Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Paul Krugman attacks 'Libertarian Populism' & Rand Paul

  1. #1

    Paul Krugman attacks 'Libertarian Populism' & Rand Paul

    Delusions Of Populism
    Paul Krugman
    July 11, 2013

    Highlights:
    The idea here is that there exists a pool of disaffected working-class white voters who failed to turn out last year but can be mobilized again with the right kind of conservative economic program — and that this remobilization can restore the Republican Party’s electoral fortunes.

    ...

    Well, as far as anyone can tell, at this point libertarian populism — as illustrated, for example, by the policy pronouncements of Senator Rand Paul — consists of advocating the same old policies, while insisting that they’re really good for the working class. Actually, they aren’t. But, in any case, it’s hard to imagine that proclaiming, yet again, the virtues of sound money and low marginal tax rates will change anyone’s mind.
    Has Krugman, an "economist", always been such a partisan hack?



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by goRPaul View Post
    Delusions Of Populism
    Paul Krugman
    July 11, 2013

    Highlights:


    Has Krugman, an "economist", always been such a partisan hack?
    Well, he wasn't born that way. It was a decision he made all by himself.
    +
    'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by goRPaul View Post
    Delusions Of Populism
    Paul Krugman
    July 11, 2013

    Highlights:


    Has Krugman, an "economist", always been such a partisan hack?
    He's been a hack for at least the past decade. I don't know the exact time he stopped being an economist and became a propagandist for the State, but I think it was sometime in the late 90s/turn of the century.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    Perhaps the most important lesson from Obamacare is that while liberty is lost incrementally, it cannot be regained incrementally. The federal leviathan continues its steady growth; sometimes boldly and sometimes quietly. Obamacare is just the latest example, but make no mistake: the statists are winning. So advocates of liberty must reject incremental approaches and fight boldly for bedrock principles.
    The epitome of libertarian populism

  5. #4
    the hits just keep coming, when will it ever end?

  6. #5
    Krugman is a Keynesian economist; therefore he advocates progressive politics.

  7. #6
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    841
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    "Well, as far as anyone can tell, at this point libertarian populism — as illustrated, for example, by the policy pronouncements of Senator Rand Paul — consists of advocating the same old policies, while insisting that they’re really good for the working class. Actually, they aren’t."

    Well that settles it for me. Apparently I've been wasting my time here, see ya guys.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by HigherVision View Post
    "Well, as far as anyone can tell, at this point libertarian populism — as illustrated, for example, by the policy pronouncements of Senator Rand Paul — consists of advocating the same old policies, while insisting that they’re really good for the working class. Actually, they aren’t."

    Well that settles it for me. Apparently I've been wasting my time here, see ya guys.
    The basic point is that the recession of 2001 wasn't a typical postwar slump, brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raises interest rates and easily ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again. This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance. To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble
    http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/op...ouble-dip.html - Krugman August 2002

    With war looming, it's time to be prepared. So last week I switched to a fixed-rate mortgage. It means higher monthly payments, but I'm terrified about what will happen to interest rates once financial markets wake up to the implications of skyrocketing budget deficits.

    From a fiscal point of view the impending war is a lose-lose proposition. If it goes badly, the resulting mess will be a disaster for the budget. If it goes well, administration officials have made it clear that they will use any bump in the polls to ram through more big tax cuts, which will also be a disaster for the budget. Either way, the tide of red ink will keep on rising.

    Last week the Congressional Budget Office marked down its estimates yet again. Just two years ago, you may remember, the C.B.O. was projecting a 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. Now it projects a 10-year deficit of $1.8 trillion.

    And that's way too optimistic. The Congressional Budget Office operates under ground rules that force it to wear rose-colored lenses. If you take into account -- as the C.B.O. cannot -- the effects of likely changes in the alternative minimum tax, include realistic estimates of future spending and allow for the cost of war and reconstruction, it's clear that the 10-year deficit will be at least $3 trillion.

    So what? Two years ago the administration promised to run large surpluses. A year ago it said the deficit was only temporary. Now it says deficits don't matter. But we're looking at a fiscal crisis that will drive interest rates sky-high.

    A leading economist recently summed up one reason why: ''When the government reduces saving by running a budget deficit, the interest rate rises.'' Yes, that's from a textbook by the chief administration economist, Gregory Mankiw.

    But what's really scary -- what makes a fixed-rate mortgage seem like such a good idea -- is the looming threat to the federal government's solvency.

    That may sound alarmist: right now the deficit, while huge in absolute terms, is only 2 -- make that 3, O.K., maybe 4 -- percent of G.D.P. But that misses the point. ''Think of the federal government as a gigantic insurance company (with a sideline business in national defense and homeland security), which does its accounting on a cash basis, only counting premiums and payouts as they go in and out the door. An insurance company with cash accounting . . . is an accident waiting to happen.'' So says the Treasury under secretary Peter Fisher; his point is that because of the future liabilities of Social Security and Medicare, the true budget picture is much worse than the conventional deficit numbers suggest.

    Of course, Mr. Fisher isn't allowed to draw the obvious implication: that his boss's push for big permanent tax cuts is completely crazy. But the conclusion is inescapable. Without the Bush tax cuts, it would have been difficult to cope with the fiscal implications of an aging population. With those tax cuts, the task is simply impossible. The accident -- the fiscal train wreck -- is already under way.

    How will the train wreck play itself out? Maybe a future administration will use butterfly ballots to disenfranchise retirees, making it possible to slash Social Security and Medicare. Or maybe a repentant Rush Limbaugh will lead the drive to raise taxes on the rich. But my prediction is that politicians will eventually be tempted to resolve the crisis the way irresponsible governments usually do: by printing money, both to pay current bills and to inflate away debt.

    And as that temptation becomes obvious, interest rates will soar. It won't happen right away. With the economy stalling and the stock market plunging, short-term rates are probably headed down, not up, in the next few months, and mortgage rates may not have hit bottom yet. But unless we slide into Japanese-style deflation, there are much higher interest rates in our future.

    I think that the main thing keeping long-term interest rates low right now is cognitive dissonance. Even though the business community is starting to get scared -- the ultra-establishment Committee for Economic Development now warns that ''a fiscal crisis threatens our future standard of living'' -- investors still can't believe that the leaders of the United States are acting like the rulers of a banana republic. But I've done the math, and reached my own conclusions -- and I've locked in my rate.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/11/op...ain-wreck.html - Krugman 7 months later...


    This guy doesn't know his ass hole from his mouth hole... he's a disgrace to economics, a hypocrite, a liar, a democratic stooge, and has just about the worst track record of any mainstream economist out there.

    But it's OK... he and Obama have Nobel Prizes so they're never wrong!
    Last edited by NoOneButPaul; 07-14-2013 at 09:37 AM.
    It's just an opinion... man...

  9. #8
    As far as I can tell the only stance Rand Paul has taken that might be described as mildly populist is his call to reduce foreign aid. His economic program is very much generic Republican Conservatism. I wish someone could explain me what "Libertarian Populism" even means.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Paul Krugman attacks ... economy is stimulated ... (somebody break out the Slim Whitman ...)

    Pictured below: Paul Samuelson (left), Paul Krugman (center), John Maynard Keynes (right).
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 07-14-2013 at 11:17 AM.
    The Bastiat Collection · FREE PDF · FREE EPUB · PAPER
    Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)

    • "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law."
      -- The Law (p. 54)
    • "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
      -- Government (p. 99)
    • "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
      -- Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)
    • "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
      -- Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)

    · tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito ·

  12. #10
    ok

    yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeyyyyyyyyyyyyaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aallloooooooooooooooo

  13. #11

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by JCDenton0451 View Post
    As far as I can tell the only stance Rand Paul has taken that might be described as mildly populist is his call to reduce foreign aid. His economic program is very much generic Republican Conservatism. I wish someone could explain me what "Libertarian Populism" even means.
    Libertarian populism is essentially Ron's platform.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    Perhaps the most important lesson from Obamacare is that while liberty is lost incrementally, it cannot be regained incrementally. The federal leviathan continues its steady growth; sometimes boldly and sometimes quietly. Obamacare is just the latest example, but make no mistake: the statists are winning. So advocates of liberty must reject incremental approaches and fight boldly for bedrock principles.
    The epitome of libertarian populism

  15. #13
    If printing pieces of paper creates wealth, why, Mr Krugman, does poverty exist?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqHUB...endscreen&NR=1
    Last edited by whippoorwill; 07-14-2013 at 01:02 PM.
    >>>>>>Become a Precinct Committeeman<<<<<<
    http://becomeapc.com/



Similar Threads

  1. Sen. Rand Paul Pushes Back Against Paul Krugman’s Blog Attacks
    By GeorgiaAvenger in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 09-13-2012, 07:37 AM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-18-2011, 11:47 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-17-2011, 05:58 PM
  4. Krugman attacks Ron Paul for third day in a row
    By Agorism in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 12-20-2010, 03:37 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •