4 ms·

Try cmd+f. The attribution, however oblique, was there...so I skipped the phrase "plagiarised his argument from". This is the relevant text from PK, in case you

by 001sky 14y ago

Try cmd+f. The attribution, however oblique, was there...so I skipped the phrase "plagiarised his argument from". This is the relevant text from PK, in case you are curious: "First, families have to pay back their debt. Governments don’t — all they need to do is ensure that debt grows more slowly than their tax base."[1] Which of course, if it isn't obvious, is, literally+legally false and figuratively BS. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-und...

mpweiher 14y ago
OK, to sum up: You don't know what the word verb "to quote" means, nor the verb "to plagiarize". The author of TFA did neither. There was no quote, and the family vs. nation metaphor is much older than Krugman's article. And of course, Krugman is right, because what he says is descriptive of things that have already happened, and those things did, in fact, happen. Now I disagree somewhat with Krugman on the importance of debt (the state having too much seems to make it defer to much to the bankers, who should be reigned in much more) , but hey, he's a Nobel-prize winning economist and I am a dude with an opinion.
- 001sky 14y ago
  And of course, Krugman is right -- Um, no. Its false. The entire idea is false coming (literally) and going (figuratively). but hey, he's a Nobel-prize winning economist... == This is not even worth responding to.
  - mpweiher 14y ago
    "And of course, Krugman is right -- Um, no. Its false." Your evidence being? Your say-so? "but hey, he's a Nobel-prize winning economist... == This is not even worth responding to." If you had actually read and comprehended what I wrote, I was comparing him to myself, not to you. But if the shoe fits...speaking of which: since you have given zero evidence for your opinion, reputation actually is the only thing we can go on...oh wait...Krugman actually did provide evidence for what he wrote, how typical of him!
    - 001sky 14y ago
      The US Government is required by law fulfill its lawful contractual obligations. Debt is such a form of legal contract. So, by <law> Krugman's premise is false. If that is not obvious (as it should be), then now it is spelled out for you. "First, [PQR borrower] have to pay back their debt. [XYZ borrowes] don’t — all they need to do is ensure that debt grows more slowly than their [earnings] base." Second, to the extent this is even "metaphorically" true, it is only trivially true. For any borrower XYZ and PQR alike, I can make the same claim. eg, A corporation can "roll-over" its debt indefinitely under this constrain (for example, GE has done this for 100 years) or not. But also so can a family/business (eg. even a home roll-over a mortgage w. home equity loan or ect...then kids inherit house, etc). But all borowers as a mechanic do this through....paying back the old debt....first and issuing new debt....so again Krugman's is literally a false (as well as misleading) statement.
      - mpweiher 14y ago
        Suddenly "Governments" became "the US Government", odd how that happens. First, governments have done so in the past. With this alone your point is trivially false by simple observation. Secondly, the US government, like other governments, can change the law. Thirdly, if you haven't noticed, governments are sort of at the top of the food chain, so they can (and do) not bother changing, but instead simply ignore the law, which they do all the time. So you have a judgement against a government, how are you going to enforce it? Ask the same government to send its own police against itself? Good luck with that. March on Argentina? BYOA - Bring Your Own Army. Fourth, one thing that countries like the US can do that neither families nor corporations can do is inflate away their debt. This is of course one of Krugman's criticisms against the Euro: that countries there have given up this ability, and so the only way to try to get rid of the debt is so-called "austerity" measures, which aren't really working in those countries where they are being tried, as GDP drops faster than the debt and therefore the crucial debt-to-GDP ratio gets worse rather than better. Also: free entertainment in the form of riots in the street. Fifth, as Krugman keeps pointing out, the government is not really some separate entity. Most of the debt is debt we have against ourselves, within the family, to stick with the analogy, it doesn't actually make the family poorer. Unlike, say, a mortgage. Sixth, with the power to raise taxes, governments have a pretty secure way of ensuring their earnings base, unlike families or corporations.

by 001sky 14y ago

mpweiher 14y ago

OK, to sum up: You don't know what the word verb "to quote" means, nor the verb "to plagiarize". The author of TFA did neither. There was no quote, and the family vs. nation metaphor is much older than Krugman's article. And of course, Krugman is right, because what he says is descriptive of things that have already happened, and those things did, in fact, happen. Now I disagree somewhat with Krugman on the importance of debt (the state having too much seems to make it defer to much to the bankers, who should be reigned in much more) , but hey, he's a Nobel-prize winning economist and I am a dude with an opinion.

001sky 14y ago
And of course, Krugman is right -- Um, no. Its false. The entire idea is false coming (literally) and going (figuratively). but hey, he's a Nobel-prize winning economist... == This is not even worth responding to.
- mpweiher 14y ago
  "And of course, Krugman is right -- Um, no. Its false." Your evidence being? Your say-so? "but hey, he's a Nobel-prize winning economist... == This is not even worth responding to." If you had actually read and comprehended what I wrote, I was comparing him to myself, not to you. But if the shoe fits...speaking of which: since you have given zero evidence for your opinion, reputation actually is the only thing we can go on...oh wait...Krugman actually did provide evidence for what he wrote, how typical of him!
  - 001sky 14y ago
    The US Government is required by law fulfill its lawful contractual obligations. Debt is such a form of legal contract. So, by <law> Krugman's premise is false. If that is not obvious (as it should be), then now it is spelled out for you. "First, [PQR borrower] have to pay back their debt. [XYZ borrowes] don’t — all they need to do is ensure that debt grows more slowly than their [earnings] base." Second, to the extent this is even "metaphorically" true, it is only trivially true. For any borrower XYZ and PQR alike, I can make the same claim. eg, A corporation can "roll-over" its debt indefinitely under this constrain (for example, GE has done this for 100 years) or not. But also so can a family/business (eg. even a home roll-over a mortgage w. home equity loan or ect...then kids inherit house, etc). But all borowers as a mechanic do this through....paying back the old debt....first and issuing new debt....so again Krugman's is literally a false (as well as misleading) statement.
    - mpweiher 14y ago
      Suddenly "Governments" became "the US Government", odd how that happens. First, governments have done so in the past. With this alone your point is trivially false by simple observation. Secondly, the US government, like other governments, can change the law. Thirdly, if you haven't noticed, governments are sort of at the top of the food chain, so they can (and do) not bother changing, but instead simply ignore the law, which they do all the time. So you have a judgement against a government, how are you going to enforce it? Ask the same government to send its own police against itself? Good luck with that. March on Argentina? BYOA - Bring Your Own Army. Fourth, one thing that countries like the US can do that neither families nor corporations can do is inflate away their debt. This is of course one of Krugman's criticisms against the Euro: that countries there have given up this ability, and so the only way to try to get rid of the debt is so-called "austerity" measures, which aren't really working in those countries where they are being tried, as GDP drops faster than the debt and therefore the crucial debt-to-GDP ratio gets worse rather than better. Also: free entertainment in the form of riots in the street. Fifth, as Krugman keeps pointing out, the government is not really some separate entity. Most of the debt is debt we have against ourselves, within the family, to stick with the analogy, it doesn't actually make the family poorer. Unlike, say, a mortgage. Sixth, with the power to raise taxes, governments have a pretty secure way of ensuring their earnings base, unlike families or corporations.