus was one of the reasons why Romer quit.<br /><br /><br />"The most important question facing Obama that day was how large the stimulus should be. Since the election, as the economy continued to worsen, the consensus among economists kept rising. A hundred-billion-dollar stimulus had seemed prudent earlier in the year. Congress now appeared receptive to something on the order of five hundred billion. Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel laureate, was calling for a trillion. Romer had run simulations of the effects of stimulus packages of varying sizes: six hundred billion dollars, eight hundred billion dollars, and $1.2 trillion. The best estimate for the output gap was some two trillion dollars over 2009 and 2010. Because of the multiplier effect, filling that gap didn’t require two trillion dollars of government spending, but Romer’s analysis, deeply informed by her work on the Depression, suggested that the package should probably be more than $1.2 trillion. The memo to Obama, however, detailed only two packages: a five-hundred-and-fifty-billion-dollar stimulus and an eight-hundred-and-ninety-billion-dollar stimulus. Summers did not include Romer’s $1.2-trillion projection. The memo argued that the stimulus should not be used to fill the entire output gap; rather, it was “an insurance package against catastrophic failure.” At the meeting, according to one participant, “there was no serious discussion to going above a trillion dollars.”<br /><br />http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/12/091012fa_fact_lizza#ixzz0y75FCIUoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-23253298605393956922010-08-30T09:39:30.580-04:002010-08-30T09:39:30.580-04:00@8/29 10:58am
I respectfully disagree.
Democra...@8/29 10:58am<br /><br />I respectfully disagree. <br /><br />Democrats very seldom move in lockstep on anything: which is why Republicans acting as a bloc using filibusters can stop anything they want without major concessions. <br /><br />As frustrating as it is to be a Democrat these days, it's at least a bit more intellectually honest than being a Republican these days.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-31607394520594886972010-08-30T09:30:47.547-04:002010-08-30T09:30:47.547-04:00Well, folks, have you read Mark Zandi and Alan Bli...Well, folks, have you read Mark Zandi and Alan Blinder lately?<br /><br />"Stimulus helped us avoid collapse"<br /><br />http://lacrossetribune.com/news/opinion/article_7e1ff8e8-9e83-11df-a30c-001cc4c002e0.html<br /><br />http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/End-of-Great-Recession.pdfAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-50911190055982299272010-08-29T15:43:45.772-04:002010-08-29T15:43:45.772-04:00I suppose we can all be thankful that it was as sm...I suppose we can all be thankful that it was as <em>small</em> as it was. The smaller it is, the less harm it can do.<br /><br />Except, if they had passed the giant waste bucket, er, stimulus that Krugman demanded, that really wouldn't have worked and it would have wreaked even more havoc. But Krugman wouldn’t be in a position to say, “If you had only listened to me”. <br /><br />In any event, I don’t think the general public buys this “stimulus” nonsense anyway. The way to sell anti-Keynesianism to the public is to remind them that Keynesianism doesn’t seem to make any sense BECAUSE IT DOESN’T MAKE ANY SENSE. And, in fact, it is the CAUSE of our problems.Bob Roddisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-66659720293752915712010-08-29T13:58:21.892-04:002010-08-29T13:58:21.892-04:00Anonymous,
The fact is, the Democrats had large ...Anonymous, <br /><br />The fact is, the Democrats had large majorities in both the House and Senate and the Presidency. They could have passed anything they wanted without any Republican votes, and they had roughly one year (Jan 2009 until Jan 2010) to do it. <br /><br />The size of the stimulus was determined by the President's economic team - at the time, did Romer, Summers, et al argue that it should have been larger? No, they did not. <br /><br />Vice President Biden later attempted to explain it away by saying that the economic downturn was worse than they had thought. Well, in that case, WTF were you and Obama doing the previous four years in the Senate? Were you paying attention at all?<br /><br />The Democrats got EXACTLY the stimulus they wanted. Any economist that knew anything about Keynesianism said at that time it wouldn't work, regardless of size. Krugman doesn't know anything about Keynes, he never did any research in that area, his field of expertise was international trade. <br /><br />So, hang in there, but this stimulus money was wasted, it didn't stimulate anything.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-76487003086170521812010-08-28T17:55:39.898-04:002010-08-28T17:55:39.898-04:00If any of you folks haven’t yet read Robert Higgs’...If any of you folks haven’t yet read Robert Higgs’ paper “Regime Uncertainty: Why the Great Depression Lasted So Long and Why Prosperity Resumed after the War”, you can <a href="http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=430" rel="nofollow">download it here</a>.Bob Roddisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-15254673246786710212010-08-28T13:08:21.085-04:002010-08-28T13:08:21.085-04:00@ Anonymous,
In ND, we can't get housing (and...@ Anonymous,<br /><br />In ND, we can't get housing (and the complementary infrastructure built) in the middle of an oil (and coal) boom, so there is a housing shortage. A severe housing shortage.<br /><br />Why won't developers and banks finance these projects? They all say it is because they are UNCERTAIN about the future... is the EPA or a lame duck congress going to destroy the oil and coal industries???Brenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02195661434955034038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-37349086538022060882010-08-27T18:10:31.776-04:002010-08-27T18:10:31.776-04:00You have a very selective memory over the debate o...You have a very selective memory over the debate over the stimulus money and the extent of Republican opposition that sent Blue-Dog Democrats into their hole. I suggest you go back and look up some John McCain quotes over bear reproductive studies. But that is really a pointless argument - the real question is whether the stimulus was really to small to deal with the extent of the slump.<br /><br />Do you really believe that business is sitting on cash because of long-term uncertainty? Or, could it be because they are worried about the lack of demand for their products?<br /><br />I also believe the causal chain of stimulus has been well argued - from preventing state governments from laying people off, to providing a psychological shock of confidence into markets.<br /><br />In fact business have engaged in much more long-term behavior - cutting inventories, adapting to a smaller workforce (and thus permanent higher unemployment), and improving their fiscal positions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com