Think Miles is being honest? Read the article. See if it really sounds like what miles claims to think it is.

First question to ask yourselves: if Krugman wants a bubble why would he use the term "bubble"?

The word bubble, as applied to an economic situation, is a curse word, an insult, an epithet.

It means something that is impermanent, fragile, and prone to vanishing in an instant.

When people are genuinely pro-bubble, they don't use a different phrasing. They say "it's still great value" or "the fundamentals are strong". They never say "it's a bubble".

Dubya's Double Dip? - The New York Times

Let's examine the Krugman article, bit by bit, to see if Miles and his fellow travellers (there are loads of people distorting this article) are being honest. My comments are in italics, the article is quoted in bits because I cannot copy the whole lot:

"A ragtag group of ordinary people -- America's consumers -- is besieged by a rampaging horde, the forces of recession... (sounds like sarcasm to me)

Will the rescue force -- resurgent business investment -- get there in time? (so business investment is painted by Krugman as what is required, not a bubble which is simply debt-fuelled gambling, though Miles and his cronies would have you believe otherwise)...

Most businesses are in no hurry to go on another spending spree. And those that might have started to invest again have been deterred by sliding stock prices, widening bond spreads and revelations about corporate scandal.

A few months ago the vast majority of business economists mocked concerns about a ''double dip,'' a second leg to the downturn... As I've repeatedly said in this column, the arguments of the double-dippers made a lot of sense. And their story now looks more plausible than ever.

The basic point is that the recession of 2001 wasn't a typical postwar slump, brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raises interest rates and easily ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again. This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance.

(this is a clear, unambiguous condemnation of the then-recent bubble, unless you think of the word "irrational" as praise. Does this really sound like a guy who wants bubbles?)

To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, (note this clause, because it changes the meaning from the one Miles wants you to believe to the actual meaning) as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble (it's not even Krugman's words, he's quoting another man's opinion without supporting it)."

It's blatantly clear what is going on here. Miles is saying that Krugman wants a new bubble.

What Krugman is actually saying, in his words on the page, not subtext or reading between the lines, just the literal dictionary meaning of his words is: "*Greenspan wishes to avoid a double-dip recession. And to do achieve that aim of Greenspan's, of avoiding a double-dip recession, he, Greenspan, can only achieve that through causing a housing bubble.*"

Now a lot of people think that Miles is a straight shooter, who doesn't tell lies. I think you need to look at his portrayal of the article, and then the actual real-life article itself.

I have given you a point-by-point breakdown of the literal dictionary meaning of the words that Krugman wrote, and it differs hugely from the spin that Miles put on Krugman's words.

One of us is a liar, me or Miles. Go ahead and show me where I mislead in my explanation of the passage above.

__________________
When you see the words "Mises" or "Hayek" in someone's post, just ask yourself: do I really want to ban paper money and go back to gold?

You have to pity the kind of people who buy into conspiracy theories. I find the following to be the saddest words on the internet: "Re: connection between Bilderberg puppet lady gaga and viral outbreak in ukraine "