tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post7257479940697441565..comments2024-03-27T05:23:48.855-04:00Comments on Krugman-in-Wonderland: Krugman: Capital Stalls Economic Growth and Creates InequalityWilliam L. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802990642236807359noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-35059723266240394542017-10-30T12:46:56.394-04:002017-10-30T12:46:56.394-04:00I'll definitely write a lab report on this top...I'll definitely write a <a href="https://homework-writer.com/blog/lab-report" rel="nofollow">lab report</a> on this topicRobert Welainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10587031495938313347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-21597302450190865542013-01-03T08:43:41.615-05:002013-01-03T08:43:41.615-05:00I'm not sure it's even right to call Krugm...I'm not sure it's even right to call Krugman a "Keynesian" any more. Greg Mankiw's an actual Keynesian, i.e., one who actually publishes scholarly articles, and you won't find him saying anything quite so idiotic as "machines cause poverty." In fact, with that kind of nonsense, Krugman's gone over the line from Keynesian to Marxist.Charlie Schnickelfritzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08199454184218576770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-9520887779454565102012-12-31T12:54:29.655-05:002012-12-31T12:54:29.655-05:00@Bob Robertson
Oh, God. The Zeitgeist idiots. I l...@Bob Robertson<br /><br />Oh, God. The Zeitgeist idiots. I like to check on those guys every now and then when I need a good laugh.Scott Dnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-2540212747048632822012-12-31T10:31:21.046-05:002012-12-31T10:31:21.046-05:00I've read this "technological unemploymen...I've read this "technological unemployment" fallacy everywhere, from Jack Chalker science fiction to Paul Krugman to the Zeitgeist idiots, and yet none of them will say what the "optimal" tech level is. They're so certain that if machines are super productive that no one will have jobs (so no one will have any income and so no one will be able to buy the production), yet try to pin them down and all there is is "It will happen! It's all Capitalism's fault!"Bob Robertsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-27960431017939760902012-12-30T14:36:04.251-05:002012-12-30T14:36:04.251-05:00Notewothy that here PK assosiates those previose p...Notewothy that here PK assosiates those previose periods of lower economic activity as the appropriate result of volantary human action at the time rather than treating them all as Keynsian malfunctionsDineronoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-38316960246466623762012-12-30T11:03:55.138-05:002012-12-30T11:03:55.138-05:00Insanity?! No! Greed is more like it, as he knows ...Insanity?! No! Greed is more like it, as he knows he's a tool for the power holders but wants all the fame and fortune that goes with being the economic mouth-piece for them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-3363394667667203542012-12-30T09:46:16.344-05:002012-12-30T09:46:16.344-05:00Oookay, so explain this:
Compensation of Employee...Oookay, so explain this:<br /><br /><a href="http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=e7S" rel="nofollow">Compensation of Employees: Wages & Salary Accruals (WASCUR)/Gross Domestic Product, 1 Decimal (GDP)</a><br /><br />Worthy innovators finding new uses for all that accumulated capital no doubt?Really, Tom Friedman?http://reallytomfriedman.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-70568095466175878692012-12-30T05:57:38.474-05:002012-12-30T05:57:38.474-05:00Thanks, Anonymous 5:48. That was an interesting re...Thanks, Anonymous 5:48. That was an interesting read indeed.Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-12891327261025628442012-12-30T05:48:55.071-05:002012-12-30T05:48:55.071-05:00Latest Greg Mankiw New York Times column. I though...Latest Greg Mankiw New York Times column. I thought this would be interesting to share.<br /><br />http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/30/business/on-middle-class-tax-rates-too-much-wishful-thinking.html?smid=pl-share&_r=0Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-72208284202550725152012-12-30T05:36:37.567-05:002012-12-30T05:36:37.567-05:00I have a lot to thank 12:44 for. I just took the l...I have a lot to thank 12:44 for. I just took the link he gave and what did I find in the first few lines of that link but this gem!!!!<br /><br />"AN act of individual saving means — so to speak — a decision not to have dinner to-day. But it does not necessitate a decision to have dinner or to buy a pair of boots a week hence or a year hence or to consume any specified thing at any specified date. Thus it depresses the business of preparing to-day’s dinner without stimulating the business of making ready for some future act of consumption. It is not a substitution of future consumption-demand for present consumption-demand, — it is a net diminution of such demand."<br /><br />WOW! So saving is not a deferral of consumption. Unbelievable! Right there, I have enough reason to conclude that the entire chapter is utter, unadulterated nonsense. Now I see all the more why whatever-Keynesianism is nothing but drivel.Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-53663394506412926782012-12-29T19:39:26.205-05:002012-12-29T19:39:26.205-05:00Well, 12:44, you definitely rock! Thanks for the c...Well, 12:44, you definitely rock! Thanks for the comments.William L. Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802990642236807359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-79555758060256946132012-12-29T12:44:29.048-05:002012-12-29T12:44:29.048-05:00read chapter 16
By all means, immerse yourself in...<i> read chapter 16</i><br /><br />By all means, immerse yourself in Chapter 16 [http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/general-theory/ch16.htm] of the General Theory. You'll learn why savings depress economic development and are inferior to consumption.<br /><br />Including this gem that underlies all the "stimulus" spending in the decades after: "'To dig holes in the ground,' paid for out of savings, will increase, not only employment, but the real national dividend of useful goods and services."<br /><br />Interest and return on capital, according to Keynes, beyond some modest amount, is theft; if only the rentier class, the money-lenders and capitalists can be eliminated or, at least, reined-in, full employment and a static society can be maintained.<br /><br />Keynes stands "conventional" economics on its head--or so his apologists imagine--with a mind-numbing succession of run-on rhetoric. The longer the sentences, the fatter the piled up compound clauses, the greater the insights. Such a stylist! No wonder hardly anyone actually reads the General Theory, but depends on the exegeses of Samuelson etc.<br /><br />Keynes set out to provide a rationale for total but indirect state control of the economy. Labour writer and politician John Strachey gets to the heart of the matter:<br /><br />"the positive part of Keynes’ work was a demand that capitalism should now be regulated and controlled by a central authority….. The principal instruments of its policy should be variations of the rate of interest, budgetary deficits and surpluses, public works and a redistribution of personal incomes in the equalitarian direction.[sic] This positive side of Keynes’ work requires an authority to do the regulating and that authority can be, in contemporary conditions, nothing else but the government of a nation-state. http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch05.html<br /><br />In the final analysis, Keynes was a socialist and a monetary crank for whom economics was a means to an end. Krugman carries on that great tradition. (Being a handmaiden of the State also pays pretty well.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-86275744372546332942012-12-29T09:33:20.368-05:002012-12-29T09:33:20.368-05:00
well to rephrase-
There is however an industria...<br /><br />well to rephrase-<br /><br />There is however an industrial economy issue, as jobs are a mechanism of income to the individual while at the same time the main point of progress is to reduce the need for toil and the destruction of those very same jobs.<br /><br /> Dineronoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-44764358551932037992012-12-29T09:24:05.202-05:002012-12-29T09:24:05.202-05:00"the main point of progress is to reduce the ..."the main point of progress is to reduce the need for toil."<br /><br />According to whom is this the "main point of progress"?<br /><br />Do you mean all endeavor, or manual endeavor? If the former, are you seriously saying that the main point of progress is to eliminate productive work? And, if so, wouldn't that make your statement the equivalent of "the main point of progress is to reduce the need for progress"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-49915744577069412872012-12-29T07:47:32.810-05:002012-12-29T07:47:32.810-05:00Woah its P Krugman on the Luddite theme again (pre...Woah its P Krugman on the Luddite theme again (preveious 9 Dec)<br /><br />contrary to his pessimism increased productivity decreases the costs of the workers purchases to there advantage.<br /><br />There is however an industrial economy issue, as jobs are a mechanism of income to the individual while at the same time the main point of progress is to reduce the need for toil.<br /><br />- Mr Anderson<br /><br /> what definition of capital do you use cash - savings, cedit , or tools to use for productionDineronoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-25061411851251091792012-12-28T20:48:22.702-05:002012-12-28T20:48:22.702-05:00Professor, you would do well to read chapter 16 of...Professor, you would do well to read chapter 16 of Keynes famous book- its entirely about capital development and long-term growth. <br /><br />Your suggestion that in Keynes economics is only useful due to spending is a silly strawman.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-13260567601917155152012-12-28T15:34:00.597-05:002012-12-28T15:34:00.597-05:00The idea that more productive or innovative capita...The idea that more productive or innovative capital goods reduces employment is a fallacy that Henry Hazlitt refuted in 1946 in Economics in One Lesson. Specifically, in Chapter 7, "The Curse of Machinery". He refers to how pin making machines enabled workers to go from making 240 pins a day to 4800 pins a day. This should bring employment in the pin making industry to near zero if machines really create unemployment. Perhaps the technophobes were right, and we should have stopped new capital formation around the time of Adam Smith.<br /><br />This is like Economics 101. Anyone want to send Krugman a copy of Hazlitt's one lesson?Struggling Tenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10041638524920128287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-48601618739565478252012-12-28T14:07:23.534-05:002012-12-28T14:07:23.534-05:00I can only attribute Krugman's attitudes to in...I can only attribute Krugman's attitudes to insanity.<br /><br />I can't think of any other way to put it. No sugar coating it with disagreements about political and economic philosophy. It's sheer madness. Even in the dark days of of the USSR or Mao China even the most dictatorial and control loving of the leadership recognized that innovation and modernization was desirable. <br /><br />In modern America the commandment is "Tho shall not create. Tho shall not build." Somehow destruction and waste will propel us to wealth and greatness. <br /><br />I haven't read too much of Keynes, but from what I've seen he never directed any true hate to those that create. I never saw him curse the farmer for harvesting crops or the machinist for making parts.<br /><br />We see plenty of that now. The farmer makes you hungry. The architect leaves you homeless. I'd call it a cult of anti-industrialization. The way back is the way forward. <br /><br />I'll never understand why such stupidity isn't laughed off the stage.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-21549773049728896652012-12-28T12:40:12.722-05:002012-12-28T12:40:12.722-05:00In 1505 Duke George of Saxony probably wouldn'...In 1505 Duke George of Saxony probably wouldn't have been able to predict the steam engine, internal combustion engines, electricity, or even Lady Gaga. He had no reason to believe that eventually Leipzig would become the hub of an international air transport company after being held hostage by totalitarian barbarians from the east. He probably had no idea that the descendants of his subjects would daily march into factories for the reward of fiat money. Nobody knew that. Yet today poseurs like those in the CBO, and Paul Krugman, make predictions based on a continuation of the present and the recent past. These predictions are easier to make when their own money isn't involved.<br /><br /><i>Malinvestment</i>, the commitment of capital to projects with an ultimately negative return, not only bankrupts the present but also is a burden to the future. It's arrogance in high heels and fishnet stockings to assume that future humans will be unable to find solutions to their own problems and that we must provide these folks with the blueprint for their own lives. Pulverized Conceptshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14860274211446159849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-37246766155734571212012-12-28T10:06:39.156-05:002012-12-28T10:06:39.156-05:00Thank you for this article. I have always thought ...Thank you for this article. I have always thought that Krugman was full of it. But like so many misguided people he is touted as a real thinker in the MSM. I am assuming that people like being led by the blind. <br />It is very typical that the Keynesians don't offer any real explanation of economics because if they did they woudl A) lose funding and B) they would start a revolution in this country. So they don't offer any real solutions and say "we don't really understand why the economy works the way it does." <br />Which leads me to my last thought, my brother in law is an engineer and he become an Austrian economics believer because of it. He is extremely logical and he took an economics course in college and didn't get the answers he wanted so he sought out a new theory (which wasn't really new). He discovered Smith and Hayek and real answers. It's just sad that he had to discover it on his own and wasn't just taught it in school.<br />I really like your blog and please keep up the good work. <br />-John Elliott Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-10771209558412167482012-12-28T09:41:14.724-05:002012-12-28T09:41:14.724-05:00Think of the sad fate of all those buggy whip arti...Think of the sad fate of all those buggy whip artisans and housepainters with brushes. I fear for humanity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com