Krugman vs CNBC: Round 1

Tyler Durden's picture

This one is tough: Krugman or CNBC... Krugman or CNBC... Hmmm. From the man who in 1998 thought that "by 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's" (via NYT of course)

Wow. I just did Squawk Box — allegedly about my book, but we never got there. Instead it was one zombie idea after another — Europe is collapsing because of big government, health care is terribly rationed in France, we can save lots of money by denying Medicare to billionaires, on and on.

 

Among other things, people getting their news from sources like that are probably getting terrible advice about any kind of investment that depends on macroeconomics. But it’s amazing just how skewed the policy views are too.

 

All that and having to get to Englewood Cliffs, too.

And MCC's response:

This is what brought it on:

Oh well, hopefully at least the ratings (or book sales) of one of the above entities rise as a result. We are looking forward to Krugman's next faxed in self-book report submission.

Finally, for those curious how a person who has nothing to do with "news sources like this" wipes the floor with Krugman, is encouraged to watch this.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
veyron's picture

"All that and having to get to Englewood Cliffs, too."

 

Krugman wins by default -- no one likes Jersey. 

nope-1004's picture

Krugman didn't have a chance to embarrass himself.  Joe wouldn't STFU.

 

SilverTree's picture

I took a big healthy Kurgman this morning.

Pladizow's picture

Which is more antiquated?

Pinto Currency's picture

 

Krugman: "When government spends above 50% of GDP, I start to wonder."

This guy is an old-time huckster.

ZeroPower's picture

That Andrew character looks like hes about 17 and a half.

Popo's picture

 As the financial world stumbles from a near-fatal wound of too much credit, this homeopathist of the economics world, is prescribing additional credit.

Krugman is a fringe theorist -- to put it mildly.  

A L I E N's picture

Silvertree, I usually offload a healthy Krugman shortly after lunch

FEDbuster's picture

Krugman was still punch drunk from his trip to Spain.   His ego hasen't had time to recover from his Spanish beat down.  Although the "government should maybe spend 50% of GDP" was some good rope a dope,  Joe was able to keep him on the ropes with some weak punches.  Krugman should hang up his gloves and go to work at the BLS.

critical tinkerer's picture

Can't you guys do better then ad hominem attacks? So scared?

Western's picture

I can barely listen to it. Krugman, obviously an intelligent, though cult-follower and deranged lunatic, is trying to calmly explain something.. and the squawk box loves the sounds of their collective shill voices so they speak over him, THE MAN THAT REPRESENTS WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO COLLECTIVELY ACHIEVE!

 

Im gonna throw up.

Jay Gould Esq.'s picture

Michelle could have been a bit more succinct and simply tweeted, "Krugman on Squawk. Pantywaist."

EscapeKey's picture

"It's not about the debt levels" uh right. That would be the case for - what - one or two nations through history. And one of the nations - Britain - had to go to the IMF in 1976, devalued in 1967, and inflated her way through WW2 debts.

The guy cherry picks his way through history like a BLS employee through inflation stats.

Ted K's picture

@ "escapekey"

Aaawwww, what's the matter dear??? Your Gold quotes didn't react on the ticker like they should have today???  Listen, not everyone who is invited on CNBC makes gold prices squirt up like your BF when you got a headache and let him borrow your palm for 3 minutes. That stuff he emits is not good for your hair and gold spurting up on CNBC interviews is not indicative of healthy markets.

lemonobrien's picture

this is when i prepare to leave. (REAL SIGNAL POINT) government > 50% of everything...means they own your ass if you stays longer. and you can wear orange with the word "State Property" on the back.

Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

That was like watching monkeys throw poop at each other.

Dr. Richard Head's picture

Krugman's last rebuttal regarding post WWII growth, which by the way was a direct result of drastic tax cuts and a drastic cut in government spending as a percentage of GDP, completely contradicts the notion that the govt can double their percentage of spending as GDP to 50% before he gets worried. 

If one can sift through the baffling by bullshit and hit their key points, one can see that the Nobel economists are double talking fag hag horset shit shoveling propagandists and nothing more.

roadlust's picture

If "post ww2 growth" came out of government spending during and after the war, it's pretty obvious that government spending wasn't a hindrance to growth or our standard of living.  Both have gone down with tax rates.

Dr. Richard Head's picture

You are so right. There wasnt rationing going on in order to support that government spending.  Limited use of goods by the population to support the bloated government expenditures.  What was I thinking.  No hindererance to the population at all.

crawldaddy's picture

once again you prove you simply have no idea what you are talking about.

 

A fucking monkey hitting random keys on the keyboard would provide better insight into macro economics then you do.

Dr. Richard Head's picture

Could you provide some insight on what specfically in what I said that proves I have no idea what I am talking about? 

Now excuse my while I eat this banana and toss my poo.

 

gsae[oia=]vaaeae9b=93495964rbsd   AE[ROPSE4'EZS'/FR//S ]5YHOATB A'W

WSZF

lizzy36's picture

Post WW2 growth had a number of factors.

Including the fact that the government spending as a percentage of GDP was very large during the war years, but that things like WAR BONDS, and higher taxes (average citizens sacrificed) helped PAY for that spending. The problem in the US, and the only place where i agree with Krugman, is that nobody except for the soliders that did the fightening paid any price for the wars in Afghanstain and Iraq. 

A couple of other points that Krugman glosses over; 1) growth in USA post WW2 was great bc the means of production in Japan and Germany were destroyed. 2) the US was able to turn the plants making materials for war into plants making things like fridges and stoves, quite easily. 

The biggest problem is that Krugman cherry picks his key points to support his grand theories while dismissing all other points, as "irrelevant" or "wrong".

The other thing the idiots at cnbc were too ignorant to point out is Krugman claims he is "free market welfare guy" - but if there is NO free market than all that exists is welfare. Thus what Krugman really is, is a "welfare guy" pretending to be something more palatable.

Bay of Pigs's picture

So, in other words, Krugman is a complete douchebag?

I think I read that somewhere around here before.

dhengineer's picture

Also, don't forget that virtually everything was rationed during the war years, so people actually saved what little money they had (usually in a coffee can on the top shelf in the kitchen) rather than spending it.  So, once the war was over, that pile of cash money came out of hiding and bought up the new-fandangled contraptions that were being turned out by Whirlpool, General Electric, Westinghouse, et al.  That, in part, was where the wealth of the United States came from:  using cash to buy capital goods that increased the standard of living.  There were no credit cards until 1960 or so, and mortgages were usually private lending affairs between family members or good friends. 

My grandparents bought a house (granted a cheap minimal house) in 1936 using the butter-and-egg money my grandmother squirreled away during the first half of the depression.   My grandfather was quite suprised, by the way.

Savings:  what an antiquated concept!

Dr. Richard Head's picture

But, but, but Japan.  See?  Debt in order to push on the string of aggregate demand is what is needed though.  Saving are for pussies according to Pauly K.

lizzy36's picture

Paying as you go and shared sacrifice, in addition to saving. 

I will never understand why after 9/11, when just about every American would have sacrificed, the US didn't ask more from her citizens. Of course had people spent money on War Bonds, they wouldn't have been able to blow up the housing bubble so fast.

MachoMan's picture

I think americans have given up an incredible amount of things on and since 9/11...

NooooB's picture

Talk about cherry picking history! Three unfunded wars IS THE DEFICIT ASSHOLES!

The only thing the average Merikan has given up since 9/11 is a job and a house. Oh, and civil liberty.

The tv networks should be forced to post a casualty count at the bottom of the screen like during Vietnam.

And re-institute the draft. That would end this bullshit quickly. Although it would crash out economy once and for all as the military industrial complex is the only booming sector left...

tmosley's picture

That is probably what the Macho Man was talking about.

Michael's picture

Good comments ZH'ers.

The agenda of Krugman as I see it is to preserve the fascist state and everything achieved by the fascist controllers so far.

In a properly working capitalist libertarian/Austrian system, massive numbers of lower and middle class people become independently wealthy and threaten to take away massive numbers of fascist won positions of power, and use those newly gained positions for promoting more avenues for more people to become independently wealthy. This is the real threat to the oligarchs as I see it. 

alangreedspank's picture

You'll need to calculate how much of the post-war GDP the government took in as revenue to be able to say that higher taxes had any effect. This number is usually gyrating between 15-20%, regardless of all the grand tax schemes our overlords come up with.

novanglus's picture

It's even simpler than that!  The productive capacity for most of the rest of the world outside the USA was destroyed during WWII.  The US was effectively the single supplier of goods for rebuilding the world and used the fruits of that good fortune to renovate America and build a welfare state.  As the rest of the world has reestablished and matured their industrial base to provide competition, the pendulum has swung back away from US dominance.

JamesBond's picture

exactly -

cut out all the micro-and macro economic bullshit.  we destroyed the production base of numerous countries during WWII and we reaped the financial and geo-political benefits; until now.  crony capitalism and facism have spread like a wildfire in the US.

 

jb

alangreedspank's picture

The US had European and British competitors before Europe was turned into a smoking cratter and was still getting richer since the Industrial Revolution though.

Then again, destroying Europe destroyed alot of suppliers for the US as well.

adeptish's picture

Kurgman ? ...catchy, very catchy.

+1 SilverTree

5880's picture

I would have asked him, "why is Europes economic history the model? not the US?"

Cause he loves Socialism. I answered my own question

azzhatter's picture

A table full of complete and utter morons

Shizzmoney's picture

I think if a huge rock fell onthe both of them at that point, I'd be one of the happiest people in the whole wide world.

myshadow's picture

kernan is a total douche, he is nothing more than an uninformed wingnut, cnbc's version of sean hannity.

michelle csquared is an idiot and sorkin is a pussy......

Unprepared's picture

When all you have is bath salt, all ideas look like zombies.

financial apocalyptic contagion's picture

First the "Pre-FOMC announcement drift" now Krazy Krugman
It's a bath salth epidemic today 

NooooB's picture

That is my new motto.

Thank you. You have made my day...

Tippoo Sultan's picture

And this is CNBC -- the crown jewel of the "objective" financial media appendage of the Obama 2012 re-election apparatus.

Alas, Krug cannot whine about "interview bias" at that evil "Faux" News Channel for this one. The Intelligentsia can stomach neither scrutiny nor refutation of any kind, can they ?

sickofthepunx's picture

i think if fox business ever asked him to come on and debate that moron cavuto, he would show them my avatar.

sickofthepunx's picture

"i can't believe my publisher made me go on there and debate those tea-bagging lightweights"

 

-PK

YouAreBliss's picture

I love Jersey Shore!  Fist pumps, muscle shirts and hair weaves!  Pure Class.  Can't beat it.

Republi-Ken's picture

How about Arthur Laffer of the infamous LAFFER CURVE?

which

all true free market conservatives believe (aka tooth fairy) predicts tax cuts are free...

Then national debt TRIPLED under Reaganomics Supply Side BS 1980-1992

and, oops, even David Stockman, The Father Of Reaganomics, was honest enough

to acknowledge the real facts and to admit last year:

"REPUBLICANS BANKRUPTED AMERICA"

Thank you David...A direct quotation.

And The Laffer Curve is a joke on all of us.

Except for Larry Kudlow who still believes, believes, believes...

YouAreBliss's picture

Spot on!

Krugman represents the classical Keynesian economic view  -  which is not outdated.

Here's what happened:  Starting with Reagan the GOP decided to embark on a new economic model called Supply Side Economics (remember the "Laughter", I mean Lafler curve).   Cut taxes and balloon the deficit in good times!  Hey, way to get reelected!  GW Bush went against that and look what happened!  In comes Dubya, and wow tax cuts for everyone.  Squandering a huge surplus, that could have paid down the Federal Debt.  In fact, turned it into a big deficit, during an economic boom!  Result - reelection!  And a huge deficit during good times - except - a few problems.  Like a huge housing bubble - which goes BUST!  Now what, we shot our wad already and have no room to bring back demand.  Face a huge depression -  or  blow the deficit out even larger!  Here we are today.

The problem is not Krugman or Keynes - it's corrupt politicians and gullible electorates that elect them.  You can have your cake and eat it too!

Yum Yum - how's it taste.

Now we're talking about electing a Vulture Capitalist to "restructure" America.  Oh that'll be fun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Listen to Reagan's Budget Adviser David Stockman:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJVDTA0uHsA

Oldwood's picture

So did tax revenues fall under Reagan or was it that government expenditures went through the roof? The US survived for the first 130 years or so without any income tax. Almost all revenues came from sale of public lands or protectionist tariffs. You might well believe that you can tax all you want without negative consequence but you are wrong. A significant part of our current economic misery is due to the fear that many businesses and consumers alike have of taxation and regulation.