The last Nobel Prize winner to be notably and publicly wrong was Linus Pauling who famously declared that Vitamin C cured the common cold. Now we have another one, Paul Krugman who declares, seemingly on a daily basis, that the cure to a debt meltdown is -- more debt.
Paul has worked out a theory under which debt is what makes a country rich while saving and spending less makes them poor. If you have a headache from banging your head against a wall, the best thing to do is keep banging because "in theory" your headache will go away.
Ya.
I have one question: if debt produces prosperity, why aren't we all prospering like crazy at the present?
Originally posted by spruce112358 The last Nobel Prize winner to be notably and publicly wrong was Linus Pauling who famously declared that Vitamin C cured the common cold. Now we have another one, Paul Krugman who declares, seemingly on a daily basis, that the cure to a debt meltdown is -- more debt.
Paul has worked out a theory under which debt is what makes a country rich while sa ...[text shortened]... uestion: if debt produces prosperity, why aren't we all prospering like crazy at the present?
What source do you have for your report that Linus Pauling made this silly remark? I doubt very much that he ever said any such thing, so please provide your source.
Originally posted by stevemcc What source do you have for your report that Linus Pauling made this silly remark? I doubt very much that he ever said any such thing, so please provide your source.
There's a section on Pauling's advocacy for Vitamin C on his wikipedia page. I would paste it here but wasn't able to easily from my ipad.
I don't know when Paul Krugman said that debt causes prosperity though. I know he's said that we shouldn't necessarily worry about more debt right now, but that isn't the same thing as saying that debt causes prosperity.
Originally posted by PsychoPawn There's a section on Pauling's advocacy for Vitamin C on his wikipedia page. I would paste it here but wasn't able to easily from my ipad.
I don't know when Paul Krugman said that debt causes prosperity though. I know he's said that we shouldn't necessarily worry about more debt right now, but that isn't the same thing as saying that debt causes prosperity.
I know of Pauling's advocacy for Vit C. The statement was, more specifically, that Pauling claimed that it would cure the common cold. It was this specific that I doubted.
Originally posted by spruce112358 The last Nobel Prize winner to be notably and publicly wrong was Linus Pauling who famously declared that Vitamin C cured the common cold. Now we have another one, Paul Krugman who declares, seemingly on a daily basis, that the cure to a debt meltdown is -- more debt.
Paul has worked out a theory under which debt is what makes a country rich while sa ...[text shortened]... uestion: if debt produces prosperity, why aren't we all prospering like crazy at the present?
Surely you know that what you have claimed in this post is completely false, spruce. If you want to argue against Krugman's position that austerity (i.e. reducing spending to cut the deficit) at a time when the economy is very weak is self-defeating, do so. But don't make such a blatantly false claim and expect to be treated like anything but a whodey wannabe.
Originally posted by stevemcc I know of Pauling's advocacy for Vit C. The statement was, more specifically, that Pauling claimed that it would cure the common cold. It was this specific that I doubted.
No apparent claim that it cured it, but that it helped.
I have read that Pauling did think that vitamin dosing had more significant effects than the scientific evidence dictated.
That doesn't detract from his actual scientific achievements. Sometimes the most brilliant people in one area believe in some wacky unscientific things. Newton came up with calculus and his theories are still useful today, but he also believed in alchemy.
Originally posted by PsychoPawn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_C_and_the_Common_Cold_(book)
No apparent claim that it cured it, but that it helped.
I have read that Pauling did think that vitamin dosing had more significant effects than the scientific evidence dictated.
That doesn't detract from his actual scientific achievements. Sometimes the most brilliant people in ...[text shortened]... came up with calculus and his theories are still useful today, but he also believed in alchemy.
There is quite a chasm between the two statements.
Originally posted by spruce112358 The last Nobel Prize winner to be notably and publicly wrong was Linus Pauling who famously declared that Vitamin C cured the common cold. Now we have another one, Paul Krugman who declares, seemingly on a daily basis, that the cure to a debt meltdown is -- more debt.
Paul has worked out a theory under which debt is what makes a country rich while sa ...[text shortened]... uestion: if debt produces prosperity, why aren't we all prospering like crazy at the present?
One would think that if your name is Paul, or a name with Paul incorporated into it, you should not make any comments or have any theories on certain subjects. Or is that too broad a stroke considering the small sample here?
Originally posted by spruce112358 The last Nobel Prize winner to be notably and publicly wrong was Linus Pauling who famously declared that Vitamin C cured the common cold. Now we have another one, Paul Krugman who declares, seemingly on a daily basis, that the cure to a debt meltdown is -- more debt.
Paul has worked out a theory under which debt is what makes a country rich while sa ...[text shortened]... uestion: if debt produces prosperity, why aren't we all prospering like crazy at the present?
Krugman didn't work out this theory, but is an follower of Lord Keynes, who managed to pass of distortions of Ricardo, Smith, and other classical economists as his own new thoughts, usually picking where they had it wrong, and stretching it further.
His theory, even as no1 explains it, is folly, and has been proven wrong again and again.
Borrowing money for government expenditures (now euphemistically called investments) simply takes dollars from the market to places the government determines are better. How's that been working out?
Originally posted by normbenign Krugman didn't work out this theory, but is an follower of Lord Keynes, who managed to pass of distortions of Ricardo, Smith, and other classical economists as his own new thoughts, usually picking where they had it wrong, and stretching it further.
His theory, even as no1 explains it, is folly, and has been proven wrong again and again.
Borrowing m ...[text shortened]... from the market to places the government determines are better. How's that been working out?
Keynesian economics also calls for spending cuts in good times; so it's not just a matter of borrowing and spending.
If the politicians were really Keynesian we would not be in such bad shape. Friedman himself expressed respect and admiration for Keynes.
Originally posted by sh76 Keynesian economics also calls for spending cuts in good times; so it's not just a matter of borrowing and spending.
If the politicians were really Keynesian we would not be in such bad shape. Friedman himself expressed respect and admiration for Keynes.
"Keynesian economics also calls for spending cuts in good times; so it's not just a matter of borrowing and spending."
There are reasons why this doesn't work in practice. I like some of Milton Friedman's thoughts, but he strays too often and too far from the master, Ludvig Von Mises.
Originally posted by no1marauder Surely you know that what you have claimed in this post is completely false, spruce. If you want to argue against Krugman's position that austerity (i.e. reducing spending to cut the deficit) at a time when the economy is very weak is self-defeating, do so. But don't make such a blatantly false claim and expect to be treated like anything but a whodey wannabe.
Krugman's lack of objective discussion of the matter has left him open to the accusation of having become nothing more than a Democratic partisan shill.
I understand the temptation of using one's cachet as a Noble Prize winner to try to advance a political agenda. It must be intoxicating to have that many people suddenly listening to your opinions. But I don't support or admire doing so.
Originally posted by spruce112358 Krugman's lack of objective discussion of the matter has left him open to the accusation of having become nothing more than a Democratic partisan shill.
I understand the temptation of using one's cachet as a Noble Prize winner to try to advance a political agenda. It must be intoxicating to have that many people suddenly listening to your opinions. But I don't support or admire doing so.
I absolutely agree with you that Krugman is a partisan shill (if a brilliant partisan shill), but if you're going to make an accusation that "Paul Krugman... declares, seemingly on a daily basis, that the cure to a debt meltdown is -- more debt" I think you probably ought to produce a source for this harsh accusation.
Shut up, Paul
26 Feb '13 12:11
Back to Top