tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post4911367328524356847..comments2024-03-27T05:23:48.855-04:00Comments on Krugman-in-Wonderland: The hijacking of economic logicWilliam L. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802990642236807359noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-30644387864598217712011-08-15T11:58:23.749-04:002011-08-15T11:58:23.749-04:00Even I could write a blog entry based on this dooz...Even I could write a blog entry based on this doozy from Krugman today:<br /><br />"In fact, at a national level lower wages would almost certainly lead to fewer jobs — because they would leave working Americans even less able to cope with the overhang of debt left behind by the housing bubble, an overhang that is at the heart of our economic problem."<br /><br />Does he really believe that?Brucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08353981598279523050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-77509346333790291232011-08-15T11:38:30.332-04:002011-08-15T11:38:30.332-04:00As you all know, I love the MMTers. Average people...As you all know, I love the MMTers. Average people simply do not understand that the Fed can create money out of nothing. I believe that if they were to understand this and understand that it is illegal because it’s unconstitutional and that it’s the cause of the boom/bust cycle and our current catastrophe, they would be properly appalled. The explicit nature of the MMTers idiotic claims thus help our cause immensely. They might even be moving into Canada:<br /><br />http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2011/08/mmt-hits-canada.html<br /><br />http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2011/08/12/mmt-what-it-means-for-canada/<br /><br />http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2011/08/11/no-retreat-no-surrender-time-for-progressives-to-explode-deficitmonetary-myths/<br /><br />http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2011/08/10/thoughts-on-why-not-print-money/<br /><br />From these blog posts, you can clearly see that the MMTers themselves view MMT as a method of mass looting, theft and wealth transfers. A bunch of commies.Bob Roddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17263804608074597937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-19404788584516270732011-08-15T11:02:36.526-04:002011-08-15T11:02:36.526-04:00Zack:
Kroogie is serious about the spending on th...Zack:<br /><br />Kroogie is serious about the spending on the imaginary aliens. Perhaps this blog should be called "Krugman from Planet Zorcon".<br /><br />http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/08/14/can-space-aliens-save-us/<br /><br />Average people simply don't understand that the elites REALLY DO think this way. It's our job to show them.Bob Roddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17263804608074597937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-62334648162671388912011-08-15T10:59:48.844-04:002011-08-15T10:59:48.844-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Bob Roddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17263804608074597937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-61527814082058679442011-08-15T01:13:15.279-04:002011-08-15T01:13:15.279-04:00I think it's great that your adopting a child,...I think it's great that your adopting a child, but why not an American one?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-37372068321444950222011-08-14T18:18:30.267-04:002011-08-14T18:18:30.267-04:00was that clip a joke? does anyone know?was that clip a joke? does anyone know?zackA89https://www.blogger.com/profile/03695722179840739720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-8499658503499478452011-08-14T18:10:44.887-04:002011-08-14T18:10:44.887-04:00Folks, here you have it. Krugman enlightens us on ...Folks, here you have it. Krugman enlightens us on what can be done to “stimulate” our economy. Talk about a howler. <br />Try and keep a straight face while watching this clip of Krugman. I dare you. <br /><br />I wonder if people like LK, JG, or one of our other in-house statists/ Keynesians try defend this one. <br /><br /><br /><br />http://www.breitbart.tv/paul-krugman-reccomends-military-build-up-to-fight-alien-invasion-as-remedy-for-economy/zackA89https://www.blogger.com/profile/03695722179840739720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-30145275911819262572011-08-13T23:31:36.307-04:002011-08-13T23:31:36.307-04:00More heroic tales from “The miracle of democracy” ...More heroic tales from “The miracle of democracy” where vast majorities of citizens alertly and wisely vote for the promulgation of essential public goods:<br /><br /><em>Now comes a story from the Associated Press of a new government scheme that might be called "Getting Paid for Not Flying Any Passengers":<br /><br />"On some days, the pilots with Great Lakes Airlines fire up a twin-engine Beechcraft 1900 at the Ely, Nev., airport and depart for Las Vegas without a single passenger on board. And the federal government pays them to do it.<br /><br />Federal statistics reviewed by The Associated Press show that in 2010, just 227 passengers flew out of Ely while the airline got $1.8 million in subsidies. The travelers paid $70 to $90 for a one-way ticket. The cost to taxpayers for each ticket: $4,107. Ely is one of 153 rural communities where airlines get subsidies through the $200 million Essential Air Service program, and one of 13 that critics say should be eliminated from it."</em><br /><br />http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/08/getting-paid-for-not-flying-passengers.htmlBob Roddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17263804608074597937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-18749149938808071932011-08-13T22:46:15.279-04:002011-08-13T22:46:15.279-04:00Quote from LK:
LOL.. So even if the majority of p...Quote from LK:<br /><br /><i>LOL.. So even if the majority of people voted for Austrian economics, that would still not justify imposing it on people who did not vote?</i><br /><br />How is it possible to <b>impose</b> Austrian economics on anyone, when all this means is allowing people to make their own decisions how they want to trade and who they want to trade with?<br /><br />It's like my attempting to <b>impose</b> on you that you have to decide what you want to eat for lunch. I guess that if I refuse to tell you what to do, then I'm <b>forcing</b> you to think about your own actions... but how exactly is that <b>imposing</b> on you? Doesn't make sense.Telhttp://lnx-bsp.net/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-6146928656178294142011-08-13T21:13:14.047-04:002011-08-13T21:13:14.047-04:00For crying out loud
by Andrew Sabl
I’m the proces...<b>For crying out loud<br />by Andrew Sabl</b><br /><br />I’m the process of moving house, and admit that I got to Friday morning’s Krugman column 24 hours after every other blogger. But I couldn’t let this go.<br /><br />Quoth Krugman:<br /><br /><i>For more than a year and a half — ever since President Obama chose to make deficits, not jobs, the central focus of the 2010 State of the Union address — we’ve had a public conversation that has been dominated by budget concerns, while almost ignoring unemployment.</i><br /><br />Krugman should turn off the rage long enough to read the damn speech. Except for the parts that defended the stimulus and the Affordable Care Act, practically the whole thing was about job creation, and to some extent about the difficulty of getting things done in today’s hyper-partisan Washington—a problem that Krugman one of these years might do well to consider taking seriously.<br /><br />To the extent that we’ve forgotten Obama’s jobs agenda, it’s because Republicans and conservative Democrats in the Senate killed all most of the jobs programs that Obama proposed over and over again (most of which the House passed). True, the amount of the President’s speech devoted to the deficit was non-zero, whereas Krugman would have preferred zero. But the claim that the deficit was the speech’s “main focus” is pure fantasy.<br /><br />http://www.samefacts.com/2011/08/barack-obama/for-crying-out-loud/Daniel Hewittnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-73846749686172086262011-08-13T20:16:18.696-04:002011-08-13T20:16:18.696-04:00LK:
LOL! For a Keynesian yahoo to call an adhere...LK:<br /><br />LOL! For a Keynesian yahoo to call an adherent of Austrian economics "elitist" is like Stalin calling a political prisoner "dictator."<br /><br />Keynesian "economics" isn't even a framework of how the economy works. It is nothing but a flotsam and jetsam series of contradictory assertions and political gobbledygook designed solely to serve as justification for spending on the part of an elitist parasitical institution.<br /><br />Keynesian economics REQUIRES an elite in order to even exist. Austrian economics does not.<br /><br />If there was no such thing as the government, then there would be no such thing as Keynesian "economics." <br /><br />Austrian economics would be the only surviving economics. It is based on individual action, not elitist institutions. Everything that would happen in such an economy would still be explainable entirely in the Austrian framework.<br /><br />Keynesian "economics" = elitist crap.Major_Freedomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-62427296722470659182011-08-13T17:34:07.880-04:002011-08-13T17:34:07.880-04:00"So even if the majority of people voted for ..."So even if the majority of people voted for Austrian economics, that would still not justify imposing it on people who did not vote?"<br /><br />In the simplest sense, yes. There is no way to ethically impose any system of governence to someone who chooses not to participate. What you are conflating however, is the myriad laws and dictates of our modern political system with the austrian assertion that anyone who wishes to be left alone should be. There is nothing austrians can impose on people, short of personal responsibility. Even then that would not be an edict enforced at austrian gunpoint ( a contradiction in terms if i ever heard one), but simply a reality that must be confronted in any functioning society. If you distort the consequences of people's actions you destroy the fabric of social interaction. <br /><br />I have made this argument to many people. You can live in your keynsian utilitarian paradise, and neo-cons can live in their walled off gated communities, paranoid of communists or muslims or whatever boogeyman of the day. I dont care. What noone else has any right to do is force someone to participate or fund either of those if they do not wish to do so.<br /><br />You also completely avoided my question about how elections validate ideaological positions. The closest you came was several posts later when you claim:<br /><br />"a policy implemented by a government must<br /><br />(1) be moral under a workable and defensible ethical theory and<br /><br />(2) command majority support."<br /><br />Yet those two criteria are completely unrelated, especially when it comes to public policy. A majority cannot make an action ethical by coming to an agreement that it is not. Individual actions cannot be made moral or immoral by a show of hands. On the other hand, actions taken by a majority, or a mob, have never been hindered by morality in the entirety of human history. If they are the majority, being wrong will not stop them.ekeyrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17413110869433997820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-7587925782112886402011-08-13T15:04:36.578-04:002011-08-13T15:04:36.578-04:00LK @10:09
(1) moral according to whom?
The major...LK @10:09<br /><br />(1) moral according to whom?<br /><br />The majority?<br /><br />Which automatically satisfies # (2)<br /><br />And in circular fashion you goMike Mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-84456101488978086332011-08-13T15:02:19.004-04:002011-08-13T15:02:19.004-04:00LK@ 9:56
You refuse to answer Bob's question ...LK@ 9:56<br /><br />You refuse to answer Bob's question about macro.<br /><br />I'll assume because you can'tMike Mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-76611518591904269402011-08-13T10:09:55.709-04:002011-08-13T10:09:55.709-04:00"In multi-ethnic societies, folks tend to vot...<i>"In multi-ethnic societies, folks tend to vote ...</i><br /><br />Already dealt with this rubbish above: a policy implemented by a government must<br /><br />(1) be moral under a workable and defensible ethical theory (not some nonsensical theory like natural rights), and<br /><br />(2) command majority support.<br /><br />I do not regard broad democratic support as a <i>sufficient ground</i> for action. Action must be (1) moral as well, as I have said above.<br /><br />Policies implemented will be unacceptable if immoral - and an intelligent person would oppose them, even if they managed to command majority democratic support.<br /><br />There is no contradiction in this position.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-18640164792765370762011-08-13T09:56:09.536-04:002011-08-13T09:56:09.536-04:00In multi-ethnic societies, folks tend to vote to w...In multi-ethnic societies, folks tend to vote to whack the minorities:<br /><br />http://www.stanford.edu/~rabushka/politics%20in%20plural%20societies.pdf<br /><br />Isn't that why the US won't tolerate an election in Muslim countries? But since it's democratic, it must be good, right?<br /><br />Didn't majorities in the south vote for Jim Crow laws? Must make it right, eh, especially since natural rights are "rubbish".<br /><br />I'm done. This a waste of time. LK proves our points for us.<br /><br />Hey, where's that proof of the existence of macro?Bob Roddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17263804608074597937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-56915668008295613742011-08-13T09:41:02.405-04:002011-08-13T09:41:02.405-04:00"For the 55,000th time, Austrians respect the...<i>"For the 55,000th time, Austrians respect the ability of average people to live their own lives. "</i><br /><br />And, for the 55,000th time, they want a government and public goods - not your Austrian fantasy world.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-6406119459299665522011-08-13T09:36:26.771-04:002011-08-13T09:36:26.771-04:00There is nothing elitist about the Austrian visio...There is nothing elitist about the Austrian vision and everything elitists about the LK vision. For the 55,000th time, Austrians respect the ability of average people to live their own lives. Keynesians do not and, without any basis in fact or logic, insist that free exchange MUST lead to a lack of "aggregate demand" which must be rectified with SWAT teams controlled by them. Because they are smarter than average folks. Just cuz.Bob Roddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17263804608074597937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-80536859129309760282011-08-13T09:33:15.410-04:002011-08-13T09:33:15.410-04:00The government model in action in a small lake-tow...The government model in action in a small lake-town in Michigan:<br /><br />http://detnews.com/article/20110813/METRO/108130383Bob Roddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17263804608074597937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-25743802198480607342011-08-13T09:31:42.146-04:002011-08-13T09:31:42.146-04:00"Average people don't know much about pol...<i>"Average people don't know much about politics ..."</i><br /><br />Really? So, in other words, you think they are just the "rabble" and too dumb and lazy to accept your elitist Austrian garbage.<br /><br /><i>"but know a whole lot about what they like, how much it costs and where to get it. etc. etc."</i><br /><br />Indeed that is why vast numbers of people - the majority - in Western countries prefer public/universal health care.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-78921756575922432382011-08-13T09:23:48.844-04:002011-08-13T09:23:48.844-04:00"By the way, LK, what do you say is "sup...<i>"By the way, LK, what do you say is "superior" to natural rights? The "rights" granted by the state? That same state that takes away our rights on a whim?"</i><br /><br />"Natural" rights do not exist, as Ludwig von Mises long ago argued:<br /><br /><i><b>There is, however, no such thing as natural law and a perennial standard of what is just and what is unjust.</b> Nature is alien to the idea of right and wrong. “Thou shalt not kill” is certainly not part of natural law. The characteristic feature of natural conditions is that one animal is intent upon killing other animals and that many species cannot preserve their own life except by killing others. <b>The notion of right and wrong is a human device, a utilitarian precept designed to make social cooperation under the division of labor possible.</b> All moral rules and human laws are means for the realization of definite ends. There is no method available for the appreciation of their goodness or badness other than to scrutinize their usefulness for the attainment of the ends chosen and aimed at</i>. (Mises, L. 1998 [1949]. <i>Human Action: A Treatise on Economics</i>, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, Ala. p. 716).<br /><br />A right is a ethical and legal construct.<br /><br />If you would prefer to have your "rights" enforced by private protection agencies, groups that in principle might well be little better than mafia thugs, so be it.<br /><br />Such private thugs could take your rights away on a whim as well, so don't play that pathetic card. E.g., if you don't want their "protection," they'll make you an offer you can't refuse.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-22335136373431821922011-08-13T09:20:00.337-04:002011-08-13T09:20:00.337-04:00Acting bling?
I meant acting blind.Acting bling?<br /><br />I meant acting blind.Bob Roddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17263804608074597937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-53355526230931375172011-08-13T09:18:08.509-04:002011-08-13T09:18:08.509-04:00Average people don't know much about politics ...Average people don't know much about politics but know a whole lot about what they like, how much it costs and where to get it. Thus, there is no economic problem but there is a political problem. People don't know who or what they are voting for and bureaucrats can never have the knowledge of individual average people. And they certainly are not going to be wise or benevolent. <br /><br />AUSTRIANS RESPECT THE ABILITY OF AVERAGE PEOPLE TO LIVE THEIR OWN LIVES. AUSTRIANS DO NOT RESPECT THE ABILITY OF ANYONE TO ELECT THEIR OWN OVERSEERS. LK purposefully misrepresents this position because he must. Heck, we've never found a statist yet who even admits that his nefarious schemes depend upon SWAT teams, fines and prison. We can thank the government schools for that.<br /><br />Further, there is nothing trivial about the knowledge problem. This is demonstrated by LK's purposeful avoidance of it (or his extreme stupidity in failing to grasp it). The essence of Austrian thought is the IGNORANCE of everyone about what everyone is thinking. The only evidence of subjective value is the price paid for goods and services wihout which we are acting bling. Indeed, I just wasted 90 minutes of my life watching Steve Keen slowly grasp (without knowing it) some basic Austrian truths, like "neo-classical" aggregates are not respresentative of reality and people aren't necessarily rational in their purchaeses. Who knew?<br /><br />http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2011/08/steve-keen-on-behavioral-finance.html<br /><br />Because LK refuses to understand economic calculation, he can't possibly understand the ABCT and his attacks on it are truly pathetic.<br /><br />LK spends all this time and energy attacking us but ultimately does nothing but throw nerf balls at us. There is never ANY SUBSTANCE to LK's silly pronouncements. LK's total failures prove we are right. <br /><br />Also, where is that proof of the alternative universe of "macro"? It's been days now.Bob Roddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17263804608074597937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-10887835834287565192011-08-13T09:10:34.452-04:002011-08-13T09:10:34.452-04:00By the way, LK, what do you say is "superior&...By the way, LK, what do you say is "superior" to natural rights? The "rights" granted by the state? That same state that takes away our rights on a whim?William L. Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802990642236807359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-44044540830717547802011-08-13T09:09:18.259-04:002011-08-13T09:09:18.259-04:00Sorry, LK. You cannot abolish the Law of Scarcity....Sorry, LK. You cannot abolish the Law of Scarcity. I know Krugman claims there is a free lunch, and as long as the Keynesians continue to make that claim, I'm going to be challenging them. You may not like it, but there it is.<br /><br />As for Austrian Economics, what part are we supposed to reject? The marginal utility view of money? Oh, I forgot; the State creates all value by decree.William L. Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802990642236807359noreply@blogger.com