tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post6456909169375759376..comments2024-03-27T18:00:02.032-04:00Comments on Sardonicky: Commentariat Central: Trumps and Tramps EditionKaren Garciahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15612731479365562803noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-14159823117245914782018-03-15T00:36:35.596-04:002018-03-15T00:36:35.596-04:00"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that ...<br />"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all." <br />~ John Maynard Keynes<br /><br />While all else agreed, to Jay-Ottawa: indeed, an "old weathervane" Bob Dylan continues to be, albeit creaky, yet still pointing true, but "flimsy" you say? No, not at all.<br />Erik Rothnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-10660858277146695272018-03-14T16:39:43.168-04:002018-03-14T16:39:43.168-04:00Krugman no longer talks about Keynes because he ha...Krugman no longer talks about Keynes because he has accepted the idea that we are near full employment. I think that is a serious factual mistake, and I've said so often in response to him. However, even the best on theory can be flat wrong on facts. <br /><br />It is a matter of which numbers to give weight, but can also be informed by seeing reality on the ground. I'm here where people are still unemployed and underemployed. Krugman is in NYC where they are not, and would not know such people anyway in his circles. I can see with my own two eyes that his reading of those numbers is mistaken, and my reading of them explains why.Mark Thomasonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-40445107253521379702018-03-14T13:40:34.458-04:002018-03-14T13:40:34.458-04:00I used to be a huge Krugman fan. Thought "The...I used to be a huge Krugman fan. Thought "The Conscience of a Liberal" book was great. K was my introduction to Keynesian economics. (notice he never mentions Keynes these days) So while he is perfectly right on Trump's trade scam, his unabashed political hackery destroys his credibility, in my view. He never mentions the word "neoliberalism" - probably because it was the Clintons who perfected and consolidated the neoliberal agenda birthed by Reagan and Thatcher. To be fair, Jimmy Carter got the whole deregulation and anti-labor ball rolling as a means to fight "stagflation" in the 79s, but at least he's spending his golden years building houses for poor people and eradicating parasites in Central and South America.<br /><br />Krugman might be about as far center-left as the Times is willing to go. But the new hire, Michelle Goldberg, does go outside the safe box maybe a quarter of the time. She at least wrote about the W. Va. teachers' strike, and Krugman did not.<br /><br />Re Hillary: if this pathological liar thinks she can make another residential run after that Mumbai speech, and the Democratic Party nominates her, it will be the final ironclad proof that these people - consultants, media, etc. - are more interested in making scads of money than anything else. And that includes actually winning. It's all about the spectacle and the sport to them.<br />Karen Garciahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15612731479365562803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-78842832579541713392018-03-14T12:05:42.019-04:002018-03-14T12:05:42.019-04:00I note that Krugman has generated enormous hostili...I note that Krugman has generated enormous hostility, largely I think from his two years now of shilling for Team Hillary.<br /><br />I have often criticized him for that in my published comments to his columns, but I still liked his hard economics. From what I've seen, he's been putting actual economics into his (wonky) category, and his sophomoric politics in his regular column.<br /><br />However, one of the big problems with Hillary was her neo-liberal economics. Economics. Krugman's stuff. I must admit I dislike the conclusions drawn by Team Hillary, and that would include Krugman.<br /><br />However, unlike almost everyone else I read in the MSM, he actually does know and discuss how international trade really functions. He really does know and discuss economics. This is a contrast with for example the guy at the Wash Post who is not an economist, but talks like one because he has the same name as a famous economist. I don't have to agree with his conclusions to find interesting the discussion of actual real economics.<br /><br />The choices in media are thin gruel. Even when I disagree, Krugman is the best of the lot of regular columnists, so long as he talks economics and not politics, about which he quite evidently knows nothing.<br /><br />I see this distinction I make is not exactly popular. Perhaps I'm putting too fine a point on it.Mark Thomasonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-56290788387147999822018-03-14T11:34:57.578-04:002018-03-14T11:34:57.578-04:00Poor sick Hillary doesn't know how sick she is...Poor sick Hillary doesn't know how sick she is, and no one in her inner circle dares to tell her to STFU. <br /><br />With absolutely no sense of irony, Hillary is complaining that Trump's campaign was all about "looking backwards" as she continues looking backwards in her bitter and obsessive campaign to come up with new excuses for why she lost. How long is this going to go on? Isn't a year and a half long enough? In the 5 stages of grief, she's still flopping around in stages 1 and 2 of denial and anger. She's going to die a bitter old woman if she keeps this up. Life's too short, Hillary. <br /><br />Now she's claiming she lost because women obediently voted for Trump because they were told to do so by their husbands, boyfriends, or sons. She's also bragging about how her votes, unlike Trump's, came from areas which contribute the most to the GDP and are dynamic, optimistic, diverse, moving forward, unlike the shithole areas full of deplorables that voted for Trump. <br /><br />If only she would move forward - into a nice quiet, padded room and frequent visits by a therapist.Anna Radicalovanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-21458261509135053942018-03-14T02:22:32.723-04:002018-03-14T02:22:32.723-04:00Economics is more than a discipline confined to eg...Economics is more than a discipline confined to eggheads debating among themselves in the ivory tower. Economics gravitates to power on the outside, any brand of power, in order that its pet theories be implemented, for better or worse, over helpless populations. The point of economic research is changing everyday life to make money or please elites. <br /><br />Nobel Laureat Friedrich Hayek, an enemy of socialism and a one-time adviser (and defender) of Augusto Pinochet, unexpectedly agreed that economics ought NOT have a Nobel Prize.<br /><br />"In his speech at the 1974 Nobel banquet, awardee Friedrich Hayek stated that had he been consulted whether to establish an economics prize, he would 'have decidedly advised against it' primarily because 'the Nobel Prize confers on an individual an authority which in economics no man ought to possess... This does not matter in the natural sciences. Here the influence exercised by an individual is chiefly an influence on his fellow experts; and they will soon cut him down to size if he exceeds his competence. But the influence of the economist that mainly matters is an influence over laymen: politicians, journalists, civil servants and the public generally.'"<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek#Criticism_of_collectivism<br /><br />Krugman is more than an academic. He should be seen today as a member of Hillary's opposition cabinet. She lost a bully pulpit, but he didn't, thanks to the NY Times.<br /><br />@ Anna<br /><br />I have connections who could put you on the short list for a Nobel, but it would break my heart to see you in the same crowd as Cordell Hull, Rigoberta Menchu, Mario Vargas Llosa, Henry Kissinger, Paul Krugman, Barack Obama, Milton Friedman, Egas Moniz, and that flimsy old weathervane Bob Dylan.<br />Jay–Ottawahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10360356126450612113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-79443647676133848782018-03-13T21:29:31.439-04:002018-03-13T21:29:31.439-04:00"Fire away. He expects it. And he can handle ..."Fire away. He expects it. And he can handle it." <br /><br />Does a winner of the Swedish National Bank's Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, Paul Krugman [genuflect], actually spend his time reading the comments? <br /><br />How would we know if he does? He'd engage his readers' comments with a reply, assuming that there must be at least one intelligent comment he found challenging or questioning and worthy of a response. If he hasn't, I'd assume it's because "he would not reward such students". Or he simply doesn't read them. <br /><br /><br />@Jay <br /><br />All False except #4 and #7. Do I get a Nobel Prize?Anna Radicalovanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-68887264808835192232018-03-13T19:18:16.282-04:002018-03-13T19:18:16.282-04:00Snap quiz, class. [Murmuring] Yes, yes, close yo...Snap quiz, class. [Murmuring] Yes, yes, close your textbooks and pull out a sheet of paper. <br /><br />True or False?<br /><br />1. The higher the degree, the more noble and wise the person in possession of said degree.<br /><br />2. Teachers at top tier universities are democrats in the classroom.<br /><br />3. The Nobel Prize is a predictor of future work or discovery of the same or higher value.<br /><br />4. PhDs in the field of economics on average earn more money than graduates of all the other social sciences.<br /><br />5. Economists, unlike doctors, lawyers and clergy, can neither err nor be bought.<br /><br />6. Academic degrees are tools that can be used nobly or ignobly.<br /><br />7. Tenure at mainstream neoliberal/neocon papers is more dependent upon toeing the paper's party line than adhering to the ideals of one's guild.<br /><br />Times up. Pass your answers to the front. Be sure your name is at the top.Jay–Ottawahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10360356126450612113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-4482231253734341962018-03-13T09:32:45.446-04:002018-03-13T09:32:45.446-04:00Mark,
Very true, except that under that rigorous ...Mark,<br /><br />Very true, except that under that rigorous academic persona, Krugman all too often writes like a partisan hack. It's only gotten worse in the past several years, reaching its peak during the presidential campaign with his shameless repetition of Clintonoid talking points with which to bash Bernie Sanders and his supporters. I remember one column in particular, when he used the term "wonk" to explain why he and his fellow liberal experts believe that Medicare for All is a lost cause and why "Bernie Bros" are sexist blithering idiots. Unlike some of his cohort, he knows better, or at least he should know better.<br /><br />So I can't help it. Every time I see that (wonkish) label appended to one of his posts, my gorge rises. Karen Garciahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15612731479365562803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-14294964619859515432018-03-12T16:54:55.660-04:002018-03-12T16:54:55.660-04:00Krugman's use of the label (wonkish) seems to ...Krugman's use of the label (wonkish) seems to me to be claiming the role of Professor giving a lecture, which is a familiar role for him which he has fully earned.<br /><br />However, as a student of schools like his, I can say for a certainty that he expected his students to challenge him, to question during lectures and after, and his students fulfilled that expectation in every class that ran as he wanted it to run.<br /><br />So I see (wonkish) as an invitation to think, and then ask well considered questions, and to make well considered challenges. He is not from places that expect to talk down to submissive students, and he would not reward such students.<br /><br />Fire away. He expects it. And he can handle it.Mark Thomasonnoreply@blogger.com