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.

(The Daily Beast)   If you can't argue with Paul Krugman on economics, why not complain about how he doesn't like your opinion instead?   (thedailybeast.com) divider line 263
    More: Strange, Paul Krugman, Nobel Laureates, Joseph Stiglitz, government failure, dislocations, Zachary Karabell  
•       •       •

5876 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 May 2012 at 8:41 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



263 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-14 08:09:06 AM  
krugman is right. the stimulus was too small. the regulations are basically toothless. and those who benefit most from our country pay far too little in tax.
 
2012-05-14 08:25:53 AM  
Krugman's been right more often than not, but like any annoying boring guy at a party, gets ignored. Its not about economics, its about who looks good on TV.
 
2012-05-14 08:43:36 AM  
Article author sounds jealous.
 
2012-05-14 08:48:06 AM  
I don't get the author's point at all. No one cares *why* there is high unemployment. The simple fact of the matter is that it needs to be fixed, and the government is the only entity capable of spurring hiring.
 
2012-05-14 08:51:00 AM  

Sock Ruh Tease: Article author sounds jealous.


Time to call a phd grad of MIT, noble prize winning prof at one of the worlds top schools an idiot while tuning into a drug addicted community college drop out to get "infromed".
 
2012-05-14 08:52:33 AM  
Arguing that high unemployment during a recession is structural then claiming that everyone who disagrees is just being mean seems a little desperate.
 
2012-05-14 08:53:33 AM  

FlashHarry: krugman is right. the stimulus was too small. the regulations are basically toothless. and those who benefit most from our country pay far too little in tax.


And let's not forget that it wasn't just the cons that opposed krugman on the stimulus. Obama did too. What a sack of fail.
 
2012-05-14 08:53:39 AM  

Generation_D: Krugman's been right more often than not


Except for the time he thought it would be a good idea to create a housing bubble. That sure worked out well. From October 7, 2001:

economic policy should encourage other spending to offset the temporary slump in business investment. Low interest rates, which promote spending on housing and other durable goods, are the main answer.


Krugman: moran, economic criminal.
 
2012-05-14 08:57:23 AM  
I'm a strong fan of Krugman but do also agree that a chunk of the employment problem is structural. When you have a firm like IBM publically admitting that they want all their people overseas because they are cheaper you've got a problem. Unfortunately multinationals are not allowed to have shame, national best interests at heart, or ethics. Its time that tariffs and other measures are used to create a much stronger disincentive to offshore everyone but the face to face sales staff and baby boomer executives.

From what I've seen todays executives are pretty much the same as locusts. Everything is about this quarter and the next bonus. Its not their worry if they leave a hollowed out society behind. Unfortunately, the government, whose job it is to worry about these things, is now owned by the big businesses.

Yup we are screwed.
 
2012-05-14 08:57:50 AM  
Watch the debate between krugman and o'really. The one that russert moderated. O really really looked like he was gonna come apart.
 
2012-05-14 08:58:11 AM  

Phinn: Generation_D: Krugman's been right more often than not

Except for the time he thought it would be a good idea to create a housing bubble. That sure worked out well. From October 7, 2001:

economic policy should encourage other spending to offset the temporary slump in business investment. Low interest rates, which promote spending on housing and other durable goods, are the main answer.

Krugman: moran, economic criminal.


Did you not catch the part where it said that this was meant to be an offset for a TEMPORARY slump?
 
2012-05-14 08:59:23 AM  

Phinn: Generation_D: Krugman's been right more often than not

Except for the time he thought it would be a good idea to create a housing bubble. That sure worked out well. From October 7, 2001:

economic policy should encourage other spending to offset the temporary slump in business investment. Low interest rates, which promote spending on housing and other durable goods, are the main answer.

Krugman: moran, economic criminal.


That's not what that even means. Saying something should be encouraged != wanting a bubble. He was actually one of the earliest major voices arguing that a bubble existed and needed deflation.

I'm no expert on economics, but Krugman tends to be right so often that I tend to pay attention to what he has to say.
 
2012-05-14 09:00:22 AM  

Phinn: Generation_D: Krugman's been right more often than not

Except for the time he thought it would be a good idea to create a housing bubble. That sure worked out well. From October 7, 2001:

economic policy should encourage other spending to offset the temporary slump in business investment. Low interest rates, which promote spending on housing and other durable goods, are the main answer.

Krugman: moran, economic criminal.


He didn't factor in the banks criminality, so that makes him the culpable one. Yep.
 
2012-05-14 09:00:44 AM  

Phinn: Generation_D: Krugman's been right more often than not

Except for the time he thought it would be a good idea to create a housing bubble. That sure worked out well. From October 7, 2001:

economic policy should encourage other spending to offset the temporary slump in business investment. Low interest rates, which promote spending on housing and other durable goods, are the main answer.

Krugman: moran, economic criminal.


It's almost like what was smart policy in 2001 was dumb to have been maintained for six years.
 
2012-05-14 09:01:04 AM  

Phinn: Generation_D: Krugman's been right more often than not

Except for the time he thought it would be a good idea to create a housing bubble. That sure worked out well. From October 7, 2001:

economic policy should encourage other spending to offset the temporary slump in business investment. Low interest rates, which promote spending on housing and other durable goods, are the main answer.

Krugman: moran, economic criminal.


Notice the lack of any krugman quote where he advocates a housing bubble.
 
2012-05-14 09:01:08 AM  
I don't know much about economics, but I know one thing: Krugman holds the microphone like a poncey poofter.
 
2012-05-14 09:01:46 AM  

Phinn: Generation_D: Krugman's been right more often than not

Except for the time he thought it would be a good idea to create a housing bubble. That sure worked out well. From October 7, 2001:

economic policy should encourage other spending to offset the temporary slump in business investment. Low interest rates, which promote spending on housing and other durable goods, are the main answer.

Krugman: moran, economic criminal.


You are intellectually dishonest.
Krugman was talking about a short-term low-interest rates until the economy righted itself, not artificially low rates for 6+ years.
 
2012-05-14 09:05:04 AM  

Phinn: Generation_D: Krugman's been right more often than not

Except for the time he thought it would be a good idea to create a housing bubble. That sure worked out well. From October 7, 2001:

economic policy should encourage other spending to offset the temporary slump in business investment. Low interest rates, which promote spending on housing and other durable goods, are the main answer.

Krugman: moran, economic criminal.


Um, even from that tiny part of a quote you gave us there, he seems to be talking about using low interest rates to pull out of the 2001 recession, probably on a temporary basis. That doesn't at all mean he was for the long term bubble building that went on for 7 more years before collapsing. Short term stimulus during recessions, then pulling them back after the recession is overcome is pretty standard keynesianism.
 
2012-05-14 09:08:23 AM  

Generation_D: Phinn: Generation_D: Krugman's been right more often than not

Except for the time he thought it would be a good idea to create a housing bubble. That sure worked out well. From October 7, 2001:

economic policy should encourage other spending to offset the temporary slump in business investment. Low interest rates, which promote spending on housing and other durable goods, are the main answer.

Krugman: moran, economic criminal.

He didn't factor in the banks criminality, so that makes him the culpable one. Yep.


... Because we know that Krugman has been vocal on the point that financial regulations are absolutely not needed and the free market should be left to self govern itself.
 
2012-05-14 09:08:27 AM  
So, what have we established thus far? Only that whoever taught Phinn reading comprehension apparently did a slapdash job.
 
2012-05-14 09:08:46 AM  

maddermaxx: Phinn: Generation_D: Krugman's been right more often than not

Except for the time he thought it would be a good idea to create a housing bubble. That sure worked out well. From October 7, 2001:

economic policy should encourage other spending to offset the temporary slump in business investment. Low interest rates, which promote spending on housing and other durable goods, are the main answer.

Krugman: moran, economic criminal.

Um, even from that tiny part of a quote you gave us there, he seems to be talking about using low interest rates to pull out of the 2001 recession, probably on a temporary basis. That doesn't at all mean he was for the long term bubble building that went on for 7 more years before collapsing. Short term stimulus during recessions, then pulling them back after the recession is overcome is pretty standard keynesianism.


Though the whole affair does clearly illustrate the inherent problem with instituting proper Keynesian economics in a system controlled by a democratic political process.
 
2012-05-14 09:15:10 AM  
Meanwhile, let's examine the current counter to the economic Krugman backs as working: austerity. It has failed in every country, all it does it cut GDP which cuts tax revenue which then fails to close the deficit gap it was designed to do since the people who promote it are incapable of seeing the reaction to their actions, and has caused England, who came up with it, to fall into a double-dip recession.

So I think any smart person would look just at that and go 'Hey, I think Krugman might be right here.' Of course, we are dealing with the GOP, so that isn't happening.
 
2012-05-14 09:16:25 AM  

Lost Thought 00: I don't get the author's point at all. No one cares *why* there is high unemployment. The simple fact of the matter is that it needs to be fixed, and the government is the only entity capable of spurring hiring.


there is unemployment because the shift to short-term gains in exchange for long-term viability; the same sort of thing that would occur if we move forward not caring why the problem happened, and only bandaide it until the fed gov is in ruins.

No one cares? Really? That's....silly.
 
2012-05-14 09:18:28 AM  
I realize this may come as a surprise to many, but the rich farkers who got this economic climate where it is like it that way.
They plan on amassing more of your money with their legal thievery.

Fail to form a lynch party and fail to change the stoopid farking "steal it all now" business climate and you seal your own doom.

Wake the Fark Up Sheeple! Your vote IS NOT just a choice of two evils.

/mebe spend 1 of your daily Fark Minutes emailing the same complaint/threat every day to the soon to be jobless representitives you currently have in place. Find them, and start hammering them.
 
2012-05-14 09:18:42 AM  
Eh, it's a bit of a pointless discussion. The distinction between "structural" and "cyclical" is mostly a statistical artefact. You take some time series like long-term growth and you de-trend it. Changes in the trend are "structural", fluctuations about the trend are "cyclical". Of course what the trend line looks like depends on the parameters of your filter, so you can often fiddle with the trend line until you get the kind of results you want. Then you come up for some post facto justification for why your trend line is doing what it's doing ("new economy", "new normal", "new paradigm", "new whatever").

Now, the standard theory dictates that fiscal policy (ie stimulus) is ineffective against structural changes and only "distorts" the economy from its new "natural" state. So, Krugman who's been banging the stimulus drum for the past few years (not incorrectly) has to insist that any changes are cyclical in order to justify spending. Anyone opposing will argue the opposite. But there's no real way of knowing because the words are just convenient labels to use when looking at data.
 
2012-05-14 09:18:52 AM  

IamAwake: there is unemployment because the shift to short-term gains in exchange for long-term viability


huh?
 
2012-05-14 09:19:35 AM  

GAT_00: Meanwhile, let's examine the current counter to the economic Krugman backs as working: austerity. It has failed in every country, all it does it cut GDP which cuts tax revenue which then fails to close the deficit gap it was designed to do since the people who promote it are incapable of seeing the reaction to their actions, and has caused England, who came up with it, to fall into a double-dip recession.

So I think any smart person would look just at that and go 'Hey, I think Krugman might be right here.' Of course, we are dealing with the GOP, so that isn't happening.


What works is taxing the rich 'till there are no rich no more.
Guaranteed results!
 
2012-05-14 09:21:57 AM  
It's more of a personal preference than anything, but I prefer reading Stiglitz to Krugman.
 
2012-05-14 09:22:30 AM  

IamAwake: Lost Thought 00: I don't get the author's point at all. No one cares *why* there is high unemployment. The simple fact of the matter is that it needs to be fixed, and the government is the only entity capable of spurring hiring.

there is unemployment because the shift to short-term gains in exchange for long-term viability; the same sort of thing that would occur if we move forward not caring why the problem happened, and only bandaide it until the fed gov is in ruins.

No one cares? Really? That's....silly.


I'm sure the guy who can't afford medicine for his ailing child because he was laid off will take solace in an economist telling him that the economy is just restructuring and he is part of the new permanently unemployed class
 
2012-05-14 09:23:47 AM  
well, as usual, the fark headline and the article don't really match each other. that said this part makes me think i shouldn't give him much credence: The only correlate to the current transition occurred more than a century ago as agriculture became more mechanized, which led to the massive displacement of farmers and helped cause the Great Depression.

this article and others would disagree with his claim.
 
2012-05-14 09:25:02 AM  

GAT_00: Meanwhile, let's examine the current counter to the economic Krugman backs as working: austerity. It has failed in every country, all it does it cut GDP which cuts tax revenue which then fails to close the deficit gap it was designed to do since the people who promote it are incapable of seeing the reaction to their actions, and has caused England, who came up with it, to fall into a double-dip recession.


so, let's recap:

Keynesian Economics: 1
Voodoo Economics: 0
 
2012-05-14 09:25:08 AM  

snocone: GAT_00: Meanwhile, let's examine the current counter to the economic Krugman backs as working: austerity. It has failed in every country, all it does it cut GDP which cuts tax revenue which then fails to close the deficit gap it was designed to do since the people who promote it are incapable of seeing the reaction to their actions, and has caused England, who came up with it, to fall into a double-dip recession.

So I think any smart person would look just at that and go 'Hey, I think Krugman might be right here.' Of course, we are dealing with the GOP, so that isn't happening.

What works is taxing the rich 'till there are no rich no more.
Guaranteed results!


And here we present the other part of the argument, people who are incapable of seeing a middle ground and actually think the sum of current leftist economic ideas is 'tax the rich into the ground.'
 
2012-05-14 09:26:19 AM  

GAT_00: Meanwhile, let's examine the current counter to the economic Krugman backs as working: austerity. It has failed in every country, all it does it cut GDP which cuts tax revenue which then fails to close the deficit gap it was designed to do since the people who promote it are incapable of seeing the reaction to their actions, and has caused England, who came up with it, to fall into a double-dip recession.


As opposed to spending ourselves into oblivion? Sooner or later this junkie is going to have to take the needle out of the arm.

Blanket cuts will never be good, but the fat does need to be trimmed to the bare bones. Taxes are going to have to be reformed to get more out of those that have more. Not much of a way around that if we are going to ever get the debt problem under control.
 
2012-05-14 09:28:07 AM  

FlashHarry: krugman is right. the stimulus was too small. the regulations are basically toothless. and those who benefit most from our country pay far too little in tax.


THE CRACK PIPE HAS SPOKEN.
 
2012-05-14 09:30:42 AM  
Well when you believe the key to economic progress is artificially creating a bunch of liquidity, sitting back and reaping the credit for the period of malinvestment that creates a prosperous illusion, then panicking and finger-pointing when it all falls apart horrifically, I can see why you might agree with what Krugman has to say.

Lost Thought 00: I don't get the author's point at all. No one cares *why* there is high unemployment. The simple fact of the matter is that it needs to be fixed, and the government is the only entity capable of spurring hiring.


It's sad that we're at a point where a statement like this is actually accepted as fact. The government can create some artificial temporary employment, but there are far more serious consequences. There is no "entity" capable of spurring long-term, sustainable hiring. That has to come from the economy operating freely to meet the needs of the individuals who live within it.

Generation_D: Phinn: Generation_D: Krugman's been right more often than not

Except for the time he thought it would be a good idea to create a housing bubble. That sure worked out well. From October 7, 2001:

economic policy should encourage other spending to offset the temporary slump in business investment. Low interest rates, which promote spending on housing and other durable goods, are the main answer.

Krugman: moran, economic criminal.

He didn't factor in the banks criminality, so that makes him the culpable one. Yep.


Which crimes did the banks commit? They're in the business of lending money to make money. When the government magically provides them with an unlimited supply of virtually free inventory, they have to find something to do with it. If they hadn't had access to the money, they would have had no way to be irresponsible with it.

At one time, banking worked like this:

1) I have cash which I'll need to pay bills and things, so I pay the bank a fee to store it for me safely until I need it. I also have some extra cash with no current use in mind, so I lend it to the bank, and they pay me an interest rate based on current supply and demand (a price) to borrow it.

2) My neighbor has 30% of the money he needs to buy a house or open a business, so he goes to the bank where I lent my money, and borrows that money from the bank for a rate somewhat higher than what the bank is paying me.

3) The bank makes money in two ways: by the fees I pay to store the money I'll need soon, and the difference between what they pay me to lend them my money, and what my neighbor pays them to borrow it. At one time, they were a warehouser and an intermediary. That's it.

Today, banks get their money from the Federal Reserve at whatever interest rate is politically beneficial with no regard to actual economic factors or basic responsibility.

Since low risk loans to your bank pay basically nothing because they don't need your money, you're forced to invest in riskier things like the stock market. You probably don't understand the stock market all that well, but some people spend their whole lives learning it, and they understand how to screw you out of your investment while profiting on theirs. You can thank Krugman and the scum of his ilk for this.
 
2012-05-14 09:36:03 AM  

Lost Thought 00: I don't get the author's point at all. No one cares *why* there is high unemployment. The simple fact of the matter is that it needs to be fixed, and the government is the only entity capable of spurring hiring.


I LOL'd
 
2012-05-14 09:36:56 AM  

HeadLever: As opposed to spending ourselves into oblivion? Sooner or later this junkie is going to have to take the needle out of the arm.


Ladies and gentlemen, person who has already made up their mind about how the world works and doesn't care to listen to evidence. Just how brain dead do you have to be to respond to something SHOWING that your economics doesn't work with a blanket 'YES IT SO DOES' assertion?
 
2012-05-14 09:38:47 AM  

GAT_00: So I think any smart person would look just at that and go 'Hey, I think Krugman might be right here.' Of course, we are dealing with the GOP, so that isn't happening.


The new Republican talking point is that deficits matter a great deal.

Unemployment needs to be fixed. It was a mistake to give tax deductions to corporations to ship jobs to China and Mexico. It's continuing the mistake not to put trained and willing workers to work.

But deficits!! We must slash the budget!! Krugman's right. Austerity does not work during a recession or depression. Right now, for every $1 million that is cut from the federal budget, GDP is decreased by more than $1 million because normal private investment is just about zero.
 
2012-05-14 09:40:13 AM  
You can make the case that the massive dislocations in the nature of work are a product of these technology revolutions combined with the globalization of production and capital without being an apologist for austerity or an opponent of meaningful government action. You can be-as I am-a proponent of the view that there will be no meaningful short-term change in the nature of employment in the United States regardless of government policy and simultaneously argue-as I do-for more effective and comprehensive government action to manage the short-term dislocations and the long-term need to reinvent

The author is absolutely right. The world is changing very quickly. First World economies are being transformed by globalization and technological advances. To deny that this change is taking place, simply because some of the people that argue for it also favor disproved economic policies (austerity in a recession), is utterly ridiculous.

Whatever he may have been before, Krugman is now a partisan hack. Even if he gets a few things right, he'll always be trying to force the square peg into the circle hole, because that's what happens when you stop thinking critically and start cheering for a team.
 
2012-05-14 09:43:06 AM  

WhoIsNotInMyKitchen: When you have a firm like IBM publically admitting that they want all their people overseas because they are cheaper you've got a problem


Yes, and not one that will be solved by a free market race to the bottom, unless we want our country to look like China. If we can't get the Chinese to elevate their standard of living to something closer to ours so that their labor in turn gets more expensive, it is time to make it more expensive to send jobs overseas. The first duty of the government the United States is to provide for the general welfare of the majority of its citizens, not the minority who benefit from outsourcing.
 
2012-05-14 09:45:27 AM  

tommydee: FlashHarry: krugman is right. the stimulus was too small. the regulations are basically toothless. and those who benefit most from our country pay far too little in tax.

THE CRACK PIPE HAS SPOKEN.


yes. that's crazy talk, that is. 0_o
 
2012-05-14 09:46:23 AM  

GAT_00: Just how brain dead do you have to be to respond to something SHOWING that your economics doesn't work with a blanket 'YES IT SO DOES' assertion?


Hopefully not as brain dead as to actually know where this current path is leading us.

Big changes are needed to get our finanical house in order. If you want to ignore the warnings, that is fine by me. However, there are getting to be more and more of us that can look further than the political blinders you keep ever so tightly wrapped around that skinny head of yours.
 
2012-05-14 09:47:07 AM  
If you're going to claim someone is automatically right just for having a Nobel in economics, then try F.A. Hayek or Milton Friedman.

Krugman thinks that the way to get out of one bubble is to create another bigger bubble (the housing bubble was created to get us out of the tech bubble collapse, remember?). The amount of stimulus needed appears to be quantified as 'more', and we'll only know when we've reached 'too much' when *that* bubble collapses.
 
2012-05-14 09:47:24 AM  

GAT_00: HeadLever: As opposed to spending ourselves into oblivion? Sooner or later this junkie is going to have to take the needle out of the arm.

Ladies and gentlemen, person who has already made up their mind about how the world works and doesn't care to listen to evidence. Just how brain dead do you have to be to respond to something SHOWING that your economics doesn't work with a blanket 'YES IT SO DOES' assertion?



I think you missed the point. Your England reference doesn't show anything. It never played out. It wasn't politically feasible to leave shiat alone until the country weaned off the teet. I would take slow steady growth with a long-term future over the boom-bust rollercoaster ending in insolvency.

It's really unfortunate that the only measure of whether or not we have too much government spending is being able to make the interest payment on the national credit card.
 
2012-05-14 09:47:52 AM  

JBangworthy: Since low risk loans to your bank pay basically nothing because they don't need your money, you're forced to invest in riskier things like the stock market.


Exactly right. It's easy money, and the people handling it are under a legal obligation to find a profitable place for it. The result is bubbles. Sometimes it's Dutch tulips, sometimes it's dot-com companies, but after that popped, it was housing, which was an easy-credit racket all its own. Thank you, Barney Frank and his boyfriend, who got rich creating grossly-inflated housing prices.

Andrew White, one of the founders of Cornell, wrote a book in 1912 (that was before the FED, for you Farkers whose sense of economic history goes back no farther than 1.5 presidential elections), called Fiat Money Inflation in France. It described the post-Napoleonic disaster in easy credit, the dislocations, the unemployment, the run-away stock market. Easy credit (via monopolistic currency, loosened by the likes of Krugman the FED apologist, turns capital markets into casinos.

In other words, this boom-bust cycle, created in the first instance by government-backed monopolistic central banks and their imaginary money, has been going on for centuries. It's the same story every time -- the insiders whose lips are locked around the money-spigot get rich on the spew of new money, while the rest of us experience constant dilution of currency value as the money propagates throughout the economy. But the one who gets the new money first (the bankers) get full value of it, before the new money causes all money to lose value.

Currency is half of every transaction. All of that price distortion leads people to believe there is economic gain in places where demand is not sustainable. There were dozens of industries dependent on a constantly-expanding housing market, which could not continue. The people who went into business as real estate dealers, furniture manufacturers and sellers, remodeling contractors, and everything else associated with ever-rising house prices (including that strange create called "mortgage broker") found themselves out of work when the viability of their markets turned out to be be an illusion.

Might that have something to do with unemployment? It doesn't take a Nobel prize winner to see that it does.
 
2012-05-14 09:47:57 AM  

Delay: The new Republican talking point is that deficits matter a great deal.


In a certain way they do; though, total debt is much more of a big deal. In that area, we are not doing so hot lately.
 
2012-05-14 09:48:21 AM  

JBangworthy: Today, banks get their money from the Federal Reserve at whatever interest rate is politically beneficial with no regard to actual economic factors or basic responsibility.


The Federal reserve is not selected by popular vote. It has two Congressional mandates: price stability and full employment. Price stability is set at 2% inflation right now. Link What full employment means right now is a policy decision and, absent guidance from Congress, it can't set a fixed goal.
 
2012-05-14 09:48:29 AM  
If you read " Collapse " it becomes clear that the rich are a grave danger to a decent society. We can't continue to tolerate them. They are just pure bad news to ordinary people. The whole reason for the
propaganda push to deify the rich was to cover up their destructive nature. That push went into high gear in the 1980s with the Iacocca bio and ever since idiots have looked up to these scumbags. OWS has done more than anything else to restablish the true harmful nature of the rich.
 
2012-05-14 09:50:30 AM  

eiger: I'm no expert on economics, but Krugman tends to be right so often that I tend to pay attention to what he has to say.


Krugman is often right like a broken clock is right twice a day. The guy is a weasel.
 
2012-05-14 09:51:14 AM  

GAT_00: Meanwhile, let's examine the current counter to the economic Krugman backs as working: austerity. It has failed in every country,


Interesting assertion, but it seems to be lacking in actual fact. A cursory look at the actual data shows that for the most part, "austerity" has not been implemented at all.

mercatus.org

/WHAR AUSTERITY? WHAR?
 
Displayed 50 of 263 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report