Charts that summarize what's wrong with America

[Mahdi]

What is there to tell? You don't even have a visage of a point, let alone a point. If the above needs explaining then you're best bet is to stick to liking posts. Or should I attach a rap song to persuade you?

well, at least attach a half decent rap song and not trinidad james. at least if you want to attach a "trendy" rap song, attach something by chief keef.

back to the topic...Gold being a long hedge against whatever it's supposed to be is funny because it doesn't make sense at all. You don't use a commodity to hedge it against a currency. That's just insane. Long run or short run. Otherwise you could also buy crude oil to hedge against the dollar or pork belly.

the second part is funny because well, you obviously seem to have no clue about what the S&P500 is. The S&P500 is a stock index. If you perform better than the S&P500, it means that you have performed better than a stock index, not that " that what he did was far better than what the top 500 companies, according to SP, did in the stock market.", whatever that's supposed to mean. And honestly, that's not even a big deal. My dad's uncle in Memphis does constantly by about 15% better than SP500, and I wouldn't call him a financial genius. Heck, I believe the monkeytrader does better than SP500. So really, I mean, IPride has proven with every post how much out of your depth you are on financial issues, and FFS, don't come up with something you learned on the internet. Whenever you work for a financial company like he does and whenever you know what the S&P500 is, and it's not "what the top 500 companies, according to SP, did in the stock market", please come and talk. As long as it's repeating half-assed half-knowledge picked up on the internet, while you're totally unaware of anything at the same damn time, it's not funny, it's just a waste of time.

 

[Kaz]

well, at least attach a half decent rap song and not trinidad james. at least if you want to attach a "trendy" rap song, attach something by chief keef.

But then, it wouldn't be "All Gold Everything".

back to the topic...Gold being a long hedge against whatever it's supposed to be is funny because it doesn't make sense at all. You don't use a commodity to hedge it against a currency. That's just insane. Long run or short run. Otherwise you could also buy crude oil to hedge against the dollar or pork belly.

Not so, it is a fiat currency. If you're of Paul's persuasion re the dollar then it is the best hedge. Paul also sees gold as money in itself, and not simply as a commodity to invest in.

the second part is funny because well, you obviously seem to have no clue about what the S&P500 is. The S&P500 is a stock index. If you perform better than the S&P500, it means that you have performed better than a stock index, not that " that what he did was far better than what the top 500 companies, according to SP, did in the stock market.", whatever that's supposed to mean. And honestly, that's not even a big deal. My dad's uncle in Memphis does constantly by about 15% better than SP500, and I wouldn't call him a financial genius. Heck, I believe the monkeytrader does better than SP500.

I know what it means, and its retarded that you thought I meant something else. When I said "according to SP", it is obviously how they've determined and weighted their index. The fact that you don't understand the relevance in the comparison shows you don't know understand what is being talked about. As a hedge - remember, Paul is using gold as an insurance policy - it outperformed what would be a considered a safe bet in the stock market by following the SP500.

Even if we were to measure Paul's portfolio performance by the best managers, it was still incredible. Peter Schiff, himself a very wealthy investment broker, went on to elaborate that fact - which you ignored, hence why I kept telling you to read that post in reply to FZ. But you're so dumb you thanked a post in which the article claimed the very opposite of what you wish it said.

So really, I mean, IPride has proven with every post how much out of your depth you are on financial issues, and FFS, don't come up with something you learned on the internet. Whenever you work for a financial company like he does and whenever you know what the S&P500 is, and it's not "what the top 500 companies, according to SP, did in the stock market", please come and talk. As long as it's repeating half-assed half-knowledge picked up on the internet, while you're totally unaware of anything at the same damn time, it's not funny, it's just a waste of time.

No offence, but the day I take advise on economics or even finance (which is not something I've studied in depth) from you is the day I'll need to be committed. To have you post the above is funny and insulting at the same time. Dude, I've never seen a person get involved in as many discussions and be repeatedly embarrassed (as well as embarrassing himself) as often as you have. Your jostles with people who are that much smarter than you is a source of amusement for many on this site. That you haven't been called out as often as you should be is a testament to their patience. Or perhaps, they like laughing at you in secret, I dunno. Get a grip son, no one gives two shits about what you think.

 

[Mahdi]

Not so, it is a fiat currency. If you're of Paul's persuasion re the dollar then it is the best hedge. Paul also sees gold as money in itself, and not simply as a commodity to invest in.

I really don't give a damn what Ron Paul sees or what his persuasion is. Gold is a commodity. it's traded as a commodity, it's dealt as a commodity, it is a commodity. Indians see cows as holy animals. The world enjoys steak and burgers. I love dry aged steak.

I know what it means, and its retarded that you thought I meant something else. When I said "according to SP", it is obviously how they've determined and weighted their index.

Aehm...no...
Nevermind, I have the excuse for English as my third language but it's your first language and the language you did most of your study and academic life in it. If you write something wrong but mean the right thing and you don't get it after the third notice, then maybe you should just let it be. So pick your poison...your English sucks or you have no clue about the S&P500. No other choices really.

As a hedge - remember, Paul is using gold as an insurance policy - it outperformed what would be a considered a safe bet in the stock market by following the SP500.

He's not using it as a HEDGE. Please learn what a hedge is. A hedge is an investment position intended to offset potential losses that may be incurred by a companion investment. The dollar might lose in value as it did in the 80ies without the gold price picking up since there's no demand for it, or the dollar might gain value compared to other currencies and so does gold. They don't offset each other though. You might say that he's short dollars/long gold but that's not a hedge. Seriously...this is embarassing.

As for the rest....pot kettle black

 

[Kaz]

I really don't give a damn what Ron Paul sees or what his persuasion is. Gold is a commodity. it's traded as a commodity, it's dealt as a commodity, it is a commodity. Indians see cows as holy animals. The world enjoys steak and burgers. I love dry aged steak.

Rinse and repeat is your game, well who would have thought.

Aehm...no...
Nevermind, I have the excuse for English as my third language but it's your first language and the language you did most of your study and academic life in it. If you write something wrong but mean the right thing and you don't get it after the third notice, then maybe you should just let it be. So pick your poison...your English sucks or you have no clue about the S&P500. No other choices really.

Genius, there is nothing wrong with the English there but that you chose to interpret it in a fashion that conveniently makes no sense. To be frank, when you asked your smartarse question I knew you had interpreted it wrong but wanted to make a fool out of you for having to explain it to you. I'm mean, I guess.

He's not using it as a HEDGE. Please learn what a hedge is. A hedge is an investment position intended to offset potential losses that may be incurred by a companion investment. The dollar might lose in value as it did in the 80ies without the gold price picking up since there's no demand for it, or the dollar might gain value compared to other currencies and so does gold. They don't offset each other though. You might say that he's short dollars/long gold but that's not a hedge. Seriously...this is embarassing.

As for the rest....pot kettle black

Wiki warrior: "A hedge is an investment position intended to offset potential losses/gains that may be incurred by a companion investment." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedge_(finance)

A hedge is, read the 2nd line of that wiki "In simple language, a hedge is used to reduce any substantial losses/gains suffered by an individual or an organization." Or even more simply put: a hedge is a bet you make to offset loss. That you're too stupid or purposefully ignorant doesn't help your case any. Gold is used as a hedge against inflationary policies (and are more desirable than bonds if you think the currency in question is bound to fail, as Paul does). Saying that "the gold might lose value as in the 80s" misses Paul's position on why he backs Gold: he knows that in the long run it is going to retain value and beat out the fiat currency. Even if you're too stupid to understand his logic, you have to be aware that it is still his logic and if you hold that fiat currencies will always fail you'll want something tangible and which keeps its value - i.e. Gold.

 

[Mahdi]

Gold is used as a hedge against inflationary policies (and are more desirable than bonds if you think the currency in question is bound to fail, as Paul does).

Really...either gold or bonds to "hedge" against inflation and falling currencies but gold is more desirable?


:yaay:

he knows that in the long run it is going to retain value and beat out the fiat currency. Even if you're too stupid to understand his logic, you have to be aware that it is still his logic and if you hold that fiat currencies will always fail you'll want something tangible and which keeps its value - i.e. Gold.

Yes, I am too stupid to understand his "logic" as there's neither evidence, nor academic support nor anything else that backs it up. But since you believe that bonds are considered a "hedge" against inflation, I don't have much more to say.

 

[Kaz]

LOL, there is no academic support. So no one has written on failing fiat currencies and the consistency of gold in retaining value? Look who I'm arguing with for christ's sake.

 

[Mahdi]

you are well aware though that pork bellies are a much better "hedge" against a failing currency and inflation, right? You could buy pork belly futures deliverable, wait for armageddon and hyperinflation to strike, since no one will have money, you will be able to trade the pork bellies for goods since people will be hungry and need meat to eat and you could end up the richest person ever just by having lots of pork bellies. At least, history tells us that in the Weimar Republic after the Reichsmark failed, people started to trade goods instead of gold, simply as in a failing economy gold is of no value and you will either end up selling your gold undervalued or people have no use for it.

So aehm...pork bellies it is then...

 

[Mahdi]

LOL, there is no academic support. So no one has written on failing fiat currencies and the consistency of gold in retaining value? Look who I'm arguing with for christ's sake.

no one has written yet about a failing dollar and gold being a "hedge". Even if he has written one, it's a 2 minute bloomberg graph away from being ridiculed and thrown in the bin by empiric evidence.

other fiat currencies were not the dollar and hence pretty irrelevant for the discussion.

I'm off trading pork bellies.

 

[Kaz]

you are well aware though that pork bellies are a much better "hedge" against a failing currency and inflation, right? You could buy pork belly futures deliverable, wait for armageddon and hyperinflation to strike, since no one will have money, you will be able to trade the pork bellies for goods since people will be hungry and need meat to eat and you could end up the richest person ever just by having lots of pork bellies. At least, history tells us that in the Weimar Republic after the Reichsmark failed, people started to trade goods instead of gold, simply as in a failing economy gold is of no value and you will either end up selling your gold undervalued or people have no use for it.

So aehm...pork bellies it is then...

But what if we're all forced to live in the middle-east due to climate change-induced disaster?

Mate, do you even know if you're coming or going? I mention bonds which can be used to hedge against inflation (i.e. TIPS) and its insinuated I'm wrong. When IPride mentions it, he gets a bj. It's not fair.

 

[Kaz]

no one has written yet about a failing dollar and gold being a "hedge". Even if he has written one, it's a 2 minute bloomberg graph away from being ridiculed and thrown in the bin by empiric evidence.

other fiat currencies were not the dollar and hence pretty irrelevant for the discussion.

I'm off trading pork bellies.

A hedge is a bet you make to offset some other loss. If you think that by holding dollars - a fiat currency - you aren't going to retain your wealth due to an inflationary policy your government has been adopting for decades, then you can offset that by obtaining a commodity which has been shown very consistent in keeping its value. If you want more literature on this just visit the Mises institute site.

Or, even your own favourite Wiki can point you the right way:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_as_an_investment
"Of all the precious metals, gold is the most popular as an investment.[1] Investors generally buy gold as a hedge or harbor against economic, political, or social fiat currency crises (including investment market declines, burgeoning national debt, currency failure, inflation, war and social unrest). "

 

[Mahdi]

But what if we're all forced to live in the middle-east due to climate change-induced disaster?

We're talking US...but you can also trade live cattle, lean hogs or feeder cattle

Mate, do you even know if you're coming or going? I mention bonds which can be used to hedge against inflation (i.e. TIPS) and its insinuated I'm wrong. When IPride mentions it, he gets a bj. It's not fair.

You didn't mention TIPS though and TIPS are pretty useless when you're running at hyperinflation or the kind of inflation buying gold against people argue about. Nice try

 

[Kaz]

We're talking US...but you can also trade live cattle, lean hogs or feeder cattle

You didn't mention TIPS though and TIPS are pretty useless when you're running at hyperinflation or the kind of inflation buying gold against people argue about. Nice try

I mentioned bonds. TIPS are bonds that are inflation-indexed. Read more Wiki.

"Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (or TIPS) are the inflation-indexed bonds issued by the U.S. Treasury."

The bolded part is my whole disagreement with IPride. That someone like Paul, or anyone who has his kind of worries re inflation and the currency, doesn't buy bonds.

 

[Mahdi]

A hedge is a bet you make to offset some other loss. If you think that by holding dollars - a fiat currency - you aren't going to retain your wealth due to an inflationary policy your government has been adopting for decades, then you can offset that by obtaining a commodity which has been shown very consistent in keeping its value. If you want more literature on this just visit the Mises institute site.

Oh, the Mises institute...nice..

But I thought that Paul and his mates are betting against the dollar and against bonds. Reading his portfolio, he neither has too many stocks nor t-notes. So he's not hedging it but rather being short real life, long gold. You might argue that he's investing in gold and hedging the potential loss through the other assets, but gold is not a hedge in any shape or form for what he does. If you don't get it, then apply for an internship at Macquarie or whatever. They are actually a half decent investment bank so you might learn a thing or two.

Or, even your own favourite Wiki can point you the right way:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_as_an_investment
"Of all the precious metals, gold is the most popular as an investment.[1] Investors generally buy gold as a hedge or harbor against economic, political, or social fiat currency crises (including investment market declines, burgeoning national debt, currency failure, inflation, war and social unrest). "

if you are in a war, or social unrest, or your currency has just failed, or your national debt surges, your gold becomes pretty irrelevant as you can't deal it for anything worthy. most people will start trading goods, has happened before during the Weimar Republic. No one ever started to trade with gold or those who did, sold it under its value.

I mentioned bonds. TIPS are bonds that are inflation-indexed. Read more Wiki.

LOL!

 

[Kaz]

Oh, the Mises institute...nice..

But I thought that Paul and his mates are betting against the dollar and against bonds. Reading his portfolio, he neither has too many stocks nor t-notes. So he's not hedging it but rather being short real life, long gold. You might argue that he's investing in gold and hedging the potential loss through the other assets, but gold is not a hedge in any shape or form for what he does. If you don't get it, then apply for an internship at Macquarie or whatever. They are actually a half decent investment bank so you might learn a thing or two.

His portfolio is for the long-term and, if I've read somewhere else, it is for his grandchildren. The very article that FZ posted quotes Bernstein, an investment manager, who himself says that "Rep. Paul’s portfolio protects against only one of [the possible doomsday scenarios for the U.S. economy and financial markets]: unexpected inflation accompanied by a collapse in the value of the dollar".

I'd rather poke my eyes out than work at an investment bank. Having said that, it'll probably happen.

if you are in a war, or social unrest, or your currency has just failed, or your national debt surges, your gold becomes pretty irrelevant as you can't deal it for anything worthy. most people will start trading goods, has happened before during the Weimar Republic. No one ever started to trade with gold or those who did, sold it under its value.

That's true, but it depends when you start trading your gold and to whom you trade it. Whether you think it'll work or not after-the-fact is not my concern. I am merely arguing that if you believe what Paul thinks re inflation and the currency then backing Gold makes sense.

LOL!

What's so funny now? Do we have to send a letter to Wiki?

 

[IPride]

Now, whether mining companies' stock continues to rise or not, its not so relevant if you are investing in gold as a hedge against inflation. To go to one extreme: if all gold reserves were found, gold mining companies are then irrelevant. They may go all under. It doesn't mean the precious metal won't retain value or even increase. And they have. Even if you were to maintain the stocks have stagnated, in the last 3-4 years the price of gold has gone from ~$900 to ~1600.

You've essentially shifted the debate as to gold being a viable hedge; to how gold producers are doing. In such an industry that correlation is not definitive. As I said: there could be no reserves and no gold mining companies at one point...at that point the value of gold will be even higher. Your own graph shows this phenomena. Look at the first graph; as gold discoveries dwindle the value of gold goes up.

I have been quite clear all a long why I brought up the discussion around gold companies not doing all that well- it was to drive the point that gold prices have been going up to large extent because it's getting more difficult to extract gold not because of anticipation for a currency dooms day as you and other Ron Paulists go around claiming.

You're being tedious for the sake of scoring points. Throughout my posts I've talked about certain periods where gold didn't do well - I am well aware there is risk. I was generalising considering the fact that when you take 100s of years as a sample (and not just a decade or two) that Gold holds its value against the currency and even goes up. It's a pretty damn sure bet that you're not gonna lose in the long run.

In the long-run we're all dead - most ordinary people have investment horizons less than 20-30 years. The person who bought gold in 1980 and sold it 20 years later got burned pretty good.

If you want to be tedious: what if there is a stock market crash? Gold will almost always be viable because it is a precious metal that will exist forever. Companies wont. And if you think the government is dead-set on an inflationary policy, then you hedge against that. As Paul did, and he made a lot of money from. He outperformed the above 2 comfortably in that regard.

Read what I wrote above - What if there is a gold price crash? like the one in 1970s or the one in 1980s?
Gold may be around forever but its value could change for many reasons. 50% of the world's supply of gold is being used in Jewelry - what happens when people stop caring about jewelry? what happens if we start mining other planets and start finding much more precious metals to be used in jewelry?

Companies may come and go - but owning an index of the ones that survive or the ones that emerge is not betting on any particular company. Unless you're stating that at some point all companies may go away and there won't be any enterprise left, in which case if you're investing in gold in anticipation of armagadon's day there are many many other things you should be doing like digging bunkers, owning guns, and acquiring machines that filter your piss into water.

Bottom line is that one ounce of gold is just as arbitrary gauge for value as is one-unit of confidence in the federal reserve. Except the latter allows for flexible policy making to avert or react to recessions. It because of feds more control over the money supply that we've been able to have fewer recessions over recent times.

 

[Mahdi]

I'd rather poke my eyes out than work at an investment bank.

What's so funny now? Do we have to send a letter to Wiki?

The funny part is that you should maybe try to poke your eye. TIPS make a lot of sense for normal to slightly awkward inflation on 4-10% level and with 10% I'm being generous. If we're taking the doomsday scenario of 30-40% inflation or Argentina inflation levels, then TIPS bonds will be the first the United States will default on or any country for that matter. Worse, they will lose value and it will be incredible difficult for you to unwind them as they will not be really popular on the market either. So knock yourself out to trade TIPS for a hyperinflation scenario.

 

[IPride]

I also found this article re Gold vs SP500. Pretty enlightening and opposes what you said re performance.

Thanks to the internet every dick, joe and harry is writing articles on matters they know little about.
He first ignores the 5% average annual dividend yield the S&P 500 has been returning to investors over the last 100 years, which if included significantly enhances S&P500's return vs. gold, then he shrinks the time horizon used to make his argument and then he ends his article saying investing in S&P500 has been a better investment if you actually want to use the capital preserved over your life time!!


Bottom line - Looking at the S&P500 to gold ratio. For most of the recent history its been a story of S&P massively outperforming gold.




The above doesn't even include the 5% annual yield the S&P500 has been returning to investors on top of the pure capital appreciation - there has been no asset class (that I know of) that has done as well.

 

[IPride]

I listened to the interview again and noticed he kind of whispered "other stuff", which I am assuming is a broader umbrella which you're using, before he mentioned barter. But there is a reason he mentioned barter; because as an ordinary exchange for the ordinary man no one is going to use repo...that's why he sheepishly said barter. Krugman won the Nobel Prize for a certain study he did, when it comes to macroeconomics he is ridiculed by other nobel laureates like Prescott and also leading economists like Robert Barro. So I wouldn't toot his horn. The fact that he made so many errors in that debate makes it even more embarrassing for him.

There is a clear mention of Repo in the interview - just shows you weren't even listening.

He won his Nobel Prize on international trade, which is considered macroeconomics. What are you talking about?

There are strong opinions around economics - specially in recent times salt water and fresh water economists have been clashing fiercly but to question an economist's knowledge of the basics especially when he has a Nobel prize under his belt stinks of desperation.
And if what other economists think of you should be used as a gauge, then you should know that most economists alive today view Keynes as the greatest and most influential economist of the 20th century - this is backed by a recent survey of 300 economists.

I'm going to stop arguing against stuff you find in Google.

 

[Kaz]

I have been quite clear all a long why I brought up the discussion around gold companies not doing all that well- it was to drive the point that gold prices have been going up to large extent because it's getting more difficult to extract gold not because of anticipation for a currency dooms day as you and other Ron Paulists go around claiming.

But that's what you think is why. Personally, I don't see how demand for jewelery has gold jumping from ~900 to ~1600 in a matter of a few years. And in many ways, its irrelevant; because the larger point about the consistency it has in retaining value. Has it? The answer is a resounding 'yes'.

In the long-run we're all dead - most ordinary people have investment horizons less than 20-30 years. The person who bought gold in 1980 and sold it 20 years later got burned pretty good.

Which is why its good to look at the intentions of those investing. People like Paul who fear inflationary policies and the currency going into the shitter realise it could happen in the next 10 years or the next 100. But they're convinced it will happen, regardless whether they benefit themselves or not. That's why they invest in gold.

Moreover, you're talking about someone like Paul - small government, hates government spending, etc. He'd not buy bonds simply off principle - so as not to give the government any more ways to spend money.

Read what I wrote above - What if there is a gold price crash? like the one in 1970s or the one in 1980s?
Gold may be around forever but its value could change for many reasons. 50% of the world's supply of gold is being used in Jewelry - what happens when people stop caring about jewelry? what happens if we start mining other planets and start finding much more precious metals to be used in jewelry?

Companies may come and go - but owning an index of the ones that survive or the ones that emerge is not betting on any particular company. Unless you're stating that at some point all companies may go away and there won't be any enterprise left, in which case if you're investing in gold in anticipation of armagadon's day there are many many other things you should be doing like digging bunkers, owning guns, and acquiring machines that filter your piss into water.

I've read quite a bit in the past day re why gold performed that way during the 70s and even then there are arguments, but I won't delve into that.

There can be what-ifs for many scenarios. But of the what-ifs we have to compare, the value of gold over history has been remarkably stable. Its a less dangerous what-if. And as far as Paul or people who share his persuasions are concerned: they'd much rather bet on gold than a fiat currency.

Bottom line is that one ounce of gold is just as arbitrary gauge for value as is one-unit of confidence in the federal reserve. Except the latter allows for flexible policy making to avert or react to recessions. It because of feds more control over the money supply that we've been able to have fewer recessions over recent times.

You state that as if its a fact. It's not, to quote our dear Friedman: "No major institution in the U.S. has so poor a record of performance over so
long a period as the Federal Reserve". Even though, it must be said, that he thought Greenspan did the best job in his tenure. The Austrians likewise purport the complete opposite of what you said. In general, the argument re the Fed is not to do with it having to be Gold, it could be anything, literally. Their argument that it is at least something; tangible, identifiable and not easily manipulated. The fact that the Fed works in total secrecy means that even if you were of the persuasion that as it exists it is fine, you don't actually know to whose ends the Fed is working towards. If gold is an arbitrary gauge, at least it is an objective arbitrary gauge.

 

[Kaz]

The funny part is that you should maybe try to poke your eye. TIPS make a lot of sense for normal to slightly awkward inflation on 4-10% level and with 10% I'm being generous. If we're taking the doomsday scenario of 30-40% inflation or Argentina inflation levels, then TIPS bonds will be the first the United States will default on or any country for that matter. Worse, they will lose value and it will be incredible difficult for you to unwind them as they will not be really popular on the market either. So knock yourself out to trade TIPS for a hyperinflation scenario.

I didn't say TIPS made any sense with regards to the 'doomsday scenario'. I said the opposite. Your strawman fails.

Thanks to the internet every dick, joe and harry is writing articles on matters they know little about.
He first ignores the 5% average annual dividend yield the S&P 500 has been returning to investors over the last 100 years, which if included significantly enhances S&P500's return vs. gold, then he shrinks the time horizon used to make his argument and then he ends his article saying investing in S&P500 has been a better investment if you actually want to use the capital preserved over your life time!!


Bottom line - Looking at the S&P500 to gold ratio. For most of the recent history its been a story of S&P massively outperforming gold.

The above doesn't even include the 5% annual yield the S&P500 has been returning to investors on top of the pure capital appreciation - there has been no asset class (that I know of) that has done as well.

Well I am not going to dispute the above because its getting into an area where I'm out of my element. Thought it was a good article, I will research more and ask questions and get back to you.

There is a clear mention of Repo in the interview - just shows you weren't even listening.

He won his Nobel Prize on international trade, which is considered macroeconomics. What are you talking about?

There are strong opinions around economics - specially in recent times salt water and fresh water economists have been clashing fiercly but to question an economist's knowledge of the basics especially when he has a Nobel prize under his belt stinks of desperation.
And if what other economists think of you should be used as a gauge, then you should know that most economists alive today view Keynes as the greatest and most influential economist of the 20th century - this is backed by a recent survey of 300 economists.

I'm going to stop arguing against stuff you find in Google.

Barro talks about Keynesian macroeconomics - I assume he is referring to the economic stimulus policies Krugman writes about. The moron didn't know the currency laws, and he still maintains the Fed didn't cause the great depression (after he cites Friedman who said it did and after Paul reminds him that even Bernanke accepted this fact), so if he doesn't know the basics its his problem. That he has a Nobel makes it worse. Funny stuff here.

I do use what other economists think as some kind of gauge but not the be-all and end-all. And why wouldn't I? I don't live in a vacuum where only the people I agree with are always right. Krugman has disgraced himself enough for me to ignore his two cents. Re Keynes; even guys like Friedman and Hayek - 'his adversaries' - both appreciate Keynes and his genius. But both contend he was ultimately wrong. It's one thing to appreciate his importance and stature and another to say he is still relevant. I think its fair to say that people have moved away from much of his teachings, and it is no longer the dominant economic school of thought - although many of his ideas are still prominent. Scientists generally regard Newton in the highest esteem, but Einstein's work superseded his.