Many expect him to be right
and he often is not. He's popular.
Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
|
|
I blame ACORN.
Are we to infer that you agree with Dean now?
(I think Paul and Dean mostly agree - there's a little difference in emphasis. See Krugman's follow-up - http://krugman.blogs...in-translation-2/ - and note he cites Baker in a later post - http://krugman.blogs...e-bond-purchases/ ). "Often" usually means more than once. It should be easy to give us more examples of Krugman being wrong. Care to enlighten us? Cheers, Scott. |
|
Infer nothing
and I'll endeavor to keep a running tally from here on out.
Krugman spends a lot of time stumping for the Democrats and thus supporting their agenda even in times where it doesn't warrant that support, simply because he feels the Republican option is worse. He's stated that many times in his columns. The reality is in between...but he's picked a side. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
|
|
Krugman almost always shows his work...
|
|
Yes he does
and he's correct sometimes as well. His position of going hard on the chinese against buying bonds, for example...is correct. (its one of those things that will help beat down the dollar)...
His problem, as I said, is he has picked sides and it affects his analysis. He was on record saying Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with the housing bubble, even though they were buying close to 50% of the subprime backed securities at their high point. I'll keep a running tab from now on, if it will make you happy ;-) Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
|
|
Happiness is good.
Don't do it for me, though. ;-)
http://www.nytimes.c...on/14krugman.html But hereÂs the thing: Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with the explosion of high-risk lending a few years ago, an explosion that dwarfed the S.& L. fiasco. In fact, Fannie and Freddie, after growing rapidly in the 1990s, largely faded from the scene during the height of the housing bubble. Don't believe Krugman? http://www.calculate...gman-on-gses.html Fannie and Freddie had about as much to with the "explosion of high-risk lending" as they could get away with. We are all fortunate that they couldn't get away with all that much of it. It is a fact that their market share dropped like a brick in the early years of this century, except of course for years like 2003, when fixed rates dropped to cyclical lows, refis boomed, and GSE market share shot up again, only to plummet in the years following during the purchase boom. (But we've been through this before, too...) FWIW. Cheers, Scott. |
|
Yes we have
and they were making the market. They were complicit. Maybe not as much as they would have liked...but they were there..up to nearly 50% of the bundled securities in 03/04.
They weren't in the worst of them, that's true..otherwise they would have fully collapsed like BS...though I'm not sure what difference it would have made since we bailed them all out...not just Fred and Fan. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
|
|
Speaking of which...
|
|
either way he is full
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|
|
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Acquited
source: http://www.ritholtz....reddie-acquitted/ "Chicago to my mind was the only place to be. ... I above all liked the city because it was filled with people all a-bustle, and the clatter of hooves and carriages, and with delivery wagons and drays and peddlers and the boom and clank of freight trains. And when those black clouds came sailing in from the west, pouring thunderstorms upon us so that you couldn't hear the cries or curses of humankind, I liked that best of all. Chicago could stand up to the worst God had to offer. I understood why it was built--a place for trade, of course, with railroads and ships and so on, but mostly to give all of us a magnitude of defiance that is not provided by one house on the plains. And the plains is where those storms come from." -- E.L. Doctorow |