Hugh hewitt interviews mark steyn about the debt crisis

OP
B

billc

Grandmaster
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2007
Messages
9,183
Reaction score
85
Location
somewhere near Lake Michigan
Krugman: we didn't spend enough money in the stimulus. Great. Genius.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/02/deconstructing_krugman.html below, from the article,

Let's note that Krugman is a sober, first-rate economist, but also a woolly-eyed, low-grade political hack. He firmly believes that government is better qualified than private actors to direct the country's economy, and has advocated a Federal government share of 28% of GDP, compared to the current 22% or so. Since he understands economic efficiency as few do, the conclusion is that he's committed to the social outcomes that come with government control, as opposed to the free-marketer's commitment to maximizing utility. But that's a side point.

Orthodox economic modeling holds that fiscal spending by the government will create additional GDP of the same amount, multiplied by a factor that is generally taken to be about 1.5. So ideally for Krugman, we should enact a stimulus of about $1.3 trillion over two years, with no tax cuts at all. (I'll get to the tax cuts in a minute.)
That's nearly twice the size of the program that Obama asked Congress for. If you strictly believe the models, then Obama made a horrible mistake. And in fact, Krugman excoriates the President for trying to solve two incompatible problems together: fixing the economy, and following through on the promise of a nonpartisan (or perhaps monopartisan) politics.
As a point of interest, Krugman also faults President Roosevelt on similar grounds: he believes that the New Deal failed not because it was too invasive, too destructive of private incentives, and added too much uncertainty to the business climate. Rather, he thinks the New Deal didn't go nearly far enough.
Needless to say, people like Krugman (including much, perhaps most, of the academic economics establishment outside of Chicago and George Mason University) have nothing but contempt for the ideas of the political opposition, which he scornfully calls "deep voodoo." In this view, Obama reached for bipartisanship and is on course to wreck the economy, by not being bold enough and by adding tax cuts to entice Republican support. To Krugman, Obama has already wasted his electoral mandate.

It's hard to escape the sense that the best economists and the President of the United States are blaming ordinary people for the economic crisis. If only we'd spend our money instead of save it, we wouldn't be in such a big mess.
 

Ramirez

Black Belt
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
588
Reaction score
10

Not sure where you got that post from, but Krugman's opinions on Greece is perfectly in line with most economists. The problem with a common currency like the Euro is that it can't be devalued and imports made more expensive.

It is common economic knowledge that Germany has been flying through the financial crisis because it exports to the rest of the Eurozone and they can't respond with devaluing their currency.

For Crom's sake that is why the UK didn't want to go on the Euro. It is one of the reasons Canada got it's fiscal house in order in the 90s, devaluing against the greenback and increasing exports. It is why the US wants China to delink their currency from the greenback.....perhaps bil if you got your economic opinions from someone other than a music theatre critic you might know some of this.

Pay attention , there is a whole currency war issue going on, and Krugman is correct on this.
 
OP
B

billc

Grandmaster
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2007
Messages
9,183
Reaction score
85
Location
somewhere near Lake Michigan
More on Paul Krugman:

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/colu...09/19/paul_krugman_is_an_angry_man/page/full/

In the excerpt, Krugman is seriously bent out of shape by supply-side economics. What seems to bother him most is that it is a school of economic thought that didn't come out of the universities, like monetarism or Keynesianism. Rather, "It emerged in the pages of political magazines, not professional economics journals."
This is basically correct. The reason is that university economics departments were (and still are) overwhelmingly populated by Keynesians, who thought that deficits were good, saving was bad and inflation didn't matter very much. The burden of taxation was an issue of little importance to their analyses, nor did they think that the money supply had any effect on anything. The result of government policies based on this thinking is what gave us double-digit inflation and interest rates in the 1970s. The Keynesian answer to these problems was to deliberately raise the unemployment rate to fight inflation, impose price controls and devalue the dollar.
Supply-siders thought this was nuts. They saw stagflation as mainly resulting from an excessively easy Federal Reserve policy and a tax system that was not indexed to inflation. As a consequence, workers were being pushed up into higher tax brackets every time they got a cost of living pay raise, and investors saw their savings virtually confiscated by a capital gains tax that did not differentiate between real gains and those arising solely from inflation. It just didn't pay either to work or invest.
Under the circumstances, there was no time to write articles for obscure academic journals that might take years to get into print, organize scholarly conferences and do all the things necessary to get the grudging respect of people like Paul Krugman. Supply-siders went directly to policymakers and the media with their ideas, bypassing the academics the same way Gen. Douglas MacArthur went around Japanese strongholds in the Pacific, leaving them isolated and ineffective.
 

Ramirez

Black Belt
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
588
Reaction score
10
Just like the other wizards of smart who got us into this mess.

Krugman got us into this mess? What alternate reality do you live in bill? Both he and Roubini were warning years before 2008 that there was a real estate bubble that was going to burst.
 

K-man

Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
6,193
Reaction score
1,223
Location
Australia
to hell with Steyn, he is simply regurgitating some stuff he read perhaps third hand if that.

Krugman, if you have read his columns just argues about the timing of ending the stimulus spending. He thinks the debt and deficit should be dealt with only after the economy recovers

Krugman is actually one of Obama's biggest critics. Roubini is on the other side, he believes in ending the deficit and debt now.

I lean towards Roubini, cut spending, raise revenue.

In any case the UK is following Roubini, the US, somewhat Krugman, the results of both views should be seen in 5 years.
I've seen some terrible stuff from Steyn so I am not supporting him. Just saying, this time he might be on the right side. I mean, statisticly speaking you can't be wrong every time ... can you? :shrug:

The United States, Roubini went on, will likely muddle through the crisis but will emerge from it a different nation, with a different place in the world. “Once you run current-account deficits, you depend on the kindness of strangers,” he said, pausing to let out a resigned sigh. “This might be the beginning of the end of the American empire.”


Even so, I haven't seen his solution. :asian:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ramirez

Black Belt
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
588
Reaction score
10
More on Paul Krugman:

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/colu...09/19/paul_krugman_is_an_angry_man/page/full/

In the excerpt, Krugman is seriously bent out of shape by supply-side economics. What seems to bother him most is that it is a school of economic thought that didn't come out of the universities, like monetarism or Keynesianism. Rather, "It emerged in the pages of political magazines, not professional economics journals."
This is basically correct. The reason is that university economics departments were (and still are) overwhelmingly populated by Keynesians, who thought that deficits were good, saving was bad and inflation didn't matter very much. The burden of taxation was an issue of little importance to their analyses, nor did they think that the money supply had any effect on anything. The result of government policies based on this thinking is what gave us double-digit inflation and interest rates in the 1970s. The Keynesian answer to these problems was to deliberately raise the unemployment rate to fight inflation, impose price controls and devalue the dollar.
Supply-siders thought this was nuts. They saw stagflation as mainly resulting from an excessively easy Federal Reserve policy and a tax system that was not indexed to inflation. As a consequence, workers were being pushed up into higher tax brackets every time they got a cost of living pay raise, and investors saw their savings virtually confiscated by a capital gains tax that did not differentiate between real gains and those arising solely from inflation. It just didn't pay either to work or invest.
Under the circumstances, there was no time to write articles for obscure academic journals that might take years to get into print, organize scholarly conferences and do all the things necessary to get the grudging respect of people like Paul Krugman. Supply-siders went directly to policymakers and the media with their ideas, bypassing the academics the same way Gen. Douglas MacArthur went around Japanese strongholds in the Pacific, leaving them isolated and ineffective.

proving Bartlett is cluess too, or has he never heard of either the Austrian or Chicago school of economics......political magazines....yeah right.
 
OP
B

billc

Grandmaster
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2007
Messages
9,183
Reaction score
85
Location
somewhere near Lake Michigan
Knowldge vs. wisdom from Thomas Sowell and his book "Intellectuals and Society" this little bit involves Hitler, the German millitary and the invasion of France.

"Hitler said that France was no longer the same as the France that had fought doggedly through four years of the First World War, that the contemporary French were lacking in the personal strengths necessary for victory and would falter and surrender. 73 That is in fact largely what happened. the objective factors, such as the number and quality of military equipment available to france and its British Allies versus those available to the german invaders, led military leaders in both France and germany aat the time to conclude at the outset that France had the greater prospects of victory.74 But Hitler had long made a study of public opinion, as well as official opinion, in France and Britain.75 The words and deeds of both politicians and pacifists in those countries went into Hitler's calculations."

the german military had more knowledge about military affairs than Hitler did and they were reluctant to invade France. Hitler, with very limited military experience understood people better than the officers of the militaries of the time. This is the problem with Krugman. He has a lot of knowledge of economics, but very little wisdom for using it where it counts, in the real world.

One article I read said he was disapointed that Obama didn't spend more money and didn't spend it to create more jobs, government jobs in particular. What he did not reckon with was that obama would use the stimulus money to keep union members in their jobs in floundering states to fight the november elections. That is a reason why government spending is such a false way to grow an economy. The politicians will spend any money to reward themselves and freinds, build up their own power and will totally ignore the realities of spending other people into debt.

Paul Krugman will never understand this.
 

Ramirez

Black Belt
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
588
Reaction score
10
For Crom's sake, according to you bill, this is the way the world should work

Need to build a bridge, forget about a qualified engineer, hire Mark Steyn to do it because he has "wisdom"

Need to go to court , forget about hiring a qualified lawyer, hire Mark Steyn, he has "wisdom"

Need to report a company's year end results? Forget about a qualified accountant, hire Mark Steyn, he has "wisdom".

Need to rewire your house, don't bother with an electrician , hire Mark Steyn, he has "wisdom"

This is the view of a damn fool.
 

Ken Morgan

Senior Master
MT Mentor
Joined
Apr 9, 2009
Messages
2,985
Reaction score
131
Location
Guelph
For Crom's sake, according to you bill, this is the way the world should work

Need to build a bridge, forget about a qualified engineer, hire Mark Steyn to do it because he has "wisdom"

Need to go to court , forget about hiring a qualified lawyer, hire Mark Steyn, he has "wisdom"

Need to report a company's year end results? Forget about a qualified accountant, hire Mark Steyn, he has "wisdom".

Need to rewire your house, don't bother with an electrician , hire Mark Steyn, he has "wisdom"

This is the view of a damn fool.


Let a fool hold his tongue and he will pass for a sage. ~Pubilius Syrus


An inability to stay quiet is one of the conspicuous failings of mankind. ~Walter Bagehot


It is better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and resolve all doubt. ~Abraham Lincoln
 
OP
B

billc

Grandmaster
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2007
Messages
9,183
Reaction score
85
Location
somewhere near Lake Michigan
Actually, the example only really applies to guys like Krugman, all book learning very little real world common sense. I will stick with guys like Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, Walter williams and other smart people who also have common sense and worldly wisdom. Krugman doesn't fit that description.
 

Ramirez

Black Belt
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
588
Reaction score
10
I will stick with guys like Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, Walter williams and other smart people who also have common sense and worldly wisdom.

And apparently music theater critics, I guess you learn mathematics from Axl Rose too.
 

Latest Discussions

Top