Paul Krugman poo poos inflation

[sobmaz]

Hellloooo????????????????

Did you notice the Federal Government has started sending checks to people? As they increasingly continue this, won’t that get the newly printed dollars in circulation?

I am not a Nobel Peace Prize winner but common sense says when more and more people are laid off and stop producing goods or services and then the Federal Gooberment sends them money to compete with the fewer and fewer goods and services, inflation is a certainty.

And, it seems to me we had an abundance of labor in the 70’s yet we also had some serious inflation. The Deflationists claim an abundance of labor prevents inflation.

‘Splane Lucy, ‘splane!

[patientrenter]

I think it’s pretty obvious that Mr Krugman is very committed to political goals, and will use his mental dexterity and knowledge and reputation to advance those goals.

People on the left side of the political spectrum, like Mr Krugman, tend to like inflation better than deflation. Why? Because it transfers wealth from people who have consumed less than they have produced to those who have consumed more than they have produced, and the latter group tends to be more left of political center than the first group. All politics tends to devolve down to grabbing more for your own group, and this is what Paul’s game is.

[patientrenter]

I think it’s pretty obvious that Mr Krugman is very committed to political goals, and will use his mental dexterity and knowledge and reputation to advance those goals.

People on the left side of the political spectrum, like Mr Krugman, tend to like inflation better than deflation. Why? Because it transfers wealth from people who have consumed less than they have produced to those who have consumed more than they have produced, and the latter group tends to be more left of political center than the first group. All politics tends to devolve down to grabbing more for your own group, and this is what Paul’s game is.

[patientrenter]

I think it’s pretty obvious that Mr Krugman is very committed to political goals, and will use his mental dexterity and knowledge and reputation to advance those goals.

People on the left side of the political spectrum, like Mr Krugman, tend to like inflation better than deflation. Why? Because it transfers wealth from people who have consumed less than they have produced to those who have consumed more than they have produced, and the latter group tends to be more left of political center than the first group. All politics tends to devolve down to grabbing more for your own group, and this is what Paul’s game is.

[patientrenter]

I think it’s pretty obvious that Mr Krugman is very committed to political goals, and will use his mental dexterity and knowledge and reputation to advance those goals.

People on the left side of the political spectrum, like Mr Krugman, tend to like inflation better than deflation. Why? Because it transfers wealth from people who have consumed less than they have produced to those who have consumed more than they have produced, and the latter group tends to be more left of political center than the first group. All politics tends to devolve down to grabbing more for your own group, and this is what Paul’s game is.

[patientrenter]

I think it’s pretty obvious that Mr Krugman is very committed to political goals, and will use his mental dexterity and knowledge and reputation to advance those goals.

People on the left side of the political spectrum, like Mr Krugman, tend to like inflation better than deflation. Why? Because it transfers wealth from people who have consumed less than they have produced to those who have consumed more than they have produced, and the latter group tends to be more left of political center than the first group. All politics tends to devolve down to grabbing more for your own group, and this is what Paul’s game is.

[urbanrealtor]

While I am not sure I agree with his conclusion (in fact, I am pretty sure I don’t), I don’t see good arguments against it on this thread.

I wish Rich were about.

I suspect his comments would be a teensy bit more intellectual than some variation on “he is a poop head”.

Most of those here are not.

Here is a thought his article brings up for me:

What is the downside risk to the overall economy in mass deflation?

Rich’s articles on deflation seem to focus more on how it won’t happen rather than the risk if it should occur.

Feel free to correct me if I have missed one.

[urbanrealtor]

While I am not sure I agree with his conclusion (in fact, I am pretty sure I don’t), I don’t see good arguments against it on this thread.

I wish Rich were about.

I suspect his comments would be a teensy bit more intellectual than some variation on “he is a poop head”.

Most of those here are not.

Here is a thought his article brings up for me:

What is the downside risk to the overall economy in mass deflation?

Rich’s articles on deflation seem to focus more on how it won’t happen rather than the risk if it should occur.

Feel free to correct me if I have missed one.

[urbanrealtor]

While I am not sure I agree with his conclusion (in fact, I am pretty sure I don’t), I don’t see good arguments against it on this thread.

I wish Rich were about.

I suspect his comments would be a teensy bit more intellectual than some variation on “he is a poop head”.

Most of those here are not.

Here is a thought his article brings up for me:

What is the downside risk to the overall economy in mass deflation?

Rich’s articles on deflation seem to focus more on how it won’t happen rather than the risk if it should occur.

Feel free to correct me if I have missed one.

[urbanrealtor]

While I am not sure I agree with his conclusion (in fact, I am pretty sure I don’t), I don’t see good arguments against it on this thread.

I wish Rich were about.

I suspect his comments would be a teensy bit more intellectual than some variation on “he is a poop head”.

Most of those here are not.

Here is a thought his article brings up for me:

What is the downside risk to the overall economy in mass deflation?

Rich’s articles on deflation seem to focus more on how it won’t happen rather than the risk if it should occur.

Feel free to correct me if I have missed one.

[urbanrealtor]

While I am not sure I agree with his conclusion (in fact, I am pretty sure I don’t), I don’t see good arguments against it on this thread.

I wish Rich were about.

I suspect his comments would be a teensy bit more intellectual than some variation on “he is a poop head”.

Most of those here are not.

Here is a thought his article brings up for me:

What is the downside risk to the overall economy in mass deflation?

Rich’s articles on deflation seem to focus more on how it won’t happen rather than the risk if it should occur.

Feel free to correct me if I have missed one.

[patientrenter]

urbanrealtor, rich can present the case much better than I can, but the basic argument on why Krugman is wrong to dismiss inflation is that although some deflation is what’s happening now, the actions the govt is taking will lead to future inflation.

Recall home prices in 2000-2007? Based solely on what was actually happening at the time, you could justify an argument that home prices only go up, and any amount of lending against home prices was good. You had to go one layer deeper to diagnose and underlying over-extension of credit and an inevitable pullback.

In the same way, the govt’s vast expansion of credit and spending may look – and even actually be – just right to offset current contraction in spending elsewhere, but that ignores the simple fact that, once the govt starts programs that spend a lot of money, or that allow other people to easily spend a lot, then the govt cannot be stopped.

Let’s suppose you discovered that heroin could reduce the duration of a patient’s measles by 5 days. Prescribing it might seem good, if you allowed yourself to forget the addictive properties of the heroin.

It goes deeper than this. Inflation brings with it a transfer of wealth from savers to borrowers. We all understand that this transfer could make life a lot easier for borrowers, and the suspicion is that this is a political goal of Krugman and many others. Inflation may not be an unlikely and incidental and undesired consequence of current govt easy money policy – it may be an unspoken goal.

[patientrenter]

urbanrealtor, rich can present the case much better than I can, but the basic argument on why Krugman is wrong to dismiss inflation is that although some deflation is what’s happening now, the actions the govt is taking will lead to future inflation.

Recall home prices in 2000-2007? Based solely on what was actually happening at the time, you could justify an argument that home prices only go up, and any amount of lending against home prices was good. You had to go one layer deeper to diagnose and underlying over-extension of credit and an inevitable pullback.

In the same way, the govt’s vast expansion of credit and spending may look – and even actually be – just right to offset current contraction in spending elsewhere, but that ignores the simple fact that, once the govt starts programs that spend a lot of money, or that allow other people to easily spend a lot, then the govt cannot be stopped.

Let’s suppose you discovered that heroin could reduce the duration of a patient’s measles by 5 days. Prescribing it might seem good, if you allowed yourself to forget the addictive properties of the heroin.

It goes deeper than this. Inflation brings with it a transfer of wealth from savers to borrowers. We all understand that this transfer could make life a lot easier for borrowers, and the suspicion is that this is a political goal of Krugman and many others. Inflation may not be an unlikely and incidental and undesired consequence of current govt easy money policy – it may be an unspoken goal.

[patientrenter]

urbanrealtor, rich can present the case much better than I can, but the basic argument on why Krugman is wrong to dismiss inflation is that although some deflation is what’s happening now, the actions the govt is taking will lead to future inflation.

Recall home prices in 2000-2007? Based solely on what was actually happening at the time, you could justify an argument that home prices only go up, and any amount of lending against home prices was good. You had to go one layer deeper to diagnose and underlying over-extension of credit and an inevitable pullback.

In the same way, the govt’s vast expansion of credit and spending may look – and even actually be – just right to offset current contraction in spending elsewhere, but that ignores the simple fact that, once the govt starts programs that spend a lot of money, or that allow other people to easily spend a lot, then the govt cannot be stopped.

Let’s suppose you discovered that heroin could reduce the duration of a patient’s measles by 5 days. Prescribing it might seem good, if you allowed yourself to forget the addictive properties of the heroin.

It goes deeper than this. Inflation brings with it a transfer of wealth from savers to borrowers. We all understand that this transfer could make life a lot easier for borrowers, and the suspicion is that this is a political goal of Krugman and many others. Inflation may not be an unlikely and incidental and undesired consequence of current govt easy money policy – it may be an unspoken goal.

[patientrenter]

urbanrealtor, rich can present the case much better than I can, but the basic argument on why Krugman is wrong to dismiss inflation is that although some deflation is what’s happening now, the actions the govt is taking will lead to future inflation.

Recall home prices in 2000-2007? Based solely on what was actually happening at the time, you could justify an argument that home prices only go up, and any amount of lending against home prices was good. You had to go one layer deeper to diagnose and underlying over-extension of credit and an inevitable pullback.

In the same way, the govt’s vast expansion of credit and spending may look – and even actually be – just right to offset current contraction in spending elsewhere, but that ignores the simple fact that, once the govt starts programs that spend a lot of money, or that allow other people to easily spend a lot, then the govt cannot be stopped.

Let’s suppose you discovered that heroin could reduce the duration of a patient’s measles by 5 days. Prescribing it might seem good, if you allowed yourself to forget the addictive properties of the heroin.

It goes deeper than this. Inflation brings with it a transfer of wealth from savers to borrowers. We all understand that this transfer could make life a lot easier for borrowers, and the suspicion is that this is a political goal of Krugman and many others. Inflation may not be an unlikely and incidental and undesired consequence of current govt easy money policy – it may be an unspoken goal.

[Author]

Posts