Paul Krugman has officially lost all credibility

[meadandale]

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/oct/13/now-not-time-raising-rates/?uniontrib

Consider first the current uproar over the declining international value of the dollar.

The truth is that the falling dollar is good news. For one thing, it’s mainly the result of rising confidence: The dollar rose at the height of the financial crisis as panicked investors sought safe haven in America, and it’s falling again now that the fear is subsiding. And a lower dollar is good for U.S. exporters, helping us make the transition away from huge trade deficits to a more sustainable international position.

Yeah, a falling dollar is the result of international confidence by all those holding dollars, e.g. China, Japan, Saudia Arabia.

Krugman has stopped being an Economist who is Liberal…he’s now just a Liberal who happens to be an economist…and a very poor one at that.

[Rich Toscano]

Krugman lost credibility in 2004 when he chastised Greenspam for raising rates too soon. (Actually he probably lost credibility before that; I don’t read his column, but I happened to hear him an an interview in 04).

He is the standard-bearer for analysts who think there is no consequence to massive indebtedness and money printing.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

Krugman lost credibility in 2004 when he chastised Greenspam for raising rates too soon. (Actually he probably lost credibility before that; I don’t read his column, but I happened to hear him an an interview in 04).

He is the standard-bearer for analysts who think there is no consequence to massive indebtedness and money printing.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

Krugman lost credibility in 2004 when he chastised Greenspam for raising rates too soon. (Actually he probably lost credibility before that; I don’t read his column, but I happened to hear him an an interview in 04).

He is the standard-bearer for analysts who think there is no consequence to massive indebtedness and money printing.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

Krugman lost credibility in 2004 when he chastised Greenspam for raising rates too soon. (Actually he probably lost credibility before that; I don’t read his column, but I happened to hear him an an interview in 04).

He is the standard-bearer for analysts who think there is no consequence to massive indebtedness and money printing.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

Krugman lost credibility in 2004 when he chastised Greenspam for raising rates too soon. (Actually he probably lost credibility before that; I don’t read his column, but I happened to hear him an an interview in 04).

He is the standard-bearer for analysts who think there is no consequence to massive indebtedness and money printing.

Rich

[ucodegen]

Some of Krugmans statements may be true, but unfortunately it is like the saying about a broken clock..

[ucodegen]

Some of Krugmans statements may be true, but unfortunately it is like the saying about a broken clock..

[ucodegen]

Some of Krugmans statements may be true, but unfortunately it is like the saying about a broken clock..

[ucodegen]

Some of Krugmans statements may be true, but unfortunately it is like the saying about a broken clock..

[ucodegen]

Some of Krugmans statements may be true, but unfortunately it is like the saying about a broken clock..

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Rich Toscano]Krugman lost credibility in 2004 when he chastised Greenspam for raising rates too soon. (Actually he probably lost credibility before that; I don’t read his column, but I happened to hear him an an interview in 04).

He is the standard-bearer for analysts who think there is no consequence to massive indebtedness and money printing.

Rich[/quote]
Yeah?
See I did not see that in what he has written.
Though it is true I have not read all of it.

It seems more like he has said that consequences are more complicated than much of the contemporary hype.

Specifically, he seems to not be averse to a dollar that is internationally weaker and unconcerned about inflation when money supply increase is coupled with a stagnant per capita GDP and increasing unemployment (and thus less effective demand).

While I have mixed feelings about the first assertion, I don’t see anything terribly non-credible about saying that inflation is more dependent upon spending than printing.

Increasing one’s monetary base is of dubious relevance if all the new base is doing is sitting in reserve accounts.

Maybe I am wrong but I don’t see loads of extra cash (a la 2005) floating around and doing a demand-pull on prices.

Still not sure about the international component.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Rich Toscano]Krugman lost credibility in 2004 when he chastised Greenspam for raising rates too soon. (Actually he probably lost credibility before that; I don’t read his column, but I happened to hear him an an interview in 04).

He is the standard-bearer for analysts who think there is no consequence to massive indebtedness and money printing.

Rich[/quote]
Yeah?
See I did not see that in what he has written.
Though it is true I have not read all of it.

It seems more like he has said that consequences are more complicated than much of the contemporary hype.

Specifically, he seems to not be averse to a dollar that is internationally weaker and unconcerned about inflation when money supply increase is coupled with a stagnant per capita GDP and increasing unemployment (and thus less effective demand).

While I have mixed feelings about the first assertion, I don’t see anything terribly non-credible about saying that inflation is more dependent upon spending than printing.

Increasing one’s monetary base is of dubious relevance if all the new base is doing is sitting in reserve accounts.

Maybe I am wrong but I don’t see loads of extra cash (a la 2005) floating around and doing a demand-pull on prices.

Still not sure about the international component.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Rich Toscano]Krugman lost credibility in 2004 when he chastised Greenspam for raising rates too soon. (Actually he probably lost credibility before that; I don’t read his column, but I happened to hear him an an interview in 04).

He is the standard-bearer for analysts who think there is no consequence to massive indebtedness and money printing.

Rich[/quote]
Yeah?
See I did not see that in what he has written.
Though it is true I have not read all of it.

It seems more like he has said that consequences are more complicated than much of the contemporary hype.

Specifically, he seems to not be averse to a dollar that is internationally weaker and unconcerned about inflation when money supply increase is coupled with a stagnant per capita GDP and increasing unemployment (and thus less effective demand).

While I have mixed feelings about the first assertion, I don’t see anything terribly non-credible about saying that inflation is more dependent upon spending than printing.

Increasing one’s monetary base is of dubious relevance if all the new base is doing is sitting in reserve accounts.

Maybe I am wrong but I don’t see loads of extra cash (a la 2005) floating around and doing a demand-pull on prices.

Still not sure about the international component.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Rich Toscano]Krugman lost credibility in 2004 when he chastised Greenspam for raising rates too soon. (Actually he probably lost credibility before that; I don’t read his column, but I happened to hear him an an interview in 04).

He is the standard-bearer for analysts who think there is no consequence to massive indebtedness and money printing.

Rich[/quote]
Yeah?
See I did not see that in what he has written.
Though it is true I have not read all of it.

It seems more like he has said that consequences are more complicated than much of the contemporary hype.

Specifically, he seems to not be averse to a dollar that is internationally weaker and unconcerned about inflation when money supply increase is coupled with a stagnant per capita GDP and increasing unemployment (and thus less effective demand).

While I have mixed feelings about the first assertion, I don’t see anything terribly non-credible about saying that inflation is more dependent upon spending than printing.

Increasing one’s monetary base is of dubious relevance if all the new base is doing is sitting in reserve accounts.

Maybe I am wrong but I don’t see loads of extra cash (a la 2005) floating around and doing a demand-pull on prices.

Still not sure about the international component.

[Author]

Posts