If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   I'm just saying, are we sure Paul Krugman *doesn't* have an arctic base and a genetically-engineered pet lynx?   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 199
    More: Amusing, Paul Krugman  
•       •       •

4520 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Aug 2011 at 7:07 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



199 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-08-15 08:57:12 PM

Bob16: Remember all good cons "know" that teaching at one of the worlds top universities is a sure sign you know nothing about your area of study.


Unless you're an economics professor at the University of Chicago, that is.
 
2011-08-15 08:57:45 PM
Car_Ramrod
Krugman was a guest on CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" on Sunday. Speaking with Zakaria and Harvard economist Ken Rogoff, he made the same case he has been making for years--that deficits are not the top economic concern of the day.

I asked this in another thread and the only person who responded was someone on the same side of the argument as I:

What are the benefits of having a balanced budget in the immediate future?


Borrowing costs will rise and it will squeeze everyone.
 
2011-08-15 08:58:17 PM

notShryke: thomps: call me completely clueless. i didn't even realize that the majority of the iraq spend was based around active combat. i assumed most of it has been infrastructure building and peace-keeping.

Again: the entirety of expenses for the Iraq theater of operations (all costs, foreign and domestic) are roughly 85%+ logistical in nature. And I didn't say "active combat". I said "active combat zones and such". Do you cede the point or not?


i have no reason to argue it, no.
 
2011-08-15 09:00:06 PM

mcoctopus: Car_Ramrod
Krugman was a guest on CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" on Sunday. Speaking with Zakaria and Harvard economist Ken Rogoff, he made the same case he has been making for years--that deficits are not the top economic concern of the day.

I asked this in another thread and the only person who responded was someone on the same side of the argument as I:

What are the benefits of having a balanced budget in the immediate future?

Borrowing costs will rise and it will squeeze everyone.


What does this mean?
 
2011-08-15 09:02:06 PM
I can't believe you guys are screwing up a perfectly good "Watchmen" thread with your boring assed economics and history

/Needs moar giant blue dong
 
2011-08-15 09:02:22 PM
Krugman is the smartest man in his masturbatorium, and possibly the only one whos having any fun, albeit prematurely.
 
2011-08-15 09:05:28 PM

thomps: i have no reason to argue it, no.


Glad to hear it.

Continuing:

All of these costs were contracted with U.S. suppliers. Not just producing the rations, the infrastructure, the bullets, the fuel, etc. But shipping and delivering on-site: all domestic (with negligible exceptions).

The very notion that we "shipped money to Iraq" is sub-moronic. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars were and remain massive domestic spending (Keynesian!!!! ZOMG) programs.
 
2011-08-15 09:05:30 PM

Animatronik: Krugman is the smartest man in his masturbatorium, and possibly the only one whos having any fun, albeit prematurely.


if you're masturbating, does the concept of "premature" have any meaning? i'm just asking, you know, hypothetically.
 
2011-08-15 09:06:51 PM
Car_Ramrod
mcoctopus: Car_Ramrod
Krugman was a guest on CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" on Sunday. Speaking with Zakaria and Harvard economist Ken Rogoff, he made the same case he has been making for years--that deficits are not the top economic concern of the day.

I asked this in another thread and the only person who responded was someone on the same side of the argument as I:

What are the benefits of having a balanced budget in the immediate future?

Borrowing costs will rise and it will squeeze everyone.

What does this mean?


Think of it as APR. APR rising is not good.
 
2011-08-15 09:07:04 PM

Car_Ramrod: MeinRS6: That's not really it at all. Look at Greece. They have for many years spent more than they take in. This is an arc that leads to a crisis in all of your countries markets, its currency, jobs market, etc. So behaving in a responsible manner benefits all citizens by producing confidence in your markets, currency, and the over all health of your national economy.

I'm keeping this basic here because I don't feel like typing out all of the stuff that you can easily look up, but you must already know that there is a difference between having some debt and having debt that sucks up and destroys everything just to service it. There is benefit to having some debt, but there is zero benefit to destroying your country with a massive debt load because your politicians refuse to cut spending and keep promising the moon to everyone so that they will get re-elected.

You're not answering my question: Say Obama came out tomorrow and said, "You're right guys, let's not raise taxes, but instead cut spending to the bone in order to create a balanced budget." How would that help revive the middle class? How would that lower unemployment? How would that raise stagnant worker incomes?

The market had been performing beautifully over the past couple years, even with deficit spending. Over the past couple years, the dollar has been fluctuating regardless of spending.

I agree that long term debt is not sustainable. I'm talking about right now, fixing the course this country is on. How does balancing the budget get us going again?


Because announcing stable and responsible policies(and then actually following thru and carrying them out) increases confidence in the markets and the entire country. This leads to improvement in the economy, helping unemployment, reviving the middle class, etc. There is no magic button that a president can press to fix things. If that was the case, then they would all press it when things went in a ditch.

Obama has already pushed the button that Krugman wanted him to push, and that was spend trillions and add it all to the debt. That didn't work. Of course, now Krugman continues to argue that Obama didn't spend enough trillions and that's why it didn't work, so Krugman wants Obama to lean on that button hard again to see what will happen. That is not a stable or responsible policy at this point in time. If it had worked when Obama tried it before, then Obama and Krugman would be declared geniuses, but it simply did not work.
 
2011-08-15 09:07:51 PM

thomps: Animatronik: Krugman is the smartest man in his masturbatorium, and possibly the only one whos having any fun, albeit prematurely.

if you're masturbating, does the concept of "premature" have any meaning? i'm just asking, you know, hypothetically.


Only if you apply too much stimulus.

/Im here all week.
 
2011-08-15 09:09:00 PM
How do we know that he is not Mel Torme?
 
2011-08-15 09:09:40 PM

MeinRS6: Because announcing stable and responsible policies(and then actually following thru and carrying them out) increases confidence in the markets and the entire country. This leads to improvement in the economy, helping unemployment, reviving the middle class, etc. There is no magic button that a president can press to fix things. If that was the case, then they would all press it when things went in a ditch.


May I offer a somewhat abreviated version?

Secure businesses are far more inclined to invest in growth investments, the majority of which are new hires.
 
2011-08-15 09:09:48 PM
You know, maybe it doesn't have to be aliens. Maybe a fight against any impending cataclysm that required tremendous shared effort and sacrifice on the part of the human race would bring us closer together as both a nation and a species. Like climate change, maybe.

/Read that how you will....
 
2011-08-15 09:14:03 PM

brantgoose: Yes, yes, the Fortress of Solitude is lovely, but Norbini has been living in it for years


Is that Nouriel Roubini's supervillain nickname?

Speaking of supervillain-like behavior, have you heard of Roubini (or Norbini)'s wall of vaginas^?
 
2011-08-15 09:18:17 PM

notShryke: thomps: i have no reason to argue it, no.

Glad to hear it.

Continuing:

All of these costs were contracted with U.S. suppliers. Not just producing the rations, the infrastructure, the bullets, the fuel, etc. But shipping and delivering on-site: all domestic (with negligible exceptions).

The very notion that we "shipped money to Iraq" is sub-moronic. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars were and remain massive domestic spending (Keynesian!!!! ZOMG) programs.


i have a hard time believing that the majority of the money spent in iraq, including that spending made to american owned contractors, was circulated domestically. i can't find any source giving stats either way so i can't really argue, but it doesn't really address the larger point that the government multiplier for military spending tends to be much lower than infrastructure and service spending. (i'm not trying to move the goal posts, my google-fu crapped out on me and i can't find any sources to advance or cede my point aside from your assertion).
 
2011-08-15 09:18:39 PM

Bill_Wick's_Friend: How do we know that he is not Mel Torme?


Harry Anderson would have told us.
 
2011-08-15 09:26:21 PM
So for those keeping score at home: wars with Afghanistan and Iraq run up the deficit to dangerous levels.... which is good for the economy.

Liberal logic could be employed by Capt. Kirk to destroy evil robots.
 
2011-08-15 09:29:28 PM

notShryke: thomps: i have no reason to argue it, no.

Glad to hear it.

Continuing:

All of these costs were contracted with U.S. suppliers. Not just producing the rations, the infrastructure, the bullets, the fuel, etc. But shipping and delivering on-site: all domestic (with negligible exceptions).

The very notion that we "shipped money to Iraq" is sub-moronic. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars were and remain massive domestic spending (Keynesian!!!! ZOMG) programs.


This is only a small 12 billion, but I'll leave this here. (new window)
 
2011-08-15 09:29:35 PM

RolandGunner: So for those keeping score at home: wars with Afghanistan and Iraq run up the deficit to dangerous levels.... which is good for the economy.

Liberal logic could be employed by Capt. Kirk to destroy evil robots.


and Norway, with their higher taxes, has more entrepreneurs per capita than the US.
oh, and they also get a ton more benefits for the modest increase in taxes. (someone earning 500k pays 50k more than their counterpart in the US).
free heathcase, free education through grad school, a pension of 68% of their income and so on.

conclusion? the US government sucks at spending money. so why give them more to waste?
 
2011-08-15 09:36:16 PM
Well, now we know Rachel Maddow is a farker. She just made this exact point.
 
2011-08-15 09:40:35 PM

Martian_Astronomer: Maybe a fight against any impending cataclysm that required tremendous shared effort and sacrifice on the part of the human race would bring us closer together as both a nation and a species. Like climate change tea baggers, maybe.


a man can dream.


/most likely liberals will be the scapegoat
//just replace 'jew' with 'liberal' and you have the current political climate, right down to 'International liberals.'
 
2011-08-15 09:43:28 PM

Blathering Idjut: Car_Ramrod: Krugman was a guest on CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" on Sunday. Speaking with Zakaria and Harvard economist Ken Rogoff, he made the same case he has been making for years--that deficits are not the top economic concern of the day.

I asked this in another thread and the only person who responded was someone on the same side of the argument as I:

What are the benefits of having a balanced budget in the immediate future?

Shhhhh.

Don't mess with their anti-deficit paradigm. They have truthiness on their side.


I thought "deficits don't matter" was the Dick Cheney phrase?

I mean, when every single Democratic Senator (including Obama) voted against raising the debt ceiling in 2006, it was to tell Dick Cheney that, yes, deficits DO matter, right?
 
2011-08-15 09:45:41 PM

MrGMan: Blathering Idjut: Car_Ramrod: Krugman was a guest on CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" on Sunday. Speaking with Zakaria and Harvard economist Ken Rogoff, he made the same case he has been making for years--that deficits are not the top economic concern of the day.

I asked this in another thread and the only person who responded was someone on the same side of the argument as I:

What are the benefits of having a balanced budget in the immediate future?

Shhhhh.

Don't mess with their anti-deficit paradigm. They have truthiness on their side.

I thought "deficits don't matter" was the Dick Cheney phrase?

I mean, when every single Democratic Senator (including Obama) voted against raising the debt ceiling in 2006, it was to tell Dick Cheney that, yes, deficits DO matter, right?




Key phrase there.
 
2011-08-15 09:58:14 PM

DarnoKonrad: MrGMan: Blathering Idjut: Car_Ramrod: Krugman was a guest on CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" on Sunday. Speaking with Zakaria and Harvard economist Ken Rogoff, he made the same case he has been making for years--that deficits are not the top economic concern of the day.

I asked this in another thread and the only person who responded was someone on the same side of the argument as I:

What are the benefits of having a balanced budget in the immediate future?
.


ok, I will play.
what is the benefit of raising taxes on the successful? does it create any jobs? how does it improve the economy?

it does help balance the budget, but only if spending doesn't increase and people argue that it doesn't have an impact on the immediate future.
 
2011-08-15 10:01:07 PM

MeinRS6: Because announcing stable and responsible policies(and then actually following thru and carrying them out) increases confidence in the markets and the entire country. This leads to improvement in the economy, helping unemployment, reviving the middle class, etc. There is no magic button that a president can press to fix things. If that was the case, then they would all press it when things went in a ditch.

Obama has already pushed the button that Krugman wanted him to push, and that was spend trillions and add it all to the debt. That didn't work. Of course, now Krugman continues to argue that Obama didn't spend enough trillions and that's why it didn't work, so Krugman wants Obama to lean on that button hard again to see what will happen. That is not a stable or responsible policy at this point in time. If it had worked when Obama tried it before, then Obama and Krugman would be declared geniuses, but it simply did not work.


The Stimulus had ~$500 billion in actual spending, not all of it infrastructure. There was a couple hundred billion in tax breaks, too. It was not "trillions", and it was NOT what Krugman wanted. He wanted much more, in more focused infrastructure spending. Please stop repeating these lies.
 
2011-08-15 10:03:44 PM

notShryke: MeinRS6: Because announcing stable and responsible policies(and then actually following thru and carrying them out) increases confidence in the markets and the entire country. This leads to improvement in the economy, helping unemployment, reviving the middle class, etc. There is no magic button that a president can press to fix things. If that was the case, then they would all press it when things went in a ditch.

May I offer a somewhat abreviated version?

Secure businesses are far more inclined to invest in growth investments, the majority of which are new hires.


Why would businesses hire people if there is not increased demand? What business would spend that money for no reason?
 
2011-08-15 10:03:56 PM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Please. Where's Krugman going to get a giant psychic squid? In this economy? At this time of day?


I can get you a giant psychic squid by 5 o'clock. With nail polish.
 
2011-08-15 10:04:13 PM

Car_Ramrod: What are the benefits of having a balanced budget in the immediate future?


A sensible long-term plan to balance the budget through revenue increases and Medicare reform would demonstrate to the world that the United States is fiscally responsible. This means:

1) US Dollar continues to be a reserve currency
2) US Interest rates stay low
3) US can invest extra money in infrastructure and further health care reform
4) (possibly) Improve US GDP growth

So, yeah. Debt reduction would be a good thing. Of course, 10% unemployment, a broken health care system, and endless wars are far worse drags on the country. We should address those first.
 
2011-08-15 10:10:22 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: DarnoKonrad: MrGMan: Blathering Idjut: Car_Ramrod: Krugman was a guest on CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" on Sunday. Speaking with Zakaria and Harvard economist Ken Rogoff, he made the same case he has been making for years--that deficits are not the top economic concern of the day.

I asked this in another thread and the only person who responded was someone on the same side of the argument as I:

What are the benefits of having a balanced budget in the immediate future?
.

ok, I will play.
what is the benefit of raising taxes on the successful? does it create any jobs? how does it improve the economy?

it does help balance the budget, but only if spending doesn't increase and people argue that it doesn't have an impact on the immediate future.


First of all, don't answer my question with a question. That is diverting the attention from your inability to "play".

Secondly, using the word "successful" to describe the wealthy is extremely transparent and lame.

Third of all, it allows money that is not being used to be put into recovery efforts, or other improvements to the country. When companies are sitting on trillions in unused capital, it is not a bad idea to see that reinserted into the economy.

Fourthly, since taxes on the companies are only levied on profits, it actually spurs investment. If the money will be gone anyways, why not put it into your own business? That has a much more positive effect than merely creating "confidence in the market" without an increase in demand. (That demand can be caused by using raised taxes on the wealthy for Stimulus, which will aid the middle and lower classes, and that demand will increase business in the private sector.)
 
2011-08-15 10:11:27 PM

The Larch: Car_Ramrod: What are the benefits of having a balanced budget in the immediate future?

A sensible long-term plan to balance the budget through revenue increases and Medicare reform would demonstrate to the world that the United States is fiscally responsible. This means:

1) US Dollar continues to be a reserve currency
2) US Interest rates stay low
3) US can invest extra money in infrastructure and further health care reform
4) (possibly) Improve US GDP growth

So, yeah. Debt reduction would be a good thing. Of course, 10% unemployment, a broken health care system, and endless wars are far worse drags on the country. We should address those first.


I can agree with this.
 
2011-08-15 10:15:54 PM

Car_Ramrod: notShryke: MeinRS6: Because announcing stable and responsible policies(and then actually following thru and carrying them out) increases confidence in the markets and the entire country. This leads to improvement in the economy, helping unemployment, reviving the middle class, etc. There is no magic button that a president can press to fix things. If that was the case, then they would all press it when things went in a ditch.

May I offer a somewhat abreviated version?

Secure businesses are far more inclined to invest in growth investments, the majority of which are new hires.

Why would businesses hire people if there is not increased demand? What business would spend that money for no reason?




"Because supply side monetarists have decided to have so much money laying around, why not?" Not that either of those idiots you're replying to will grasp that, but that's been the underpinning of our economy since 1980. There's a very good reason interest rates are at zero percent.
 
2011-08-15 10:34:36 PM

Sgt. Pepper: MasterThief: cameroncrazy1984: How did the Great Depression finally end, again?

Between 62 and 78 million people (mostly non-Americans) were shot, stabbed, blown up, incinerated, nuked, gassed, vivisected, or simply died from disease, cold, or starvation.

The recovery from the Depression started well before 1939.


You mean the increased export of manufactured goods in a buildup among Europe, further enhanced a few years later by the industrial destruction of massive bombing raids in Europe? Oh wait, liberals believe the only variable in the economy is direct government spending.
 
2011-08-15 10:39:26 PM
So he is basically endorsing some false flag wars to ramp up military spending to save the economy.

Great. So Bush improved the economy! Those wascally Democwats just fudged it all up.
 
2011-08-15 10:46:29 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: ok, I will play.
what is the benefit of raising taxes on the successful? does it create any jobs? how does it improve the economy?

it does help balance the budget, but only if spending doesn't increase and people argue that it doesn't have an impact on the immediate future.


the revenue helps protect entitlements which are the life line of many people while balancing the budget. The money could be directed to infrastructure projects which are a more effective job creator then tax cuts.

Basically, cutting spending hurts more people and kills more jobs than raising taxes does. Wealth at the top doesn't create as much jobs as money being injected at the working class/middle class and working its way through the economy.
 
2011-08-15 10:46:39 PM

Car_Ramrod: MeinRS6: Because announcing stable and responsible policies(and then actually following thru and carrying them out) increases confidence in the markets and the entire country. This leads to improvement in the economy, helping unemployment, reviving the middle class, etc. There is no magic button that a president can press to fix things. If that was the case, then they would all press it when things went in a ditch.

Obama has already pushed the button that Krugman wanted him to push, and that was spend trillions and add it all to the debt. That didn't work. Of course, now Krugman continues to argue that Obama didn't spend enough trillions and that's why it didn't work, so Krugman wants Obama to lean on that button hard again to see what will happen. That is not a stable or responsible policy at this point in time. If it had worked when Obama tried it before, then Obama and Krugman would be declared geniuses, but it simply did not work.

The Stimulus had ~$500 billion in actual spending, not all of it infrastructure. There was a couple hundred billion in tax breaks, too. It was not "trillions", and it was NOT what Krugman wanted. He wanted much more, in more focused infrastructure spending. Please stop repeating these lies.


What is the total amount that the national debt has increased since Obama took office? And I already said that Krugman wanted more. And the Japanese already showed that gov't spending on infrastructure is not some magic bullet. In fact, it is far from it. So what lies exactly do you speak of?
 
2011-08-15 10:52:27 PM

MeinRS6: And the Japanese already showed that gov't spending on infrastructure is not some magic bullet


How about learning a little bit about what happened in Japan from a Japanese economist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaNxAzLKegU

Warning: It may not mesh well with many ideologies.
 
2011-08-15 10:57:58 PM

Car_Ramrod: First of all, don't answer my question with a question. That is diverting the attention from your inability to "play".

Secondly, using the word "successful" to describe the wealthy is extremely transparent and lame.

Third of all, it allows money that is not being used to be put into recovery efforts, or other improvements to the country. When companies are sitting on trillions in unused capital, it is not a bad idea to see that reinserted into the economy.

Fourthly, since taxes on the companies are only levied on profits, it actually spurs investment. If the money will be gone anyways, why not put it into your own business? That has a much more positive effect than merely creating "confidence in the market" without an increase in demand. (That demand can be caused by using raised taxes on the wealthy for Stimulus, which will aid the middle and lower classes, and that demand will increase business in the private sector.)


so after your four part answer, you still didn't explain how taxing the successful more creates jobs.
 
2011-08-15 11:00:11 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: so after your four part answer, you still didn't explain how taxing the successful more creates jobs.


uh, i think 3-4 addresses that. or did you just count the paragraphs instead of read them?
 
2011-08-15 11:06:36 PM
Earth Passed Over For Invasion

April 5, 2013 | ISSUE 42•14

BETA QUADRANT, ZGYXA: Nearly 200,000 hostile aliens from the planet Zgyxa skipped invading Earth Monday, saying it "does not seem worth the effort." "A planet scan indicates that its resources will be tapped by 2015, its most intelligent life form cannot fly, and it possesses no significant deposits of Tangium," said Supreme Commander Kasha Ak-Bej, the nine-foot serpentine leader of the invasion. "Not to mention that their fleshy exoskeleton would make earthlings unfit slaves for mining Zgyxa's molten core." Representatives from the Council of Earth expressed their disappointment.
 
2011-08-15 11:13:09 PM
Is it just me, or was the genetically engineered lynx pretty much the only sympathetic character in the whole darn comic?
 
2011-08-15 11:18:31 PM
voices.washingtonpost.com

Most definitely does not approve.

/but will not compromise, even in the face of armageddon.
 
2011-08-15 11:19:43 PM

bootman: MeinRS6: And the Japanese already showed that gov't spending on infrastructure is not some magic bullet

How about learning a little bit about what happened in Japan from a Japanese economist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaNxAzLKegU

Warning: It may not mesh well with many ideologies.


Thanks for the vid. It was interesting. However, I fear that the US cannot deficit spend its way out of this now. What number would you like to see borrowed and spent by the gov't right now? And if you agree with the guy in the vid, that number will have to be maintained for years into the future to actually make a difference.
 
2011-08-15 11:21:23 PM
s2s2s2

I'll bite.

Keynesianism does not advocate perpetual spending increases, but counter-cyclical spending. Running surpluses in good times, deficits in bad times. You know, like Canada did - one of the reasons their economy is doing so well these days.

It's NOT a slow but perpetual increase of government spending until capitalism dies out completely - that's an idea advocated by many early social democratic parties, then abandoned when it turned out their mixed economies worked much better than pure command economies.

Not only is much of any war budget spent overseas (not helping the domestic economy), but you can't schedule wars to slowly wind down as the economy improves.
 
2011-08-15 11:35:14 PM

darcsun: As a financial advisor, I tend to read books about economics from whatever source I can. I don't care about the politics, I just want to get a feel for the world and where the markets are heading.

That being said, I'm actually reading an old book written by Krugman right now. It's called 'The Great Unraveling' from 2003 or so. No idea where it came from, and I thought it would be way out of date. Unfortunately, I was wrong. It's not like Krugman had a crystal ball, so it's not exactly on... but way to many things he's said in the first couple hundred pages happened.

Like I said, I want the clients to be safe... so I tend to pay attention when Krugman talks.


you know who else wrote an eerily prophetic book?

Nooo not Hitler that would be really throwing the thread off. Try "The Creature from Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin. It details the creation of the Federal Reserve, a history of central banking and fiat money and an examination of the actions of these institutions. A really good read and very well researched.

Krugman sometimes I think gets things right for the wrong reasons...I mean I don't have much of a problem with what he said in this video...yes if there was a huge surge of demand then yes there would necessarily be a change in the economy. Derp. But even more to the point is that should we build up to fight an alien invasion we'd still all die. Those farkers can cross light years...they probably won't even land to take us out if that is their goal.

So lets take this thought he has placed: Aliens appear to us and ask us this question: We have seen your economy doing badly...would you like us to invade to help stimulate it? Or would you prefer a peaceful transfer of technology that may help in the long term, but for the next 5 years or so you would see little improvement?

Krugman: Come at me brah!
The UN Fops: Give Krugman the Nobel Peace Prize!
Farkers: *epic facepalm in our bunkers*
The Rest of the World: *dies*

It is a stupid analogy because if it were at all workable then guess what? The Iraq war spending should have buoyed the economy like he is saying govt spending would. Clearly our men and women in the armed forces aren't firing off enough rounds to some how stimulate my bank account. I personally think Krugman is a moron; but I am willing to accept that he may just be so much smarter than me that he only APPEARS stupid...and is just that brilliant...kinda like sufficiently advanced tech appearing as magic to us herp duh derps.
 
2011-08-15 11:36:11 PM

MeinRS6: Car_Ramrod: MeinRS6: Because announcing stable and responsible policies(and then actually following thru and carrying them out) increases confidence in the markets and the entire country. This leads to improvement in the economy, helping unemployment, reviving the middle class, etc. There is no magic button that a president can press to fix things. If that was the case, then they would all press it when things went in a ditch.

Obama has already pushed the button that Krugman wanted him to push, and that was spend trillions and add it all to the debt. That didn't work. Of course, now Krugman continues to argue that Obama didn't spend enough trillions and that's why it didn't work, so Krugman wants Obama to lean on that button hard again to see what will happen. That is not a stable or responsible policy at this point in time. If it had worked when Obama tried it before, then Obama and Krugman would be declared geniuses, but it simply did not work.

The Stimulus had ~$500 billion in actual spending, not all of it infrastructure. There was a couple hundred billion in tax breaks, too. It was not "trillions", and it was NOT what Krugman wanted. He wanted much more, in more focused infrastructure spending. Please stop repeating these lies.

What is the total amount that the national debt has increased since Obama took office? And I already said that Krugman wanted more. And the Japanese already showed that gov't spending on infrastructure is not some magic bullet. In fact, it is far from it. So what lies exactly do you speak of?


This. This whole bolded paragraph. You go from saying Obama did what Krugman wanted, and then that Obama didn't do what Krugman wanted, then Krugman wants Obama to do it again, and then Obama did what Krugman wanted. Pick one. Either Obama didn't do what Krugman wanted, or he did. The correct answer is Obama did a half assed attempt at what Krugman wanted, which is why we showed paltry recovery, but you seem unwilling to admit that.

Furthermore, what trillions are you talking about? Be specific. Continuing the foreign military spending and Bush's tax cuts are NOT what Krugman and other Keynesian economists want. That is the opposite of what most liberals want, too. When most critics of Obama decry the "trillions" spent by Obama trying to spur the economy, they are talking about the Stimulus, which was ~$500 billion in actual infrastructure spending.

You are being completely dishonest in your arguments.
 
2011-08-15 11:40:18 PM

birdboy2000: s2s2s2

I'll bite.

Keynesianism does not advocate perpetual spending increases, but counter-cyclical spending. Running surpluses in good times, deficits in bad times. You know, like Canada did - one of the reasons their economy is doing so well these days.

It's NOT a slow but perpetual increase of government spending until capitalism dies out completely - that's an idea advocated by many early social democratic parties, then abandoned when it turned out their mixed economies worked much better than pure command economies.

Not only is much of any war budget spent overseas (not helping the domestic economy), but you can't schedule wars to slowly wind down as the economy improves.


Excellent
 
2011-08-15 11:41:31 PM
So you don't know how much the national debt has increased since Obama took office?
 
2011-08-15 11:49:08 PM

MeinRS6: So you don't know how much the national debt has increased since Obama took office?


I do. But, as ANY economist will tell you, not all spending is equal. Again, I ask you, how much of that spending was used for the purpose of spurring the economy, which is what we're talking about?
 
2011-08-15 11:52:38 PM

MeinRS6: So you don't know how much the national debt has increased since Obama took office?


The decrease in revenue has grew the debt more than an increase in spending.

Remember how millions of people lost their jobs in Bush's last term, they stopped paying taxes and started collecting Government benefits. Obama slowed down and eventually reversed this type of job loss but it is stalled at 9.1% unemployment. You can criticize Obama for not bringing the jobs back but to blame him (instead of Dubya) for the debt increase is disingenuous (or short sighted).
 
Displayed 50 of 199 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report