Topic: Paul Krugman -- world champion troll (Read 3302 times)

First I never talked about natural monopoly I talked about concentration of wealth. Secondly, if you want a good example a of freer market than today, take the XIX century. The differences between the rich and the poor were enormous, but they were declining. And at that time, as now, there are markets in which there isn't natural monopolies (cars, bakeries, swimming pools, restaurants,...). And they are market in which there is natural monopolies, which are entirely different in nature and consequences than forced monopolies.
As a side note I'd say that the problem is not really the differences between the rich and the poor than the ability of the poor to get out of poverty, which increases with economic freedom. And decreases with government intervention, believe me, I live in france, you do not want to go there.

Now you think we are in a free market (in the USA or wherever you are)? You think central banking printing a money that you are forced to use by the men with the gun (the government) is free market, money given for free to banks and banks only so they can speculate and make the people pay the inflation, it's a free market? You think an economy in which the men with the gun decide hat you can and cannot sell, how the product must be, is a free market? ... man, stop the brain-washing machine.

Do you have any examples that free market will not naturally lead to monopole? Who is competing against google/facebook/coca cola...? In an information society, it is very common for people to select a few of service provider which ranked in top 3 and ignore the rest

And I think the cooperation between biggest market players are much easier than individual person

Well, instead of slavery, you get a loan for your house; instead of war, you get free market to slaughter each other using cash, but does that change the essential? 

+1

The economic Nobel Prize is actually called "Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel"

Alfred Nobel chose physical sciences, chemistry, medical science/physiology, literary work, and peace to be awarded every year.  Alfred Nobel chose these 5 subjects because he believed they are the most important for the betterment of humanity.  He did not create a prize for economics, and the fact that he was one of the richest men in the world at the time and did not think economics as an important scientific discipline speaks volumes.  The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel was created by the Swedish Central Bank (Sveriges Riksbank), the oldest central bank in the world.

Now does it really matter who wins that stupid award?  It is like getting an award from your own mother.

Yep.  It's great for teh bottom line, too!

No that where corporatism, the one we've got from a century or so, leads to. With perfect tools like fiat currency, state regulations and such, you got the perfect concentration of wealth program for the already wealthy

Free market capitalism leads to less concentration of wealth.

But you were just trolling, weren't you?

Slavery and war are the solutions you propose for full employment? What an inspiring worldview you have!

Building the Pyramid maybe is the way to create full employment, and the return of this huge project (through tourism) will spread over several thousand years. Those slaves who were building the pyramid everyday, they also got a work, food and shelter etc...

The "Sponsor" concept from "hunger game" talks some truth: In a world that most of the wealth are in a few people's hand, most of the people will try their best to impress these Sponsors, that's where free market leads to

Krugman didn't get the Nobel Prize for Economics, he got the Nobel Prize for Criticizing Bush. It's the same principle as Obama getting the Nobel Prize for Not Being Bush.

wake up mate: if economists are not bankers, economists are paid to make fake economic forecasts by politicians who make fake electoral promises.

How ironic.  A bitcoin supporter calling one of the world's most brilliant economists a troll.  Stupid has reached a new level on the internet.

Krugman belongs to the same category of nobel prize winners as Paul Samuelson who famously predicted in 1967 that the GNP of the USSR would reach parity with the USA by 1977..

What could we do without those geniuses ? And remember: the nobel prize in economics is in safe hands, it's awarded by bankers.

If something is mass produced, then it is not luxury goods any more, but in that phase will fulfill lot's of demand, typically those mass produced BMW and Volvo cars in china today

If people can continuously find luxury goods and turn them into mass production, the economy will be strong, but something considered luxury goods might not have so many people interested in it, private plane for example

Reducing the working hours will be important for people to have more time to explore new demands

Krugman and Reich are just trolls of big government.   Nobody listens to them except government employees such as teachers.  They put Krugman in movies to deceive the young minds that know no better.

Luxury goods, by definition, are not mass produced. So while he's right in that full employment via the luxury industry is possible, one must wonder if enough demand for luxury goods exists - is such full employment probable ? Maybe wealthy individuals are more keen to having their own golf courses (low employment, high impact for society), than buying overpriced hand knitted socks.

I abandoned writing a novel with this storyline. It is too close to the truth. There is something to be said for craftsmanship. As long as the employment is equitable, then it is desirable employment. Robots are not artisans.

Of all the dumb things Paul Krugman has said, this is the one that should be tattooed on his forehead as a warning to future generations of just how hopelessly out of touch he is.  The reason for this one out of all the others is that, while Paul obviously spends a lot of time coming up with shocking statements with which to troll the economically illiterate masses via television soundbytes and on his NYTimes blog, this quote is not one of them.

No, this one is different.  This one he actually believes.  And this quote belies the subtle reason why no one should ever place academic economists in any position of influence or authority whatsoever.

And for anyone who might be tempted to believe this assertion, since Paul is, in fact, a Nobel Prize winning economist after all, here is a video of robots building other robots:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SREct28lJM