tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post8974990833524123334..comments2024-03-27T03:00:27.024-04:00Comments on Facts & other stubborn things: Assault of Thoughts - 11/26/2011Evanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12259004160963531720noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-48201152801692701992011-11-28T11:50:30.078-05:002011-11-28T11:50:30.078-05:00So what you're really trading for is the mediu...<i>So what you're really trading for is the medium of exchange function of money</i><br /><br />What you're really trading for is time. You are buying an opportunity to spend money sooner than you normally would.Mattheus von Guttenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09404889240800715511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-82685830873095720402011-11-27T08:32:44.507-05:002011-11-27T08:32:44.507-05:00teqzilla - I understand Bob's argument fine. W...teqzilla - I understand Bob's argument fine. What I'm trying to point out to him is that he's changing the assumptions, which doesn't prove anything.<br /><br />Yes, Krugman's conclusions are contingent on his assumptions. So?<br /><br />Krugman was talking not just about everyone reducing all debts - but also SAVING more (note what Krugman cites about reducing spending) - at once. Bob comes along and talks about a completely different scenario.<br /><br />He ought to either say "I'm considering a completely different scenario" to which I'd say "fine - but don't call Krugman wrong - he's agree with you in THAT scenario", or he ought to provide an example that uses the same scenario - everybody reducing their spending at once.<br /><br />Instead he's telling us that if one person reduces spending and pays off debts but other people increase spending, then total spending doesn't have to increase.<br /><br />Well of course - I think we all knew that already.Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-66122381632350278412011-11-27T08:24:56.518-05:002011-11-27T08:24:56.518-05:00I don't know why youve had such a tough time f...I don't know why youve had such a tough time figuring out Murphy's post. You seem intent on reading it as talking about whether reducing debt is a good idea or not when it's really about whether reducing debt reduces income as a matter of mere 'arithmetic' like Krugman has suggested in this post and others. It's focused on whether krugman's presentation of the keynesian argument is accurate, not whether the keynesian argument itself is correct.teqzillahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10644136551384385125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-45058043816281498962011-11-26T23:44:35.137-05:002011-11-26T23:44:35.137-05:00I added words to make it perfectly clear I'm w...I added words to make it perfectly clear I'm writing a hypothetical/paraphrase/oversimplification. Those are very useful to frame an argument so I'll continue to write like that, but I'll try to be more careful about being clear when I'm doing that.Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-33466962189612501002011-11-26T23:42:00.420-05:002011-11-26T23:42:00.420-05:00Sorry -
I do actually try to have a system here. I...Sorry -<br />I do actually try to have a system here. I write direct quotes in blue (or bolded - for some reason when I post from Firefox it won't print in blue), and when I italicize it's hypothetical/paraphrase... which I know looks really bad because I <i>quoted</i> Friedman but italicized it in this particular case (I'll change that back). Usually I think it's quite clear from context what is a direct quote and what isn't.Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-32373395888144897362011-11-26T19:06:10.835-05:002011-11-26T19:06:10.835-05:00Hey Daniel, I know you weren't trying to be mi...Hey Daniel, I know you weren't trying to be misleading, but I think blogging etiquette would insist that you not put quotations marks and italics on words that the alleged author didn't actually write. It sure looks like you are quoting me directly in this post, when those are your words, not mine.<br /><br />Yes, if you paraphrase what Krugman and I are both saying, then there is no contradiction. But if I paraphrase what I think he and I are saying, then there is a contradiction. So when you are going to disagree with me, it's important that you don't paraphrase my position within quotation marks.Bob Murphyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04001108408649311528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-41944042800354033562011-11-26T19:02:33.500-05:002011-11-26T19:02:33.500-05:00My econ 101 textbook used the Krugman and Wells bo...My econ 101 textbook used the Krugman and Wells book. Knowing nothing else of the authors, I came away from it with the impression that the authors were moderate right-wingers, supporting intervention in the market in some special cases, but general cautioning against it. (This was 1999: at the time cap and trade was considered a "conservative" approach to environmental policy.) When Krugman started as a columnist for the Times the next year, I was shocked that the textbook's author was actually a card-carrying liberal.<br />-WillAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-71231909818304977562011-11-26T10:35:50.222-05:002011-11-26T10:35:50.222-05:00Dude has obviously never looked at the Krugman and...Dude has obviously never looked at the Krugman and Wells textbooks. Even the Macro edition of the textbook has the first five chapters dedicated to your 1-3 sequence. <br /><br />I usually skip most of it.Andrew Bossiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00353842153288646125noreply@blogger.com