For Darla... three articles on Krugman from Huffpost...

By my reckoning, Krugman wrote about the imminent break-up of the euro at least eleven times between April 2010 and July 2012:
1. April 29, 2010: "Is the euro itself in danger? In a word, yes. If European leaders don't start acting much more forcefully, providing Greece with enough help to avoid the worst, a chain reaction that starts with a Greek default and ends up wreaking much wider havoc looks all too possible."


2. May 6, 2010: "Many observers now expect the Greek tragedy to end in default; I'm increasingly convinced that they're too optimistic, that default will be accompanied or followed by departure from the euro."


3. September 11, 2011: "the euro is now at risk of collapse. ... the common European currency itself is under existential threat."


4. October 23, 2011: "[the] monetary system ... has turned into a deadly trap. ... it's looking more and more as if the euro system is doomed."


5. November 10, 2011: "This is the way the euro ends ... Not long ago, European leaders were insisting that Greece could and should stay on the euro while paying its debts in full. Now, with Italy falling off a cliff, it's hard to see how the euro can survive at all."


6. March 11, 2012: "Greece and Ireland ... had and have no good alternatives short of leaving the euro, an extreme step that, realistically, their leaders cannot take until all other options have failed - a state of affairs that, if you ask me, Greece is rapidly approaching."


7. April 15, 2012: "What is the alternative? ... Exit from the euro, and restoration of national currencies. You may say that this is inconceivable, and it would indeed be a hugely disruptive event both economically and politically. But continuing on the present course, imposing ever-harsher austerity on countries that are already suffering Depression-era unemployment, is what's truly inconceivable."


8. May 6, 2012: "One answer - an answer that makes more sense than almost anyone in Europe is willing to admit - would be to break up the euro, Europe's common currency. Europe wouldn't be in this fix if Greece still had its drachma, Spain its peseta, Ireland its punt, and so on, because Greece and Spain would have what they now lack: a quick way to restore cost-competitiveness and boost exports, namely devaluation."


9. May 17, 2012: "Apocalypse Fairly Soon ... Suddenly, it has become easy to see how the euro - that grand, flawed experiment in monetary union without political union - could come apart at the seams. We're not talking about a distant prospect, either. Things could fall apart with stunning speed, in a matter of months."


10. June 10, 2012: "utter catastrophe may be just around the corner."


11. July 29, 2012: "Will the euro really be saved? That remains very much in doubt."
Click to expand...

The wonderful Krugman...
 
As late as January 2008 - again looking myopically at trade data - he was arguing that the U.S. economy had "dodged a bullet ... which is why I haven't been as sure about a looming recession as, say, Larry Summers or Marty Feldstein, let alone Nouriel Roubini ... I'm actually uncertain about where things go this year." Nor was he "nearly as pessimistic" as Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, whose seminal paper on the likely huge macroeconomic impact of the subprime crisis appeared that February. It was only in March that Krugman finally grasped the financial nature of the crisis. "A lot of people", he wrote, "saw that there was a huge housing bubble":

What's going on now, however, is beyond that: the "financial accelerator," with deleveraging causing a credit crunch that forces further deleveraging, and now threatens to produce a sort of pancake collapse of the whole system, was not, I think, so widely foreseen. I don't think many people saw how much the system itself would break down.

​
No, not many economists did see the complex interrelationships between the subprime mortgage market, collateralized debt obligations, highly leveraged banks and international derivatives markets that were the key to the scale of the crisis and its macroeconomic impact. But at least one historian did here and here and here and here and here. And here. I don't claim to be always right. But always wrong?
Click to expand...

Hmmmm...
 
Dungheap said:
So, your position is that the Euro was never in danger of collapse?

Also, too, check this piece out on Ferguson's predictions. LOL:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...usons-very-bad-argument-against-obama/261306/
Click to expand...

You are missing the entire point of the articles. Krugman pretends he was never wrong... he viciously attacks anyone who dares disagree with him. Kind of like you do to the authors.

As for Ferguson, again... had you bothered to read the articles, he is not proclaiming he is always right or that he was right when in fact he was wrong as Krugman did/does.
 
Dungheap said:
Niall Ferguson is Ahab and Krugman is the white whale.
Click to expand...

NIALL FERGUSON? SF seriously considers Niall Ferguson worth reading?

Oh my gawd. He used to have a column in Newsweek and was always incoherent, wrong, just about unreadable.

Yeah, not wasting my time reading his stuff anymore
 
For the record: the federal debt in public hands back then was $2.8 trillion, 35% of GDP. Today it is approaching $12 trillion, more than double as a share of GDP. The projected ten-year deficit then was, as Krugman states, $3 trillion; now, the equivalent figure is more than double that. And yet today we supposedly have no "train wreck" to worry about; indeed, it would be fine if the debt were a trillion dollars bigger.


Yes, I know, that was then and this is now; this time is different, we're in a liquidity trap, and all that. But what about 2008, the year the crisis began? For some strange reason, at that time Krugman vehemently opposed the presidential candidate arguing for - as he himself acknowledged - the larger fiscal stimulus. His name was John McCain - "McCain the Destroyer", as Krugman crudely called him. Four years later, Krugman explicitly acknowledged that Mitt Romney's (admittedly vague) fiscal plans would "blow up the deficit" and - shamelessly using an argument he had previously derided - compared the United States in such a high-deficit scenario with Greece.


In short, if Paul Krugman truly has won "a stunning victory" in "an epic intellectual debate" - as he recently claimed - it appears to have been over ... Paul Krugman.
The question is why, in the light of these numerous contradictions, anyone should be expected to share Krugman's certainty that a bigger stimulus would have worked. He was equally certain that there would be a dollar crisis - before the financial crisis produced the opposite effect. He was even more certain that the euro would break up - until it survived. Leave aside the glaring issue of ideological bias. Even if Krugman were not viscerally partisan, the point is that in the realm of macroeconomic prediction, self-confidence can only ever be a bluff. Judging by their past performance, Krugman's models are less reliable than tossing a coin.


Not being convinced of my own infallibility, I had no difficulty admitting that I had been wrong about the trajectory of U.S. interest rates back in 2009 and he had been right. Yet somehow this was not enough for Krugman, who could not bring himself to give me a proper apology for alleging falsely that I had never acknowledged my mistake. Instead, he has gone on claiming ad nauseam that I have "derped" (repeatedly said something wrong) on the question of inflation. In fact I wrote one column on this subject, in May 2011, and this was how it concluded:

Maybe in June, when the Fed stops quantitative easing ... inflation will recede. Maybe high fuel prices will, as Goldman Sachs predicts, slow the economy and revive the specter of deflation. Maybe. Or maybe inflation expectations [have] started shifting ...​
(Admittedly, something of a Krugman hedge, that conclusion. But hardly a confident prediction of higher inflation. And I certainly did not repeat it the way Krugman repeated his predictions of euro collapse.) Meanwhile, applying his signature double standard, he himself has admitted elsewhere that "the only big thing I got wrong ... was in underestimating the stickiness of wages, and hence inflation, and therefore overestimating the risks of actual deflation".
Click to expand...

Hmmm... at least one of them can admit when he was wrong...

but you Krugmanites will defend master to the death... won't you?
 
tekkychick said:
NIALL FERGUSON? SF seriously considers Niall Ferguson worth reading?

Oh my gawd. He used to have a column in Newsweek and was always incoherent, wrong, just about unreadable.

Yeah, not wasting my time reading his stuff anymore
Click to expand...

LMAO... how very typical of a liberal... only reading what supports your position or that of your masters.

quite comical wathcing the liberals on the board attack Ferguson, yet not one of you can show where in the three articles I posted he is wrong. Funny that.
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO... how very typical of a liberal... only reading what supports your position or that of your masters.

quite comical wathcing the liberals on the board attack Ferguson, yet not one of you can show where in the three articles I posted he is wrong. Funny that.
Click to expand...

No, I used to read him; but after reading multiple columns of his I realized how often he was wrong, and so I stopped reading him.

Why would I continue to read someone who is wrong time after time?
 
Truth Detector said:
No dimwit; it is an accurate description of your incredible lack of intelligence. Why else would you be stupid enough to even ask the question? Simple...because you are a dimwit, and yes, you are THAT stupid.

Did you wish to add anything else to the thread other than removing all doubt that you're a dimwit?

I know; why don't you, a dimwit, dwell on the thread topic and tell us how great Krugmans theories are working for us?
Click to expand...



I think you are the dimwit here dimwit, because it you weren't so dim you would know that in fact none of Krugman's suggestions have been taken up or even seriously considered by the current administration. But thanks for playing. You have shown that like the rest of the Teabagger faction on the right here you know nothing about the topic or the subject. And if you read Niall Ferguson you still won't know anything about it. If you really want to know what Krugman thinks and suggests read his books. I bet you haven't read a book since The Little Engine That Could (1930). So if you're ever really curious read Krugman and you'll that everything you are saying here is wrong, dimwit!
 
tekkychick said:
No, I used to read him; but after reading multiple columns of his I realized how often he was wrong, and so I stopped reading him.

Why would I continue to read someone who is wrong time after time?
Click to expand...

LMAO... ok tek... yet I am sure you would continue reading Krugman who has been wrong even more?

But again, can't help but notice none of you want to point out where he is wrong in these three articles. I wonder why.
 
Dantès said:
I think you are the dimwit here dimwit, because it you weren't so dim you would know that in fact none of Krugman's suggestions have been taken up or even seriously considered by the current administration. But thanks for playing. You have shown that like the rest of the Teabagger faction on the right here you know nothing about the topic or the subject. And if you read Niall Ferguson you still won't know anything about it. If you really want to know what Krugman thinks and suggests read his books. I bet you haven't read a book since The Little Engine That Could (1930). So if you're ever really curious read Krugman and you'll that everything you are saying here is wrong, dimwit!
Click to expand...

I majored in Economics and I can tell you for a fact that Krugman is wrong more so than right. Ferguson at least admits when he is wrong. Krugman does not. Ferguson also lists out just how wrong Krugman has been. But you refuse to read it. Because like Krugman, you prefer ad hom attacks to actual discussion.
 
Darla said:
Superfreak's in loooooooooove.

Oh Neil when you talk about Paul Krugman I could just listen to you all day!

Oh Supefreak!

Oh Neil!
Click to expand...


The above is precisely the nonsense that Krugmanites display time and again. Attacks on Ferguson and now on me. All because Darla cannot refute anything that was written in the articles. Typical liberal nonsense.
 
Superfreak said:
The above is precisely the nonsense that Krugmanites display time and again. Attacks on Ferguson and now on me. All because Darla cannot refute anything that was written in the articles. Typical liberal nonsense.
Click to expand...

That's her standard technique for just about any situation, that and saying that she trusts the experts.
 
Superfreak said:
I majored in Economics and I can tell you for a fact that Krugman is wrong more so than right. Ferguson at least admits when he is wrong. Krugman does not. Ferguson also lists out just how wrong Krugman has been. But you refuse to read it. Because like Krugman, you prefer ad hom attacks to actual discussion.
Click to expand...

My God, a Darla clone that is even more dimwitted than the original.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top