De Long comes to Fusil’s aid

How ironic that Gimpei’s erstwhile ally, Brad de Long, has turned on him. Or at least, so I think. He does seem to be saying in a Project Syndicate piece that he and a few other people thought a real-estate bubble might the only way out of the mire. The idea was they could pop the bubble when danger had passed, before the bubble got too big itself. Again, it’s not as if Delong, or Krugman, liked the idea. But they thought it was the least worst option at the time.


10 responses to “De Long comes to Fusil’s aid

  1. Grasping at straws again I see. Where to begin? First, and most obviously, Delong is != to Krugman.

    Second, the original argument was whether Krugman should be ashamed of his quote (as interpreted by Samuelcanread). Delong argues Krugman shouldn’t be ashamed. He seems to be saying that even from today’s perspective it is unclear whether low interest rates were a bad idea. He suggests that the real problem was the lax regulatory framework and that low interest rates were simply icing on the cake.

    In summary, Delong questions whether the position attributed to Krugman by Samuelcanread is in fact shameful, thus undermining Samuelcanread’s original argument. Delong does all this while simultaneously performing the miraculous feat of not being Krugman. While it is true that Delong and Krugman think alike, they are not the same person so Delong’s arguments circa 2009 are weak evidence with respect to the Krugman’s beliefs circa 2002.

    • samuelcanread

      Oh dear. Gimpei was mocking me previously for imagining that Krugman could EVER believe such a thing. He has no proof that counters my evidence. He just makes the banal observation that Krugman is not Delong. Milton Friedman was not Ronald Reagan, yet the two’s thoughts bore a strong similarity.

  2. samuelcanread

    Gimpei, flailing wildly now. A mere BA in economics is flattening this PhD candidate.

    What this delong piece shows: Krugman probably WAS quoting “somewhat approvingly.”

    What GIMPEI’s statements above show: it probably isn’t an idea Krugman wishes he had quoted at all.

  3. Let’s not belittle the power of your Master of Science Samuelcanread.

    The Friedman/Reagan parallel is criminally misleading. Reagan was a politician who consciously aped Friedman because he had no views of his own apart from a general philosophy. There is a reason why politicians have advisers.

    Samuelcanread is also being shamefully silent as to the second of my two points: Delong is defending the position that Krugman purportedly holds. He is arguing that the Krugman fabricated by Samuelcanread was justified in his quotation of the aforementioned statement.

    Game, set, and match.

  4. samuelcanread

    did you miss an isn’t in one of those statements?

    I really don’t understand your second point. Gimpei dances as the umpire shouts game, set, and match, not realizing that the umpire is consigning all those things to Fusil.

  5. I really don’t understand you not understanding my second point. Delong’s whole point in that article is that Greenspan was probably right to keep interest rates low.

    In your original post you said that Krugman should feel ashamed for tacitly approving this position. Delong is saying not so; even with the benefit of hindsight it may have been the best move.

    I think Fusil needs to stop drunk posting. It’s getting a little embarrassing.

  6. samuelcanread

    Gimpei, you have to learn that it’s ok to make mistakes. All through this process i’ve been open to changing my mind, eager to be swayed by the truth.

    Your second point is basically that you can’t face that you were wrong. You were saying on the last post that Kruggers could NEVER think such a thing. And now, instead of conceding that you were wrong, you’re pathetically shifting ground to the question of whether Kruggers was right or wrong to think it.

    But, if we’re having this new argument, that’s ok. You still lose. Delong says the position is defensible. OK. But i still would bet good money that Krugman wishes he hadn’t so called for this bubble to be inflated.

    Tell me, Gimpei, how does the ground taste as i grind your face in it.

  7. Oh you talk the talk samuelcanread, but can you walk the walk?

    You claim that I am tasting the ground when in fact I am tasting nothing, nothing at all. Rather I am smelling the sweet scent of victory.

    1) Delong != Krugman. I still cannot grasp how you can so cavalierly attribute one economist’s set of beliefs to another. I know once the word Keynes is mentioned, they all blur together for you people in finance journalism, but in fact Krugman and Delong do have their own distinct viewpoints. The Friedman/Reagan comparison is ludicrous: Reagan had no background in economics; the relationship between the two was that of adviser/advisee. Krugman and Delong are both economists with distinct research agendas. Since one of them doesn’t just ape everything the other one tells them, it is far more conceivable that they could disagree.

    As for point two, it’s nice to hear that you would be willing to bet money, but I don’t see how that changes much. I could place bets on a lot of things but that doesn’t make them true.

    That’s right samuelcanread: all that chocolate mousse you thought were eating is in fact mud from deepest darkest Ghana. Do you feel the burning sensation in your foot? It’s guinea worm and its just about to pop its head out.

  8. samuelcanread

    Can you come up with something new to say? Krugman != Delong, is a bit of a pathetic rallying cry, don’t you think? Especially from your hovel in Soreloserville, state of Looserana.

    You were the one who ranted on and on about the context in which Krugman’s statement had to be read. I’ve provided the wider intellectual context. And all you can say is Krugman !=wider context. Good: so please bring more evidence that Krugman didn’t think inflating the housing bubble was a good idea. Please, by all means, this is a safe place. Don’t feel worried about displaying your intellectual failings here or your stubborn wrong-headedness or your deluded slogans. We are all God’s creatures.

  9. samuelcanread

    No evidence was forthcoming, apparently. Your honour, i rest my case.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s