meazza Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 how on earth can two people with such opposing views on economics as Krugman and Milton Friedman both win the nobel prize in economic sciences? they would seem to be complete contradictions of eachother. Friedman didn't win the nobel prize on his politics and neither did Krugman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Jobless Claims Rise Sharply. “Jobless claims surged this week, missing expectations by the most since Sandy as seasonal affectations are in the rear-view mirror. For 13 months, we have meandered around a flat-line initial claims number in the 365k range – and we remain there.” I forgot to mention that this latest surge was unexpected.” Well, that goes without saying, by now. http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/162574/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 31, 2013 Author Share Posted January 31, 2013 how on earth can two people with such opposing views on economics as Krugman and Milton Friedman both win the nobel prize in economic sciences? they would seem to be complete contradictions of eachother. Because Friedman won the Nobel for consumption and monetary historical patterns and theories. Krugman won his for something completely different, which was more to do with international trading patterns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Friedman didn't win the nobel prize on his politics and neither did Krugman. I didn't mean to imply that their politics played a role in their receiving the award, but I can see how that assumption could be made. Because Friedman won the Nobel for consumption and monetary historical patterns and theories. Krugman won his for something completely different, which was more to do with international trading patterns. I know that I have my own bias, but Friedman was always positive and easy to understand, where Krugman too often comes off as condescending and impatient. I'm no economist.....I learned that by studying basic economics (a classic case of 'once you know a little, you realize how much there is that you'll never know'). with washington politics dominating fiscal policy, where can a regular schmoe like me go to learn what is truly sound economic theory, and not just a load of partisan or ideological hyperbole? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 I'm not disputing the drop in 4Q, as that's obvious. I'm questioning the rise in 3Q, as anecdotal evidence pointed to a slowdown that started in late summer. And what I said was that 3Q was propped up by accelerating defense expenditures into 3Q, which would support your contention of underlying private sector weakness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 And what I said was that 3Q was propped up by accelerating defense expenditures into 3Q, which would support your contention of underlying private sector weakness. But part of the private sector weakness I was referring to in 3Q was an overall slowdown, including to aerospace & defense. Perhaps they juiced up spending on non-durable goods in defense, because there was a slowdown of IT/equipment orders across the board in late summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 31, 2013 Author Share Posted January 31, 2013 Oh yes, the temperament between these two men couldn't be greater. I think anyone who has heard the two speak would attest to that. In regards to your question, it just depends on what side of the ledger you fall. I would say you can look into keynesian and austrian economics. These two are opposing views and from there you can get an idea of how they differ. If you want to hear more current straight up economic analysis that is based on numbers, not ideological, then listen to the bond guys. I pay attention to them more so, specially the guys from PIMCO, such as Mohamed El Erian, Clarida or Bill Gross. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 But part of the private sector weakness I was referring to in 3Q was an overall slowdown, including to aerospace & defense. Perhaps they juiced up spending on non-durable goods in defense, because there was a slowdown of IT/equipment orders across the board in late summer. http://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2012/10/26/irony-behind-2-rise-in-q3-gdp-without-defense-spending-economy-barely-moved/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 (edited) Oh yes, the temperament between these two men couldn't be greater. I think anyone who has heard the two speak would attest to that. In regards to your question, it just depends on what side of the ledger you fall. I would say you can look into keynesian and austrian economics. These two are opposing views and from there you can get an idea of how they differ. If you want to hear more current straight up economic analysis that is based on numbers, not ideological, then listen to the bond guys. I pay attention to them more so, specially the guys from PIMCO, such as Mohamed El Erian, Clarida or Bill Gross. Friedman wasn't an Austrian, he was from the Chicago school. His school of thought is far more similar to the Keynesians than the Austrians. Edited January 31, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 31, 2013 Author Share Posted January 31, 2013 Friedman wasn't an Austrian, he was from the Chicago school. His school of thought is far more similar to the Keynesians than the Austrians. Did I say or imply that he was? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 http://www.forbes.co...y-barely-moved/ I know that's what the numbers say, but anecdotally it was a different story by the end of the quarter. Many suppliers started reporting massive slowdowns in orders. It's plausible that DoD juiced up the numbers in the early part of 3Q, but by September everyone looked shellshocked, because optimism was growing a bit in the summer. Could also explain the funny September employment numbers. Still doesn't matter. Private sector will acquiesce to Obama's agenda only at gunpoint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Did I say or imply that he was? Friedman as at least wise enough to reject their wacky views... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 I really don't get calingl him a partisan hack. I mean, he's clearly a democrat...but whatever you may think of his economic analysis he's an economist and he believes it. Just to call him a partisan hack and brush off what he says as partisan hackery said to promote the democrats...not really all that true he's been critical when they don't do things he thinks they should do.... You mean like criticizing them for not spending enough money we don't have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 All the Krugman arguments come down to the same thing. If you believe you can create economic growth and properity out of thin air by printing fiat money, and not have it bite you in the ass on the back end, then you believe Krugman makes sense. If you don't believe that then you believe Krugman's a quack. Period, end of story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 31, 2013 Author Share Posted January 31, 2013 All the Krugman arguments come down to the same thing. If you believe you can create economic growth and properity out of thin air by printing fiat money, and not have it bite you in the ass on the back end, then you believe Krugman makes sense. If you don't believe that then you believe Krugman's a quack. Period, end of story. Don't forget the borrowing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 how on earth can two people with such opposing views on economics as Krugman and Milton Friedman both win the nobel prize in economic sciences? they would seem to be complete contradictions of eachother. This kind of gets at Friedman's problem with the Nobel prize. By winning the award, one's ideas will likely be given far more weight than is warranted simply because he created a tool that's useful in the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 (edited) Did I say or imply that he was? Perhaps I misread or misinterpreted something you wrote. I'll reread and get back to you. Edit: Actually, yes, albiet apparently unintentionally. Given your sentence and paragraph structure, your attempt at expressing two seperate ideas was a bit muddled, and prone to my interpretation. Edited February 1, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 All the Krugman arguments come down to the same thing. If you believe you can create economic growth and properity out of thin air by printing fiat money, and not have it bite you in the ass on the back end, then you believe Krugman makes sense. If you don't believe that then you believe Krugman's a quack. Period, end of story. That's pretty close to nailing RH. I'll get back to you on this shortly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 Oh yes, the temperament between these two men couldn't be greater. I think anyone who has heard the two speak would attest to that. In regards to your question, it just depends on what side of the ledger you fall. I would say you can look into keynesian and austrian economics. These two are opposing views and from there you can get an idea of how they differ. If you want to hear more current straight up economic analysis that is based on numbers, not ideological, then listen to the bond guys. I pay attention to them more so, specially the guys from PIMCO, such as Mohamed El Erian, Clarida or Bill Gross. thanks.....I'll check them out for sure. I've not read much by or about Keynes, but I have read Henry Hazlitt's 'Economics In One Lesson' and I thought it made perfect sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted February 1, 2013 Author Share Posted February 1, 2013 Edit: Actually, yes, albiet apparently unintentionally. Given your sentence and paragraph structure, your attempt at expressing two seperate ideas was a bit muddled, and prone to my interpretation. Puh leeeeseeeese Just say my bad and call it a day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts