Paul Krugman is a liberal partisan hack diguised as an intellectual.

mikemoto: Paul Krugman is a liberal partisan hack diguised as an intellectual.

I hear he's shrill, as well.

mikemoto: Paul Krugman is a liberal partisan hack diguised as an intellectual.



this graph is a liberal partisan hack disguised as a representation of economic data points.

The idea that the New Deal made the Depression worse is just complete insanity. No decent economic historian believes it.

But, somehow it's gained some traction as a shiat-for-brains right-wing talking point.

mikemoto: Paul Krugman is a liberal partisan hack diguised as an intellectual.

I like how you dissected his argument so specifically.

mikemoto: Paul Krugman is a liberal partisan hack diguised as an intellectual nobel prize-winning economist.

FTFY

I hope Krugman offers, and Obama accepts, advice on how to deal with what we're going through now economically.

kmmontandon: mikemoto: Paul Krugman is a liberal partisan hack diguised as an intellectual.

I hear he's shrill, as well.

And elitist. All of those professor types are.

He would have done a much better job refuting the arguments if he'd actually addressed them, instead of pompously burning a ceremonial strawman. He doesn't even mention the main point of these arguments- which has nothing to do with the 1938 slump- which is that the government policies where why the Great Depression was so unique and lasted so long. Instead of lasting at most 2-3 years like every recession/depression that preceded it, the Great Depression dragged on for a decade. A lot of people point out that the only thing different about the Great Depression was the much, much higher level of government intervention.

Forget whether or not you agree with that argument, though. My point is that Krugman is either ignorant of the arguments against the "FDR saved us from the Depression!" narrative (unlikely) or he deliberately distorted them beyond all recognition.

mikemoto: Paul Krugman is a liberal partisan hack diguised as an intellectual.

It's a pretty good disguise - he fooled the best economists in the world.

Or... you are an idiot.

Churchill2004:
My point is that Krugman is either ignorant of the arguments against the "FDR saved us from the Depression!" narrative (unlikely) or he deliberately distorted them beyond all recognition.

Perhaps he was just picking apart an obviously flawed argument, different from the one you mentioned?

kmmontandon: mikemoto: Paul Krugman is a liberal partisan hack diguised as an intellectual.

I hear he's shrill, as well.

I heard he is a twat-weared malcontent, a malevolent rapscallion, and a frothing huguenot.

Churchill2004: He would have done a much better job refuting the arguments if he'd actually addressed them, instead of pompously burning a ceremonial strawman.

his first graph completely refutes them, as it shows very clearly that the depression was not getting worse. that's all he needed to do.

he further refuted by pointing out they were mischaracterizing people as unemployed who were employed by the WPA.

I_Love_Verdi: Perhaps he was just picking apart an obviously flawed argument, different from the one you mentioned?

He presented it as the typical anti-New Deal argument, but it's not. He didn't even really attack any real argument, he just made a few unbacked accusations of statistics skewing to show that the economy actually did slowly improve over the course of the 1930s, as if anyone claimed there was negative growth throughout the whole depression.

burndtdan

Your chart points something out. In June of 1937 FDR cut spending on his new deal programs, PWA and WPA in particular, hoping that the gains in productivity and employment meant that things were getting better. Productivity dropped and unemployment once again climbed until FDR increased funding. His programs weren't helping the economy, they were artificially propping it up above what it would be.

What the government did then and is doing now can be explained like this:

Your cars engine (The economy) is running rough as if it's not getting enough fuel (Money). The manual says that when this happens it will run like crap for awhile, but the engine computer (The market) will eventually get things running smoothly again, but it could take awhile.

Well you don't want to wait for this so you get an atomizer bottle and start spritzing gasoline into the air intake of the engine. Well now the engine appears as if it's running fine......as long as you keep spritzing gas into the air intake.

However, you aren't perfect and sometimes you spritz too much gas and sometimes not enough. All the while the engine computer is getting confused with distorted information coming in from the many sensors (Market feedback). Vainly trying to make things work despite the outside influence that is skewing the smooth operation of the system.

In the end, you have done nothing but waste gas and distorted the readings that the engine computer is getting, making it take even longer for the engine to start running smoothly again.

burndtdan: his first graph completely refutes them, as it shows very clearly that the depression was not getting worse. that's all he needed to do.

he further refuted by pointing out they were mischaracterizing people as unemployed who were employed by the WPA.

What argument is he refuting? No one claims that things constantly got worse for 10 years straight.

Churchill2004: he just made a few unbacked accusations of statistics skewing to show that the economy actually did slowly improve over the course of the 1930s, as if anyone claimed there was negative growth throughout the whole depression.

you're calling his argument unbacked, and you support an argument that is based entirely on supposition that isn't particularly supported by even the most basic evidence?

the fact that growth was consistently negative until the new deal began, and almost immediately turned positive, does not exactly support the thought that the new deal didn't cause the reversal, or that it was going to happen on its own (and even faster!) but just somehow hadn't yet. but trust us, it was totally about to happen.

no offense, but that whole argument is a clear, unequivocal example of knowing what result you want before looking at the data, instead of the other way around. you want your economic view to be the superior one, so you insist that it is despite countervailing evidence.

I just learned recently that Krugman went to my high school.

/That's all I've got

The first recession to last more than a few years is the first one where, right off the bat, the gov't decided it could intervene and prevent it from getting worse. Coincidence?

What would you liberals do or say if in response to this recession big business got together to form cartels, and all agree not to lower prices? Would you freak out? Of course you would. Yet, that is EXACTLY what your hero FDR did in the National Recovery Act.

Crosshair: burndtdan

In the end, you have done nothing but waste gas and distorted the readings that the engine computer is getting, making it take even longer for the engine to start running smoothly again.

You're assuming there's an utopian economic equilibrium: no advancement, no new products or demands: a kind of ideal Stalinism which can be defined once and for all by market mechanisms -- and then held there.

I don't think that is so.

BiffDangler: What would you liberals do or say if in response to this recession big business got together to form cartels, and all agree not to lower prices? Would you freak out? Of course you would. Yet, that is EXACTLY what your hero FDR did in the National Recovery Act.

This.

Churchill2004: What argument is he refuting? No one claims that things constantly got worse for 10 years straight.

This, too.

hitchking: The idea that the New Deal made the Depression worse is just complete insanity. No decent economic historian believes it.

But, somehow it's gained some traction as a shiat-for-brains right-wing talking point.

Palin supporters.

That fool FDR! If only he'd spent the money on tax breaks for the richest people in the country instead of programs keeping people alive and healthy long enough for them to consume and contribute to the economy we wouldn't have this problem with the economy now!

Becuase the economy would have colapsed.

/voodoo economics
//killing something with the intention of bringing it back as a shambling corpse of it's former self

There are things beyond year-on-year GDP growth. By inspiration and keeping people working, FDR mitigated riots and the US did not go down either the Fascist or Communist paths that many other hurting nations went down in the 1930s. That's worth something.

I don't understand why conservatives despise FDR so much. After all, he got us involved in an awesome war, with real bad guys and tens of millions of deaths worldwide. Plus, think of all those patriotic propaganda posters. Anyone who questioned the war could be jailed, and we even got to imprison lots of brown people. You people live for stuff like that. FDR should be the poster child for conservatism if you ask me.

burndtdan: no offense, but that whole argument is a clear, unequivocal example of knowing what result you want before looking at the data, instead of the other way around. you want your economic view to be the superior one, so you insist that it is despite countervailing evidence.

Conservatives are ideologues. They have a stance they take as religious faith and then all things that can be said to disprove it are dismissed and all things that might tangentially be seen to agree with are hyped as essential.

Conservatives are not intellectuals who seek the truth. They are ideologues who seek confirmation of their faith.

Crosshair: (The market) will eventually get things running smoothly again

Well cocaine's for horses
and it's not for men
Doctor says it'll kill me
Buthe don'T say whenn,

Hi, hi, won't you take a sniff on me?
-Leadbelly

Markets eventually clear, in theory. But when? And at what cost? No market theory is capable of giving a good answer to this question. The theory just doesn't go there.

Bill Frist: Conservatives are not intellectuals who seek the truth. They are ideologues who seek confirmation of their faith.

That brush is so broad that you could probably paint Jupiter in a single stroke.

Bill Frist: burndtdan: no offense, but that whole argument is a clear, unequivocal example of knowing what result you want before looking at the data, instead of the other way around. you want your economic view to be the superior one, so you insist that it is despite countervailing evidence.

Conservatives are ideologues. They have a stance they take as religious faith and then all things that can be said to disprove it are dismissed and all things that might tangentially be seen to agree with are hyped as essential.

Conservatives are not intellectuals who seek the truth. They are ideologues who seek confirmation of their faith.

Right. Modern politics is about competence, not ideology. That is why Palin supporters will never understand Obama supporters.

THe Chinese fought this fight in the cultural Revolution, which split the communist Party into the "Reds" and the "Experts". Fortunately for China, the experts won.

Crosshair: (The market) will eventually get things running smoothly again, but it could take awhile.

All praise the invisible god hand of the market! All will be well as long as we believe in his fingery powers and sacrifice goats to his holy cuticles!

hitchking: he idea that the New Deal made the Depression worse is just complete insanity. No decent Keynesian economic historian believes it.

Moses To Sandy Koufax: Bill Frist: Conservatives are not intellectuals who seek the truth. They are ideologues who seek confirmation of their faith.

That brush is so broad that you could probably paint Jupiter in a single stroke.

Broad brush strokes are not always incorrect, my friend.

Conservatives of the type we are talking about ARE ideologues. They are really no different from modern day Marxists or religious nuts (thus why they combine with the latter so easily)

I'm rather surprised that Krugman even had to make the arguments. But I shouldn't be; the right wing War on Knowledge has been going on for years now.

Worth re-linking: the death of intellectual conservatism (new window)

or this rather: the death of intellectual conservatism (new window)

Bill Frist: invisible god hand of the market! All will be well as long as we believe in his fingery powers and sacrifice goats to his holy cuticles!

I can'r believe people still buy this shiat. The world is collapsing around this ideology as we speak, and they refuse to look at it.

Did anyone link the one fukking paper that sayd FDR worsesed it thats written by Cole and that other "Libertariab" partisan?

Dumbasses deserve to suck the rich and powerful's dicks while your kids starve.

Churchill2004: which is that the government policies where why the Great Depression was so unique and lasted so long. Instead of lasting at most 2-3 years like every recession/depression that preceded it, the Great Depression dragged on for a decade

Except it had already been 5 years before the New Deal, Mr. FAIL.

/approves

Lawnchair: There are things beyond year-on-year GDP growth. By inspiration and keeping people working, FDR mitigated riots and the US did not go down either the Fascist or Communist paths that many other hurting nations went down in the 1930s. That's worth something.

I think you're correct to point out the importance of things beyond GDP but I disagree with some of this. The vast majority of voters never seriously flirted with national socialism or communism.

The New Deal brought us some good stuff (Social Security, FDIC) and it brought us some mistakes (TVA, NRA). Krugman can't refute the argument that the New Deal did not end the Depression. It didn't. He also can't argue that FDR had an almost pathological aversion to markets.

FlashHarry [TotalFark] Quote 2008-11-09 12:04:49 PM
mikemoto: Paul Krugman is a liberal partisan hack diguised as an intellectual nobel prize-winning economist. Of course, it must be noted that among the many dubious Nobel Prize winners was PLO terror leader Yasser Arafat.

FTFY

hitchking [TotalFark] Quote 2008-11-09 11:24:15 AM
The idea that the New Deal made the Depression worse is just complete insanity. No decent economic historian believes it.

But, somehow it's gained some traction as a shiat-for-brains right-wing talking point.

I encourage you to refute point by point THIS (new window)

Since it's just a " shiat for brains " right wing talking point it should be easy for you. RIGHT?

/knows you can't do it.
//Krugman and Arafat..brother Nobel Prize winners

Last night on Lou Dobbs:

DOBBS: The idea of more stimulus, though, in this economy, as he called for upon taking office, I mean, we've got over $2 trillion in stimulus, when you look at what the Fed has done with the banking system and what will be spent as the result of the bailout.

How much more stimulus do we need?

KRUGMAN: Lots, unfortunately. And this is -- this is like you've got some kind of infection and you tried all the usual antibiotics and they haven't worked and so now you go for the really heavy stuff.


$2 trillion isn't enough. We need to spend MORE.

Bill Frist: All praise the invisible god hand of the market! All will be well as long as we believe in his fingery powers and sacrifice goats to his holy cuticles!

I'm not saying that free hand of the market is always good. I'm saying that half baked ideas and throwing money at a problem rarely result in a positive outcome.

Are there some things that the government could do to improve things? Sure. Modify regulation to make sure that, among other things, Junk bonds are not ratted as AAA bonds so this is not as likely to happen again. Accept that market corrections happen and don't go in hell bent on stopping them. Don't reduce interest rates to bubble forming levels to try and prevent a correction. Ensure stability in the money supply and don't run the printing presses 24/7.

But throwing money at the problem. Bad idea.

FDR was three times the president any post-war republican was (and Eisenhower is the only reason the figure is that low), of course idiots want to bring him down.

The thing is, the New Deals impact can't be measured in just economic numbers. You can't assume things would have continued like a standard market without the New Deal. You have to factor in the probability of riots, lawlessness, and maybe even revolution. The invisible hand isn't going to save you from an angry unemployed worked with a knife.

hitchking: The idea that the New Deal made the Depression worse is just complete insanity. No decent economic historian believes it.

Just like no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge, right?

And I see Krugman is telling Obama to be BOLDER than FDR. Oh, joy, what's next, another Court-Packing plan? Seriously, if FDR Extreme is what you're hoping for out of Obama, prepare to be disappointed.

DePaul: Lawnchair: There are things beyond year-on-year GDP growth. By inspiration and keeping people working, FDR mitigated riots and the US did not go down either the Fascist or Communist paths that many other hurting nations went down in the 1930s. That's worth something.

I think you're correct to point out the importance of things beyond GDP but I disagree with some of this. The vast majority of voters never seriously flirted with national socialism or communism.

The New Deal brought us some good stuff (Social Security, FDIC) and it brought us some mistakes (TVA, NRA). Krugman can't refute the argument that the New Deal did not end the Depression. It didn't. He also can't argue that FDR had an almost pathological aversion to markets.

This is simply complete shiatorical revisionism of the finest sort. Really.

Christ people.

libbynomore2: mikemoto: Paul Krugman is a liberal partisan hack diguised as an intellectual nobel prize-winning economist. Of course, it must be noted that among the many dubious Nobel Prize winners was PLO terror leader Yasser Arafat.

Don't conflate the Nobel Peace Prize with other Nobel Prizes.

Arafat didn't get it for Economics.

Bill Frist: Crosshair: (The market) will eventually get things running smoothly again, but it could take awhile.

All praise the invisible god hand of the market! All will be well as long as we believe in his fingery powers and sacrifice goats to his holy cuticles!

Yeah no shiat.

I am about as capitalist as they come, but I'm not a complete and utter retard who has this unfaltering "faith in the market".

I mean, I have a faith that the market is one of the best ways to redistribute wealth, but certainly it isn't the only way. It's like these GOP footmen and their masters have taken Friedman to the Nth degree here; even he wasn't stupid enough to claim such a thing (at least initially).

I personally don't get it since our economy and markets do not look anything like what Friedman's "perfect" economy looked like, and it has nothing to do with regulation and everything to do with the limits of human technology and still existing barriers to entry that they represent. Because of this imperfection, Friedman's hypothesis is basically null and void - it should be easy to understand this for even a first year economics student, so how come the GOP hasn't gotten the note yet?

Krugman+New York Times=Liberal$

Krugman and Obama shouldn't try to replicate New Deal projects just like FDR. It happened once when LBJ tried started his Great Society programs and we end up in stagflation. Trying to repeat history doesn't always come out with the same results. I mean Krugman and Obama are trying to get economy out of a recession by hijacking planes and crashing them into the World Trade Center.

Crosshair: I'm not saying that free hand of the market is always good. I'm saying that half baked ideas and throwing money at a problem rarely result in a positive outcome.

Unless you actually studied history, but.... why bother with facts when the free hand will just teach us ideas, right? Look at Joe the Plumber, that guy works in the free market and he knows more about economics than any Nobel Prize winning elitist.