The following warnings occurred: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Warning [2] Undefined variable $awaitingusers - Line: 45 - File: global.php(816) : eval()'d code PHP 8.1.27 (Linux)
|
Por la boca muere el pez - Printable Version +- Waukegan Talk (http://wauktalk.com/forum) +-- Forum: Politics (http://wauktalk.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=13) +--- Forum: Politics (http://wauktalk.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=7) +--- Thread: Por la boca muere el pez (/showthread.php?tid=1156) |
Por la boca muere el pez - ClassicalLib17 - 09-07-2010 I part ways with his crticism of Glenn Beck, however, once again, our country is in deep trouble. It's time to pay attention to the truth. Submitted by the inimitable Gonzalo Lira Thereâs a saying in Spanish: Por la boca muere el pez. âThe fish dies by the mouthâ. Nobel economics laureate Paul Krugman has a recent op-ed piece in the New York Times which goes an awful long way to showing that he is a complete and utter imbecileâor the worst sort of cheap huckster imaginable. It is one or the otherâthere are no other alternatives. This wasnât a casual blog where Krugman âmisspokeââthis was a full-on editorial in the Sunday edition of the Times on Labor Day weekend. So what Krugman said was thought out, and dead seriousâand so foolish or ridiculous (depending on your point of view) that he can no longer be taken seriously: In the piece, titled â1938 in 2010â, Krugman argues that 1938 was similar to 2010, in that the Federal governmentsâ stimulus programâthen implemented by FDRâwas insufficient to pull the country out of the Great Depression. Krugman argues that this is similar to what has happened to the Obama administrationâKrugman has forever been arguing that the Obama stimulus package was ânot enoughâ. This in itself is not objectionableâin fact, I think policy disagreements are a good thing. They lead to ultimately better solutions, if all sides of a policy debate allow that opposing sides might have very valid points. Krugmanâs very valid point is, unemployment in the current Global Depression is severeâtherefore, the quick-fix of fiscal stimulus might be best, in order to assuage peopleâs suffering. But then, in order to make his point that more stimulus is needed, Krugman crosses the line: In Krugmanâs analysis, 1938 was different from 2010: âLuckilyâ (most definitely in quotation marks), World War II came to Europe in 1939, and to the U.S. in very late 1941. In Krugmanâs analysis, the War saved the U.S. economy. It allowed the Federal government to go into monstrous fiscal debt, in order to fight the war with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. This isnât novel or controversial. But then, Krugman misleadingly claims the U.S. government âborrowed an amount equal to roughly twice the value of GDP in 1940âthe equivalent of roughly $30 trillion today.â Itâs a sneaky asseveration, partly because it sounds plausibleâeveryone knows the Federal government went into huge debt to finance WWIIâand partly because itâs technically accurate: United Statesâ GDP in 1940âbefore Pearl Harborâwas $101 billion, and by the end of the war, 1945, the Federal government had borrowed $250 billion. Apply simple math: Thatâs more than twice 1940âs GDPâcloser to 250% of the gross domestic product. Of 1940. But Krugman is fudging the factsâ1945 GDP was $223 billion. So the fiscal debt by 1945 was not âtwice the GDPââit was 116% of GDP. Comparing 1945 debt levels to 1940 GDP numbers isnât apples to orangesâitâs flat-out misleading. If youâre going to make a comparison, current debt-to-GDP ratio is much more accurate, in seeing how far the U.S. Federal government went into debt during that period. If we look at the period of the Great Depression and World War II, this is what we find: (Gross Public Debt, 1930â1950. The blue band is Federal government debt, the red band is state debt, the green band is local debt. Source is here, for both charts and raw data.) As can be readily seen, the U.S. Federal government debt never surpassed 45% even at the height of the Great Depression. When it peaked in 1946, gross public debt never crossed 130%âand that was after fighting the largest war in human history. The situation in the U.S. today is nowhere near the sameâexcept in terms of fiscal debt: (Gross Public Debt, 1970â2010. Color scheme is same as above. Source is here, for both charts and raw data.) Federal government debt is just shy of 100% of GDP. If we include state and local debt, gross fiscal debt is tiptoeing to 120% of GDPâand now Paul Krugman is saying that even more debt should be piled on. According to Krugman: It worked in 1945, so it must be good now! Krugmanâobviouslyâused misleading data points in order to sell his policy prescription. He denies the incredibly different situation the United States finds itself in now, with where it was in 1938. Furthermore, he misleadingly fudges data, mixing 1940 and 1945 data, in order to prove his point. I will not fall for the trap of inferring that Krugman is arguing in favor of total world war, in order to save the U.S. economyâI think some commentators who are making that inference are driven by mean-spiritedness towards Mr. Krugman. But I will stateâcategoricallyâthat Krugmanâs misleading use of data to prove his point is something a sophomore eccy student would pull: Not someone who expects to be taken seriously. If that were his only sin in the piece, then it might be excusable. But then, Krugman makes a truly despicable statement: âDeficit spending created an economic boom [in the post-War years]âand the boom laid the foundation for long-run prosperity.â Krugman is an imbecileâor he is deliberately distorting history in order to sell his spend!-spend!-spend! bromide like a cheap salesman goosing a distracted customer. As everyone with even a passing knowledge of post-War history knows, literally the rest of the world was a heap of rubble in 1945âonly the United States was untouched by bombs and mortar shells. The prosperity the United States experienced in the two decades after World War II had nothing to do with deficit spending, and everything to do with the fact that it was the only industrialized nation still standing after a total world warâso the rest of the world was forced to buy from the U.S. because there was no one else left to buy from. Deficits had nothing to do with it. Krugman is too smart not to know thisâI cannot really believe that he would be ignorant of this basic post-War history. Therefore, itâs obvious to me that Paul Krugman will say literally anything in order to support his prescription of increased Federal government spending. Not even facts and brute history matter to the man. In a very real sense, Krugman is now Glenn Beck, only with a doctorate in economics, and a hysterical fear and hatred of austerity, rather than terrorists. I used to take Krugman seriouslyâoften I disagreed with him, but at least I thought he was honestly arriving at his conclusions. But after this piece, I find myself dismissing him with contempt: In his urge to sell his policy prescription, he has sold out his integrity. There is literally no lie or falsehood he will not stoop to, in order to âwinâ the argument. Like the fish of the Spanish aphorism, Krugman has killed himself by his mouth Re: Por la boca muere el pez - Blackdiamond - 09-08-2010 :o :?: :?: :?: |