Iiiiiiiiit's - Krugman Monday!

Status
Not open for further replies.
The right just want to talk about dismantling Medicare and SS what they really want is private industry control of them.
More profit that way.
 
Darla said:
Here you go Onceler, this is from January of 2012 and I think it is what you are looking for:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html?pagewanted=print
Click to expand...

Another partisan hatchet job by Krugman. He pretends that the ongoing deficits aren't bad because the interest rates have remained low. What he conveniently forgets to mention is the $2 Trillion plus the Fed has pumped into the markets to force interest rates to remain low. Rates cannot rise if the faux demand of the Fed is unlimited. Hence QE1, QE2 and of course the current ongoing QE3.

But since you are pen pals with him, ask him about his time with Enron.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Krugman hit the nail right on the head. Austerity is guise used by right wingers as an attempt to dismantle medicare, medicaide and Social Security.
Click to expand...

Pure nonsense. Show me a country that has reduced their spending. Cuts to the growth rate of spending are not = overall spending cuts.
 
Superfreak said:
Another partisan hatchet job by Krugman. He pretends that the ongoing deficits aren't bad because the interest rates have remained low. What he conveniently forgets to mention is the $2 Trillion plus the Fed has pumped into the markets to force interest rates to remain low. Rates cannot rise if the faux demand of the Fed is unlimited. Hence QE1, QE2 and of course the current ongoing QE3.

But since you are pen pals with him, ask him about his time with Enron.
Click to expand...


But rates didn't rise at the end of QE1, or QE2 or Operation Twist. You've been predicting increases in the interest rates for a few years now with each iteration of quantiative easing and not once did interest rates increase. Why should QE3 be any different? Here's the FED's Treasury holdings since 2008:

fredgraph.png



If, as you claim, the FED artificially kept interest rates low thorugh it's purchases, then interest rates should have increased at the plateaus, but that never happened. Krugman isn't "conveniently forgetting" anything.
 
Superfreak said:
Another partisan hatchet job by Krugman. He pretends that the ongoing deficits aren't bad because the interest rates have remained low. What he conveniently forgets to mention is the $2 Trillion plus the Fed has pumped into the markets to force interest rates to remain low. Rates cannot rise if the faux demand of the Fed is unlimited. Hence QE1, QE2 and of course the current ongoing QE3.

But since you are pen pals with him, ask him about his time with Enron.
Click to expand...

I am not pen pals with Paul Krugman, and if I was, we wouldn't be talking about you. Just so you know SF, sorry, I know this is a blow to your ego.
 
Dungheap said:
But rates didn't rise at the end of QE1, or QE2 or Operation Twist. You've been predicting increases in the interest rates for a few years now with each iteration of quantiative easing and not once did interest rates increase. Why should QE3 be any different? Here's the FED's Treasury holdings since 2008:

fredgraph.png



If, as you claim, the FED artificially kept interest rates low thorugh it's purchases, then interest rates should have increased at the plateaus, but that never happened. Krugman isn't "conveniently forgetting" anything.
Click to expand...

Wrong as usual.

QE1 ran from late 2008 until March of 2010 (keeping rates down)

The stock market then corrected from May-Aug 2010 (kept downward pressure on rates)

QE2 then began in Nov 2010 and ran through June of 2011 (keeping rates down)

The market the corrected in July-November of 2011 (keeping rates down)

The market then began to rise until April of 2012 and rates crept up

Then the market corrected again April-July of 2012 (keeping rates down)

Then in Sept of 2012 the announcement came for the endless QE3

There was never a sustained period where rates could go up by much. There was a consistent downward pressure on them. Much of which was caused by the Fed buying long term bonds to the tune of $2T plus as I stated.
 
Dungheap said:
Let's see. There's Greece and Spain and Portugal and Italy and the UK and the Netherlands and Germany. In fact, across the EU27 as a whole, spending decreased from 2010 to 2011 (the last year for which I can find data on Eurostat).

http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?query=BOOKMARK_DS-054156_QID_-34764B4A_UID_-3F171EB0&layout=TIME,C,X,0;GEO,L,Y,0;UNIT,L,Z,0;SECTOR,L,Z,1;INDIC_NA,L,Z,2;INDICATORS,C,Z,3;&zSelection=DS-054156UNIT,MIO_EUR;DS-054156INDICATORS,OBS_FLAG;DS-054156INDIC_NA,TE;DS-054156SECTOR,S13;&rankName1=TIME_1_0_0_0&rankName2=SECTOR_1_2_-1_2&rankName3=INDIC-NA_1_2_-1_2&rankName4=INDICATORS_1_2_-1_2&rankName5=UNIT_1_2_-1_2&rankName6=GEO_1_2_0_1&pprRK=FIRST&pprSO=PROTOCOL&ppcRK=FIRST&ppcSO=ASC&sortC=ASC_-1_FIRST&rStp=&cStp=&rDCh=&cDCh=&rDM=true&cDM=true&footnes=false&empty=false&wai=false&time_mode=NONE&lang=EN&cfo=%23%23%23%2C%23%23%23.%23%23%23
Click to expand...


lol... so across the Euro area as a whole they decreased spending by 0.05%... thanks for showing there was no real austerity. What was the change from 2009-2010? Oh yeah... a 3.55% increase. So 2011 is still about 3.5% over 2009 level spending on the whole.
 
Superfreak said:
Wrong as usual.

QE1 ran from late 2008 until March of 2010 (keeping rates down)

The stock market then corrected from May-Aug 2010 (kept downward pressure on rates)

QE2 then began in Nov 2010 and ran through June of 2011 (keeping rates down)

The market the corrected in July-November of 2011 (keeping rates down)

The market then began to rise until April of 2012 and rates crept up

Then the market corrected again April-July of 2012 (keeping rates down)

Then in Sept of 2012 the announcement came for the endless QE3

There was never a sustained period where rates could go up by much. There was a consistent downward pressure on them. Much of which was caused by the Fed buying long term bonds to the tune of $2T plus as I stated.
Click to expand...


Oh, I see. So even though rates decresed at the end of QE1 when you predicted they would increase, you have some reasons you came up with why what you predicted would happen didn't happen (in fact the opposite did). And it just so happens that this repeated itself at the end of QE2. And you think Krugman is conveniently ignoring these things that did not happen.
 
Superfreak said:
lol... so across the Euro area as a whole they decreased spending by 0.05%... thanks for showing there was no real austerity. What was the change from 2009-2010? Oh yeah... a 3.55% increase. So 2011 is still about 3.5% over 2009 level spending on the whole.
Click to expand...

I love it. This is like that clip of Bill O'Reilly demanding that Alan Colmes name ONE PROGRAM just ONE PROGRAM that Obama has proposed to cut and Colmes is like, uh Medicare, and O'reilly's alll "Medicare is NOT A PROGRAM" and then shouts about how Colmes can't point to ONE PROGRAM that Obama has proposed cutting pretending that Colmes's Medicare response doesn't count.

You asked for "a country" that has actually reduced their spending, I gave you 7 and added that across the EU27 they actually reduced their spending.
 
Dungheap said:
Oh, I see. So even though rates decresed at the end of QE1 when you predicted they would increase, you have some reasons you came up with why what you predicted would happen didn't happen (in fact the opposite did). And it just so happens that this repeated itself at the end of QE2. And you think Krugman is conveniently ignoring these things that did not happen.
Click to expand...

No, I am telling you that there were only a few brief periods since 2008 that the Fed wasnt pumping more money into treasury buying (which increases demand and forces rates down). In those brief periods they weren't forcing rates lower, the stock market corrected in two of the periods. This too kept rates low as people exited stocks and entered the traditional safe haven of treasuries. That is what Krugman is ignoring. For the bulk of the past five years the Fed has been buying. You won't see rates increase when they are consistently providing faux demand by printing paper.
 
Dungheap said:
I love it. This is like that clip of Bill O'Reilly demanding that Alan Colmes name ONE PROGRAM just ONE PROGRAM that Obama has proposed to cut and Colmes is like, uh Medicare, and O'reilly's alll "Medicare is NOT A PROGRAM" and then shouts about how Colmes can't point to ONE PROGRAM that Obama has proposed cutting pretending that Colmes's Medicare response doesn't count.

You asked for "a country" that has actually reduced their spending, I gave you 7 and added that across the EU27 they actually reduced their spending.
Click to expand...

Yes you did. You gave me decreases in 7 countries from 2010-2011. One year declines... none were the 'harsh' austerity that you proclaim occurred that subsequently hurt growth in Europe. How many of those 7 are still above 2009 levels? From the start of the crisis, how many have actually cut spending?

If you think you a one year 0.05% cut in the Euro area is significant enough to be 'harsh' and causing chaos/economic malaise... well, then you are right in line with Krugman.

I agree some have cut from 2010 to 2011, I appreciate you providing the data. However, there were no drastic cuts or harsh measures even in that one year in the seven countries.

Where is the harsh austerity you have mentioned in the past?
 
Superfreak said:
No, I am telling you that there were only a few brief periods since 2008 that the Fed wasnt pumping more money into treasury buying (which increases demand and forces rates down). In those brief periods they weren't forcing rates lower, the stock market corrected in two of the periods. This too kept rates low as people exited stocks and entered the traditional safe haven of treasuries. That is what Krugman is ignoring. For the bulk of the past five years the Fed has been buying. You won't see rates increase when they are consistently providing faux demand by printing paper.
Click to expand...


So June 2011 - September 2012, the end of QE2 to the announcement of QE3, isn't sufficient time for market forces to impact the price of Treasuries? And iI'm not seeing the "market corrections" that account for the steep drop in Treasury rates over that period. Sure, the market took a hit at the end of July 2011, but as it rebounded there was little impact on Treasury rates:

z



.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top