The Paul Krugman Thread


#1341

Well he does have a point…

evestment.com/resources/indices

Been following the HFN guys for more than 5 years now and apart from 2009 the numbers have been fairly grim apart from the normal random scatter. My understanding is that with the 2/20 model any return less than 12%/15% is basically losing money over other high risk investment strategies.

So my take is that the hedgies are just as clueless as the economics profs about what is really going on and what is likely to happen in the future.


#1342

Edit: Be nice to each other. The last few pages are not nice reading from that perspective.

And, IMHO, QE is limiting deflation, about the best outcome and there should be more of it.


#1343

Re: QE and inflation.

The Dog That Didn’t Bark
imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo … pdf/c3.pdf


#1344

What a surprise!


#1345

But duh economics book said …

FT:
Economists’ case for austerity attacked
By Robin Harding in Washington
ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/1c3bae3c … z2Qg6Fr4hx
The intellectual case for fiscal austerity came under attack on Tuesday as two of the world’s best-known economists were accused of sloppy statistics.
Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart of Harvard University found that economic growth falls to a mean average of minus 0.1 per cent when public debt is greater than 90 per cent of output.
But researchers at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, said that when they repeated the analysis with the same data they got a figure of plus 2.2 per cent.
“Coding errors, selective exclusion of available data, and unconventional weighting of summary statistics led to serious errors that inaccurately represent the relationship between public debt and GDP growth,” they said.
The academic spat is important because the Rogoff-Reinhart result, published in 2010, is one of the strongest arguments for quickly raising taxes or cutting public spending to keep debt below the 90 per cent limit.
Paul Ryan, the Republican chair of the House Budget committee who has pushed for rapid fiscal tightening in the US, cited the Reinhart-Rogoff study as “conclusive empirical evidence that total debt exceeding 90 per cent of the economy has a significant negative effect on economic growth”.

More here, pretty unbelievable considering how oft cited it is…
nextnewdeal.net/rortybomb/re … s-problems


#1346

^ More here as well.

Reinhart and Rogoff respond…

marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/04/reinhart-and-rogoff-respond.html


#1347

And here

nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 … ement.html


#1348

guardian.co.uk/commentisfree … omasochism


#1349

No reason to get carried away though. Austerity was the solution well before these guys cooked up the numbers to rationalise it. We should remember Thatchers dictum TINA, there is no alternative, at this moment. And remember too that neoliberalism as the organising logic of conteporary capitalism is already well discredited, a zombie politics, dead but still walking around.

More
counterpunch.org/2013/04/22/ … most-dead/


#1350

Little spit in the eye for Krugman here,

tinyurl.com/bmr9pyg


#1351

noahpinionblog.blogspot.ie/2013/ … e.html?m=1

Noahpinion:
KrugTron the Invincible


#1352

Amen.


#1353

Why Krugman and the Keynesians Are Lackeys for the Neofeudal Debtocracy - Charles Hugh Smith -> oftwominds.com/blogapr13/Key … s4-13.html


#1354

That quote you provided is so cute. My little sister has nearly completed her first year of University and she has started coming out with things like that. She has a few piercings as well and valiantly tries to awaken us from our class consciousness. I tell her to fuck off with that postmodern stoner hippy shite because I live in realityland now and have no wish to regress to being a first year undergrad again, thanks very much. Still, it’s cute in a kinda pathetic way to see adults still talking liked drugged-out art-history and sociology students who really, really genuinely believe with all their little innocent heart and soul that they have discovered the big secret to life and that the squares will just never, ever get it. And then they quit the drugs and grow up, or not and continue to write such excruciatingly embarrassingly earnest but demented shite. Still, thanks for the laugh and glad you’re staying in touch with your inner child to such hilarious consequences. Fuck the system, maaaan.


#1355

There is precisely zero information in that post. If you have nothing to contribute then please don’t post. On the other hand, I’d like to hear why you disagree with the quote you highlighted above. I’m not defending the quote, just trying to foster debate.


#1356

I originally thought the first line of your post was directed at BR.
In relation to the post i thought nigel addressed it pretty clearly. Two minds is a juvenile mixed up hippy/libertarian who believes in equality but who rejects society. Its Not an economics blog and has little worth quoting.


#1357

Jeez, the lack of scientific rigour in study of economics astounds me. They published in a (questionably) prestigious peer-reviewed journal, without peer review and without including the raw data. Heck, it didn’t even pass the, “review by grad-student” test.

bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22223190

You’d get better scientific rigour from a homeopath and more accurate representation from the ingredients of a Findus Lasagne.

Yet the authors will go on record defending an erroneous paper, as opposed to revisit it, rewrite it, republish it without writing the conclusions first. The zealotry is redolent of a pamphleteer.
krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/16/reinhart-rogoff-continued/

Also distrubing is the frequency with which this paper is cited and, ergo, accepted by other scholars. It smacks of an unquestioning orthodoxy.

scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=17098073302824440345&hl=en&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5

I submit that the argument that the study of economics has not reached the level where it can be considered a science. The hallucinations of mystics as guidance for rulers have been replaced by the prognostications of these astrologer propagandists.


#1358

Soccer is more scientific. And less tribal.

As the FT pointed out, the R&R paper is not really an economic study but more a statistical analysis that seems (at best) to confuse correlation and causation.


#1359

This debate is interesting in itself, but almost none of it is applicable to Ireland.

I can see it now: the government does what the Beards and Shinners want, pile billions into some road digging or whatever the fuck, PS pay stays high, house prices start rising again, Dublin again becomes the most expensive city in Christendom, our debts get higher and higher until one day all the roads are all dug and…then what? Has industry suddenly popped up all over the place? Is there a bunch of wealth creating innovation going on? Will expensive house prices have improved our competitiveness?

Ireland was/is so incredibly fucked that it doesn’t matter to us whether Krugman is right or wrong. We defy theory. We just need stuff to be cheaper…it’s that simple for us.


#1360

You’re correct as long as the ECB sticks to its hard-money-zealotry.
You’re incorrect if they grow a brain, tell Germany that 27% unemployment in Spain is not acceptable, and begin to fund higher deficit spending.