Erin Go Broke

Hi Murt10. Another catchy headline by an ex Enron PR person. Number manipulation, conflict of interests, self righteousness and Nobel prize all come with this packet. He writes books that sell but so does Deepak. He's got a Nobel but so has Kissinger (for PEACE above all things). He plucked friendly numbers out of nowhere to back up his theories, but then again so did Ivan Boesky. And as for conflict of interests - he got around that one by saying "there is no conflict". Just like that. This article is very one sided. America is in deep ****. He doesn't mention the poor average wage, small holidays, food stamps, the angst that most Americans go through - worrying about health insurance, propert tax and lawlessness. Not everyone over there lives in Manhatten. Just as Oprah, Jerry Springer, Maury, Pat Buchanan et al spout self propagating pinko philosophy, so does this avenging angel.
 
Very true. Some economic writers forget that the economy is a tool to help the people and not the other way around.
 

The piece is written in regard to Ireland. Exactly what part of his commentary in regard to Ireland did you disagree with? What are his friendly numbers you speak about?
 
Chocks away said:
Just as Oprah, Jerry Springer, Maury, Pat Buchanan et al spout self propagating pinko philosophy, so does this avenging angel.
Click to expand...

Oprah, Springer, Maury and, for the love of god, Pat Buchanan are pinkos? Sorry but that is just insulting to all us pinkos.
 
Cayne said:
The piece is written in regard to Ireland. Exactly what part of his commentary in regard to Ireland did you disagree with? What are his friendly numbers you speak about?
Click to expand...
Kruger - like most economists is a 'retrospective forecaster', if you get my drift. I don't have the time to do selective quoting but I'm sure if you GOOGLE him, you'll get a result. Here is a synopsis of Wiki's critique:
Throughout his career as a columnist, Krugman has been highly critical of what he regards as dubious economic ideas, such as: strategic trade and its main exponents, Robert Reich, whom he called "offensive" and Lester Thurow whom he called "silly"; protectionism, with attacks on Pat Buchanan on the Right and Ralph Nader on the Left; a return to the gold standard as promoted by editorial writers in the Wall Street Journal; and especially supply-side economics, which he described as economic "snake oil" in Peddling Prosperity. He has frequently been criticized in turn by exponents of these ideas; the journalist James Fallows spoke of his "gratuitous spleen," and Clinton Administration Undersecretary of Commerce Jeffrey Garten complained that "He behaves like someone with a massive chip on his shoulder."[49] Krugman's critics have also accused him of employing what they called a "shrill" rhetorical style.[25][50][51]
Daniel Okrent, a New York Times ombudsman, criticized Paul Krugman for "the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults." Okrent has also said that "when someone challenged Krugman on the facts, he tended to question the motivation and ignore the substance."[52]
A November 13, 2003 article in The Economist[53] reads: "A glance through his past columns reveals a growing tendency to attribute all the world's ills to George Bush…Even his economics is sometimes stretched…Overall, the effect is to give lay readers the illusion that Mr Krugman's perfectly respectable personal political beliefs can somehow be derived empirically from economic theory."
Robert Barro has criticized Krugman's work frequently and Krugman has referred to him as "boneheaded".[54][55] A blog article by Krugman stating that the argument that temporary protectionism "needs to be taken seriously" due to the 2008-2009 world economic recession drew strong criticism from Barro, who accused Krugman of hypocrisy.[54]
Economist Daniel B. Klein published during 2008 a paper in Econ Journal Watch (of which he is the chief editor) that reviews and criticizes Krugman's columns for the New York Times. Klein contends that Krugman's "social-democratic impetus sometimes trumps people's interests, notably poor people's interests... Krugman has almost never come out against extant government interventions, even ones that expert economists seem to agree are bad, and especially so for the poor." Examples cited by Klein of policies on which, he says, economists are agreed, but which Krugman has failed to support include school vouchers, abolition of the Food and Drug Administration and abolition of occupational licensing. On the other hand, Klein lists these examples of government interventions that Krugman's columns have opposed: "rent control; US agricultural subsidies; international trade; [...] ethanol mandates and subsidies/tax breaks; NASA manned-space flight; European labor-market restrictions; and the Terry Schiavo case."[56]
Economist [broken link removed] has argued that Krugman's economic views are politically partisan and consistently promote a socialist agenda.[57] Donald Luskin of the National Review is another frequent critic of Krugman. He has argued that that "Krugman’s liberal agenda always takes precedence over economic principle."[58]
 
askalot said:
Oprah, Springer, Maury and, for the love of god, Pat Buchanan are pinkos? Sorry but that is just insulting to all us pinkos.
Click to expand...
Sorry askalot. I didn't mean to confuse. These people espouse pinko philosophy. And the masses buy it. And pay for it. Krugman's position is compromised by the fact that he has got to get people to buy books. And he is no longer Paul Krugman only. He has got a retinue, wages to pay etc. The money has to keep coming in. Soundbites, scary headlines, financial sleigh of hand etc do exactly that. Figures can be confusing and can be used to confuse. There is a natural cycle. A bit like the Jet Stream. Variations will have repercussions. It is not einsteinian. But the very fact that 'Paul Krugman says' put before a theory should only give it the same gravitas as 'Britney says" on the cover of The Enquirer or Globe. At the heal of the hunt, nobody knows.
 
Those in glass houses shouldnt throw stones. Another case of a sour grapes story ala some UK papers. The UK & US mortgaged their countries futures on panic bailouts with borrowed money. Our expenditure has been minimal (giving a guarantee is not the same as giving actual cash). As with 9-11, where people over reacted about not wanting to fly, the financial industry is experiencing a similar irrational over reaction. Like 9-11, it will settle down and people will start doing business as usual. Throwing money at an irrational over reaction has no effect - as we've seen in US and UK. The recovery of individual countries will not be in any way proportionate to the amount of cash they threw at the problem.

However bad the economy is here, it is not as bad as US or UK. We are starting from a much higher place - higher wages, lower taxes, higher standard or living, higher proportion of people in gainful employment. We may be slipping a few notches, but not as much as the US and even if we do slip more notches than the US, we will not slip lower due to our higher starting point. Both US and UK have experienced severe currency collapses - never a good sign (ask Zimbabwe ). As such the relative wealth and wages in these countries are way below what they were in the past. I challenge anyone to walk the streets of a major US or UK city and then come to Dublin and then tell me which ones feel like they are in a deeper recession.
 
Chocks away said:
Just as Oprah, Jerry Springer, Maury, Pat Buchanan et al spout self propagating pinko philosophy, so does this avenging angel.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by self propagating pinko philosophy - do you mean they sell gullible people a lie and the people buy it? That it helps to keep the average American down while those at the top get richer?
 
Bronte said:
What do you mean by self propagating pinko philosophy - do you mean they sell gullible people a lie and the people buy it? That it helps to keep the average American down while those at the top get richer?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't use the word 'lie'. Most of these, because they have parrotted off the same spiel so often, probably do believe what they say. There is an element of showbiz in all this. For glitterati use Guru. For gossip use gospel. For audience use suckers. You can see the vista emerging. He has plenty negative things to say about Madoff now. Why did he not throw his weight behind Harry Marcopolo's battering ram at the end of the 90s? Four or five years ago, when most people (who were not benefitting from Madoff's largesse/thieving) realised that the figures didn't stand up, Paul Krugman was sucking a lolly. How now then, has he managed to keep his halo polished? Will his fronting of Newsweek help (down the line) to unclothe him? We'll wait and see.
 

What specifically has Krugman said that really irks you?

Theres a whole lot of innuendo in your posts polished with articulate wording but no real substance. His piece in the NY times dealt with Ireland. I cant see anything in that piece that sticks out as incomplete or factually incorrect.

Then again maybe I'm of the suckers who has read his gospel in the past
 
Well, he's in big trouble now...

[broken link removed]

“There has been comment which has been neither helpful nor, in my view, appropriate, and I would like to move on from that and give the view that we have collectively as a Government have, yes, difficult times, but we have the capacity to deal with these issues and we would like to revert back to the international reputation we had and continue to have”.

Where would we be without her?
 
It's not much of a reaction by our favourite ex-social worker! This is all she seems to say in relation to the Krugman piece:

“There has been comment which has been neither helpful nor, in my view, appropriate, and I would like to move on from that and give the view that we have collectively as a Government have, yes, difficult times, but we have the capacity to deal with these issues and we would like to revert back to the international reputation we had and continue to have,” she told The Irish Times.

The best bit is "...we would like to revert back to the international reputation we....continue to have". Nice one! That really makes sense!!
 
If you are interested in what Krugman has to say - aside from the Irish commentary he is interviewed about the US solution here

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/3/23/the_zombie_ideas_have_won_paul

Krugman is against the the idea that the tax payer should go in and buy these assets when the market wont touch them. He sees Ireland mimicing the US strategy for solving the financial crisis. Perhapse because Ireland is such a smaller economy than the US perhaps we will see the effectiveness of this solution before the US.

At a basic level he is against the tax payer taking the risk and the banks taking the profit. Who could disagree with that?
 
What he says about Ireland is not news and shows very little insight. That's not to say he's wrong, it's just Clare Champion standard rather than NY Times.
 
Yes, Purple. Hype and hyperbole sum up the musings of this once revered oracle. Overtaken by events and ego, he now is a common hack. Regurgitating known facts and spinning them, taking bows and craving more accolades has clouded his judgement.
 
I'm still lost back at the pinko philosophy.......... but you have a great turn of phrase Chocks.

I'm also missing the innuendo on Coughlin having been a social worker.

Whatever about how bad Ireland is, the figures on the finances in the UK are dire so I've no idea why the British newspapers (don't like American newspapers so cannot comment there) have so much negative press on us. Not being an economist......... I think Ireland being small will find it easier to cope and get out of the current mess, only problem is we are very reliant on the US and UK.
 
You don't see the contradiction in your post?
"Why do they say we are so bad?"
"The UK and US are much worse"
"We're small and will recover more quickly"
"We rely on the UK and US for recovery"

We are not going to recover quickly if the markets that we depend on for recovery do not recover. So we are at the bottom of the recovery chain. No?
 
Bronte said:
I'm also missing the innuendo on Coughlin having been a social worker.
Click to expand...
I’ve nothing against social workers (one of my best friends is one), but it’s not exactly the best training to be minister for trade and industry (and I’ve seen her in action; she’s useless, an embarrassment).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register