Showing posts with label New York Times. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New York Times. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 01, 2012

Keynesians Winning in Explaining Economies in Deleveraging Shock: Krugman has the Story in Money for Nothing at the New York Times

We read Paul Krugman not because he is always right,
and indeed he admittedly does not always claim to be,

but Krugman stands out in the ranks of the world's top economists in rejecting voodoo economics, gullible wishful thinking and unproven politically-colored economic dogmas and pet theories, preferring to subject his own ideas to the actual empirical evidence. Krugman prefers an economics that is "evidence-based" rather than one based on some economic "school".

Read how the Keynesians are winning in explaining economies in "deleveraging shock", as Krugman has the story in Money for Nothing at the New York Times. One need not be a Keynesian. One needs to look at the facts to see that Keynes was right in major essentials, while others were wrong.

Compare the sensible things that Krugman writes to the abysmal theoretical economics written at Krugman-in Wonderland by a proponent of the largely reality-removed Austrian School of Economics, a theoretical school of economics somewhat comparable in its inflexible dogmatism to modern American "voodoo economics" of the American extreme right wing.

As noted at the Wikipedia about the theories of "Austrian School" classicist Friedrich Hayek:
"Jeffrey Sachs argues that among developed countries, those with high rates of taxation and high social welfare spending perform better on most measures of economic performance compared to countries with low rates of taxation and low social outlays. He concludes that Friedrich Hayek was wrong to argue that high levels of government spending harms an economy, and "a generous social-welfare state is not a road to serfdom but rather to fairness, economic equality and international competitiveness."
It is in fact rather astounding that such muddled economic thinking as can be found in the Austrian School is "made in Europe", a Europe whose modern astounding progress since WWII can be thanked to exactly the opposite kinds of economics as proposed by Hayek or compatriot Ludwig von Mises, who wrote dreamfully and in error that:
"The captain is the consumer…the consumers determine precisely what should be produced, in what quality, and in what quantities…They are merciless egoistic bosses, full of whims and fancies, changeable and unpredictable. For them nothing counts other than their own satisfaction…In their capacity as buyers and consumers they are hard-hearted and callous, without consideration for other people…Capitalists…can only preserve and increase their wealth by filling best the orders of the consumers… In the conduct of their business affairs they must be unfeeling and stony-hearted because the consumers, their bosses, are themselves unfeeling and stony-hearted."
In contrast, Steve Jobs, who made Apple the most profitable high-tech product-selling company in the United States is famously quoted as saying that "It isn't the consumers' job to know what they want."

Jobs was apparently very right and von Mises very wrong. Consumers are the suckers in the system, not "the captains".

Similarly and currently in the patent wars, what can be bought or not in retail shops is being decided by the patent laws and how these are being interpreted by the courts and the legal system. The consumers are not the ones deciding what they will be able to buy in the future.

So much for the so-called "Austrian School of Economics".
There is a good German saying for that school and it is "weltfremd".


Monday, July 02, 2012

Paul Krugman Calls it Europe’s Great Illusion: Are Inflation and Monetary Devaluation via Increased Spending the Only Real Solutions?

Paul Krugman's most recent piece at the New York Times is Europe’s Great Illusion, writing inter alia in the aftermath of the recent -- in our eyes "relatively successful" -- Eurozone summit meeting:
"Over the past few months I’ve read a number of optimistic assessments of the prospects for Europe. Oddly, however, none of these assessments argue that Europe’s German-dictated formula of redemption through suffering has any chance of working. Instead, the case for optimism is that failure — in particular, a breakup of the euro — would be a disaster for everyone, including the Germans, and that in the end this prospect will induce European leaders to do whatever it takes to save the situation."
We agree with Paul Krugman on much of his basic macroeconomics, but are recently somewhat more concerned about why he continues to pounce on the economy of Europe rather than on the economic situation in the United States.

We presume that the reason is because the USA and the EU are the biggest bilateral trading and investment partners in the world (with China soon overtaking) whose fortunes are inextricably entwined.

The transatlantic economy has traditionally been the world's motor, as can be seen from these figures from the European Commission, the executive body of the European Union (EU):
"Trade in goods
  • EU good exports to the US in 2010: €242.1 billion
  • EU goods imports from the US in 2010: €169.5 billion
Trade in services
  • EU services exports to the US 2010: €125.2 billion
  • EU services imports from the US in 2010: €131.0 billion
Foreign Direct Investment
  • EU investment flows to the US in 2009: €79.2 billion
  • US investment flows to the EU in 2009: €97.3 billion
  • Investment stocks inward in 2009: €1044 billion
  • Investment stocks outward in 2009: €1134 billion
More statistics on USA"
What would be useful to see from Krugman is an analysis of the people and institutions to whom the money of the debt crisis is OWED and why (or not) they should be saved from their bad investments viz. loans and why money speculators, banks looking for absurd returns from sovereign nations -- and failing, hedge funds, and their ilk, etc. should be rewarded for what is nothing other than monetary gambling. That is a far more important question than all this theoretical economic bantering.

Hat tip to CaryGEE.

Monday, June 04, 2012

Eurozone: Paul Krugman Comments on Soros on the Euro

Paul Krugman at the New York Times is quick on the uptake and already has comments at his blog, The Conscience of a Liberal, on the just published opinions of George Soros on the future of the Euro. See Krugman at Soros on the Euro.

Crossposted at LawPundit.

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

EU Wine Industry: EU Wines by Law Must Use Grapes or Grape Products from Within the European Union


Wine can not be made inside the European Union from grapes or grape products originating from outside the EU.

Well, that's the law.  Otherwise, wines made from or punched with non-EU foreign grapes or grape products would flood the European market and reduce EU wine quality standards. Of course, non-EU wines from foreign grapes or grape products can be imported, as "non-EU" country wines. We see nothing wrong with this European Union regulation. Europe is still the world's leading place for "quality counts".

Stephen Castle has the story at the New York Times in

When Is a Wine Not a Wine? When European Regulations Say It’s Not