Paul Krugman ought to know zombies as it takes one to know one! Economist Robert Murphy wrote a book called "Contra Krugman: Smashing the Errors of America's Most Famous Keynesian" (available on Amazon) where he references numerous articles written by Krugman for the New York Times where he made absurd economic assertions. One good example is that Krugman has repeatedly said that disasters like hurricanes and terrorist attacks are actually good for the economy because they stimulate economic activity. He totally fails to account for all the property loss and the opportunity costs of having to rebuild or replace things that have been destroyed. His thinking violates Bastiat's Broken Window Fallacy. Krugman is an excellent example of how the Nobel Prize in Economics is a joke as he and several other really bad economists have won it. I don't think of him as an economist. I think of him as a partisan political hack who writes (often incorrectly) about economic issues.
Every mediocre economist understand opportunity costs, crowding out, etc. Krugman does understand that and agrees with that in full employment situations, as all economists do. You are the one who is failing to understand what Keynes discovered in 1936 about demand shortfalls that bring the economy to a liquidity trap, what we call today the zero lower bound. When interest rates fall to zero, the mechanics of private spending and crowding out are completely different.
@@Guizambaldi According to economist Frank Shostack (2017), Krugman's recipe for how to favorably deal with a liquidity trap (the Federal Reserve should aggressively pump money and aggressively lower interest rates in order to lift the rate of inflation). Krugman says that this will pull the economy out of the liquidity trap and will set the platform for economic prosperity. What that will actually do is lower the pool of real savings further and will guarantee that the economy will stay in a depressed state for a prolonged time. What is actually needed is an increase in real savings in the economy and a lengthening of production processes. Ludwig Von Mises had a better formula for dealing with liquidity traps than did John Maynard Keynes.
@@TugHillGuy That makes no sense. You are assuming interest rates were zero because of expansionary fed policy. Friedman himself said that "low interest rates are a sign that money have been tight". You are missing the Fisher effect. First demand contracted, lowering interest rates and sending the economy to a liquidity trap. Then the Fed attempted to recover the economy by doing QE, which was mostly ineffective due to the liquidity trap. If the initial lowering of interest rates had been due to an easy money policy, that would generate inflation, affect expectations and increase nominal interest rates. That was not the case at all.
Only PhD economists understand it. And it's fine. All sciences are like that. The problem is that since the political debate is full of crooks, cranks and vested interests, it's impossible for the average man to sort out what's true and what's not.
Here is the real reason the Denmark model will never happen in USA: . In addition to the Denmark tax rate, we would also need to have the Denmark Defense Expenditure. The amount of voting American citizens who would vote for that reduction in military/defense spending, I'm sorry, I just don't see it happening. . Love this program, but especially love the intelligent questions and following questions. Please continue. Thank you.
Great Krugman quotes at 18:09.
The Divine Margaret gets out her machine gun...
Paul Krugman ought to know zombies as it takes one to know one! Economist Robert Murphy wrote a book called "Contra Krugman: Smashing the Errors of America's Most Famous Keynesian" (available on Amazon) where he references numerous articles written by Krugman for the New York Times where he made absurd economic assertions. One good example is that Krugman has repeatedly said that disasters like hurricanes and terrorist attacks are actually good for the economy because they stimulate economic activity. He totally fails to account for all the property loss and the opportunity costs of having to rebuild or replace things that have been destroyed. His thinking violates Bastiat's Broken Window Fallacy. Krugman is an excellent example of how the Nobel Prize in Economics is a joke as he and several other really bad economists have won it. I don't think of him as an economist. I think of him as a partisan political hack who writes (often incorrectly) about economic issues.
Every mediocre economist understand opportunity costs, crowding out, etc. Krugman does understand that and agrees with that in full employment situations, as all economists do.
You are the one who is failing to understand what Keynes discovered in 1936 about demand shortfalls that bring the economy to a liquidity trap, what we call today the zero lower bound. When interest rates fall to zero, the mechanics of private spending and crowding out are completely different.
@@Guizambaldi According to economist Frank Shostack (2017), Krugman's recipe for how to favorably deal with a liquidity trap (the Federal Reserve should aggressively pump money and aggressively lower interest rates in order to lift the rate of inflation). Krugman says that this will pull the economy out of the liquidity trap and will set the platform for economic prosperity. What that will actually do is lower the pool of real savings further and will guarantee that the economy will stay in a depressed state for a prolonged time. What is actually needed is an increase in real savings in the economy and a lengthening of production processes. Ludwig Von Mises had a better formula for dealing with liquidity traps than did John Maynard Keynes.
@@TugHillGuy That makes no sense. You are assuming interest rates were zero because of expansionary fed policy.
Friedman himself said that "low interest rates are a sign that money have been tight". You are missing the Fisher effect. First demand contracted, lowering interest rates and sending the economy to a liquidity trap. Then the Fed attempted to recover the economy by doing QE, which was mostly ineffective due to the liquidity trap.
If the initial lowering of interest rates had been due to an easy money policy, that would generate inflation, affect expectations and increase nominal interest rates. That was not the case at all.
Surely, the trouble is that "economics" has got so complicated that only economists, the rich and/or their accountants can understand it?
Only PhD economists understand it. And it's fine. All sciences are like that.
The problem is that since the political debate is full of crooks, cranks and vested interests, it's impossible for the average man to sort out what's true and what's not.
Here is the real reason the Denmark model will never happen in USA:
.
In addition to the Denmark tax rate, we would also need to have the Denmark Defense Expenditure. The amount of voting American citizens who would vote for that reduction in military/defense spending, I'm sorry, I just don't see it happening.
.
Love this program, but especially love the intelligent questions and following questions. Please continue. Thank you.
Jae In yeah the Americans love their strong military. Such a demobilisation would be unthinkable
This guy presents himself as an economist but is really just politically motivated with every assertion he makes.
Paul Krugman is a Genius and the USA needs him to save our Middle Class and Unions.
Your are Great Dr. Krugman!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A shame the Nobel winner becomes just a painting of himself.
First view!