Paul Krugman: "[Ron] Paul has maintained his consistency by ignoring reality"

sure a broken window requires work to fix, but that work could be spent building a new winow rather than replacing a broken window, and in the former we would have two windows rather than one. wealth is not a limited resource, the economy is not zero sum. both fallacies you subscribe to have been disproven for centuries!

 

Paul Krugman has been discredited, and what ever he publishes amounts to nothing more than hyper partisan gibberish.

 

Hahahahaha, you guys are hilarious.

 

Explain the logic behind ignoring opportunity cost. This is Krugman's fatal error.

 

Lol, because that's an unquantifiable. What "would" have been produced with out spending on the military? How can one answer that question? No one knows, all we do know is what was produced.

So tell me, what is a more productive use of our money than paying and equipping a military with the most innovative technologies and software in the world?

 

image! a jew that hates ron paul!

 

Exactly. That's precisely why Keynesianism is illogical. You don't know, so on what basis can you say that the market wouldn't have produced greater wealth than the state?

I know why the market would have produced greater wealth than the state: because the market is more efficient at allocating resources for the benefit of consumers than the state is. Therefore, having the market instead of the state allocate resources is better for consumers. Therefore, having the state instead of the market spend the money on whatever it wants is worse for consumers.

Almost anything--from curing cancer to gold-plated yachts for billionaires--would be more productive that more power for America's imperialistic military-industrial complex, which has spent the last sixty years rampaging around the world killing and destroying and oppressing.

Ever more efficient ways of slaughtering people (catapults, crossbows, cannons, grenades, land mines, machine guns, mustard gas, tanks, h-bombs, cluster bombs, drones, guided bullets, robot soldiers) are productive to the devil only. Anything to come from military research that has peacefully benefited consumers has been purely accidental.

 

How would the market allocate the resources necessary to build a military? I have no clue what goes on in your guys head to come up with such crazy theories.

Whaaaaaaaaaaat? So what about the computer, the internet, the radio, cell phones, etc, etc. All stemmed from massive Government spending in to the military.

I'm sorry but the real world isn't some happy place. Don't you want to protect all your freedoms?

 

Keep your paranoid bigotry to yourself. If not out of general decency, then out of respect for Dr. Paul, who you damage with your unhealthy fixation on Jews.

 

Don't expect that to change anytime soon.

 

TaoofBill and Akphidelt2007 defending Krugman in one thread. Haven't read all of it, but I bet this baby registers pretty high on the clueless comments meter.

A dude that used food stamps to avoid a job during college, a guy that thinks there should be 47 quantitative easings supporting an economic joke. I read Krugman's books to know thy enemy. Trust me, he is mentally handicapped.

 

This should correct most of your misconceptions of a centrally planned anything. Please listen carefully and take it all in.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dV7-2Aua4_4"]The Levin interviews - Friedrich Hayek - YouTube[/ame]

 

So wait, let me get this straight, prior to the 30's, recessions were every 5 years and each lasted 3 years longer than, for example, the 3 year recession we are in now which is being treated with Keynsian economics. So, at a minimum, prior to the 30's we were in constant recessions, that in fact overlapped with each other by at least a year.

I think Krugers been feeding you a load of crap!

 

As one who makes his living by running his mouth and writing books, theorizing, with heads in the clouds, instead of living in the real world, seems to be profitable for PK.
Seems the free market works for him. Not sure what his beef with RP is, other than needing to be in the news to boost his overinflated ego.
Nothing but another hypocrite.

 

His beef with RP is that he believes in an economic theory that is completely opposite of Krugman's and his theories in use would completely destroy America. Krugman is 95% right about economics... where he is wrong about is how our country funds our debts and the role the bond market plays.

 

Progressives get all their economic facts from inside their own head. It's much more convenient that way.

 

I'll watch it another time. But I already know what their theory is. The US Govt is the biggest consumer in the world that creates demand for production that no private sector individual could create. There is no opportunity cost when it comes to a military. There is no place to put that money that would be more useful at creating a military.

 

Thanks for such a great contribution to the thread. Lol... you guys aren't big fans of facts are you?

 

one day you might even have a real job.

 

It might, but that's not the point. The argument of military Keynesianism is not that the state needs to fund a military because we need a military. The argument of military Keynesianism is that spending on the military will stimulate the economy more than spending money in the marketplace.

You can argue that they need to spend money on the military for the sake of military defense, but that's not that same argument as saying they need to spend money on the military to boost the economy.

Again: opportunity cost. Whatever resources were put into that would have been invested by the market instead, and the market is a more efficient investor for the consumer than is the state.

Precisely, which is why I'm not friendly towards the US military-industrial complex. But that's a different issue. We're talking about whether spending on the military stimulates the economy more than investing in the market.

 

Quantity of demand is irrelevant. The important thing is what is being demanded. Consumers demanded different goods and services than the government does. An economy guided by consumer demand produces goods and services that benefit consumers. An economy guided by government demand produces goods and services that benefit the state.

There's always opportunity cost. Even if you're spending on the "most useful thing," there is still a cost in the opportunity foregone to spend on something else. And only consumers can decide what thing is most useful to them. If it's true that there is no opportunity cost with a military, 100% of all resources should be invested in the military.

 

Krugman had to shut down his own chat forum due to getting absolutely abused in debate. The posters were all making Krugman aware of it, and he couldn't take it.

 

Which has to be built by the private sector.

Fine, if we are playing the definition game. There isn't a more useful allocation of funds than the funds we use to develop our military.

 

I'm not even a huge Krugman fan because he's an arrogant prick. But he is right about 95% of what he says. And he closed it down because the Libertarian nut jobs won't leave him alone.

 

He closed it down because one specific poster destroyed him in debate, and he had no rebuttal.