FTA: For the job of fixing the broken economy is far from done - yet finishing the job has become nearly impossible now that the public has lost faith in the government's efforts, viewing them as little more than handouts to the people who got us into this mess.

The public is starting to wise up, at least a bit. The problem with the economy is the bubble, not that the bubble burst. Trying to reinflate the bubble is the worst thing that they could do. Hayek won the Nobel in '74 for demonstrating conclusively that bubbles are caused by central banks keeping interest rates artificially low. The only way that the economy is going to recover is to let interest rates float, let the bubble finish collapsing, and start over. Yes, it will be very painful, but, in the long run, it's the least painful option and the only option that will give us sustainable future growth.

tallguywithglasseson: Not at all surprised to see the liberal columnist talking about what he did wrong and the conservative columnist talking about what he did right.

not surprised you posted the exact same thing in both threads

I still wonder what the hell Krugman is doing writing and teaching if he's such a brilliant farking economist. He's so brilliant he composes "I told you so"s and pisses off politicians when he could be instructing them to their face and leading by example.

Eh, I think Krugman overstates his case a bit. UBS was willing to maybe take 98 cents on the dollar, and the French regulators were going to make sure that SG and Caylon demanded full value. That's 3 of AIG's biggest counterparties, that were going to get paid in full (or very nearly so) as long as AIG didn't go bankrupt. I find it hard to believe that populist anger would have been mitigated by a few Wall St. firms voluntarily taking haircuts while foreign banks with the same exact structured debt got bailed out 100%. It might have shifted the focus of the anger slightly away from Wall St. and more towards the Fed and the government.

But that would hardly support Krugman's thesis that a "tougher" deal with GS et al would have made the public more willing to accept a second round of fiscal stimulus. If anything, it would make the public more skeptical of government intervention, if a previous round of it was aimed at fully compensating foreign financiers while stiffing American ones.

It's really hard for me to take anything Krugman says seriously.

Deftoons: It's really hard for me to take anything Krugman says seriously.

Just imagine how hard it would be for him to take you seriously, what with your lack of a Nobel prize in economics and all.

MacEnvy: Just imagine how hard it would be for him to take you seriously, what with your lack of a Nobel prize in economics and all.

So true. To hell with Democracy! Only those who win Nobel laureates actually have a say in this world.

Deftoons: MacEnvy: Just imagine how hard it would be for him to take you seriously, what with your lack of a Nobel prize in economics and all.

So true. To hell with Democracy! Only those who win Nobel laureates actually have a say in this world.

Economics doesn't give a shiat about democracy. Academics is about meritocracy, so if you're going to argue economics with Paul Krugman, you'd better bring your "A" game.

MuadDib: LOLOMGWTF: tallguywithglasseson: Not at all surprised to see the liberal columnist talking about what he did wrong and the conservative columnist talking about what he did right.

not surprised you posted the exact same thing in both threads

Except for the part where he posted the exact opposite in each thread. Kinda like his initial offerings. And the threads.

Which, since I'm subby for both, I got a kick out of.

touché, honky.

Deftoons: It's really hard for me to take anything Krugman says seriously.

That's probably because you're really, really stupid.

yakmans_dad: That's probably because you're really, really stupid.

Uh huh. Thinking that insulting people is tool of the intellectual says a lot more about you and Krugman's fans than anything about me, whom you know nothing about. I shouldn't be surprised though. Way to win people over.

Krugman rambles on and on to the point where he talks himself into a circle. It's easy to do that when you're a paid pundit by the NY Times. He advocated the real estate bubble, numerous times, as one example.

I mean - for cripes sakes - the stimulus is an absolutely astounding amount of money, it hasn't saved or created the jobs to give the recovery people are looking for - and he has the nerve to say it wasn't enough. Okay. Spending one's way out of a recession might work if you spend enough on the right things, but that's trusting the government too much on, well, spending on the right things, for the right amount of money. History 101 will show government in general has been acting incorrectly more than they have ever been correct in that department.

Not only that, but that type of spending creates dependency, so when the spending stops - which it will have to do sometime - there needs to be enough market demand to cover not only the loss of government-created jobs, but also the, you know, taxes to recover spending government did all those years.

The mere fact that our currency has taken a huge hit over the last five years shows what happens when our government goes too far. We all pay for deficit spending. Krugman doesn't seem to care, as long as he gets his Keynesian utopia.

He's unrealistic, idealistic; there is little pragmatic logic in what I've seen him write. If you worship him, fine, but I would rather find a way out of ponzi-like spending in which he advocates, thank you.

Think that's stupid? Sounds more like common sense to me.

Deftoons: says a lot more about you and Krugman's fans

One of the major problems with politics today (especially conservative politics, from what I've seen, but I've seen it on both sides) is that people view it as a football game between two teams with diehard fans. You're either with the Colts or with the Patriots, and you can't say anything nice about the other team or anyone who roots for the other team.

We could all learn a lesson from the new Star Trek movie, where Kirk and Spock start out as rivals, almost enemies, after Kirk cheats the Kobayashi Maru exam. But then, when the time comes to save the crew of the Enterprise and, indeed, the population of Earth, they set aside their differences and use their individual strengths to get the job done. Even when they are at odds, they have the same goal, and they have respect for each other.