tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post4875495693852626108..comments2024-03-27T05:23:48.855-04:00Comments on Krugman-in-Wonderland: Krugman CausalityWilliam L. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802990642236807359noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-6781798615437566002010-07-17T07:27:49.859-04:002010-07-17T07:27:49.859-04:00"Then what's this blog for? How does this..."Then what's this blog for? How does this blog do any good if Paul Krugman speaks a different economic language than you? "<br /><br />Its more like, 'how does Paul Krugman do any good if he doesnt acknowledge opportunity cost?'burkll13https://www.blogger.com/profile/00458192777661669534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-40396671498460219712010-07-17T00:32:02.244-04:002010-07-17T00:32:02.244-04:00>Debating someone like that really does not goo...>Debating someone like that really does not good, as neither of us would be speaking the same language.<br /><br />Then what's this blog for? How does this blog do any good if Paul Krugman speaks a different economic language than you?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-12039935409955152602010-07-16T09:53:27.782-04:002010-07-16T09:53:27.782-04:00Actually, Greg, I think you are on the right track...Actually, Greg, I think you are on the right track. Economists like to think that they are special experts because they solved lots of calculus equations when they were in grad school and the math "proves" that economics is a most difficult discipline.<br /><br />Actually, ALL of economics is based upon the simple but profound concept of opportunity cost. Understand that, and everything else falls into place. Furthermore, economic laws (i.e. scarcity, demand, supply, opportunity cost) are immutable and do not change over time.<br /><br />Krugman and others insist that there are "special situations" that require changes in the rules. Thus, during a "liquidity trap," government should borrow, as though all that spending suddenly will bring about economic "traction" that will enable to economy to move by itself.<br /><br />I don't have a lot of interest in debating AP because he really does not understand opportunity cost, and he believes that different times create different laws of economics. Debating someone like that really does not good, as neither of us would be speaking the same language.William L. Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802990642236807359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-27741827624857484632010-07-16T02:24:05.896-04:002010-07-16T02:24:05.896-04:00An honest debate of ideas is hardly a pointless ve...An honest debate of ideas is hardly a pointless venture. I can think of more useless things to do with one's time. <br /><br />I think Prof. Anderson does a disservice to himself and to readers of his blog. For one, a debate from Krugman is something the Prof. would surely like, but Krugman won't come here or even answer people who comment on his blog. Why take the same approach to someone on your blog that wants to challenge you on what you write?<br /><br />Second, by leaving it to readers (laymen mostly) to refute AL Lerner for you, it tasks the student to argue ideas in which he clearly does not yet possess expertise in, so it's usually not a very productive exercise. <br /><br />I think most of what Al Lerner says is pure hogwash -- quantitative easing being deflationary, deficits not mattering, SS not being similar to a Ponzi scheme (he really has a bone to pick you on that one), etc., but I don't pretend to have all the concepts of AS Econ. theory down pat, plus I am truly was baffled that monetary growth has been declining recently according to shadowstats.com, which AP Lerner brought to my attention. I have questions about liquidity traps, when deflation (just talking price deflation) could switch into an inflationary cycle. And I would appreciate it coming from the author of the blog rather than the laymen readers, which is another reason why a debate would not be pointless.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11257937553028768684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-10237165858363144072010-07-15T22:51:20.815-04:002010-07-15T22:51:20.815-04:00i dont think it would do any good either. seems to...i dont think it would do any good either. seems to me the "Data Wonk" is so convinced of the infallibility of his equations, and accounting standards, that to have them questioned is insanity. I have yet to see AP Lerner show how 'his way' applies to the real world. To an individual (me) who works in a manufacturing environment, its pretty easy to see how the structure of our production is changing and why it needs to change. but, because the structure of production doesnt fit into a neat little equation, it must be irrelevant.burkll13https://www.blogger.com/profile/00458192777661669534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-27001670615872234052010-07-15T18:44:06.767-04:002010-07-15T18:44:06.767-04:00Greg,
I doubt it would do any good to answer him....Greg,<br /><br />I doubt it would do any good to answer him. Also, I like for people in the comments section to have their say. If he calls me out, that is fine.<br /><br />Having read Krugman for many years and having met him and heard him speak, I am quite familiar with his line of thinking. He has become even more defensive, more partisan, and nastier in recent years, as though the Nobel, instead of having a positive effect upon him, made him angrier.<br /><br />I don't know. I have met a number of Nobel winners in economics and they seem to act differently than does Krugman. So, if one of his True Believes wants to call me out, let him! He is just acting like his Master.William L. Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802990642236807359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-61065591903465919262010-07-15T17:03:44.876-04:002010-07-15T17:03:44.876-04:00Prof. Anderson,
Would you kindly refute AP Lerner...Prof. Anderson,<br /><br />Would you kindly refute AP Lerner once and for all. He's all over your blog calling you out, challenging you on the accuracy of your blog and your general understanding of economics in general, and you're AWOL. You can find him all over your Inflation/Deflation post, though I'm sure he'll be around.<br /><br />He has made some claims and challenges that do warrant a defense, and as a layman to AS, I'm not qualified to give it.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11257937553028768684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-82053692597409981702010-07-15T16:00:26.920-04:002010-07-15T16:00:26.920-04:00I'm just using the graphs that Krugman provide...I'm just using the graphs that Krugman provides. If you are suspicious of them, then contact Krugman, but don't insinuate that I am trying to put something over on you.William L. Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802990642236807359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-58950466626810482362010-07-15T12:46:36.583-04:002010-07-15T12:46:36.583-04:00I'm also suspicious of the starting points of ...I'm also suspicious of the starting points of the graphs. Why not start in, say 1972, for instance?<br /><br />Here's my crude graph based on BLS numbers, of raw number of <a href="http://www.kermitrose.com/images/USNumUnEmp.jpg" rel="nofollow">people unemployed and actively seeking work</a><br /><br /><br />Ah, here we go; this one includes the number of people employed: <a href="http://www.kermitrose.com/images/USACivPop.jpg" rel="nofollow">components of USA civilian, non-institutionalized population 16+</a><br /><br />And this is <a href="http://www.kermitrose.com/jgoEconData.html" rel="nofollow">the base of the whole graph collection</a>.<br /><br />My thought is that there's plenty of room for distorting cause-effect conclusions due to lags.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-35302651504051193952010-07-14T16:21:05.127-04:002010-07-14T16:21:05.127-04:00Of course, nowhere in this post did Krugman ever s...Of course, nowhere in this post did Krugman ever say "the key to prosperity is for the government to raise taxes." If he did, please point it out. I must have lost my ability to read English. <br /><br />Unfortunately, all this post proves is Prof. Anderson's is no less a hack than Krugman. For a more objective, reality based interpretation of the Krugman post, see Andrew Samwick.<br /><br />http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/andrew-samwick/1855/sense-and-nonsense-about-extending-unemployment-insurance?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CapitalGainsAndGames+%28Capital+Gains+and+Games+-+Wall+Street%2C+Washington%2C+and+Everything+in+Between%29&utm_content=Google+ReaderAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-78684411940564460692010-07-14T13:15:02.539-04:002010-07-14T13:15:02.539-04:00With the modern push to move economics away from c...With the modern push to move economics away from common sense, the study of human action and towards more 'scientific' mathematics and modeling, funny how Krugman make the mistake of equating correlation with causation, as any scientist knows correlation doesn't prove causation.jason hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03795436962579269461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-5769814309464746722010-07-14T12:01:18.931-04:002010-07-14T12:01:18.931-04:00I have a better explanation. Krugman is a sociopat...I have a better explanation. Krugman is a sociopath. He simply lies. His goal is only to get what he can, while he can. Most politicians and 'journalists' do this every minute of every day.Joshua Dnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-35005497039700254052010-07-14T11:26:10.470-04:002010-07-14T11:26:10.470-04:00I offer a mundane explanation:
Clinton increased ...I offer a mundane explanation:<br /><br />Clinton increased taxes at a time when we were heading toward a boom ANYWAY. Bush cut taxes during a slump that would have come ANYWAY.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-50024561260100786412010-07-14T10:41:16.511-04:002010-07-14T10:41:16.511-04:00Let me attempt to deduce this; please correct what...Let me attempt to deduce this; please correct what I get wrong. Investment and accumulation of capital are required to hire and pay employees. Taxation is the taking of money. Taxation leaves businesses with less money with which to invest. Therefore, higher taxes cause businesses to hire more people.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-68570956534714701602010-07-14T10:18:24.806-04:002010-07-14T10:18:24.806-04:00Let me attempt to deduce this; please correct what...Let me attempt to deduce this; please correct what I get wrong. Investment and accumulation of capital are required to hire and pay employees. Taxation is the taking of money. Taxation leaves businesses with less money with which to invest. Therefore, higher taxes cause businesses to hire more people.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com