Monday, December 20, 2010

Nobel Nonsense and President Obama

I was going to take the week off and send you a nice holiday message and then one of my colleagues sent me the link to a Paul Krugman article. I guess I will send you my holiday message later in the week. 

I don’t like to read Paul Krugman articles because it is bad for my blood pressure. This guy has a Nobel Prize in economics which makes you think he might really care about his science but instead he uses his elite position to be the spokes person for one extreme view of economics. With his behavior he gives a bad name to the science and it riles me a bit. I would think that even liberals would be embarrassed by some of his antics.

In “When Zombies Win” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/20/opinion/20krugman.html , Krugman uses colorful language to say basically two things. First, Obamanomics didn’t fail – the President simply didn’t try enough economic stimuli. He had the right idea -- he simply didn't do enough of it. Second, he says President Obama, unlike Reagan who stuck with his ideas, has been cast into a spell by conservative zombies and they are going to eat his brain and our economy with it. Really – this Nobel Award winner said that!

To prove that Obama’s stimulus package was too small, he says “government spending on goods and services grew more slowly than during the Bush years, hardly constitutes a test of Keynesian economics.” Wow – talk about a real economic scientist! He uses government spending on goods and services as the only real data pertinent to stimulus in the last two years. Dear Paul – what about government transfer spending? What about government bailouts? What about tax cuts? Does anyone really think he provides a full coffin of evidence about stimulus by measuring only GPGS? I am glad for any college student taking freshmen economics who would not give such an answer on his or her final exam.

Then Krugman says that conservatives are totally discredited because inflation and interest rates have not risen in response to the stimuli. I am guessing that few economists really predicted a rise in inflation BEFORE the economy started to recover in earnest.  Most of us believe that something called the GDP Gap needs to closed before inflation starts rising. We also would not see interest rates rising until the paranoia about slow growth significantly reduced the demand for government bonds. Krugman turned a very legitimate worry or concern about stimulus causing higher inflation and interest rates into a forecast – and one that all his adversaries must have agreed with.  Talk about creating a straw man!  He also says that disinflation continues. Technically, that means that the inflation rate continues to fall.  Does he provide a shred of data or evidence? How much did the inflation rate fall in the last, say six months? Three months?

That Obama had the audacity to praise Ronald Reagan and admitted that some austerity is necessary for historically high levels of deficits and debt, make the President Zombie prey.  Those nasty Republicans made him say “Uncle” and now, according to Krugman, he can never oppose their incessant demands for ghoulish austere economics.

Krugman cites Ireland as an example of why austerity policy is bad. I guess that is the sum total of his knowledge about austerity and the experiences of no other countries matter. I would hope that no freshman university student would write such flimsy answers to important questions. Of course, if you happen to be Irish then you might want to reserve judgment about what did or didn’t help the Irish find their way out of their very tough present economic condition.  

Like Krugman, I don’t like the way Obama supported a tax plan that goes in the wrong direction. As I wrote last week, this won’t create enough stimuli to reduce the rate of unemployment. But Krugman wants more stimuli and that’s where he and I part ways. The US economy is gagging on past stimulus and will eventually swallow and digest it all. At that time the economy will grow – especially if we quickly introduce a fiscal restructuring that deals with future deficits and debt. Krugman might call that austerity but I call it common sense. 

19 comments:

  1. Mr. LSD. Geese, I’m impressed that such a whiny, bed-wetting, thumb-sucking, two-faced, liberal little person could get you so riled up . . . out of your predictable balanced and reasonable demeanor. I’ve been amazed watching coverage of OB’s explanation that supply-side is the “solution” to the sagging, gagging economy (now that his “erectus stimulus” didn’t work, but nay, did not actually say that . . . . did he?) and that extending the “Bush” tax cuts (oh, my, now they are the “OB” tax cuts . . . imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, eh?) will create the jobs (erectus expectus) that his flaccid stimulus did not (but, hey, he didn’t say that did he?). I take solace in that there are still a few of us who really unnerstand the political double-speak occurring and who can see through the transparent and absurd profundity of the likes of Krugman and Biden. All of this will be great speaking points and fodder around November 2012. Let them eat out of the both sides of their mealy mouths.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Looks like you got a little heated under the collar too Charlie. Way to go! There's no tuna like Starkist.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hey! According to Dr. Krauthammer, the "OB tax cuts" have made the prez "The Comeback Kid!" Of course, all of the LMSM have picked up on the fact that a "conservative commentator" coined the tag.

    "Erectus expectus!" You gotta love Latin!

    I say continue to let Biden off the leash. Everything he says rings with absurdity and proves Nov. 2 not a fluke.

    ReplyDelete
  4. A couple of great comments on the economy in this one. You'll have to fish them out for yourself. http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2010/12/21/reflections_on_the_passing_scene

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks Crash. Sowell can always be counted on. Did you see the article today in the WSJ by Alan Reynolds? He looks at the rich, taxes, and income distribution. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703581204576033861522959234.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes, I did, and he did an excellent job of blowing the O-man's tax advisers out of the water.

    ReplyDelete
  7. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/12/The-Value-Added-Tax-Is-Wrong-for-the-United-States
    I'd like to see you bust on this topic....or have you already done it?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Merry Christmas Crash,

    I totally agree with the article. He says it all perfectly -- the VAT solves a spending issue with a new tax. A VAT might be okay with me if it replaced the income tax since it focuses on the right thing -- spending rather than income. But that is not what is being proposed. Finally, it gives tax activists with even more ways to "do good things" with government largess. It would be too easy for politicians to single out particular goods (Jack Daniels for example) as harmful or things that rich people consume. Thus, we give them even more options for government to correct distribution of income and numerous other goals of government.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Are you saying that they wouldn't apply the VAT to things like Annie Greensprings and Thunderbird?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I never said that! Depending on their mood they could could apply it to almost anything. What is an Annie Greensprings anyway?

    ReplyDelete
  11. You went to Tech, right? You were in the Air Force, right? Don't tell me that you aren't familiar with Annie Greensprings! It's a cheap wine.....some of which may even have pieces of bunions from the stompers' feet.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I remember Thunderbird, Boone's Farm, Ripple Red, Ripple White and when Mateus Rose was introduced. I do not exactly remember Annie Greensprings -- though I think we bird-dogged someone by that name on North Avenue one time. I also remember having many nights which I don't remember at Al's Corral.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mateuse Rose doesn't even belong on the same page with the like of Thunderbird & Boone's Farm. I don't remember Al's Corral.....& several nights at Moe's & Joe's.

    ReplyDelete
  14. In all recorded history there has not been one economist who has had to worry about where the next meal would come from. - Peter Drucker

    Take zat, monsieur!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Drucker exaggerates but the general point is probably correct. My response -- so what? Does he want economists to take a vow of poverty? Would a daily regimen of gruel make us better thinkers?

    ReplyDelete
  16. I still remember the radio ads on WQAM when I was at Gables, "What's the word, Thunderbird; What's the price, thirty twice".

    ReplyDelete