This in particular is not totally accurate. Was there pork barrel politics involved in TARP? Absolutely. Obama had nothing to do with it though. TARP was passed before the election even took place, although the republicans consistently play revisionist historian and skip that point.
Furthermore, the entire economic system was crumbling. Something had to happen, and frankly there were very few entities who were in any position to do anything about it! The government absolutely had no choice but to act, and to act very fast. In that circumstance (which I can only assume is incredibly stressful and full of untold pressures) there could be mistakes made, but the mistake of doing nothing would've catastrophic.
Lastly, these so called fiscal conservatives are going to be in for a rude awakening. QE2 was unveiled today by the Fed, and if anything doesn't go far enough. The people in the US who feel that no bailout was needed, and that no debt relief or anything should take place now are about to learn a hard lesson in economics. Paul Krugman has been arguing for increased debt relief because without it those in debt will only pay down debt and not spend; those without debt feel that the recovery is tenuous and won't borrow/spend and of course business is not going to spend despite being flush with cash for the same reasons. All of that points to the need for increased debt relief and spending by the government. Failing that, it just prolongs the economic doldrum and means that this tea party way of thinking will be the root cause of that prolonged state.
KRUGMAN???!!!!
Honestly, his comments part of his blog were once the place to go for seriously great information on the economy. The guy who shut down his comments part (now restricted to 3 sentence postings) because he was getting he head handed to him by people that actually understand economics.
The Following User Says Thank You to HOZ For This Useful Post:
Honestly, his comments part of his blog were once the place to go for seriously great information on the economy. The guy who shut down his comments part (now restricted to 3 sentence postings) because he was getting he head handed to him by people that actually understand economics.
Yup.
A Nobel laureate was apparently getting his head handed to him by anonymous internet posters in the Comments section of a blog. And we know this because Hoz would know when an Economics Nobel laureate was getting his head handed to him in the field of Economics. I also like how you prefaced it with "Honestly." I hope you can at least spot irony*.
Honestly, his comments part of his blog were once the place to go for seriously great information on the economy. The guy who shut down his comments part (now restricted to 3 sentence postings) because he was getting he head handed to him by people that actually understand economics.
This post is a disaster.
1. I'm sure Krugman was OH SO intimidated and over matched by the great economic minds posting on his blog.
2. It's not even true. People can comment at great length on his blog and have. Today.
A Nobel laureate was apparently getting his head handed to him by anonymous internet posters in the Comments section of a blog. And we know this because Hoz would know when an Economics Nobel laureate was getting his head handed to him in the field of Economics. I also like how you prefaced it with "Honestly." I hope you can at least spot irony*.
*Hint: it's like rain on your wedding day.
People responding to him and his Keynesian economics Here and
Since you have PH.D beside your name I am sure you are smart enough to read these arguments and determine their level of intelligence versus Nobel-dude.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder
This post is a disaster.
1. I'm sure Krugman was OH SO intimidated and over matched by the great economic minds posting on his blog.
2. It's not even true. People can comment at great length on his blog and have. Today.
Sorry 3 inches. I haven't looked back since he did that. Here is his proclamation
of reducing the responses.
Maybe this is the reason and the funniest Who is this guy Sean from Florida? He takes everything that Professor and shreds it, piece by piece. He shouldn't be allowed to post his comments on this blog since he seems to be winning all the debates. We progressives need to stick together and embellish our talking points without someone from the outside pointing out fallacies in our ideology.
In my opinion some of these recent posts are a good example of what's wrong with the US political system (and ours as well although it's much more amplified in the US). Many in the electorate dig in to an idealogical camp (conservative v. liberal, repub v. dem, etc.) and change the facts or at least the interpretations of the facts to suit their position based on their political leanings. They choose a political spectrum and cheer for them like many of us would do with our favorite hockey team, including homerism, blind faith and over-reactions to otherwise normal stuff. The reasonable folks in the middle of these ideological pissing matches get fed up with the rhetoric and 'principled stands' from both those in politics and their cheerleaders on television and the internet. I think many people find it difficult to seperate the facts from the propoganda and lose interest and ultimately faith in the system.
We're never going to be able to change the nature of politics (Plato wrote about it several thousand years ago and it still is applicable) however, we can change the way that we represent our political discourse.
In my opinion it doesn't really matter that the Republicans captured the House and the Democrats held onto the Senate. Nothing significant will change in Washington just as nothing significant has changed in Washington since the two-party political system was put into effect. Yes, there will be some tweeking here or there but in my opinion it's akin to adjusting the deck chairs on the Titanic (I'm not making the analogy that the US is sinking but rather that it's a futile exercise). The US political system has evolved to serve those already in power. And by those in power I'm not referring to politicians but rather the multi-national corporations that lobby and contribute funds to both parties in power. I'm also referring to the Military Industrical Complex which was mentioned earlier in this thread, I believe.
What's the answer? I have no idea. But at a minimum I think we should be cognizant of not buying in to the propoganda of either party since really they serve the same master.
__________________
The of and to a in is I that it for you was with on as have but be they
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Red Slinger For This Useful Post:
Since you have PH.D beside your name I am sure you are smart enough to read these arguments and determine their level of intelligence versus Nobel-dude.
This is why the internet is great.
I do have a Ph.D., but it's certainly not in economics or an even remotely related discipline. I'm very competent at math and can check the equations, but the principles upon which they're based are beyond me. My leisure-time reading of economics is cursory and historical rather than theoretical (think Niall Ferguson and Talib rather than Krugman's or Friedman's textbooks).
So I couldn't tell you who is handing who what *ss in that Krugman versus Sean from Florida debate. To do that, I would need to have in-depth knowledge of the principles behind the economics that they're discussing. Now I know you think Sean is dominating because that is what fits with your ideology. However, I'm quite confident that you did not sit down and start drawing graphs and solving equations to assess both positions before coming down on the side of Sean.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Flames Fan, Ph.D. For This Useful Post:
In my opinion some of these recent posts are a good example of what's wrong with the US political system (and ours as well although it's much more amplified in the US). Many in the electorate dig in to an idealogical camp (conservative v. liberal, repub v. dem, etc.) and change the facts or at least the interpretations of the facts to suit their position based on their political leanings. They choose a political spectrum and cheer for them like many of us would do with our favorite hockey team, including homerism, blind faith and over-reactions to otherwise normal stuff. The reasonable folks in the middle of these ideological pissing matches get fed up with the rhetoric and 'principled stands' from both those in politics and their cheerleaders on television and the internet. I think many people find it difficult to seperate the facts from the propoganda and lose interest and ultimately faith in the system.
We're never going to be able to change the nature of politics (Plato wrote about it several thousand years ago and it still is applicable) however, we can change the way that we represent our political discourse.
In my opinion it doesn't really matter that the Republicans captured the House and the Democrats held onto the Senate. Nothing significant will change in Washington just as nothing significant has changed in Washington since the two-party political system was put into effect. Yes, there will be some tweeking here or there but in my opinion it's akin to adjusting the deck chairs on the Titanic (I'm not making the analogy that the US is sinking but rather that it's a futile exercise). The US political system has evolved to serve those already in power. And by those in power I'm not referring to politicians but rather the multi-national corporations that lobby and contribute funds to both parties in power. I'm also referring to the Military Industrical Complex which was mentioned earlier in this thread, I believe.
What's the answer? I have no idea. But at a minimum I think we should be cognizant of not buying in to the propoganda of either party since really they serve the same master.
Its true... it has almost become Tribal. Why a third party is so needed so desperately.
More on Krugman - seems a lot of other academics totally disagree with him too.
I didn't read the debate between some unknown guy on the internet and a nobel laureate either...but can you just tell me why Krugman is wrong? It must be such a simple concept!
I read all of these, and some of them prove nothing though. Some of these are a couple of years old and others are basically just "I don't like Paul Krugman and he was wrong in this specific case..." kind of articles.
Funnily enough though, none of them seem to espouse that tax cuts are going to save the US from the situation its in currently? One of them (perhaps Ferguson?) goes through and points to Canada as one of the countries that got it right in the financial crisis while deriding Keynes. Hilarious! Canadas response was Keynesian, like it or not.
I'm not a pure Krugman guy and kind of tire easily of his doom and gloom. When I do the reading though he seems to present the situations that make the most sense and the practical solutions as a result whereas a lot of the others are pure complainers.
I do have a Ph.D., but it's certainly not in economics or an even remotely related discipline. I'm very competent at math and can check the equations, but the principles upon which they're based are beyond me. My leisure-time reading of economics is cursory and historical rather than theoretical (think Niall Ferguson and Talib rather than Krugman's or Friedman's textbooks).
So I couldn't tell you who is handing who what *ss in that Krugman versus Sean from Florida debate. To do that, I would need to have in-depth knowledge of the principles behind the economics that they're discussing. Now I know you think Sean is dominating because that is what fits with your ideology. However, I'm quite confident that you did not sit down and start drawing graphs and solving equations to assess both positions before coming down on the side of Sean.
I agree with Sean because of my ideology? I sense a 'vapid' strawman argument here.....Remember, you are the one who came and defended Krugman while taking a big swipe at me (a second time).
I have no idea what Sean's ideology is. What I do know and read is that Sean had Krugman making replies to HIS posts. Then Sean destroying his replies. So obviously Sean's arguments were worthy of the big Nobel-Laureate's attention
All through the Fall and Early Summer Krugman's Blog comments were full of well informed people debating him and Keynesian economic stance. I was tipped to reading it from a friend. Now, like you, I am no expert in Economics. Though I did learn quite a bit by reading that blog. I had no idea who was right or wrong, but when he pulled the plug on his Spam, Spam, Spam post, it was one of the most pathetic things I have seen in a long time. It told me all I needed to know about Krugman. He couldn't handle a debate and pulled the plug because the people debating with him were obviously winning.
I find economics, in general, quite frustrating specifically because many seem to treat it like it is some sort of universal law to be discovered, such as gravity. Whereas I've always compared economics to something like language. The rules of language are fluid and dynamic and are a human invention born out of the way that the language centers in our brains operate. Similarly, I see economics as a fluid and dynamic human invention born out of the societies that we created.
As such I find arguments about who is right and who is wrong about a specific economic theory to be similar to an argument about whether it's appropriate to place the letter 'i' before the letter 'e' in a sentence.
Of course, I could be totally out to lunch but I see no evidence of a universal economic principle(s) that should be considered a 'magic bullet'. So, if I'm not barking up the wrong tree, these people and the political hemispheres that they inhabit are trying to prove whose theory is correct when the very notion of there being a right or a wrong theory of economics is flawed to begin with.
__________________
The of and to a in is I that it for you was with on as have but be they
The Following User Says Thank You to Red Slinger For This Useful Post:
I find economics, in general, quite frustrating specifically because many seem to treat it like it is some sort of universal law to be discovered, such as gravity. Whereas I've always compared economics to something like language. The rules of language are fluid and dynamic and are a human invention born out of the way that the language centers in our brains operate. Similarly, I see economics as a fluid and dynamic human invention born out of the societies that we created.
As such I find arguments about who is right and who is wrong about a specific economic theory to be similar to an argument about whether it's appropriate to place the letter 'i' before the letter 'e' in a sentence.
Of course, I could be totally out to lunch but I see no evidence of a universal economic principle(s) that should be considered a 'magic bullet'. So, if I'm not barking up the wrong tree, these people and the political hemispheres that they inhabit are trying to prove whose theory is correct when the very notion of there being a right or a wrong theory of economics is flawed to begin with.
I agree, as the new ideology of mass society, it is actually pretty pathetic at finding answers.
It's all about priorities. I hardly ever have more than a mild interest in what a candidate's opinion is on things like abortions, don't-ask-don't-tell, gun rights, gay marriage etc. They might have their place and time, but to me they are so far down the line of priorities in the grand scheme of things, that it just won't affect my decision whatsoever.
The things I care about are big picture items.....the economy, the environment, foreign relations, wars, health care, education. The rest just seem to be puffed up distractions to get minds off of the things that really make a difference in the majority of people's lives.
My thoughts exactly.
__________________ I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
I agree with Sean because of my ideology? I sense a 'vapid' strawman argument here.....Remember, you are the one who came and defended Krugman while taking a big swipe at me (a second time).
Oh?
Looky what I wrote: "So I couldn't tell you who is handing who what *ss in that Krugman versus Sean from Florida debate."
I think you need to go back and re-read that sentence. It explicitly notes no side in the Krugman - Sean from Florida debate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HOZ
I have no idea what Sean's ideology is. What I do know and read is that Sean had Krugman making replies to HIS posts. Then Sean destroying his replies.
Let's rewind the tape on that one to show you a replay of exactly what I'm talking about:
Known Variable: Hoz states "Now, like you, I am no expert in Economics."
The Problem: Who won the Krugman vs Sean from Florida economic debate?
Hoz shows his work:
Step 1: Hoz does not know Sean.
Step 2: Hoz knows that Sean replies to Krugman, and that Krugman replies to Sean.
Step 3: (There is a big chasm you so deftly jumped after Step 2) Hoz states "... Sean destroying his (Krugman's) replies"
Answer by Hoz: Krugman's arguments destroyed! No pulse. No eye reflex. Flatlined.
So, you are no expert in Economics (no shame in that whatsoever), yet you are the one who is explicitly making the judgment that Krugman's economic arguments were destroyed. Me thinks you need to show your work in between Steps 2 and 3 if you're going to get any credit for that answer. Do tell us how you were able to make that judgment, based on your knowledge and interpretation of economic principles. How did you go from Step 2 to Step 3? Perhaps you can show your work? Scribble some graphs and equations onto a sheet of paper, take a pic and then upload to the site? Or is the transition from Step 2 to Step 3 the exact moment when your ideology kicked in?
See, you may not think much of me, but I'm smart enough to notice when someone makes conclusions without showing their work. It may work in the society of the underpants gnomes, but I think on CP your tactic in this regard is transparent.
(Krugman vs Sean Debate) + Hoz + x = Sean FTW!
I think we've solved for X.
The Following User Says Thank You to Flames Fan, Ph.D. For This Useful Post:
goes through and points to Canada as one of the countries that got it right in the financial crisis while deriding Keynes. Hilarious! Canadas response was Keynesian, like it or not.
Did our stimulus spending help any?
Fact is our banking structure was a lot more 'properly' regulated and stable, and we didn't need to spend billions upon billions bailing out AIG like the US had too.
There is no doubt that the government spending money on infrastructure, tax cuts, job creation, etc, etc will help the economy, but was it really necessary? Tough to say either way.
Point still is that Canada pulled through the recession so well because of work done by Martin and his people in the 90s. The US not so much.
So was the stimulus needed? Is more stimulus needed? Tough to say.
Personally I think the US has ignored their 'problem' so long that in order to fix certain things they will have to go without for a while.
