Quote :

"^ Um. . .the NBER does, in fact, look back at economic activity"

Maybe I am not making my posts very clear, but it certainly seems like your reading comprehension is suspect.
This statement:

Quote :

"It isn't that the NBER looks backwards, it's that it doesn't distinguish organic growth from government"

<> "the NBER doesn't look backwards". Maybe it is bad English on my part, but I don't think so.

Quote :

"that the recession is going to be over by the end of summer 2009, and then one says, as Krugman said, in June 2010 that "We are now, I fear, in the early stages of a third depression," that is a flip-flop"

Like someone else pointed out, simply, no. The problem you seem to be hung on is that the economy could come out of recession and then slip back into it. In fact, this is what the economy is on the cusp of doing. By all but employment measures, we came out of recession but it now appears sans more government stimulus we will go back into recession.

Wow, this is a terrible analogy:

Quote :

"Meteorologist: It will be bright and sunny tomorrow! Viewer: But it rained heavily on my picnic! Meteorologist: Well, I simply 'changed my predictions based on new data.'"

A more equivalent would be
Meteorologist: It looks like winter has passed and we will have warmer temperatures for the foreseeable future.
Viewer (2 weeks later): We did have some unseasonably warm weather, but now it looks like its getting cold again:
Meteorologist: Effects present in the atmosphere that caused the warmer weather have now faded and winter could be here again for a period of time absent those effects.

Quote :

"Can someone please explain the statement in bold? This is one of the main arguments the Republicans have for holding up unemployment extensions and I don't understand it."

Businesses small and large can't handle uncertainty very well. What Camp is saying is continuing to add to the debt is causing too much uncertainty about our economic future and will prevent employers from hiring.

7/1/2010 5:17:03 PM

^^ I can't speak for the Republicans, but I think the general idea is that if you incentivize something you get usually more of it. The argument here is that if you extend unemployment benefits, you're just encouraging recipients to delay finding employment.

The specific Republican at issue may also be arguing that the unemployment extension could be taking dollars out of the private sector. But I'm not sure about his argument.

BTW, the extension has apparently just passed.

^ We simply disagree. I think you are wrong and I've presented reasonable evidence (and some fun stuff) to support this and to support the fact that Krugman is an ideologue and his "predictions" are suspect.

Further discussion concerning this particular topic is pointless.

PS:

Krugman on health care:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EPd2i4Jshs

Krugman spouting typical left-wing class warfare nonsense:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxwXVeDA6zw

Peter Schiff on Krugman (challenges him to debate):

Quote :

"They give out Nobel prizes for excellence in economics. If they ever took away Nobel prizes for something that shows a complete lack of understanding of economics, certainly Paul Krugman would be the first candidate. . . ."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11WlFlO_mDg&feature=fvst

[Edited on July 1, 2010 at 5:46 PM. Reason : ^ Are you in academia?]

7/1/2010 5:18:37 PM

Just like I said, you're not even trying to listen. Krugman made a prediction, the G-20 happened, and this caused the market conditions to change. He never could have predicted the outcome of the G-20 in his earlier prediction, you're just being ignorant.

Quote :

"And does the G-20 control economies? If so, why don't they make them all good?"

That's like saying "pilots control airplanes, why don't they just never make them crash?"

Quote :

"And you think we can borrow our way out of debt? Just asking."

Why not? People and companies are able to do it all the time.

Quote :

"We simply disagree."

No, you're simply wrong. You're taking what Krugman said and then over-simplifying it and taking it out of context.

Quote :

"Peter Schiff on Krugman (challenges him to debate)"

Peter Schiff has managed to take investors money and completely squander it, investment portfolios that he has managed have produced hilariously high losses compared to pretty much any other money manager. The only reason he gets any recognition is because he managed to be the broken clock that was right once.

7/1/2010 6:13:21 PM

Quote :

"^ We simply disagree."

Except I'm not wrong.

7/1/2010 6:23:08 PM

Then since the G-20 is what changed his prediction, explain to me how he was supposed to know what the outcome of the G-20 would be.

7/1/2010 6:25:19 PM

Quote :

"And does the G-20 control economies? If so, why don't they make them all good?"

7/1/2010 6:41:40 PM

That's irrelevant, he believes it does, thus his prediction can rightfully change without any "flip-flop".

7/1/2010 6:50:53 PM

^

Quote :

". . .he believes it does. . . ."

Perhaps we've pinpointed the real problem here.

7/1/2010 6:55:21 PM

Quote :

"Like someone else pointed out, simply, no. The problem you seem to be hung on is that the economy could come out of recession and then slip back into it. In fact, this is what the economy is on the cusp of doing. By all but employment measures, we came out of recession but it now appears sans more government stimulus we will go back into recession."

By all but employment measures? What the fuck? We have double digit unemployment around the country. People are barely scraping by, and the unemployment numbers BLS is shitting out don't account for underemployment or discouraged workers. To make it worse, the price of food and energy is going up substantially.

The recession never ended. If you're creative enough, you can define a recession in a certain way, and if you get the numbers just right, you can say the recession ended, but things have been awful since 2008 and they're getting worse. Our economy has deep, structural flaws that will not be fixed without sweeping changes in government or a complete collapse.

Quote :

"Peter Schiff has managed to take investors money and completely squander it, investment portfolios that he has managed have produced hilariously high losses compared to pretty much any other money manager. The only reason he gets any recognition is because he managed to be the broken clock that was right once."

No matter how many times you're corrected on this, you won't admit your mistake. The only "hilariously high losses" were among clients that started investing right before a huge correction in 2008.

[Edited on July 1, 2010 at 7:41 PM. Reason : ]

7/1/2010 7:33:15 PM

[Edited on July 1, 2010 at 7:41 PM. Reason : 2x]

7/1/2010 7:40:33 PM

Quote :

"Perhaps we've pinpointed the real problem here."

Can you not answer the damn question?

Quote :

" To make it worse, the price of food and energy is going up substantially."

That's normal for someone coming out of a recession.

Quote :

"The only "hilariously high losses" were among clients that started investing right before a huge correction in 2008."

But I thought he predicted the crash? But this withstanding, his clients experienced average loses between 40-70%, which is enormous compared to anyone else. This is because you can easily see by the holdings in his investments that he does not take advantage of THE ONLY golden rule of investing, diversify.

7/1/2010 7:59:39 PM

You haven't done the research yourself, apparently. Mish Shedlock came out with an article saying almost exactly what you're saying, and I'm going to guess that you read that and accepted it because it confirmed your assumptions. Shedlock looked at a period going from the previous peak to the correction, and said, "Ha, Euro Pac investors lost a ton of money." Ask people that have been with Euro Pac since before 2007, and they're doing pretty good. If you were long gold, like Schiff, you'd have made a ton of money in the past few years.

7/1/2010 8:12:09 PM

^ stock market is FAR better long term than gold:




It's mind boggling anyone would think gold is inherently better than a fiat system.

gold is at a high point now, it'd be foolish to invest in it as a long-term strategy.

[Edited on July 1, 2010 at 8:27 PM. Reason : ]

7/1/2010 8:25:16 PM

Quote :

"We simply disagree"

So what you are saying is you disagree with reality? The only partial leg you have to stand on is the fact that NBER hasn't officially dated the end of the recession. GDP has grown the last 3 quarters, starting about the time Klugeman said we would be out of it. We are currently not in recession. We could go back into recession. Klugeman isn't the only one talking about double dipping, it's just that he is the most vocal about the next round of stimulus.

There isn't anything to disagree on. You are simply wrong and haven't made a reasonable case for why you aren't. Any rebuttal should include how we never left recession in the first place and you haven't done that yet because you can't because we aren't in recession.

Quote :

"If you're creative enough, you can define a recession in a certain way"

You seem to be trying to do just that. Whether we are in recession or not isn't dependent on any long term structural flaws. Stimulus money was poured into the economy, manufacturing numbers, GDP, and most other metrics except the ones related to employment (and even some of those like income growth) improved and indicate we are no longer in recession. And we will be out of recession until the point we aren't. I know to an Austrian it doesn't sit well, but for the time being, it is what it is.

Quote :

"gold is at a high point now, it'd be foolish to invest in it as a long-term strategy"

I was in GLD from 105 and recently got out because the treasuries were implying a deflationary impulse was coming. I've tried to read a good bit about it, and I still can't really wrap my head around why it seems to be coming into prominence. I don't think anyone here can do it. I could copypasta a lot of shit I've read about it, but thats about it.

7/1/2010 9:36:12 PM

Quote :

"I'm going to guess that you read that and accepted it because it confirmed your assumptions."

Wrong. I called them and asked them for literature: a prospectus and a history of gains and losses, reluctantly they sent them and I compared them to the Fidelity Magellan Fund and the Vanguard S&P 500. The results were comedy gold.

Quote :

""Ha, Euro Pac investors lost a ton of money.""

They did lose a ton of money, I mean investors in other companies lost a good bit of money, but you'd have to look into Bernie Madoff managed investments to find the kind of losses that these investors suffered.

Quote :

"If you were long gold, like Schiff"

Schiff has only recently been a gold bug, he has previously been always very bullish (since as recent as during the crash) on European companies, and he was dead wrong, and investors who followed him are dead broke.

7/1/2010 9:55:25 PM

Quote :

"Wrong. I called them and asked them for literature: a prospectus and a history of gains and losses, reluctantly they sent them and I compared them to the Fidelity Magellan Fund and the Vanguard S&P 500. The results were comedy gold."

Well, at least now I know for sure that you're bullshitting.

https://www.americanfunds.com/funds/details/results-graph.htm?fundGroupNumber=16

Quote :

"Schiff has only recently been a gold bug,"

Blatantly wrong. I've seen and read things as far back as '98 with him saying to buy gold, and I'm pretty sure he's held those views for longer than that.

Quote :

"he has previously been always very bullish (since as recent as during the crash) on European companies, and he was dead wrong, and investors who followed him are dead broke."

He's been bullish on some specific European companies, and emerging Asian markets. There are many European stocks that have done well. Many stocks in Asian markets have gone up also.

As for the claim that "investors who followed him are dead broke," that's wrong. If you had actually looked at the prospectus, you'd know that.

7/1/2010 10:25:01 PM

Quote :

"Well, at least now I know for sure that you're bullshitting."

What's your address, I'll have them mail you the same literature.

Quote :

"I've seen and read things as far back as '98 with him saying to buy gold, and I'm pretty sure he's held those views for longer than that."

He might have mentioned gold, but he's put his investor's money in europe.

7/2/2010 12:50:21 AM

China is investing heavily in Africa and the middle east. They are positioning themselves to be THE super power in the next few decades. We can’t hold our edge in being the worlds’ creative power house for too long if our companies are too timid to put down roots in other markets, and i don’t think the xenophobic policies being pushed increasingly by both sides of the aisle is really helping anything.

7/2/2010 1:53:54 AM

On recessions:
Here is what I can't figure out, around about the same time Klugeman was saying we were out or coming out of recession, hooksaw didn't seem to have a problem with that assessment. See pg 33, July 28, 2008.

On gold:
This is one of my feeds and there is a very brief snippet in there about the idea behind gold at this time

http://www.fmxconnect.com/fmxmetalsconnect/post/2010/07/02/Morning-Gold-Fix-ndash3b-July-2-2010.aspx

This was the part I was going to mention

Quote :

"We believe that Gold is perception. For 20 years or so, its pricing exhibited the qualities of a commodity due to the global infatuation with Fiat money. Gold took it on the chin in the post Bretton-Woods world once the central bankers got their proverbial shit together. Perception being, we don’t need gold, so let’s just mark it where other commodities are trading, especially while central banks are divesting themselves of it. Now, we believe that perception is changing. To wit: Gold as a commodity? Ridiculous. It is not consumed, therefore it is not an industrial metal. It is not eaten, and it is not grown. All of the gold ever mined still exists on earth, it cannot be destroyed. Its rate of supply growth increases about 1.7% per annum. It is money, or a competing asset class for money in the least."

Personally, I still am not fully committed to this as a real long term buy and hold because to me, what that essentially says is that the world monetary system broke so horrendously that gold nudged it's way back in as a currency and begins being used. If this were to occur, I think I'd rather have land, farming equipment, a well, windmills and solar panels, and a large cache of ammo to protect it all with.

[Edited on July 2, 2010 at 10:09 AM. Reason : typo]

7/2/2010 10:09:14 AM

Quote :

"Klugeman, Klugeman, Klugeman"

Potty Mouth

Who is "Klugeman"? And I've provided a reasonable amount of evidence to support my position. You, on the other hand, have provided nothing but your opinion--or perhaps parroted the opinion of others.

BTW, this. . .

Quote :

"People are barely scraping by, and the unemployment numbers BLS is shitting out don't account for underemployment or discouraged workers."

d357r0y3r

. . .was precisely the type of thing I was referring to when I posted this. . .

Quote :

"If your point is that many economic indicators, even leading indicators, aren't great ones, then, yeah, I think everyone is aware of this. It's not a revelation."

hooksaw

And here's one of Krugman's books:



Looks like great middle-of-the-road reading. In any event, I have demonstrated that Krugman is an ideologue, but I'll go further: He is, in fact, a demagogue. This is widely accepted.

7/2/2010 10:25:20 AM

Quote :

"Who is "Klugeman"?"

kludge or kluge (klooj)
n. Slang
2. A clumsy or inelegant solution to a problem.

Quote :

" And I've provided a reasonable amount of evidence to support my position."

You've provided no such evidence that Krugman was wrong to claim we were out of recession in his first statement.

Quote :

"You, on the other hand, have provided nothing but your opinion--or perhaps parroted the opinion of others."

GDP past 3 quarters = 2.2 5.6 2.7
ISM has been above 50 since August
Philly Fed Index reversed its slide in Q1 09 and achieved expansion in Q3.
The new home sales slide that began in 2005 bottomed in March 09 and has been flat to up since
One of the NBERs own members declared the recession over in Q2 2009
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/12/dissent-on-recessions-end/
(guess he is just a nancy liberal eh?)

Look, Krugman kind of sucks. Actually, he sucks a lot. But that doesn't make you right, sorry.

7/2/2010 1:15:39 PM

Quote :

"The chart we've dubbed "The Scariest Job Chart Ever" continues to be, well, scary, following today's June Non-Farm Payrolls Report. As you can see from the low line of the chart, put together by Calculated Risk, we're clearly not enjoying a v-shaped ascent like we've seen during other jobs recoveries. And what's more, if you look just at the dotted line, which is based on private payrolls, it really looks like we've stalled out"

http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-the-scariest-job-chart-ever-gets-uglier-2010-7

The interesting part is that the most comparable recession in length if not depth is 2001, which could arguably be the start of the current recession given this chart:





So, in actuality, the US Economy has been in recession since 2001, it has simply been masked with epic, decade long, growth in defense spending.

7/2/2010 6:02:03 PM

In that case, let's start up another war. The military industrial complex has managed to get us through this decade with flying colors. Why not another decade? Who cares that nothing of value is being produced by blowing up buildings, killing foreigners, and manufacturing democracies. C + I + G = GDP, right? It doesn't matter where the money is being spent, as long as we can get those positive GDP numbers, we're good to go.

7/2/2010 6:26:35 PM

Quote :

"So, in actuality, the US Economy has been in recession since 2001, it has simply been masked with epic, decade long, growth in defense spending."

Surprising no one at all. Bush paid for Afghanistan and Iraq with a credit card.

7/2/2010 6:40:24 PM

Quote :

"The interesting part is that the most comparable recession in length if not depth is 2001, which could arguably be the start of the current recession given this chart"

No the interesting part is that they specifically don't show the 1930's.

7/3/2010 12:36:41 AM

My last word, for now, on Krugman: A couple of you may think that it's okay for a widely known economist to predict that a recession will be ending and then less than a year later predict that a depression (!) is coming--but it's not okay. Reasonable people understand that this is folly.

Krugman is an avowed leftist, and his positions, predictions, and recommendations almost always skew left--he is simply not an honest broker. The main problem with this is that a number of media outlets and others are so bedazzled by Krugman's Nobel that they allow him to spew, usually without serious challenge, what often amounts to nothing more than typical agitprop.

7/3/2010 6:52:24 AM

His call for a depression is independent from his opinion that the recession ended in 2009. They are two separate events, which is why there was no flip flopping. The economy went into recession, it came out (noted by Krugman and scores of other economists as well as one of the NBERs own), and it's possible it could go back into again (or worse). I can't figure out why you're so hung up on this.

If by not okay you mean I'm not okay with the fact that the economy is still fragile then yeah.

7/3/2010 10:32:51 AM

I guess I can understand why hooksaw would simply call it a flip-flop, since the articles take contrary positions about the state of the economy. But the thing is, we've now got an extra year's worth of data and forecasts to rely on, and they tell us interesting things about our current state. Seems to me that if Krugman has revised his position based on those things, maybe that's him reacting reasonably.

7/3/2010 10:44:54 AM

^Hooksaw realizes that now,thus his "I don't care what you say Krugman sucks" rant.

7/3/2010 7:38:26 PM

(random observation



thought the top said: Clusterfuck

7/3/2010 7:41:45 PM

Quote :

"Bush America paid for Afghanistan and Iraq with a credit card."

As much as I despise Bush, everything he pushed for in 2001 and 2003 had bipartisan support in Congress, buoyed by a enthusiastic public which was undereducated by a complacent press which rolled over and played dead.


The responsibility for the invasion Iraq rests on far more shoulders than Bush's alone.

7/5/2010 8:43:08 AM

Fed Member's Deflation Warning Hints at Policy Shift
July 29, 2010

Quote :

"WASHINGTON — A subtle but significant shift appears to be occurring within the Federal Reserve over the course of monetary policy amid increasing signs that the economic recovery is weakening. On Thursday, James Bullard, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, warned that the Fed's current policies were putting the American economy at risk of becoming 'enmeshed in a Japanese-style deflationary outcome within the next several years.' The warning by Mr. Bullard, who is a voting member of the Fed committee that determines interest rates, comes days after Ben S. Bernanke, the Fed chairman, said the central bank was prepared to do more to stimulate the economy if needed, though it had no immediate plans to do so. Mr. Bullard had been viewed as a centrist and associated with the camp that sees inflation, the Fed's traditional enemy, as a greater threat than deflation."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/business/economy/30fed.html

Damn. I have been concerned about this.

7/29/2010 3:38:11 PM

this?

7/29/2010 4:43:33 PM

^ Among a number of other things, yes. If you haven't, then you probably don't really understand deflation.

7/29/2010 5:43:30 PM

Quote :

"Damn. I have been concerned about this."

I haven't been that worried about it, if we begin to see prices fall, all we have to do is crank up the printers. We have plenty of things we could spend that money on, we could pay down the national debt, start up some research or social programs, take care of SS, whatever. All would prevent a deflationary spiral by inflating the currency. This is the side of the balancing act we're good at.

7/29/2010 6:43:28 PM

^ Apparently, you don't fully understand deflation, either. If the price level of goods and services falls far enough, businesses could begin laying off even more workers--this is one major concern.

7/29/2010 6:52:08 PM

Are you stupid? If we inflate our currency, prices won't fall. Purchasing power could go down, but price would HAVE to stay the same.

7/29/2010 6:54:37 PM

^ Please stop with the name-calling. Do you deny that deflation could lead to businesses laying off workers? Yes or no?

[Edited on July 29, 2010 at 7:04 PM. Reason : Googling furiously. . . . ]

7/29/2010 6:57:21 PM

Quote :

"Among a number of other things, yes. If you haven't, then you probably don't really understand deflation."

I specifically said this because the first line of your quote is

Quote :

"[A subtle but significant shift appears to be occurring within the Federal Reserve over the course of monetary policy amid increasing signs that the economic recovery is weakening. "

Now, any proper small government deficit hawk that I imagine you to be would fear what that subtle shift might be....QE 2.0. I actually gave you the benefit of the doubt that the policy response might be what worries you. But you've been proving with pretty regular frequency that you only a tangential grasp of economics so I should have known better.

7/29/2010 7:07:46 PM

Quote :

"I imagine you"

^ I'd appreciate it if you'd get thoughts of me out of your head. Thanks.

I guess it's just more fun for some of you to attack me than to address legitimate deflationary concerns coming out of the Fed. Typical.

7/29/2010 7:13:42 PM

Quote :

"Do you deny that deflation could lead to businesses laying off workers? Yes or no?"

What is this I don't even????

Of course deflation could cause an economic downturn. That's irrelevant. We can easily prevent deflation by the measures I described above. Did you even read what I said?

7/29/2010 7:18:45 PM

^ Do you even see the contradiction in this statement?

Quote :

"Of course deflation could cause an economic downturn. That's irrelevant. We can easily prevent deflation by the measures I described above."

And if you're correct, then how does deflation ever happen?

Fed guy #1: What should we do about these deflationary concerns?

Fed guy #2: Hey, I know! We'll just do what that guy from the Internet, Kris, said do! Yeah, that's the ticket--get Bernancke on the phone!

[Edited on July 29, 2010 at 7:30 PM. Reason : Right?]

7/29/2010 7:27:36 PM

Quote :

"And if you're correct, then how does deflation ever happen?"

It doesn't happen that often. The best example would be japan, which was due to the chronically dropping GDP growth rate.

Quote :

"Fed guy #1: What should we do about these deflationary concerns? Fed guy #2: Hey, I know! We'll do what that guy from the Internet, Kris, said do! Yeah, that's the ticket--get Bernancke on the phone!"

Oh, you insulted my credibility, how....... expected.

7/29/2010 7:35:45 PM

^ Fine. Deflation doesn't happen that often.

But, again, how does deflation ever happen at all under your model (or the model you Googled)? I mean, we can just crank up the ol' money printer and never have to worry about it, right?

In any event, I didn't post the article about the Fed's deflation concerns to suggest that it's the end of the world. I was just passing the info along and one of my own concerns about deflation occurring and potentially leading to more layoffs, among other potential concerns.

If some of you want to nut-ride about it, that's up to you. Don't blame me for opting out, though.

7/29/2010 7:42:57 PM

Quote :

"But, again, how does deflation ever happen at all under your model (or the model you Googled)?"

First off, what "model" are you talking about? Secondly, there are a lot of reasons for deflation, do you want me to explain every possible one? I'll be glad to explain any one that you're wondering about.

Quote :

"In any event, I didn't post the article about the Fed's deflation concerns to suggest that it's the end of the world."

No you posted it because Obama is in office and you're a partisan. You'll post anything that seems negative for the economy without providing any sort of logical thought whatsoever. You are unable to reply to any responses outside of insulting the credibility of the responding party.

7/29/2010 7:54:18 PM

Quote :

"Secondly, there are a lot of reasons for deflation,"

Deflation is a monetary phenomena only.

7/29/2010 9:38:00 PM

Are we talking about contraction of the money supply or falling prices? Falling prices will happen in almost any market. Contraction of the money supply...well, that rarely happens. The Fed does like the expand the fuck out of the money supply and then justify their behavior by spooking everyone into thinking that falling prices are a bad thing, and that we've got to print like crazy to avoid deflation.

The Federal Reserve has no exit strategy. I can tell you what the plan is: kick the can along the road for as long as possible. Interest rates are going to stay low, because if the Fed were to raise them substantially (enough to counter act the damage that has been done), it would destabilize the entire economy. Bernanke won't do it. We're going to go the Japan route, but unfortunately for us, we aren't depending on our own citizens to keep the scam going...we're depending on foreign holders of treasury bonds and dollars.

7/29/2010 9:53:41 PM

Quote :

"Deflation is a monetary phenomena only."

Sure but there can be a lot of root causes

Quote :

"We're going to go the Japan route, but unfortunately for us, we aren't depending on our own citizens to keep the scam going...we're depending on foreign holders of treasury bonds and dollars."

I guess you ignored what I pointed out about Japan.

7/29/2010 10:07:34 PM

The problem is, Japan hasn't actually had deflation, assuming you mean increased purchasing power of their currency. It's an often perpetuated myth that they have, but they've had fairly stable prices. With that said, they won't be able to continue down the path they're on now forever. I think inflation in Japan is inevitable, at this point. Japan of the 1980s and 1990s looks very similar to the United States, except our situation is more dire.

[Edited on July 29, 2010 at 10:28 PM. Reason : ]

7/29/2010 10:26:32 PM

compare yen to every other currency, it has had deflation

7/29/2010 11:10:40 PM