Krugman beat by blogger's :)

C

Canceled2

Banned
August 03, 2010
Paul Krugman Gives Up
By Fred Douglass

A marvelous thing happened over on Paul Krugman's blog at the New York Times last week. Krugman effectively conceded defeat on a range of economic debates. Who defeated him? People who posted comments on his New York Times blog. Mere commenters.


For those who do not know, Paul Krugman is one of the few who still claim that Keynesian progressivism is the answer to America's (and Europe's) problems, not their cause. He repeats that claim many times each month. Amid these repeated expressions of his "progressive" faith, he now also repeatedly expresses grim despair because his progressive policy prescriptions are being accepted less and less in the public square, even by the Obama administration.


Krugman is an academic. He has never run a company. He has never created a job. The closest contact he evidently ever had to "business" was as an adviser to Enron, where (in his own words) he was paid $50,000 to help build Enron's "image."


This, perhaps, explains the dozen or so points that Krugman makes over and over. Here are a few: Obama's stimulus was too small. Debt is good. Austerity is bad. Deflation is coming. Ken Rogoff, Greg Mankiw, Alberto Alesina (all at Harvard), and other serious economic scientists do not understand economics as well as he does. Those who do not agree with him are "mass delusional." And perhaps Krugman's favorite line: "I was right, of course."


Befitting his ideology, Krugman has only one policy to propose, regardless of topic: Transfer more resources from the discipline and dynamism of markets to the inefficiency and cronyism of government

More
 
Krugman usually argues that Obama won't spend enough, so I'm not sure how or why his rhetoric is changing, here. Also, most businesses look to MBAs and CPAs rather than economists to operate. Economists are generally just regarded as academics, or else they are involved in government.
 
Business people are generally shitty at macroeconomics. There expertise has nothing to do with looking at the economy on a wider scale.
 
Krugman was annihilated by the brilliance of the responders to him, then stammered out an incoherent slush in response, and was so defeated! x 100

^ID's post
 
Even Ezra Klein is beginning to question the Keynesian economic models of Blinder and Zandi that "got it so wrong."
Click to expand...

Ezra Klein has been a concern troll for so long it's hard for me to even remember. Every time the left and the right meets he immediately demands we wave the white flag and surrender. I will not surrender to evil.
 
Wickedjews said:
Ezra Klein has been a concern troll for so long it's hard for me to even remember. Every time the left and the right meets he immediately demands we wave the white flag and surrender. I will not surrender to evil.
Click to expand...

i'm glad you won't surrender to liberals :)
 
The blog pronounces that after the "change" in Krugman's editing policy there were only six comments. In fact, there are six pages of comments. This to me signifies, more than anything else, the extreme laziness of this hack-job blog post. He does nothing but summarize huge debates with a few quick words that explain little about them besides critiscizing Krugman and praising the proles who don't understand economic science. Many, many times. It's easily the worst article I've ever read in my entire life.
 
Wickedjews said:
Ezra Klein, Obama, etc..., are "progressives", and ideology of nothing but surrender to conservatism. Krugman and I are liberals, who fight conservatives.
Click to expand...

the only thing you fight are wet dreams watermark....

obama doesn't surrender to conservatives....give me a break
 
Threedee said:
Krugman usually argues that Obama won't spend enough, so I'm not sure how or why his rhetoric is changing, here. Also, most businesses look to MBAs and CPAs rather than economists to operate. Economists are generally just regarded as academics, or else they are involved in government.
Click to expand...

From the same article:

<snip> But things got worse for the professor. Matching Krugman's repeated claim that the "stimulus" was too small, Sean produced peer-reviewed economic science from Alesina, who examined 92 attempts at stimulus since 1970 in OECD countries and found that tax cuts, but not spending, stimulated. Krugman stammered a reply, but the damage was done; his acolytes had learned that economic science existed that contradicted Krugman's claim (central to Obama's "stimulus" legislation) that government's spending your money helps an economy.


Matching Krugman's claim that government can "create wealth by printing money," several posters cited the latest economic science showing that the "multipliers" that Keynesians use are wrong. They further noted that Krugman had used these wrong multipliers seventeen months ago to predict incorrectly that Obama's stimulus package would keep unemployment below 9%.


And so Krugman's blog presented the most unforgivable conclusion: Krugman had actually been wrong. As he had been when he advocated low interest rates and the creation of a housing price inflation in 2001, one of the causes of current economic difficulties.


Things then got still worse. When Krugman repeated his claim that Bush's tax cuts had "caused" the deficit and damaged the economy, commenters first taught Krugman how to count. They then cited two papers by the Romers showing that tax cuts help economies. Christina Romer is, of course, the chief economic advisor to President Obama. <snip>
 
Ice Dancer said:
From the same article:

<snip> But things got worse for the professor. Matching Krugman's repeated claim that the "stimulus" was too small, Sean produced peer-reviewed economic science from Alesina, who examined 92 attempts at stimulus since 1970 in OECD countries and found that tax cuts, but not spending, stimulated. Krugman stammered a reply, but the damage was done; his acolytes had learned that economic science existed that contradicted Krugman's claim (central to Obama's "stimulus" legislation) that government's spending your money helps an economy.


Matching Krugman's claim that government can "create wealth by printing money," several posters cited the latest economic science showing that the "multipliers" that Keynesians use are wrong. They further noted that Krugman had used these wrong multipliers seventeen months ago to predict incorrectly that Obama's stimulus package would keep unemployment below 9%.


And so Krugman's blog presented the most unforgivable conclusion: Krugman had actually been wrong. As he had been when he advocated low interest rates and the creation of a housing price inflation in 2001, one of the causes of current economic difficulties.


Things then got still worse. When Krugman repeated his claim that Bush's tax cuts had "caused" the deficit and damaged the economy, commenters first taught Krugman how to count. They then cited two papers by the Romers showing that tax cuts help economies. Christina Romer is, of course, the chief economic advisor to President Obama. <snip>
Click to expand...

Again, nothing but summaries of large and complex arguments that provide nothing but criticisms of Krugman (usually without explaining what he was really saying or, at best, presenting a strawman e.g. "printing money creates wealth") and praise of conservative responses. You may as well have linked us something that was created by a monkey jumping up and down on a keyboard for all the knowledge it provides us with. It's just an article to make conservatives feel good about themselves.
 
Wickedjews said:
Again, nothing but summaries of large and complex arguments that provide nothing but criticisms of Krugman (usually without explaining what he was really saying or, at best, presenting a strawman e.g. "printing money creates wealth") and praise of conservative responses. You may as well have linked us something that was created by a monkey jumping up and down on a keyboard for all the knowledge it provides us with. It's just an article to make conservatives feel good about themselves.
Click to expand...

At the link numerous claims are linked to actual proofs/facts. :)
 
Ice Dancer said:
From the same article:

<snip> But things got worse for the professor. Matching Krugman's repeated claim that the "stimulus" was too small, Sean produced peer-reviewed economic science from Alesina, who examined 92 attempts at stimulus since 1970 in OECD countries and found that tax cuts, but not spending, stimulated. Krugman stammered a reply, but the damage was done; his acolytes had learned that economic science existed that contradicted Krugman's claim (central to Obama's "stimulus" legislation) that government's spending your money helps an economy.


Matching Krugman's claim that government can "create wealth by printing money," several posters cited the latest economic science showing that the "multipliers" that Keynesians use are wrong. They further noted that Krugman had used these wrong multipliers seventeen months ago to predict incorrectly that Obama's stimulus package would keep unemployment below 9%.


And so Krugman's blog presented the most unforgivable conclusion: Krugman had actually been wrong. As he had been when he advocated low interest rates and the creation of a housing price inflation in 2001, one of the causes of current economic difficulties.


Things then got still worse. When Krugman repeated his claim that Bush's tax cuts had "caused" the deficit and damaged the economy, commenters first taught Krugman how to count. They then cited two papers by the Romers showing that tax cuts help economies. Christina Romer is, of course, the chief economic advisor to President Obama. <snip>
Click to expand...
Krugman should man-up and give his Nobel to Sean.
 
Wickedjews said:
Again, nothing but summaries of large and complex arguments that provide nothing but criticisms of Krugman (usually without explaining what he was really saying or, at best, presenting a strawman e.g. "printing money creates wealth") and praise of conservative responses. You may as well have linked us something that was created by a monkey jumping up and down on a keyboard for all the knowledge it provides us with. It's just an article to make conservatives feel good about themselves.
Click to expand...

Krugman is the paid statist monkey.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top