Powered by TypePad

« Tips For Powerful Writing | Main | Christmas Shopping At The Mall »

February 08, 2005



Maybe not mathematically impossible for the Orioles but on sports talk radio they're approaching that POV asymptotically. (Hat Tip: Kausfiles- not for the idea, just that use of the word)

And as for the KC Royals... I'll go ahead and say it. Mathematically impossible. Ditto the Devil Rays.

Mike J

Response to the Krugman Challenge from the lefty blogspehre:

Unlike Krugman, you have an obscene amount of reason and fact to back up your rantings. So much, that my eyes glazeth over. But that doesn't diminish the impact! If I listened to the posts instead of read them, I would be bludgeoned into a stupor by trying to grasp the concepts. Perhaps, since Krugman's supporters are, shall we say, deficient in cognitive faculties they have trouble even understanding your challenge?

When issuing such a call for feats of strength, perhaps you should lower your language to a more Kugman-ish level?

Love the site!

Fred Boness

Have you tried the anonymous economist at Angry Bear?


Helpful Link on Econ data

Thanks, I e-mailed him, yes. Incredibly, folks are not rushing up from the left to bash Krugman, although I have even helped them with the spin - since my revised low growth/high return forecast relies on higher corporate profitability, the new sound bite will be (once they have digested this) that "OF COURSE raising profitabilty raises the retrun on capital, anyone knows that, it was too obvious for Krugman even to mention.

And the reality is(they will go on), privatizers did not lie about the economy's growth prospects; they lied about justhow greedy and rapacious corporations would have to be to make this work.

It still spins, just a bit differently.

Well, they will get there. I don't know if I will win the Baker Cup (alluded to in Krugman's column).

Patrick R. Sullivan

Hmm. Max Sawicky links to Bruce Bartlett's lastest, where we can read:

"...the Social Security tax begins falling as a net contributor to federal revenues in 2008, when the surplus of Social Security taxes over benefits will peak at 0.8 percent of the gross domestic product. After that, this figure gradually falls to zero in 2018 and becomes negative thereafter."

I made it to be 2009, otherwise Bartlett's and my point, are identical. Funny that Max links to one, and ostracizes the other.

We'll see how long that point remains in his comments section. Maybe TM will want to place another bet?


So much, that my eyes glazeth over.

I'm getting numb myself, but I think we are down to the last day. Time permitting, I hope to claim the Dean Baker "No Economist's Left Behind" Cup (such cheek!) today, at which point, they will see the end of me.


OK, Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't your projected scenario for high profits in a low economic growth environment require price inflation to exceed wage inflation? Maybe I slept through too many economics classes, but I thought market pressures were supposed to prevent this from happening.

You are counting on companies to pass on profits from their reduced costs to investors rather than reducing prices to try to increase market share.

The comments to this entry are closed.