I was going to pop this in as a reply, but maybe its better here, I dunno…
Skip the Spanish intro and go to Krugman’s lecture starting at 09:19. If you get fed up with him, then jump ahead to 35:25 where Schwartz gets going…..
To make the video appear here on OTP ……
YouTube, `share`, `embed`, set customize size to 600 width, copy code, paste into post.
Aaagh! I wish I could view a vid as fast as I can read. Had occasion to read the Mystics vid posts ( when the computer did the bizarre translation thing). Could do 10 minute video in 2 minutes (well funky fucked up in my mind…did always manage to get the gist though).
Time time time!
As you find it better to read here is a link to Kuntler interview with Rollingstone (about his latest book) I was going to post it but I will link it here instead:
When the high minded start using ‘blame’ references – we’re in deep kim-chee.It’s always seemed clear to me that in reference to “Global Warming” discussions – most folks are more concerned about avoiding human ‘blame’ than some rather startling charts and graphs - let’s say. As if pumping millions of tons of carbon daily into the thin blue atmosphere is without impunity. It’s all pretty academic anyway. All I have to do is remember going outside most anytime in the past 10 years and notice that something is really fk’d up. Unusually hot, cold, wet, humid, stormy, you name it. 7 days ago it was 105F – today it was 65F.
I thought we might see chairs and shoes flying there for a bit.
Energy, water, weather. I imagine it’s going to get rather expensive in the future to travel to Canada to get some relief from the storms and heat with a trunk load of bottled water, while watching riots in the streets in the EU.
I got to the end of Krugman.
(I think I prefer Stiglitz)
Schwartz was fun for a while, but it was a lot of the `same old`, no~!?
Good video. Reminds me of when I use to like Krugman soo much. Untill he started getting into that spend vast quantities of money stuff. Like when he says those projected deficits which will be soo big in the future as to swamp us are projected with money of today, not tomorrows money. Tomrrows gdp will be different. It counters the Republican view however neither parties seriously think about energy which for me blights my view. I still like the man. Is that bad?
Just finished Krugman, here is a summary of what I heard him say:
Spain, Italy, Greece … the underlying problem is something called “competetiveness” … words … to be competetive you need to have low wages … more words … austerity is working, but not fast enough; wages need to come down more to be competetitve … blah, blah, blah … if you want to have a competitive economy, you have to lower wages … oh, by the way, let’s not forget to rescue the banks and make it easier for governments to borrow money while we are figuring out how we will lower wages and become more competitive .. like Estonia and Latvia … cough … could raise wages … mumble, mumble … Germany … mumble, mumble … but that isn’t going to happen … the Euro is doomed …
It guess I’ll restrain myself from the usual rant, go get the coffee pot going and return for Schwartz.
Only five minutes into Schwartz and I am already fit to dig a whole in the floor.
Most of these economists talk about money the way Puritans talk about babies. They talk about the “blessed event” without mentioning the dirty sex parts.
Schwartz thinks that the whole thing would have worked if they had followed the right rules. This is like saying, “One man, one woman, missionary position only, don’t take all of your clothes off, and if you enjoyed it, you were probably breaking one of the rules. Never talk about it in front of the kids … or anyone!”
Schwartz couldn’t wait a full three minutes to say “gold”. That was when my first bell went off.
Like almost all economists, Schwartz uses the word “inflation” which usually applies to price inflation due to excessive monetary expansion with excess money in circulation, when he should be talking about monetary expansion to satisfy debt repayment coupled by price pressure caused not by excess money in circulation but by the fact that 40% of the price is needed just to repay debt. Unfortunately there is not enough money in the pockets of consumers to buy at the higher price … or even at a lower price. My second bell went off.
I take it that Schwartz sees himself as a scapegoat for Krugman and others because he and others in his sect of economists wanted what he calls “a free society and a free market” which I take as code words for, “Hello, I’m an Austrian economist and if we just used gold …” My third bell went off.
So, I stopped here to look up Professor Schwartz and see if he was an Austrian economist as I immediately suspected. Hit the nail on the head again!
Austrians and Christians act like they are the two most persecuted groups in the world. Schwartz informs us that that Krugman and his ilk have screwed up the system by setting it up with bad rules and that leaves Schwartz and his to fix it. I’m still waiting for the example of a modern economic conundrum that was solved by regressive Austrian dogma.
Krugman understands the mechanics of the liquidity problem but he doesn’t really want to talk about the cause the same way Puritans don’t want to talk about where babies come from.
Schwartz understands that that more liquidity won’t fix the problem the same way more sex doesn’t make babies go away, but I suspect that his solution is kind of like the timing method for birth control and it isn’t going to work either.
I don’t think I will listen to the rest of this. I would rather watch grass grow.
Professors who consider some theme in their work try to find answers on all questions that they have.