Olá, Visitante. Por favor entre ou registe-se se ainda não for membro.

Entrar com nome de utilizador, password e duração da sessão
 

Autor Tópico: Krugman et al  (Lida 607399 vezes)

Lark

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 4627
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Krugman et al
« Responder #360 em: 2012-11-28 17:31:58 »
outra grande diferenca que nunca vejo falada e a diferenca do impacto dos estimulos do estado na economia, antigamente eram muito mais eficazes do que agora e isso eh ainda mais verdade depois duma guerra

mas os keynesiano ignoram isto e simplificam tudo para chegar a suas conclusoes

um peixe chamado zel

(de aquário)
Be Kind; Everyone You Meet is Fighting a Battle.
Ian Mclaren
------------------------------
If you have more than you need, build a longer table rather than a taller fence.
l6l803399
-------------------------------------------
So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.
Franklin D. Roosevelt

Incognitus

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 30961
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Krugman et al
« Responder #361 em: 2012-11-28 18:01:36 »
Lark, tens que admitir que após se passar décadas a acumular dívida via déficits orçamentais, tem piada que agora se faça um grande barulho porque, NESTE MOMENTO, são NECESSÁRIOS déficits orçamentais. Não, risca isso, são necessários déficits orçamentais MAIORES, porque déficits orçamentais já nós temos.
"Nem tudo o que pode ser contado conta, e nem tudo o que conta pode ser contado.", Albert Einstein

Incognitus, www.thinkfn.com

Lark

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 4627
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Krugman et al
« Responder #362 em: 2012-11-29 17:20:33 »
Varieties of Error

Some readers may recall the “Peter Schiff was right” campaign of 2009, a sort of public-relations blitz claiming that Schiff, an Austrian-oriented commentator, had foreseen everything correctly. It wasn’t really true even then; still, Schiff became a fixture of right-wing TV shows, constantly warning about how expansionary monetary and fiscal policies were about to produce hyperinflation.

Well, Cullen Roche catches a TV host actually putting Schiff on the spot, pointing out that he’s been predicting that hyperinflation since 2008, so where is it?

Good question. And I’d like to pursue the question a bit more, not just or even mainly about Schiff, but more broadly about the role of predictions — including wrong predictions — in economics.

What’s crucial to understand, I think, is that there are two kinds of erroneous predictions. One kind of error, which everyone makes all the time, involves what you might call extraneous forces. If you didn’t know that there was going to be a war in the Middle East, or a confrontation over the debt ceiling, or whatever, your forecast may well be very badly wrong; too bad, but that doesn’t really speak to your underlying model. And by the way, this exoneration applies even if you should have known what was coming; all this says is that you may not be the right guy to listen to for short-run forecasts, which doesn’t necessarily say that you’re wrong about the bigger issues.

Here’s an example of a ludicrously wrong forecast that didn’t touch the fundamentals: in 1929 the great American economist Irving Fisher famously declared that stocks had reached a permanently high plateau; worse yet, he attributed this rosy future to the productivity gains resulting from Prohibition. He ended up looking like a fool, because, well, in some ways he was.

Yet none of this had anything to do with his fundamental economic analysis; Fisher’s theory of the interest rate and his theory of debt deflation are essential tools for anyone trying to do serious macroeconomics.

Now, the thing about Schiff and all the other Austrians predicting runaway inflation is that they were right to make this prediction given their model. If you believe that a recession is caused by a failure on the production side of the economy, the result of past malinvestment or something, you should also believe that any attempt to correct this decline by expanding credit will simply result in too much money chasing too few goods, and hence a lot of inflation.

By the same token, the failure of high inflation to materialize amounts to a decisive rejection of that model. (And no, it’s not because the numbers are fudged; independent estimates don’t differ significantly from official inflation.)

More generally, the past five years have seen some really dramatic policy actions — huge expansion of the Fed balance sheet, very large deficits, drastic austerity measures in some countries. These kinds of actions are, in effect, natural experiments that give you a lot of information about the validity of different economic models — and the models that have worked are demand-side, more or less Keynesian approaches, while everything else has been wildly wrong.

So here’s what should have happened: economists propounding these other approaches should have said, “Gosh, I seem to have been wrong. I need to rethink my approach.”

Oh, and by the way, I have done that. As I’ve written before, I rethought my views about liquidity traps and currency crises after the Asian crisis of the late 1990s; I rethought my views about advanced country debt and deficits after making a wrong prediction in 2003 (although in that case my mistake was in not taking my own model seriously enough).

But as far as I can tell, very, very few people have been willing to let the evidence speak.
Be Kind; Everyone You Meet is Fighting a Battle.
Ian Mclaren
------------------------------
If you have more than you need, build a longer table rather than a taller fence.
l6l803399
-------------------------------------------
So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.
Franklin D. Roosevelt

Lark

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 4627
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Krugman et al
« Responder #363 em: 2012-11-29 17:24:20 »
Regular readers know I am a big fan of getting called out on things. Not because I like to be wrong or making other people look silly, but because I sincerely enjoy the constructive criticism. Over the years I’ve been wrong about plenty of things. That’s totally normal in this business. When you write as much stuff as I do about things as hard to understand as the monetary system then you’re bound to get tripped up. It’s one incredibly long learning curve we’re all walking on here and I doubt anyone ever gets to the end of it. The world of money and finance is one big complex puzzle and I enjoy working with readers and other people trying to solve that puzzle. Anyone who tells you they’ve solved it is probably lying or misleading.

Anyhow, there’s a real power in being wrong. The quote “there are no mistakes, only lessons” is completely true if you actually live your life that way. I like to say “it’s in being wrong that we learn to be right”. So when I see people being called out for their mistakes (in a respectable and mature way) I think that should generally be applauded because it provides the platform for learning and improvement.


So I loved it tonight on RT when Lauren Lyster asked Peter Schiff “what about the hyperinflation…you’ve been predicting since 2008?” I’ve had a lot of fun over the years at the expense of the people who called for hyperinflation in 2008 (Schiff certainly wasn’t the only one), but I’ve only done that because it provides a great lesson for many others. Obviously, Schiff is sticking to his guns, but that’s not the point here. The point is to seriously consider why was Schiff wrong and why I have been right? Was I working from a superior understanding of the monetary system? Or have I just been lucky? You need to decide that for yourself, but you need to really explore those questions and truly consider both approaches and why one seems to have worked out far better than the other. There’s a lesson to be learned in these bad predictions. And those lessons are hugely important forms of risk management in that they help you avoid future mistakes.


vale a pena ver o video do schiff
aqui


since 2008 and counting.

fonte
« Última modificação: 2012-11-29 20:23:31 por Lark »
Be Kind; Everyone You Meet is Fighting a Battle.
Ian Mclaren
------------------------------
If you have more than you need, build a longer table rather than a taller fence.
l6l803399
-------------------------------------------
So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.
Franklin D. Roosevelt

kitano

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 8677
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Krugman et al
« Responder #364 em: 2012-11-29 22:21:52 »
Lark, tenho tentado acompanhar, com interesse, o que tens postado...na medida das minhas capacidades...

Aceitando que não existe um precedente para afirmar que com impressão numa armadinha de liquidez não se dá a apregoada (hiper)inflação.
Sem precedente, como poderemos afirmar que o contrário é verdade?

Por outro lado, na europa e na via da austeridade (sem impressão), também não parecem haver muitos sinais de deflação.


Outro aspecto que já referiste, o dólar não é uma moeda igual às outras. O dólar é a moeda do petroleo dos cereais, etc etc.
Será que a mesma impressão na europa não derreteria completamente o euro?


"Como seria viver a vida que realmente quero?"

Zel

  • Visitante
Re:Krugman et al
« Responder #365 em: 2012-11-29 23:08:55 »
estas ideias do krugman mesmo que na teoria funcionassem (o que duvido) podem dar para o torto com enorme facilidade devido a estrategia de saida

a crise de 2008 eh disso um bom exemplo, ele depois lavara as maos ignorando a aplicabilidade da sua teoria num mundo em que ninguem gosta de estragar uma boa orgia de liquidez

Zenith

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 5259
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Krugman et al
« Responder #366 em: 2012-11-29 23:14:21 »
Com a uma boa teoria podemos ter uma pratica deficiente, mas nunca vamos ter uma boa prática com uma má teoria.

Incognitus

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 30961
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Krugman et al
« Responder #367 em: 2012-11-29 23:28:17 »
Com a uma boa teoria podemos ter uma pratica deficiente, mas nunca vamos ter uma boa prática com uma má teoria.

Dir-se-ia que um dos problemas do mundo actual é a demasiada procura de teorias e soluções e o pouco respeito por princípios e conceitos.
 
Parece-me que um Estado a funcionar decentemente não deveria necessitar de um parlamento em funcionamento constante. É demasiada gente à procura de soluções, de movimento, de acção. Fica-se muito longe de estabelecer regras simples e claras e deixar andar. A própria estrutura exige fazer alguma coisa, intervir, produzir.
"Nem tudo o que pode ser contado conta, e nem tudo o que conta pode ser contado.", Albert Einstein

Incognitus, www.thinkfn.com

Pimba!

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Mensagens: 23
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Krugman et al
« Responder #368 em: 2012-11-30 08:55:28 »
De:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-29/icecap-asset-management-not-salma-hayek-and-keynesians-3-big-mistakes


[...]

IceCap's Keith Dicker points out that, as most politicians and central bankers view the World in very short time frames, to truly understand the devastation wreaked by Keynesian economics, one has to take a step back and see how the financial destruction accumulated over time. It is true that these policies initially provided sugar highs for the economy – but the 3 step cycle of cutting interest rates, cutting taxes and borrowing money to create growth has finally reached its end point. If Mr. Keynes was alive today, we are confident he would be embarrassed that his lifelong work had been so severely distorted.


The war that no one heard about

Few people in the World are even vaguely familiar with perhaps the most important war over ideology ever waged. Some may say the American-Soviet cold war was the tops – yet this riff over 4 legs good, 2 legs bad had nothing on what we are about to share with you.

On one side, you had Friedrich Hayek and the Austrian School of Economics, while the other side was anchored by John Maynard Keynes and the later to be named Keynesian Economics.


It’s no coincidence

Since WWII, the Americans, Japanese, British and Europeans have spent way more money than they owned. But that was ok because the money they borrowed wouldn’t have to be repaid until some far away day in the future.

Unfortunately the future has now arrived and today, the next generations of Americans, Japanese, British and Europeans have all plunged into a deathly debt spiral.

Today it is no coincidence that the Americans, Japanese, British and Europeans have all set interest rates as close to 0% as possible.

Also today, it is no coincidence that the Americans, Japanese, British and Europeans are all printing money.

And finally, today it is also no coincidence that the Americans, Japanese, British and Europeans ignored Friedrich Hayek and instead followed the economic principles of John Maynard Keynes.

Today the entire global economic and financial system is rooted in unwavering support for John Maynard Keynes and his beliefs in deficit spending and debt-fueled growth.


Money makes the World go ‘round

Arts, science, and politics certainly makes the World go ‘round. Yet, nothing can move without money and capital. Thank goodness we have an army of academic and real-world economists tackling the dynamics of money.

Of course, when it comes down to it we should be grateful that Mr. Hayek and Mr. Keynes, both grappled with perhaps the most fascinating economics question of all time – what causes the economy to move and what should be done when it stops moving?

Mr. Hayek’s business cycle theory was groundbreaking to independent thinkers, yet terrifying to anyone with ambitions to become central bankers or masters of the universe.

The groundbreaking component was actually very easy to understand. In essence, the best way to influence the economy was to not influence the economy. Rather, instead of tinkering with interest rates, taxes and deficit spending, masters of the universe should instead focus on ensuring the amount of new money released into the economy was just enough to equal the natural growth rate of the economy.

Sadly, our great leaders dismissed this concept. Instead of giving us “not too much” and “not too little,” we received “way too much” and never “too little.”

Of course, the mere idea that one could not use their financial and economic acumen to control the World was clearly not acceptable to central bankers. It was even more preposterous to politicians who promised multiple chickens in multiple pots. Of course, exactly who paid for these extra chickens and extra pots was highly irrelevant.

Mr. Keynes’ view was very different in that he believed the business cycle could be influenced by a government’s use of fiscal policy which included taxes, spending and deficits.

So, instead of embracing Mr. Hayek’s theory, the masters of the universe obviously opted for Mr. Keynes’ economic theory.

Unfortunately, and through no fault of Mr. Keynes, over the years governments and their advisors have only seen a one-way street in that changes could only occur in one direction.

Taxes were always reduced, never increased.
Spending always increased, never reduced.
Deficits always grew, never eliminated.

If Mr. Keynes was alive today, we are confident he would be embarrassed that his lifelong work had been so severely distorted. Yet, presented with today’s economic dilemma - he would also be highly excited to begin his new and improved economic thesis.

Lark

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 4627
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Krugman et al
« Responder #369 em: 2012-11-30 09:45:53 »
eheh não é preciso registares-te para  postar anonimamente irmão Pimba.
a polémica hayek/keynes é uma treta...

o paralelo actual seria schiff/krugman.
alguém acha que são minimamente comparáveis?

o krugman dispensou-lhe uma entrada ou duas no seu blog. tal como keynes dispensou ao santo hayek um artiguito ou outro nos jornais da época.
eventualmente para fazer humor à conta do austérico austríaco.

mas os libertários compreendem muito mal o humor.
basicamente , para os libertários, o humor resume-se aos smileys e dentro deles ao  :D.

não perceberam que era gozação pura e consideram que a atenção dispensada pelo keynes ao hayek é alguma coisa que dá status ao hayek.
valoriza mas apenas no aspecto cómico  da coisa, coisa que os libertarios têm uma dificuldade enorme em entender.

L
« Última modificação: 2012-11-30 09:46:19 por Lark »
Be Kind; Everyone You Meet is Fighting a Battle.
Ian Mclaren
------------------------------
If you have more than you need, build a longer table rather than a taller fence.
l6l803399
-------------------------------------------
So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.
Franklin D. Roosevelt

hermes

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 2836
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Krugman et al
« Responder #370 em: 2012-11-30 11:38:57 »
mas os libertários compreendem muito mal o humor.
basicamente , para os libertários, o humor resume-se aos smileys e dentro deles ao  :D.


Este rio leva-nos para um sistema libertário, não de jure [nenhum devedor, governante ou intermediário (banqueiros) jamais votaria tal coisa], mas de facto, pois as moedas fiduciárias perderão um dos seus três usos: o de reserva de valor [para poupanças de longo prazo], pois os produtores/aforradores passarão a poupar fora do sistema monetário:

A impressão sem austeridade não é um problema, pois o seu recurso permanente cria a seguinte dinâmica virtuosa:
  • Cai uma epifania em cima dos produtores/aforradores.
  • Quando os produtores/aforradores tiverem a sua epifania, cai uma epifania em cima dos devedores.
O seja o problema resolve-se a si mesmo. 


É por isso que tu, o Krugmann e o Keynes têm todos o meu apoio. É para chegarmos lá mais depressa.

O Lark relaxa lá com o príapo, o que a gente quer é estímulo!  Como podes ver, sempre se pode aprender alguma coisa com a Santa Randezinha e o São Francisco d'Anconia. :D

Se quiseres eu até vou para a rua contigo com um cartaz a dizer: "Keynes, amigo. Os devedores estão contigo!" e outro a dizer: "Estímulo sim! Hayek não!"
"Everyone knows where we have been. Let's see where we are going." – Another

Incognitus

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 30961
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Krugman et al
« Responder #371 em: 2012-11-30 11:55:44 »
eheh não é preciso registares-te para  postar anonimamente irmão Pimba.
a polémica hayek/keynes é uma treta...

o paralelo actual seria schiff/krugman.
alguém acha que são minimamente comparáveis?

o krugman dispensou-lhe uma entrada ou duas no seu blog. tal como keynes dispensou ao santo hayek um artiguito ou outro nos jornais da época.
eventualmente para fazer humor à conta do austérico austríaco.

mas os libertários compreendem muito mal o humor.
basicamente , para os libertários, o humor resume-se aos smileys e dentro deles ao  :D .

não perceberam que era gozação pura e consideram que a atenção dispensada pelo keynes ao hayek é alguma coisa que dá status ao hayek.
valoriza mas apenas no aspecto cómico  da coisa, coisa que os libertarios têm uma dificuldade enorme em entender.

L

O "Pimba" não coincide com nenhum dos outros utilizadores.
 
Bem-vindo, Pimba!
"Nem tudo o que pode ser contado conta, e nem tudo o que conta pode ser contado.", Albert Einstein

Incognitus, www.thinkfn.com

Zel

  • Visitante
Re:Krugman et al
« Responder #372 em: 2012-11-30 12:52:05 »
parece que o Lark tb e' adepto das teorias de conspiracao  :D

Pimba!

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Mensagens: 23
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Krugman et al
« Responder #373 em: 2012-11-30 14:11:20 »
Obrigado pelas boas vindas.

Voltando ao assunto:
Para que os adeptos do keynes, krugman, etc. não se fiquem por ataques genéricos e sem substancia (e possam concentrar-se em discutir as realidades e os factos, que são o que interessa) talvez valha a pena resumir o que postei acima (que, aliás, já era um resumo de um artigo muito mais completo, que pode ser encontrado a partir do link).

Então aqui vai:
1.
"to truly understand the devastation wreaked by Keynesian economics, one has to take a step back and see how the financial destruction accumulated over time"
2.
"the Americans, Japanese, British and Europeans have spent way more money than they owned. But that was ok because the money they borrowed wouldn’t have to be repaid until some far away day in the future."
3.
"Unfortunately the future has now arrived and today, the [...] Americans, Japanese, British and Europeans have all plunged into a deathly debt spiral."
4.
"the entire global economic and financial system is rooted in unwavering support for John Maynard Keynes and his beliefs in deficit spending and debt-fueled growth."

E, para que não se responda contrapondo as presentes "austeridades", lembremos que nas presentes "austeridades", e até nas mais radicais (como a grega e portuguesa), os estados continuam a gastar segundo as politicas keynesianas e a manter deficits anuais enormes (cerca de 7 ou 8% do PIB na Grécia, cerca de 6% a 7% em Portugal - antes dos inevitáveis malabarismos contabilisticos).
Para ilustrar:

Citar
As we highlighted a few months back for Spain, the word 'austerity' appears to mean something different than we thought. Portugal just announced:
*PORTUGAL SAYS JAN.-OCT. SPENDING RISES 0.7% 

and to help cover that anti-austerity 'rise' in spending:

*PORTUGAL SAYS REVENUE FROM INDIRECT TAXES DROPS 4.5% 
*PORTUGAL SAYS REVENUE FROM DIRECT TAXES FALLS 3.7%   

Hhhhmm, well at least the deficit reduced modestly thanks to some chicanery transferring pension benefits.

E vale a pena ir ver os comentários dos leitores:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-23/european-austerity-update



Lark

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 4627
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Krugman et al
« Responder #374 em: 2012-11-30 14:32:24 »
Destructive Responsibility
Busy day today, probably no posting. Yes, I’m up ridiculously early.

Matthew O’Brien picks up on my France/Britain in the 20s comparison, and carries it forward through the 1930s:


The key point is that the two countries reversed roles: Britain, which had practiced destructive orthodoxy in the 20s, floated the pound in 1931, while France clung to its restored gold standard and suffered accordingly.

If there’s a really crucial lesson in all this, it is that appropriate macroeconomic policy depends on the situation. Rules designed to prevent irresponsible inflation and/or deficits may help when inflation is your problem; when you are instead a depressed economy in a liquidity trap, they become a lead-weighted straitjacket. As Simon Wren-Lewis says, it’s pretty weird to obsess over the risk that you might let governments off the hook when there is in fact no hook — and the problem is that governments are behaving as if there were.
Be Kind; Everyone You Meet is Fighting a Battle.
Ian Mclaren
------------------------------
If you have more than you need, build a longer table rather than a taller fence.
l6l803399
-------------------------------------------
So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.
Franklin D. Roosevelt

Lark

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 4627
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Krugman et al
« Responder #375 em: 2012-11-30 14:45:37 »
parece que o Lark tb e' adepto das teorias de conspiracao  :D

nem por isso, mas registo->primeira mensagem, directo para aqui....

mas então, se se trata de um novo irmão, bem-vindo Pimba!

L
Be Kind; Everyone You Meet is Fighting a Battle.
Ian Mclaren
------------------------------
If you have more than you need, build a longer table rather than a taller fence.
l6l803399
-------------------------------------------
So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.
Franklin D. Roosevelt

Lark

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 4627
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Krugman et al
« Responder #376 em: 2012-11-30 15:08:45 »
Lark, tenho tentado acompanhar, com interesse, o que tens postado...na medida das minhas capacidades...

Aceitando que não existe um precedente para afirmar que com impressão numa armadinha de liquidez não se dá a apregoada (hiper)inflação.
Sem precedente, como poderemos afirmar que o contrário é verdade?

Por outro lado, na europa e na via da austeridade (sem impressão), também não parecem haver muitos sinais de deflação.

Outro aspecto que já referiste, o dólar não é uma moeda igual às outras. O dólar é a moeda do petroleo dos cereais, etc etc.
Será que a mesma impressão na europa não derreteria completamente o euro?

só vi agora mr kitano
já respondo
Be Kind; Everyone You Meet is Fighting a Battle.
Ian Mclaren
------------------------------
If you have more than you need, build a longer table rather than a taller fence.
l6l803399
-------------------------------------------
So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.
Franklin D. Roosevelt

Zel

  • Visitante
Re:Krugman et al
« Responder #377 em: 2012-11-30 15:17:13 »
Obrigado pelas boas vindas.

Voltando ao assunto:
Para que os adeptos do keynes, krugman, etc. não se fiquem por ataques genéricos e sem substancia (e possam concentrar-se em discutir as realidades e os factos, que são o que interessa) talvez valha a pena resumir o que postei acima (que, aliás, já era um resumo de um artigo muito mais completo, que pode ser encontrado a partir do link).

Então aqui vai:
1.
"to truly understand the devastation wreaked by Keynesian economics, one has to take a step back and see how the financial destruction accumulated over time"
2.
"the Americans, Japanese, British and Europeans have spent way more money than they owned. But that was ok because the money they borrowed wouldn’t have to be repaid until some far away day in the future."
3.
"Unfortunately the future has now arrived and today, the [...] Americans, Japanese, British and Europeans have all plunged into a deathly debt spiral."
4.
"the entire global economic and financial system is rooted in unwavering support for John Maynard Keynes and his beliefs in deficit spending and debt-fueled growth."

E, para que não se responda contrapondo as presentes "austeridades", lembremos que nas presentes "austeridades", e até nas mais radicais (como a grega e portuguesa), os estados continuam a gastar segundo as politicas keynesianas e a manter deficits anuais enormes (cerca de 7 ou 8% do PIB na Grécia, cerca de 6% a 7% em Portugal - antes dos inevitáveis malabarismos contabilisticos).
Para ilustrar:

Citar
As we highlighted a few months back for Spain, the word 'austerity' appears to mean something different than we thought. Portugal just announced:
*PORTUGAL SAYS JAN.-OCT. SPENDING RISES 0.7% 

and to help cover that anti-austerity 'rise' in spending:

*PORTUGAL SAYS REVENUE FROM INDIRECT TAXES DROPS 4.5% 
*PORTUGAL SAYS REVENUE FROM DIRECT TAXES FALLS 3.7%   

Hhhhmm, well at least the deficit reduced modestly thanks to some chicanery transferring pension benefits.

E vale a pena ir ver os comentários dos leitores:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-23/european-austerity-update


os keynesianos substimam os efeitos negativos de demasiada divida ou entao sao simplesmente desonestos

grande parte dos problemas actuais sao da sua autoria intelectual, falo da divida a mais do sector privado e publico (que eh ignorada nos seus modelos), dos estimulos sem estrategia de saida (para depois apenas culparem a regulacao) e da falta de disciplina dos governantes que interiorizaram uma teoria que lhes convem
« Última modificação: 2012-11-30 15:20:06 por Zel »

Incognitus

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 30961
    • Ver Perfil
Re:Krugman et al
« Responder #378 em: 2012-11-30 15:24:53 »
Em certa medida quem advoga qualquer nível de dívida e qualquer diluição da moeda é coerente. Isto porque mostra sempre que a ética não é um factor por si considerado. A dívida por exemplo é para tomar porque melhora a economia e mais tarde é para renegociar, eliminar ou diluir monetariamente, não para ser paga.
« Última modificação: 2012-11-30 15:25:11 por Incognitus »
"Nem tudo o que pode ser contado conta, e nem tudo o que conta pode ser contado.", Albert Einstein

Incognitus, www.thinkfn.com

Zel

  • Visitante
Re:Krugman et al
« Responder #379 em: 2012-11-30 15:31:05 »
o krugman esta sempre a criticar os chamados "moralistas" das teoria economicas, ignorando que a disciplina eh essencial a uma boa economia.

se o sector privado eh tradicionalmente muito mais eficiente do que o publico eh pq lhe eh imposto mais disciplina. a disciplina traz produtividade e riqueza e quem ignora coisas basicas e fundamentais como esta nao percebe mesmo nada de economia.