Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

FreeMarkets (41.10)

Krugman Admits Defeat!



May 03, 2012 – Comments (9)

The debate with Ron Paul obviously did not go well for our Keynesian defender.

Plus, Krugman's defense is wrong.

The income tax rate in 1944 was:


$0 - $2,000 23%
$2,000 - $4,000 25%
$4,000 - $6,000 29%
$6,000 - $8,000 33%
$8,000 - $10,000 37%

and in 1946


$0 - $2,000 19.00%
$2,000 - $4,000 20.90%
$4,000 - $6,000 24.70%
$6,000 - $8,000 28.50%
$8,000 - $10,000 32.30%

That's about a 20% cut in taxes across the board.


$0 - $4,000 16.60%
$4,000 - $8,000 19.36%
$8,000 - $12,000 22.88%
$12,000 - $16,000 26.40%
$16,000 - $20,000 29.92%

Another 10-20% cut.

See all the details here (download the Excel file).

9 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On May 03, 2012 at 8:49 PM, awallejr (35.47) wrote:

Would be more interesting to see a link showing the debate than of him whining about it.

Report this comment
#2) On May 03, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Option1307 (30.65) wrote:

Enjoy Fools:

Report this comment
#3) On May 03, 2012 at 9:45 PM, awallejr (35.47) wrote:

Thanks Option.  I don't understand what Krugman was complaining about, he had about equal time when face to face.  After the break it was a different segment with Ron Paul who afterall is still running for President.

Just a couple points.  Ron Paul is right about gold and silver not being allowed as a currency.  I doubt there have ever been any criminal actions brought against individuals doing a barter.  I remember  a PawnStar show (that, storage wars and American Pickers I find addicting), where a person wanted to sell a car to Rick but they couldn't come to terms.  Finally they agreed on a gold swap, but what Rick had to do was first buy the car for cash and then sell the gold equivalent back for the cash.

As a further aside I would never ever hope we go back to a gold/silver standard because the countries with the mines then become the powerhouses.

Another point was where Ron Paul was right about after World War II where the debt accumulated by deficit spending was slowly retired.  That is what should be done as per even a bunch of Binve threads.  During private contraction the public should step in to pick up the slack until the private sector starts to expand where then the public sector needs to pull back.  And that is what happened after WW2.

I want a Fed.  I want a Fed because I don't want those politicians in Congress to have free reign.  They created the Fed because they themselves couldn't trust themselves.

Report this comment
#4) On May 03, 2012 at 10:01 PM, devoish (64.32) wrote:


What are you trying to show with the tax rates. The top federal tax rat was 85% in 1946 on income over $200,000. Why are you only showing the lower tiers? Your link to Kugman's blog does not offer even a hint.

Bets wishes,


Report this comment
#5) On May 03, 2012 at 10:08 PM, awallejr (35.47) wrote:

Yeah I was wondering about that too.  Kind of ironic that during a period that is considered one of America's finest we had such high tax rates on the rich, yet now we are told how that is bad.

Report this comment
#6) On May 04, 2012 at 8:41 AM, FreeMarkets (41.10) wrote:

devoish - I'm simply pointing out that Krugman, who stated in his blog that Paul was wrong, was right.   That tax rates did come down after WWII.  Were they still high compared to today, absolutely, but Paul did not say in the debate that they weren't high, simply the gov't cut spending and taxes.


Report this comment
#7) On May 04, 2012 at 4:11 PM, devoish (64.32) wrote:

So what Paul is saying is that to increase revenues in 1941 the Federal government raised taxes to cover the increased spendng needed to fight off Italy, Japan and Germany and then afterward in 1945 the Government lowered taxes and revenue when those spending levels were no longer desired.

Best wishes,


Report this comment
#8) On May 04, 2012 at 4:43 PM, BlancheDuB (< 20) wrote:

Watched the debate. Frankly, I don't see how anyone could disagree with the fact that Krugman made the most sense and certainly "won" that debate. If he has a problem with the way the media runs these ridiculous yelling matches without the time for either side to present hard facts, then he's only voicing the same complaint we ALL have with today's poor excuse for "news and information" as provided by most networks. Our news media toay is a joke and a disgrace.

Report this comment
#9) On May 04, 2012 at 6:38 PM, awallejr (35.47) wrote:

Neither side "won" anything.  It wasn't really a debate but discussion between people of differing viewpoints.  I am not a Ron Paul groupie by any means but his viewpoints were understandable, just not ones I personally agree with.  Krugman's linked blog above, however, was idiotic in my opinion.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners