22
Feb
2016
Potpourri
==> I tell people on The Hill how much they’ve painted us into a corner.
==> Krugman thinks you’re stupid (except not you, LK).
==> Carlos scares the )#(%)#(*$ out of people in this episode of the Lara-Murphy Show.
==> You can have a field day with this quotation from Hillary Clinton.
==> Imagine that, Krugman psychoanalyzes a guy and the guy gets mad. Krugman Lapdog then of course psychoanalyzes the guy some more. Others jump in to kick the guy in the fallout.
Did you just say (_)_)..~?
:-O
Also, getting kicked in the fallout hurts a lot.
I think you should have linked to the whole NC post:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/02/krugman-and-his-gangs-libeling-of-economist-gerald-friedman-for-finding-that-conventional-models-show-that-sanders-plan-could-work.html
For once, good reading material on NC…
Of course the operative word is “believe” absolving herself of intent. Leaving open the possibility of a pathological proclivity for misrepresenting the truth, evinced by her statement.
It doesn’t surprise me that progs cheer Krugman for his ad hominem and general childishness, but it does say something about their character.
From Bob’s first link:
“Fed officials are reluctant to begin a mass sell-off of these holdings because it would presumably undo all of the (alleged) benefits of the Fed’s rounds of QE for the housing market and economy more generally.
Thus the Fed has painted itself into a corner. Officials want to end the era of zero interest rates, but they don’t want to begin unwinding the unprecedented monetary influx of that period. That is why they have resorted to using reverse repos and paying interest on reserves in effect to pay commercial banks not to make loans to their customers. ”
Can someone explain what the fed has chosen to issue reverse repos and pay interest on reserves rather than just selling off assets ? I can’t see what real difference it makes in regards to any past benefits of QE , and if anything you would expect the fed might be quite keen to reduce its holdings a bit.
Selling off its assets would only affect interest rates when they get rid of all excess reserves. That would be quite a lot, and maybey crash the bond market.
Thanks, skylien
Can someone explain how reverse repos increase the overnight interest rate? I mean if the Fed purchases securities with the agreement to sell them later again, how does this push up interest rates. Sounds rather like it only increases excess reserves temporarily..
I think by setting the interest rate at which these reverse repos take place the fed is setting the minimum rate at which banks will lend to each other.
Ok, I think I got it now. I thought the Fed was the buyer of the security, so reverse repo seen from the viewpoint of the Fed, but it is the other way around. The Fed sells a security to “borrow” money from commercial banks and sets the reverse repo rate (seen from the viewpoint of commercial banks) at the specific hight it wants.
Thanks as well!
So in short the Fed mimics a commercial bank in need of reserves..
I totally get why Friedman is getting defensive but everyone should read the actual Krugman post and quote. Krugman is responding to people attacking him for being a shill and he responds by saying (1.) I’m not, and (2.) everyone is vulnerable to pursuing personal ambition, even heterodox outsiders. He literally said in the sentence about “personal ambition” that Friedman quotes that EVERYONE is prone to it.
Do you have the link to the allegedly slanderous article ?
I just googled “krugman on Gerald Friedman” and found lots of links to articles by Post-Keynsian types accusing Krugman of slander, but no links to what Krugman actually said that seemed that bad.
is it:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/02/17/worried-wonks/ ?
Or is there something more ?
Ya the link doesn’t work in the Friedman letter, but the one where he talks about Friedman and mentions “personal ambition” is here: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/lack-of-power-corrupts/
Thanks.
Well, I would classify that as unjustified ad hominen attack!
Either the economics in Friedman’s paper are defensible or they are not. Why would Friedman feel the need to questions the guy’s motives like that ?
typo: “Why would Friedman feel the need ” = “Why would Krugman feel the need “
Oh – well maybe we’re reading it differently then.
Who is doing the ad hominem? I don’t think Friedman called him a Hillary shill though he’s been getting it from elsewhere. I think Friedman misrepresents what Krugman is saying but I don’t hold it against him given the sort of pressure he must be under these days.
Krugman implies that Friedman is quite possibly a) second-rate as an economists and b) motivated by personal ambition.
That seems out-of-place in a discussion about an economic analysis that stand-or-falls on its own merits.
He does, as you point out, also use some softer language, and while Friedman has been restrained in his response, other heterodox economists have been border-line hysterical.
But that does not excuse the tone of Krugman’s post
Krug man’s comments are more general. They could apply to Bob Murphy. To me they sound a bit petty. Krug an is not known for the respect he’s shows to his opponents.
From Krugman:
Well one word wraps up my psychoanalysis of this case: projection.
“… and assuming that nobody who disagrees with you might honestly, you know, disagree with you. That’s what right-wing apparatchiks do, and you don’t want to emulate them.”
Socialists wouldn’t feel the need to keep changing the terminology they use, or otherwise play word games, if they honestly disagreed with us.
They would just argue for Socialism on its merits.
Examples:
– Howard Dean telling people that they should just forcefully change the subject so they don’t have to answer Right Wing questions.
– Chuck Schumer telling Dems he was instructed to use the word “extremist” to describe Right Wing policies.
– Roseanne Barr admitting that instead of calling herself a Socialist, she uses the word “People-ist”.
– Van Jones telling people to call their representatives and “pretend” that Global Warming was a market failure; And then when that failed, telling them to pretend it’s a regulatory failure.
The Left doesn’t want to play straight.
You wouldn’t think that the same guy who really doesn’t want to go down the rabbit hole, also puts out a blog post titled “This Is What A Real Wall Street Shill Sounds Like”.
Just 4 days later…
There’s no particular problem with personal ambition, but it’s how you go about it. If you openly declare yourself a supporter of one particular candidate or one particular political approach, and you are consistent about defending that, it’s pretty well accepted I think.
If you keep shifting your position all over the place (dunno who I could be thinking of) and pretend to be a neutral “just the facts” analyst while at the same time always seem to come to support the same candidate… yeah, that doesn’t look so good.
Corruption basically means you aren’t fulfilling the role you promised to.
Interesting that Gerald Friedman’s dislike of Krugman’s attitude is remarkably similar to other people who take a dislike to Krugman on exactly the same grounds.
Everyone is prone to it….
Except Krugman the non-shill.
Right.
I don’t twatter otherwise I would tell that Stephen Williamson tool that Krugman IS the dog next door that wont stop barking.