08
Nov
2011
The Comment Gremlins Strike Again
Folks, I really have no idea why this keeps happening. But, once again WordPress decided to lock all the comments of previous posts. I turned the default back to open, but it appears I have to manually unlock all previous posts.
I did it (I think) for the most recent ones, but if you wanted to comment on an older post, drop me a note in the comments here (assuming you are physically able to do so, which is 50/50 at this point).
I think it has to do with MF’s failure to provide a quote where Krugman claims that falling spending and incomes arithmetically follows from paying back debt.
The reason Krugman can’t find the confidence fairies is they are actually comment gremlins trolling his opponents. Also, phlogiston.
I wouldnt be so harsh with MF.
Mammoth, I don’t mind if you interpret Krugman’s quotations differently from how we do. But if you start exporting that argument to other threads, I think you owe us a Pigovian tax.
Haha! Pigou and mice, talk about a carryover.
Anyway, I would be willing to bet that MamMoth had to look it up.
Ah, to be “simple minded” again, what a treat. He’s like a little chocolate-loving canine; kills himself with every lick.
Murphy, if you start restricting exports and raising taxes what will become of the free market?
Anyway, I am glad we agree we disagree on how to interpret Krugman’s quote.
I think it has more to do with the fact that such a quote was provided, and your repeated attempts to deny it spammed the system so much that it finally puked.
The quote is here:
“He’s reacting to Cameron’s statement, semi-withdrawn but not really, that what Britain needs is for everyone to pay down debt, said in obvious obliviousness to the fact that if everyone cuts spending at the same time, income must fall.”
Title of blog post is “Arithmetic Has A Well-Known Keynesian Bias”
Nuff said.
I don’t mind if you interpret Krugman’s quotations differently from how I do.
But you failed to provide a quote where Krugman claims that falling spending and incomes arithmetically follows from paying back debt.
I don’t mind if you interpret Krugman’s quotations differently from how I do.
I mind that you interpret Krugman’s statements as opposite to what he plainly meant.
If Krugman didn’t claim that it is arithmetic that generates the conclusion that paying back debt leads to a fall in spending and incomes, then why would Krugman, in a blog post titled “Arithmetic has a well known Keynesian bias” say that Cameron was “oblivious” to the fact that “falling spending leads to falling incomes” after Krugman read Wolf as saying that paying back debt was a good thing for the economy?
Doesn’t it stand to reason, if you’re honest, that Krugman thinks that those who argue that paying back debt is good for the economy are oblivious to the arithmetic that connects “paying back debt” to “falling spending and incomes”?
It’s obvious that Krugman believes that paying back debt reduces “spending”, meaning spending on goods and services, because he is only focusing on the spending of the borrowers. He believes that if borrowers start reducing their “spending” on goods and services, that this “mathematically” implies a reduction in spending and incomes as such.
In other words, he’s ignoring the spending and incomes that are mathematically capable of being generated by the LENDERS who are paid back their debt. This is the point where Krugman smuggles in his THEORY of the economy, and not “arithmetic.” His theory is that when borrowers reduce their “spending” on goods and services, that the money they pay back to lenders will not all be respect by the lenders, thus leading to no drop in total spending and incomes. His theory is obviously one that holds that lenders don’t spend as much as borrowers.
Murphy’s argument is that this theoretical step is not an arithmetic step, but a theoretical step.
But you failed to provide a quote where Krugman claims that falling spending and incomes arithmetically follows from paying back debt.
Nope, false. I provided the quote.
“He’s reacting to Cameron’s statement, semi-withdrawn but not really, that what Britain needs is for everyone to pay down debt, said in obvious obliviousness to the fact that if everyone cuts spending at the same time, income must fall.”
That’s the quote, in a blog post titled Arithmetic has a well known Keynesian bias.
Krugman quite clearly meant that paying back debt somehow mathematically implies cuts to spending.
Why would Krugman say “IF” as in “if everyone cuts their spending at the same time, income must fall” in response to Cameron’s call for people to pay down their debt, if Krugman didn’t think that paying back debt mathematically requires cuts to spending?
The fact is that you are still wrong, no matter how you want to continue to spin this, day in, day out.
You will simply not win this debate. It’s over. You lost. You need to accept with this with a little more tact, and stop trying to pretend that your incorrect claims have credence.
Correction:
“His theory is that when borrowers reduce their “spending” on goods and services, that the money they pay back to lenders will not all be respect by the lenders, thus leading to no drop in total spending and incomes. His theory is obviously one that holds that lenders don’t spend as much as borrowers.”
Should read:
“His theory is that when borrowers reduce their “spending” on goods and services, that the money they pay back to lenders will not all be respent by the lenders, thus leading to a drop in total spending and incomes as such. His theory is obviously one that holds that lenders don’t spend as much as borrowers.”
Do you happen to have the quote now or you are still insisting he says what he doesn’t say in the quote you provided?
Do you happen to have the quote now or you are still insisting he says what he doesn’t say in the quote you provided?
The quote was already provided.
“He’s reacting to Cameron’s statement, semi-withdrawn but not really, that what Britain needs is for everyone to pay down debt, said in obvious obliviousness to the fact that if everyone cuts spending at the same time, income must fall.”
That is not a quote of Krugman claiming that falling spending and incomes arithmetically follows from paying back debt.
I don’t expect you say anything sensible concerning economics MF.
Just to understand what a quote is.
And I will point out that this is not a quote for as long as necessary, and as long as wordpress can take it.
See you soon.
That is not a quote of Krugman claiming that falling spending and incomes arithmetically follows from paying back debt.
Yes, it is.
And I will point out that this is not a quote for as long as necessary, and as long as wordpress can take it.
And I will continue to correct your fallacious claim that it isn’t the quote that proves Murphy’s point correct, that Krugman was wrong to claim that cuts to spending arithmetically follows from paying back debt, and I will do this for as long as you can take it.
You lost, you cannot win, and I will not stop pointing this out to you.
No, Anon, you don’t know what a quote is.
Look it up.
It’s easy.
Even a little poodle like you can understand it.
That is the correct quote, and the blog post title is “Arithmetic has a Well-known Keynesian Bias.”
You can deny it all you want. You’re wrong.
No, Anon, you don’t know what a quote is.
Look it up.
It’s easy.
Even a little poodle like you can understand it.
Oh so now you’ve relegated yourself to simply repeating yourself.
OK, here’s my response:
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2011/11/the-comment-gremlins-strike-again.html#comment-28581
Goto
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2011/11/the-comment-gremlins-strike-again.html#comment-28583
How does that contribute?
That just leads us back to
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2011/11/the-comment-gremlins-strike-again.html#comment-28581
while TRUE http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2011/11/the-comment-gremlins-strike-again.html#comment-28591
Falsehood still brings us back to
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2011/11/the-comment-gremlins-strike-again.html#comment-28581
Because if all you can do is to insist that you interpret Krugman’s quotations differently from how I do, then I am fine with it.
But if you think you have the monopoly of how to interpret him, then I will show you you don’t, until you provide the quote where he says what you think he says.
Because if all you can do is to insist that you interpret Krugman’s quotations differently from how I do, then I am fine with it.
It’s not just that we’re interpreting it differently. You’re interpreting it wrong.
But if you think you have the monopoly of how to interpret him, then I will show you you don’t, until you provide the quote where he says what you think he says.
Oh, so you want a monopoly on interpretation? OK, I’ll give it to you, but only if you’re right. Oh that’s right, you’re not. You’re wrong.
You did not respond to any of the arguments I made, and merely hand waved and said “I interpret it differently, nah nah nah.”
I’ll consider your performance here an intellectual and mental breakdown.
Where is the quote MF?
It’s already been provided.
“He’s reacting to Cameron’s statement, semi-withdrawn but not really, that what Britain needs is for everyone to pay down debt, said in obvious obliviousness to the fact that if everyone cuts spending at the same time, income must fall.”
Why is saying: “What Britain needs is for everyone to pay down debt” a sign that one is oblivious to the tautology: “if everyone cuts spending at the same time, income must fall”, if it isn’t arithmetic, as per Krugman’s blog post title?
Where’s the response?
No it’s not.
Hint the world arithmetic is not present in the quote.
Nor in the rest of the post.
No it’s not.
Yes, it is.
Hint the world arithmetic is not present in the quote.
Hint: It’s present in the title.
Nor in the rest of the post.
Take off your ideological blinders.
What’s funny is how traumatized Mammoth is that he feels compelled to seek validation in other threads on a topic whereby his assertions were thoroughly discredited.
He must be really mad.
This morning I was going to post this quote in response to your Krugman Bask. I thought maybe the problem was with my browser – never suspected that you would get all Brad DeLong on us!
“A few days ago I put up a post about how libertarians say we don’t need government regulation, because tort law will do the trick — but in practice, politicians will find ways to shield the powerful, as illustrated by the $75 million cap on damage payments from oil spills.”
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/why-libertarianism-doesnt-work-part-n1/
market failure
Judging from the explosion of comments in the Journeyman post, someone must have gotten the comment gremlins wet.
Yeah they’re wet. They hit up the strip-club last night, got completely zooted our of their gourds, ran down the strip naked, and vomited on all of the parking meters along the way. Gizmo, the pr&%k that he is, couldn’t stop talking about that stupid movie “Twilight” all night long, so the Gremlins put a sign on him saying, “I am a warewolf, you must cage me” and dropped him off in front of the police station.
Long story short, the Gremlins are hungover and passed out, and Gizmo hasn’t walked right since.