Thumbs up for the "Some Guy's.." aspect of the title.

__________________
.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
: :
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Cheers, Hazlitt. Why exactly is the guy's name in the title of this thread? Are we supposed to know who Paul Kienitz is?

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
¦
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Agreed. The child of the average US family who develops a life long illness is basically screwed for the rest of its days under the insurance lead healthcare of the US. however bad our healthcare service is the idea of being dependent on the US one would terrify me.

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 "

Let's focus on this part, as it's the most relevant. Does a man who is truly anti-bubble use the phrase "needs to create a housing bubble". Note the use of the word "need" here, appearing to indicate absolute necessity. This appears to be the crux of the the matter.

But Ok, let's assume that this wasn't advocacy of a bubble, and PK was merely quoting another guy. Where is the slamming of this point of view? Did he include this quote for fun and giggles? I think my summation in the previous post is more than fair to Mr. Krugman.

Vote now, folks, lines close at 6pm.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
¦
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

No, it is clearly subjective necessity. From Greenspan's point of view, it is a necessity, not from Krugman's. That is limpidly clear from his writing. Let's look again:

"To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it (not "I", not "you", not "we" but the third person, the other, the entity who is neither speaking nor being spoken to) 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)."

The crux of the matter is lies and truth and the meaning of words. Your argument cannot hold unless you manage to rewrite the dictionary and grammar of English.

He already called the bubble mania "irrational" as well as using the epithet "bubble" to refer to the rising price of houses. There is the slamming. Although merely to quote another person's opinion of the desires of Alan Greenspan does not equate to demanding that Greenspan's desires be granted.

You might be able to get a majority of P.ie voters to declare that JM Keynes is a pork ciabatta from Islamabad, but that doesn't make it so.

The issue is: were you lying about the simple everyday use of the English language that Krugman used, and the way it is correctly interpreted by English speakers. Regardless of the votes of people on an internet site, the relevant rules of English grammar are going to remain the same for many generations, and no vote that you could rig up will change that.

__________________
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 "

Is someone an Eric Voegelin fan?

Yeah, but the same child develops cancer I know which side of the atlantic their mother and father would rather the child was.

It all depends how much money they have.

The US probably has some of the best healthcare in the world, also the US probably has one of the worst healthcare systems of all nations with what could be called healthcare systems.

__________________
"She'll hold together. Hear me, baby? Hold together!"

I had a cancer scare last year. Turns out I didn't have cancer, I went private and knew within a week. If i'd waited for public healthcare to do it's thing and I did have cancer I'd be dead by now.

No system is perfect, some systems are less perfect than others.