Krugman New York Times

Even Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman is worried about a double-dip recession. Recently, in a New York Times Op-Ed column, Krugman said, “…it will be important to remember, first of all, that blips — occasional good numbers, signifying nothing — are common even when the economy is, in fact, mired in a prolonged slump.” Krugman thinks there is a “30 to 40 percent” chance of a double-dip recession. The Nobel Prize winner also thinks the economy will run out of gas by the middle of 2010 and, if that happens, he will surely want more spending or stimulus. To me, that really means more money printing to continue the bailout for the rich. Krugman is not alone in his fear of a double-dip recession. Economist John Williams of Shadow Government Statistics is also talking about a double-dip in a recent commentary. Unlike Krugman, Williams says, another nasty downturn is practically unavoidable. In essence, his analysis is showing a nose dive in what he calls the “real money supply.” A contracting money supply almost always precedes economic downturns. Williams, like Krugman, also thinks that the double-dip will be “obvious by mid 2010.” Williams paints a much direr picture of the coming economy than Krugman. He says that the “tumbling real money supply promises an intensified depression.”

Answer: No. Cons want another recession in order to bash the Obama administration on the basis of the state of the economy and thereby provide a means for the Republicans to regain power. Krugman has said from the beginning of the debate about the stimulus that the original stimulus was much too small to effectively stimulate this giant economy. I agree with him. Also, he criticized the hundreds of billions in the stimulus that consisted of tax cuts that were put in as concessions to Republicans but that were ineffective and even unnoticed by most. I agree with him on that also.

Glenn Beck[ 1] Politics Television, Radio FOX News Channel Paul Begala [citation needed] Politics Television CNN Ann Coulter[2] Politics, Culture Newspapers, Television The National Review Alex Castellanos[3] Politics Television CNN David Gergen[4] Politics Television CNN Craig Crawford[5] Politics Blogs CQ Politics Stephen A. Smith Politics, Culture Radio, Television Ron Reagan Politics Radio Bret Baier Politics Television FOX News Channel David Corn Politics Newsmagazines Mother Jones Steve Doocy Politics, Culture Television FOX News Channel Richard Wolffe[6] Politics Television, Books, Blogs MSNBC Paul Gigot[7] Politics Newspapers, Television FOX News Channel The Wall Street Journal David Brooks[8] Politics Newspapers The New York Times Tucker Carlson[9] Politics Television, Blogs FOX News Channel The Daily Caller Sanjay Gupta[10] Health & Medicine Television CNN Jim Cramer[11] Economics, Business Television CNBC James Carville[3] Politics Television CNN Bill Press[12] Politics Radio, Blogs, Television Alan Colmes[13] Politics Blogs, Radio FOX News Channel Liberaland Chuck Todd[14] Politics Television MSNBC, NBC Greta Van Susteren[15] Politics Television FOX News Channel Mary Matalin[3] Politics Television CNN Liz Cheney Politics, Defense Television E.J. Dionne[16] Politics Newspapers The Washington Post Ed Schultz[17] Politics, Sports Television, Radio MSNBC Maureen Dowd[16] Politics Newspapers The New York Times Joe Scarborough[18] Politics Television, Radio MSNBC Huffington Post Thomas Friedman[16] Foreign Affairs, Environment Newspapers Ron Christie Politics, Law Newspapers, Television MSNBC The Hill Nancy Grace[19] Law Television HLN Howard Dean[20] Politics Television CNBC Sean Hannity[21] Politics Television, Radio FOX News Channel, FOX News Radio John McLaughlin Politics Television CBS, PBS Donna Brazile[22] Politics Television CNN Bob Herbert[23] Culture, Defense Newspapers The New York Times Wesley Clark Defense, Foreign Affairs, Politics Television MSNBC Holman Jenkins[16] Business, Environment Newspapers The Wall Street Journal Harold Ford, Jr. Politics Television MSNBC, NBC Alex Jones[24] Conspiracy Theories, Government Radio InfoWars George Stephanopolous Politics, Culture Television ABC Ezra Klein[25] Politics Blogs The Washington Post The Washington Post Greg Gutfeld[26] Politics, Satire Television FOX News Channel Jane Hamsher Politics Blogs Firedoglake, The Huffington Post Steve Forbes[27] Economics, Politics Newspapers, Television FOX News Channel Forbes Bill Kristol[28] Politics Newspapers, Television FOX News Channel The National Review G. Gordon Liddy Politics, Culture Radio, Television FOX News Channel Paul Krugman[29] Economics, Business Newspapers, Books The New York Times Newt Gingrich Politics Television FOX News Channel David Brock[30] Media Blogs, Newspapers Media Matters for America Howard Kurtz[31] Media Television, Newspapers CNN George F. Will[32] Politics Newspapers, Television ABC The Washington Post Dave Ramsey[33] Economics, Business, Finance Television, Radio FOX Business Network Meghan McCain Politics, Culture Blogs The Daily Beast Glenn Greenwald[34] Politics Blogs Salon.com Christopher Buckley Politics Blogs The Daily Beast David Schuster[35] Politics, Culture Television MSNBC Rush Limbaugh[16] Politics, Culture Radio Clarence Page Politics Newspapers, Television MSNBC The Chicago Tribune Matt Drudge[36] Politics Blogs The Drudge Report Rachel Maddow[37] Politics Television MSNBC Michael Medved[38] Politics Radio, Television MSNBC Bill Maher[16] Satire, Politics Television HBO Jonathan Alter[39] Politics, Media Newspapers, Television MSNBC, NBC, CNBC Newsweek Dylan Ratigan[40] Politics, Economics Television MSNBC Dick Morris Politics Blogs, Television FOX News Channel The Hill, NewsMax Lawrence Kudlow[41] Economics, Politics, Stocks Television CNBC The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times Roland S. Martin Politics Television CNN Chris Matthews[42] Politics Television MSNBC, NBC Rick Sanchez[43] Politics, Culture Television CNN Pat Buchanan[44] Politics Television, Newspapers MSNBC The American Conservative, The National Review Chris Cillizza Politics Newspapers, Blogs The Washington Post The Washington Post Charles Krauthammer Politics Newspapers, Television FOX News The Washington Post Markos Moulitsas[45] Politics Blogs Daily Kos John Ziegler[46] Media, Politics Blogs, Documentaries Jack Cafferty Politics Television CNN Roy Sekoff Politics Blogs The Huffington Post Laura Ingraham Politics Radio FOX News Channel Anderson Cooper[47] Politics, Foreign Affairs Television CNN Keith Olbermann[48] Politics, Media Television MSNBC Bill O'Reilly[16] Notice a pattern here? Liberals can't name any respectable people. They ONLY tear down the GOP pundits

Answer: Most: Bill O'Reilly, Tucker Carleson, Karl Rove, George Will Least: Sean Hannity, Roland Martin, Chris Matthews, Steve Doocy, Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann.

'm not writing a report for college (yet). However; I am a bit of a nerd and would like to figure out the substance behind the economic reports I read and what Paul Krugman says in the New York Times.

Answer: Best social demographic data is probably provided by the government. Try U.S. Census Bureau http://www.census.gov/ for any social demographic. Economic data is provided usually by independent companies niche in their industries. Try Nielson Reports, Bloomberg, NY Times, etc.

New York Times columnist and former Enron advisor Paul Krugman penned yet another article recently in which he lambasted Republican opposition to government giveaways. He quotes Senator Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) as saying that unemployment relief "doesn't create new jobs. In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work." Krugman scoffs that "To me, that's a bizarre point of view—but then, I don't live in Mr. Kyl's universe." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/opinion/05krugman.html Yet, in a textbook he wrote called Macroeconomics, Krugman said, "In other countries, particularly in Europe, [unemployment] benefits are more generous and last longer. The drawback to this generosity is that it reduces a worker's incentive to quickly find a new job." Am I right in assuming that Krugman isn't an economist anymore; he's an apologist for Big Government? What are your thoughts?

Answer: Paul Krugman, long time confidence man, narrowly escaped prosecution in the Enron deal, is deep in the pocket of the democrat party and there for will lambaste anything that may expose their progressive agenda or make them look bad. He is a pit bull type attack dog for the Times now, but according to other sources, he is the go between Rahm and the paper and is the prime reason 0bama wants to bail them out! Thats my opinion, thanks for giving me the chance express it. I hope this helps

http://mises.org/efandi/ch43.asp In this interview in 1969, Ludwig von Mises said that inflation was the biggest economic problem our country faced. This was just before the beginning of the Stagflation Depression of the 1970s and early 1980s. Mises had previously predicted the Great Depression back in the 1920s. Yet, Mises and other followers of "Austrian" economics have been relegated to the fringes while "mainstream" economists who have a track record of being wrong about everything are considered "great" economists. One of the founders of "mainstream" economics was Irving Fisher, whose policies of price stabilization were adopted in the 1920s by the Federal Reserve and the Hoover Administration. A week before the 1929 Stock Market crash caused by his policies, Fisher said that the economy had reached a "permanently high plateau" and that the business cycle was a thing of the past. During the 1960s, the Keynesian economists denied that we could have high inflation and high unemployment at the same time and again argued that the business cycle was a thing of the past. During the 1970s and early 1980s, we got double digit inflation and double digit unemployment at the same time, something which today's Keynesians (such as Paul Krugman of the New York Times) conveniently forget to mention. In our own time, the "Austrian" economists again predicted the current crisis. The most prominent figures to predict the downturn are "Austrian"-influenced non-economists Ron Paul and Peter Schiff. In sharp contrast, John McCain's "mainstream" advisers told him that "the fundamentals of the economy are sound," which McCain repeated to the American people at the expense of his chance to be president. For at least 13 months, the "mainsteam" economist and Fed chairman Ben Bernanke has repeatedly told us that we are in the "early stages" of a recovery that never seems to materialize. Prior to the crisis, Bernanke repeatedly told us that all was well and that, thanks to the work of "mainstream" economists on the Depression, he would never let it happen again. Although the talking heads on the TV may wish you to believe that "nobody could have seen" the Crisis coming, there are economists who did. Those who now tell you that the economy is recovering have been telling you that lie continuously now for over a year and thought that all was well back in 2007 and 2008.

Answer: Because the MSM media only promotes the ones who've been wrong....like Paul Krugman

This New York Times piece and the accompanying graphic may help: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/freakout-nomics/

Answer: Please! Krugman? Really? This guy wouldn't know a "REAL" fact if someone slapped him in the face with it. FACT: The Data used to in Al Gore's movie AND used by scientists around the world is inaccurate... Please look at the link: http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php This link shows photographic proof of the locations of most, if not all the surface temperature monitoring stations around the USA. Why don't you look up the one in Tucson, AZ. I lived in Tucson for 14 yrs. I know where this station is, I've seen it before I knew what it was. Let me ask you: How accurate is it to monitor ambient air temperatures in the middle of an asphalt parking lot in one of the hottest cities in the nation? Or maybe the one in the middle of an industrial complex in Mesa, AZ.. Or the other one within 1000 ft of an electric substation in one state, or the one on the side of a building in another, or the station about a barbeque in a residential back yard.... Or maybe the fact that the scientists you agree with have come out and said they falsified, hid or misreported data pertaining to global warming??? Or maybe you should look a little deeper when you realize the "data" reported to the National Climatic Data Center is SOOO skewed it is unusable. The "data" is reported on paper forms, much the same way it was done when this agency started in 1892!!! I have a minor degree in statistical analysis, and used to crunch numbers for the U.S. Air Force. If I ever used such shoddy analysis techniques, I would have lost my job in a day! Here's an except from the news artice I posted below: "Requirements aren't very strict for volunteers: They need a modicum of training and decent vision in at least one eye to qualify. And they're expected to take measurements seven days a week, 365 days a year. That's a recipe for trouble, says Watts, who told FoxNews.com that less scrupulous members of the network often fail to collect the data when they go on vacation or are sick. He said one volunteer filled in missing data with local weather reports from the newspapers that stacked up while he was out of town." Does this sound accurate? Is this the type of data we should use to make policies that could effect the entire world? Untill this data can be substantiated, I will be suspect of it...

" Texas Straight Talk A weekly column Keynesianism Delivers a Decade of Zero This past week we celebrated the end of what most people agree was a decade best forgotten. New York Times columnist and leading Keynesian economist Paul Krugman called it the Big Zero in a recent column. He wrote that “there was a whole lot of nothing going on in measures of economic progress or success” which is true. However, Krugman continues to misleadingly blame the free market and supposed lack of regulation for the economic chaos. It was encouraging that he admitted that blowing economic bubbles is a mistake, especially considering he himself advocated creating a housing bubble as a way to alleviate the hangover from the dotcom bust. But we can no longer afford to give prominent economists like Krugman a pass when they completely ignore the burden of taxation, monetary policy, and excessive regulation. Afterall, Krugman is still scratching his head as to why “no” economists saw the housing bust coming. How in the world did they miss it? Actually many economists saw it coming a mile away, understood it perfectly, and explained it many times. Policy makers would have been wise to heed the warnings of the Austrian economists, and must start listening to their teachings if they want solid progress in the future. If not, the necessary correction is going to take a very long time. The Austrian free-market economists use common sense principles. You cannot spend your way out of a recession. You cannot regulate the economy into oblivion and expect it to function. You cannot tax people and businesses to the point of near slavery and expect them to keep producing. You cannot create an abundance of money out of thin air without making all that paper worthless. The government cannot make up for rising unemployment by just hiring all the out of work people to be bureaucrats or send them unemployment checks forever. You cannot live beyond your means indefinitely. The economy must actually produce something others are willing to buy. Government growth is the opposite of all these things. Bureaucrats are loathe to face these unpleasant, but obvious realities. It is much more appealing to wave their magic wand of regulation and public spending and divert blame elsewhere. It is time to be honest about our problems. The tragic reality is that this fatally flawed, but widely accepted, economic school of thought called Keynesianism has made our country more socialist than capitalist. While the private sector in the last ten years has experienced a roller coaster of booms and busts and ended up, nominally, about where we started in 2000, government has been steadily growing, because Keynesians told politicians they could get away with a tax, spend and inflate policy. They even encouraged it! But we cannot survive much longer if government is our only growth industry. As for a lack of regulation, the last decade saw the enactment of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the largest piece of financial regulatory legislation in years. This act failed to prevent abuses like those perpetrated by Bernie Madoff, and it is widely acknowledged that the new regulations contributed heavily not only to the lack of real growth, but also to many businesses going overseas. Americans have been working hard, and Krugman rightly points out that they are getting nowhere. Government is expanding steadily and keeping us at less than zero growth when inflation is factored in. Krugman seems pretty disappointed with zero, but if we continue to listen to Keynesians in the next decade instead of those who tell us the truth, zero will start to look pretty good. The end result of destroying the currency is the wiping out of the middle class. Preventing that from happening should be our top economic priority. Posted by Ron Paul (01-04-2010, 01:36 PM) filed under Monetary Policy " vani he had the solutions BEFORE the crash last year, but people like you wanted him to shut up about the problem. Isn't it time to start listening? Heather, it is amusing. They tend to emit a cloud of technical jargon designed to confuse the listener, which refers to models only necessary -- or even relevant -- if you accept the Keynesian principles to begin with.

Answer: Well since Ron Paul and Peter Schiff predicted the crash, while none of the other media economists did, I thought more people would have the sense to listen to them and not the people who were wrong.

Hate in America is a marketing tool and the left is milking it for all it’s worth – to push a liberal agenda. The New York Times’ Paul Krugman and others are laying the groundwork to go after conservative speech – on talk radio, on TV and maybe even in print. In each case, the media are blaming conservatives as haters and ignoring how filled with hate the left is. It’s a ridiculous double-standard.

Answer: More blacks are starting to see that under the Republican plan they have had more opportunity to advance. But they have to work for it. I believe most or ready, willing and capable to do this. Add to this that both blacks and the Republican party are very traditionally family oriented. One of the largest growing parts of the Republican party is blacks and they are bringing many good ideas and plans with them. Jack

[Reply to this post] [Not MindX Material] Okay, I have studied the New York Times article by Paul Krugman, such at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06Econo mic-t.html?_r=2&ref=business Let's address its thesis-statement, to wit: "But the main division was between those who insisted that free-market economies never go astray and those who believed that economies may stray now and then but that any major deviations from the path of prosperity could and would be corrected by the all-powerful Fed. Neither side was prepared to cope with an economy that went off the rails despite the Fed’s best efforts." Invariably apologists, such as Krugman at the New York Times, use applications of "Critical Theory," a technology of CULTURAL MARXISM in order to instill a "cultural pessimism" about the U.S. Republic, capitalism, free-enterprise, the Constitution and/or traditional values. The young or naive student of economics, history and sociology does not realize this, because the political scientists at the Frankfurt School have designed their arguments against Western civilization to look "rational." This is called "political correctness". Thus if you strive for "political correctness" in any of your dealings, then YOU have been a victim of the Frankfurt School's CULTURAL MARXISM.(1) In short, Marx nor Marcuse attacked "free-market enterprise" -- they only attached "capitalism" and the infrastructure that underpins it, such as the family unit, Christian values and the middle class. The reason Marx did not attack FREE-MARKET ENTERPRISE is because he was intelligent enough to realize that this was a battle he could never win. Thus, the genius of Marx was commingling the words "capitalism" and "free-enterprise" in the public mind, so when capitalism inevitably corrupted and failed, it would blow away free-enterprise as a straw. Since the turn of the 19th Century, most students of economics and history have realized that capitalism is subject to corruption by monopolists, such as John Rockefeller, and the so-called robber barons, however, the general public does NOT realize the distinction between capitalism and free-enterprise. Thus, again, when capitalism fails -- because of monopoly, oligopoly, government regulation, favors and/or fiat currency -- the failure is cross-collateralized with free-enterprise. There are thus at least four important things to recognize in order to sort this out: 1. Free-enterprise only works if there is ZERO government intervention or interference. 2. Government intervention is ANY price-fixing, favoritism, corporate subsidies, regulations on business or use of fiat currency. 3. The economy we have been in since 1913 has NOT been, even close to, a free-market economy. 4. The Federal Reserve System is a government-sanctioned banking cartel (a government-licensed MONOPOLY or oligopoly over money creation). This is PROOF that we do NOT have a free market economy. Point four alone disqualifies the U.S. economy as anything NEAR free-market because the cartel of ELITE NEW YORK (as in New York Times) BANKS has a MONOPOLY on money, i.e., the QUANTITY of money (monetizing debt) and the PRICE of money (interest) -- a commodity that represents all products and services in the economy. This is price-fixing in the fullest sense of the term. Thus, given 1 - 4 it's foolish to state, as the New York (Times) Marxist apologist states: "... any major deviations from the path of prosperity could and would be corrected by the all-powerful Fed." Ironically, this statement is only foolish, on one level, as it's brilliant -- if you see the overall agenda since the 1960s. It's foolish because the Fed is the entity that has CAUSED the economic crash. It caused it because it constantly INTERVENES in the free-market by printing money and making credit available to major corporations and government at ARTIFICIAL levels. This, at the very least, violates points 1 and 2 above. Thus, the very entity that CRASHED the economy is charged with FIXING the economy?! Please. This broken down think, when accepted, is what I am referring to when I say most of the human population is irrational or insane. It's brilliant because the goal of Cultural Marxism is to invalidate capitalism, thus by association, the free-market. The tool that does this is "Critical Theory" the exact operation of which I go into in detail in my new documentary, ORIGINAL INTENT.(1) Here is the situation in summary: At the extremes of the economic spectrum you have two conditions: A. Absolutely NO government intervention, regulation, price-fixing, sanctioned entities, unconstitutional delegation, interference or special favors in connection with any and all PRODUCTS, SERVICES and CURRENCY. This is known as FREE-MARKET ENTERPRISE or FREE-MARKET CAPITALISM B. Total government intervention, regulation, price-fixing, sanctioned entities, interference and special

Answer: Wow...it sounds like the Ferengi Home World. No rules except the 143 Rules of Acquisition. Dumb and dumber. But, if you have a weak argument always toss in old Marx who wrote about capitalism way back in 1849...only a few years after the first water powered weaving mill was established in Huddersfield, England, the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. (1835). I guess a lot of things never happened....like...uh...the 21st century. Let's return to reality. All wealth is based on labor. 95% of all Americans work for wages. The 'working class' must be able to buy back the product of their labor, or production will come to a halt and the economy will crash....as it has. If the 5%, the owning class, refuses to pay the working class enough money to buy back the product of their labor, either in cash or benefits or both, bad things happen. It's even more insulting to manufacture 'stuff'' in China and then somehow believe that Americans without employment will be able to buy anything. Yet that''s exactly what this 'free market' BS is all about. The 'government' in the United States isn't some alien entity. The 'government' is 'We the people'. Therfore, the government can set rules of conduct, oversight and regulation that insures that 'We the people' don't get screwed royal by the 5%. Any other set up is bogus. Now what is it that the working class wants? First, they want a fair share of the world's work to be in this country. Next, they want fair wages...a significant percent of the wealth they produce. Next they want the best education available for their children, low cost HEALTH INSURANCE for their families, and decent retirement for the elderly. If the 'free market' can't deliver that, then the 'free market' isn't worth beans. Marx wrote about a world that doesn't exist anymore. To use him as a boogyman to retard the real needs of the 21st century working class is stomach churning and it has to end. Bread and roses!

■"In Britain, the government itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors. We've all heard scare stories about how that works in practice; these stories are false."--former Enron adviser Paul Krugman, New York Times, Aug. 17 ■"It was a simple thing. Another blood test, some more investigations into whatever flawed gene or missing protein might be the cause of my daughter's troubled life, with her terrible seizures, her blindness, her inability to walk or talk or eat unaided. Over the past 15 years, there have been many such attempts to identify her condition. One year later, we asked the doctor, a top geneticist at one of the world's most famous hospitals, what had happened to the results. His office told us a rambling story about financial restrictions and the need to send such tests to a laboratory in Germany. They said there was little he could do but promised to pursue our case. It was a bare-faced lie. The precious vial of blood had been dumped in storage and forgotten. The following day it was despatched to a laboratory in Wales and 40 days later the specialists came up trumps. They identified her condition, an obscure genetic mutation called CDKL5. . . . The most shocking thing was not the lying. Nor even the incompetence. It was our total lack of surprise at the turn of events, since after 15 years suffering from the failings of the National Health Service we are prepared for almost any ineptitude."--Ian Birrell, Independent (London), Aug. 21

Answer: Have you ever read the book "dead doctors dont lie", read it and think about the American health system which is far worse, it is just run by private companies that have great lawyers and people cant redress greivances against it because of money. Thousands of people die in our hospitals and by misdiagnosis every year in the United States. We are almost the worst of 30 industrialized nations, behind TURKEY. So, we should think about our problems, not an isolated incident which we can all pull up about healthcare somewhere in the world.