Paul Krugman wins Econ Nobel

[Puppycow]

That doesn't support any political bias. It merely reflects a single member's personal opinion about American vs European literature. I can't imagine the people judging literature are even remotely connected to the people who judge economic theory and those people are unlikely to be remotely connected to the people who judge the prize in medicine and so on.

Fine. In the OP I didn't make any strong claims. I'm sure that Krugman actually deserves the prizes. It's just that those sorts of comments give me a vague sense that the people connected with the Nobel Prize are slightly anti-American. This is just my perception not a hard fact.

 

[SaulOhio]

Originally Posted by SaulOhio

Because it allows government to maintain deficit spending.

You single out one purpose only. I wonder why? Blinkered lack of knowledge, or belief in a conspiracy?

I named two, though I did not elaborate enough on the second. I said some people think it is necessary. I should have said that they think it is necessary to maintain the stability of the economy.

OK well, deficit spending could be used in the public interest or against it couldn't it, . . . mmm?

Yes. So what? That some people think deficit spending is a good thing in the public interest is beside the point. As a matter of fact, it is the point. They think all these welfare scemes are good ideas, and the only way to fund them without increasing taxes (always an unpopular option) is deficit spending.

But wait--what do we find you quote mining:
Originally Posted by Greenspan

Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth.

Yes. It is a means of indirect taxation, through deficit spending. Inflation robs people's savings of value. The money you had in the bank doesn't buy as much as it did last year.

Originally Posted by Von Mises

People fight the gold standard because they want to substitute national autarky for free trade, war for peace, totalitarian government omnipotence for liberty

I call conspiracy BS on your part.

Why is it conspiracy BS? People do have these motives, and often express them outright. Von Mises wrote that in 1966, and his career started as early as the 1920's. He was born in 1881, and lived through both world wars, saw many dictators, including monarchs, talking war, fighting wars, imposing totalitarian dictatorships. He lived through the rise of intense nationalism, even leading up to German Nazism. All such people had exactly the motives he described, and said so openly, not in secret.

Simply naming a motive for someone to do something is not a conspiracy theory. Claiming some large group of people did something malevolent in secret, is. Nothing I have explained it a secret to anyone.

Originally Posted by SaulOhio

Name me one time I promoted an actual conspiracy theory, and I will leave this forum forever. Present one bit of actual evidence that I believe these conspiracy theoryies, and I will leave.

One can hope about the sincerity of this promise

I am. Name me one time I claimed some secret group was planning something in secret, and I will leave.

That deficit spending happens is no secret. That inflation happens is no secret. That we have fractional reserve banking is no secret. The motives people have for all these are not secrets. You have to do better than that if you want to get rid of me.

 

[Francesca R]

I named two, though I did not elaborate enough on the second. I said some people think it is necessary.

Ha ha, "people want to do it" does not count as a purpose, sorry.

Yes. So what?

Yes so--saying fiat money facilitates government borrowing is not to say it is good or bad, so you were doing OK up to that point, but thereafter you quote-mine to make it look all bad. That is the point.

It is a means of indirect taxation, through deficit spending. Inflation robs people's savings of value. The money you had in the bank doesn't buy as much as it did last year.

This is as wrong as it ever was and you do not seem to be able to rebut its falsification that I have provided before (you don't ever attempt to do so as far as I can recall).

Expected inflation does not rob people's savings of real value unless they take their money out of circulation. And stated central bank policy virtually everywhere is to target stable, thus predictable inflation. If the rate of inflation is anticipated, then traded long term interest rates compensate for it. Moreover, your government will even underwrite the rate of inflation it will compensate savers for, through treasury inflation protected bonds (TIPS). Your statement is wrong. It was before. It will be in the future.

Furthermore calling it indirect taxation implies intent--that governments intend to create unanticipated inflation in order for government to gain financially (Presumably by causing the bonds they have issued to sell off in price?? You haven't actually said how the government makes money on it yet . . .). Since governments do not proclaim that this is what they set out to do, it must furthermore be a covert conspiracy (if the mechanics of it even worked, that is--which they don't). Therefore you are proposing, once again, a flawed conspiracy theory.

Simply naming a motive for someone to do something is not a conspiracy theory. Claiming some large group of people did something malevolent in secret, is. Nothing I have explained it a secret to anyone.

See above, and deal with it.

That deficit spending happens is no secret. That inflation happens is no secret. That we have fractional reserve banking is no secret. The motives people have for all these are not secrets.

Then deficit spending is not to create inflation, which does not indirectly tax people. I agree with you that the conspiracy theory is BS, that's why it should be called out and dumped where it belongs.

You have to do better than that if you want to get rid of me.

I don't want to get rid of you but I would like to see you live up to what you promise. But it's no great shakes.

 

[Tippit]

On Social Security, the free market argument is that the "trust fund" is like a bunch of IOUs the government has written to itself. All the money is in the form of treasury bonds which have to be repaid out of future taxes. Krugman argued that the trust fund is secure, that its not like a pile of IOUs, because there is a law requiring the governemnt to repay treasury bonds. Its like making a stronger promise to repay the IOUs! Idiocy!

This is consistent with other prominent figures putting lipstick on the social security ponzi pig, like Al Gore referring to it as a "lockbox".

I would add that social security obligations do not necessarily have to be funded exclusively by future taxation, but with still more IOUs. And where the market is saturated with government IOUs, The Federal Reserve System will create as much money out of nothing as is necessary to buy more. I predict social security will be funded by taxation, inflation, deception (manipulation of cost of living statistics), and outright repudiation of benefits.

That Krugman won a Nobel prize with his nonsense just shows how low the standards for mainstream economics have gotten.

That would be an understatement.

 

[SaulOhio]

Originally Posted by SaulOhio

I named two, though I did not elaborate enough on the second. I said some people think it is necessary.

Ha ha, "people want to do it" does not count as a purpose, sorry.

This is clear dishonesty. You clipped off the part where I stated what I thought some people believed that purpose was. Go look back at that post and read again. I wrote "I should have said that they think it is necessary to maintain the stability of the economy."

That you intentionally snip off something so that you can say I didn;t say it shows you are not interested in a rational debate. So does your repeated name-calling on the other thread.

Do you actually want to get to the bottom of this, and figure out which of us is right? Or are you so rooted in your preconceptions you can't take an honest look at ideas different from yours? At least once, you have jumped to unwarranted conclusions about what I believe. You quote me out of context, you participate in accusations that I believe in conspiracy theories I never even mentioned, and you use childish insults.

I cam to this forum halfway hoping someone could prove me wrong on this fractional reserve banking issue, and the money multiplier effect. When I think of it, part of me cringes, because I don;t want to believe it. Its too much like a pyramid scheme, inherently dishonest. Its hard for me to believe that such a fraud is perpetrated out in the open. I've always felt that I must have something wrong. Nothing like this could be legal, accepted as a common practice by so many people. But when I examine the practice closely, I have no choice but to accept that banks create money out of thin air every time they lend money.

I was halfway hoping someone would prove me wrong. But hardly anyone has even tried. And you use methods of intimidation to try to persuade me, making me more sure than ever that I am right, since nobody can raise a rational contrary argument.

If believing a conspiracy theory disqualifies someone from a rational debate, I think that can disqualify you, too. I bet I can prove that you believe a conspiracy theory, as does The Central Scrutinizer.

Want me to try?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Fine. In the OP I didn't make any strong claims. I'm sure that Krugman actually deserves the prizes. It's just that those sorts of comments give me a vague sense that the people connected with the Nobel Prize are slightly anti-American. This is just my perception not a hard fact.

Well I can accept your reasoning here except you did make "strong claims".

the Nobel has become politicized in recent years...

the recent pattern of choosing mostly shrill anti-Americans to recieve Nobel prizes....

I was hoping for some supporting evidence.

 

[Puppycow]

Well I can accept your reasoning here except you did make "strong claims".I was hoping for some supporting evidence.

My impression is mostly based on this article I read in Slate.

What does distinguish the Nobel Committee's favorites, however, is a pronounced anti-Americanism. Pinter used the occasion of his Nobel lecture in 2005 to say that "the crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless" and to call for "Bush and Blair [to] be arraigned before the International Criminal Court of Justice." Doris Lessing, who won the prize last year, gave an interview dismissing the Sept. 11 attacks as "neither as terrible nor as extraordinary as [Americans] think," adding: "They're a very naive people, or they pretend to be."

It would be nice to think that the Swedish Academy was not endorsing such views when they selected Pinter and Lessing or the similarly inclined José Saramago and Günter Grass.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The article seems to have included a limited number of examples of Nobel winners to draw such a broad conclusion.

 

[Puppycow]

The article seems to have included a limited number of examples of Nobel winners to draw such a broad conclusion.

Fine. I'll withdraw my original claims as to objective facts, although doubts remain. I'll limit my claims to my own perception of things.

It does not seem unreasonable to me to assume that all such prizes, from the Nobels to the Oscars, are subject to a certain degree of politicalization. I just have seen more hints of it recently than in the past, it seems.

 

[Francesca R]

This is clear dishonesty. You clipped off the part where I stated what I thought some people believed that purpose was. Go look back at that post and read again. I wrote "I should have said that they think it is necessary to maintain the stability of the economy."

In post 33, you didn't. And what is the point is that your "reason" for why fractional banking and fiat money are adopted is rooted in a conspiracy. I note that you are dodging admitting that.

That you intentionally snip off something so that you can say I didn;t say it shows you are not interested in a rational debate. So does your repeated name-calling on the other thread.

I'm not name calling except to prove that what you believe in is a conspiracy.

Do you actually want to get to the bottom of this, and figure out which of us is right? Or are you so rooted in your preconceptions you can't take an honest look at ideas different from yours? At least once, you have jumped to unwarranted conclusions about what I believe. You quote me out of context, you participate in accusations that I believe in conspiracy theories I never even mentioned, and you use childish insults.

I'd be interested to see you refute that what you believe in is a conspiracy. You have not.

I cam to this forum halfway hoping someone could prove me wrong on this fractional reserve banking issue, and the money multiplier effect. When I think of it, part of me cringes, because I don;t want to believe it. Its too much like a pyramid scheme, inherently dishonest. Its hard for me to believe that such a fraud is perpetrated out in the open. I've always felt that I must have something wrong. Nothing like this could be legal, accepted as a common practice by so many people. But when I examine the practice closely, I have no choice but to accept that banks create money out of thin air every time they lend money.

There you go again. You could hardly make it more apparent what you believe. (If it is "in the open" then how can it occur, unless society wants to be defrauded?)

I was halfway hoping someone would prove me wrong. But hardly anyone has even tried. And you use methods of intimidation to try to persuade me, making me more sure than ever that I am right, since nobody can raise a rational contrary argument.

If you think I am breaching forum rules, report me and if that is validated I will rectify it. Otherwise your accusations have no substance except to draw attention away from your inability to defend flawed arguments.

If believing a conspiracy theory disqualifies someone from a rational debate

I didn't say it did.

 

[SaulOhio]

In post 33, you didn't.

But you were quoting post #42.

And what is the point is that your "reason" for why fractional banking and fiat money are adopted is rooted in a conspiracy. I note that you are dodging admitting that.

What conspiracy? Did I name the Illunimati? Did I say anything about Jewish bankers?

All I have been saying is that fractional reserve banking is inherently dishonest, and is THE primary cause of inflation and the business cycle. I said nothing about anyone making plans behind closed doors to rule the world.

I'm not name calling except to prove that what you believe in is a conspiracy.

"Yours are the ideas of a hopelessly deluded dreamer in this regard." -- Post #55 in "US financial crisis, who made money? Why not tax them?"

"which is what your numb-headed ideas would do." -- Post #42 in "US financial crisis, who made money? Why not tax them?"

Cheap debating tactics, attempting to intimidate instead of providing arguments.

I'd be interested to see you refute that what you believe in is a conspiracy. You have not.

Asking me to prove a negative. There is no conspiracy, so I can't prove I don't believe in one. Prove to me that you don't believe in fairies.

There you go again. You could hardly make it more apparent what you believe. (If it is "in the open" then how can it occur, unless society wants to be defrauded?)

People who join a pyramic ponzi scheme knwo there is no money coming into the program except that which is brought in by new members. This should let them know that it can't work, and they are likely to get cheated out of their money when the whole thing collapses. But people still join them, knowing full well how they work, even though they are illegal.

If you think I am breaching forum rules, report me and if that is validated I will rectify it. Otherwise your accusations have no substance except to draw attention away from your inability to defend flawed arguments.

You have been unable to refute my arguments. Some of your attempts have not even made sense. Some of them have been against strawman versions of mine. Mostly what you have been doing is trying to intimidate me into altering my beliefs.

The Argument From intimidation

The Argument from Intimidation dominates today’s discussions in two forms. In public speeches and print, it flourishes in the form of long, involved, elaborate structures of unintelligible verbiage, which convey nothing clearly except a moral threat. (“Only the primitive-minded can fail to realize that clarity is oversimplification.”) But in private, day-by-day experience, it comes up wordlessly, between the lines, in the form of inarticulate sounds conveying unstated implications. It relies, not on what is said, but on how it is said—not on content, but on tone of voice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The essential characteristic of the Argument from Intimidation is its appeal to moral self-doubt and its reliance on the fear, guilt or ignorance of the victim. It is used in the form of an ultimatum demanding that the victim renounce a given idea without discussion, under threat of being considered morally unworthy. The pattern is always: “Only those who are evil (dishonest, heartless, insensitive, ignorant, etc.) can hold such an idea.”

I didn't say it did.

If wether or not what I am arguing about is a conspiracy doesn't matter, why do you insist on it?

Like I said, I can prove that you believe a conspiracy theiry concerning 9/11, and can prove it. Want me to try?

 

[Francesca R]

Cheap debating tactics, attempting to intimidate instead of providing arguments.

And yet it is you who is dwelling on "debating tactics" and not sticking to arguments, and avoiding arguments. Why? It's quite a common tactic itself when one's argument is in trouble. It's also very boring.

If wether or not what I am arguing about is a conspiracy doesn't matter, why do you insist on it?

Your claim that what you believe in is not a conspiracy was false.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Fine. I'll withdraw my original claims as to objective facts, although doubts remain. I'll limit my claims to my own perception of things.

It does not seem unreasonable to me to assume that all such prizes, from the Nobels to the Oscars, are subject to a certain degree of politicalization. I just have seen more hints of it recently than in the past, it seems.

Well, I'll remain open to the possibility and should more evidence surface, by all means, post it.

 

[SaulOhio]

You asked me to prove that what I believe is not a conspiracy theory. You are asking me to prove a negative. Prove it is a conspiracy theory. Thats your job. Your burden of proof.

This is what I believe:

Add up all the money people have deposited in a bank, and you get a certain amount. When people borrow money, they get the money they the depositors put there, but none of the balances of the depositors goes down. That money is still, supposedly, available for withdrawl. The same money is both loaned out and still available for withdrawl. If the person who revieved that borrowed money in payment deposits it back in the same bank, the total sum of deposits of the bank inceases. Money has, in effect, come from nowhere.

I consider this a dishonest practice, but it is legal. It has become the accepted way to do business.

What is the conspiracy? And if I am wrong about how it all works, in what way am I wrong?

Here is where you sort-of tried to prove that what I am saying is false, and that it is a conspiracy theory:

Furthermore calling it indirect taxation implies intent--that governments intend to create unanticipated inflation in order for government to gain financially (Presumably by causing the bonds they have issued to sell off in price?? You haven't actually said how the government makes money on it yet . . .). Since governments do not proclaim that this is what they set out to do, it must furthermore be a covert conspiracy (if the mechanics of it even worked, that is--which they don't). Therefore you are proposing, once again, a flawed conspiracy theory.

Have you ever heard of somoene named Robert Mugabe? He rules a little place called Zimbabwe. He prints money like newsprint, in amazingly large denominations, in order to pay his government's workers and political supporters. In his country, you now need trillions of dollars just to buy a loaf of bread.

If they don't simply print money, governments get funding from this proces by selling treasury bonds, or simly borrowing money from banks at controlled interest rates. Its called deficit spending, and its not covert. Banks would be unable to lend so much money to the government without fractional reserve banking.

Or are you saying that America's federal budget deficit is a conspitacy theory, and we shouldn't believe reports that in 2008, the federal government is expected to spend $407 billion dollars than it takes in in taxes? Where does that money come from, if not from our banking system, made possible by fractional reserve banking?

To believe that the budget deficit is a conspiracy would imply that there is an even greater conspiracy to make people believe there is such a huge budget deficit.

 

[Tippit]

In post 33, you didn't. And what is the point is that your "reason" for why fractional banking and fiat money are adopted is rooted in a conspiracy. I note that you are dodging admitting that.

I can't speak for Saul, but it's quite obvious that the creation of the Federal Reserve System was a conspiracy. I live just a few miles from Jekyll Island, Georgia, and I've stood inside the very room at the Jekyll Island Club Hotel where the Fed was conceived by some of the world's wealthiest bankers, in complete secrecy at the time. The occurrence of this secret meeting was revealed by banker Frank Vanderlip in the Saturday Evening Post, and later corroborated by others. Their pictures still adorn the walls there. Why does the word "conspiracy" seem to provoke so much ridicule and contempt? There are many people rotting in jail for conspiring to commit crimes, and there are many more who have gotten away with conspiracies.

Most importantly, the bankrupt and immoral nature of the Federal Reserve System can be demonstrated without having to believe that its creators had secret meetings - it can be demonstrated by how it operates, and its fruits.

I'm not name calling except to prove that what you believe in is a conspiracy.

Maybe he won't say it, I will. It's a conspiracy. Conspiracy, conspiracy, conspiracy. Oh dear, have I lost credibility with you? Conspiracy.

I'd be interested to see you refute that what you believe in is a conspiracy. You have not.

Conspiracy.

There you go again. You could hardly make it more apparent what you believe. (If it is "in the open" then how can it occur, unless society wants to be defrauded?)

If you think I am breaching forum rules, report me and if that is validated I will rectify it. Otherwise your accusations have no substance except to draw attention away from your inability to defend flawed arguments.

I didn't say it did.

Conspiracy.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I can't speak for Saul, but it's quite obvious that the creation of the Federal Reserve System was a conspiracy. I live just a few miles from Jekyll Island, Georgia, and I've stood inside the very room at the Jekyll Island Club Hotel where the Fed was conceived by some of the world's wealthiest bankers, in complete secrecy at the time. The occurrence of this secret meeting was revealed by banker Frank Vanderlip in the Saturday Evening Post, and later corroborated by others. Their pictures still adorn the walls there. Why does the word "conspiracy" seem to provoke so much ridicule and contempt? There are many people rotting in jail for conspiring to commit crimes, and there are many more who have gotten away with conspiracies.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I've been to Jekyll Island Georgia too. It was the first time I saw an alligator in the wild, right next to the boardwalk trail I was walking on. Great fun, that experience.

 

[Tippit]

I've been to Jekyll Island Georgia too. It was the first time I saw an alligator in the wild, right next to the boardwalk trail I was walking on. Great fun, that experience.

There is a lot of interesting history there. Dignitaries such as Winston Churchill were refused admission to the club. The opulence displayed in the "cottages" surrounding the clubhouse are unparalleled. JP Morgan would anchor his 300+ foot yacht outside the marina because it drew too much. The tennis courts still have the the Morgan name on them. No one can own property on the island, there are only leaseholders.

 

[Francesca R]

Prove it is a conspiracy theory. Thats your job. Your burden of proof.

You have said that it is (albeit while simulaneously trying to deny that you keep doing so). I'm afraid you can't have it any way you like. "Pretence" means deception. You would do well to stop digging your hole.

Also please go and correct your wrong statement that "wealth did not get destroyed" in this thread. Thank you.

 

[SaulOhio]

You have said that it is (albeit while simulaneously trying to deny that you keep doing so). I'm afraid you can't have it any way you like. "Pretence" means deception. You would do well to stop digging your hole.

When did I say it? Please quote, and cite the thread and post#.

Also please go and correct your wrong statement that "wealth did not get destroyed" in this thread. Thank you.

Do you mean when I said, in that thread,

We need to draw a sharp distinction between money and wealth. Wealth is actual material goods and services, like cars, houses, food, clothing, and so on. Money is, in our modern economy, just paper and numbers in bank accounts. When a factory burns down, that is wealth that was destroyed, but not necessarily money. When someone fails to pay back a loan, and then the bank is unable or unwilling to let you withdraw your money, then money has been destroyed.

What is wrong with that? You simply insist that it is wrong, without explaining why. Is it the distinction I make between money and wealth? Or the way money is destroyed in the deflationary period of the business cycle?

You keep insisting I am wrong, without explaining WHY.

Again, this is my understanding about how banks cause inflation, and deflation, using fractional reserve banking:

Add up all the money people have deposited in a bank, and you get a certain amount. When people borrow money, they get the money they the depositors put there, but none of the balances of the depositors goes down. That money is still, supposedly, available for withdrawl. The same money is both loaned out and still available for withdrawl. If the person who revieved that borrowed money in payment deposits it back in the same bank, the total sum of deposits of the bank inceases. Money has, in effect, come from nowhere.

Please explain how it is wrong. otherwise, %#@& off.

Tippit: I don't care about the specifics of how a central bank was created. They have been formed again and again, in different countries, for the last few centuries. What I care about is the principles by which they function, and the ideas on which they are founded. Also, fractional reserver banking predates central banking anyway, so that is a different, though related subject.

And Central Scrutinizer: All you have to say to "refute" what Tippit says is, well, you don't say anything. Just laughter. If the subject was a Bush conspiracy concerning 9/11, people trying to refute it would be talking about such relevant things as wether or not a building fire could get hot enough to melt steel, the absurdity of the idea that Bush managed to convince hundreds, if not thousands of Americans, including military personel, to launch an attack on their own people. About the contradiction of thinking simultaneously that Bush is some kind of moron, but also a criminal mastermind capable of coming up with such a scheme. You would be talking about the FACTS. Ridicule just convinces people you have nothing.

From the Argument from Intimidation in the Ayn Rand Lexicon:

All this is accompanied by raised eyebrows, wide-eyed stares, shrugs, grunts, snickers and the entire arsenal of nonverbal signals communicating ominous innuendoes and emotional vibrations of a single kind: disapproval.

If those vibrations fail, if such debaters are challenged, one finds that they have no arguments, no evidence, no proof, no reasons, no ground to stand on—that their noisy aggressiveness serves to hide a vacuum—that the Argument from Intimidation is a confession of intellectual impotence.

Thats you.