hey Red

[Michchamp]

I don't know if you watch Charlie Rose (I typically don't), but last night he had Paul Krugman on for an extended discussion of his new book & the economy. video hasn't been posted to Rose's website yet, but it's pretty good, if a little boring.

 

[Michchamp]

full disclosure: I fell asleep for the last 5 minutes; but it was on late, I was tired and had just finished doing laundry.

 

[byco42]

Ron Paul and Paul Krugman had a discussion. I think that Ron Paul officially has chunks of Krugman in his stool after it. Not even Dash Riprock mediator could save Krugman, who is someone who could never apply the policies he supports to run a business. He is a moocher of the first order.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ron-paul-battles-paul-krugman-on-bloomberg-tv/

 

[Michchamp]

Ron Paul and Paul Krugman had a discussion. I think that Ron Paul officially has chunks of Krugman in his stool after it. Not even Dash Riprock mediator could save Krugman, who is someone who could never apply the policies he supports to run a business. He is a moocher of the first order.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ron-paul-battles-paul-krugman-on-bloomberg-tv/

I haven't watched it yet. Not surprisingly, Krugman had a different take on it (LINK):

[Ron Paul] insisted (if I understood him correctly) that currency debasement and price controls destroyed the Roman Empire. I responded that I am not a defender of the economic policies of the Emperor Diocletian.Actually, though, appeals to what supposedly happened somewhere in the distant past are quite common on the goldbug side of economics. And it?s kind of telling.
...
people like Ron Paul don?t like to talk about events of the past century, for which we have reasonably good data; they like to talk about events in the dim mists of history, where we don?t really know what happened. And I think that?s no accident. Partly it?s the attempt of the autodidact to show off his esoteric knowledge; but it?s also the fact that because we don?t really know what happened ? what really did go down during the Diocletian era? ? you can project what you think should have happened onto the sketchy record, then claim vindication for whatever you want to believe.
​

Krugman also said this (LINK):

A bit of meta on my ?debate? with Ron Paul; I think it?s a perfect illustration of a point I?ve thought about a lot, the uselessness of face-to-face debates.
Think about it: you approach what is, in the end, a somewhat technical subject in a format in which no data can be presented, in which there?s no opportunity to check facts (everything Paul said about growth after World War II was wrong, but who will ever call him on it?).

...

So why did I do it? Because I?m trying to publicize my book, which does have lots of data and facts ? but those data and facts don?t matter unless I get enough people to read it.
​

I'll have to watch the video on bloomberg later, and decide for myself.

 

[Michchamp]

also, if Ron Paul thinks currency debasement and price controls destroyed the Roman Empire, well, that's just completely idiotic.

 

[byco42]

There's a pile of evidence that proves the Romans and Greeks debased their currency. There are history departments all over the world teaching that. Krugman, to the contrary, thinks that relevent Economic History began in 1913.

 

[Michchamp]

There's a pile of evidence that proves the Romans and Greeks debased their currency. There are history departments all over the world teaching that. Krugman, to the contrary, thinks that relevent Economic History began in 1913.

sure they debased their currency; i don't think Krugman was saying they didn't. lots of countries have debased their currency over the centuries. not all of them collapsed afterward.

I'm arguing that there's no connection between debasing the currency and the decline of the empire. Krugman specifically referred to Diocletian; not sure if that's who Ron Paul was referring to, but the Roman Empire had already collapsed once just before Diocletian took over. see crises of the third century.

the Roman Empire's problems were not due to economics... the lawlessness of the emperors and the military, the frequent military revolts all bankrupted the state. Ron Paul should certainly be aware of that.

 

[Michchamp]

I think Krugman makes a good point: looking back through history is all well and good, but to modern economics, it's not really that valuable since modern budgetary record keeping (which tracks the statistics and figures modern economic theory is based on) is a relatively recent phenomenon...

and also, if you're going back in history to dance around any more recent data that doesn't fit your wack-ass economic theories (i.e. where Ron Paul goes off the deep end), as Krugman alleges Ron Paul is doing... well, that also obviously isn't a sound way to think about things.

 

[byco42]

Krugman thinks that governments can prevent depressions.

"Depressions are a bad thing for capitalism and it’s the role of the government to make sure they don’t happen, or if they do happen, they don’t last too long.” What kind of whack-ass idea is that, given the history of the economy since 1913? There have been an equal amount of recessions/depressions before and since that year.

Krugman doesn't know where debt limit is that will cause the collapse of the present economy. But he says: "we're not anywhere near the red line yet."

Krugman: "we’re not quite sure where the line between money and non-money is. It’s a continuum.”

 

[Michchamp]

Krugman thinks that governments can prevent depressions.

"Depressions are a bad thing for capitalism and it?s the role of the government to make sure they don?t happen, or if they do happen, they don?t last too long.? What kind of whack-ass idea is that, given the history of the economy since 1913? There have been an equal amount of recessions/depressions before and since that year.

Krugman doesn't know where debt limit is that will cause the collapse of the present economy. But he says: "we're not anywhere near the red line yet."

Krugman: "we?re not quite sure where the line between money and non-money is. It?s a continuum.?

You and red need to study economics.

 

[cheeno]

You and red need to study economics.

Ever heard of Hayek I think he would agree with Byco.

 

[Michchamp]

Ever heard of Hayek I think he would agree with Byco.

yes.

I don't agree with Hayek.

what's happening in the world is proving him wrong, wrong, wrong.

the Europeans were cutting spending across the board - just as all the retarded "government is always the problem" conservatives wanted, and their economies are all plummeting into the abyss right now.

but hey... if you're a rich asshole, you never admit you're wrong, you just keep funding "think tanks" and other bullshit "pro-business" organizations to keep cranking out the propaganda and shouting down people like Krugman who know what they're talking about.

 

[Michchamp]

Ron Paul and Paul Krugman had a discussion. I think that Ron Paul officially has chunks of Krugman in his stool after it. Not even Dash Riprock mediator could save Krugman, who is someone who could never apply the policies he supports to run a business. He is a moocher of the first order.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ron-paul-battles-paul-krugman-on-bloomberg-tv/

HAHAHA...

"NOBEL PRIZE WINNING ECONOMIST"

versus

"REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE"

just stop right there... what a joke.

the video is not working anyway; the audio comes through choppy. maybe the dumbasses at bloomberg will fix it tomorrow.

 

[byco42]

Yes. Economics is that ethereal science that a select few understand. And those who claim expert status somehow believe that what I earn is distributed to me after the state takes its cut, never considering that I am not obligated to work at all. I want to live in a society where I know that the dollar I earn today is mine and everyone knows it. Krugman wold never agree to that premise and that's all I need to know about economics.

 

[Michchamp]

... I want to live in a society where I know that the dollar I earn today is mine and everyone knows it...

then you can't live in a society. part of living in a society is sharing... the essence of society is socialism; collectivism. if you're earning your money as part of society, it's not 100% yours to begin with.

you and tsmith can go be hunter-gatherers in the great white north or something. then you don't have to pay taxes to nobody.

 

[cheeno]

yes.

I don't agree with Hayek.

what's happening in the world is proving him wrong, wrong, wrong.

the Europeans were cutting spending across the board - just as all the retarded "government is always the problem" conservatives wanted, and their economies are all plummeting into the abyss right now.

but hey... if you're a rich asshole, you never admit you're wrong, you just keep funding "think tanks" and other bullshit "pro-business" organizations to keep cranking out the propaganda and shouting down people like Krugman who know what they're talking about.

Man maybe you should read more Hayek. This is a balance sheet recession caused by low interest rates that lead to poor investment not real savings; and using tax dollars to bail out the losers only sets us a course for this to happen again. All predicted by his theories.

The Europeans cut spending because they don't have any more money to spend (contrary to us since we just print more). Nations like Greece risk collapse by going into further debt not due to any conservative plot these nations are extreme versions of Keynesian economics (all though it is hard to redistribute wealth when no one pays their taxes). The 'austerity' measures being forced are really just another word for cutting public sector jobs (which added little to real productivity) that was the driving wealth creator of the economies of some nations (15% of Greece was employed by the public sector). This was one of the preconditions among other measures imposed by Germany and France to avoid this happening again in the long run (at least they give their losers conditions before we bail them out). Throw in the foreign investment housing bust in nations like Spain, Greece, Italy and you have a recipe for disaster.

 

[byco42]

then you can't live in a society. part of living in a society is sharing... the essence of society is socialism; collectivism. if you're earning your money as part of society, it's not 100% yours to begin with.

you and tsmith can go be hunter-gatherers in the great white north or something. then you don't have to pay taxes to nobody.

Wow. You really believe this. Okay. It's anti-themic to the root principles of this country but even Ben Franklin was not certain they would last a generation. I share out of choice, not out compulsion, and we were born to rise to our own chosen level of prosperity and not by what the state defines as "my fair share." A free society would never even conceive such a term.

 

[redandguilty]

I don't know if you watch Charlie Rose (I typically don't), but last night he had Paul Krugman on for an extended discussion of his new book & the economy. video hasn't been posted to Rose's website yet, but it's pretty good, if a little boring.

Thanks. I don't watch Rose much either, but every time I do, I wonder why I don't watch more Chralie Rose. He is a great political interviewer.

 

[Michchamp]

Wow. You really believe this. Okay. It's anti-themic to the root principles of this country but even Ben Franklin was not certain they would last a generation. I share out of choice, not out compulsion, and we were born to rise to our own chosen level of prosperity and not by what the state defines as "my fair share." A free society would never even conceive such a term.

it must be compulsory; otherwise you have a free rider problem.

ideally, you would sign a social contract when you're 18 or whatever that spells it out. if you say, "screw that, I don't want to work & pay taxes" then society says, "cool" and you move to some uninhabited place and live like a hermit. then you don't have to share, you don't have to pay taxes, you don't have to deal with people like me or Paul Krugman.

 

[Michchamp]

Man maybe you should read more Hayek. This is a balance sheet recession caused by low interest rates that lead to poor investment not real savings; and using tax dollars to bail out the losers only sets us a course for this to happen again. All predicted by his theories.

The Europeans cut spending because they don't have any more money to spend (contrary to us since we just print more). Nations like Greece risk collapse by going into further debt not due to any conservative plot these nations are extreme versions of Keynesian economics (all though it is hard to redistribute wealth when no one pays their taxes). The 'austerity' measures being forced are really just another word for cutting public sector jobs (which added little to real productivity) that was the driving wealth creator of the economies of some nations (15% of Greece was employed by the public sector). This was one of the preconditions among other measures imposed by Germany and France to avoid this happening again in the long run (at least they give their losers conditions before we bail them out). Throw in the foreign investment housing bust in nations like Spain, Greece, Italy and you have a recipe for disaster.

you've got it all backwards; Hayek's people - strict monetarist policy; no fiscal stimulus - are the ones keeping interest rates low.

if the Federal Government spends more money... it's borrowing costs will rise (in theory, or maybe eventually) i.e. interest rates go up.

your point about public sector spending adding little to real productivity is absurd; I'd like to see your evidence and basis for claiming that. public spending is no less effective than private sector spending, and indeed serves a valuable purpose in that it can spend money that is necessary, but the private sector otherwise won't touch.