Seeking Alpha

The influence of "free market fundamentalism" in economic policy is growing even though...

The influence of "free market fundamentalism" in economic policy is growing even though conservatives have been wrong on interest rates, inflation and austerity programs, Paul Krugman asserts. But such failures don’t stop them, he says, and the world is now threatened by "zombie economics" - doctrines that the crisis should have killed but didn’t.
Comments (15)
  • Joe Morgan
    , contributor
    Comments (1500) | Send Message
     
    Krugman by your logic we should had been growing at a 8% GDP growth this year with the gazillions spent....

     

    Spend, spend,spend to prosperity is Krugman advice....
    20 Dec 2010, 05:55 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3314) | Send Message
     
    Without Clinton repealing Glass-Stegal, none of the conversation would even be taking place.
    20 Dec 2010, 05:57 PM Reply Like
  • Jasper M
    , contributor
    Comments (1652) | Send Message
     
    Pot, meet kettle.
    Krugman seems to be trying a preemptive strike vs. those who will be pointing out the ever more manifest errors in his own mythology.
    I'll stick with Santa, thank you.
    20 Dec 2010, 05:59 PM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2644) | Send Message
     
    Krugman is a hack. Hit the ignore button. All he is doing is helping the NY Times go down the drain.
    20 Dec 2010, 06:14 PM Reply Like
  • LatStephen
    , contributor
    Comments (6) | Send Message
     
    Krugman is saying that we are actually in a deflationary period and that the money supply is a vague metric totally uncorrelated to the actual inflation.

     

    I read it thoroughly and I didn't see any "spend to prosperity" stuff there.
    20 Dec 2010, 06:14 PM Reply Like
  • Harry Tuttle
    , contributor
    Comments (2221) | Send Message
     
    Krugman, like most economists is incapable of distinguishing coincidence from cause and effect.

     

    Clinton didn't make the economy grow, he was just there when it happened.
    20 Dec 2010, 06:18 PM Reply Like
  • Joe Morgan
    , contributor
    Comments (1500) | Send Message
     
    Wow, at least someone get it...Clinton had a booming economy because the markets roared every year to new all-time highs....it created the wealth-effect and thus more growth and more revenues...but it ended badly in 2000....
    20 Dec 2010, 06:23 PM Reply Like
  • njefferson78
    , contributor
    Comments (14) | Send Message
     
    Agreed, Clinton was just in the right place at the right time.

     

    But Obama -- this worldwide recession that started well before he was even elected, that's ALL his fault.

     

    Tech crash in 2000 -- Obama's fault.

     

    Repealing Glass-Stegal, before he was even a senator, yep, that's Obama's fault too.

     

    CRA? All Obama's fault.

     

    Your favorite sports team lost? That's DEFINITELY Obama's fault. I mean, how could anyone think it isn't??? Oh, and Krugman's too.

     

    If you think anything's not Obama's fault, you're just a know-nothing, bleeding heard liberal!!!11!!
    20 Dec 2010, 08:48 PM Reply Like
  • zorrow
    , contributor
    Comments (848) | Send Message
     
    Don't forget the other Star Trek Time loop story Karl likes to tell. A bunch of banksters created some fraudulent mortgage products and dumped them on Fannie Mae: But due to a time warp, Barney Frank is actually at fault because he should have forseen that advocating against the redlining practices of some banks would cause S&P to lie to Fannie Mae about the credit worthiness of fraudulent mortgages. See its all very logical as long as Hawking and Einstein are wrong about the arrow of time.
    20 Dec 2010, 09:32 PM Reply Like
  • woollyB
    , contributor
    Comments (1019) | Send Message
     
    The comments here demonstrate the same thing that blinds Krugman and so many others: political economics. Politics and economics should be totally distinct fields of study. Krugman would call Austrian economists "free market fundamentalists," but in actually Austrian economics IS economics.
    20 Dec 2010, 06:40 PM Reply Like
  • surfgeezer
    , contributor
    Comments (6699) | Send Message
     
    NO. The problem is the word fundamentalist. Cutting taxes is no more a panacea than spending. Both extreme fundamentalist views that do not work in the real world. TARGETED tax cuts or spending can most definitely work, just like a business with sales (cuts) and R&D or softare upgrades (spending). The problem is NEITHER works if taken to extremes and our rhetoric will not let people climb off their high horse/fundamental view.
    20 Dec 2010, 10:19 PM Reply Like
  • zorrow
    , contributor
    Comments (848) | Send Message
     
    Ah, somenone who wants a return to sanity, balance, moderation, pragmatism----and the realization that it really is all about raising the next generation, not sticking it to the other guy. Maybe there is hope.
    21 Dec 2010, 08:08 AM Reply Like
  • herongh
    , contributor
    Comments (32) | Send Message
     
    As I understand Tuttle and Joe C the government is merely along for the economic ride solely created by business and the markets. Might as well send everyone in Washington home.
    20 Dec 2010, 08:46 PM Reply Like
  • b0a4pkd
    , contributor
    Comments (28) | Send Message
     
    I say it is time to do away with political parties. It seems any and all points of view make sense in this country so long as their is a left and right. My question is why should someone be made to pay more (in actual dollars) while others pay a minute amount. Can or will there ever be a flat tax? (percentage) At the heart of the question> should your tax liabilty be deeper as your wealth increases? Should people who level off (majority) after the age of 32 or so have less tax liability? If so, at what point do the ever increasing income earners stop having an increasing liabilty? Also, I do not believe the Bush tax cuts should be extended. They should be permanent. I do not believe 33-35% of the my time at work should be to pay uncle Sam. 15% seems much more reasonable. Less taxes on all AND more Americans paying taxes is the best answer that can be had. Too bad it is more important to hunt the (rich) than it is to apply an insistence that all contribute to our system. That means not leveling off. Continuing education or applying more real world knowledge of your trade. These are ways are income improves. I know when I got to full pay at my job all everyone ever said is "you don't want to work more than xyz hours O.T. or the taxes will kill you". It's so true. A disincentive to work longer/harder. Completely backwards approach.

     

    Thanks for the time...
    21 Dec 2010, 05:12 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|