United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Liberal Paul Krugman: A Massive, Destructive Earthquake would be Great for the Economy
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.punditpress.com/2011/08/liberal-paul-krugman-massive.html
Published: Aug 24, 2011
Author: punditpress
Post Date: 2011-08-24 16:10:45 by no gnu taxes
Keywords: None
Views: 15437
Comments: 36
You may be aware that a 5.8 magnitude earthquake struck the east coast yesterday evening. Luckily, the quake did little damage. However, you may also be aware that Nobel laureate Paul Krugman is missing a few marbles. According to him, it is actually a tragedy that the earthquake was not horrendously destructive. I do not know if I have ever read anything so stupid, but what would you expect from Paul Krugman? From Google+: If you aren't an idiot, this is a very clear case of the "Parable of the broken window." Here is the original text outlining the idea. Unfortunately, Mr. Krugman is apparently illiterate or simply a moron: --- Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade—that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs—I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen. But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen." It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented. --- Let me go even further than this convincing scenario. Suppose the earthquake had heavily damaged a highway. It might cause the government to spend a few million to fix it up, right? To Krugman, this would be economic growth. But he simply does not account for the money manufacturers will lose because they cannot send their products on efficient roadways or the lost time spent on fixing the highway. But on the bright side, someone slammed Krugman and got plenty of kudos from other Google+ readers: I certainly do not want to know what Krugman thinks of Hurricane Irene.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
Exactly. As soon as I saw his comment, that's immediately what popped into my mind. Krugman- like ALL the Keynesian cranks- are INSANE.
To:Skippy, toe-jam, old man Fred Alzheimers Mertz, _jim, loonymom/ming, e-type-jackoff, goober56, Wrek, calcon, dummy DwarF, continental op, Biff, gobsheit and meguro From: Capitalist Eric Message: You're SOCIALIST morons. ESAD. In fairness, there appears to be some doubt Krugman actually published this. But in return fairness, is there any doubt he thinks like this, given his track record?
Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president
It's called the broken window theory of the economy. A vandal smashes your window. According to economic illiterates, this is a good thing, because now the window maker has more work. What they don't see, is that because you had to spend money on fixing the window, you can't buy that new pair of shoes you need. This nonsense was put to bed decades ago, but idiot Keynesians like Krugman are too stupid to understand.
What is stupid is posting this article and claiming that although possibly false, it could be true. Clicking on the Google link in the article returns this: Google 404. That’s an error. The requested URL was not found on this server. That’s all we know.
"...all of the equations in neoclassical economics are rubbish. The differential equations describe nothing. Economics is not about mathematics, it is about the human being." Sandeep Jaitly
What is stupid is that thinking when a trillion dollar stimulus fails miserably, the answer is another trillion dollar stimulus (like Krugman and the Kenyan).
Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president
And given that this is an ACTUAL Krugman quote, who wouldn't believe he would also have made the mentioned statement: After 9/11, Krugman wrote: “Ghastly as it may seem to say this, the terror attack — like the original day of infamy, which brought an end to the Great Depression — could even do some economic good.”
Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president
It wasn't Krugman but some financial talking head was on the radio this morning touting the benefits of a east coast hurricane staddling up the coast such as Irene.
Never swear "allegiance" to anything other than the 'right to change your mind'!
You and your ilk are so blinded by hate that you fall for this stuff everytime. Unbelievable! Right-Wing Media Eagerly Attack Earthquake Comment From Fake Paul Krugman 4 hours and 43 minutes ago by Karen Famighetti Yesterday, a post appeared on a Google+ account representing itself as belonging to Nobel Prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman: The trouble is, Krugman doesn't have a Google+ account and did not make this statement. This morning, a post from Krugman on his actual New York Times blog explained: Well, this is interesting. I hear that the not-so-good people at National Review are attacking me over something I said on my Google+ page. Except, I don't have a Google+ page. [...] Apparently some people can't find enough things to attack in what I actually say, so they're busy creating fake quotes. And I have enough on my plate without trying to chase all this stuff down. So if you see me quoted as saying something really stupid or outrageous, and it didn't come from the Times or some other verifiable site, you should probably assume it was a fake. A number of right-wing outlets jumped on this statement without bothering to check whether the Google+ account actually belonged to Krugman. The Washington Examiner's Tim Carney "...all of the equations in neoclassical economics are rubbish. The differential equations describe nothing. Economics is not about mathematics, it is about the human being." Sandeep Jaitly
So? I already addressed that. But he did make this statement: After 9/11, Krugman wrote: “Ghastly as it may seem to say this, the terror attack — like the original day of infamy, which brought an end to the Great Depression — could even do some economic good.”
Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president
Your quote in context: SYNOPSIS: The worst tragedy in American history will not necesarily drive us into recession It seems almost in bad taste to talk about dollars and cents after an act of mass murder. Nonetheless, we must ask about the economic aftershocks from Tuesday's horror. These aftershocks need not be major. Ghastly as it may seem to say this, the terror attack -- like the original day of infamy, which brought an end to the Great Depression -- could even do some economic good. But there are already ominous indications that some will see this tragedy not as an occasion for true national unity, but as an opportunity for political profiteering. About the direct economic impact: The nation's productive base has not been seriously damaged. Our economy is so huge that the scenes of destruction, awesome as they are, are only a pinprick. The World Trade Center contained 12 million square feet of office space; that's out of 375 million square feet in Manhattan alone, and 3.5 billion in the United States as a whole. Nobody has a dollar figure for the damage yet, but I would be surprised if the loss is more than 0.1 percent of U.S. wealth -- comparable to the material effects of a major earthquake or hurricane. snip Now for the bad news. After the attacks, I found myself wondering whether some politicians would try to exploit the horror to push their usual partisan agendas. Then I chided myself for such an uncharitable thought. But it seems you can't be too cynical; sure enough, the push is already on to sell tax breaks for corporations and a cut in the capital gains tax as a response to terrorism. "...all of the equations in neoclassical economics are rubbish. The differential equations describe nothing. Economics is not about mathematics, it is about the human being." Sandeep Jaitly
After 9/11, Krugman wrote: “Ghastly as it may seem to say this, the terror attack — like the original day of infamy, which brought an end to the Great Depression — could even do some economic good.” Yep. It's right here. The guy is a complete crank making old, discredited arguments. He is clueless and anyone who views him as some sort of economic guru just doesn't understand how the real world works. It seems almost in bad taste to talk about dollars and cents after an act of mass murder. Nonetheless, we must ask about the economic aftershocks from Tuesday's horror. These aftershocks need not be major. Ghastly as it may seem to say this, the terror attack -- like the original day of infamy, which brought an end to the Great Depression -- could even do some economic good. But there are already ominous indications that some will see this tragedy not as an occasion for true national unity, but as an opportunity for political profiteering. About the direct economic impact: The nation's productive base has not been seriously damaged. Our economy is so huge that the scenes of destruction, awesome as they are, are only a pinprick. The World Trade Center contained 12 million square feet of office space; that's out of 375 million square feet in Manhattan alone, and 3.5 billion in the United States as a whole. Nobody has a dollar figure for the damage yet, but I would be surprised if the loss is more than 0.1 percent of U.S. wealth -- comparable to the material effects of a major earthquake or hurricane.
Do you really expect any of those three to understand, let alone, care about context?
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
Krugman was impersonated: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/24/paul-krugman-impersonator_n_935186.html
Tagline for sale - inquire within
That is not going to matter.
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
But it was a spot on impersonation completely consistent with Krugman. That's the beauty of it.
Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president
Full quote: And he went on to explain: You can read the entire thing here: www.nytimes.com/2001/09/14/opinion/reckonings-after-the-horror.html?pagewanted=2&src=pm it's always good to read the source rather than someone's efforts to edit the actual quote.
Tagline for sale - inquire within
No, it wasn't.
Tagline for sale - inquire within
Your context changes nothing. He meant the statement exactly as he stated it without further elaboration.
Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president
LOL Of course it was.
Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president
need I remind you that conservatives routinely argue that the second world war ended the great depression?
Tagline for sale - inquire within
They're so far gone there's absolutely nothing they wouldn't fall for.
some do, some don't. All pretty much agree it only provided a temporary jobs solution. So if Obama thinks that is the solution, just institute a mandatory draft and start shipping inner city youth off to Afghanistan and Libya. It will do wonders to quell that awful young black unemployment problem, and may get that despicable Maxine Waters woman off his back.
Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president
I already posted the entire thing, it demonstrates his utter stupidity.
"Conservatives" like who? George Bush? Jerry Ford? Truman ended the Great Depression when he radically reduced government spending at the end of WWII. Truman rejected the Keynesian nonsense of keeping the war time economy intact. The Keynesians told Truman to keep building tanks and bury them in the sand to support "full employment". Truman told the Keynesians to take a hike. Truman was right. Yes Truman was very partisan, but he was correct. In the post WWII era we've had 3 great administrations: Truman Reagan Clinton / Gingrich -- I hyphenate this because Clinton wouldn't have done it on his own. But he did do it with some pressure, so he deserves credit. Obama won't. We've also had a lot of really horrible administrations -- Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Bush II, and Obama. It's a sad indictment on this country that we've had more horrible Presidents than good ones in the last 55 years.
No, the whole context thing seems to elude them.
"...all of the equations in neoclassical economics are rubbish. The differential equations describe nothing. Economics is not about mathematics, it is about the human being." Sandeep Jaitly
No, it wasn't. It helps to remember that so-called conservatives swallow whole the cartoon images they've been feed.
"...all of the equations in neoclassical economics are rubbish. The differential equations describe nothing. Economics is not about mathematics, it is about the human being." Sandeep Jaitly
Didn't I warn you that it wasn't going to matter? These people are getting weirder by the day.
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
"Nothing" is being too generous.
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
When the blind man describes the elephants tail, he means every word of his description too, but that isn't the whole truth is it? Think of the passage quoted as the elephants tail, and the context as the whole elephant the tail is a part of.
"...all of the equations in neoclassical economics are rubbish. The differential equations describe nothing. Economics is not about mathematics, it is about the human being." Sandeep Jaitly
even though you keep repeating that same line, it still isn't true.
Tagline for sale - inquire within
The Office of Management and Budget demonstrates that it is true. Truman slashed spending from 43.6% of GDP in 1944 to 11.6% of GDP in 1948. This was the most radical cut in government spending in the nation's history. Yet, the economy didn't crash, unemployment didn't surge, and we didn't plummet into a second Great Depression as the Keynesian nincompoops predicted. I've posted the numbers here many times, but you are just too suborn to look at the facts. The entire Keynesian "national income accounting" model is completely wrong. IT needs to be discarded.
Right, due to the end of the war. And he proposed a massive ramp-up of social welfare spending including universal health insurance. You keep ignoring that.
Tagline for sale - inquire within
You keep ignoring that. Government spending as a percentage of GDP was less than 15% every year between the end of WWII and the start of the Korean war. It's 25.3% today. Social welfare spending averaged about 3.8% of GDP during Truman's administration. It's 16.6% of GDP today. This is the problem and you keep ignoring that.
And Truman argued that it should be increased when he was President. As I told you before go back and read up on Truman's "Fair Deal" program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Deal) and The Full Employment Act of 1945. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Act_of_1946 Tagline for sale - inquire within
Is there a reason you left out this little fact about the final passage of that bill? Conservatives removed all of the Keynesian markers from the final bill, so that it merely encourages the federal government to "promote maximum employment, production, and purchasing power."
Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president
Yet, the economy didn't crash, unemployment didn't surge, and we didn't plummet into a second Great Depression as the Keynesian nincompoops predicted. 100% WRONG. The economy went into recession in November of 1948 for over a year as the US dramatically wound down WWII spending over the previous two years and soldiers were re-patriated. IN that period, Unemployment more than doubled from 3.7% to 7.9%. You should also note that Truman dramatically increased income taxes to pay down the war debt.
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
If you aren't an idiot, this is a very clear case of the "Parable of the broken window."
#2. To: Capitalist Eric (#1)
#3. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
In a global economy, borrowing money to stimulate demand is a foolish proposition -- jwpegler
#4. To: no gnu taxes (#2)
In fairness, there appears to be some doubt Krugman actually published this. But in return fairness, is there any doubt he thinks like this, given his track record?
#5. To: lucysmom (#4)
What is stupid is posting this article and claiming that although possibly false, it could be true.
#6. To: lucysmom (#4)
#7. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
I certainly do not want to know what Krugman thinks of Hurricane Irene
#8. To: no gnu taxes (#6)
#9. To: lucysmom (#8)
#10. To: no gnu taxes (#9)
(Edited)
#11. To: no gnu taxes, capitalist eric (#9)
But he did make this statement:
In a global economy, borrowing money to stimulate demand is a foolish proposition -- jwpegler
#12. To: lucysmom (#10)
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#13. To: war, lucysmom, no gnu taxes (#12)
#14. To: go65 (#13)
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#15. To: go65 (#13)
#16. To: jwpegler (#11)
Yep. It's right here.
These aftershocks need not be major. Ghastly as it may seem to say this, the terror attack -- like the original day of infamy, which brought an end to the Great Depression -- could even do some economic good. But there are already ominous indications that some will see this tragedy not as an occasion for true national unity, but as an opportunity for political profiteering.
First, the driving force behind the economic slowdown has been a plunge in business investment. Now, all of a sudden, we need some new office buildings. As I've already indicated, the destruction isn't big compared with the economy, but rebuilding will generate at least some increase in business spending.
Second, the attack opens the door to some sensible recession-fighting measures. For the last few weeks there has been a heated debate among liberals over whether to advocate the classic Keynesian response to economic slowdown, a temporary burst of public spending. There were plausible economic arguments in favor of such a move, but it was questionable whether Congress could agree on how to spend the money in time to be of any use -- and there was also the certainty that conservatives would refuse to accept any such move unless it were tied to another round of irresponsible long-term tax cuts. Now it seems that we will indeed get a quick burst of public spending, however tragic the reasons.
#17. To: no gnu taxes (#15)
But it was a spot on impersonation completely consistent with Krugman. That's the beauty of it.
#18. To: lucysmom (#10)
#19. To: go65 (#17)
#20. To: no gnu taxes (#19)
Of course it was.
#21. To: war (#12)
Do you really expect any of those three to understand, let alone, care about context?
#22. To: go65 (#20)
need I remind you that conservatives routinely argue that the second world war ended the great depression?
#23. To: go65 (#16)
In a global economy, borrowing money to stimulate demand is a foolish proposition -- jwpegler
#24. To: go65 (#20)
(Edited)
need I remind you that conservatives routinely argue that the second world war ended the great depression?
In a global economy, borrowing money to stimulate demand is a foolish proposition -- jwpegler
#25. To: war (#12)
Do you really expect any of those three to understand, let alone, care about context?
#26. To: go65, no gnu taxes (#17)
But it was a spot on impersonation completely consistent with Krugman. That's the beauty of it.
#27. To: go65 (#17)
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#28. To: Skip Intro (#21)
They're so far gone there's absolutely nothing they wouldn't fall for.
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#29. To: no gnu taxes (#18)
Your context changes nothing. He meant the statement exactly as he stated it without further elaboration.
#30. To: jwpegler (#24)
Truman told the Keynesians to take a hike.
#31. To: go65 (#30)
(Edited)
even though you keep repeating that same line, it still isn't true.
In a global economy, borrowing money to stimulate demand is a foolish proposition -- jwpegler
#32. To: jwpegler (#31)
Truman slashed spending from 43.6% of GDP in 1944 to 11.6% of GDP in 1948. This was the most radical cut in government spending in the nation's history.
#33. To: go65 (#32)
(Edited)
And he proposed a massive ramp-up of social welfare spending including universal health insurance.
In a global economy, borrowing money to stimulate demand is a foolish proposition -- jwpegler
#34. To: jwpegler (#33)
Social welfare spending averaged about 3.8% of GDP during Truman's administration. It's 16.6% of GDP today. This is the problem and you keep ignoring that.
By 1940 depression was finally over. A remarkable burst of economic activity and full employment came during the war years (1941-45). Fears of a postwar depression were widespread, since the massive military spending was ending, the war plants were shutting down, and 12 million soldiers were coming home. Congress, fearful of a return to depression, sought to establish preemptive safeguards against economic downturn.[4]
The White House relied on Keynesian economic theory to develop its strategy. The theory, set forth by economist John Maynard Keynes and his American disciples such as Alvin Hansen at Harvard, contends that unemployment is caused by insufficient aggregate demand relative to the possible aggregate supply generated by full employment. Swings in aggregate demand create a phenomenon known as a business cycle that leads to irregular downsizing and hiring runs, causing fluctuations in unemployment. Keynes argued that the biggest contributor of these shifts in aggregate demand is investment.
#35. To: go65 (#34)
#36. To: jwpegler (#31)
Truman slashed spending from 43.6% of GDP in 1944 to 11.6% of GDP in 1948. This was the most radical cut in government spending in the nation's history.
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]