Contributors

Sunday, May 16, 2010

Krugman a Go Go

Before the Pawlenty 13 year old girl view of world economics disappears from the bottom of the page, I thought I'd resuscitate it up here. For those of you who don't know, it's basically another example of appeal to fear by the Cult in the form of the phrase, "We are going to be Greece soon." Thankfully, we have Paul Krugman, professor of Economics at Princeton or, for those of you Cult members, a "fucking idiot who lies about stuff."

In a column from last week, Professor Krugman clearly illustrates why we are NOT going to be Greece...pretty much torpedoing much of the silliness we hear from the Cult.

Both nations have lately been running large budget deficits, roughly comparable as a percentage of G.D.P. Markets, however, treat them very differently: The interest rate on Greek government bonds is more than twice the rate on U.S. bonds, because investors see a high risk that Greece will eventually default on its debt, while seeing virtually no risk that America will do the same. Why?

One answer is that we have a much lower level of debt — the amount we already owe, as opposed to new borrowing — relative to G.D.P. True, our debt should have been even lower. We’d be better positioned to deal with the current emergency if so much money hadn’t been squandered on tax cuts for the rich and an unfunded war. But we still entered the crisis in much better shape than the Greeks.

Markets are about perception and not necessarily about hard numbers. The perception is that the Greeks are going to default. There is no perception that we will...except from the Cult who has a clear agenda which we will illustrated clearly at the end of this column.

Even more important, however, is the fact that we have a clear path to economic recovery, while Greece doesn’t.

Look under the hood of those troubling long-run budget projections, you discover that they’re not driven by some generalized problem of overspending. Instead, they largely reflect just one thing: the assumption that health care costs will rise in the future as they have in the past. This tells us that the key to our fiscal future is improving the efficiency of our health care system — which is, you may recall, something the Obama administration has been trying to do, even as many of the same people now warning about the evils of deficits cried “Death panels!”

So that's why health care was so important. Huh. You learn something new every day:)

The U.S. economy has been growing since last summer, thanks to fiscal stimulus and expansionary policies by the Federal Reserve. I wish that growth were faster; still, it’s finally producing job gains — and it’s also showing up in revenues. Right now we’re on track to match Congressional Budget Office projections of a substantial rise in tax receipts. Put those projections together with the Obama administration’s policies, and they imply a sharp fall in the budget deficit over the next few years.

That's true. Take a look at the chart below.

I pulled it from Christopher Chantrill's web site, usgovernmentspending.com. Make sure that you check out his bio before poo pooing the data, Cult members.

Take a look at where we have been as opposed to where we are right now. You can also see the sharp drop that Krugman mentions. All of this jibes with the White House historicals you can review here. See Table 1.2.

But let's get back to Greece.

Greece, on the other hand, is caught in a trap. During the good years, when capital was flooding in, Greek costs and prices got far out of line with the rest of Europe. If Greece still had its own currency, it could restore competitiveness through devaluation. But since it doesn’t, and since leaving the euro is still considered unthinkable, Greece faces years of grinding deflation and low or zero economic growth. So the only way to reduce deficits is through savage budget cuts, and investors are skeptical about whether those cuts will actually happen.

Investors are skeptical with Greece but not so skeptical with us because of the avenues that are being pursued by President Obama. Again, it comes down to perception. And we have our own currency as does Britain, which is in much worse shape than us, yet both the US and the UK can still borrow at relatively low interest rates. So?

In short, we’re not Greece. We may currently be running deficits of comparable size, but our economic position — and, as a result, our fiscal outlook — is vastly better.

Next Krugman gets to the Cult bullshit.

“We demand more than we’re willing to pay for,” is the usual line. Yet that line is deeply misleading.

First of all, who is this “we” of whom people speak? Bear in mind that the drive to cut taxes largely benefited a small minority of Americans: 39 percent of the benefits of making the Bush tax cuts permanent would go to the richest 1 percent of the population.

And bear in mind, also, that taxes have lagged behind spending partly thanks to a deliberate political strategy, that of “starve the beast”: conservatives have deliberately deprived the government of revenue in an attempt to force the spending cuts they now insist are necessary.

Yep. But why?

We should ignore those who pretend to be concerned with fiscal responsibility, but whose real goal is to dismantle the welfare state — and are trying to use crises elsewhere to frighten us into giving them what they want.

I have a few ideas about why they want to dismantle the welfare state. One of them is that they simply don't want to give up their money. On the surface, it seems there is nothing wrong with this at all. But these same people want to enjoy the benefits of those aspects of government they deem important. They are so myopic in their Cult's beliefs that they can't see that the government needs to be about more than just "protecting us from bad guys" as Glenn Beck tells them. Worse still, their narrow mindedness views ANY perception of government that is different from theirs as being totalitarian. As Lewis Black said last week, they have Nazi Tourettes. Actually, it's a Tourettes salad of Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot. Pick any frightening dictator and that's what will happen to us if we don't listen to every thing the Cult says!

So, basically, what Krugman is saying is what I have been saying all along: don't pay attention to the people running around saying "We are going to be like Greece." That would include White House Budget Director Peter Orszag who clearly said it for political reasons. As is always the case with the Cult, they are using logical fallacies again.

Just like most of the time, they will be wrong again. And quickly onto something else...never admitting their error. Same shit, different day.

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

Here, I'll just cut-n-paste some stuff from I guy I don't know, then you can cut-n-paste some other stuff:

Putting in context this latest attempt to deny that the US will suffer the progressive-Keynesian disaster now befalling Greece, 2010 was supposed to be the year of Keynesian triumph, where Obama's government did as Dr. Krugman urged to make the economy march towards prosperity. All that was needed was to take economic resources from the discipline of markets and give them to politicians.

Keynesian ideology is simple. It must be, as it considers only short-term events in a closed economy having an economically ignorant population. If consumers won't spend, politicians take their money and spend it for them. If businesses won't invest, politicians take their money and invest it for them.

And as an additional benefit, we get "social justice", Dr. Krugman told us four months ago in his editorial "Learning from Europe".

Sure, we lose some growth, innovation, and jobs. But everyone will have "free health care" and a house via Fannie or Freddie. We will set aside bankruptcy rules to reward Obama voters, start trade wars with the same goal, and ensure that Obama's Wall Street cronies do not lose a dime betting on socialism.

Any rational individual knows that this is unsustainable. With "settled economics" reinforcing their intrinsic quest for power, Keynes leaves politicians with no remaining reason NOT to distribute candy. Free insurance for kids until 27 (Obamacare)! Retirement at age 53 (Greece)! Unemployment benefits for 98 months! Why not? Keynes says this is all "good for the economy."

Unlike governments, rational people consider the long term and act if they see Keynesians coming to take away their money and inflate what is left behind. Keynes retorted: "In the long run, we are all dead!" Keynesians think this retort exquisitely dispatches their critics. Indeed, Dr. Krugman posts collections of such "exquisite" retorts and insults.

Such Stalinism might be the only way to save Keynes and “progressivism”; if the truth comes out, progressives and Keynesians will be shown to have been fools. After all, in 2008, just two years before he told us to learn "justice" from Europe, Dr. Krugman pronounced Europe "the comeback continent".

But Europe is not a "comeback continent". It is a "bailout continent". Keynes plus progressivism does not equal stability, security, or social justice.

Anonymous said...

And it is clear why. The progressive state, hobbled by the misallocation of resources intrinsic to politics, with its low growth, low innovation, and high unemployment, will collapse (in the long run). Like Fannie and Freddie. Chrysler and GM. Like Wall Street, when they bet on Greece, Fannie and Freddie.

So progressivism requires something called "bailouts". In 2009, the OECD spent trillions on bailouts and stimuli. In 2010, a trillion more.

Now, everyone needs bailouts. Even the bail-outers.

Germany, for example, will have 61% of its population over age 60 in 30 years. Germany will need the resources it is now using to bail out "socially just" Greece to itself avoid default. Will Germany then turn to the US?

And who will bail out the US, already with $200,000 in unfunded liabilities per citizen and debt at 92.6% of projected 2010 GDP, according to the IMF? After we give $50 billion more to Greece, and unknown sums to Portugal, Spain, and California. All in the hope of postponing by a year the default inherent in progressive politics and Keynesian ideology.

To avoid default, the US will try to raise taxes on everyone, including those making less than $250,000. Even 40% will not be enough, however, after tax increases give the US chronic unemployment, low productivity, and other symptoms of Eurosclerosis. Thus, the US will still default. If you are less than 50, you will never see your "safe" (= "not privatized") Social Security, Medicare, or "free health care". The government will not deliver it because the government will not be able to.

Like Greece.

Only on this blog is more progressivism and more Keynes viewed as solutions to problems created by progressivism and Keynes.


Will politician abandon Keynes fast enough? Do Europe and the US have a new Thatcher or Reagan, who saved us when we were last "all Keynesians"? And even if the electorate delivers needed political change, will it come too late to fix problems created by progressive Keynesians in charge of our finances for years?


cut-n-pasted by
dw

Anonymous said...

I've just had a breakthrough! Google search an image of Thomas Hobbes (17th century English philosopher), and put it next to an image of Gene Hackman.

Freaky.

dw

blk said...

"Here, I'll just cut-n-paste some stuff from I guy I don't know, then you can cut-n-paste some other stuff:"

You really should get to know who Krugman is. He's the economist who called the real estate bubble a bubble long before it crashed. He's one of the few economists who actually knows what's going on and tells it like it is, and isn't an uncritical cheerleader for Wall Street and apologist/lackey for multinational corporations like BP and Toyota.

Anonymous said...

This tells us that the key to our fiscal future is improving the efficiency of our health care system — which is, you may recall, something the Obama administration has been trying to do, even as many of the same people now warning about the evils of deficits cried “Death panels!”

So that's why health care was so important. Huh. You learn something new every day:)


http://www.bostonherald.com/jobfind/news/healthcare/view.bg?articleid=1252494

http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/05/news/companies/dropping_benefits.fortune/

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2010/May/04/Doc-Pay-Fix.aspx

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/04/26/costly-irs-mandate-slipped-into-health-bill/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-04-22-health-care-costs_N.htm?csp=24&RM_Exclude=Juno

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/20/health/20landscape.html?8dpc

Real efficient.

Funny how the healthcare bill was "a giant BJ to the insurance industry" until they passed it, and then suddenly "the time for talk is over" and it's the greatest thing since pants with pockets in them.

But of course, you can't trust anything connected with "the lying agenda" of... the CBO, the New York Times, the Boston Herald, USA Today, CNN, and all those other right wing hate sites.

Anonymous said...

@blk:

Why would you assume that I am not familiar with Krugman's work? In fact, I found his explanation of the liquidity trap in the Japanese economy of the 90's to be quite brilliant.

Unfortunately, like Bono or Sean Penn, Krugman couldn't get enough applause in his own field of expertise. Classic intellectualism. For more on this topic, I recommend Thomas Sowell's Intellectuals and Society.

As far as telling it like it is, Krugman is known for fudging his numbers. Case in point, his bar graph of Greek vs US debt. The sad part is, it wasn't necessary to illuminate his point. But, as a new 'rock star' economist, he has to be a bit over the top.

Now, if you want to argue Keynesian economic theory, that may be interesting. I will take the side of the Mises-Hayek / Chicago School economic theory and you take Keynesian. That could be fun. There is no clear winner yet, which is what a good debate is about.

But if you just want to cut-n-paste the 'rock star' Krugman progressive political theory, you aren't impressing me.

dw

juris imprudent said...

Take a look at where we have been as opposed to where we are right now.

Ah, M, 2010 isn't even half over and that is the part (and beyond) where the downtrend in that curve occurs. I'm going to have to take that as an estimation since it hasn't actually happened yet. Not to mention that it usually takes a year or two at least to assemble that kind of data, so we are probably still on estimates even for last year. Keep a copy of that graph handy and we will see just how good a call that was. We will really know where we are now in another year or so.

blk sez and isn't an uncritical cheerleader for Wall Street and apologist/lackey for multinational corporations like BP and Toyota

No, he was a lackey and cheerleader for Enron though. True enough, Enron isn't like BP or Toyota; those companies are still in business.

donald said...

dw-I don't see what the problem is with mark offering an analysis of a piece by Krugman. He spent days on the piece by Jim Manzi and no one complained cutting and pasting large swaths of it. Kevin Baker does it all the time on his site. So what?

Anonymous said...

Oh, I should point out that although I found Krugman's analysis of the liquidity trap well thought out and enlightening, the logical follow-up to this situation (where gov't monetary policy is incapable of pushing the interest rate below the lower bound) is gov't initiated inflationary pressure. If Keynesian policies are followed, then inflation will be the next shot fired from the Fed arsenal. The price of gold seems to reflect investor sentiment that the gov't will try inflation next. Just a little tidbit to investigate when you consider diversifying your portfolio.

dw

Anonymous said...

Well that is simple Donald. Krugman presents his facts and arguments, and forces a critical reader to accept or reject them. (and as an economist [not a rock star], he certainly has earned that respect)

Mark's "analysis" is peppered with:

13 year old girl view of world economics

for those of you Cult members, a "fucking idiot who lies about stuff

except from the Cult who has a clear agenda

Next Krugman gets to the Cult bullshit

They are so myopic in their Cult's beliefs

their narrow mindedness views

Just like most of the time, they will be wrong again. And quickly onto something else...never admitting their error. Same shit, different day.
-----------------------
That is analysis? I can read Krugman's blog if I wanted to hear his views. In fact I have. But to intersperse cut-n-paste Krugman with vitriolic nonsense isn't worth my time.

Now, you reference cut-n-paste Manzi. I invite you to go back and read Mark's 'analysis' (Jan 2010). Strangely absent is the usual "Palin is a cunt!" breakdown. Rather than point the megaphone and yell "Racist Nazi homophobe!" Mark reviewed facts and invited criticism.

I had hoped it was a permanent change, but alas...

dw

Anonymous said...

And since the thread is about "appeal to fear" and all... isn't it just amazing how all the problems linked to above were "FUD" until the bill was passed, when suddenly they quit being fearmongering and became news?

How does that work, anyway?

Oh, right, we had to pass the bill so we could find out what was in it, I remember.

Anonymous said...

My oldest son and I just watched the best parts of The Big Lebowski, and some of the best parts of They Live! (starring rowdy Roddy Piper) (Am I the only one that thinks the first 75% of that movie is fabulous, followed by 25% of something to be mocked by Mystery Science Theater 3000)

Anyway....

So...

How 'bout those Cubs?!?

dw

Mark Ward said...

Great films, dw. And yes, the Cubs have won 2 in a row...whoopeee!

As far as your breakdown goes of this post, I call em like I see em. The "we are going to be like Greece" meme is just another sad attempt to propel fear into the heart of fact. Manzi didn't use fear and look how he convinced me. You can't get around the fact that Greece has higher interest rates on their bonds and doesn't have their own currency. Those two facts alone make them different from us. Someone should tell that to Pawlenty's 13 year old. Critical thinking, indeed...

Sowell is a dying breed. I don't agree with what he says at all but he is one of the few conservative intellectuals left around. I predict the Cult will drive him out eventually. Curious as to what your critical thinking skills would say about him. And Hayek.

BTW, wasn't our current president a visiting prof at UOC? And isn't Austan Goolsbee an economic adviser to President Obama? You may want to read his bio...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austan_Goolsbee

Anonymous said...

The differences you use between the US and Greece are true, but lead you to the wrong characterization of importance.

Greek bond rates are higher because they are on the hairy edge of going under. These United States are not going under tomorrow. But if you spend more than you make everyday, you will go broke. Your claims that it can't happen here -based on today's bond rates- is willfully ignoring facts.

Greek is in a pinch with the Euro currency. But that only means that they can't do what the US can... devalue their currency. Now ask yourself the effects of devaluing the dollar. Is it possible that the foreign countries that hold almost four trillion dollars worth of US debt might get a little peeved at that? Is it possible that they may start buying less US debt TODAY, just in case devaluation becomes a reality in the future? If investors become less willing to purchase US debt then our interest rates will have to go up. This will be bad.

Your argument against me, should be: "Ah, but even though China voiced concern over the value of the US dollar last year, and own a trillion dollars worth of US debt; they just bought 20 billion $$ more debt in March!" (You may want to use the word 'Fuck' in there and make a reference to The Cult)

Then I might say, "Oh yeah? Well, you are fat!", and then walk away from this thread.

dw

ps. I choose not to follow your link, because I think the name Austan Goolsbee is stupid.

pps. Yes, Obama tought constitutional law if I remember correctly. I'd like him to explain how he's going to get that line item veto. But a Professor? No. If you were teaching at a college you may understand the distinction. Obama was a lecturer.

As Kissinger said - Academic politics are so vicious because the stakes are so small.

Mark Ward said...

"But if you spend more than you make everyday, you will go broke."

Of course. The problem here, though, is that you use this to peddle your own bias about entitlements. There can be no other conclusion except that they are bad so I'm not sure we'll make much headway here.

At the end of the day, we had to spend the money we did to save our economy. Some argue we had to spend the money we did in Iraq in order to prevent the oil there from being traded against the Euro and not the dollar. I don't agree with that but that is the logic of that spending.

"If investors become less willing to purchase US debt then our interest rates will have to go up. This will be bad."

True. But that's the perception thing that I'm talking about. If the perception trends the way it is now, wouldn't you agree that won't happen?

And I must submit again that we already are Greece in the sense that our markets are affected by what goes on there. So it is in our best interest to get their mess cleaned up through the best available means or more money is going to be lost.

Anonymous said...

I don't see how I have to "peddle" anything. Entitlements cost money. (As Defense, and Dept. of Treasury also do) If you agree that if we keep spending more than we make (which has been the trend), then I can only hope that you would agree with my core belief:

If we keep running deficits, we will go broke.


Today, Tomorrow, 1000 years from now. No difference.

Agreed?

OK. On that day, you or your great-etc... grand children will live in a country where the things that HAVE to get paid (think heat, water, food) use up all of the money. So gov't bills like social security, free health care, farm subsidies... they won't be paid. They can't be, because nobody wants to take an IOU anymore. (By the way, that IOU right now looks like a 20$ bill)

I don't claim that all entitlements are bad. I agree MORALLY with many of them. But here's a phrase I just made up, just now, nobody's ever seen this before:

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”


Is a safety net needed? Hell Yes. That is what made this country great, people who TRY to make a new invention, or business. Some will fail... that's capitalism. But we need things like bankruptcy protections, and short-term unemployment help to make sure people keep trying.

But, like every other republican-democracy-based government ever, this one bloated itself by stealing money and buying votes with it. It just needs to start with welfare (originally a program to help orphans of US war veterans (and are you going to vote against that you racist Nazi?)), and it always has. Bread and circuses, Mark. TV works better than a circus... that's why I don't own one.

I don't have the words to make you believe my position apparently. But I just don't see changing my mind to your position either. There may not be much more to debate.

Daniel Ward

Mark Ward said...

"If we keep running deficits, we will go broke."

"Agreed?"

No.

We ran deficits from the year 1961 to 1998 without every going into the positive. That's 37 years and we didn't go broke and we didn't become Greece. Again, Table 1.2 of the historicals. It comes down to how you manage your debt and perceived risk. We could run deficits for 1000 years but if we are not perceived as a risk and our credit rating remains high, we will keep chugging right along and not "go broke."

As to your interpretation of the Constitution, again, I disagree. Who gets to define benevolence? You? Me? Congress does have the right to borrow money on the credit of the United States. And "general welfare" is mentioned twice. Why do you think that is, if not benevolence?

Anonymous said...

But Mark, we are being perceived as a risk right now. Moody's has threatened to lower the US credit rating. China has made subtle nudges in that direction. Are you waiting for someone to announce it on CNN? It is happening right now, Mark. Look around.

The United States is approaching the point where other smart nations start worrying. Greece is a worry. The United States is down the list, but is starting to get warnings.

Think about what you are saying. We can borrow money forever, and never have to worry about paying it back. Ever.

We can do that through debt management and perceived risk? Dude.

My interpretation of the constitution? Sweet Jebus, my man. That quote was from the genius that wrote the constitution. He wrote it. Him and a few guys he knew got together and dreamed up the best democratic republic ever, so far.

But you disagree with HIS interpretation.

We are done here. You win. I lose.

Peace out, yo.

dw

Anonymous said...

But Mark understands the Constitution better than Madison.

You know, just like he understands Katrina better than residents of Hurricane Alley, understands business better than businessmen, and understands AZ immigration law better than Arizonans.

Anonymous said...

Keep in mind that this is also the guy who considers a back-room deal between the far left fringe of the Democrat party and the Blue Dogs, with the Republican party completely shut out of the process, to be "splitting the 50 yeard line".

Anonymous said...

Mark complaining about someone else using logical fallacies is like a drunk complaining about someone else's drinking. Rings a bit.. hollow.

Anonymous said...

We could run deficits for 1000 years but if we are not perceived as a risk and our credit rating remains high, we will keep chugging right along and not "go broke."

Okay, I can buy that one. That's no different than saying you can run a three card monty game forever, because there's always another sucker.

The dangerous assumption is the assumption that no one will ever see the three card monty game the US government has been running for decades for what it is.

It's sad that you take such pride in being no different than a con artist, though.