Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (60827)	5/26/1999 6:14:00 PM
From: Cynic 2005	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 132070

Mike, not to drag this subject but here is a point I wanted to make for a long time. In late Aug or Sept 98 NPR's Market Place interviwed Krugman and a Forbes writer (forgot her name - I think Susan, if Magner or AR or any one else heard the segment, please post.) Susan was very upfront in telling that this is a bubble created by excess credit and let us act tough now and get a recession over with rather than loosen now and invite depression later. Krugman flip-flopped in that 2 minute segment it self. First he said that Fed's easy money policies are the real cause of the problem we have at hand (market was tanking every day at that time.) A little later he said lowering rates might do the trick of propping the markets. I don't remember exactly what he said, but this is what I remember. His early August comments at a luncheon in Cambridge were really tough on Greenspan. He calimed to have said to Greeny to raise rate way back in 96. He then said that stock market bubble might pop. A little while later, the stocks took a swoon. On that day our very own Joseph G called it "Krugman break" (akin to Bernard B's 1929 break while he was giving a speech) Most of us on the Myth/Mohan thread even thought Krugman is really serious and knows what he is talking about. Later we came to know he is much too flip-flopping to be any credible. BTW, as with capital controls, he literally cried when Malaysia imposed them. I believe he was critical about India's capital controls as well. The fact of the matter is, (as I believe) when hot money is chasing hot returns around the world, the less developed nations like Malaysia and India are better off imposing capital controls. That is than play in to the whims and fancies of the stronger fiat money backed hot money seekers.

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (60827)	5/26/1999 8:42:00 PM
From: BGR	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Michael, Like I said, Krugman IMHO is a great practitioner of an inexact science. Sometimes right and sometimes wrong. These are interesting times and all economists are baffled to some extent while trying to cope with the present situation. The foundations of economics for the 21st century will be built based on the academic research being done at present, just like the 1920's and 1930's. Which probably will rewrite a lot of old rules. Those who say that they are not baffled and know what exactly the solution to world's problems is are the charlatans IMHO. Last post by me on this topic. -BGR. PS: I find it very interesting that majority of the articles, letters and posts criticizing Krugman focus on his personality and not his research. And those which do attempt to criticize his research end up presenting second hand quotes giving simple analogies and never present a formal model of criticism, imperative in serious research.