Was Krugman Ever Correct with his Economic Predictions?

My Recent Posts

The word tautological would be quite obscure if not for political propaganda machines like the New York Times and some of their sorrier sisters. Their writers and staff of the Old Grey Lady thrash about in a mystical ideological competition to see if any are noble enough to match the elegant essays of their honored Pulitzer Prize winner Walter Duranty. They all fall dismally short with the possible exception of Paul Krugman.

 

Duranty taught the NYT how to be pure propagandists rising well above the stature of Eugene Debs as busy workers who must pound upon their rusty anvils and hammer out narrow ideological snippets of propaganda from a shallow agenda and thus turn or twist any news event into some new and pressing validation for bugger government, retreat from wars against Marxist monsters or Islamo-Fascists and prattle on endlessly about the undying splendor of higher taxes.

 

The general problem with trying to fit ideology into current events is this frequently results in gross errors. But, the NYT never backs down from such political standards even if there are a few lies and false predictions scattered about their pages.

 

On the Economy after Trump

 

"It really does look like 'President Donald Trump' and markets are plunging. If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is 'never'," Krugman wrote at the time.--https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/opinion/election-night-2016/paul-krugman-the-economic-fallout

 

On Taxes

 

And I don’t just mean a return to Clinton-era tax rates. Why should 1990s taxes be considered the outer limit of revenue collection? Think about it: The long-run budget outlook has darkened, which means that some hard choices must be made. Why should those choices only involve spending cuts? Why not also push some taxes above their levels in the 1990s?”—Things to Tax. By Paul Krugman--https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/28/opinion/krugman-things-to-tax.html

 

On ‘Enormous” Deficits

 

Krugman, in a November 2004 interview, criticized the "enormous" Bush deficit. "We have a world-class budget deficit," he said, "not just as in absolute terms, of course -- it's the biggest budget deficit in the history of the world -- but it's a budget deficit that, as a share of GDP, is right up there."

The numbers? The deficit in fiscal year 2004 -- $413 billion, 3.5 percent of the gross domestic product.”--  Krugman: Bush's Deficit Bad, Obama's Deficit Good By Larry Elder--https://www.ocregister.com/2010/02/13/larry-elder-krugman-bushs-deficit-bad-obamas-deficit-good/

 

The Theme of the New York Times shared by Walter Duranty and Paul Krugman

 

He said that these people had to be "liquidated or melted in the hot fire of exile and labor into the proletarian mass". Duranty claimed that the Siberian labor camps were a means of giving individuals a chance to rejoin Soviet society but also said that for those who could not accept the system, "the final fate of such enemies is death." Duranty, though describing the system as cruel, says he has "no brief for or against it, nor any purpose save to try to tell the truth". He ends the article with the claim that the brutal collectivization campaign which led to the famine was motivated by the "hope or promise of a subsequent raising up" of Asian-minded masses in the Soviet Union which only history could judge.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty

 

On the Depression of 2008

 

Everyone has a theory about the financial crisis. These theories range from the absurd to the plausible — from claims that liberal Democrats somehow forced banks to lend to the undeserving poor (even though Republicans controlled Congress) to the belief that exotic financial instruments fostered confusion and fraud. But what do we really know?” — An Irish Mirror By Paul Krugman Op-Ed Columnist Published: March 7, 2010-- https://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/08/opinion/08krugman.html

 

What is amusing about Krugman and his lackeys (and agitprop spinners) at the NYT is that he favors high taxes, for all time and for any old time, and high deficits unless the deficits happen during the administration of a Republican. He cannot find fault with leftist social programs even if mandated lending to the ‘poor’ had nothing to do with the crash in 2008. He seems to follow, closely, the NYT’s greatest Pulitzer Prize winner: Walter Duranty, whose prize still hangs in the lobby in NYC. Tax and spend and praise liberal Democrats despite their shortcomings!

Comments

Ken Added Sep 11, 2018 - 1:36pm
noble enough to match the elegant essays of their honored Pulitzer Prize winner Walter Duranty.
 
I hope I am either misrreading this or you are being sarcastic.  Just last week I posted about what a scumbag Walter Duranty was.  The NYT refuses to give back hispulitzer even today after he has been exposed for the fraud and propagandist he was.  He lied all through the early 30s covering up the famine and genocide perpetrated by Stalin and basically painted communism and him in particular as a great and magnanimous leader while hundreds of thousands were being starved to death by him intentionally
 
Ken Added Sep 11, 2018 - 1:43pm
And Yes, Krugman is wrong about most everything.  Even his Nobel Prize wasn't really for advancing economics, it was a peripheral thing.
 
He is a leftist nutcase and anything that advances that is his story line of the time
Dino Manalis Added Sep 11, 2018 - 1:43pm
 Markets fluctuate, but the economy is booming with growth and jobs!
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Sep 11, 2018 - 1:59pm
Ken
[1] I hope I am either misrreading this or you are being sarcastic. 
 
I was. 
 
[2] Just last week I posted about what a scumbag Walter Duranty was. 
I missed that, sorry. 
 
I wrote some 50 blogs on Krugman on Townhall from about 2006 onward, Here is one abstract:
 
Krugman Boils a Pot Boiler about Boiling Frogs. Another Propaganda Exercise Example. Tax Alert!
http://rycksrationalizations.blogtownhall.com/2009/07/13/krugman_boils_a_pot_boiler_about_boiling_frogs_another_propaganda_exercise_example_tax_alert!.thtml
 
Abstract: Krugman plays crass word-association games with the tender minds of the intellectually malleable and attempts to scare us into giving up more of our wealth to phony scientists and greedy and corrupt politicians with a crass propaganda screed.   He mixes scary metaphors and blends them in with modern Lysenkoism that intimidates the timid and distracts the middle class from reality.  He spins frog stories into his propaganda piece--an incredible propaganda piece [read lie here] that includes the nostrum that: “congressional leadership understands the economic and environmental issues perfectly,” a comment so laughable that the frogs will honk all night in the swamps when they hear this gem. The Zombie March continues on with the tautological grunts and quest for more and more taxes. Tax, tax, tax. Krugman is a Tax Zombie.-- https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/frogs-boiling-water-and-central-banks/
 
Then, in most of my blogs:
 
“He [Duranty] said that these people had to be "liquidated or melted in the hot fire of exile and labor into the proletarian mass". Duranty claimed that the Siberian labor camps were a means of giving individuals a chance to rejoin Soviet society but also said that for those who could not accept the system, "the final fate of such enemies is death." Duranty, though describing the system as cruel, says he has "no brief for or against it, nor any purpose save to try to tell the truth". He ends the article with the claim that the brutal collectivization campaign which led to the famine was motivated by the "hope or promise of a subsequent raising up" of Asian-minded masses in the Soviet Union which only history could judge.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty
 
Leftist 'history' still praises this monster. 
 
 
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Sep 11, 2018 - 2:03pm
Krugman can boast and redact history and pronounce dire consequences for the economy of Donald J. Trump only at his peril.
 
But, failure, humiliation and reduction to a base jester is par for Paul's course. He is an ideological zombie with a short stack of stale cliches about economics. His prize is a joke. He cannot be insulted by exposing his lies. The ignoranti will always worship him. 
Ken Added Sep 11, 2018 - 4:49pm
Robert Reich is another leftist propagandist that pretends to be an economics guru
Sam Nowaczynski Added Sep 11, 2018 - 7:06pm
You shouldn’t assume you’re readers know why you disagree with Krugman.  You owe it to your readers to explain why those predictions are wrong.  In many cases, I think the Krugman statement is accurate.  However, seeing you didn’t provide an argument, I won’t provide one either.  For whatever it's worth, most of those quotes aren’t even predictions about the economy. 
 
As for your thoughts about the NYT, it’s disingenuous to claim liberals favor high taxes.  They favor high taxes on the rich and lower taxes on everyone else.  If that question was put up to a vote, most people would favor a policy of increased taxes on others.  Seeing most people aren’t rich, that means they would favor higher taxes on the rich. 
Lindsay Wheeler Added Sep 11, 2018 - 8:18pm
And the hypocrisy of the Left---egalitarianism---but more taxes on the rich and Lower taxes on everyone else!  Who creates Jobs?  "Everyone else"?   Hell, no. 
 
Covetousness, Envy, and Jealousy. The stock and Trade of the Leftie!
Jeff Jackson Added Sep 11, 2018 - 8:44pm
The economic meltdown of 2008 can be directly traced to the high-risk loans that were handed out to unqualified people. Not that I object to offering loans to those who might not have the best of credit, but they packaged the loans and sold them as securities. What a few folks might not know is that the Fed bought millions, or billions of that worthless paper. Buying the paper was the only option, as the Fed's buddies in the financial sector, many of whom made millions, would have gone broke if they were to try to sell them.
The Fed is going to start selling that paper in the near future. The thing is, that "paper" those bundled loans, are worthless. The Fed will be lucky to make pennies on the dollar. I'm waiting anxiously to see what will happen. The money just isn't there. The Fed is sitting on billions of worthless paper.
The Burghal Hidage Added Sep 11, 2018 - 9:08pm
When is the last time Krugman was right about anything? Has he ever been? 
Cullen Kehoe Added Sep 11, 2018 - 9:08pm
Krugman was praising Obama's stimulus package in the wake of the 2008 crash (and saying it should be more) if I remember correctly. It doubled national debt in 8 years.
 
(Bush was no better, chucking 2 wars completely onto the national debt while he lowered taxes.)
 
I fall somewhere in the middle. Krugman is right about one thing. Tax cuts don't always bring in more revenue to the government. If taxes are unusually high, they can. When Kennedy lowered taxes from 90%, it seems to have increased revenue to the government. There is debate as to whether it "worked" under Reagan too.
 
But if taxes are already low, lowering taxes just (predictably) brings in lower revenue for the government. So for the last 30 years, he's been right to criticize Republican-favored continued tax cuts. 
Cliff M. Added Sep 11, 2018 - 10:00pm
  When Krugman became allies with Shillary he lost all credibility with me. What's your take on the two faced Republican tax sham approach? The real question is who gets to spend the tax revenue's on what.Both parties seem content on continuing to hollow out the middle class for their sponsors.
Cliff M. Added Sep 11, 2018 - 10:12pm
 The Trump tax cuts have been effective. The top tier is continuing to distance itself from the upper middle class which took a big hit on the tax cuts.Many upper middle class were burdened by the removal of deductions . In Northern NJ I know a few people who's tax bills increased between $20 and $30 thousand bucks who are from the bottom of the !%. The middle didn't get any help while the working poor and poverty level got a break.
Ken Added Sep 11, 2018 - 10:44pm

The economic meltdown of 2008 can be directly traced to the high-risk loans that were handed out to unqualified people.
 
It can actually be traced directly to the changes Bill Clinton made in the Community Reinvestment Act in 1994.  It forced banks to make those loans or they wouldn't get government regulators off their backs.
Ken Added Sep 11, 2018 - 10:46pm
The top tier is continuing to distance itself from the upper middle class which took a big hit on the tax cuts.
 
Exactly how did a tax cut that gave 90% of citizens that pay taxes an overall tax break "take a big hit"?  And who cares if the rich get richer?  Does it impact your life?  Are you worse off if someone gets richer?  Nope!
Cliff M. Added Sep 12, 2018 - 7:18am
Ken,  We are still seeing continued classic trickle on , top down economics.Eisenhower was the last Republican who achieved widespread economic growth.
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Sep 12, 2018 - 10:39am
Ken
 
" And who cares if the rich get richer?  Does it impact your life?  Are you worse off if someone gets richer?  Nope!"
 
Apparently people forget that the rich provide the jobs in this country and even government jobs are financed by taxes or excessive debt. 
 
I never saw a person get a job from a poor person. 
 
Cliff M.
 
"We are still seeing continued classic trickle on , top down economics."
 
And trickle up economics never worked. If you just give money to the lower classes they spend and do not save so where is the needed investment to grow the economy. Obozo tried trickle up and it produced stagnation. 
 
That is a political platitude not related to economics. 
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Sep 12, 2018 - 10:48am
Cliff M.
 
" The real question is who gets to spend the tax revenue's on what.Both parties seem content on continuing to hollow out the middle class for their sponsors."
 
What does hollow out mean? Excessive taxes?
 
The bulk of taxes are derived from those whose incomes range from 50% to 80% percentiles and the 'poor' are hardly taxed. The only reason to appeal to the poor is to pander their votes and offer then phony social programs for drug rehab, food stamps and more. 
 
Trump wants to increase earnings in all tax brackets unlike the Dems who want confiscatory taxes at the top. 
 

A closer look at who does (and doesn’t) pay U.S. income tax
 
"By contrast, taxpayers with incomes below...$30,000 filed nearly 44% of all returns but paid just 1.4% of all federal income tax – in fact, two-thirds of the nearly 66 million returns filed by people in that lowest income tier owed no tax at all. "--http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/10/06/a-closer-look-at-who-does-and-doesnt-pay-u-s-income-tax/
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Sep 12, 2018 - 10:51am
Cullen
 
"I fall somewhere in the middle. Krugman is right about one thing. Tax cuts don't always bring in more revenue to the government. "
 
That fallacy is just one more argument for Krugmanical tax hikes. 
 

The Laffer Curve is a theory developed by supply-sideeconomist Arthur Laffer to show the relationship between tax rates and the amount of tax revenue collected by governments. The curve is used to illustrate Laffer's main premise that the more an activity — such as production — is taxed, the less of it is generated.





Laffer Curve - Investopedia



Katharine Otto Added Sep 12, 2018 - 12:21pm
rycK,
Everyone who works or buys anything pays taxes, to up to four levels of government (city, county, state, and federal).  The income tax comprises only about 40% of government revenue.  Payroll taxes make up another 40%, and others, like excise, corporate, and duties make up the rest.
 
What the Trump administration lost in tax cuts, it will attempt to recoup in tariffs, because revenues are not even paying the interest on national debt.  (You heard it from me first.)  That's another reason search and seizure are up.  The Feds are desperate for money.  
 
The idea of deficit spending is popular among the spendthrifts in Congress, who love wasting other people's money (especially unborn, voiceless, future earners) to serve their career politician personas.  But today's taxpayers have less disposable income and decreasing living standards, because the governments are so needy.  
 
Proportionally speaking, the poorest people pay the most of their disposable income in taxes.  
 
And, in keeping with your original topic:  Both the NYT and Krugman are laughable in their pompous self-righteousness.
Ken Added Sep 12, 2018 - 12:21pm
We are still seeing continued classic trickle on , top down economics.Eisenhower was the last Republican who achieved widespread economic growth.
 
Are you implying that the Austrian school of  Economics (Milton Friedman) is invalid?  If so, make a case for it because you are flat wrong.
 
As far as Eisenhower bing the ..... again, flat wrong.  Reagan created the longest peacetime expansion in histor that went all the way through his presidency, GHWB presidency and into Clinton's presidency until finally cut down by tax raises.  It created over 20 MILLION jobs
Katharine Otto Added Sep 12, 2018 - 12:28pm
Ken,
I've been looking into deficit spending and noticed the two 20th century peaks occurred during Eisenhower's and Reagan's administrations.  www.usdebtclock.org
Bill Kamps Added Sep 12, 2018 - 12:46pm
Many think of the US debt, as if it were a personal debt, or a corporate debt.  Something that needs to be repaid from future earnings, or in the case of the US, taxes. 
 
This is not completely true.  The country can pay the interest on its debt, and repay its debt with new money it can create.  People, corporations, and states cannot do this.  This changes the equation drastically.    We are not saddling future generations with paying back our debt, we are charging future generations with managing our  economy, and our debt.
 
This is something economists like Krugman never acknowledge, or get their arms around.  No one talks about monetizing our debt, how much of that is ok, and how much is too much.  At least they dont talk about it publicly. 
 
The  world clamors for US bonds(debt), because it is the safest place to put their money.  As long as this is the case, we are allowed the privilege of creating another 5-10% of our money supply each year.   We know it is ok, because the value of the dollar relative to other currencies remains roughly the same, and because people still want to buy our debt.  The dollar is actually more stable than the price of gold, which over the past 20 years has changed value by 20-30% in a single year. 
 
Of course, if we create $20T new dollars at once, the dollar would plummet.  But if we slowly create $1-2T new dollars a year, in an economy that is $20T in size, no one minds. 
 
Yes, this is a balancing act.  Yes there are risks to this.  However, we have the benefit of a lot of feedback.  Every day hundreds of billions of dollars change hands, and if the dollar became unstable, then we would know very quickly, like Turkey or Argentina did  recently.  However, since the world economy is largely based on dollars,  we have a lot of good will built into the system.  Everyone with money, wants the system to continue to work, so it does.
 
Can this change, yes.  The world economy used to be built on the UK Pound Sterling.  This changed over a period of 50 or so years in the 20th century.  Did this  ruin the UK, no, but it did relegate it to kind of a second class status, since it no longer enjoyed the advantages of being the currency for the world.  So we must manage things carefully. 
Ken Added Sep 12, 2018 - 1:07pm
No one talks about monetizing our debt, how much of that is ok, and how much is too much.  At least they dont talk about it publicly. 
 
That is exactly what the FED said it would never do at the beginning of Obama's term and then went on to 7 rounds of quanntitative easing throughout his presidency to create the fiction that the economy was getting better when in reality it was stagnant, similar to Japan's "lost decade"
Bill Kamps Added Sep 12, 2018 - 1:26pm
Ken, but was it stagnant because of the money supply growth, or because of how they did it, or other factors?  They are still creating money today, they have to.  They are still issuing debt to pay off previous debt and interest.  The money supply continues  to grow.  And yet the economy is now growing at 4%.  What is different?
 
I would suggest that the quantitative easing is not the best way to create money, since the Fed is buying the bonds, which does not put the money to work.  The banks have access to the money, but there are lots of rules on how they can put the money to work.  It is probably the quickest way to create money, and also keeps supply from flooding demand because the Fed hold the bonds, so it has less effect on the bond market, and the Fed can control how they later sell the bonds.  However, it doesnt boost the economy as much as they would like. 
 
There are other ways to create money which boost the economy more.  When the government spends money, it puts this money into the hands of people to then spend.  When the government sells bonds to other people and countries, this is real money those entities are giving us.   These are slower more complex processes than the Fed simply buying $100B in bonds each month but they produce more bang for the buck. 
 
In any case what matters, is not how many trillion in bonds exist in total in the world.  What matters is if  there is robust demand for these bonds, and for more bonds in the future so we can roll over the debt.   When there is a bond auction, is it well subscribed?  If so, then things are more or less ok.
Ken Added Sep 12, 2018 - 2:05pm
but was it stagnant because of the money supply growth, or because of how they did it, or other factors? 
 
The money supply growth hid the fact that it was stagnant, it wasn't a causal factor.  It was stagnant because of Obama's complete failure of economic policies, intentional economic disruption through excessive regulation and increased taxation. 
 
The two major factors that Trump has enacted that is causing the economy to finally recover is reducing the tax burden and reducing the staggering pile of regulations constricting businesses.
 
The money supply is actually being reduced.  That is the point of the FED raising interest rates.  each time they raise interest rates they pull money out of the economy.  The rates are based on the overnight rates that banks use to borrow from the fed.  The higher the rate the more money that flows through the fed and can be pulled from the economy.  the QE done under Obama fed about $65 BILLION per week into the economy.  The increased velocity made it seem like the economy was in better shape than it was.
 
To get our money supply back down to where it should be, I read somewhere a couple of years ago (don't recall where) interest rates actually need to be over 60% for about the next 15 years.
 
That is the real issue with this 21 Trillion debt (not even considering the over 120 trillion the federal government currently owes in  unfunded liabilities).  As interest rates go up, the cost of the debt goes up as well, that is why this massive spending is totally unsustainable.  our debt to GDP ratio is close to 100% if it hasn't crossed that threshold already, I haven't looked at the stats recently.  That is why the problem isn't revenue to the government, it is the fact that we have a federal leviathan spending money they don't have on things they should never be spending it on.
Cliff M. Added Sep 12, 2018 - 3:50pm
Ken,  Ordinary income rose over 40% during the 8 years Eisenhower was in office. As to Friedman value to share holder was most important. There are a whole lot more economic issues that are ignored when this premise prevails. Decent breadwinner jobs continue to bleed from the American economy. Setting up an economy that benefits the few at the expense of the majority has led to the stagnant decline of the middle.A more balanced economic policy is in dire need.
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Sep 12, 2018 - 3:51pm
Ken
 
"The two major factors that Trump has enacted that is causing the economy to finally recover is reducing the tax burden and reducing the staggering pile of regulations constricting businesses."
 
Absolutely!!
 
Obama was a failure. 
 
"To get our money supply back down to where it should be, I read somewhere a couple of years ago (don't recall where) interest rates actually need to be over 60% for about the next 15 years."
 
That will  never happen as this stops credit to a dead halt .
 
We, and Japan, UK, and EU will have to float our debts for decades and inflation will not be a reasonable way out given our high government spending and the fact that inflation ups that cost as well and will add to the debt. 
Ken Added Sep 12, 2018 - 5:05pm
That will  never happen as this stops credit to a dead halt .
 
 
Of course it won't.  I was just pointing how far out of equilibrium we are, especially when you count in the 120 Trillion in unfunded liabilities. 
Cullen Kehoe Added Sep 12, 2018 - 9:03pm
@rycK the JFK Democrat
 
I am familiar with the Laffer Curve. I effectively agree with it. 
 
Since it's a curve, at some point, you lower taxes enough, you will get less revenue to the government. The curve itself tells you that. 
 
I can draw it out for you if you don't understand. 
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Sep 13, 2018 - 11:32am
Cullen
 
But, it you tax too much the revenue drops! 
 
I can draw it out for you if you don't understand. 
 
High taxes ruin economies 
Cliff M. Added Sep 13, 2018 - 9:33pm
Ryck the JFK Dem, With all this cash supposedly in circulation why is the velocity of money still near depression era levels? Where has inflation been for the last 10 Years? Why has much of this cash not made it into the mainstream economy? Much of this cheap cash has gone into wall street paper which does little to create economic growth. Unbalanced supply side fiscal policy which has been prevalent especially since the great recession and which started with Reagan has created the current form of crapitalism which gives a huge advantage to capital over labor. 
Cliff M. Added Sep 13, 2018 - 9:58pm
The U.S. government spent $433 BILLION last month. The largest amount ever recorded. The deficit explodes as the majority of this deficit was due to funding tax cuts which mostly benefited the top and corporate taxes which already happened to be historically low.
Ken Added Sep 13, 2018 - 10:18pm
The deficit didn't explode because of tax cuts.  Deficit exploded because of the CR the senate passed giving the democrats everything they demanded
Ken Added Sep 13, 2018 - 10:26pm
Corporate taxes were historically low?  Corporate tax rate was 35% one of the highest in the world making us very noncompetitive with the rest of the world.  Corporate taxs also only account for 11% of federal income.
 
ANY tax cut mostly benefits the top.  They pay the most damn taxes.  85% of all income taxes are paid by the top 10% of taxpayers.
 
Why shouldn't they benefit the most? Geez.
Cullen Kehoe Added Sep 14, 2018 - 5:48am
Only half of all monies collected by the federal government are individual income taxes.
 
A third are payroll (FICA) taxes which are funded by all business and working individuals (rich, poor, and middle class) capped off at $128,000--which means for individuals the poor and middle class shoulder more of the burden for these taxes than the rich. 
 
And even the employer half of this: "...employers and employees split the cost of payroll taxes, but research has shown that employers pass their portion of the cost on to workers in the form of lower wages."
 
https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/policy-basics-where-do-federal-tax-revenues-come-from
 
I wouldn't weep too much for the tax obligations of the rich. In historical terms, their federal tax obligations are quite low compared with previous eras in modern American history. 
 
Lowering federal taxes has sorta been proven to stimulate the economy but if federal taxes are already low (like they are) then you're just increasing the deficit and national debt. 
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Sep 14, 2018 - 11:32am
Cullen
 
"A third are payroll (FICA) taxes which are funded by all business and working individuals (rich, poor, and middle class) capped off at $128,000--which means for individuals the poor and middle class shoulder more of the burden for these taxes than the rich."
 
"85% of all income taxes are paid by the top 10% of taxpayers.
 
Workers who are taxed by our phony SS system pay NOTHING as this is a cost to the employer for services. Employees would pay nothing if unemployed. Liberal lies, again .
 
SS is a Ponzi Scheme and only worthy of 3-card Monte dealers. Our phony congress overtaxed the people and used the extra funds to get reelected. As such, SS will go broke soon. 
 

"The trustees projected that Social Security will reach insolvency in 2034,16 years from now. The program will begin dipping into its trust fund not in some distant future when our grandchildren are in charge, but this year — right now, on our watch.Jun 13, 2018"





Medicare & Social Security going bankrupt, yet no one will step up--https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/06/13/medicare-social-security-bankrupt-trustees-spending-column/682015002/



John Minehan Added Sep 15, 2018 - 8:25am
"Are you implying that the Austrian school of  Economics (Milton Friedman) is invalid?  If so, make a case for it because you are flat wrong."
 
Friedman is usually considered to be a "Monetarist" as opposed to being a pure Austrian School Economist.  However, he was on good terms with several leaders of the Austrian School, like Hayek.  I believe he founded the Mount Pelerion (Spelling?) Society with some of them. 
John Minehan Added Sep 15, 2018 - 8:53am
"Mont Pelerin"
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Sep 15, 2018 - 12:38pm
The leftist school of economics apparently consist of only Krugman and his lackeys. 
John Minehan Added Sep 16, 2018 - 8:41am
Stiglitz and Peketty are probably more respected than Krugman.
John Minehan Added Sep 16, 2018 - 3:18pm
"Are you implying that the Austrian school of  Economics (Milton Friedman) is invalid?  If so, make a case for it because you are flat wrong."
 
I tend to agree with the Austrian School on a lot of things but I am concerned by the lack of attention to data and the lack of mathematical rigor.  I think Friedman and the Monetarists (now, people like Howard Wall, Ph.D.) have a point (although let's see what can be done with the vast amount of cash pumped into the economy). 
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Sep 17, 2018 - 2:48pm
 From my blog a decade ago:
 
Resurrecting a Zombie: The Revival of the Failed Keynesian Myth and the Logic of Joseph Stiglitz
 
Abstract: Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz recommends the economics of Keynes as a stimulus as do a lot of economists and particularly so from Paul Krugman, another Nobel laureate. To date, there is no believable benefit from several trillion dollars in deficit spending and the prospect of thrice that in the future. The economic arena is overflowing with theories and ‘examples’ that portend the ability to climb out of massive debt by spending and then growth, but an inspection of some of these, like Argentina, show that a debt restructuring was the only effective remedy. This resulted in massive defaults, collapses in the country’s credit and other major problems.
We are buried in debt and are told that we can ‘spend our way’ out of this debt. This is nonsense.  The Fed is trying to inflate our way out of debt and monetizing the debt as we go along. The US is in bad shape economically, but the UK and EU are even worse off. And, in all this flurry of spending suggestions there exists not a single detailed plan to pay back that debt. The EU will crash and disintegrate from this debt because, unlike Argentina, there is no way to ‘restructure’ our debts in the US-UK-EU group as no nation or organization has the necessary 20-40 trillion dollars it would require. 
 
If we cannot stop spending and bloating government we will go bankrupt. Period.
 
Here is the Stiglitz comment:
 
Thanks to the IMF, multiple experiments have been conducted – for instance, in east Asia in 1997-98 and a little later in Argentina – and almost all come to the same conclusion: the Keynesian prescription works. Austerity converts downturns into recessions, recessions into depressions. The confidence fairy that the austerity advocates claim will appear never does, partly perhaps because the downturns mean that the deficit reductions are always smaller than was hoped.”[1]--
 
To choose austerity is to bet it all on the confidence fairy The mystical belief is that a smaller deficit will lead to an investment boom. What Britain really needs now is another stimulus By Joseph Stiglitz guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 19 October 2010 22.00 BST
 
[1] To choose austerity is to bet it all on the confidence fairy The mystical belief is that a smaller deficit will lead to an investment boom. What Britain really needs now is another stimulus By Joseph Stiglitz guardian.co.uk,     Tuesday 19 October 2010 22.00 BST http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/oct/19/no-confidence-fairy-for-austerity-britain [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]
 
What a farce. Spend and grow the debt...Spend and grow the debt...Spend and grow the debt...Spend and grow the debt....