OMG: Krugman is 'anti establishment'?!?!

[gasull]

Re: OMG: Krugman is 'anti establishment'?!?!

I suspect that the full liquidation route, where everything is left to it's own devices, will ensure that unemployment reach the 20-30 % range, and the dollar collapse as a result of a lack in trust in the middle of this collapse.

Aren't they damaging the dollar beyond any possible repair? I'm with Jim Rogers. Taking the pain now would be better that making things worse in the long term.

How is this different from what so many other countries have tried when they had the same problem and then they got the collapse of their currency?

[Munger]

Re: OMG: Krugman is 'anti establishment'?!?!

Krugman is just a partisan (liberal) hack. Obviously, he was anti-establishment when GW was in office. Now he is the establishment.

http://optionarmageddon.ml-implode.c...at-your-words/

If you had bothered reading his columns/blog you would know he has been incredibly disappointed and critical of Obama, Geithner and Summers' policies.

[nathanhulick]

Re: OMG: Krugman is 'anti establishment'?!?!

Is the USD a store of value? GBP? AUD? Take your pick...

Of course not. You are talking about currency, which is not the same thing as money.

By definition, money must be a medium of exchange and a store of value.

[nathanhulick]

Re: OMG: Krugman is 'anti establishment'?!?!

If you had bothered reading his columns/blog you would know he has been incredibly disappointed and critical of Obama, Geithner and Summers' policies.

I would hardly describe him as "incredibly disappointed" with Democrat policies. Unless you are referring to how he was disappointed in the fact that Obama's policies have not gone far enough. If Krugman had his way, the "stimulus" would have been 3 or 4 trillion dollars.

The problem, however, is that to accept that Krugman or Obama are correct, you have to believe that the government will spend our money more wisely than we will.

Whether that is possible or not, I dont see how any rational person can believe that the current crop of politicians we have in office; who are so connected to big business, special interest, lobbyists, and their own reelection campaigns; are going to spend this money wisely in the best interest of our country. Obviously they have had ample opportunity so far to prove that they would be good stewards of our tax dollars, and they have failed miserably every single time.

Krugman believes that if we just trust them once more, they will pull through for us. I find that belief incredibly naive.

edit: by the way, I have had the misfortune of reading many of his columns.

[Slimprofits]

Re: OMG: Krugman is 'anti establishment'?!?!

I caught some of Cramer today.

He calls Krugs and Roubini the academic and journalist "Depressionists" and says this bull market is going to last through April and May in the very least.

I seriously can't wait to see what the next round of earnings reports does to the DJIA and S&P.

[Munger]

Re: OMG: Krugman is 'anti establishment'?!?!

I would hardly describe him as "incredibly disappointed" with Democrat policies. Unless you are referring to how he was disappointed in the fact that Obama's policies have not gone far enough. If Krugman had his way, the "stimulus" would have been 3 or 4 trillion dollars.

The problem, however, is that to accept that Krugman or Obama are correct, you have to believe that the government will spend our money more wisely than we will.

Whether that is possible or not, I dont see how any rational person can believe that the current crop of politicians we have in office; who are so connected to big business, special interest, lobbyists, and their own reelection campaigns; are going to spend this money wisely in the best interest of our country. Obviously they have had ample opportunity so far to prove that they would be good stewards of our tax dollars, and they have failed miserably every single time.

Krugman believes that if we just trust them once more, they will pull through for us. I find that belief incredibly naive.

edit: by the way, I have had the misfortune of reading many of his columns.

Krugman is a Keynesian, so he has obviously been advocating stimulus. He has, however, been quite critical of the way this administration has been dealing with the banks, and is far from a partisan hack.

Dispair Over Financial Policy

Why was I so quick to condemn the Geithner plan?

Leave on one side the question of whether the Geither plan is a good idea or not. One thing is clearly false in the way it’s being presented: administration officials keep saying that there’s no subsidy involved, that investors would share in the downside. That’s just wrong.

But it has become increasingly clear over the past few days that top officials in the Obama administration are still in the grip of the market mystique. They still believe in the magic of the financial marketplace and in the prowess of the wizards who perform that magic.

[c1ue]

Re: OMG: Krugman is 'anti establishment'?!?!

Krugman is a Keynesian, so he has obviously been advocating stimulus. He has, however, been quite critical of the way this administration has been dealing with the banks, and is far from a partisan hack.

I find it deeply ironic that Krugman believed Fannie and Freddie needed to be saved but the big banks don't - even though their problems are very similar both in type and in scale:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/op...14krugman.html

Fannie and Freddie probably will need a government rescue. But since it’s already clear that that rescue will take place, their problems won’t take down the economy.

Furthermore, while Fannie and Freddie are problematic institutions, they aren’t responsible for the mess we’re in.

And let’s be clear: Fannie and Freddie can’t be allowed to fail. With the collapse of subprime lending, they’re now more central than ever to the housing market, and the economy as a whole.

As for criticising the Obama administration - it is amusing that again he praises Britain for their 'bank bailout', but has changed his tune to TARP II:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/op...13krugman.html

"Gordon does Good"

What can be done to stem the crisis? Aid to homeowners, though desirable, can’t prevent large losses on bad loans, and in any case will take effect too slowly to help in the current panic. The natural thing to do, then — and the solution adopted in many previous financial crises — is to deal with the problem of inadequate financial capital by having governments provide financial institutions with more capital in return for a share of ownership.

And then there's the "We must do this or we'll have a Great Depression" column:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/op...10krugman.html

Now they’ve reached a moment of truth: They’d better do something soon — in fact, they’d better announce a coordinated rescue plan this weekend — or the world economy may well experience its worst slump since the Great Depression.

The United States should have been in a much stronger position. And when Mr. Paulson announced his plan for a huge bailout, there was a temporary surge of optimism. But it soon became clear that the plan suffered from a fatal lack of intellectual clarity. Mr. Paulson proposed buying $700 billion worth of “troubled assets” — toxic mortgage-related securities — from banks, but he was never able to explain why this would resolve the crisis.

What he should have proposed instead, many economists agree, was direct injection of capital into financial firms: The U.S. government would provide financial institutions with the capital they need to do business, thereby halting the downward spiral, in return for partial ownership.

Gee, isn't this EXACTLY what TARP II is doing? Even if by underhanded and hypocritical means?

Methinks Krugman doth protest too much.

[nero3]

Re: OMG: Krugman is 'anti establishment'?!?!

Aren't they damaging the dollar beyond any possible repair? I'm with Jim Rogers. Taking the pain now would be better that making things worse in the long term.

How is this different from what so many other countries have tried when they had the same problem and then they got the collapse of their currency?

I think the dollar is already beyond repair, and it have happened since the early eighties. It's to late for what Rogers is suggesting, the US have to much debt. What I mean is that the dollar can't be saved, even if they did everything to try.