Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Keynesianism and Economic Predictions

jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 9:07:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I believe that the ability of an economic theory to make accurate predictions says a good deal about the school of economics. For instance, I think the ability of various free market economists to predict stagflation, the crash of 1929 (for Austrians at least), and the crash in 2008 (again for Austrians) says a lot about their models.

However, economists oftentimes are guilty of exploiting this by trying to make their school's predicative power seem more impressive than it actually is. Specifically, look out for some of these tricks:

1.) Creating a straw man of your opponent's predictions or act as if just because some of your opponent's were predicting X means that all were.

Example: Some were predicting a spike in interest rates as a result of large deficits, therefore the fact that I was not predicting this means that my school is uniquely good at making economic predictions.

2.) Predicting in hindsight. This is when economists didn't make a prediction but try to argue that their model should have. That may be all fare and well, but you can't claim predicative success for a prediction that you didn't make until after the event occurred.

Example: Yes, there was a lot of growth after WWII demobilization. And, it may be true that I predicted the exact opposite. But, as it turns out, my model should have been predicting this because of pent up demand. See, this was another victory for my model!

3.) Making vague or obvious predictions and claiming that the eventual realization is a confirmation of your views. This is what I call the Nostradamus trick.

Example: I predicted some sort of housing bubble therefore my model is right.

4.) Acting as if wrong predictions have been right or shrugging them off because you were closer than the strawman you created of your opponent.

Example: Spending cuts have led to economic downturns in Europe just like I predicted (this is actually not true).

OR

Example: I predicted deflation when he have actually had modest inflation, but my predictions was closer than people predicting hyperinflation (totally ignoring that there were some predicting modest inflation).

Yes, the keynesians are guilty of all of these. Especially, Mr. Paul Krugman.
slo1
Posts: 4,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2013 8:25:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/6/2013 9:07:01 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
I believe that the ability of an economic theory to make accurate predictions says a good deal about the school of economics. For instance, I think the ability of various free market economists to predict stagflation, the crash of 1929 (for Austrians at least), and the crash in 2008 (again for Austrians) says a lot about their models.

However, economists oftentimes are guilty of exploiting this by trying to make their school's predicative power seem more impressive than it actually is. Specifically, look out for some of these tricks:

1.) Creating a straw man of your opponent's predictions or act as if just because some of your opponent's were predicting X means that all were.

Example: Some were predicting a spike in interest rates as a result of large deficits, therefore the fact that I was not predicting this means that my school is uniquely good at making economic predictions.

2.) Predicting in hindsight. This is when economists didn't make a prediction but try to argue that their model should have. That may be all fare and well, but you can't claim predicative success for a prediction that you didn't make until after the event occurred.

Example: Yes, there was a lot of growth after WWII demobilization. And, it may be true that I predicted the exact opposite. But, as it turns out, my model should have been predicting this because of pent up demand. See, this was another victory for my model!

3.) Making vague or obvious predictions and claiming that the eventual realization is a confirmation of your views. This is what I call the Nostradamus trick.

Example: I predicted some sort of housing bubble therefore my model is right.


4.) Acting as if wrong predictions have been right or shrugging them off because you were closer than the strawman you created of your opponent.

Example: Spending cuts have led to economic downturns in Europe just like I predicted (this is actually not true).

OR

Example: I predicted deflation when he have actually had modest inflation, but my predictions was closer than people predicting hyperinflation (totally ignoring that there were some predicting modest inflation).



Yes, the keynesians are guilty of all of these. Especially, Mr. Paul Krugman.

Why do you single out the Keynesian school. All schools are guilty of these things and I would even point out a problem with the Austrian prediction of the housing bubble, they were already predicting it in early 2000 and it didn't burst until 2009.

We know there will be future bubbles and credit cycles. Can one really call it a prediction unless they get the timing right on it?
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2013 9:10:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/6/2013 9:07:01 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
I believe that the ability of an economic theory to make accurate predictions says a good deal about the school of economics. For instance, I think the ability of various free market economists to predict stagflation, the crash of 1929 (for Austrians at least), and the crash in 2008 (again for Austrians) says a lot about their models.

However, economists oftentimes are guilty of exploiting this by trying to make their school's predicative power seem more impressive than it actually is. Specifically, look out for some of these tricks:

1.) Creating a straw man of your opponent's predictions or act as if just because some of your opponent's were predicting X means that all were.

Example: Some were predicting a spike in interest rates as a result of large deficits, therefore the fact that I was not predicting this means that my school is uniquely good at making economic predictions.

2.) Predicting in hindsight. This is when economists didn't make a prediction but try to argue that their model should have. That may be all fare and well, but you can't claim predicative success for a prediction that you didn't make until after the event occurred.

Example: Yes, there was a lot of growth after WWII demobilization. And, it may be true that I predicted the exact opposite. But, as it turns out, my model should have been predicting this because of pent up demand. See, this was another victory for my model!

3.) Making vague or obvious predictions and claiming that the eventual realization is a confirmation of your views. This is what I call the Nostradamus trick.

Example: I predicted some sort of housing bubble therefore my model is right.


4.) Acting as if wrong predictions have been right or shrugging them off because you were closer than the strawman you created of your opponent.

Example: Spending cuts have led to economic downturns in Europe just like I predicted (this is actually not true).

OR

Example: I predicted deflation when he have actually had modest inflation, but my predictions was closer than people predicting hyperinflation (totally ignoring that there were some predicting modest inflation).



Yes, the keynesians are guilty of all of these. Especially, Mr. Paul Krugman.

All schools make false predictions. But as far as pundits go, krug man is one of the most accurate. http://www.hamilton.edu...
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2013 9:19:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
PAYNE: So, where are you then, Peter, with respect to inflation? Do you think this is going to be the big story of 2010?

SCHIFF: You know, look, I know inflation is going to get worse in 2010. Whether it"s going to run out of control or it"s going to take until 2011 or 2012, but I know we"re going to have a major currency crisis coming soon. It"s going to dwarf the financial crisis and it"s going to send consumer prices absolutely ballistic, as well as interest rates and unemployment.

PAYNE: You"re talking you"re talking Zimbabwe, Weimar, Germany " I mean, you"re really talking about something like that actually happening in this country.

SCHIFF: It will happen if we don"t change policies. There is still time to change.

Here's an example of an awful Austrian prediction. He predicts hyper inflation when inflation is as low as ever.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com...
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2013 11:07:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/7/2013 9:10:06 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/6/2013 9:07:01 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
I believe that the ability of an economic theory to make accurate predictions says a good deal about the school of economics. For instance, I think the ability of various free market economists to predict stagflation, the crash of 1929 (for Austrians at least), and the crash in 2008 (again for Austrians) says a lot about their models.

However, economists oftentimes are guilty of exploiting this by trying to make their school's predicative power seem more impressive than it actually is. Specifically, look out for some of these tricks:

1.) Creating a straw man of your opponent's predictions or act as if just because some of your opponent's were predicting X means that all were.

Example: Some were predicting a spike in interest rates as a result of large deficits, therefore the fact that I was not predicting this means that my school is uniquely good at making economic predictions.

2.) Predicting in hindsight. This is when economists didn't make a prediction but try to argue that their model should have. That may be all fare and well, but you can't claim predicative success for a prediction that you didn't make until after the event occurred.

Example: Yes, there was a lot of growth after WWII demobilization. And, it may be true that I predicted the exact opposite. But, as it turns out, my model should have been predicting this because of pent up demand. See, this was another victory for my model!

3.) Making vague or obvious predictions and claiming that the eventual realization is a confirmation of your views. This is what I call the Nostradamus trick.

Example: I predicted some sort of housing bubble therefore my model is right.


4.) Acting as if wrong predictions have been right or shrugging them off because you were closer than the strawman you created of your opponent.

Example: Spending cuts have led to economic downturns in Europe just like I predicted (this is actually not true).

OR

Example: I predicted deflation when he have actually had modest inflation, but my predictions was closer than people predicting hyperinflation (totally ignoring that there were some predicting modest inflation).



Yes, the keynesians are guilty of all of these. Especially, Mr. Paul Krugman.

All schools make false predictions. But as far as pundits go, krug man is one of the most accurate. http://www.hamilton.edu...

Except that study looks at political predictions not economic ones. That means it says nothing about the accuracy of the Keynesian school.

What we do know is that the Keynesian school has had an awful record of predictions in this crisis and in the past. Krugman himself has a pathetically bad record.

From post WW2 and WW1 growth, stagflation, the AD curve being upward sloping,etc., keynesians have done really bad.

Are all schools guilty?

Yes, but it is not evenly distributed. Keynesians have been unusually wrong and unusually dogmatic in their views. The cult of balance wants us to think that all schools are equally guilty when in fact the keynesians have really done much worse.

This idea of false equivalence between economic schools is harmful.

In reality- which has a well known libertarian bias-, keynes has been wrong and hayek right.
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2013 11:08:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/7/2013 9:19:15 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
PAYNE: So, where are you then, Peter, with respect to inflation? Do you think this is going to be the big story of 2010?


SCHIFF: You know, look, I know inflation is going to get worse in 2010. Whether it"s going to run out of control or it"s going to take until 2011 or 2012, but I know we"re going to have a major currency crisis coming soon. It"s going to dwarf the financial crisis and it"s going to send consumer prices absolutely ballistic, as well as interest rates and unemployment.

PAYNE: You"re talking you"re talking Zimbabwe, Weimar, Germany " I mean, you"re really talking about something like that actually happening in this country.

SCHIFF: It will happen if we don"t change policies. There is still time to change.

Here's an example of an awful Austrian prediction. He predicts hyper inflation when inflation is as low as ever.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com...

Who is your source for that?

Well, it is the king of bad predictions himself: Mr. Krugman.

And, plenty of free market economists did not predict inflation. So, just because one did does not mean that all did. Nice try though.
slo1
Posts: 4,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2013 1:19:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/7/2013 11:07:41 AM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/7/2013 9:10:06 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/6/2013 9:07:01 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
I believe that the ability of an economic theory to make accurate predictions says a good deal about the school of economics. For instance, I think the ability of various free market economists to predict stagflation, the crash of 1929 (for Austrians at least), and the crash in 2008 (again for Austrians) says a lot about their models.

However, economists oftentimes are guilty of exploiting this by trying to make their school's predicative power seem more impressive than it actually is. Specifically, look out for some of these tricks:

1.) Creating a straw man of your opponent's predictions or act as if just because some of your opponent's were predicting X means that all were.

Example: Some were predicting a spike in interest rates as a result of large deficits, therefore the fact that I was not predicting this means that my school is uniquely good at making economic predictions.

2.) Predicting in hindsight. This is when economists didn't make a prediction but try to argue that their model should have. That may be all fare and well, but you can't claim predicative success for a prediction that you didn't make until after the event occurred.

Example: Yes, there was a lot of growth after WWII demobilization. And, it may be true that I predicted the exact opposite. But, as it turns out, my model should have been predicting this because of pent up demand. See, this was another victory for my model!

3.) Making vague or obvious predictions and claiming that the eventual realization is a confirmation of your views. This is what I call the Nostradamus trick.

Example: I predicted some sort of housing bubble therefore my model is right.


4.) Acting as if wrong predictions have been right or shrugging them off because you were closer than the strawman you created of your opponent.

Example: Spending cuts have led to economic downturns in Europe just like I predicted (this is actually not true).

OR

Example: I predicted deflation when he have actually had modest inflation, but my predictions was closer than people predicting hyperinflation (totally ignoring that there were some predicting modest inflation).



Yes, the keynesians are guilty of all of these. Especially, Mr. Paul Krugman.

All schools make false predictions. But as far as pundits go, krug man is one of the most accurate. http://www.hamilton.edu...

Except that study looks at political predictions not economic ones. That means it says nothing about the accuracy of the Keynesian school.

What we do know is that the Keynesian school has had an awful record of predictions in this crisis and in the past. Krugman himself has a pathetically bad record.

From post WW2 and WW1 growth, stagflation, the AD curve being upward sloping,etc., keynesians have done really bad.

Are all schools guilty?

Yes, but it is not evenly distributed. Keynesians have been unusually wrong and unusually dogmatic in their views. The cult of balance wants us to think that all schools are equally guilty when in fact the keynesians have really done much worse.

This idea of false equivalence between economic schools is harmful.

In reality- which has a well known libertarian bias-, keynes has been wrong and hayek right.

This is the classic example of what is wrong with economics, everyone picks their preferred school, which is half political and half economics rather than focusing on cause and effect. Once you pick a school you then have to rationalize it in completely non logical ways to have your brain feel it is congruent in belief.

Where is your proof that Keynesians have done worse than Austrians with predictions?

Dean Baker - Neo Keynesian - Performed analysis in 2002 and concluded there was a housing bubble. Long before many Austrians even considered it.

Actually this guy does a quite remarkable job refuting the historic revision that the Austrian school did over emphasizing thier ability to predict the housing bubble.
http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com...

Here is the Ludwig Von Mises Institutes revisionist historical accounting of the predictions. Talking about cherry picking vague predictions and putting it together to make it something it is not.
http://wiki.mises.org...
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2013 4:12:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/7/2013 11:07:41 AM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/7/2013 9:10:06 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/6/2013 9:07:01 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
I believe that the ability of an economic theory to make accurate predictions says a good deal about the school of economics. For instance, I think the ability of various free market economists to predict stagflation, the crash of 1929 (for Austrians at least), and the crash in 2008 (again for Austrians) says a lot about their models.

However, economists oftentimes are guilty of exploiting this by trying to make their school's predicative power seem more impressive than it actually is. Specifically, look out for some of these tricks:

1.) Creating a straw man of your opponent's predictions or act as if just because some of your opponent's were predicting X means that all were.

Example: Some were predicting a spike in interest rates as a result of large deficits, therefore the fact that I was not predicting this means that my school is uniquely good at making economic predictions.

2.) Predicting in hindsight. This is when economists didn't make a prediction but try to argue that their model should have. That may be all fare and well, but you can't claim predicative success for a prediction that you didn't make until after the event occurred.

Example: Yes, there was a lot of growth after WWII demobilization. And, it may be true that I predicted the exact opposite. But, as it turns out, my model should have been predicting this because of pent up demand. See, this was another victory for my model!

3.) Making vague or obvious predictions and claiming that the eventual realization is a confirmation of your views. This is what I call the Nostradamus trick.

Example: I predicted some sort of housing bubble therefore my model is right.


4.) Acting as if wrong predictions have been right or shrugging them off because you were closer than the strawman you created of your opponent.

Example: Spending cuts have led to economic downturns in Europe just like I predicted (this is actually not true).

OR

Example: I predicted deflation when he have actually had modest inflation, but my predictions was closer than people predicting hyperinflation (totally ignoring that there were some predicting modest inflation).



Yes, the keynesians are guilty of all of these. Especially, Mr. Paul Krugman.

All schools make false predictions. But as far as pundits go, krug man is one of the most accurate. http://www.hamilton.edu...

Except that study looks at political predictions not economic ones. That means it says nothing about the accuracy of the Keynesian school.


"Even when the students eliminated political predictions and looked only at predictions for the economy and social issues, they found that liberals still do better than conservatives at prediction. After Krugman, the most accurate pundits were Maureen Dowd of The New York Times, former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi " all Democrats and/or liberals. Also landing in the "Good" category, however, were conservative columnists Kathleen Parker and David Brooks, along with Bush Administration Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson. Left-leaning columnist Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post rounded out the "good" list."

They also looked at economic predictions

What we do know is that the Keynesian school has had an awful record of predictions in this crisis and in the past. Krugman himself has a pathetically bad record.

From post WW2 and WW1 growth, stagflation, the AD curve being upward sloping,etc., keynesians have done really bad.

What are you talking about? If you think there is a poor economic prediction then name one. The new Keynesian model accounts for stagflation and explains ww2. The Keynes model has a downward ad curve like all other schools I know of. Do you think it it upward sloping. What the hell are you talking about? Please explain a false prediction, especially the ad curve one.
Are all schools guilty?

Yes, but it is not evenly distributed. Keynesians have been unusually wrong and unusually dogmatic in their views. The cult of balance wants us to think that all schools are equally guilty when in fact the keynesians have really done much worse.

This idea of false equivalence between economic schools is harmful.

In reality- which has a well known libertarian bias-, keynes has been wrong and hayek right.
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2013 6:36:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/7/2013 1:19:27 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 5/7/2013 11:07:41 AM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/7/2013 9:10:06 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/6/2013 9:07:01 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
I believe that the ability of an economic theory to make accurate predictions says a good deal about the school of economics. For instance, I think the ability of various free market economists to predict stagflation, the crash of 1929 (for Austrians at least), and the crash in 2008 (again for Austrians) says a lot about their models.

However, economists oftentimes are guilty of exploiting this by trying to make their school's predicative power seem more impressive than it actually is. Specifically, look out for some of these tricks:

1.) Creating a straw man of your opponent's predictions or act as if just because some of your opponent's were predicting X means that all were.

Example: Some were predicting a spike in interest rates as a result of large deficits, therefore the fact that I was not predicting this means that my school is uniquely good at making economic predictions.

2.) Predicting in hindsight. This is when economists didn't make a prediction but try to argue that their model should have. That may be all fare and well, but you can't claim predicative success for a prediction that you didn't make until after the event occurred.

Example: Yes, there was a lot of growth after WWII demobilization. And, it may be true that I predicted the exact opposite. But, as it turns out, my model should have been predicting this because of pent up demand. See, this was another victory for my model!

3.) Making vague or obvious predictions and claiming that the eventual realization is a confirmation of your views. This is what I call the Nostradamus trick.

Example: I predicted some sort of housing bubble therefore my model is right.


4.) Acting as if wrong predictions have been right or shrugging them off because you were closer than the strawman you created of your opponent.

Example: Spending cuts have led to economic downturns in Europe just like I predicted (this is actually not true).

OR

Example: I predicted deflation when he have actually had modest inflation, but my predictions was closer than people predicting hyperinflation (totally ignoring that there were some predicting modest inflation).



Yes, the keynesians are guilty of all of these. Especially, Mr. Paul Krugman.

All schools make false predictions. But as far as pundits go, krug man is one of the most accurate. http://www.hamilton.edu...

Except that study looks at political predictions not economic ones. That means it says nothing about the accuracy of the Keynesian school.

What we do know is that the Keynesian school has had an awful record of predictions in this crisis and in the past. Krugman himself has a pathetically bad record.

From post WW2 and WW1 growth, stagflation, the AD curve being upward sloping,etc., keynesians have done really bad.

Are all schools guilty?

Yes, but it is not evenly distributed. Keynesians have been unusually wrong and unusually dogmatic in their views. The cult of balance wants us to think that all schools are equally guilty when in fact the keynesians have really done much worse.

This idea of false equivalence between economic schools is harmful.

In reality- which has a well known libertarian bias-, keynes has been wrong and hayek right.

This is the classic example of what is wrong with economics, everyone picks their preferred school, which is half political and half economics rather than focusing on cause and effect. Once you pick a school you then have to rationalize it in completely non logical ways to have your brain feel it is congruent in belief.

Where is your proof that Keynesians have done worse than Austrians with predictions?


Dean Baker - Neo Keynesian - Performed analysis in 2002 and concluded there was a housing bubble. Long before many Austrians even considered it.

Actually this guy does a quite remarkable job refuting the historic revision that the Austrian school did over emphasizing thier ability to predict the housing bubble.
http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com...

Here is the Ludwig Von Mises Institutes revisionist historical accounting of the predictions. Talking about cherry picking vague predictions and putting it together to make it something it is not.
http://wiki.mises.org...

Um, according to pre 1970 Keynesianism, stagflation was not possible. Keynesians even admit this but claim they have changed their models (but they haven't...)

All schools have had events occur that are not LIKELY according to their models, but, as for the major models today, Keynesianism is distinct in being wrong about the possibility of an event happening.

As for other bad predictions, we can see the post war growth after WW1 and WW2 or the Japanese experience in the 1990s.

And, of course, Keynesians can't account for the utter non existence of liquidity traps and the fact that, for instance, the late 1800s saw both deflation and growth
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2013 6:41:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/7/2013 4:12:44 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/7/2013 11:07:41 AM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/7/2013 9:10:06 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/6/2013 9:07:01 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
I believe that the ability of an economic theory to make accurate predictions says a good deal about the school of economics. For instance, I think the ability of various free market economists to predict stagflation, the crash of 1929 (for Austrians at least), and the crash in 2008 (again for Austrians) says a lot about their models.

However, economists oftentimes are guilty of exploiting this by trying to make their school's predicative power seem more impressive than it actually is. Specifically, look out for some of these tricks:

1.) Creating a straw man of your opponent's predictions or act as if just because some of your opponent's were predicting X means that all were.

Example: Some were predicting a spike in interest rates as a result of large deficits, therefore the fact that I was not predicting this means that my school is uniquely good at making economic predictions.

2.) Predicting in hindsight. This is when economists didn't make a prediction but try to argue that their model should have. That may be all fare and well, but you can't claim predicative success for a prediction that you didn't make until after the event occurred.

Example: Yes, there was a lot of growth after WWII demobilization. And, it may be true that I predicted the exact opposite. But, as it turns out, my model should have been predicting this because of pent up demand. See, this was another victory for my model!

3.) Making vague or obvious predictions and claiming that the eventual realization is a confirmation of your views. This is what I call the Nostradamus trick.

Example: I predicted some sort of housing bubble therefore my model is right.


4.) Acting as if wrong predictions have been right or shrugging them off because you were closer than the strawman you created of your opponent.

Example: Spending cuts have led to economic downturns in Europe just like I predicted (this is actually not true).

OR

Example: I predicted deflation when he have actually had modest inflation, but my predictions was closer than people predicting hyperinflation (totally ignoring that there were some predicting modest inflation).



Yes, the keynesians are guilty of all of these. Especially, Mr. Paul Krugman.

All schools make false predictions. But as far as pundits go, krug man is one of the most accurate. http://www.hamilton.edu...

Except that study looks at political predictions not economic ones. That means it says nothing about the accuracy of the Keynesian school.



"Even when the students eliminated political predictions and looked only at predictions for the economy and social issues, they found that liberals still do better than conservatives at prediction. After Krugman, the most accurate pundits were Maureen Dowd of The New York Times, former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi " all Democrats and/or liberals. Also landing in the "Good" category, however, were conservative columnists Kathleen Parker and David Brooks, along with Bush Administration Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson. Left-leaning columnist Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post rounded out the "good" list."

Of course, we have no source for this quote. Regardless, this study is totally useless as far as telling us which economic model is the best predictor.

We know just by looking at history which schools have done a good job predicting economic events, and the keynesian school has done an awful job while most free market schools have done relatively well.

And, we also know just by looking at his actual predictions and comparing to reality that Krugman has done a bad job predicting economics. I don't know what kind of pathetic BS a study would have to use to distort that.


They also looked at economic predictions

What we do know is that the Keynesian school has had an awful record of predictions in this crisis and in the past. Krugman himself has a pathetically bad record.

From post WW2 and WW1 growth, stagflation, the AD curve being upward sloping,etc., keynesians have done really bad.

What are you talking about? If you think there is a poor economic prediction then name one. The new Keynesian model accounts for stagflation and explains ww2. The Keynes model has a downward ad curve like all other schools I know of. Do you think it it upward sloping. What the hell are you talking about? Please explain a false prediction, especially the ad curve one.

As I have said, keynesians like Mankiw have gotten new models that account for stagflation, because he is a fairly open minded fellow.

Krugman on the other hand just put a fake mustache on the models that claimed stagflation wasn't possible and claimed a change was made.

Are all schools guilty?

Yes, but it is not evenly distributed. Keynesians have been unusually wrong and unusually dogmatic in their views. The cult of balance wants us to think that all schools are equally guilty when in fact the keynesians have really done much worse.

This idea of false equivalence between economic schools is harmful.

In reality- which has a well known libertarian bias-, keynes has been wrong and hayek right.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2013 7:07:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/7/2013 6:41:38 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/7/2013 4:12:44 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/7/2013 11:07:41 AM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/7/2013 9:10:06 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/6/2013 9:07:01 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
I believe that the ability of an economic theory to make accurate predictions says a good deal about the school of economics. For instance, I think the ability of various free market economists to predict stagflation, the crash of 1929 (for Austrians at least), and the crash in 2008 (again for Austrians) says a lot about their models.

However, economists oftentimes are guilty of exploiting this by trying to make their school's predicative power seem more impressive than it actually is. Specifically, look out for some of these tricks:

1.) Creating a straw man of your opponent's predictions or act as if just because some of your opponent's were predicting X means that all were.

Example: Some were predicting a spike in interest rates as a result of large deficits, therefore the fact that I was not predicting this means that my school is uniquely good at making economic predictions.

2.) Predicting in hindsight. This is when economists didn't make a prediction but try to argue that their model should have. That may be all fare and well, but you can't claim predicative success for a prediction that you didn't make until after the event occurred.

Example: Yes, there was a lot of growth after WWII demobilization. And, it may be true that I predicted the exact opposite. But, as it turns out, my model should have been predicting this because of pent up demand. See, this was another victory for my model!

3.) Making vague or obvious predictions and claiming that the eventual realization is a confirmation of your views. This is what I call the Nostradamus trick.

Example: I predicted some sort of housing bubble therefore my model is right.


4.) Acting as if wrong predictions have been right or shrugging them off because you were closer than the strawman you created of your opponent.

Example: Spending cuts have led to economic downturns in Europe just like I predicted (this is actually not true).

OR

Example: I predicted deflation when he have actually had modest inflation, but my predictions was closer than people predicting hyperinflation (totally ignoring that there were some predicting modest inflation).



Yes, the keynesians are guilty of all of these. Especially, Mr. Paul Krugman.

All schools make false predictions. But as far as pundits go, krug man is one of the most accurate. http://www.hamilton.edu...

Except that study looks at political predictions not economic ones. That means it says nothing about the accuracy of the Keynesian school.



"Even when the students eliminated political predictions and looked only at predictions for the economy and social issues, they found that liberals still do better than conservatives at prediction. After Krugman, the most accurate pundits were Maureen Dowd of The New York Times, former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi " all Democrats and/or liberals. Also landing in the "Good" category, however, were conservative columnists Kathleen Parker and David Brooks, along with Bush Administration Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson. Left-leaning columnist Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post rounded out the "good" list."


Of course, we have no source for this quote. Regardless, this study is totally useless as far as telling us which economic model is the best predictor.

We know just by looking at history which schools have done a good job predicting economic events, and the keynesian school has done an awful job while most free market schools have done relatively well.

And, we also know just by looking at his actual predictions and comparing to reality that Krugman has done a bad job predicting economics. I don't know what kind of pathetic BS a study would have to use to distort that.

The quote above is from the link with the study. You keep saying ow bad krugman is at predicting yet have not given any sourced examples of false predictions.


They also looked at economic predictions

What we do know is that the Keynesian school has had an awful record of predictions in this crisis and in the past. Krugman himself has a pathetically bad record.

From post WW2 and WW1 growth, stagflation, the AD curve being upward sloping,etc., keynesians have done really bad.

What are you talking about? If you think there is a poor economic prediction then name one. The new Keynesian model accounts for stagflation and explains ww2. The Keynes model has a downward ad curve like all other schools I know of. Do you think it it upward sloping. What the hell are you talking about? Please explain a false prediction, especially the ad curve one.





As I have said, keynesians like Mankiw have gotten new models that account for stagflation, because he is a fairly open minded fellow.

Krugman on the other hand just put a fake mustache on the models that claimed stagflation wasn't possible and claimed a change was made.

Keynesian models now account for stagflation. Sow me a source of krugman saying that stagflation is not possible. Of course key signs believe in stagflation. Also, I wold love to hear your upward sloping ad curve objection. I believe you are talking out of your @ss. If you are not talking out of your @ss, please sow me a source of krugman not believing in stagflation or your pears sloping ad curve argument.

Are all schools guilty?

Yes, but it is not evenly distributed. Keynesians have been unusually wrong and unusually dogmatic in their views. The cult of balance wants us to think that all schools are equally guilty when in fact the keynesians have really done much worse.

This idea of false equivalence between economic schools is harmful.

In reality- which has a well known libertarian bias-, keynes has been wrong and hayek right.
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2013 8:21:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/7/2013 7:07:02 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/7/2013 6:41:38 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/7/2013 4:12:44 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/7/2013 11:07:41 AM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/7/2013 9:10:06 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/6/2013 9:07:01 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
I believe that the ability of an economic theory to make accurate predictions says a good deal about the school of economics. For instance, I think the ability of various free market economists to predict stagflation, the crash of 1929 (for Austrians at least), and the crash in 2008 (again for Austrians) says a lot about their models.

However, economists oftentimes are guilty of exploiting this by trying to make their school's predicative power seem more impressive than it actually is. Specifically, look out for some of these tricks:

1.) Creating a straw man of your opponent's predictions or act as if just because some of your opponent's were predicting X means that all were.

Example: Some were predicting a spike in interest rates as a result of large deficits, therefore the fact that I was not predicting this means that my school is uniquely good at making economic predictions.

2.) Predicting in hindsight. This is when economists didn't make a prediction but try to argue that their model should have. That may be all fare and well, but you can't claim predicative success for a prediction that you didn't make until after the event occurred.

Example: Yes, there was a lot of growth after WWII demobilization. And, it may be true that I predicted the exact opposite. But, as it turns out, my model should have been predicting this because of pent up demand. See, this was another victory for my model!

3.) Making vague or obvious predictions and claiming that the eventual realization is a confirmation of your views. This is what I call the Nostradamus trick.

Example: I predicted some sort of housing bubble therefore my model is right.


4.) Acting as if wrong predictions have been right or shrugging them off because you were closer than the strawman you created of your opponent.

Example: Spending cuts have led to economic downturns in Europe just like I predicted (this is actually not true).

OR

Example: I predicted deflation when he have actually had modest inflation, but my predictions was closer than people predicting hyperinflation (totally ignoring that there were some predicting modest inflation).



Yes, the keynesians are guilty of all of these. Especially, Mr. Paul Krugman.

All schools make false predictions. But as far as pundits go, krug man is one of the most accurate. http://www.hamilton.edu...

Except that study looks at political predictions not economic ones. That means it says nothing about the accuracy of the Keynesian school.



"Even when the students eliminated political predictions and looked only at predictions for the economy and social issues, they found that liberals still do better than conservatives at prediction. After Krugman, the most accurate pundits were Maureen Dowd of The New York Times, former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi " all Democrats and/or liberals. Also landing in the "Good" category, however, were conservative columnists Kathleen Parker and David Brooks, along with Bush Administration Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson. Left-leaning columnist Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post rounded out the "good" list."


Of course, we have no source for this quote. Regardless, this study is totally useless as far as telling us which economic model is the best predictor.

We know just by looking at history which schools have done a good job predicting economic events, and the keynesian school has done an awful job while most free market schools have done relatively well.

And, we also know just by looking at his actual predictions and comparing to reality that Krugman has done a bad job predicting economics. I don't know what kind of pathetic BS a study would have to use to distort that.

The quote above is from the link with the study. You keep saying ow bad krugman is at predicting yet have not given any sourced examples of false predictions.


They also looked at economic predictions

What we do know is that the Keynesian school has had an awful record of predictions in this crisis and in the past. Krugman himself has a pathetically bad record.

From post WW2 and WW1 growth, stagflation, the AD curve being upward sloping,etc., keynesians have done really bad.

What are you talking about? If you think there is a poor economic prediction then name one. The new Keynesian model accounts for stagflation and explains ww2. The Keynes model has a downward ad curve like all other schools I know of. Do you think it it upward sloping. What the hell are you talking about? Please explain a false prediction, especially the ad curve one.





As I have said, keynesians like Mankiw have gotten new models that account for stagflation, because he is a fairly open minded fellow.

Krugman on the other hand just put a fake mustache on the models that claimed stagflation wasn't possible and claimed a change was made.

Keynesian models now account for stagflation. Sow me a source of krugman saying that stagflation is not possible. Of course key signs believe in stagflation. Also, I wold love to hear your upward sloping ad curve objection. I believe you are talking out of your @ss. If you are not talking out of your @ss, please sow me a source of krugman not believing in stagflation or your pears sloping ad curve argument.

Are all schools guilty?

Yes, but it is not evenly distributed. Keynesians have been unusually wrong and unusually dogmatic in their views. The cult of balance wants us to think that all schools are equally guilty when in fact the keynesians have really done much worse.

This idea of false equivalence between economic schools is harmful.

In reality- which has a well known libertarian bias-, keynes has been wrong and hayek right.

You're obviously not reading what I am saying. I know Krugman says his models allow for stagflation. But, I am instead pointing out that that is not true. The models he is using, despite what he says, cannot account for stagflation.

And, if you want some bad predictions, I'll show you. For one, contrary to what Krugman says now, he had some pretty rosy predictions about the stimulus in 2009:

http://consultingbyrpm.com...

And, for good measure, here are some Krugman predictions from 1998 compared to reality (not much in common):

http://www.r21.org...
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2013 9:34:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/7/2013 8:21:34 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/7/2013 7:07:02 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/7/2013 6:41:38 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/7/2013 4:12:44 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/7/2013 11:07:41 AM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/7/2013 9:10:06 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/6/2013 9:07:01 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
I believe that the ability of an economic theory to make accurate predictions says a good deal about the school of economics. For instance, I think the ability of various free market economists to predict stagflation, the crash of 1929 (for Austrians at least), and the crash in 2008 (again for Austrians) says a lot about their models.

However, economists oftentimes are guilty of exploiting this by trying to make their school's predicative power seem more impressive than it actually is. Specifically, look out for some of these tricks:

1.) Creating a straw man of your opponent's predictions or act as if just because some of your opponent's were predicting X means that all were.

Example: Some were predicting a spike in interest rates as a result of large deficits, therefore the fact that I was not predicting this means that my school is uniquely good at making economic predictions.

2.) Predicting in hindsight. This is when economists didn't make a prediction but try to argue that their model should have. That may be all fare and well, but you can't claim predicative success for a prediction that you didn't make until after the event occurred.

Example: Yes, there was a lot of growth after WWII demobilization. And, it may be true that I predicted the exact opposite. But, as it turns out, my model should have been predicting this because of pent up demand. See, this was another victory for my model!

3.) Making vague or obvious predictions and claiming that the eventual realization is a confirmation of your views. This is what I call the Nostradamus trick.

Example: I predicted some sort of housing bubble therefore my model is right.


4.) Acting as if wrong predictions have been right or shrugging them off because you were closer than the strawman you created of your opponent.

Example: Spending cuts have led to economic downturns in Europe just like I predicted (this is actually not true).

OR

Example: I predicted deflation when he have actually had modest inflation, but my predictions was closer than people predicting hyperinflation (totally ignoring that there were some predicting modest inflation).



Yes, the keynesians are guilty of all of these. Especially, Mr. Paul Krugman.

All schools make false predictions. But as far as pundits go, krug man is one of the most accurate. http://www.hamilton.edu...

Except that study looks at political predictions not economic ones. That means it says nothing about the accuracy of the Keynesian school.



"Even when the students eliminated political predictions and looked only at predictions for the economy and social issues, they found that liberals still do better than conservatives at prediction. After Krugman, the most accurate pundits were Maureen Dowd of The New York Times, former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi " all Democrats and/or liberals. Also landing in the "Good" category, however, were conservative columnists Kathleen Parker and David Brooks, along with Bush Administration Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson. Left-leaning columnist Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post rounded out the "good" list."


Of course, we have no source for this quote. Regardless, this study is totally useless as far as telling us which economic model is the best predictor.

We know just by looking at history which schools have done a good job predicting economic events, and the keynesian school has done an awful job while most free market schools have done relatively well.

And, we also know just by looking at his actual predictions and comparing to reality that Krugman has done a bad job predicting economics. I don't know what kind of pathetic BS a study would have to use to distort that.

The quote above is from the link with the study. You keep saying ow bad krugman is at predicting yet have not given any sourced examples of false predictions.


They also looked at economic predictions

What we do know is that the Keynesian school has had an awful record of predictions in this crisis and in the past. Krugman himself has a pathetically bad record.

From post WW2 and WW1 growth, stagflation, the AD curve being upward sloping,etc., keynesians have done really bad.

What are you talking about? If you think there is a poor economic prediction then name one. The new Keynesian model accounts for stagflation and explains ww2. The Keynes model has a downward ad curve like all other schools I know of. Do you think it it upward sloping. What the hell are you talking about? Please explain a false prediction, especially the ad curve one.





As I have said, keynesians like Mankiw have gotten new models that account for stagflation, because he is a fairly open minded fellow.

Krugman on the other hand just put a fake mustache on the models that claimed stagflation wasn't possible and claimed a change was made.

Keynesian models now account for stagflation. Sow me a source of krugman saying that stagflation is not possible. Of course key signs believe in stagflation. Also, I wold love to hear your upward sloping ad curve objection. I believe you are talking out of your @ss. If you are not talking out of your @ss, please sow me a source of krugman not believing in stagflation or your pears sloping ad curve argument.

Are all schools guilty?

Yes, but it is not evenly distributed. Keynesians have been unusually wrong and unusually dogmatic in their views. The cult of balance wants us to think that all schools are equally guilty when in fact the keynesians have really done much worse.

This idea of false equivalence between economic schools is harmful.

In reality- which has a well known libertarian bias-, keynes has been wrong and hayek right.


You're obviously not reading what I am saying. I know Krugman says his models allow for stagflation. But, I am instead pointing out that that is not true. The models he is using, despite what he says, cannot account for stagflation.

So you dropped the upward sloping ad argument? Also, krugmans models do account for stagflation. He wrote a textbook that explains stagflation. How do his models not account for stagflation? Why do you think this?

And, if you want some bad predictions, I'll show you. For one, contrary to what Krugman says now, he had some pretty rosy predictions about the stimulus in 2009:

http://consultingbyrpm.com...


And, for good measure, here are some Krugman predictions from 1998 compared to reality (not much in common):

http://www.r21.org...
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2013 9:51:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/7/2013 9:34:40 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/7/2013 8:21:34 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/7/2013 7:07:02 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/7/2013 6:41:38 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/7/2013 4:12:44 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/7/2013 11:07:41 AM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/7/2013 9:10:06 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/6/2013 9:07:01 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
I believe that the ability of an economic theory to make accurate predictions says a good deal about the school of economics. For instance, I think the ability of various free market economists to predict stagflation, the crash of 1929 (for Austrians at least), and the crash in 2008 (again for Austrians) says a lot about their models.

However, economists oftentimes are guilty of exploiting this by trying to make their school's predicative power seem more impressive than it actually is. Specifically, look out for some of these tricks:

1.) Creating a straw man of your opponent's predictions or act as if just because some of your opponent's were predicting X means that all were.

Example: Some were predicting a spike in interest rates as a result of large deficits, therefore the fact that I was not predicting this means that my school is uniquely good at making economic predictions.

2.) Predicting in hindsight. This is when economists didn't make a prediction but try to argue that their model should have. That may be all fare and well, but you can't claim predicative success for a prediction that you didn't make until after the event occurred.

Example: Yes, there was a lot of growth after WWII demobilization. And, it may be true that I predicted the exact opposite. But, as it turns out, my model should have been predicting this because of pent up demand. See, this was another victory for my model!

3.) Making vague or obvious predictions and claiming that the eventual realization is a confirmation of your views. This is what I call the Nostradamus trick.

Example: I predicted some sort of housing bubble therefore my model is right.


4.) Acting as if wrong predictions have been right or shrugging them off because you were closer than the strawman you created of your opponent.

Example: Spending cuts have led to economic downturns in Europe just like I predicted (this is actually not true).

OR

Example: I predicted deflation when he have actually had modest inflation, but my predictions was closer than people predicting hyperinflation (totally ignoring that there were some predicting modest inflation).



Yes, the keynesians are guilty of all of these. Especially, Mr. Paul Krugman.

All schools make false predictions. But as far as pundits go, krug man is one of the most accurate. http://www.hamilton.edu...

Except that study looks at political predictions not economic ones. That means it says nothing about the accuracy of the Keynesian school.



"Even when the students eliminated political predictions and looked only at predictions for the economy and social issues, they found that liberals still do better than conservatives at prediction. After Krugman, the most accurate pundits were Maureen Dowd of The New York Times, former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi " all Democrats and/or liberals. Also landing in the "Good" category, however, were conservative columnists Kathleen Parker and David Brooks, along with Bush Administration Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson. Left-leaning columnist Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post rounded out the "good" list."


Of course, we have no source for this quote. Regardless, this study is totally useless as far as telling us which economic model is the best predictor.

We know just by looking at history which schools have done a good job predicting economic events, and the keynesian school has done an awful job while most free market schools have done relatively well.

And, we also know just by looking at his actual predictions and comparing to reality that Krugman has done a bad job predicting economics. I don't know what kind of pathetic BS a study would have to use to distort that.

The quote above is from the link with the study. You keep saying ow bad krugman is at predicting yet have not given any sourced examples of false predictions.


They also looked at economic predictions

What we do know is that the Keynesian school has had an awful record of predictions in this crisis and in the past. Krugman himself has a pathetically bad record.

From post WW2 and WW1 growth, stagflation, the AD curve being upward sloping,etc., keynesians have done really bad.

What are you talking about? If you think there is a poor economic prediction then name one. The new Keynesian model accounts for stagflation and explains ww2. The Keynes model has a downward ad curve like all other schools I know of. Do you think it it upward sloping. What the hell are you talking about? Please explain a false prediction, especially the ad curve one.





As I have said, keynesians like Mankiw have gotten new models that account for stagflation, because he is a fairly open minded fellow.

Krugman on the other hand just put a fake mustache on the models that claimed stagflation wasn't possible and claimed a change was made.

Keynesian models now account for stagflation. Sow me a source of krugman saying that stagflation is not possible. Of course key signs believe in stagflation. Also, I wold love to hear your upward sloping ad curve objection. I believe you are talking out of your @ss. If you are not talking out of your @ss, please sow me a source of krugman not believing in stagflation or your pears sloping ad curve argument.

Are all schools guilty?

Yes, but it is not evenly distributed. Keynesians have been unusually wrong and unusually dogmatic in their views. The cult of balance wants us to think that all schools are equally guilty when in fact the keynesians have really done much worse.

This idea of false equivalence between economic schools is harmful.

In reality- which has a well known libertarian bias-, keynes has been wrong and hayek right.


You're obviously not reading what I am saying. I know Krugman says his models allow for stagflation. But, I am instead pointing out that that is not true. The models he is using, despite what he says, cannot account for stagflation.

So you dropped the upward sloping ad argument? Also, krugmans models do account for stagflation. He wrote a textbook that explains stagflation. How do his models not account for stagflation? Why do you think this?


http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com...

Right there Krugman says that the AD curve is upward sloping...

You should know that keynesian models views on inflation and unemployment are based on the phillips curve (yes they still are).
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2013 11:20:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/7/2013 9:19:15 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
PAYNE: So, where are you then, Peter, with respect to inflation? Do you think this is going to be the big story of 2010?


SCHIFF: You know, look, I know inflation is going to get worse in 2010. Whether it"s going to run out of control or it"s going to take until 2011 or 2012, but I know we"re going to have a major currency crisis coming soon. It"s going to dwarf the financial crisis and it"s going to send consumer prices absolutely ballistic, as well as interest rates and unemployment.

PAYNE: You"re talking you"re talking Zimbabwe, Weimar, Germany " I mean, you"re really talking about something like that actually happening in this country.

SCHIFF: It will happen if we don"t change policies. There is still time to change.

Here's an example of an awful Austrian prediction. He predicts hyper inflation when inflation is as low as ever.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com...

I still side with Schiff on this, only that exactly when this will happen is not predictable. That it will happen because of the root causes that Schiff and others outline is what makes his model valid.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2013 11:21:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/7/2013 8:25:11 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 5/6/2013 9:07:01 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:

Yes, the keynesians are guilty of all of these. Especially, Mr. Paul Krugman.

Why do you single out the Keynesian school. All schools are guilty of these things and I would even point out a problem with the Austrian prediction of the housing bubble, they were already predicting it in early 2000 and it didn't burst until 2009.

We know there will be future bubbles and credit cycles. Can one really call it a prediction unless they get the timing right on it?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2013 11:46:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/7/2013 11:21:12 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/7/2013 8:25:11 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 5/6/2013 9:07:01 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:

Yes, the keynesians are guilty of all of these. Especially, Mr. Paul Krugman.

Why do you single out the Keynesian school. All schools are guilty of these things and I would even point out a problem with the Austrian prediction of the housing bubble, they were already predicting it in early 2000 and it didn't burst until 2009.

We know there will be future bubbles and credit cycles. Can one really call it a prediction unless they get the timing right on it?


I single out keynesians because there is an unusual smugness that is extremely unjustified. No school has been perfect, but keynesian models have been awful.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 7:26:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago


http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com...

Right there Krugman says that the AD curve is upward sloping...


You should know that keynesian models views on inflation an

Krugman is talking about a special situation called a liquidity trap. In normal situations krugman believes it is upward sloping. But in a trap, it makes sense to have an upward sloping ad. A fall in prices will increase the burden if debt and lower output and vice versa. Unless you have an argument as to why this is not true in a liquidity trap? Do you have one?

You say Keynesianism are often wrong, then pick on one Keynesian, krugman and say he is often very wrong. But, you have not yet shown one incidence where he is wrong ( and I will admit there are some). However, you have not mentioned any. All you have done was mention words like stagflation and liquidity traps. So. I challenge you to show how he is wrong like I have done for Schiff.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 7:33:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/7/2013 11:20:46 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/7/2013 9:19:15 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
PAYNE: So, where are you then, Peter, with respect to inflation? Do you think this is going to be the big story of 2010?


SCHIFF: You know, look, I know inflation is going to get worse in 2010. Whether it"s going to run out of control or it"s going to take until 2011 or 2012, but I know we"re going to have a major currency crisis coming soon. It"s going to dwarf the financial crisis and it"s going to send consumer prices absolutely ballistic, as well as interest rates and unemployment.

PAYNE: You"re talking you"re talking Zimbabwe, Weimar, Germany " I mean, you"re really talking about something like that actually happening in this country.

SCHIFF: It will happen if we don"t change policies. There is still time to change.

Here's an example of an awful Austrian prediction. He predicts hyper inflation when inflation is as low as ever.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com...

I still side with Schiff on this, only that exactly when this will happen is not predictable. That it will happen because of the root causes that Schiff and others outline is what makes his model valid.

Schiff predicted hyperinflation by 2012, so you cannot really side with him because it is 2013, and inflation is ultra low. Inflation has been coming in below target. So you think hyperinflation is coming? With inflation being ultra low, I do not see how anyone can think think this. Especially since the fed sets low targets for inflation. Hyperinflation in Zimbabwe and Germany were caused by idiot governments who printed way way way way more than the fed would ever dream of printing.
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 2:55:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 7:26:56 AM, twocupcakes wrote:


http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com...

Right there Krugman says that the AD curve is upward sloping...


You should know that keynesian models views on inflation an

Krugman is talking about a special situation called a liquidity trap. In normal situations krugman believes it is upward sloping. But in a trap, it makes sense to have an upward sloping ad. A fall in prices will increase the burden if debt and lower output and vice versa. Unless you have an argument as to why this is not true in a liquidity trap? Do you have one?

You say Keynesianism are often wrong, then pick on one Keynesian, krugman and say he is often very wrong. But, you have not yet shown one incidence where he is wrong ( and I will admit there are some). However, you have not mentioned any. All you have done was mention words like stagflation and liquidity traps. So. I challenge you to show how he is wrong like I have done for Schiff.

Um. I meant that Krugman thought AD curves were upward sloping right now.

And, I gave you a whole list of wrong predictions from 1998 and mentioned a few others more recently.

Pretending that I didn't give you examples may help you preserve your own wrong worldview but it is not honest.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 3:18:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 2:55:13 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/8/2013 7:26:56 AM, twocupcakes wrote:


http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com...

Right there Krugman says that the AD curve is upward sloping...


You should know that keynesian models views on inflation an

Krugman is talking about a special situation called a liquidity trap. In normal situations krugman believes it is upward sloping. But in a trap, it makes sense to have an upward sloping ad. A fall in prices will increase the burden if debt and lower output and vice versa. Unless you have an argument as to why this is not true in a liquidity trap? Do you have one?

You say Keynesianism are often wrong, then pick on one Keynesian, krugman and say he is often very wrong. But, you have not yet shown one incidence where he is wrong ( and I will admit there are some). However, you have not mentioned any. All you have done was mention words like stagflation and liquidity traps. So. I challenge you to show how he is wrong like I have done for Schiff.


Um. I meant that Krugman thought AD curves were upward sloping right now.

As I explained last post, krugman is right to thing ad curves are upward sloping right now. Unless you disagree,min which case you can provide an argument.

And, I gave you a whole list of wrong predictions from 1998 and mentioned a few others more recently.

I forgot. You did post a link. But besides posting a link you have not argued anything yourself. Just because someone follows a school of economics does not mean they can accurately 100 percent make every prediction. So, if you think that krugmans predictions show a whole in Keynesian economics, please argue why.

Pretending that I didn't give you examples may help you preserve your own wrong worldview but it is not honest.
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 5:59:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
.


Um. I meant that Krugman thought AD curves were upward sloping right now.

As I explained last post, krugman is right to thing ad curves are upward sloping right now. Unless you disagree,min which case you can provide an argument.

Okay. So we've gone from you saying that me saying that Krugman thinking the AD curve is a straw man to you defending Krugman saying AD curves are upward sloping.

By the way, the BoP is on you and Krugman to show that they are upward sloping... not me.


And, I gave you a whole list of wrong predictions from 1998 and mentioned a few others more recently.

I forgot. You did post a link. But besides posting a link you have not argued anything yourself. Just because someone follows a school of economics does not mean they can accurately 100 percent make every prediction. So, if you think that krugmans predictions show a whole in Keynesian economics, please argue why.


Who cares if I argued it myself?!

The point I was making was that Krugman was not good at making economic predictions.

And, I made two seperate points:

1.) Krugman is bad at making predictions

2.) The Keynesian model is bad at making predictions

#2 is not true because of #1. They are both true because they are both true.

I have already shown Krugman's bad predictions.

Now, we can look at stagflation, post WWII growth, all the examples of growth during fiscal austerity, etc as some bad predictions for the keynesian model.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 4:25:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 5:59:15 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
.


Um. I meant that Krugman thought AD curves were upward sloping right now.

As I explained last post, krugman is right to thing ad curves are upward sloping right now. Unless you disagree,min which case you can provide an argument.


Okay. So we've gone from you saying that me saying that Krugman thinking the AD curve is a straw man to you defending Krugman saying AD curves are upward sloping.

I don't see how I can be blamed for misinterpreting your argument as all you said was "upward sloping ad". You did not even have one sentence. How was I supposed to know you meant "krugman is wrong for thinking the ad is upward sloping in a liquidity trap because of..."?

By the way, the BoP is on you and Krugman to show that they are upward sloping... not me.

I did show why it is upward sloping. Yet, I fail to see how I have the burden? You started this thread. You made the claim that Keynesianism makes bad predictions. Not only do you have to show that krugman is wrong. You have to show how him being wrong undermines Keynes theory.


And, I gave you a whole list of wrong predictions from 1998 and mentioned a few others more recently.

I forgot. You did post a link. But besides posting a link you have not argued anything yourself. Just because someone follows a school of economics does not mean they can accurately 100 percent make every prediction. So, if you think that krugmans predictions show a whole in Keynesian economics, please argue why.



Who cares if I argued it myself?!

The point I was making was that Krugman was not good at making economic predictions.

At least summarize the article yourself. It is unreasonable just to post links. I don't wish to argue against someone else who wrote an article online and can't respond to me.

And, I made two seperate points:

1.) Krugman is bad at making predictions

2.) The Keynesian model is bad at making predictions


#2 is not true because of #1. They are both true because they are both true.

I have already shown Krugman's bad predictions.

Now, we can look at stagflation, post WWII growth, all the examples of growth during fiscal austerity, etc as some bad predictions for the keynesian model.

You have not shown 2. Further, as I said new Keynesianism, the only current kind, accounts for stagflation. Krugman explains stagflation in his text book as a left ward shifting as and ad curve. As for ww2 growth, the fiscal spending in the war grew the economy. Keynesianism believe there is growth in austerity, just not a recession and austerity. Look at the slow growth in the recession when Europe had austerity.
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 10:43:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2013 4:25:41 PM, twocupcakes wrote:

I don't see how I can be blamed for misinterpreting your argument as all you said was "upward sloping ad". You did not even have one sentence. How was I supposed to know you meant "krugman is wrong for thinking the ad is upward sloping in a liquidity trap because of..."?

Krugman thinks we are in a liquidity trap now so Krugman does think we are in a the ad curve is upward sloping right now. Which is quite clearly what I meant.


I did show why it is upward sloping. Yet, I fail to see how I have the burden? You started this thread. You made the claim that Keynesianism makes bad predictions. Not only do you have to show that krugman is wrong. You have to show how him being wrong undermines Keynes theory.

Um. You did not show why it is upward sloping. And, if you make the claim that the AD curve is upward sloping in a LT and we are in a LT right now the BoP is indeed on you.




At least summarize the article yourself. It is unreasonable just to post links. I don't wish to argue against someone else who wrote an article online and can't respond to me.

What if the link says all that I want to say in a more articulate manner?



You have not shown 2. Further, as I said new Keynesianism, the only current kind, accounts for stagflation. Krugman explains stagflation in his text book as a left ward shifting as and ad curve. As for ww2 growth, the fiscal spending in the war grew the economy. Keynesianism believe there is growth in austerity, just not a recession and austerity. Look at the slow growth in the recession when Europe had austerity.

I hope you realize that Krugman's leftward shift was a total dodge that does not even come close to explaining stagflation. Indeed, the models that Krugman uses today were shown to be wrong 30 years ago when stagflation occurred.

Your point about WW2 is entirely incoherent. What happened is that there was massive spending cuts that make other instances of austerity look small by comparison when the war ended. Keynesians predicted that this would lead to another great depression. Indeed, they argued that we would be smart to keep on producing war goods.

Well, their prediction turned out to be totally wrong. Massive austerity was accompanied by great growth. Of course, Keynesian's had a pathetic cop out in "pent up demand". Just like the leftward move that failed to explain stagflation... this was just a pathetic attempt for damage control.

And, I love keynesians just claiming "Look at Austerity in Europe!!". Well, let us make a couple things clear:

1.) Many countries that have cut spending have indeed had solid growth. You can look at Sweden, Germany, or the Baltic countries. Of course, Keynesians had a cover up here with "Exports!!". Shocker.

2.) Indeed. What has failed in Europe is tax increases along with a bloated public sector and massive debt. The problems in Europe are a result of years of spending more than they can afford. Cutting spending now is a necessary thing. Don't link me any Krugman BS on this. He doesn't know a damn thing about Europe.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2013 7:30:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2013 10:43:20 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/11/2013 4:25:41 PM, twocupcakes wrote:

I don't see how I can be blamed for misinterpreting your argument as all you said was "upward sloping ad". You did not even have one sentence. How was I supposed to know you meant "krugman is wrong for thinking the ad is upward sloping in a liquidity trap because of..."?



Krugman thinks we are in a liquidity trap now so Krugman does think we are in a the ad curve is upward sloping right now. Which is quite clearly what I meant.

I don't see how this is clearly what you meant when all you said was upward sloping ad?

I did show why it is upward sloping. Yet, I fail to see how I have the burden? You started this thread. You made the claim that Keynesianism makes bad predictions. Not only do you have to show that krugman is wrong. You have to show how him being wrong undermines Keynes theory.


Um. You did not show why it is upward sloping. And, if you make the claim that the AD curve is upward sloping in a LT and we are in a LT right now the BoP is indeed on you.


"A fall in prices will increase the burden of debt and lower output and vice versa."

This is what I said and why it is upward sloping. You started the thread and you made the claim that Krugman is wrong. You are making the contention and the claim that krugman is wrong.You have to show he is wrong.

I can't argue with myself. If you present an argument that we are not in a liquidity trap, then I will rebuke it. But, I do not see why I have to defend against an argument you never gave.



At least summarize the article yourself. It is unreasonable just to post links. I don't wish to argue against someone else who wrote an article online and can't respond to me.



What if the link says all that I want to say in a more articulate manner?

The link is pages of text. You should be able to be more articulate than pages of text. A brief argument and summarization is more articulate than showing a link.



You have not shown 2. Further, as I said new Keynesianism, the only current kind, accounts for stagflation. Krugman explains stagflation in his text book as a left ward shifting as and ad curve. As for ww2 growth, the fiscal spending in the war grew the economy. Keynesianism believe there is growth in austerity, just not a recession and austerity. Look at the slow growth in the recession when Europe had austerity.

I hope you realize that Krugman's leftward shift was a total dodge that does not even come close to explaining stagflation. Indeed, the models that Krugman uses today were shown to be wrong 30 years ago when stagflation occurred.

Krugman, like everyone else now uses models that explain stagflation. Do you not agree. What do you dislike about krugman's explanation of stagflation. I would defend him, but how can I when I have no idea what your criticism is? I do not see how he is wrong, or why you think he is wrong?
Your point about WW2 is entirely incoherent. What happened is that there was massive spending cuts that make other instances of austerity look small by comparison when the war ended. Keynesians predicted that this would lead to another great depression. Indeed, they argued that we would be smart to keep on producing war goods.

Well, their prediction turned out to be totally wrong. Massive austerity was accompanied by great growth. Of course, Keynesian's had a pathetic cop out in "pent up demand". Just like the leftward move that failed to explain stagflation... this was just a pathetic attempt for damage control.

As Keynesians believe that there should be spending cuts in a boom and increase in spending in a recession, I think ww2 supports it.

And, I love keynesians just claiming "Look at Austerity in Europe!!". Well, let us make a couple things clear:

1.) Many countries that have cut spending have indeed had solid growth. You can look at Sweden, Germany, or the Baltic countries. Of course, Keynesians had a cover up here with "Exports!!". Shocker.

2.) Indeed. What has failed in Europe is tax increases along with a bloated public sector and massive debt. The problems in Europe are a result of years of spending more than they can afford. Cutting spending now is a necessary thing. Don't link me any Krugman BS on this. He doesn't know a damn thing about Europe.

I would love to debate you about Europe and austerity.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2013 2:07:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/7/2013 11:46:22 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/7/2013 11:21:12 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/7/2013 8:25:11 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 5/6/2013 9:07:01 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:

Yes, the keynesians are guilty of all of these. Especially, Mr. Paul Krugman.

Why do you single out the Keynesian school. All schools are guilty of these things and I would even point out a problem with the Austrian prediction of the housing bubble, they were already predicting it in early 2000 and it didn't burst until 2009.

We know there will be future bubbles and credit cycles. Can one really call it a prediction unless they get the timing right on it?



I single out keynesians because there is an unusual smugness that is extremely unjustified. No school has been perfect, but keynesian models have been awful.

I agree that self-labeled Keynesians have been smug, especially Krugman...power corrupts...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2013 2:11:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 7:33:25 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/7/2013 11:20:46 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/7/2013 9:19:15 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
PAYNE: So, where are you then, Peter, with respect to inflation? Do you think this is going to be the big story of 2010?


SCHIFF: You know, look, I know inflation is going to get worse in 2010. Whether it"s going to run out of control or it"s going to take until 2011 or 2012, but I know we"re going to have a major currency crisis coming soon. It"s going to dwarf the financial crisis and it"s going to send consumer prices absolutely ballistic, as well as interest rates and unemployment.

PAYNE: You"re talking you"re talking Zimbabwe, Weimar, Germany " I mean, you"re really talking about something like that actually happening in this country.

SCHIFF: It will happen if we don"t change policies. There is still time to change.

Here's an example of an awful Austrian prediction. He predicts hyper inflation when inflation is as low as ever.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com...

I still side with Schiff on this, only that exactly when this will happen is not predictable. That it will happen because of the root causes that Schiff and others outline is what makes his model valid.

Schiff predicted hyperinflation by 2012, so you cannot really side with him because it is 2013, and inflation is ultra low. Inflation has been coming in below target. So you think hyperinflation is coming? With inflation being ultra low, I do not see how anyone can think think this. Especially since the fed sets low targets for inflation. Hyperinflation in Zimbabwe and Germany were caused by idiot governments who printed way way way way more than the fed would ever dream of printing.

I side with Schiff on the logic that led to his prediction, but I find almost any and all predictive models that have strict timelines to be fallacious.

I don't think Schiff made any definitive statement that what he saw happening was going to happen in 2012. All he says is that "I know we"re going to have a major currency crisis coming soon." He also says that it is wholly preventable: "It will happen if we don"t change policies. There is still time to change."

Schiff is a smart guy. Most smart people in the field of investing know to be extremely careful in making any predictive/forward-looking statements.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2013 7:11:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2013 7:30:56 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/11/2013 10:43:20 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/11/2013 4:25:41 PM, twocupcakes wrote:

I don't see how I can be blamed for misinterpreting your argument as all you said was "upward sloping ad". You did not even have one sentence. How was I supposed to know you meant "krugman is wrong for thinking the ad is upward sloping in a liquidity trap because of..."?



Krugman thinks we are in a liquidity trap now so Krugman does think we are in a the ad curve is upward sloping right now. Which is quite clearly what I meant.

I don't see how this is clearly what you meant when all you said was upward sloping ad?

You acted like I was creating a blatant strawman when I initially said that Krugman believed the AD curve was upward sloping. It is now clear that, at worst, I was merely not being specific enough.

You were wrong about me trying to create a strawman. Case closed.


I did show why it is upward sloping. Yet, I fail to see how I have the burden? You started this thread. You made the claim that Keynesianism makes bad predictions. Not only do you have to show that krugman is wrong. You have to show how him being wrong undermines Keynes theory.


Um. You did not show why it is upward sloping. And, if you make the claim that the AD curve is upward sloping in a LT and we are in a LT right now the BoP is indeed on you.


"A fall in prices will increase the burden of debt and lower output and vice versa."

And this supports the upward sloping AD curve how?


This is what I said and why it is upward sloping. You started the thread and you made the claim that Krugman is wrong. You are making the contention and the claim that krugman is wrong.You have to show he is wrong.

I can't argue with myself. If you present an argument that we are not in a liquidity trap, then I will rebuke it. But, I do not see why I have to defend against an argument you never gave.

If you are arguing we are in a LT, the BoP is on you.

My initial claim was that the Keynesian model has made bad predictions in the past. The BoP is on me for that claim and I clearly met it.

You, and other keynesians, claim we are in a LT. the BoP is on you guys there.




At least summarize the article yourself. It is unreasonable just to post links. I don't wish to argue against someone else who wrote an article online and can't respond to me.



What if the link says all that I want to say in a more articulate manner?

The link is pages of text. You should be able to be more articulate than pages of text. A brief argument and summarization is more articulate than showing a link.

Which link was pages of text?




You have not shown 2. Further, as I said new Keynesianism, the only current kind, accounts for stagflation. Krugman explains stagflation in his text book as a left ward shifting as and ad curve. As for ww2 growth, the fiscal spending in the war grew the economy. Keynesianism believe there is growth in austerity, just not a recession and austerity. Look at the slow growth in the recession when Europe had austerity.

I hope you realize that Krugman's leftward shift was a total dodge that does not even come close to explaining stagflation. Indeed, the models that Krugman uses today were shown to be wrong 30 years ago when stagflation occurred.

Krugman, like everyone else now uses models that explain stagflation. Do you not agree. What do you dislike about krugman's explanation of stagflation. I would defend him, but how can I when I have no idea what your criticism is? I do not see how he is wrong, or why you think he is wrong?

Literally all he did was just move the aggregate supply curve to the left. It is a nice trick but does not even come close to explaining stagflation. Clearly, the BoP is on Keynesians to show they have adjusted their models accordingly to account for stagflation and this trick doesn't even come close.

Your point about WW2 is entirely incoherent. What happened is that there was massive spending cuts that make other instances of austerity look small by comparison when the war ended. Keynesians predicted that this would lead to another great depression. Indeed, they argued that we would be smart to keep on producing war goods.

Well, their prediction turned out to be totally wrong. Massive austerity was accompanied by great growth. Of course, Keynesian's had a pathetic cop out in "pent up demand". Just like the leftward move that failed to explain stagflation... this was just a pathetic attempt for damage control.

As Keynesians believe that there should be spending cuts in a boom and increase in spending in a recession, I think ww2 supports it.

Well, you need to tell that to the keynesian economists of the time who were all wrong in their predictions about what would happen after the war.


And, I love keynesians just claiming "Look at Austerity in Europe!!". Well, let us make a couple things clear:

1.) Many countries that have cut spending have indeed had solid growth. You can look at Sweden, Germany, or the Baltic countries. Of course, Keynesians had a cover up here with "Exports!!". Shocker.

2.) Indeed. What has failed in Europe is tax increases along with a bloated public sector and massive debt. The problems in Europe are a result of years of spending more than they can afford. Cutting spending now is a necessary thing. Don't link me any Krugman BS on this. He doesn't know a damn thing about Europe.

I would love to debate you about Europe and austerity.

Too specific of a debate. I'd be open to a more general economic debate.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2013 2:28:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago

"A fall in prices will increase the burden of debt and lower output and vice versa."



And this supports the upward sloping AD curve how?

A downward sloping ad would be one where a fall in prices leads to a fall in output. A fall in prices would increase the burden of debt. A fall in prices hurts borrowers. For example, if a company has $100,000 in assets and $50,000 in debt. Imagine if prices fall in half, the company still has $50,000 n debt, but now has only $50,000 in assets. Companies are in bad shape and output falls.

Usually, the aggregate demand curve is downward sloping. As the aggregate price level decreases, the nominal money supply increases, which lowers interest rates and decreases investment which lowers output. Also, as interest rates decrease the value of domestic currency depreciates which increases net exports and output. However, in a LT, interest rates cannot go any lower, so the usual way to derive the ad does not apply.




I can't argue with myself. If you present an argument that we are not in a liquidity trap, then I will rebuke it. But, I do not see why I have to defend against an argument you never gave.


If you are arguing we are in a LT, the BoP is on you.
I would prove it. But, i do not no your objection to it. If you let me know what you do not like about it, I will answer your objections. But, I do not see how I can defend it if I do not know what you object to. Do you expect me to spit the whole theory of LTs because you give one comment about how they do not exist?
My initial claim was that the Keynesian model has made bad predictions in the past. The BoP is on me for that claim and I clearly met it.



Krugman, like everyone else now uses models that explain stagflation. Do you not agree. What do you dislike about krugman's explanation of stagflation. I would defend him, but how can I when I have no idea what your criticism is? I do not see how he is wrong, or why you think he is wrong?


Literally all he did was just move the aggregate supply curve to the left. It is a nice trick but does not even come close to explaining stagflation. Clearly, the BoP is on Keynesians to show they have adjusted their models accordingly to account for stagflation and this trick doesn't even come close.

As far as I know, a shifting AS is the same way monetarists explain stagflation (Monetarism is lead by Milton Friedman and is pretty conservative). The dispute is between how freely as fast the AS shifts. So, how does this not explain stagflation and what model to you subscribe you?



Well, you need to tell that to the keynesian economists of the time who were all wrong in their predictions about what would happen after the war.


So you are comparing current economists with your theory to keynsians in the 1930s and 1940s? Surely it is more fair to compare your theory to current economists?





I would love to debate you about Europe and austerity.


Too specific of a debate. I'd be open to a more general economic debate.

Europe and Austerity are a pretty broad topic. What would you want to debate then. "In general, implementing austerity in a recession is stupid economic policy"
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2013 7:55:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/13/2013 2:28:31 PM, twocupcakes wrote:

"A fall in prices will increase the burden of debt and lower output and vice versa."



And this supports the upward sloping AD curve how?

A downward sloping ad would be one where a fall in prices leads to a fall in output. A fall in prices would increase the burden of debt. A fall in prices hurts borrowers. For example, if a company has $100,000 in assets and $50,000 in debt. Imagine if prices fall in half, the company still has $50,000 n debt, but now has only $50,000 in assets. Companies are in bad shape and output falls.

Usually, the aggregate demand curve is downward sloping. As the aggregate price level decreases, the nominal money supply increases, which lowers interest rates and decreases investment which lowers output. Also, as interest rates decrease the value of domestic currency depreciates which increases net exports and output. However, in a LT, interest rates cannot go any lower, so the usual way to derive the ad does not apply.

You do realize that the whole idea that the central bank can't do anything when they hit the zero bound is entirely bs. The liqudity trap is a myth.





I can't argue with myself. If you present an argument that we are not in a liquidity trap, then I will rebuke it. But, I do not see why I have to defend against an argument you never gave.


If you are arguing we are in a LT, the BoP is on you.
I would prove it. But, i do not no your objection to it. If you let me know what you do not like about it, I will answer your objections. But, I do not see how I can defend it if I do not know what you object to. Do you expect me to spit the whole theory of LTs because you give one comment about how they do not exist?

Well. If I am correct, the LT would imply that the central bank essentially can't do anything and only fiscal policy can, which is obviously wrong as the central bank never really runs out of ammo.

It may be that the LT does not imply this, but it is not my fault for thinking so because folks like Krugman have implied this.

My initial claim was that the Keynesian model has made bad predictions in the past. The BoP is on me for that claim and I clearly met it.



Krugman, like everyone else now uses models that explain stagflation. Do you not agree. What do you dislike about krugman's explanation of stagflation. I would defend him, but how can I when I have no idea what your criticism is? I do not see how he is wrong, or why you think he is wrong?


Literally all he did was just move the aggregate supply curve to the left. It is a nice trick but does not even come close to explaining stagflation. Clearly, the BoP is on Keynesians to show they have adjusted their models accordingly to account for stagflation and this trick doesn't even come close.

As far as I know, a shifting AS is the same way monetarists explain stagflation (Monetarism is lead by Milton Friedman and is pretty conservative). The dispute is between how freely as fast the AS shifts. So, how does this not explain stagflation and what model to you subscribe you?

LOLZ to you thinking I didn't know about Friedman and monetarism.

And, that is probably the stupidest explanation of the differences between monetarism and keynesianism I have EVER heard.




Well, you need to tell that to the keynesian economists of the time who were all wrong in their predictions about what would happen after the war.


So you are comparing current economists with your theory to keynsians in the 1930s and 1940s? Surely it is more fair to compare your theory to current economists?

So, we should just pretend that Keynesians didn't exist before the past few years??






I would love to debate you about Europe and austerity.


Too specific of a debate. I'd be open to a more general economic debate.

Europe and Austerity are a pretty broad topic. What would you want to debate then. "In general, implementing austerity in a recession is stupid economic policy"

No. I'm not gonna defend "austerity". All that will happen is that youll want me to defend a bunch of keynesian straw men.

I'll argue a broader economic topic like, perhaps, keynesianism. But, I'm not gonna waste people's time with some strawman debate about the evil austerians.