Interesting: Krugman gets into fisticuffs...

Discussion in 'Economics' started by Martinghoul, Mar 20, 2009.

  1. You know, after reading Krugman's article, I am now 100% convinced that this dude is just a shill for central banking.
  2. I just wonder WTF gave him a novel prize.

  3. Those dots are directly connected.
  4. He's been a shill since 1994 - Peddlng Prosperity is where it started.

    One of the better reviews of the book:

    Remember the above review was written by someone long before a bunch of intellectuals took over the US central bank.

    Quote from the article:

    Krugman's complaint is that the "professors" have lost their influence. Ironically, Krugman identifies the problem correctly: "The problem that the politicians have with the professors is not one of failure to communicate; it is one of failure to say what politicians want (need) to hear." But he interprets it wrongly. Politics is the art of the possible; it is the world, not of Greece, but of Rome. Politicians are policymakers who want and need to hear realistic, relevant, factually based advice. Krugman's work suffers from being too simple and abstract to be realistic. His ignorance of the basic parameters of the policy debate makes his advice irrelevant. The errors of omission and fact make his advice dangerous to accept.

    In this light, one might conclude that it has not been so much the policymakers, but the economics "professors," who have moved up the ladder.

    RANDALL DODD is a Senior Economist for the Democratic Study Group, U.S. House of Representatives. This article was written on the author's own time. The opinions stated here are his and not those of the organization.
  5. Key rebuttal point by Lorenzo:

    As regards action taken by the central bank, following the initial liquidity injection of in excess of €90 billion in August 2007, the ECB’s balance sheet has steadily grown, increasing by approximately €600 billion to reach a level of 16% of GDP (compared with 13% of GDP for the US Federal Reserve). There is a major difference, however: the ECB lends to the banking system against collateral, thereby reducing the risks for European taxpayers.

    According to Krugman, the fact that the ECB does not have a government behind it which can cover any losses accounts for its being overly cautious. However, this assumption implies that the taxpayer should bear the burden – through inflation – of the difficulties experienced by the banking system. I’m not so sure that this is what US citizens want, and it is certainly not what people in Europe want.
  6. What is a "novel prize"?:confused:
  7. Krugman is correct and Lorenzo is a typical European bureaucrat who possibly wants to please the ECB hawks and does not care about social unrest in Europe. Because that is the real problem for Europe to come.
  8. I like and respect Paul Krugman.

    I take major exception with his endorsement of even more stimulus and quantitative easing, however.

    First, it's extremely inefficient.

    Second, it artificially supports asset prices when deflation will more quickly clear the decks of hobbled assets, by attracting bargain hunters.

    Third, it's a system of picking winners and losers on the part of the government.

    Finally, it's unlikely to work, IMO, while creating adverse consequences for average Americans.
  9. dhpar


    Krugman is an idiot - i am surprised that it needs to be even discussed on the site called "Elite Trader".

    It is not surprising Krugman likes Fed while not ECB. He is after all a communist weasel like Michael Moore - and Fed is behaving in a similar manner (as opposed to ECB).

    Even congres now starts to act more lefty than Karl Marx ever imagined possible. I wonder if USA becomes France No.2 one day. So sad...
    #10     Mar 20, 2009