Ah, right - 50 seats.

Anyways, without that bonus it is unlikely Greece would ever see a government under the current conditions because the mainstream parties aren't going to go into coalition with the communists or golden dawn and Syriza doesn't want to go into coalition with anyone (they would much rather watch ND and Pasok swallow the olive here)

I think party affiliation is a lot more fluid at this point than you seem to, but yeah, if you assume the current vote distribution nobody's going to get a coalition without it.  I don't think Syriza is trying to avoid power, but they seem to be feuding with the communists and Democratic Left on personal and not ideological grounds, which isn't much better.

Messing with the voting process in order to produce large majorities seems to be parliamentary democracies' version of the ever-increasing power of the executive; it can only really be fixed when you're in power and once you're in power it's so tempting to keep that it never really gets fixed.  I don't think much good comes from keeping the established government in power once it's become so corrupt that it can only draw 42% of the vote; it just makes their inevitable crash harder, and gives the often unprepared opposition more power to screw up the country without checks and balances when it's their turn.

Greece's electoral system seems to combine the worst features of parliamentary slate systems and direct winner take-all seat elections.  Like the former, the actual winning candidates are controlled by the parties, but like the latter, your vote doesn't count for all that much unless you limit your choice to the top two parties for strategic voting reasons.

It's odd Keyesianism didn't work for Carter. It's confusing that Keynsians who have spent decades condemning Reagan now attribute his economic success to Keynesianism.

It's strange that when predictions by Keynesians "who are always right" don't happen, those Keynsians and their infallible models are still always right.

It's puzzling Keynsians "who are always right" say the reason the $850 billion Obama stimulus failed was because it was "too small", were, prior to the stimulus being enacted, calling for a stimulus package of "4% of GDP, or $600 billion".

It's puzzling Keynsians "who are always right" say the reason the $850 billion Obama stimulus failed was because it was "too small", were, prior to the stimulus being enacted, calling for a stimulus package of "4% of GDP, or $600 billion".

It's perplexing that you left out his words "at least" and his repeated caveat that too big was better than too small.  Confounding, even.

It's bewildering that you overlooked his opinion once the details of the stimulus were released.

Krugman writes "The widely cited estimates of Mark Zandi of Economy.com indicate a multiplier of around 1.5 for spending"

I find it strange Krugman thinks a multiplier of 1.5 for spending is real because it is widely cited (given his statist inclinations I don't find it strange he thinks government spending is substantially better than tax cuts). Stranger still is Krugman himself, he seems headed for the looney bin.

Krugman calls for a $600 billion stimulus. Then he complains a $775 billion stimulus is "too small". Then when the stimulus turns out to be $831 billion, that's also "too small". Of course, that $831 billion is only the government spending labelled stimulus - what about all the other government spending? By Keynsian logic it should have a multiplier of 1.5 as well.

Krugman called for a $600 billion spending stimulus.  He then complained that greater amounts that were mostly tax cuts and spread across multiple years were too small.  You don't have to agree with him (clearly you don't), but you shouldn't need to misrepresent his position to argue against him.

I didn't misrepresent anything.

If I said the pool should be at least 5 ft in depth to accommodate cripples, and you represented my statement as saying that only 5 ft was needed, then that would be a misrepresentation.

If you said that, then after the pool was built 10ft deep you then claimed it wasn't deep enough, that would be Krugmanish.

Right, but the limitation is only one way/direction and nothing wrong with that. I can say I want a pool that is at least 5ft and don't really care how deep it gets after that. Nothing wrong with what Krugman said in that regard. He put a limitation on how small it should've been, not how big it should've been.

Now if he said that the stimulus should be between 600 billion and 800 billion, and then later on he said that even 800 billion wasn't big enough then he would be a tool. Well he would be a tool if he didn't correct his mistake, if he didn't say "oh shit I was wrong, it shouldve been much greater than 800 billion."

One cannot correctly represent what one does not understand to begin with. Since you choose not to understand what Krugman intends (much as your soul-mate Zyx chooses not to understand viewpoints he doesn't agree with and looks for ways to deconstruct what others say to him), your misrepresentations of Krugman's opinions come naturally, without any special artifice on your part.

If only everyone understood Keynesianism as well as you do, there would be no Keynesians, just as if everyone understood "Science" as well as you do, we would all be racialists.

I didn't misrepresent Krugman. You lie about my statements, you lie to yourself about racial differences.

Krugman didn't get what he wanted from Obama's stimulus, quantitatively or qualitatively. He wanted $600+ billion in government expenditures on infrastructure and other such immediately (or certainly within one year), but much of what ended up being called stimulus was tax cuts rather than direct government spending, and those tax cut numbers were for multiple years not for just one, reducing their immediate impact. Furthermore, Krugman complained about what he disliked about Obama's plan as soon as he heard about it, as has already been pointed out to you. Yet you persist in saying that Krugman only wanted $600 billion but then didn't think $800 billion enough as if you don't have any idea what he was actually advocating. Thus, people naturally think you have been misrepresenting Krugman.

But misrepresenting involves some element of intent. I don't think you misrepresent Krugman because you intend to, I think you misrepresent him because you can't help it.

Racial differences exist. Their significance seems to vary based on eyes of beholders.

Your statements generally speak for themselves. No one needs to lie about them.

As everyone who knows government works understands, spending on infrastructure can't happen immediately.

"Krugman complained about what he disliked about Obama's plan as soon as he heard about it"

Yes, he hedged a lot, so he could later claim he was right no matter what happened. You people act as if Krugman's deliberate imprecision means he should be given the benefit of the doubt, when actually it should be held against him.

"Racial differences exist. Their significance seems to vary based on eyes of beholders."

You're baby stepping novy!

"Spade-ready" projects were ostensibly available in all fifty states.

Us people knew what Krugman was saying to begin with, whereas you look for doubt to hold against him.

Perhaps you'd prefer that I step more firmly and add that racial differences among humans have no significance at all compared to differences between all humans and those aliens you keep posting stories about.

Shovel ready projects were, as everyone realizes now, a myth. I predicted the stimulus wouldn't work. I correctly pointed out that infrastructure projects take a long time to implement. Krugman's being surprised such projects would be delayed by assorted bureaucratic requirements and labor and environmental regulations that he himself is in favor of is hilarious.

"racial differences among humans have no significance at all"

Liberals assert that over and over, but it doesn't change reality.

You say "I predicted the stimulus wouldn't work" even as America's economy, like China's, has been doing much better than Europe's, where austerity and fiscal conservatism got their test and failed. Or would you say European-style double-dip recessions were to be preferred after all?

So you figure you have more in common physically, mentally, and morally with space aliens than you do with non-whites? 'Nuff said.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Great chart. Of course, you didn't look at it very carefully, did you? First, it starts in 2002, before Europe had any financial problems. Second, you didn't choose to mention that expenditures in Italy and Britain have been flat for two years while in Spain and Greece they have been declining during that period. Third, that chart doesn't compare European spending increases with those in America or China, or even in other EU countries like Latvia.

Your chart was titled "Fiscal Austerity in Europe Doesn't Mean Large Spending Cuts". Everyone knows about "fiscal austerity in Europe" except you and soul-mate.

Spending increases aren't austerity.

"Third, that chart doesn't compare European spending increases with those in America or China, or even in other EU countries like Latvia."

The poor chart can only do so much.

"in Spain and Greece they have been declining during that period"

Those countries are broke. Both have spent money on infrastructure projects Keynesians claim are what drives economic growth.

Spending increases mostly took place before "austerity", not after. Look at your chart again.

That's some pretty severe austerity there, actually flat spending.  Golly gee, if government spending is growing at least a couple of points higher than GDP, it's austerity!  Oh, wait, it looks like they're still managing that .  Looks like GDP plus 3% or so.  I wonder why the mean old Germans don't want to give, I mean lend, them anymore money?

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

"[G]ive, I mean lend" (at relatively high interest), I mean print them more money.

What "austerity"?

Conservative governments in Germany, France (until recently) and Britain have been pushing all of Europe toward austerity, per their own statements.

"[P]ushing all of Europe toward prosperity"? When will they actually get there?

Did you intend to confute "austerity" with "prosperity"?

They won't get there with austerity.

No, I meant when will they actually implement an austerity plan?

Not yet in Greece, to be sure.

But you said that austerity had been tested and failed.

In other countries, as already mentioned.

Such as?

See #81.

You said "pushing towards." I quite reasonably asked whether the pushing had got anyone anywhere.

Has it?

See #77.

What viewpoint do you imagine I do not understand?

"What viewpoint do you imagine I do not understand?"

This simple, elegant, and revealing question almost made my morning, which shows you how slow things have gotten lately. But how should I respond to it? I pondered this matter for some time.

1. I could brush him off with another barely-comprehensible numerical joke/ insult. I rejected this approach because if he didn't understand 8.8 there was no hope of him catching anything more obscure, and because what fun would it be to ignore one of TnT's celebrities?

2. I could spend time going over his many previous disagreements with (dismissals of) me and others (Thalia jumps to  mind) in which he did his best to look like he had no comprehension of his opponent's viewpoint other than to dismiss it. But to what avail? Since he "understands" others' viewpoints like stone walls "understand" (go ahead, prove that they don't), presenting him with examples would merely invite reargumentation of things that should be allowed to pass.

3. I could note that lawyers have been trained to speak out of both sides of their mouths, and that claims that they understand all viewpoints amount to professional puffery. But Zyx denies any legal training, let alone involvement in this profession. Sure, he claims to know more than lawyers about legal matters, and I could ask him if he wants to change his mind about what he chooses to reveal about his education, but this approach probably doesn't get very far or go anywhere particularly interesting.

4. I could chastise Zyx for jumping into soul-mate Alf's discussion, as he so often does, as if he has forgotten who was having that particular conversation, and I could harass him (as Alf so recently harassed me) about keeping stories straight, but Zyx never falls for that bait. Thus, even brief mentions do as much good as long tirades.

5. I could concentrate on why I was awestruck when I read this question to begin with. I decided to go with this approach because it had more potential for amusement than those others. On, then, with my response:

I found myself thinking about this woman I knew who once said "I have never felt guilty about anything I've ever said or done in my entire life." My first reaction was that she was sociopathic, before I considered more likely explanations like lying and/or self-delusion. But her statement was no more ridiculous than claims that, e.g., "I have never sinned" (even as Jesus said, correctly, that "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God") or "What viewpoint do you imagine I do not understand?"

I hope Zyx can come up with some viewpoints that he can't understand on his own upon further reflection, but I won't be surprised if he can't. After all, can God make something so heavy that He can't lift it?      

Or you could give an example or two.

See subparagraph 2 of post 66.

Why you don't admit that you can't think of any examples?

Because it wouldn't be true, but as mentioned, why do I want to reargue any of these things with you when you won't budge on anything ever?

What need to "budge"? You said that I choose "not to understand viewpoints" I do not agree with. That is a calumny that I could easily dispense with if you were honorable enough to give an example or two in order that I may demonstrate understanding.

You said there was no viewpoint you couldn't understand. We need go no further from there. That you don't acknowledge how outrageous your statement was won't make it go away.

You said there was no viewpoint you couldn't understand

Would you prefer I requote you again and again?

If it was in this discussion, just refer to the comment number. Otherwise, give a link, please.

Thanks.

64.

You believe I am Shy Elf?

I tried to post #65 but missed, then tried to post correction which doesn't seem to have been posted.

Comment #65 was a question, not a statement.

Your question had implications.

Indeed. The implication was that if I had in fact be unable to understand certain viewpoints, you could give examples.

Can you?

Wait. OMG. Did I actually insult you? Calumny?

I most humbly apologise, since I know you and your fans would never hurl calumnies at someone like me (say, just for entertainment's sake or to puff up your own already overinflated egos). Calumny!

Next I'll be accusing you of fallibility. What nerve!

I said Keynesianism works better than other approaches, like austerity, and you respond that it doesn't always work. Yes, I know. Austerity doesn't always work either, Latvia and its neighbours notwithstanding.

Reagan himself admitted his Keynesianism, and noted that "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The party left me."

Your noble struggle against Keynesian omniscience has been duly noted, and I think that straw man may be well and truly dead.

I think of economics as more art than science, more like astrology than chemistry. When things go wrong economically, Keynesians and fiscal conservatives alike come up with knee-jerk policy responses based on their prejudices and preexisting inclinations, and neither side will ever admit that their policy opponents have anything useful to say.

It should be noted, though, that even when physicists "who are always right" make predictions that don't happen, physicists' "infallible models are still always [deemed to be] right", mostly because they don't have any better models yet. Maybe someday there will be better economic models too.      

I guess Joseph Stiglitz is wrong.

In what respects? (I.e., how did I contradict Stiglitz?)

You didn't. I was being sarcastic about everyone else.

There is no evidence Keynesianism (something I don't get the sense you actually know much about) hasn't ever worked.

Krugman now claims Reagan successfully implemented Keynesiansim. Yet in 2000 he wrote:

nothing extraordinary happened to the U.S. economy during the Reagan years. Well before the events of the 80's, scenarios of disinflation had become standard exercises in the macroeconomics textbooks. In these scenarios, an initial period of rising unemployment and slow or negative growth would be followed by a period of rapid, non-inflationary growth and falling unemployment, with the unemployment rate ending up about where it started. And that's just what happened.

Considering that you probably sense that Nobel Prize-winner Krugman doesn't know much about Keynesianism either, I will take your remark as unintentionally complimentary.

"There is no evidence Keynesianism ... hasn't ever worked." Sounds right, if not necessarily what you intended.

Krugman can't keep his stories straight. You have that in common with him.

Another unintentional compliment!

All this pleasantry hasn't been in response to my recent dark turn toward anti-Semitism (per Ace), has it?

I have no idea what you are babbling about.

I was just checking to see if you read anyone's stuff but your own (and Zyx's). No surprises or anything.

What were you trying to say with that link, though?

Yeah, yeah, we all know Carter's spendthrift Keynesianism caused stagflation right?  Look at that debt explode under Carter!  And we didn't have stagflation before Carter, did we?

A year or two ago it was generally expected that extensive slack in resource use, such as we have been experiencing, would lead to significant moderation in the inflationary spiral. This has not happened, either here or abroad. The rules of economics are not working in quite the way they used to. Despite extensive unemployment in our country, wage rate increases have not moderated. Despite much idle industrial capacity, commodity prices continue to rise rapidly."

-- Arthur Burns on stagflation, July 1971.

Regarding Reagan's putative Keynesianism, certainly he initiated a massive fiscal stimulus at a time when the economy was in recession, which Keynes would generally agree with, but he did it a time of high inflation and high real interest rates, when Keynes would have believed monetary policy would have been the better tool, and he continued it long after it ceased to be necessary.  Whether that is Keynesianism depends very much on what you compare it to.  If you compare it to the Republican Party's modern Liquidationism,  yeah, the glass is half full, and it looks like Keynesianism.

How dare Krugman see the glass as half full at times and half empty at others!  What in inconsistent idiot!

Spending growth was higher under Carter than it was for Reagan.

"Whether that is Keynesianism depends very much on what you compare it to...How dare Krugman see the glass as half full at times and half empty at others"

As noted above, Krugman until now has claimed Reagan's policies were inconsequential, if not harmful. Only in defense of Obama's profligacy did Reagan become a shining Keynesian success story.  

"If you compare it to the Republican Party's modern Liquidationism"

It would be nice if that were the case.

And deficits don't matter (and never did)? I didn't realise you were that fond of Bush 43.

Reagan spent too much. Bush spent way too much. My views on deficits are consistent. Unlike Krugman.

...stock markets in Asia and America were rising and falling on every new rumour about Grexit...

When did stock markets cease to be "markets"?

No doubt markets other than equity markets exist. Why don't you tell everyone what you meant to say?

See comment #11.

See comments #15 and 39.

I saw those. I am puzzled why you mentioned equity markets. Do you know why you did that?

"Markets" include "equity markets" and movements of equity markets sometimes illustrate useful things.

Please explain how the movements of European equity markets illustrates the continued strength of the Euro.

"Which must explain why stock markets in Asia and America were rising and falling on every new rumour about Grexit, inspired in turn by Merkel's 'austerity' policies."
"Please explain how the movements of European equity markets illustrates the continued strength of the Euro."

I was talking about Grexit in particular, not "the continued strength of the Euro" in general, but you already know that.

I was talking about Grexit in particular, not "the continued strength of the Euro" in general...

I never really know what you mean to refer to. I guessed.

See comment #11.

I did, and last time you posted that as well, you cryptic commenter you. Alas I remain where I was previously since you never answer your own questions, suggesting #15 and #39 in response to your #40 mentioning #11, which you have now bounced back to me with #49, again mentioning #11.

I have begun to think that some numerical joke must be hidden in all this. First I tried multiplying 11 by 1.25 ("Subject") and got 13.75 (or 55/4, if you prefer), which really didn't do anything special for me. Then I divided and got 8.8! Well, I think you see what I mean.

What has comment #11 got to do with equity markets?

8.8, dude.

...the words Strong and German for a woman only about half your length...

Yes, Austria has been awfully quiet lately...... too quiet.

Demilitarization of the Coast Guard? WW2 Reparations from Germany? Very odd, indeed.

In a way they are getting reparations from Germany.