Paul Krugman has officially lost all credibility

[Arraya]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Arraya]

Soon to a theater near you.[/quote]

How soon? That’s the question.

If you make me expect it too much I’ll be very let down when it doesn’t come.

I can only see 6 months to 1 year ahead, at the most.

If you keep on telling a girl that you’ll marry her but can never save enough to buy her a ring, what do you think will happen?[/quote]

That is the million dollar question. I’d say the market is ready to turn and cause a host of problems. Though, I differ from Rich slightly, in that I see a quick but intense deflationary bought before destructive inflation and very real funding problems in less than 18 months. I think bad times are ahead in early 2010 and could become noticeable this year.

In Krugmans defense, his style of monetarism is the predominate theology. His squabbles with the Fed and other main stream analysts are analogous to priests arguing over how many hail mary’s to do to achieve redemption.

Main stream economics is dead, IMO

[briansd1]

[quote=aldante]My point exactly. Soap will become very very expensive…..americans will only be able to wash once a week.
sorry to the french outhere i really do luv ya![/quote]

hahaha, that was funny… LOL.

I love a good sense of humor.

[briansd1]

[quote=aldante]My point exactly. Soap will become very very expensive…..americans will only be able to wash once a week.
sorry to the french outhere i really do luv ya![/quote]

hahaha, that was funny… LOL.

I love a good sense of humor.

[briansd1]

[quote=aldante]My point exactly. Soap will become very very expensive…..americans will only be able to wash once a week.
sorry to the french outhere i really do luv ya![/quote]

hahaha, that was funny… LOL.

I love a good sense of humor.

[briansd1]

[quote=aldante]My point exactly. Soap will become very very expensive…..americans will only be able to wash once a week.
sorry to the french outhere i really do luv ya![/quote]

hahaha, that was funny… LOL.

I love a good sense of humor.

[briansd1]

[quote=aldante]My point exactly. Soap will become very very expensive…..americans will only be able to wash once a week.
sorry to the french outhere i really do luv ya![/quote]

hahaha, that was funny… LOL.

I love a good sense of humor.

[briansd1]

[quote=Arraya]
In Krugmans defense, his style of monetarism is the predominate theology. His squabbles with the Fed and other main stream analysts are analogous to priests arguing over how many hail mary’s to do to achieve redemption.

Main stream economics is dead, IMO[/quote]

I differ with that. I think that mainstream is fine. You have to go with the flow to achieve what you want. But you need know when to get out before the herd stampede.

Why are we obese in America? Because the corporations sell all the junk to the gluttons. If you can manage your appetite and are discerning with what you consume then you can get excellent prices for quality products. It didn’t use to be that way when there was scarcity. But now, even luxury products are commodities.

Actually, I’m glad that there was a housing bubble. I’m planning to get the pick of the litter before this is over. Without the bubble, the places I’m considering would not have been built.

This is similar to the Paradox of Thrift. What’s good for the individual is not necessarily good for the whole.

What’s good for the whole is the responsibility of leaders and policy makers. Individuals can only be responsible to themselves.

[briansd1]

[quote=Arraya]
In Krugmans defense, his style of monetarism is the predominate theology. His squabbles with the Fed and other main stream analysts are analogous to priests arguing over how many hail mary’s to do to achieve redemption.

Main stream economics is dead, IMO[/quote]

I differ with that. I think that mainstream is fine. You have to go with the flow to achieve what you want. But you need know when to get out before the herd stampede.

Why are we obese in America? Because the corporations sell all the junk to the gluttons. If you can manage your appetite and are discerning with what you consume then you can get excellent prices for quality products. It didn’t use to be that way when there was scarcity. But now, even luxury products are commodities.

Actually, I’m glad that there was a housing bubble. I’m planning to get the pick of the litter before this is over. Without the bubble, the places I’m considering would not have been built.

This is similar to the Paradox of Thrift. What’s good for the individual is not necessarily good for the whole.

What’s good for the whole is the responsibility of leaders and policy makers. Individuals can only be responsible to themselves.

[briansd1]

[quote=Arraya]
In Krugmans defense, his style of monetarism is the predominate theology. His squabbles with the Fed and other main stream analysts are analogous to priests arguing over how many hail mary’s to do to achieve redemption.

Main stream economics is dead, IMO[/quote]

I differ with that. I think that mainstream is fine. You have to go with the flow to achieve what you want. But you need know when to get out before the herd stampede.

Why are we obese in America? Because the corporations sell all the junk to the gluttons. If you can manage your appetite and are discerning with what you consume then you can get excellent prices for quality products. It didn’t use to be that way when there was scarcity. But now, even luxury products are commodities.

Actually, I’m glad that there was a housing bubble. I’m planning to get the pick of the litter before this is over. Without the bubble, the places I’m considering would not have been built.

This is similar to the Paradox of Thrift. What’s good for the individual is not necessarily good for the whole.

What’s good for the whole is the responsibility of leaders and policy makers. Individuals can only be responsible to themselves.

[briansd1]

[quote=Arraya]
In Krugmans defense, his style of monetarism is the predominate theology. His squabbles with the Fed and other main stream analysts are analogous to priests arguing over how many hail mary’s to do to achieve redemption.

Main stream economics is dead, IMO[/quote]

I differ with that. I think that mainstream is fine. You have to go with the flow to achieve what you want. But you need know when to get out before the herd stampede.

Why are we obese in America? Because the corporations sell all the junk to the gluttons. If you can manage your appetite and are discerning with what you consume then you can get excellent prices for quality products. It didn’t use to be that way when there was scarcity. But now, even luxury products are commodities.

Actually, I’m glad that there was a housing bubble. I’m planning to get the pick of the litter before this is over. Without the bubble, the places I’m considering would not have been built.

This is similar to the Paradox of Thrift. What’s good for the individual is not necessarily good for the whole.

What’s good for the whole is the responsibility of leaders and policy makers. Individuals can only be responsible to themselves.

[briansd1]

[quote=Arraya]
In Krugmans defense, his style of monetarism is the predominate theology. His squabbles with the Fed and other main stream analysts are analogous to priests arguing over how many hail mary’s to do to achieve redemption.

Main stream economics is dead, IMO[/quote]

I differ with that. I think that mainstream is fine. You have to go with the flow to achieve what you want. But you need know when to get out before the herd stampede.

Why are we obese in America? Because the corporations sell all the junk to the gluttons. If you can manage your appetite and are discerning with what you consume then you can get excellent prices for quality products. It didn’t use to be that way when there was scarcity. But now, even luxury products are commodities.

Actually, I’m glad that there was a housing bubble. I’m planning to get the pick of the litter before this is over. Without the bubble, the places I’m considering would not have been built.

This is similar to the Paradox of Thrift. What’s good for the individual is not necessarily good for the whole.

What’s good for the whole is the responsibility of leaders and policy makers. Individuals can only be responsible to themselves.

[Arraya]

Flat-earthers, bri, flat-earthers… They only know how to print fake money that has no connection to the real world. Eventually, you run into problems…

Mr. Krugman, obviously believes in infinite growth on a finite planet. For people that dabble in physics, it’s absurd.

Within the next twenty years, the most profound changes in all of economic history will sweep the globe. The economic chaos and turbulence we are now experiencing are merely the opening salvos in what will prove to be a long, disruptive period of adjustment. Our choices now are to either evolve a new economic model that is compatible with limited physical resources, or to risk a catastrophic failure of our monetary system, and with it the basis for civilization as we know it today.

In order to understand why, we must start at the beginning. While it was operating well, our monetary system was a great system, one that fostered incredible technological innovation and advances in standards of living, two characteristics that I fervently wish to continue. But every system has its pros and its cons, and our monetary system has a doozy of a flaw.

It is this: Our monetary system must continually expand, forever.

I’d say 10 years.

[Arraya]

Flat-earthers, bri, flat-earthers… They only know how to print fake money that has no connection to the real world. Eventually, you run into problems…

Mr. Krugman, obviously believes in infinite growth on a finite planet. For people that dabble in physics, it’s absurd.

Within the next twenty years, the most profound changes in all of economic history will sweep the globe. The economic chaos and turbulence we are now experiencing are merely the opening salvos in what will prove to be a long, disruptive period of adjustment. Our choices now are to either evolve a new economic model that is compatible with limited physical resources, or to risk a catastrophic failure of our monetary system, and with it the basis for civilization as we know it today.

In order to understand why, we must start at the beginning. While it was operating well, our monetary system was a great system, one that fostered incredible technological innovation and advances in standards of living, two characteristics that I fervently wish to continue. But every system has its pros and its cons, and our monetary system has a doozy of a flaw.

It is this: Our monetary system must continually expand, forever.

I’d say 10 years.

[Arraya]

Flat-earthers, bri, flat-earthers… They only know how to print fake money that has no connection to the real world. Eventually, you run into problems…

Mr. Krugman, obviously believes in infinite growth on a finite planet. For people that dabble in physics, it’s absurd.

Within the next twenty years, the most profound changes in all of economic history will sweep the globe. The economic chaos and turbulence we are now experiencing are merely the opening salvos in what will prove to be a long, disruptive period of adjustment. Our choices now are to either evolve a new economic model that is compatible with limited physical resources, or to risk a catastrophic failure of our monetary system, and with it the basis for civilization as we know it today.

In order to understand why, we must start at the beginning. While it was operating well, our monetary system was a great system, one that fostered incredible technological innovation and advances in standards of living, two characteristics that I fervently wish to continue. But every system has its pros and its cons, and our monetary system has a doozy of a flaw.

It is this: Our monetary system must continually expand, forever.

I’d say 10 years.

[Arraya]

Flat-earthers, bri, flat-earthers… They only know how to print fake money that has no connection to the real world. Eventually, you run into problems…

Mr. Krugman, obviously believes in infinite growth on a finite planet. For people that dabble in physics, it’s absurd.

Within the next twenty years, the most profound changes in all of economic history will sweep the globe. The economic chaos and turbulence we are now experiencing are merely the opening salvos in what will prove to be a long, disruptive period of adjustment. Our choices now are to either evolve a new economic model that is compatible with limited physical resources, or to risk a catastrophic failure of our monetary system, and with it the basis for civilization as we know it today.

In order to understand why, we must start at the beginning. While it was operating well, our monetary system was a great system, one that fostered incredible technological innovation and advances in standards of living, two characteristics that I fervently wish to continue. But every system has its pros and its cons, and our monetary system has a doozy of a flaw.

It is this: Our monetary system must continually expand, forever.

I’d say 10 years.

[Author]

Posts