StrangeSox

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 08:01 AM) Sorry, I wasn't aware you needed to have a widely used economics text to be widely respected. Oh, that's right, you don't. I guess it was never clear, but I internally assumed we were referring to "within his field of expertise," which is macroeconomics, not with the public at large. That's why the comparison was so absurd to me.

I don't shop at Walmart and buy American-made and locally grown whenever possible.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 07:32 AM) The sad thing he probably reaches more people than Krugman. It's pretty sad/a terrible distortion of democracy that Congressional Republicans need to run their bills by him first.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 1, 2011 -> 08:23 PM) By that rational, so is Limbaugh. Limbaugh has a widely used economics text?

We must not rest until our wages and our standard of living are competitive with China!

But those people really could be terrible for the job re: Palin

that's a pretty epic burn by Teahan, and his playing dumb makes it even better. "What? You assumed I meant you, Oney? Sorry if you took it that way! (you worthless piece of s***)"

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Aug 1, 2011 -> 04:50 PM) Stop the presses, a liberal college professor has his textbooks used by other liberal college professors. That'd still make him widely-respected.

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Jul 31, 2011 -> 10:23 AM) I went out with my family and about 40 other people last night on a late night bioluminescent kayak trip in northern Indian River Lagoon estuary system and it was spectacular. We had a great bloom of bioluminescent dinoflagellates that glowed bright green with every oar or hand that agitated the water, and we also had a spectacularly clear night sky filled with summer constellations and even a couple of really good shooting stars. It may be worth the hour drive to get back up that way for the Perseid shower in a couple of weeks if the sky is clear that night. We went to Mosquito Bay on Vieques, PR during our honeymoon. It's supposedly the brightest bio-bay in the world. Probably the most surreal thing I've ever seen.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 1, 2011 -> 09:36 AM) promoting You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Anyway, since you can't admit you were wrong (here's Krugman in 2002 saying that a housing bubble would be bad!), what's your prescription for fiscal policy right now? edit: lol at an article that explicitly explains how Krugman wasn't actually promoting a bubble backing up your argument that he was.

I've already posted a link to Arnold King, who's an adjunct scholar of the CATO institute and thus not an "ultraleft" liberal, defending Krugman on this issue. The Krugman quote can help to support that paragraph. I can pick other quotes, obviously, but the one about needing a housing bubble is particularly poignant.

Noting something does not mean promoting or advocating it. The fact that he uses a pejorative to describe it and implies that it'll simply lead to another bust should make that pretty clear, but I guess its those blinders you've got on. Also, he was right. We had a housing bubble that brought us out of this recession only to explode into the current one.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 1, 2011 -> 09:08 AM) I'm not asking you to concede to my position. But you're defending Krugman despite his own words damning him. Yes, he f***ing DID promote it, whether it was to work with some other persons fiscal politics or not. It was a bad policy from the get go. He agreed with the person that originally promoted the idea as the fix. While I understand it was to coincide with Greenspan's policies, backing a bad policy to work with more bad policy is...well, bad policy. This is where you need to take the blinders off. You say he didn't promote this, despite the fact that he did, and that's being blind. So, I repeat...take the blinders off and then we can have a real conversation. And stop making excuses and adding caviots to why he said what he said. He promoted bad fiscal policy for a quick fix, which is what he always does, which is my point about him to begin with. He said it...and I'm not taking it out of context. He advocated the creation of a bubble to fix what was ailing the economy at the time...whether you like it or not. Are you familiar with the concept of a "quotemine"?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 1, 2011 -> 09:03 AM) Take your blinders off, then we can have a real conversation. "Concede to my position, then we can all talk about how we agree"

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 1, 2011 -> 09:02 AM) And the answer isn't more short term fixes, which is what Krugman is promoting...again. It's pretty clear by now that we need to get some long term solutions in place, something we've been putting off for far to long...I think this is something most of us can agree with. The first step in any long-term fix is to get people employed again. Large austerity measures certainly aren't going to help in the near or long term.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 1, 2011 -> 08:58 AM) I read the article. He may not be calling it a "good thing" but he's directly calling for it as the fix to the problem. Again, he's promoting poor policy for a short term fix. Whether he thinks it's a good idea or not, he's promoting it as the fix. That's my point, that's what he does. He wasn't advocating for the creation of a bubble. Noting that it's the only way for Greenspan's policies to work isn't the same as directly calling for it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 1, 2011 -> 08:57 AM) It still impresses me how you get 60% of the stimulus turned into tax cuts that people like Krugman say won't work and then bash the concept of "Stimulus spending" in the same breath. Right, from January 2009 he was saying that it'd only help slightly and not lead to a real recovery. We know now that the recession was worse than anyone thought at the time. We know now that the economy keeps stalling as what stimulus we did get is phased out.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 1, 2011 -> 08:25 AM) Yes, he's a economist...but he's not well-respected by anyone other than the ultra left, because his ideology has infected any real skill he might have, because he looks at everything from a one sided perspective...making him an idiot. Well, he's a Nobel laureate and his textbook is widely used, so I dunno how accurate your statement here is.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 1, 2011 -> 08:25 AM) A degreed and well-respected idiot, you mean. This is the same guy that wanted Alan Greenspan to replace the Nasdaq bubble with a housing bubble in his staunch agreement with Paul McCully of Pimco fame. How'd that work out for this well-respected degreed economist? The very thing he said would fix our economy in 2002 is the very thing that led to most of what we have now. Or, in his own words: "To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble." Pure awesome. It's a good thing the Internets keeps things around forever... http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/...bble&st=cse Krugmen subsequently spent the next decade playing revisionist history games, dogging the creation of the housing bubble he said would fix everything. I think you need to re-read that article. He's not saying that a housing bubble would be a good thing. The very fact that he calls it a bubble should make that clear.

Also not sure how accurate it is to say Limbaugh and Krugman are equivalent when it comes to economics, considering one's, you know, a degreed and well-respected economist and the other is a radio show host.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 1, 2011 -> 08:04 AM) Not reading or listening to Krugman is the only wise idea...he's making you dumber when it comes to economics. He's as far left as you can get...it's akin to listening to Rush Limbaugh on economic concerns on the flip side. They infect everything they do with their out of whack ideologies, and it shows. Krugman is as much of an idiot as Limbaugh is. maybe in the MSM...

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 31, 2011 -> 08:42 PM) Less regulations = more demand, then more supply to meet said demand. But then again, the government is perfect, and knows how to spend money better then any other entity in the history of the world. Whatever. Yeah, if we only stripped away "regulations," we'd be right back on track! Acid Rain Demand will magically fall out of the sky then!

That's what we need right now, more supply!

RealClimate's got some more thorough commentary now

Will Wilkinson on the American outrage over Norway's justice system