It's the natural economic cycle at work.
LOL--the two are mutually exclusive.
well trained in economics
What's the old saw? Economists have predicted 11 out of the last four recessions?
LOL.....neither the NY Slimes nor Krugman can be considered a credible source. Under any circumstances!
Then he's a liar AND a hypocrite.
Intersting that we can tie the beginning of the last recession to a Democrat President, the end to a Republican President and the beginning of the next recession to a Democrat legislative majority.
Apparently, people with money don't like Democrats.
Krugman has been wrong on every prediction he has made since Bush got into office. I guess that comes from being a well trained economist. On the bright side, we will stop hearing about possible recessions once the Democrats officially take over. The economy will be great again.
This funny little tweak has been predicting economic catastrophe every month since the end of 2000. Statistically, he could hit it right if the Times stays in business long enough.
Since unemployment is at record lows, I think an increase at some point is likely. But even with an increase, it would qualify as full employment.
I frankly like having the nay-sayers and the bears around. If everyone agreed that the market was going up, risk would be considered zero, no one would sell, prices would go artificially high, and a bubble would eventually burst, bringing it crashing down.
Bless the bears and skeptics, whatever their agenda. We need them to moderate the market and bring sustained growth.
I'm never in bonds, in any case.
Keynes was a well-trained economist and he was always wrong. Krugman is a Keynesian.
That's all you need to know about Krugman.
Krugman has a very narrow area of expertise in which he is well respected. Outside of that area he is a flaming kook.
Yield curve inversion usually is an accurate predictor of a slowdown. Why? Banks borrow short (from depositors and other banks) and lend long. When the yield curve is inverted, spreads have to widen to make it economic to lend. This discourages borrowing by limiting it to entities with higher cashflow relative to the risk-free rate of return on assets.
Less borrowing -> slower economy
More like a throw-up burp.
Let's see ... 3rd quarter GDP growth has just been revised up, unemployment continues very low and real wage growth has now kicked in, the Conference Board's index of leading economic indicators are now pointing up (having gone sideways during the first part of the year), the stock market has been trending up strongly during the past three months, and yet Krugman is predicting iminent disaster. Why? Well, aside from the fact that he is extremly partisan, obviously suffers from some personality disorders, and hasn't published anything in a scholarly journal for some time now, it is because he has latched onto the correction that's taken place in the housing market.
During 2003 - 2004, housing prices were skyrocketing, due primarily to low interest rates and a very high Housing Affordability Index (130, where 100 is normal). Since then, interest rates have been returned to normal levels and - guess what? - the Housing Affordability Index has returned to normal (100), and demand for housing has simmered down.
To be sure, during the housing boom, some speculators were suckered in, on the Greater Fool Theory of investing (i.e., buy high, sell higher); and, as did some builders of spec homes. At this time, we have a glut (or, excess supply) of housing, and it is difficult to move inventory without taking a loss. Homeowners and developers are wondering if they should take the loss or hold onto their properties until prices rebound. In the long-run, the glut will be absored, and long-run trends in terms of population and income will restore housing to its usual attractive qualities as an investment. As to how long it will take us to get to the long-run is, truly, anybody's guess. But, here is what I will say about it: In view of the fact that the economy is performing as well as it is following the Fed's return of interest rates to their normal levels should encourage us as to the speed of the recovery in housing.
Krugman is a hack and a lousy excuse for an economist, but he is, unfortunately, right on with his reading of the yield curve.
Whenever the constant maturity Treasury yield for the 10 year exceeds the comparable rate for the 1 year, we are in trouble. This phenomenon has been occurring for over a year. A recession before the next presidential election is likely.
As to Krugman, even a stopped clock . . .
P.S. Krugman isn't fit to lick Friedman's boots.
Bust? I think Krugman's been lurking here and following the posts of our resident real estate doomer from the West coast. Maybe they're one and the same person.
Krugman is dying to get a Nobel prize in Economics and he thinks that bashing the Bush administration is the means to that end. Every year he's denied, he becomes more shrill and outspoken against our president, the economy, and anything else he believes will appeal to the committee. He's a pathetic little man who even gets his butt kicked by George Will whenever he shows up on ABC's This Week.
Krugman could care less about the truth and is only interested in bashing the current administration to appeal to the libs who control the Nobel nominations.
That requies a subscription and therefore will not be read
Then suddenly things are peachy again.
He may be safely ignored.