# Erin Go Broke



## Murt10 (20 Apr 2009)

OP-ed article from the NY Times 19 Apr 2009


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/20/opinion/20krugman.html?em


----------



## Chocks away (20 Apr 2009)

Hi Murt10. Another catchy headline by an ex Enron PR person. Number manipulation, conflict of interests, self righteousness and Nobel prize all come with this packet. He writes books that sell but so does Deepak. He's got a Nobel but so has Kissinger (for PEACE above all things). He plucked friendly numbers out of nowhere to back up his theories, but then again so did Ivan Boesky. And as for conflict of interests - he got around that one by saying "there is no conflict". Just like that. This article is very one sided. America is in deep ****. He doesn't mention the poor average wage, small holidays, food stamps, the angst that most Americans go through - worrying about health insurance, propert tax and lawlessness. Not everyone over there lives in Manhatten. Just as Oprah, Jerry Springer, Maury, Pat Buchanan et al spout self propagating pinko philosophy, so does this avenging angel.


----------



## Purple (20 Apr 2009)

Chocks away said:


> Hi Murt10. Another catchy headline by an ex Enron PR person. Number manipulation, conflict of interests, self righteousness and Nobel prize all come with this packet. He writes books that sell but so does Deepak. He's got a Nobel but so has Kissinger (for PEACE above all things). He plucked friendly numbers out of nowhere to back up his theories, but then again so did Ivan Boesky. And as for conflict of interests - he got around that one by saying "there is no conflict". Just like that. This article is very one sided. America is in deep ****. He doesn't mention the poor average wage, small holidays, food stamps, the angst that most Americans go through - worrying about health insurance, propert tax and lawlessness. Not everyone over there lives in Manhatten. Just as Oprah, Jerry Springer, Maury, Pat Buchanan et al spout self propagating pinko philosophy, so does this avenging angel.


Very true. Some economic writers forget that the economy is a tool to help the people and not the other way around.


----------



## Cayne (21 Apr 2009)

Chocks away said:


> Hi Murt10. Another catchy headline by an ex Enron PR person. Number manipulation, conflict of interests, self righteousness and Nobel prize all come with this packet. He writes books that sell but so does Deepak. He's got a Nobel but so has Kissinger (for PEACE above all things). He plucked friendly numbers out of nowhere to back up his theories, but then again so did Ivan Boesky. And as for conflict of interests - he got around that one by saying "there is no conflict". Just like that. This article is very one sided. America is in deep ****. He doesn't mention the poor average wage, small holidays, food stamps, the angst that most Americans go through - worrying about health insurance, propert tax and lawlessness. Not everyone over there lives in Manhatten. Just as Oprah, Jerry Springer, Maury, Pat Buchanan et al spout self propagating pinko philosophy, so does this avenging angel.


 
The piece is written in regard to Ireland. Exactly what part of his commentary in regard to Ireland did you disagree with? What are his friendly numbers you speak about?


----------



## askalot (21 Apr 2009)

Chocks away said:


> Just as Oprah, Jerry Springer, Maury, Pat Buchanan et al spout self propagating pinko philosophy, so does this avenging angel.



Oprah, Springer, Maury and, for the love of god, Pat Buchanan are pinkos? Sorry but that is just insulting to all us pinkos.


----------



## Chocks away (21 Apr 2009)

Cayne said:


> The piece is written in regard to Ireland. Exactly what part of his commentary in regard to Ireland did you disagree with? What are his friendly numbers you speak about?


Kruger - like most economists is a 'retrospective forecaster', if you get my drift. I don't have the time to do selective quoting but I'm sure if you GOOGLE him, you'll get a result. Here is a synopsis of Wiki's critique: 
Throughout his career as a columnist, Krugman has been highly critical of what he regards as dubious economic ideas, such as: strategic trade and its main exponents, Robert Reich, whom he called "offensive" and Lester Thurow whom he called "silly"; protectionism, with attacks on Pat Buchanan on the Right and Ralph Nader on the Left; a return to the gold standard as promoted by editorial writers in the Wall Street Journal; and especially supply-side economics, which he described as economic "snake oil" in _Peddling Prosperity_. He has frequently been criticized in turn by exponents of these ideas; the journalist James Fallows spoke of his "gratuitous spleen," and Clinton Administration Undersecretary of Commerce Jeffrey Garten complained that "He behaves like someone with a massive chip on his shoulder."[49] Krugman's critics have also accused him of employing what they called a "shrill" rhetorical style.[25][50][51]
Daniel Okrent, a New York Times ombudsman, criticized Paul Krugman for "the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults." Okrent has also said that "when someone challenged Krugman on the facts, he tended to question the motivation and ignore the substance."[52]
 A November 13, 2003 article in _The Economist_[53] reads: "A glance through his past columns reveals a growing tendency to attribute all the world's ills to George Bush…Even his economics is sometimes stretched…Overall, the effect is to give lay readers the illusion that Mr Krugman's perfectly respectable personal political beliefs can somehow be derived empirically from economic theory."
Robert Barro has criticized Krugman's work frequently and Krugman has referred to him as "boneheaded".[54][55] A blog article by Krugman stating that the argument that temporary protectionism "needs to be taken seriously" due to the 2008-2009 world economic recession drew strong criticism from Barro, who accused Krugman of hypocrisy.[54]
 Economist Daniel B. Klein published during 2008 a paper in _Econ Journal Watch_ (of which he is the chief editor) that reviews and criticizes Krugman's columns for the _New York Times_. Klein contends that Krugman's "social-democratic impetus sometimes trumps people's interests, notably poor people's interests... Krugman has almost never come out against extant government interventions, even ones that expert economists seem to agree are bad, and especially so for the poor." Examples cited by Klein of policies on which, he says, economists are agreed, but which Krugman has failed to support include school vouchers, abolition of the Food and Drug Administration and abolition of occupational licensing. On the other hand, Klein lists these examples of government interventions that Krugman's columns have opposed: "rent control; US agricultural subsidies; international trade; [...] ethanol mandates and subsidies/tax breaks; NASA manned-space flight; European labor-market restrictions; and the Terry Schiavo case."[56]
 Economist [broken link removed] has argued that Krugman's economic views are politically partisan and consistently promote a socialist agenda.[57] Donald Luskin of the National Review is another frequent critic of Krugman. He has argued that that "Krugman’s liberal agenda always takes precedence over economic principle."[58]


----------



## Chocks away (21 Apr 2009)

askalot said:


> Oprah, Springer, Maury and, for the love of god, Pat Buchanan are pinkos? Sorry but that is just insulting to all us pinkos.


 Sorry askalot. I didn't mean to confuse. These people espouse pinko philosophy. And the masses buy it. And pay for it. Krugman's position is compromised by the fact that he has got to get people to buy books. And he is no longer Paul Krugman only. He has got a retinue, wages to pay etc. The money has to keep coming in. Soundbites, scary headlines, financial sleigh of hand etc do exactly that. Figures can be confusing and can be used to confuse. There is a natural cycle. A bit like the Jet Stream. Variations will have repercussions. It is not einsteinian. But the very fact that 'Paul Krugman says' put before a theory should only give it the same gravitas as 'Britney says" on the cover of The Enquirer or Globe. At the heal of the hunt, nobody knows.


----------



## csirl (21 Apr 2009)

Those in glass houses shouldnt throw stones. Another case of a sour grapes story ala some UK papers. The UK & US mortgaged their countries futures on panic bailouts with borrowed money. Our expenditure has been minimal (giving a guarantee is not the same as giving actual cash). As with 9-11, where people over reacted about not wanting to fly, the financial industry is experiencing a similar irrational over reaction. Like 9-11, it will settle down and people will start doing business as usual. Throwing money at an irrational over reaction has no effect - as we've seen in US and UK. The recovery of individual countries will not be in any way proportionate to the amount of cash they threw at the problem. 

However bad the economy is here, it is not as bad as US or UK. We are starting from a much higher place - higher wages, lower taxes, higher standard or living, higher proportion of people in gainful employment. We may be slipping a few notches, but not as much as the US and even if we do slip more notches than the US, we will not slip lower due to our higher starting point. Both US and UK have experienced severe currency collapses - never a good sign (ask Zimbabwe  ). As such the relative wealth and wages in these countries are way below what they were in the past. I challenge anyone to walk the streets of a major US or UK city and then come to Dublin and then tell me which ones feel like they are in a deeper recession.


----------



## Bronte (21 Apr 2009)

Chocks away said:


> Just as Oprah, Jerry Springer, Maury, Pat Buchanan et al spout self propagating pinko philosophy, so does this avenging angel.


 
What do you mean by self propagating pinko philosophy - do you mean they sell gullible people a lie and the people buy it?  That it helps to keep the average American down while those at the top get richer?


----------



## Chocks away (21 Apr 2009)

Bronte said:


> What do you mean by self propagating pinko philosophy - do you mean they sell gullible people a lie and the people buy it?  That it helps to keep the average American down while those at the top get richer?


I wouldn't use the word 'lie'. Most of these, because they have parrotted off the same spiel so often, probably do believe what they say. There is an element of showbiz in all this. For glitterati use Guru. For gossip use gospel. For audience use suckers. You can see the vista emerging. He has plenty negative things to say about Madoff now. Why did he not throw his weight behind Harry Marcopolo's battering ram at the end of the 90s? Four or five years ago, when most people (who were not benefitting from Madoff's largesse/thieving) realised that the figures didn't stand up, Paul Krugman was sucking a lolly. How now then, has he managed to keep his halo polished? Will his fronting of Newsweek help (down the line) to unclothe him? We'll wait and see.


----------



## Cayne (21 Apr 2009)

Chocks away said:


> I wouldn't use the word 'lie'. Most of these, because they have parrotted off the same spiel so often, probably do believe what they say. There is an element of showbiz in all this. For glitterati use Guru. For gossip use gospel. For audience use suckers. You can see the vista emerging. He has plenty negative things to say about Madoff now. Why did he not throw his weight behind Harry Marcopolo's battering ram at the end of the 90s? Four or five years ago, when most people (who were not benefitting from Madoff's largesse/thieving) realised that the figures didn't stand up, Paul Krugman was sucking a lolly. How now then, has he managed to keep his halo polished? Will his fronting of Newsweek help (down the line) to unclothe him? We'll wait and see.


 
What specifically has Krugman said that really irks you? 

Theres a whole lot of innuendo in your posts polished with articulate wording but no real substance. His piece in the NY times dealt with Ireland. I cant see anything in that piece that sticks out as incomplete or factually incorrect.

Then again maybe I'm of the suckers who has read his gospel in the past


----------



## DrMoriarty (21 Apr 2009)

Well, he's in *big* trouble now...

[broken link removed]

“There has been comment which has been neither helpful nor, in my view, appropriate, and I would like to move on from that and give the view that we have collectively as a Government have, yes, difficult times, but we have the capacity to deal with these issues and we would like to revert back to the international reputation we had and continue to have”.

Where would we be without her?


----------



## Purple (21 Apr 2009)

The ex-social worker speaks again...


----------



## Bob_tg (21 Apr 2009)

It's not much of a reaction by our favourite ex-social worker!  This is all she seems to say in relation to the Krugman piece:

_“There has been comment which has been neither helpful nor, in my view, appropriate, and I would like to move on from that and give the view that we have collectively as a Government have, yes, difficult times, but we have the capacity to deal with these issues and we would like to revert back to the international reputation we had and continue to have,” she told The Irish Times._

The best bit is "...we would like to revert back to the international reputation we....continue to have".  Nice one!  That really makes sense!!


----------



## Peterus (21 Apr 2009)

If you are interested in what Krugman has to say - aside from the Irish commentary he is interviewed about the US solution here

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/3/23/the_zombie_ideas_have_won_paul

Krugman is against the the idea that the tax payer should go in and buy these assets when the market wont touch them. He sees Ireland mimicing the US strategy for solving the financial crisis. Perhapse because Ireland is such a smaller economy than the US perhaps we will see the effectiveness of this solution before the US.

At a basic level he is against the tax payer taking the risk and the banks taking the profit. Who could disagree with that?


----------



## Purple (21 Apr 2009)

What he says about Ireland is not news and shows very little insight. That's not to say he's wrong, it's just Clare Champion standard rather than NY Times.


----------



## Chocks away (21 Apr 2009)

Yes, Purple. Hype and hyperbole sum up the musings of this once revered  oracle. Overtaken by events and ego, he now is a common hack. Regurgitating known facts and spinning them, taking bows and craving more  accolades has clouded his judgement.


----------



## Bronte (22 Apr 2009)

I'm still lost back at the pinko philosophy.......... but you have a great turn of phrase Chocks.

I'm also missing the innuendo on Coughlin having been a social worker.

Whatever about how bad Ireland is, the figures on the finances in the UK are dire so I've no idea why the British newspapers (don't like American newspapers so cannot comment there)  have so much negative press on us.  Not being an economist.........  I think Ireland being small will find it easier to cope and get out of the current mess, only problem is we are very reliant on the US and UK.


----------



## z109 (22 Apr 2009)

Bronte said:


> Whatever about how bad Ireland is, the figures on the finances in the UK are dire so I've no idea why the British newspapers (don't like American newspapers so cannot comment there)  have so much negative press on us.  Not being an economist.........  I think Ireland being small will find it easier to cope and get out of the current mess, only problem is we are very reliant on the US and UK.


You don't see the contradiction in your post?
"Why do they say we are so bad?"
"The UK and US are much worse"
"We're small and will recover more quickly"
"We rely on the UK and US for recovery"

We are not going to recover quickly if the markets that we depend on for recovery do not recover. So we are at the bottom of the recovery chain. No?


----------



## Purple (22 Apr 2009)

Bronte said:


> I'm also missing the innuendo on Coughlin having been a social worker.


I’ve nothing against social workers (one of my best friends is one), but it’s not exactly the best training to be minister for trade and industry (and I’ve seen her in action; she’s useless, an embarrassment).


----------



## spursfan1234 (22 Apr 2009)

what do you find so bad about her purple


----------



## Firefly (22 Apr 2009)

DrMoriarty said:


> Well, he's in *big* trouble now...


 
If the tanaiste has to come out against an article in a newspaper there must be some truth in it!!


----------



## Purple (22 Apr 2009)

spursfan1234 said:


> what do you find so bad about her purple


She is very arrogant, inappropriately crude and clearly has little understanding of her brief. 
I was at function in Europe with German, French, Swiss and Austrian businesspeople attending her performance was utterly cringe-worthy. 
When I hear her talk on TV she said really stupid and illogical things and counters arguments and criticisms about the government’s economic policies with vague worn-out sound bites.  
She is, in my opinion, far and away the worst member of the government.


----------



## Purple (22 Apr 2009)

Firefly said:


> If the tanaiste has to come out against an article in a newspaper there must be some truth in it!!


 Why?


----------



## Bronte (22 Apr 2009)

yoganmahew said:


> You don't see the contradiction in your post?
> "Why do they say we are so bad?"
> "The UK and US are much worse"
> "We're small and will recover more quickly"
> ...


 
Of course it's contradictory, I'm not an economist, but I wouldn't rely on any of those experts either for state of the economy advice.  But one day one of the economists will be right just as you Yoga may be right that we're at the bottom of the recovery chain but only time will tell and we don't have cristal balls so newspapers can write what they want.  Who knew we'd have a celtic tiger?


----------



## Firefly (22 Apr 2009)

Purple said:


> Why?


 
Just a feeling I have!


----------



## queenlex (22 Apr 2009)

Purple said:


> .
> She is, in my opinion, far and away the worst member of the government.


 
God are you sure there are some very serious contenders there!


----------



## queenlex (22 Apr 2009)

Bronte said:


> you Yoga may be right that we're at the bottom of the recovery chain


 
I dont think this is up for discussion as we're totally reliant on the other countries companies for employment in recent times...


----------



## Purple (22 Apr 2009)

queenlex said:


> there are some very serious contenders there!


 I agree, but I am sure.


----------



## Purple (22 Apr 2009)

Firefly said:


> Just a feeling I have!



How can anyone argue with that!


----------



## Sunny (22 Apr 2009)

Totally reliant is pushing it. There is a highly succesful SME sector in this Country whose owners don't get the credit they deserve for the jobs they create and are often neglected in discussions because everyone is focused on the Intels of this world. Not saying the multi-national sector isn't important but I sometimes wish the Government spend as much time worrying about indiginous businesses as they do about attracting inward investment because we are unlikely to be able to attract these companies anymore and will have to rely on ourselves.


----------



## z109 (22 Apr 2009)

I agree with you Sunny, and that is one way we could move up the recovery chain. I just don't see it happening. There is too much embedded in FDI - FAS (building stuff for them), IDA and EI (incentivising them) and the all too familiar junkets on the government jets...


----------



## Chocks away (7 Jun 2009)

A little bit of the Princeton Back Step Shuffle (ambiguous style) by Paul Krugman at the recent Merrion talk. Five to ten years recovery/extremely painful/really terrible punishment to which he added 'the adjustment is working' and a few other tentative pieces of good news. Ireland will not default etc. Paul baby, a bunch of baboons could have done this talk. You merely rehashed your earlier musings, added a few adjectives, changed the old chronograph a little and tossed in a few optimistic phrases to a fawning audience. You sure you've not got TP Barnum's DNA?


----------



## dewdrop (8 Jun 2009)

I think Mary Hanafin sounded very like the Tanaiste last evening while onRTE radio. She questioned Fine Gael person about how they would deal with the deficit. He began i think with reducing the state agencies and she shouted DONE DONE and repeated this mantra to some other steps he mentioned. Did not sound well


----------



## Kemo_Sabe (12 Jun 2009)

dewdrop said:


> I think Mary Hanafin sounded very like the Tanaiste last evening while onRTE radio. She questioned Fine Gael person about how they would deal with the deficit. He began i think with reducing the state agencies and she shouted DONE DONE and repeated this mantra to some other steps he mentioned. Did not sound well


 
Mary Hanafin is an irritating fool who should have stayed in the classroom. If anyone can point me to a single concrete achievement she has made in Government, I will eat my Stetson.

She is however called Mary which is the prime qualification for lovely girls to get to the top in Dail Eireann.


----------



## MrKeane (12 Jun 2009)

Kemo_Sabe said:


> Mary Hanafin is an irritating fool who should have stayed in the classroom. If anyone can point me to a single concrete achievement she has made in Government, I will eat my Stetson.
> 
> *She is however called Mary which is the prime qualification for lovely girls to get to the top in Dail Eireann*.


 
Or the Aras!


----------



## Pat Gill (16 Jun 2009)

I will declare my vested interest up front, I am the moderator on the SpiritofIreland forum.

But I ask the question, could the S of I project stop Ireland going broke and maybe contribute in the opposite direction.


----------



## Purple (16 Jun 2009)

Chocks away said:


> A little bit of the Princeton Back Step Shuffle (ambiguous style) by Paul Krugman at the recent Merrion talk. Five to ten years recovery/extremely painful/really terrible punishment to which he added 'the adjustment is working' and a few other tentative pieces of good news. Ireland will not default etc. Paul baby, a bunch of baboons could have done this talk. You merely rehashed your earlier musings, added a few adjectives, changed the old chronograph a little and tossed in a few optimistic phrases to a fawning audience. You sure you've not got TP Barnum's DNA?


 In fairness there are a few Irish ecomonists turned pundit who dine off the same sort of thing.


----------



## Chocks away (16 Jun 2009)

Purple said:


> In fairness there are a few Irish ecomonists turned pundit who dine off the same sort of thing.


 Yup! But this guy is allocated more kudos than most. In his recent book he extolled the idea of the government printing (money) it's way out of trouble. The Keynesian cycle is often a busted flush. Sophistry and _ad hoc _simplification are the buttresses of Krugman's reasoning. He is the Eamon Dempsey of financial talking heads. You've got to remember that he has become unstuck a lot of times - going back to the Asian crisis over a decade ago. His spats with Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin and others are coffee house fodder in NY. Again, his blog is popular - some people just like to witness the cut and thrust of debate, especially when one side has a chip on it's shoulder and will criticise virtually anything that the other side comes out with. Back to your statement Purple, the more noise made or controversy caused the bigger the payoff.


----------



## z109 (16 Jun 2009)

Mr Krugman is a little more than a common or garden conference-speaker for hire. He did predict what was happening with the Greenspan (*spit*) low interest rates. This in 2002:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html


> The basic point is that the recession of 2001 wasn't a typical postwar slump, brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raises interest rates and easily ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again. This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance. To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.
> Judging by Mr. Greenspan's remarkably cheerful recent testimony, he still thinks he can pull that off. But the Fed chairman's crystal ball has been cloudy lately; remember how he urged Congress to cut taxes to head off the risk of excessive budget surpluses?
> 
> ...
> ...



and this in 2001:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/30/m...aul krugman fear itself&st=cse&pagewanted=all


> Here's my nightmare: America's recovery from its current slump, whenever it comes, is tentative and short-lived, because the business investment that drove our boom in the 1990's remains stagnant. Eventually the housing bubble bursts and we have another slump; then we have another weak recovery, this time driven by deficit spending, but that, too, fades out. Eventually we look around and realize that it's 2009, and the economy still hasn't fully recovered from the slowdown that began at the end of the previous decade.
> 
> 
> And we also realize that while the government's subsequent attempts to sustain the economy, mainly through tax cuts and subsidies to energy companies, have arguably staved off depression -- the unemployment rate has risen, but only to 8 percent -- they have also devastated the environment and left a huge government debt. The fiscal 2010 budget deficit is projected at $800 billion, and nobody has any idea how we will manage in a couple of years, when millions of baby boomers start collecting their Social Security checks.


----------



## Chocks away (17 Jun 2009)

yoganmahew said:


> and this in 2001:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/30/m...aul krugman fear itself&st=cse&pagewanted=all



"Eventually, the housing bubble bursts". Every bubble bursts
 "Recovery tentative and short lived". Pretty vague and ambiguous
 He uses the words _maybe, may not, may, possibly, could, should _and _would _ quite a lot in his writings. Perhaps a little stronger language and discrepancies in his forecasting would emerge and could be nailed. "The Nightmare Scenario" bit (if not an addendum!) merely proves that if you toss enough chaff to the wind you will get edibles. All in all a  contemporaneous and easier to read Nostradamus-type character. But better looking - if beards are your thing


----------



## tyoung (17 Jun 2009)

Chocks away said:


> "Eventually, the housing bubble bursts". Every bubble bursts
> "Recovery tentative and short lived". Pretty vague and ambiguous
> He uses the words _maybe, may not, may, possibly, could, should _and _would _ quite a lot in his writings. Perhaps a little stronger language and discrepancies in his forecasting would emerge and could be nailed. "The Nightmare Scenario" bit (if not an addendum!) merely proves that if you toss enough chaff to the wind you will get edibles. All in all a  contemporaneous and easier to read Nostradamus-type character. But better looking - if beards are your thing



That's rubbish!
Any serious predictions are always couched in terms of possibilities and probabilities. Even if you don't agree with K's prescription for the current problems his warnings have been precient.


----------



## Cayne (17 Jun 2009)

tyoung said:


> That's rubbish!
> Any serious predictions are always couched in terms of possibilities and probabilities. Even if you don't agree with K's prescription for the current problems his warnings have been precient.


 
Agree 100%. Dont know what gripe he has against Krugman!


----------



## Chocks away (17 Jun 2009)

Cayne said:


> Agree 100%. Dont know what gripe *HE* has against Krugman!


Ahem! You also may not know that *HE'S* a grandmother of five. On balance Krugman gets a lot right. But he has skilled showman abilities and that is where I cast a jaundiced eye. If the guy was on a salary, did not have to push his books, DVDs and appearances I would have far more respect for his forecasting. But as he is no longer the brilliant economist (only) there are other factors that could temper his views. I for one do think that conflict of interest must be taken into consideration.


----------



## Chocks away (28 Aug 2009)

"Till Death Does Its Part" is today's catchy headline. As the dollar heads towards 1.44 the happy XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX seem to be working. See Krugman's offering in today's NY Times.


----------

