The Paul Krugman Thread

One more economic crash and a lot of people will change their minds.

On another note, and it is something I haven't got a definitive source on, is that the SNP are implying that an Independent Scotland would be Keynesian.

I know nothing of Scotland's political dynamics (other than the ever-present separationist sentiment), although adopting Keynesian principles is common sense for any sovereign nation.

Krugman fights back against claims that the secular stagnation story represents some kind of sea change in his attitudes towards austerity and such. I swear I'm not him! But it's uncanny how much his blog posts mirror the debates we're having here.

First, he talks about how the implications of secular stagnation are that the central bank should be setting an inflation target of around 4 percent, and that this exactly what he's been saying all along, but that the Overton window has to shift to incorporate the notion of secular stagnation before such a move could be politically achievable.

The second is addressing the implications of the "permanent depression" on austerity policy, which I will quote verbatim (emphasis mine):

Wait, Scotland is made up of descendants of Maynard Keynes? Man, he really got around...

This somehow reminds me of the joke feud between Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and Conan O'Brien during the writer's strike, over the Huckabee Bump.

edited 29th Nov '13 10:27:50 AM by TheyCallMeTomu

"When the two kinds of fowl come in equally convenient form, turkey clearly dominates.Turkey burgers are way better than chicken burgers."

Hmm. True?

Chicken burgers are an abomination. I mean, if you're going to have chicken in a patty, it shouldn't be ground up chicken. That just defeats the point entirely.

Nando's: making a chicken burger a worthwhile thing. Also, the business model to look at, really, when it comes to successful franchising.

(The two are probably not unrelated. )

EDIT: Whoops, there you go — link added. <blush>

edited 29th Nov '13 12:50:19 PM by Euodiachloris

Nando's?

I'd rather just have a grilled chicken sandwich at that rate!

I find it interesting to find the same logical fallacies we see in economic debates also applied to our food preferences. 'People aren't buying X, therefore they don't want it!' It's a complete failure to take into account the non-financial costs associated with the transaction, like the time and effort of cooking preparation, or even mere storage space - squeezing a whole turkey into a modest-sized fridge is an exercise in food container Tetris.

Also, it is incredibly cruel to make readers crave food that is on a DIFFERENT CONTINENT from them. Do you know how much I pay for shipping for things like that?! :(

Hey: there are US stores! (And, the online service for the sauces: seriously — worth it for a summer BBQ.)

Krugman's on Colbert tonight! I may implode from the pure awesomeness of having two of my favorite people together.

Please post a link once it's up, if you don't mind.

Meh, I prefer Stewart :P

Maddow. The other two are too showy.

I have to admit, I prefer Maddow, too. She's just the kind of sardonic, intelligent wit that I like to hear.

I'd love if if she came here and did a gig with Have I Got News For You. Heck, I'd love it if Krugman would.

edited 6th Feb '14 5:34:57 PM by Euodiachloris

Stewart's a comedian.

I do appreciate Maddow too though.

And? <confused> Not only comedians go onto that show, you know. It helps if you know about things like... what's happening. And, can point out the darkness and bring it shuddering into the light of day. That's Ian Hyslop's day job, too.

edited 6th Feb '14 5:42:12 PM by Euodiachloris

The impression I always get from Stewart is of an annoying kid who always points out not-that-funny curios and who always laughs at his own jokes like he's Oscar Wilde. The kind of person who giggles and tugs on your sleeve so he can point out a mildly dick-shaped cloud. Olbermann's similar, it's difficult to watch their shuddering quasi-rages and not laugh at them, and not in a good way. Stewart in particular just sets a little voice in the back of my head going "Jesus Christ buddy, you aren't as funny as you think you are." And watching Bill Maher is akin to nails scraping on a blackboard. That's not to disparage what Stewart is or what he does, or those who do find him funny, but that brand of brash humor does absolutely zilch for me.

I've not watched much Colbert, he seems okay. In all honesty, I actually find - Beck excepted - the conservative pundits more watcheable than the liberal ones. They at least try to cultivate an air of seriousness that I find much more easy to watch than Stewart or Olbermann's yelling and arm-flapping; at least when Bill O'Reilly get's angry you get the impression he's actually pissed off and it isn't part of his act. Their politics and assumptions remain bullshit, however, and I'd pick Maddow over any of them.

edited 6th Feb '14 6:00:56 PM by Achaemenid

To each their own. I find Stewart to be fairly insightful, and while I'm about as progressive as it gets, I sometimes feel Maddow is painting a certain picture first, and approaching things objectively second.

Why are we talking about these people in the Krugman thread? /sigh

Okay, I'll bite. Stewart and Colbert are comedy first and news second. Stewart simply makes fun of all the stupid things that appear in the news, while Colbert is a satire of conservative talk shows — specifically, Bill O'Reilly.

That they end up informing people better than the serious news media is less a credit to them and more a scathing indictment of the serious news media.

Not that Stewart is infallible. I mean, Krugman was really disappointed in him when he was saying the trillion dollar coin idea was a dumb one.

He also whiffed in the debate he had with Papa O'Reilly about the difference between the debt and the deficit, proving that he's a comedian first and an economist second.

Pretty sure he's not an economist at all :P