Saturday, September 3, 2011
The Paul Krugman/Might Mouse Theme Song
Here they are, folks, Mr. Krugman's 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 (my emphasis), as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, ALAN GREENSPAN NEEDS TO CREATE A HOUSING BUBBLE TO REPLACE THE NASDAQ BUBBLE."............I mean, I suppose that we could give the guy the benefit of the doubt and all; that the fellow was more analyzing than commentating. But a) the text doesn't seem to indicate this possibility (nowhere does he say that this is a bad idea) and b) it fits quite neatly into Mr. Krugman's procrastination/kick the can down the road/one big massive, expensive, intrusive government intervention after another system of economics. I mean, seriously, the guy does seem to think that he knows how the economy should run better than the rest of us - the economy itself included! .
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
I suggest you read his whole article instead of two sentences.
I read enough of the text to know that he WASN'T arguing against this rather ridiculous notion. Krugman's a nut!
But a Nobel nut!
They give 'em out to far-right economists, too, Jerry. They try and keep 'em all happy, seemingly.
Paul Krugman: So did I call for a bubble? ...[if you read my quote] in context, you'll see that I wasn't calling for a bubble — I was talking about the limits to the Fed's powers, saying that the only way Greenspan could achieve recovery would be if he were able to create a new bubble, which is NOT the same thing as saying that this was a good idea.
[I called] for low interest rates... You can disagree if you like, but that doesn't make me someone who deliberately sought a bubble".
Alan Greenspan is the nut. He's one of those who is primiarly responsible for creating the housing bubble.
I'll be waiting for your apology (or at least a correction/acknowledgment), Will.
I read enough of the text to know
how to fit it into my preconceived notions and make another rant about it, just like my hero, Bill O'Rielly does.
Will on this blog, as usual, knows more then anybody else, just like O'Rielly does, on his show.
Angry rebuttal filled with personal attacks in 3 ... 2 ... 1
You provide me Mr. Krugman's after the fact rationale/ass covering statement and I'm supposed to take it as gospel. Of course he's not going to admit to being so idiotically wrong......As for Mr. Greenspan, I don't particularly care much for him, either. He's the champion of the bailout (they called him Mr. Bailout for a damn good reason) and a reason that a lot of the banks acted so idiotically. They knew that Mr. Greenspan would come to their rescue.......37927, you just slimed me out of left field here. What, is Mr. Krugman one of your heroes, too. Sad.
You're looking for a before the fact ass covering statement? Obviously he didn't know idiots would misinterpret what he said and criticize him for something he didn't say.
"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 (my emphasis), as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, ALAN GREENSPAN NEEDS TO CREATE A HOUSING BUBBLE TO REPLACE THE NASDAQ BUBBLE."......Is it simply that you cannot read?
Actually Will your IGNORING the whole article to emphasize what you want it to say.
Just because Krugman quoted Paul McCulley's statement of what Greenspan at the FED needed to compensate for the Internet bubble Wall Street blew up in the 90's. His was a statement that if people were demanding to remain on the same course, a bubble larger then the previous was was needed. This is because the bubble needs to cover the losses from the previous bubble. Which BTW helps explain why at the present time they cannot recreate the same scenario to cover Wall Streets latest(2008) fiasco. The last bubble was too large to cover with out a larger circle of people to scam. The whole world got scammed in the subprime bubble wall street created, so where are you going to get a larger circle of people to scam.
I am NOT saying they should just what Krugman was noting, they needed to do it if they wanted the game to continue with out actually solving the real underlying problems.
You don't like him so prescribe (ideologically) the worst you can to him, just like O'Rielly does to those he doesn't like.
Try reading both pages again and see Krugman is saying what Greenspan needs to do for his reputation, and of course to keep the Bush administration on track to push the idiotic tax cuts through in 2002, NOT that Krugman agrees with Greenspan, nor does he say that is what HE would do.
Krugman knows economics, and knows if the large moneyed people are sitting on the sidelines with cash, like they are doing today, either the Fed needs to inflate a bubble to give consumers a way to get credit so they can spend, or the government needs to use Keysean Economics to prime the pump of economic demand. Given that the FED can't and politics won't allow a Keysean approach, we are stuck in a stagnent economy with no real job creation or way out for those who lost last time, most of the poor and middle class. Bernanke tried with QE1 and QE2 but couldn't get enough money to the right people (middle class) to recreate the booming economy that appearances said we had 2003-2007. The middle class ability to freely spend is what determine in reality the actual health of the economy.
Given the way Greenspan had already operated since the crash of 1987, Krugman like Paul McCulley could both predict what actions he would take. Greenspan wasn't for Keynesian economics so he would reject that option so Krugman knew the only option left was the one he stated Greenspan would use.
Cherry pick a quote to grind your ideological axe if you must, but the whole article doesn't support the attacks your'e making.
In the first paragraph, Mr. Krugman introduces the the concept of the "double dipper iconoclasts" and clearly states that he agrees with them. In the second paragraph, he outlines the the basic point of the double dippers and, again, he agrees with it. Then he shows how the Fed should accomplish this and, again, he supports it. Mr. Krugman said a stupid thing (just like economists from all stripes say stupid things) and he should just admit it and move on.
And just like you subscribe the worst motives to Bush, etc.. Get your own house in order before you go around heaving accusations, slick. And what about Jerry and wd? They DON'T have an ideological agenda. I have voted for Republicans AND Democrats and I try to extract the best from each side. Try and make an agenda out of that.
And Greenspan said that the Clinton budget of 1993, replete with its massive tax hikes, SHOULD be enacted. It seems like you're doing a little cherry-picking, too.
I think this is a case of a hyper partisan never being willing (or able) to admit when he's wrong.
When will picks up his ideological axe and goes after someone... he absolutely will not be dissuaded by the facts. For example...
When it was pointed out to him that Barney Frank actually warned of the trouble that could come from an unregulated F&F... Will authored multiple posts blaming BF, and continues to write them today whenever the subject comes up!
When it was pointed out to him that Nancy Pelosi was the victim of Peter Schweizer's lies... he parsed Peter's words to make it appear that he wasn't lying. And, again, multiple posts were produced.
Now Paul Krugman is in Will's crosshairs. NOTHING, and I mean nothing will convince him that PK wasn't calling for a housing bubble! I expect many future posts on the topic.
Wd said: "When it was pointed out to him that Nancy Pelosi was the victim of Peter Schweizer's lies"
Did you read the items? Will quoted what people said, and it proved PS to have been correct.
dmarks: Will quoted what people said, and it proved PS to have been correct.
No, he was proven to be a weasely liar.
I ask you YET AGAIN, wd. Show me ONE in-time piece of testimony in which Barney Frank (the dude was sleeping with a Fannie Mae official, for Christ!!!!) warns ANYBODY about the potential problems of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. ONE. I'll be waiting, O.K.?............And dmarks, as you probably already know, it wasn't the Republicans (not that they're completely innocent by any means) who deep-sixed Mr. Oxley's proposal for additional oversight of Fannie and Freddie. It was the Congressional Black Caucus. People like Maxine Waters and that Meeks idiot played the race card and defended that slimeball Franklin Raines for nearly a fortnight. Why can't we get this wd fellow to hold his fellow progressives responsible? It sounds to me like he's the major-league weaselly partisan.
Will: Mr. Oxley's proposal for additional oversight of Fannie and Freddie...
Barney Frank worked with Mr. Oxley on this legislation.
Will: Show me ONE in-time piece of testimony in which Barney Frank.
I have to give you the evidence in the format you demand otherwise it didn't happen?
I don't know if this evidence exists online or not... but I'm not going to bother looking for it. You wouldn't believe it anyway.
Post a Comment