Search This Blog

Friday, October 29, 2010

Krugman Argues Unsuccessfully with Himself about Economic Fundamentals and He Loses his own Argument on Both Sides

Krugman Argues Unsuccessfully with Himself about Economic Fundamentals and He Loses his own Argument on Both Sides

Abstract: We are invited to a lecture, ex cathedra, on the ‘fundamentals of economics’ from a left-wing radical advocate. The terms and ‘theory’ are couched in self-defined requisites lacking any elementary basis. The key rational defense position for economic sanity: to curtain more wild spending by our government, raising fiscal fears of default or worse, namely from massive debt, is absent from this screed. Today, we are treated to a short, stuffy diatribe on some ‘fundamentals’ where the definitions are missing. Here our author mongers for any and all reasons to tax and spend or just spend if they cannot tax.

How to best read my blogs:

[I offer extensive quotes in this blog so that the reader can view the exact language and can be confident that nothing was taken out of context or that nobody was misquoted. The easiest way to take in the salient points is to read the emphatic points in the quotes and then peruse my comments. Comments on my comments are always welcome: ryckki@gmail.com.]

Krugman begins:

“One confusion I often run into is the belief that there’s some contradiction between times when I and others argue that markets are wrong — as I did when diagnosing a housing bubble, and now in questioning the market’s optimistic beliefs about inflation[1] — and my point that low interest rates undermine the argument for immediate fiscal austerity.”[2]— The Conscience of a Liberal: Arguing With Markets By Paul Krugman, Op-Ed Contributor. October 26, 2010, 10:13 AM [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

The initial thought is: how can markets be wrong? I am confused by this confusion on h is part. After all, he purports to teach economics. Markets are markets and sometimes bad decisions are made by investors, but the market is never ‘wrong.’ We start off, as is usual with one of the far-left-oriented writers gurgling away at our federal spending programs at the near-bankrupt New York Times—aka the Walter Duranty Papers.[3][4] This is a propaganda screed mill that mostly wearies the senses with dogmatic and tautological essays on higher taxes and bigger government that are supposed to solve some problems but never d0. Combining taxes and bigger government makes this essay at the Times a two toot pony. With some injected mystification about how to stimulate an economy in a horrid mess like ours we must tolerate the confusion of terms as it relates to the snarled words “immediate fiscal austerity.” Cipher phrases appear in this form from time to time at the sometime paper. They signal the lackeys in government. This might be some oblique reference to his pejorative declaration “austerians[5]” and its crass usage. He references a plot that shows little or no correlation between the core inflation rate and unemployment from three time periods as expected [why would there be??] and attempts to make some point here, which he promptly drops.

This is puzzling as one can never define a market as ‘wrong’ unless you must argue with the many buyers and sellers and sort out their political imbalance indexes in some sample trading session. Markets are never wrong they just proceed forward. Are markets wrong when they fall and correct when they rise?

He continues:

“Financial markets seem convinced that quantitative easing will be highly effective at solving at least one problem: inflation running well below the Fed’s 2-percent-or-so target. The chart above shows the difference between interest rates on 5-year inflation-protected bonds (which are now negative) and rates on unprotected bonds; implicitly, the market forecast of inflation over the next five years has risen half a point.”[6]— The Conscience of a Liberal: Do Investors Expect Too Much From Bernanke? October 26, 2010, 1:15 AM [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

Apparently, we are now arguing that inflation is necessary [deflation is truly not amusing] and that low interest rates will inject liquidity into the system and increase the money supply M2 and we will get our 2% inflation buffer up and beyond the threshold of deflation. This has not worked so far. Krugman’s anxiety here is based on the pricing of bonds where they seem to indicate that inflation will not happen or they would be descending rapidly. If the Fed buys up T-bills then that money goes to Treasury and into the deficit or elsewhere and that money should have some inflation effect. But, this is a deflationary spiral and such liquidity injections do not necessarily turn the corner on inflation or growth or employment or anything else.

So, he guesses:

“My guess, then, is that the markets are overreacting; they’re thinking, “The Fed is printing money!”, while forgetting that this ultimately matters, even for inflation, only to the extent that it seriously reduces unemployment.”— The Conscience of a Liberal: Do Investors Expect Too Much From Bernanke?

Apparently printing money, ‘quantitative easing’ as in the vernacular or perhaps using the formal terms monetizing the debt leads to more employment. Krugman cites PLOG [Prolonged Large Output Gaps] to support his case, or what appears to be his case, that “…in the modern world, rapid deflation doesn’t happen, and in fact slight positive inflation often persists in the face of an obviously depressed economy…”[7]

Japan has been in deflation for 20 years. When the housing market collapsed in 2009 that was deflation.

There is no thinking here. There is no bubble in the bond market because there is no unreasonable demand—a criterion for such an animal. Krugman apparently failed to read about the corporate junk bond market last year and how well it is doing. Interest rates are falling because we are in a debt-driven deflationary spiral where the crash in real estate prices initiated by the phony the CRA [Community Reinvestment Act][8][9] that resulted in AAA rated 2007 subprime mortgage bundles descending to only 28 cents on the dollar.[10] Lower rated bundles are less than 5 cents on the dollar. Good bye.[11] The Fed wants to flood the economy with liquidity so as to avert a larger case of deflation of the sort that ruined Japan’s economy for the last 20 years and probably for the next 20 years. That works until inflation starts to boil.[12]

We are in deflation by these metrics:

“Following the stock market crash of 1929 and the ensuing Great Depression, Fisher developed a theory called debt-deflation. According to the debt deflation theory, a sequence of effects of the debt bubble bursting occurs:”

a. Debt liquidation and distress selling.

b. Contraction of the money supply as bank loans are paid off.

c. A fall in the level of asset prices. [Housing!]

d. A still greater fall in the net worth of businesses, precipitating bankruptcies.

e. A fall in profits.

f. A reduction in output, in trade and in employment.

g. Pessimism and loss of confidence.

h. Hoarding of money. [buying gold]

j. A fall in nominal interest rates and a rise in deflation adjusted interest rates”[13]

I cannot find an exception to any of these 9 metrics in the US case. They are ALL present in one form or another. We are in deflation and the Fed wants to keep interest rates near zero to reflate the economy.

A trade war with China is also a leftist option [more US jobs to make products currently made by China?] sanctioned by Krugman.[14] This is novel as it hasn’t happened yet in the US. If true, they why does the term ‘stagflation’ spring forth from the past as a solid refutation to this statement? That was not supposed to happen. Keynes was shamed. With high unemployment demand should have dropped for nearly all common goods and services and that didn’t happen during the Jimmy Carter Malaise Era. One wonders if you have some firm ‘economic’ law that can you use it with impunity given the exceptions that are a matter of record. All the lefties need is a single example, however trivial, to any economic effect that politically benefits them and it is-- presto: a law. How about a minimum tax rate for all the ‘rich’ that fluctuates with spending by the government? The more they spend the higher the rich are taxed!!!

Money flew from equities like scalded chickens across the barnyard and into bonds, even as low as zero%[15], and vast amounts remain parked there. The probable cause is risk aversion[16] driven by frantic pension funds who seek ‘safety’ in this turbulent market that must be going the wrong direction using the krugmanical theorem above. The real estate market started to crash in 2006 and is still going down and this is sector deflation if not a general element in the sick economy. The loss of home equity [capital at rest] contracts backward since equity = credit = money and there is less to spend, obviously.

From the recent past, He bangs his head to hear it rattle:

“Austerity is self-defeating: when everyone tries to pay down debt at the same time, the result is depression and deflation, and debt problems grow even worse. And conversely, it is possible — indeed, necessary — for the nation as a whole to spend its way out of debt: a temporary surge of deficit spending, on a sufficient scale, can cure problems brought on by past excesses.”[17]-- 1938 in 2010 By Paul Krugman

The ‘fear’ here is related to the virulent anti-business venue and fanatical intolerance of capitalism directed against the US businesses. They are now confronted with a myriad of taxes, regulations and threats from Obama and his radical activists and they refuse to take risks in this nasty business environment. Our phony government thinks they can revive GM with its $73 per hour labor costs.[18] Businesses have tightened up and have very effective labor forces now and there is a serious question if those the 9.7% unemployment pool can provide marginal profits if hired.

What this appears to be is a cherry-picking session where any and all justifications for the government to spend more and grow like a cancer are put forth on a silver platter. There is no coherent plan to deal with the debt that is now 96% of our GDP[19][20]

Every country that tried to spend its way out of debt failed and some crashed into a ditch of massive inflation. When the EU is struggling with debt it is interesting that Krugman does not focus in on this monster. If he did so, it would normally show that government spending and the size of government must be cut and that violates the sacred leftist notion of more spending and bigger government no matter what the health of the economy.

Thus stale propaganda is substituted for studied economics here.

This blather resembles the mindless quest to eliminate trans fats from foods [after the government recommended them] but allow marijuana to be grown everywhere and legalized. This is liberalism.[21]

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com


[2] The Conscience of a Liberal: Arguing With Markets By Paul Krugman, Op-Ed Contributor. October 26, 2010, 10:13 AM http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/ [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

[4] In honor of that celebrated Communist stooge and liar and winner of the Pulitzer Prize for the NYT. The color RED is used in my essays in honor of Walter Duranty, a saint, if there could be one, in the Marxist Archives of Honor.

“He said that these people had to be "liquidated or melted in the hot fire of exile and labor into the proletarian mass". Duranty claimed that the Siberian labor camps were a means of giving individuals a chance to rejoin Soviet society but also said that for those who could not accept the system, "the final fate of such enemies is death." Duranty, though describing the system as cruel, says he has "no brief for or against it, nor any purpose save to try to tell the truth". He ends the article with the claim that the brutal collectivization campaign which led to the famine was motivated by the "hope or promise of a subsequent raising up" of Asian-minded masses in the Soviet Union which only history could judge.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty

[5] Another Leftist Bondage Scheme for the Bond Gods. Krugman Speaks of the Evils of the Austerians

http://ryckki.blogspot.com/2010/08/another-leftist-bondage-scheme-for-bond.html

[6] The Conscience of a Liberal: October 26, 2010, 1:15 AM

Do Investors Expect Too Much From Bernanke? http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/26/do-investors-expect-too-much-from-bernanke/ [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

[8] “Bear Stearns made the first public securitization of Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans started in 1997.[6] Editorialists in some American newspapers[7][8] and US Congressman Ron Paul[9] say the CRA loans were lent to otherwise un-credit-worthy consumers in the name of ending discrimination, although an analysis of actual lending patterns does not generally support this conclusion.[10][11][12]

On June 22, 2007, Bear Stearns pledged a collateralized loan of up to $3.2 billion to "bail out" one of its funds, the Bear Stearns High-Grade Structured Credit Fund, while negotiating with other banks to loan money against collateral to another fund, the Bear Stearns High-Grade Structured Credit Enhanced Leveraged Fund.[13] The funds were invested in thinly traded collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) found to be worth less than their mark-to-market value. Merrill Lynch seized $850 million worth of the underlying collateral but only was able to auction $100 million of them. The incident sparked concern of contagion as Bear Stearns might be forced to liquidate its CDOs, prompting a mark-down of similar assets in other portfolios.[14][15] Richard A. Marin, a senior executive at Bear Stearns Asset Management responsible for the two hedge funds, was replaced on June 29 by Jeffrey B. Lane, a former Vice Chairman of rival investment bank, Lehman Brothers.[16]

During the week of July 16, 2007, Bear Stearns disclosed that the two subprime hedge funds had lost nearly all of their value amid a rapid decline in the market for subprime mortgages.

[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

Community Reinvestment Act (or CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.)

[11] The Fed Thinks of Ways to Claw Back Some of the Stimulus Money: This Will be A Disaster as Congress Will Continue to Spend and Spend.

http://rycksrationalizations.blogtownhall.com/2010/01/03/the_fed_thinks_of_ways_to_claw_back_some_of_the_stimulus_money_this_will_be_a_disaster_as_congress_will_continue_to_spend_and_spend.thtml

[12] Another Leftist Bondage Scheme for the Bond Gods. Krugman Speaks of the Evils of the Austerians

http://ryckki.blogspot.com/2010/08/another-leftist-bondage-scheme-for-bond.html

[15] T bills became zero coupon .

[16] From a pervious comment of mine on the Telegraph:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/8044789/Warren-Buffett-says-in-future-Wall-Street-chiefs-should-go-broke-and-their-wives.html

“This is certainly true. If you buy some big bond at 1% interest for a term of say 5 years and the interest rates have no direction to go but up then the price of the bond varies inversely with interest rate so in general as I approaches 2xI [I = interest rate] the P will approach P/2 [where P is the principal]. That means if the rates go up to 2% the bond holder must either sell at distress and lose half his money, ignoring coupons, or hold the zombie to the end of the term. That could mean that somebody that invests heavily in bonds at 1% coupon rate is helpless if the interest rates fly north in heavy inflation and hit, say 20%. He misses all that interest along the way.

There must be other reasons why people are heavily into bonds. “

This means that risk-aversion or other fears must keep these monies from flowing into equities. There is gigantic bond load out there and we have a global market for equities so IF there was a rush to sell bonds and buy stocks prices on bonds would drop and stock prices would rise.

[17] 1938 in 2010 By Paul Krugman [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.] Published: September 5, 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/06/opinion/06krugman.html?src=me&ref=general

Krugman Offers Us Canned Circular Revisionism: We Can Repeat the War Time Successes of FDR.

http://ryckki.blogspot.com/2010/09/krugman-offers-us-canned-circular.html

[18] The Babbling Brooks of the NYT Babbles about Government-Induced Quagmires. GM will fail.

http://rycksrationalizations.blogtownhall.com/2009/06/03/the_babbling_brooks_of_the_nyt_babbles_about_government-induced_quagmires_gm_will_fail.thtml

Nader Reaches His Nadir in His GM Bankruptcy Essay.

http://rycksrationalizations.blogtownhall.com/2009/06/02/nader_reaches_his_nadir_in_his_gm_bankruptcy_essay.thtml

Potentially the Biggest Stock Scam of the Century: The General Motors IPO II [Revised].

http://ryckki.blogspot.com/2010/09/potentially-biggest-stock-scam-of.html

[20] Potentially the Biggest Stock Scam of the Century: The General Motors IPO. http://ryckki.blogspot.com/2010/08/potentially-biggest-stock-scam-of.html

Edited 8.20.10

Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, October 21, 2010

Resurrecting a Zombie: The Revival of the Failed Keynesian Myth and the Logic of Joseph Stiglitz

Resurrecting a Zombie: The Revival of the Failed Keynesian Myth and the Logic of Joseph Stiglitz

Abstract: Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz recommends the economics of Keynes as a stimulus as do a lot of economists and particularly so from Paul Krugman, another Nobel laureate. To date, there is no believable benefit from several trillion dollars in deficit spending and the prospect of thrice that in the future. The economic arena is overflowing with theories and ‘examples’ that portend the ability to climb out of massive debt by spending and then growth, but an inspection of some of these, like Argentina, show that a debt restructuring was the only effective remedy. This resulted in massive defaults, collapses in the country’s credit and other major problems. We are buried in debt and are told that we can ‘spend our way’ out of this debt. This is nonsense. The Fed is trying to inflate our way out of debt and monetizing the debt as we go along. The US is in bad shape economically, but the UK and EU are even worse off. And, in all this flurry of spending suggestions there exists not a single detailed plan to pay back that debt. The EU will crash and disintegrate from this debt because, unlike Argentina, there is no way to ‘restructure’ our debts in the US-UK-EU group as no nation or organization has the necessary 20-40 trillion dollars it would require. If we cannot stop spending and bloating government we will go bankrupt. Period.

Here is the Stiglitz comment:

“Thanks to the IMF, multiple experiments have been conducted – for instance, in east Asia in 1997-98 and a little later in Argentina – and almost all come to the same conclusion: the Keynesian prescription works. Austerity converts downturns into recessions, recessions into depressions. The confidence fairy that the austerity advocates claim will appear never does, partly perhaps because the downturns mean that the deficit reductions are always smaller than was hoped.”[1]--To choose austerity is to bet it all on the confidence fairy The mystical belief is that a smaller deficit will lead to an investment boom. What Britain really needs now is another stimulus By Joseph Stiglitz guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 19 October 2010 22.00 BST [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

Here is some info on the Argentinean default:

The Argentinean default in 2002: Argentina defaulted on part of its external debt at the beginning of 2002. Foreign investment fled the country, and capital flow towards Argentina ceased almost completely. Argentina was "left out of the world." The currency exchange rate (formerly a fixed 1-to-1 parity between the Argentine peso and the U.S. dollar) was floated, and the peso devalued quickly, producing massive inflation.[2]—Wikipedia

We know from reading Niall Ferguson’s excellent book The Ascent of Money that Argentina ran out of money on Friday 28 April, 1989. The World Bank refused to put any more money and accused the country of not controlling its deficits and the printing of money forced inflation to rise to more than 100% per month. The national debt was denominated in dollars and soared in relation to the inflating austral. Changes in currency did not help. There were three bailouts by the International Monetary Fund, the IMF. Later the bondholders were clipped down to 35 cents per dollar of debt. By 1994 the debt reached 64% of the GDP.[3] This mess ended in default.

So, at this point, I wonder just how the Keynesian Formula can be applied in this case.

“Critics say government won't spend the money well. To be sure, there will be waste – though not on the scale that the private sector in the US and Europe wasted money in the years before 2008. But even if money is not spent perfectly, if experience of the past is a guide to the future, the returns on government investments in education, technology and infrastructure are far higher than the government's cost of capital. Besides, the choices facing the country are bleak. If the government doesn't spend this money there will be massive waste of resources as its capital and human resources are under-utilised.” --To choose austerity is to bet it all on the confidence fairy

Here, we can look at some of the Obama ill-spent monies that contributed to the debt at great future expense and made the intervention look silly if not psychotic.

We are still stuck with a 9.7% unemployment rate [as of March 27, 2010] and much of our current GDP comes from temporary stimuli like the recent ‘jobs’ program spent $92,000 per job[4] and, then, we spent $24,000 per car on the Clunker Follies and a mere $43,000 per house on the housing scam[5] And, none of these had a lasting effect. All of the money to propel this was either borrowed or printed up quickie fashion by our government.[6] This observation refutes the notion that the returns on government investments are effective or cost worthy.

I think it is clear that this spending is foolish. Obama wants to spend 9 trillion more in his term[s]. There are many enemies of capitalism and Obama and most leaders in the European Union are allies in this view.

This Stiglitz view can be contrasted with the Rogoff position:

In an open letter to Joseph Stiglitz of June 2002[7] we read about the use of deficits and debt to ease the growth of countries in dire debt: “The laws of economics may be different in your part of the gamma quadrant, but around here we find that when an almost bankrupt government fails to credibly constrain the time profile of its fiscal deficits, things generally get worse instead of better.”[8]-- An Open Letter By Kenneth Rogoff, [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

The general gist of this is to learn that some variant of Keynes, with its stimulus and all that. can somehow lead any country out of the massive national debt they conjured due to spending in the socialist manner. But, missing is a realistic estimate of how we can avoid defaults and pay back that debt.

Stiglitz concludes:

“Britain is embarking on a highly risky experiment. More likely than not, it will add one more data point to the well- established result that austerity in the midst of a downturn lowers GDP and increases unemployment, and excessive austerity can have long-lasting effects.

If Britain were wealthier, or if the prospects of success were greater, it might be a risk worth taking. But it is a gamble with almost no potential upside. Austerity is a gamble which Britain can ill afford.”-- To choose austerity is to bet it all on the confidence fairy

I seem to get the feeling that Keynes didn’t solve any problems anywhere and that his emphasis on government spending was only a political sop to the socialists or worse. The Neo-Keynesians seem to be flush with all sorts of spending options and banking regulations including nationalization, but they seem to offer some vague ‘solution’ to be created by the ‘growth’ that will enable countries to handle their debts.

I have formed the impression that many of these ‘economists’ are only advocates or peanut gallery level chum chuckers for the rabid Left. No matter what the occasion, it seems many like Paul Krugman and now Stiglitz have no other solution but to spend or tax and spend and create mountains of debt. For this reason, they and their like-minded colleagues must be considered as a collective encumbrance to effective societies and those socialist countries that are now crashing in debt [this includes the US]. The so-called stimulus conjured by Obama and those ‘economists’ on the left have spent almost 4 trillion dollars [counting TARP] with nothing to show in terms of positive results. The notion that ‘millions of jobs have been saved’ is not convincing. Increasing the government is not any kind of a solution.

Krugman’s Eternal Solution to all government problems: spend more.

“Austerity is self-defeating: when everyone tries to pay down debt at the same time, the result is depression and deflation, and debt problems grow even worse. And conversely, it is possible — indeed, necessary — for the nation as a whole to spend its way out of debt: a temporary surge of deficit spending, on a sufficient scale, can cure problems brought on by past excesses.”[9]-- 1938 in 2010 By Paul Krugman

From a previous blog” [Sep 2010]

“It is of interest here to wonder how massive deficit spending on foolish stuff is effective in any way. The consequences of debt are always ignored. The Obama stimulus #1 has not worked and neither did cash for clunkers or the housing subsidies. The recent ‘jobs’ program spent $92,000 per job[10] and, then, we spent $24,000 per car on the Clunker Follies and a mere $43,000 per house on the housing scam.[11] And, none of these had a lasting effect. All of the money to propel this was either borrowed or printed up quickie fashion by our government. I wonder why Krugman cannot seem to defend or explain why these measures failed as he seems to cover up this offal with some nostrums about caution or insufficiency. In the lexicon of the left the word failure is always used as the limiting case. We failed to spend enough…or we failed to tax the rich some more or… When confronted with defending a stupid program like busing, War on Poverty, HUD, Welfare etc. there is silence. There is always a reason why such programs didn’t work out that well and they will recite the 1,2,3s above as the reason why the project was not exceptional.[12]

We cannot believe these people any more. They are now just a chorus of advocates singing the old Fabian songs of 1900.

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com


[1] To choose austerity is to bet it all on the confidence fairy The mystical belief is that a smaller deficit will lead to an investment boom. What Britain really needs now is another stimulus By Joseph Stiglitz guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 19 October 2010 22.00 BST http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/oct/19/no-confidence-fairy-for-austerity-britain [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

[3] The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World (Hardcover) by Niall Ferguson (Author) http://www.amazon.com/Ascent-Money-Financial-History-World/dp/1594201927

[6] Maximizing Both Tax Revenues and Economic Growth: The Folly of Government and the Generation of Phony Numbers and Class Warfare

http://rycksrationalizations.blogtownhall.com/2010/03/27/maximizing_both_tax_revenues_and_economic_growth_the_folly_of_government_and_the_generation_of_phony_numbers_and_class_warfare.thtml

[7] To Joseph Stiglitz,

Author of Globalization and Its Discontents

(New York: W.W. Norton & Company, June 2002)

“The Stiglitzian prescription is to raise the profile of fiscal deficits, that is, to issue more debt and to print more money. You seem to believe that if a distressed government issues more currency, its citizens will suddenly think it more valuable. You seem to believe that when investors are no longer willing to hold a government's debt, all that needs to be done is to increase the supply and it will sell like hot cakes. We at the IMF—no, make that we on the Planet Earth—have considerable experience suggesting otherwise. We earthlings have found that when a country in fiscal distress tries to escape by printing more money, inflation rises, often uncontrollably. Uncontrolled inflation strangles growth, hurting the entire populace but, especially the indigent. The laws of economics may be different in your part of the gamma quadrant, but around here we find that when an almost bankrupt government fails to credibly constrain the time profile of its fiscal deficits, things generally get worse instead of better.”-- An Open Letter By Kenneth Rogoff, Economic Counsellor and Director of Research, International Monetary Fund http://www.imf.org/external/np/vc/2002/070202.HTM

[8] An Open Letter By Kenneth Rogoff, http://www.imf.org/external/np/vc/2002/070202.HTM [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

[9] 1938 in 2010 By Paul Krugman [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.] Published: September 5, 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/06/opinion/06krugman.html?src=me&ref=general

Krugman Offers Us Canned Circular Revisionism: We Can Repeat the War Time Successes of FDR.

http://ryckki.blogspot.com/2010/09/krugman-offers-us-canned-circular.html

[12] Krugman Offers Us Canned Circular Revisionism: We Can Repeat the War Time Successes of FDR.

http://ryckki.blogspot.com/2010/09/krugman-offers-us-canned-circular.html

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)