One of the first, and arguably most stupid responses following Saturday's tragic shooting news, came from none other than self-appointed economic seer Paul Krugman (whose "government must spend more" ubiquitous retort to everything would have long-since bankrupted the world ten times over and left it with quadrillions of unrepayable debt), who in a post so disjointed and rambling, very unprofessionally decided against waiting for the dust to clear and facts to emerge, and instead proceeded to blame the republicans and the tea party for the tragic events that transpired: "We don’t have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was." Today he proceeds to infuriate his few remaining readers with a blog post which one can say is even more intellectually challenged than its predecessor.
"You know that Republicans will yell about the evils of partisanship whenever anyone tries to make a connection between the rhetoric of Beck, Limbaugh, etc. and the violence I fear we’re going to see in the months and years ahead. But violent acts are what happen when you create a climate of hate. And it’s long past time for the GOP’s leaders to take a stand against the hate-mongers." Paul Krugman
It seems anywhere one looks there days, one reads a refutation of Paul Krugman's tortured "economist" logic. Lately, the NYTer has fallen into the crosshairs of many due to his contention that currently taxes, based on some chart which the Nobelist probably mislabeled again, are at 20th century lows. Of course, cherrypicking data that fits the theory is precisely what economists do. Which is why Krugman may be excused for missing out on a trend so subversive that we have seen it only mentioned by tax attorneys at Weil Gotshal: namely the gradual transition in the definition of taxable income from a "net" to a "gross" tax basis. As Weil's Kimberly Blanchard explains: "Many observers — most prominently Paul Krugman — write in terms of tax rates being at an all-time low and compare today’s rates favorably with those that existed early in the 20th century. Their implication is that tax burdens are lower today and, therefore, there must be room for tax hikes. But we know that taxes are not lower today. How could they possibly be when government revenues are so much larger, even as adjusted for inflation? The increasing size of the national deficit cannot explain the gap, which was already in evidence during the Clinton years. The average individual taxpayer is frustrated and confused because she hears that tax rates are down but somehow she believes (correctly) that her taxes keep going up. What has occurred is that the base has expanded dramatically, leading to taxes far higher than those paid by individuals historically." Expect to hear much more of this in the next two years.
Summers Goes M.A.D., As Krugman Contradicts Bernanke And Says Both Low And High Rates Are Good For EconomySubmitted by Tyler Durden on 12/08/2010 16:17 -0400
The person who according to many, if not all, has been the most destructive presence in Obama's economic advisory team, and is luckily getting out of the White House soon, has decided to remind the world yet again of his worthless and capital destructive presence, throwing out yet another Mutually Assured Destruction bomb. As Reuters reports, citing the man who almost destroyed Harvard's endowment, and subsequently, America, "Failure by Congress to pass a tax deal in the next couple weeks would "materially increase" the risk of the economy stalling and a double dip recession." And just to make sure that people don't forget him as the person who was 100% confident that a stimulus is the response to everything, he also added that Obama would like to see the Build America Bonds program extended.
In attending a Paul Krugman lecture yesterday, we came away with two main takeaways: 1) the Perceived Wisdoms of academic dogma run rampant throughout U.S. monetary policy; and 2) Keynesians really don’t get it. - Hedgeye Risk Management
Ron Paul Comments On QE2, Says Fed Will Self Destruct, Shocked That Krugman Has "Any Credibility Whatsoever"Submitted by Tyler Durden on 11/08/2010 11:09 -0400
There were few surprises in today's commentary by Ron Paul on QE2: the only man in Congress (with Grayson now gone) who is sufficiently intelligent to realize that the primary culprit behind the US economy's boom-bust cycle is the Federal Reserve, continues to press for the termination of Ben Bernanke's public "service" which has resulted in a collapse in American purchasing power in the 100 years since the first Jekyll Island meeting. Yet Paul takes a 'John Lennon' approach to the problem, believing that active intervention may not even be needed, as the Fed ends up cannibalizing itself: "I think the Fed will self-destruct. People will desert the dollar. I think the Chinese are hinting that already. They are not wanting our dollars as much as raw materials. This is a deeply flawed monetary system. Here we have a small group of people who can create $600 billion with the stroke of a pen... I don't know where people are coming from to think that this can work. What really astounds me me is how tolerant the people are, the people in Congress and the financial market, where did this authority come from? Now somebody outside of the government can spend trillions of dollars and not think anything about it. It doesn't work, it's a failure. And next year it will be more. Bernanke is very clear on what he is going to do - he is going to create money until he gets economic growth and there is no evidence to show that just creating money causes economic growth." All logical and expected. Which is why nobody will endorse the Paul stance, it as it means an end to the trillion dollar wealth transfer system from the middle class to the kleptocracy.
Krugman Dementia Alert: Former Enron Consultant Says Jim Rogers "Has Been Absolutely Wrong About Everything"Submitted by Tyler Durden on 11/06/2010 15:50 -0400
While we approach the topic of Paul Krugman with the same eagerness one approaches a clogged up, never cleaned, bathroom at a frat party that is about 50 years past its due date, (pretty much like Keynesianism) this one just put us over the top. In his latest pointless drivel on the economy, instead of reverting to his usual mode of praying to John Keynes, bitching at those who dare call for accountability and the punishment of all those, such as Krugman, responsible for what is now a $4 trillion taxpayer monetary bailout tab, and begging for trillions, then quadrillions, then quintillions, then an infinite amount of money, the Op-Ed writer has instead decided to start a mudslinging campaign against none other than Jim Rogers, the co-founder of George Soros' Quantum Fund, who has been pretty much spot on with his calls for decades.
What can we say: Rick is one of the lucky ones. Of course, once we move beyond the sarcasm, here is what Rick Santelli says on the Krug's solution (and cause) to all of life's problems (that would be spend, spend, spend and then spend some more to the uninitiated): "How dare we take away their spending privileges, those chosen few with letters after their name who say the only problem with the medicine is that we didn't give a big enough dose." Luckily, Krugman already has set up the "Worst Economist In The World" column placeholder. We are just waiting for him to actually start discussing the most worthy candidate in the category....
Paul Krugman doesn't know anything about Austrian economic theory but he feels competent to criticize it. He has refused to debate the topic in the past. Now a top notch Austrian theory economist is challenging him to a debate. The lure: $100,000. Will he do it?
Krugman weighs in on the side of the rule of law in the mortgage crisis
How Keynesian Archduke Krugman Recommended A Housing Bubble As A Solution To All Of America's Post Tech Bubble ProblemsSubmitted by Tyler Durden on 09/08/2010 01:20 -0400
The year is 2002, America has just woken up with the worst post dot.com hangover ever. Paul Krugman then, just as now, writes worthless op-eds for the NYT. And then, just as now, the Keynsian acolyte recommended excess spending as the solution to all of America problems. Only this one time, at band camp, Krugman went too far. If there is one thing that everyone can agree on, is that the Housing Bubble, is arguably the worst thing to ever happen to America, bringing with it such pestilence and locusts as the credit bubble, the end of free market capitalism, and the inception of American-style crony capitalism. Those who ignored it, even though it was staring them in the face, such as Greenspan and Bernanke, now have their reputation teetering on the edge of oblivion. So what can we say of those who openly endorsed it as a solution to America's problems? Enter exhibit A: New York Times, August 2, 2002, "Dubya's Double Dip?" Name the author: "The basic point is that the recession of 2001 wasn't a typical postwar
slump, brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raises interest rates
and easily ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the
Fed brings rates back down again. This was a prewar-style recession, a
morning after brought on by irrational exuberance. 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." If you said Krugman, you win. Indeed, the idiocy of Keynesianism knew no bounds then, as it does now. The solution then, as now, to all problems was more bubbles, more spending, more deficits. So we have the implosion tech bubble: And what does Krugman want to create, to fix it? Why, create a housing bubble... Well, at least we know now how that advice played out.
There’s a saying in Spanish: Por la boca muere el pez. “The fish dies by the mouth”. Nobel economics laureate Paul Krugman has a recent op-ed piece in the New York Times which goes an awful long way to showing that he is a complete and utter imbecile—or the worst sort of cheap huckster imaginable.
An Open Challenge to Paul Krugman: Were America’s Founding Fathers Wrong for Advocating Death for QE Measures?Submitted by smartknowledgeu on 08/11/2010 02:07 -0400
If monetary debasement can truly create economic recovery, why did our Founding Fathers establish, in the US Coinage Act of 1792, that any persons discovered to be deliberately debasing US money "shall be guilty of felony and shall be punished by death"?
In his op-ed dated June 30, Paul Krugman declares Iceland as a "post-crisis miracle". That is totally screaming for a rebuff considering even Greece vowed not to be the next Iceland.
OECD Secretary-General: Austerity Versus Stimulus - A "False Dilemma"... And The Krugman Bloomberg InterviewSubmitted by Tyler Durden on 07/07/2010 13:20 -0400
The Secretary-General of the OECD Angel Gurria shares some surprisingly candid observations on the suddenly overpopular debate over austerity versus perpetual stimulus, saying it does not have to be one or the other, a choice he calls a "false dilemma" but instead you need one and the other, to be able to achieve any form of economic recovery. "Today's numbers are absolutely unsustainable, not only are they going to spook the market, they are simply not financeable. Whether the market is spooked or not it is almost secondary, you just can not hold it up for too long because you won't be able to finance these deficits, and they are creating a confidence crisis also." We hope that part about the market being "held up" is merely a Freudian slip, because we know that nobody does that - after all the market finds its natural level of supply and demand, and any purported "holding up" would involve central bank intervention... and we all know that's pure conspiracy theory. As to the solution: "Spain and Greece and Portugal are countries which have to start an earlier process of adjustment. It's not going to happen overnight. There has to be a clear path of where they are going. When you are cutting budgets, you have to cut those things that would not affect growth like education, research and development, the things that will move the economies in the years to come." On how to convince Germans to stop saving and start spending: "No reason why one should do that, and there is no possibility of success. Germans are reacting to a situation that was unsustainable. Medium and long-term there is no way that the speed and accumulation of debt can be sustained." And yes, "short term growth" will inevitably be impacted. Gurria can only hope the markets would cut these countries some slack when growth comes in far below expected... Which it won't.