This guy curb stomps Krugman, but does it with class.

[OCinBuffalo]

Now, before any of you even think about killing the messenger, understand that this is an article in the H_uffington P_ost( _ used to deny them Google cred), and is written by a Havard history professor. The one thing that's nice about history professors? They know how to keep a history. Unfortunately for Krugman, this guy has been up to standard on keeping his shameful(or is it shameless?) history. I don't think I've ever seen this many reference links in a single post.

 

Enjoy: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/niall-ferguson/the-rise-and-fall-of-krugmania-in-the-uk_b_7257236.html?ncid=edlinkushpmg00000090

 

Once again, I do not agree that all Keynesian policies are bad all the time. I look at economics as a tool box(the same way I look at software). All the tools have a specific purpose and can all be useful. However, as partisan hacks, whose real agenda is patronage(paying off their constituencies with jobs/$), Obama/Krugman treat the Keynesian tools as a Super Swiss Army Knife, capable of solving all problems at all times.

 

Put simply, if your answer to both economic booms and recessions, and everything in between is always: "borrow more and spend more" no matter what? You're not an economist, and you're not even an intellectual. How can the solution to both extreme ends of possible economic conditions always be the exact same approach? That is the opposite of critical thinking.

 

But, it can be your "economic" policy, if you care less about results, and the good of the country overall, and more about paying off your constituencies. Or, in Obama's case, by maintaining the illusion that Krugman is yet another "expert"(aka scientist)? All Obama is doing is "listening to the experts". Therefore, anyone who points out their failure is "anti-science".

 

Surely even the dumbest among you can see they why, what, when...and then how...at work here.

Edited May 11, 2015 by OCinBuffalo

[4merper4mer]

Now, before any of you even think about killing the messenger, understand that this is an article in the H_uffington P_ost( _ used to deny them Google cred), and is written by a Havard history professor. The one thing that's nice about history professors? They know how to keep a history. Unfortunately for Krugman, this guy has been up to standard on keeping his shameful(or is it shameless?) history. I don't think I've ever seen this many reference links in a single post.

 

Enjoy: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/niall-ferguson/the-rise-and-fall-of-krugmania-in-the-uk_b_7257236.html?ncid=edlinkushpmg00000090

 

Once again, I do not agree that all Keynesian policies are bad all the time. I look at economics as a tool box(the same way I look at software). All the tools have a specific purpose and can all be useful. However, as partisan hacks, whose real agenda is patronage(paying off their constituencies with jobs/$), Obama/Krugman treat the Keynesian tools as a Super Swiss Army Knife, capable of solving all problems at all times.

 

Put simply, if your answer to both economic booms and recessions, and everything in between is always: "borrow more and spend more" no matter what? You're not an economist, and you're not even an intellectual. How can the solution to both extreme ends of possible economic conditions always be the exact same approach? That is the opposite of critical thinking.

 

But, it can be your "economic" policy, if you care less about results, and the good of the country overall, and more about paying off your constituencies. Or, in Obama's case, by maintaining the illusion that Krugman is yet another "expert"(aka scientist)? All Obama is doing is "listening to the experts". Therefore, anyone who points out their failure is "anti-science".

 

Surely even the dumbest among you can see they why, what, when...and then how...at work here.

Don't call Beerboy Shirley

[Magox]

 

 

Once again, I do not agree that all Keynesian policies are bad all the time. I look at economics as a tool box(the same way I look at software). All the tools have a specific purpose and can all be useful.

 

I agree with this.. There is a place for Keynesian policies, but it's certainly not the be-all and end-all solution to lagging economies. Krugman always advocates more money to solve problems, and where he consistently falls short on his policy prescriptions are the real structural issues that require structural solutions.

[/dev/null]