4 ms·

You're right, but I think you would yourself admit you're being pedantic, the great divide between policies in the US and EU was QE (until recently). It was wro

You're right, but I think you would yourself admit you're being pedantic, the great divide between policies in the US and EU was QE (until recently). It was wrong of the previous poster to paint the US as a country following austerity that was successful.

ancap 12y ago
No, it was not wrong. I am simply using the definition of austerity that Krugman commonly uses (see my above post). UK has used QE since 2009[1], BTW, but only government expenditures goes into Krugman's definition. [1] http://www.bbc.com/news/business-24614016 http://www.bbc.com/news/business-24614016
- Nimitz14 12y ago
  your sources are bad and you should stop reading them, I've read both of the links you posted before when they were ripped apart by mainstream economists
  - ancap 12y ago
    And yet you provide no sources for this alleged ripping apart. EDIT: Furthermore your response demonstrates you do not even understand my point. The purpose of the sources I have referenced are not to show support for economic plan A over economic plan B, rather they demonstrate the inconsistent and politically motivated arguments behind Krugman's anti-austerity stance. He states Europe is dangerously pursuing misguided austerity policy which he defines strictly as a cut to government expenditures. He then correlates that with a lack of GDP growth. Then, slyly, when talking of the US, he purports that austerity took place until 2011 when wiser heads prevailed, reversed the trend and then the economy boomed. The problem is, when evaluating the austerity of the US, his numbers include monetary policy, being adjusted for inflation. Why does he not do the same for Europe? This is all to say, if Paul Krugman is your source "your sources are bad and you should stop reading them... they were ripped apart by mainstream economists".
    - Nimitz14 12y ago
      To quote what another poster in this thread said: > I've noticed there's a bizarre phenomenon surrounding Krugman where people just refuse to read what he says and instead put all kinds of nonsense into his mouth. It happens to all public figures to some extent, but it just seems really next-level with Krugman (and these particular claims are pretty tame compared with the wild accusations you often see.) I've better things to do than argue with a misinformed hater, educate yourself and stop listening to austrian charlatans.
      - ancap 12y ago
        Translation: I cannot counter why Krugman compares apples and oranges in his political crusade against austerity so I will rely upon ad hominem attacks. Yes, anyone who doesn't worship your god must be an austrian charlatan.
mdemare 12y ago
I see a lot of people in this thread claiming that massive QE equals fiscal profligacy, that it means that the Keynesians have gotten exactly what they want. I see QE more as a band-aid, used because fiscal stimulus is politically unattainable, since Keynesians are out of power nearly everywhere. Hence my comment - it was not meant as a nickpick.

ancap 12y ago

No, it was not wrong. I am simply using the definition of austerity that Krugman commonly uses (see my above post). UK has used QE since 2009[1], BTW, but only government expenditures goes into Krugman's definition. [1] http://www.bbc.com/news/business-24614016 http://www.bbc.com/news/business-24614016

Nimitz14 12y ago
your sources are bad and you should stop reading them, I've read both of the links you posted before when they were ripped apart by mainstream economists
- ancap 12y ago
  And yet you provide no sources for this alleged ripping apart. EDIT: Furthermore your response demonstrates you do not even understand my point. The purpose of the sources I have referenced are not to show support for economic plan A over economic plan B, rather they demonstrate the inconsistent and politically motivated arguments behind Krugman's anti-austerity stance. He states Europe is dangerously pursuing misguided austerity policy which he defines strictly as a cut to government expenditures. He then correlates that with a lack of GDP growth. Then, slyly, when talking of the US, he purports that austerity took place until 2011 when wiser heads prevailed, reversed the trend and then the economy boomed. The problem is, when evaluating the austerity of the US, his numbers include monetary policy, being adjusted for inflation. Why does he not do the same for Europe? This is all to say, if Paul Krugman is your source "your sources are bad and you should stop reading them... they were ripped apart by mainstream economists".
  - Nimitz14 12y ago
    To quote what another poster in this thread said: > I've noticed there's a bizarre phenomenon surrounding Krugman where people just refuse to read what he says and instead put all kinds of nonsense into his mouth. It happens to all public figures to some extent, but it just seems really next-level with Krugman (and these particular claims are pretty tame compared with the wild accusations you often see.) I've better things to do than argue with a misinformed hater, educate yourself and stop listening to austrian charlatans.
    - ancap 12y ago
      Translation: I cannot counter why Krugman compares apples and oranges in his political crusade against austerity so I will rely upon ad hominem attacks. Yes, anyone who doesn't worship your god must be an austrian charlatan.

mdemare 12y ago

I see a lot of people in this thread claiming that massive QE equals fiscal profligacy, that it means that the Keynesians have gotten exactly what they want. I see QE more as a band-aid, used because fiscal stimulus is politically unattainable, since Keynesians are out of power nearly everywhere. Hence my comment - it was not meant as a nickpick.