Search This Blog

Tuesday, May 02, 2006

The End is Near

The New York Times has been critical of the economy ever since Bush was elected president, though I'm sure that's just a coincidence. Through robust GDP growth numbers, rising productivity, increasing wealth, dropping unemployment, recording breaking corporate earnings growth, etc., the New York Times, with the help of their columnists such as economist Paul Krugman, has rarely, if ever, praised the economy in the last several years. Even before that, the New York Times was a pretty good contrarian index. Whatever they're saying, believe the opposite.

That's why I'm now worried. Much to my dismay, they've now used the word "boom" to describe the economy:
[T]he national economy continues to speed ahead, with families and businesses spending money at an impressive pace. Forecasters expect the Commerce Department to report this morning that the economy grew at a rate of around 5 percent in the first quarter, the biggest increase since 2003. [...]

Americans seem to have noticed the boom, too.
I'd say that's an indication of imminent collapse. Run for the hills!!!


Oroborous said...

I think that you're right, the NYTimes has probably called the near-top of this phase of the boom, simply by finally recognizing it.

The housing sector will stop supporting economic growth this year, and the Fed won't cut rates to start it up again.

My guess for 4th Q growth: 2% annual.

Please don't refer to Paul Krugman as an "economist".
While it is true that he used to be one, it couldn't be proved by his columns.

Further, since he used to be an economist, he must know that some of what he writes is counterfactual or representative of an unlikely scenario.
He is knowingly attempting to mislead - in other words, he's a liar who has betrayed the spirit and ethics of the academic environment whence he came.

Bret said...

Oroborous wrote: "Please don't refer to Paul Krugman as an "economist"."

Sorry, my mistake. :-)

Oroborous also wrote: "he's a liar who has betrayed the spirit and ethics of the academic environment whence he came."

Has he? I thought he was quite a good representative of ivory tower delusions and methods. When I think of academic environment I think of Politcal Correctness, Michael Bellesiles, Ward Churchill, Noam Chomsky, Larry Summers being forced out, Harvard divestiture of Israel, etc. Seems like Krugman's attitudes and methods fit right in. No?

Hey Skipper said...


Oroborous beat me to it. You failed to use scare quotes where they were clearly called for.

Oroborous said...

Sure, Krugman fits in with Ward Churchill, Noam Chomsky, and Harold Pinter, but I think of the latter three as mentally ill and/or con artists, not academicians.

Perhaps you're right, and Krugman is representative of academia, but I'd like to think that while Ivory Tower types might be misguided, out of touch, delusional, or simply wrong, they wouldn't routinely put forth arguments that they know to be completely false, as Krugman does.