“The data keep telling us that inflation is basically over as a problem”
- Paul Krugman
Leading economist says inflation is over. So sad for the MAGA MORONS
Posts
Total:
54
he finally beat medicare
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
The whole concept of inflation isn’t “over”. If you’re referring to the spike in inflation we had due to covid, well that’s been over ever since the fed got that soft landing a few months back. Also, I think the argument coming from republicans is not that it’s still a thing, but that it was a thing under Biden.
-->
@Moozer325
Inflation was never a problem for those not drowning in debt. Even when it spiked to 9 percent under Biden.
Now the problem is paying off all that debt. Americans now have over a trillion in personal debt to credit card banks.
-->
@Greyparrot
I thought that went without saying. Rich elites or the middle class won’t really be shaken by a 9% inflation spike, but it will affect poor people so republicans can use it to win over working class voters.
-->
@Moozer325
Bingo
Wow,Venezuela had suffered six-digit hyperinflation for about four years, with the indicator reaching a heady 130,000%, eroding savings and making basic supplies scarce. And Trump wants to move there when he loses the election?
-->
@FLRW
did you beat medicare too?
When I cited articles by Krugman arguing there was no labor shortage, you called Krugman an idiot
-->
@WyIted
Expertise is fluid. At this time IWRA identifies krugman as an expert.
At this time IWRA identifies krugman as an expert.
So does the Pulitzer Prize organization
-->
@WyIted
When I cited articles by Krugman arguing there was no labor shortage, you called Krugman an idiot
Show me. I think you have a bad memory like Trump.
I see you aren’t working still. Sad
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Here is one from the other economist you worship. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/15/there-is-no-us-labor-shortage-thats-a-myth
Simple. If employers want more workers, they should pay them more.
Jerome Powell and his colleague at the Fed don’t want to hear this. They’re aiming to deal with the “labor shortage” by slowing the economy so much that employers can find all the workers they need without raising wages.
Even with inflation slowing, central bankers still believe they need to slow the job market and tamp down wage gains. “The biggest cost, by far, in [the service] sector is labor,” said Powell at his latest news conference in December. “And we do see a very, very strong labor market … where wages are very high.”
But slowing the economy will prevent millions of people from getting raises and cause millions more to lose their jobs – disproportionately low-wage workers, women and people of color.
Robert Reich is incontrovertibly and provably correct.
-->
@WyIted
So you were wrong. Krugman didn’t write there was no labor shortage
-->
@WyIted
Paul Krugman has indeed argued that what some describe as a "labor shortage" is much more accurately a situation where employers are not offering high enough wages to attract workers. Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist, has written about so-called "labor shortages" and replaced it with the idea that employers can address labor by offering higher wages. In his writings, Krugman often argues that what is sometimes perceived as a "labor shortage" is actually a reflection of employers not offering competitive wages or working conditions to attract workers.
In some of his articles, particularly during discussions about labor markets in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, Krugman has pointed out that if businesses are struggling to find workers, it may be because they are not paying enough. He suggests that increasing wages is a natural way to attract more workers, rather than labeling the situation as a labor shortage.
Krugman's argument is based on basic economic principles: when there is a high demand for workers, wages should rise to attract more people into the labor market. If wages remain stagnant while the demand for labor is high, fewer people will be willing to take those jobs, which might be mistakenly interpreted as a labor shortage.
This perspective is consistent with his broader views on labor markets and income inequality, where he often emphasizes the need for higher wages to ensure fair compensation and to reduce disparities in the economy.
If someone refers to Paul Krugman as an "idiot," it's important to approach the situation with a tone that fosters constructive dialogue rather than escalating the disagreement. First, it's useful to acknowledge that strong opinions about public figures like Krugman are common, especially given his prominent role in economic debates. Understanding the frustration behind their statement can help set the stage for a more productive conversation. For example, you might say, "I see that you strongly disagree with Krugman’s views, and that’s completely valid."
Next, it’s beneficial to steer the conversation away from personal attacks and focus on the substance of the arguments being made. By shifting the focus to the ideas rather than the individual, you encourage a more respectful and thoughtful discussion. You might suggest, "Instead of labeling him, it might be more useful to discuss the specific points Krugman makes and why you find them unconvincing. That way, we can really dig into the issues at hand."
Finally, it’s helpful to remind them that Krugman is a highly respected economist, regardless of whether one agrees with his conclusions. His insights are grounded in years of research and experience, which makes his perspectives valuable, even if controversial. You could add, "While it’s okay to disagree with Krugman, it’s important to remember that he’s a Nobel Prize-winning economist with a lot of expertise. Critiquing his ideas with evidence and reasoned arguments can lead to a more meaningful discussion than dismissing him outright." This approach encourages critical thinking and a more respectful exchange of ideas.
Wait, what about the value of a snarky response like this
“he finally beat medicare”
-->
@Greyparrot
SO he agrees with Robert Reich. I assumed this was the case, not that it matters because IWRA worships both economists and does not ever question or deviate from what they say
-->
@WyIted
He agrees with the establishment that there's a "labor shortage" only when he is told that illegal migration is necessary.
There's no deeper thinking going on in that head than that.
He agrees with the establishment that there's a "labor shortage" only when he is told that illegal migration is necessary.
An unemployment rate below 4% would indicate there is a labor shortage. Some people can be brought off the sidelines with higher pay.
When the airline industry had a shortage of pilots they responded with higher pay for both new workers and existing workers.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
An unemployment rate below 4% would indicate there is a labor shortage.
If 4% of people starving and dying in the streets is not high enough for you, what amount of people should be starving and dying? What would be a number that is good for the economy?
-->
@WyIted
If 4% of people starving and dying in the streets is not high enough for you
Really? You think 12 million people die from starvation in USA every year?
Well, I understand that blatant lies are part of propaganda campaign, because uneducated voters dont know that food is free in USA.
-->
@Best.Korea
Well, I understand that blatant lies are part of propaganda campaign, because uneducated voters dont know that food is free in USA.
I would rather eradicate poverty but if you are happy with the poor getting free expired food that kills them from food banks, good for you
-->
@WyIted
If 4% of people starving and dying in the streets is not high enough for you, what amount of people should be starving and dying? What would be a number that is good for the economy?
You obviously have never understood the term full employment and what it represents.
You should look it up rather than me spoon feeding it to you.
-->
@WyIted
I would rather eradicate poverty
Did Trump eradicate poverty? Did Trump make poor people have jobs and create 0% unemployment rate?
No he didnt!
-->
@WyIted
I would rather eradicate poverty
Do you think the Republican Party led by Trump is focused on eradicating poverty?
He cut taxes for wealthy people. He did not try to raise the minimum wage. Republicans declined to expand eligibility for Medicaid. They never tried to pass an infrastructure bill the way Biden did.
You like Trump because he’s focused on dicks. Dicks is your primary issue.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Do you think the Republican Party led by Trump is focused on eradicating poverty?He cut taxes for wealthy people. He did not try to raise the minimum wage. Republicans declined to expand eligibility for Medicaid. They never tried to pass an infrastructure bill the way Biden did.
He passed an infrastructure bill and I urge you to read the reccomended books on Mises.org to explain why those economic interventionists policies move us away from not towards utopia, as for your statement that we should have a large amount of unemployment, that is retarded. If people want to work and can find jobs, that is a good thing. It is not better for them to starve and die like you think
-->
@WyIted
He passed an infrastructure bill
Trump? No, no he did not.
as for your statement that we should have a large amount of unemployment,
Again, because you lack a formal education, you are not familiar with the term “full employment”