Nominate Paul Krugman for Treasury Secretary

[GatorEcon]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

Is it too late to get your money back? For the book and the course?

I certainly did not pay for the book.

[PSGator66]

Krugman is a liberal D-bag!!

[texigator]

Originally Posted by GatorEcon

Krugman co-authored the textbook we are using for International Trade at UF.

Wow! We studied Milton Friedman back when I was in business school at UF. It's hard to fathom how far Left UF has sunk to have a hack like Krugman "instructing" young minds with his unadulterated B.S.

[Matthanuf06]

Originally Posted by gs_gator

Be Ready To Mint That Coin

Should President Obama be willing to print a $1 trillion platinum coin if Republicans try to force America into default? Yes, absolutely. He will, after all, be faced with a choice between two alternatives: one that’s silly but benign, the other that’s equally silly but both vile and disastrous. The decision should be obvious.

Link

problem solved

Why did we just have a massive tax increase if all Obama had to do was print a coin?

[FrolfGator]

Because the economy won't be in the liquidity trap forever. In normal times, increasing the monetary base does lead to inflation, and government borrowing/spending does crowd out private investment. It's only due to the demand-side slump that the rules are different now, but that's transient.

[madgator]

Originally Posted by texigator

Wow! We studied Milton Friedman back when I was in business school at UF. It's hard to fathom how far Left UF has sunk to have a hack like Krugman "instructing" young minds with his unadulterated B.S.

Today's sign of the coming apocalypse


Krugman replaces Friedman

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by madgator

Today's sign of the coming apocalypse


Krugman replaces Friedman

And Friedman replaces Mises.

[MichiGator2002]

Q. Why shouldn't Obama be encouraged by all those same doods to, instead of the Fed, give one of those coins to China as principal payment on debt to them?

A. Because they know it is banana republic fiat money BS and that China would, of it fit in quarter slots, buy a newspaper with the worthless piece of crap.

[Minister_of_Information]

Just watched Krugman on Bill Moyers, about 30 minutes of it anyway. The problem is not that he is not a brilliant economist with a lot of valid ideas. The problem is how he deals with disagreement and criticism. He just put forward the fairly hysterical notion that the ultimate aim of most republicans is to completely dismantle the social safety net, and left the implication hanging that this serves as proof that rank and file republicans are some combination of stupid, crazy, and evil.

He also implies that conservative and even moderate intellectuals with concerns about the debt (making them his political adversaries) are uninformed, misguided, and vaguely obtuse. This is why he is a hack, because he very clearly accepts the self-evident truth of a dualistic political landscape; his dualism recasts the cardinal virtue of intellectual permeability as the abandonment of principle and intellect. It is ever so clear that it is Krugman's way or the highway. In effect he appears to have rationalized the suspicion that he is always right in economic matters into a political philosophy, and he is willing to dissemble to defend it. I was watching him wondering how a man that intelligent would imagine that this imperious and adversarial approach would produce anything other than rancor and obstinate resistance.

I find that I actually agree with him in a limited way, namely that pressing infrastructure needs can be met cheaply and to our economic advantage in the current monetary and fiscal environment, if we do so carefully. But his pooh-poohing of the debt as a long term problem altogether without relying on anything resembling a coherent argument -- other than, in effect, 'show me' -- is troubling. De-leveraging as a phenomenon does not merit a single moment of discussion. If he is so confident that debt does not matter, as a Nobel winning economist he ought to be able to articulate coherent reasons for thinking so. But apparently in his world nothing truly bad can ever happen as long as the presses keep churning out money. In his view, the public has no option but to believe in the dollar despite any evidence to the contrary, although this seems to depend upon the implicit recognition that the consequences of a massive loss of confidence in the dollar are too catastrophic to contemplate. He seems to feel that people will just slog along cheerfully with their wheelbarrows of currency in front of them on the way to the corner store. This is not a winning argument, because on a visceral level people can feel that it is a lie, a promising of something for nothing, having one's cake and eating it too. And that doesn't work in the real world. So why is he making it? The only reason I can think of is because it's all about him.

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Just watched Krugman on Bill Moyers, about 30 minutes of it anyway. The problem is not that he is not a brilliant economist with a lot of valid ideas. The problem is how he deals with disagreement and criticism. He just put forward the fairly hysterical notion that the ultimate aim of most republicans is to completely dismantle the social safety net, and left the implication hanging that this serves as proof that rank and file republicans are some combination of stupid, crazy, and evil.

He also implies that conservative and even moderate intellectuals with concerns about the debt (making them his political adversaries) are uninformed, misguided, and vaguely obtuse. This is why he is a hack, because he very clearly accepts the self-evident truth of a dualistic political landscape; his dualism recasts the cardinal virtue of intellectual permeability as the abandonment of principle and intellect. It is ever so clear that it is Krugman's way or the highway. In effect he appears to have rationalized the suspicion that he is always right in economic matters into a political philosophy, and he is willing to dissemble to defend it. I was watching him wondering how a man that intelligent would imagine that this imperious and adversarial approach would produce anything other than rancor and obstinate resistance.

I find that I actually agree with him in a limited way, namely that pressing infrastructure needs can be met cheaply and to our economic advantage in the current monetary and fiscal environment, if we do so carefully. But his pooh-poohing of the debt as a long term problem altogether without relying on anything resembling a coherent argument -- other than, in effect, 'show me' -- is troubling. De-leveraging as a phenomenon does not merit a single moment of discussion. If he is so confident that debt does not matter, as a Nobel winning economist he ought to be able to articulate coherent reasons for thinking so. But apparently in his world nothing truly bad can ever happen as long as the presses keep churning out money. In his view, the public has no option but to believe in the dollar despite any evidence to the contrary, although this seems to depend upon the implicit recognition that the consequences of a massive loss of confidence in the dollar are too catastrophic to contemplate. He seems to feel that people will just slog along cheerfully with their wheelbarrows of currency in front of them on the way to the corner store. This is not a winning argument, because on a visceral level people can feel that it is a lie, a promising of something for nothing, having one's cake and eating it too. And that doesn't work in the real world. So why is he making it? The only reason I can think of is because it's all about him.

And all the while castigating those, whom he alleges, who cannot offer a coherent reason why debt is bad, and lamenting why we too, couldn't emulate Japan and be happy.

So, to get out of the sidelines' sitting, moneyed fat cats' "clutching currency and won't invest it liquidity syndrome," he proposes Sam jack up the spending - to create more demand, of course - by printing more money (who said inflation ?) and throwing it out the window of the getaway car.