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 New York Times)   Nobel Prize troll is still a troll   (nytimes.com) divider line 88
    More: Dumbass, lows, UnitedHealth Group, trolls, Greek government, debt limit  
•       •       •

4714 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Nov 2012 at 8:24 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-26 10:29:24 AM

PanicMan: cman: Now you know how I feel when people on my side have their political speech dismissed as a "racist attack" just because they *GASP* make an advertisement critical of the President

Bil Mahr doesn't represent me, and his opinions are his own.

Frankly, he's kind of an idiot. That seems to happen with anyone with airtime to fill.


That's like just like your opinion man. He has a few idiotic beliefs but very few people have explained just how messed the GOP party is as well as him. IMHO. Every time a watch his show he has at least one comment showing keen and original incite into American politics.
 
2012-11-26 10:45:23 AM
i.imgur.com 

Note: Not actual data
 
2012-11-26 10:57:03 AM

cman: FTA

still depressed economy

Ok, can anyone make up their damned mind? Obama admin thinks our economy is steady, GOP thinks that we have sunk below Great Depression era, and now this tool states that the economy is shiat. Who is farking right?


"Steady" and "still depressed" arrent contradictory. You can be in bad shape but not getting worse.
 
2012-11-26 10:57:08 AM

Thats No Moose: AverageAmericanGuy: For years, deficit scolds have held Washington in thrall with warnings of an imminent debt crisis, even though investors, who continue to buy U.S. bonds, clearly believe that such a crisis won't happen; economic analysis says that such a crisis can't happen; and the historical record shows no examples bearing any resemblance to our current situation in which such a crisis actually did happen.

If you ask me, it's time for Washington to stop worrying about this phantom menace - and to stop listening to the people who have been peddling this scare story in an attempt to get their way.

Famous last words.

Actually, he's right even from a historical perspective. At some point when interest rates and inflation rates DO show signs of climbing beyond sustainable rate, the US Fed has two massive weapons in its possession that will work very well: 1) raising interest rates (currently ~0) and reducing the monetary base (which was tripled in the recession and did fark-all to inflation). Ask Paul Volcker, Reagan's Fed chief. Today deflation is the threat (negative real interest rates on long-terms!), something the European periphery is already seeing.


And yet nobody is going to listen to us saying deflation is the real problem because we're about to plunge headfirst into Zimbabwean-style hyperinflation where we have to remove 30 zeros from the dollar in the span of three years.
 
2012-11-26 11:03:02 AM

SomeAmerican: You know, Krugman is completely right. We can keep running a deficit of 10% of GDP right up until it becomes a crisis, if it ever does, and then worry about it. Why be concerned about it earlier? And really, we need more stimulus so the deficit should be higher. A trillion dollar deficit is a good start but clearly isn't enough to get us to economic nirvana. Since government spending is immensely better at growing the GDP than private spending is, that trillion dollars in free money flowing into our $15 trillion economy must translate to about 10% of our GDP. Think what we could do with an extra trillion a year! Our GDP would grow over 10% every year, everyone would be employed, and we'd never face any consequences at all. If forced by so called "deficit hawk" hacks, with their short-sighted focus on long-term consequences, we could raise taxes to pay for some of that two trillion as taking money out of the private sector doesn't impact GDP at all. Raising taxes would further their partisan and corporate interests though, and really isn't necessary. High deficit spending results in free, safe growth forever, completely unlike the debt problems Europe is facing, and isn't related to the growth bubbles we've had here at all. I'm glad we have far thinking, non-partisan economists to keep the focus on what matters.


I'm going to make a documentary called "invisible scarecrows" about the genocide of strawmen that you committed in this post and fleece swift hearted liberals out of millions.
 
2012-11-26 11:09:12 AM
Might I remind you

Economics is not a science!

Might have to develop a theory of psychohistory to really understand things. Anyone interested in setting up a foundation to study that?
 
2012-11-26 11:20:28 AM

hinten: I don't know about trolling but he is certainly stoking the fire:

These are difficult times for the deficit scolds who have dominated policy discussion for almost three years. One could almost feel sorry for them, if it weren't for their role in diverting attention from the ongoing problem of inadequate recovery, and thereby helping to perpetuate catastrophically high unemployment.
What has changed? For one thing, the crisis they predicted keeps not happening.


Pointing out reality is trolling to conservatives.
 
2012-11-26 11:27:53 AM
OK, now that we've all agreed that subby is an idiot and Republican tears taste good and America is not Greece, and etc. ... I have a serious question.

Some of us are old enough to remember the stagflation of the 1970s, when Western economies had both recession and inflation at the same time, even though Keynesian economic analysis at the time said "that such a crisis can't happen", to borrow a phrase.

So, with the deepest respect to the Nobel Prize-winning Krugman, and acknowledging that deflation is probably the greater risk, can any Farker explain why stagflation can't happen again? What systemic changes have taken place to forbid it?
 
2012-11-26 11:29:10 AM
"For the record, no one has been more correct in his analysis and prescriptions for the economy's problems than Paul Krugman." - Bruce Bartlett, former economic and policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and H.W. Link
 
2012-11-26 11:45:13 AM

wildcardjack: Might I remind you

Economics is not a science!

Might have to develop a theory of psychohistory to really understand things. Anyone interested in setting up a foundation to study that?


Even if you assume economics is more art than science.

Conservatives are painting this:

thomas2026.files.wordpress.com

and Krugman is painting this:

www.mauritshuis.nl
 
2012-11-26 11:46:54 AM

czetie: OK, now that we've all agreed that subby is an idiot and Republican tears taste good and America is not Greece, and etc. ... I have a serious question.

Some of us are old enough to remember the stagflation of the 1970s, when Western economies had both recession and inflation at the same time, even though Keynesian economic analysis at the time said "that such a crisis can't happen", to borrow a phrase.

So, with the deepest respect to the Nobel Prize-winning Krugman, and acknowledging that deflation is probably the greater risk, can any Farker explain why stagflation can't happen again? What systemic changes have taken place to forbid it?


I don't think anyone is saying it CAN'T happen again. What I would say is that we have a lot of tools to control inflation left at this point. We can scoop a ton of money out of the supply, and we can raise interest rates from rock-bottom levels as well. In comparison, our tools for combating deflation are almost entirely spent now. We can't drop to a negative interest rate, and throwing more money into the supply will only help so much when banks won't give it to consumers and entrepreneurs who need it.
 
2012-11-26 11:57:16 AM

czetie: can any Farker explain why stagflation can't happen again?


Can't happen again today. Conditions are not in place for it.
 
2012-11-26 12:03:13 PM

mrshowrules: wildcardjack: Might I remind you

Economics is not a science!

Might have to develop a theory of psychohistory to really understand things. Anyone interested in setting up a foundation to study that?

Even if you assume economics is more art than science.

Conservatives are painting this:

i1.mirror.co.uk


FTFY
 
2012-11-26 12:06:27 PM

impaler: mrshowrules: wildcardjack: Might I remind you

Economics is not a science!

Might have to develop a theory of psychohistory to really understand things. Anyone interested in setting up a foundation to study that?

Even if you assume economics is more art than science.

Conservatives are painting this:

[i1.mirror.co.uk image 615x927]


FTFY


LOL. This is more accurate because they base their shiat on what real economists have done and just fark it up.
 
2012-11-26 12:47:12 PM

Philip J. Fry: [i.imgur.com image 640x427] 

Note: Not actual data


Hell, it's *exactly* the thought I had.

"Gee, that looks like we have a pre-bubble growth rate, an in-bubble growth rate, a recession that removes all bubble value from the economy, and then a return to pre-bubble growth rates."

/based on real data or not, I'm amazed the recession isn't treated (in the press, not in policy of course) the same as the tech bubble of the 90s.
 
2012-11-26 12:55:36 PM
After RTFA, I can only conclude that the person trolling here is in fact subby.
 
2012-11-26 01:18:43 PM

czetie: OK, now that we've all agreed that subby is an idiot and Republican tears taste good and America is not Greece, and etc. ... I have a serious question.

Some of us are old enough to remember the stagflation of the 1970s, when Western economies had both recession and inflation at the same time, even though Keynesian economic analysis at the time said "that such a crisis can't happen", to borrow a phrase.

So, with the deepest respect to the Nobel Prize-winning Krugman, and acknowledging that deflation is probably the greater risk, can any Farker explain why stagflation can't happen again? What systemic changes have taken place to forbid it?


70's stagflation was brought on largely via the 1973 OPEC oil embargo. Oil prices went through the roof. The embargo was in turn caused by the US sucking Israeli dick during the 1973 Yom Kippur war. So technically, the 70's stagflation was caused by a blow job.
 
2012-11-26 01:37:07 PM

Thats No Moose: czetie: can any Farker explain why stagflation can't happen again?

Can't happen again today. Conditions are not in place for it.


Please elaborate. What conditions prevent it?

Serious Black: I don't think anyone is saying it CAN'T happen again. What I would say is that we have a lot of tools to control inflation left at this point.


Isn't that what Krugman is saying here?

"But if the U.S. government prints money to pay its bills, won't that lead to inflation? No, not if the economy is still depressed."

Again, in my recollection of the 1970s, governments did print money to pay their bills, and we did have inflation even though the economy was still depressed. And they did also try high (double-digit) interest rates, an approach that failed to contain inflation.

So what are the other tools available this time around? Doesn't taking money out of the economy risk deepening recession? Or does the fact that we now have floating currencies make higher interest rates inherently more effective as a counter-inflation tool than in the 1970s?

(For the record, I agree with most of what Krugman is arguing, and I do think we should return tax rates to, say, Clinton Administration levels, and we need to get corporations paying their share again. But I also think Krugman is being glib in dismissing the risk of inflation, given that we have the counter-example of the 1970s.) 

/As a teenager I convinced myself that the town of Milton Keynes was named in joint honor of Milton Friedman and John Maynard Keynes.
 
2012-11-26 01:39:21 PM

aaronx: As far as I have seen, Krugman's ideological opponents have, basically, used three lines of counter-attack:

- Point to various discredited-by-history Austrian-school theories
- Point to Greece, a country that doesn't even have its own currency, let alone any chance of borrowing in Drachmas.
- Point out that Krugman has a beard and the habit of saying mean things about their dumb ideas.

And yet they get treated as though their arguments are credible by most of the major news outlets.

Makes me kinda' angry, actually.


Or they bring up the fact that he thought that the creation of the housing bubble was a good thing (until he didn't) or that he was way off on the keynesian multipliers he used to calculate how much Obama's stimulus would bring down unemployment. Those I can think of off the top of my head. He is often provably wrong, especially when he steps outside his field of expertise (international trade) and is often called on it, not just by supply-siders.
 
2012-11-26 01:49:23 PM

czetie: Again, in my recollection of the 1970s, governments did print money to pay their bills, and we did have inflation even though the economy was still depressed. And they did also try high (double-digit) interest rates, an approach that failed to contain inflation.


The Fed "prints money" by creating money through lending via fractional reserve banking (also quantitative easing, which wasn't done in the 70s). This is increased by low interest rates, and decreased by high interest rates.

In other words, you contradicted yourself.
 
2012-11-26 01:51:03 PM

czetie: Again, in my recollection of the 1970s, governments did print money to pay their bills, and we did have inflation even though the economy was still depressed. And they did also try high (double-digit) interest rates, an approach that failed to contain inflation.


FYI, high interest rates didn't fail to contain inflation. In fact it succeeded.

Your knowledge of economics is lacking.
 
2012-11-26 02:24:30 PM

impaler: czetie: Again, in my recollection of the 1970s, governments did print money to pay their bills, and we did have inflation even though the economy was still depressed. And they did also try high (double-digit) interest rates, an approach that failed to contain inflation.

FYI, high interest rates didn't fail to contain inflation. In fact it succeeded.

Your knowledge of economics is lacking.


impaler: The Fed "prints money" by creating money through lending via fractional reserve banking (also quantitative easing, which wasn't done in the 70s). This is increased by low interest rates, and decreased by high interest rates.


That's the Keynesian theory that demonstrably didn't take place in the 1970s. Your knowledge of that period is less than could be garnered from fifteen minutes on Wikipedia.

Now, if you have some constructive contribution to make, I'm happy to hear it. But if you just want to be a dick, piss off.
 
2012-11-26 02:34:18 PM

Marcus Aurelius: czetie: OK, now that we've all agreed that subby is an idiot and Republican tears taste good and America is not Greece, and etc. ... I have a serious question.

Some of us are old enough to remember the stagflation of the 1970s, when Western economies had both recession and inflation at the same time, even though Keynesian economic analysis at the time said "that such a crisis can't happen", to borrow a phrase.

So, with the deepest respect to the Nobel Prize-winning Krugman, and acknowledging that deflation is probably the greater risk, can any Farker explain why stagflation can't happen again? What systemic changes have taken place to forbid it?

70's stagflation was brought on largely via the 1973 OPEC oil embargo. Oil prices went through the roof. The embargo was in turn caused by the US sucking Israeli dick during the 1973 Yom Kippur war. So technically, the 70's stagflation was caused by a blow job.


The Oil Shock was certainly a huge factor (which of course raises the question of whether anything comparable could have the same effect today -- maybe a huge hike in the price of rare earth metals by the Chinese?), and in Britain at least political instability and widespread industrial unrest played a part, although I'm beginning to suspect that the inability of currencies to float may have been a big factor too.

But none of this explains stagflation itself which, as I said, was supposed to be impossible according to orthodox Keynesian theories -- and that's the part that worries me about Krugman's flat assertion that there's no risk of inflation as long as the economy is in a recession.
 
2012-11-26 02:37:08 PM

DarnoKonrad: Only thing trolling here is the headline.  Trolling for what, I'm not sure.


Bad headline troll is still a troll.
 
2012-11-26 03:04:28 PM

jigger: aaronx: As far as I have seen, Krugman's ideological opponents have, basically, used three lines of counter-attack:

- Point to various discredited-by-history Austrian-school theories
- Point to Greece, a country that doesn't even have its own currency, let alone any chance of borrowing in Drachmas.
- Point out that Krugman has a beard and the habit of saying mean things about their dumb ideas.

And yet they get treated as though their arguments are credible by most of the major news outlets.

Makes me kinda' angry, actually.

Or they bring up the fact that he thought that the creation of the housing bubble was a good thing (until he didn't) or that he was way off on the keynesian multipliers he used to calculate how much Obama's stimulus would bring down unemployment. Those I can think of off the top of my head. He is often provably wrong, especially when he steps outside his field of expertise (international trade) and is often called on it, not just by supply-siders.


When you say such things, it would be nice if you used citations, rather than the top of your head.

I'm not sure the housing bubble per se was a bad thing. It was the rampant fraud that was the problem.
 
2012-11-26 03:10:01 PM

czetie: impaler: The Fed "prints money" by creating money through lending via fractional reserve banking (also quantitative easing, which wasn't done in the 70s). This is increased by low interest rates, and decreased by high interest rates.

That's the Keynesian theory that demonstrably didn't take place in the 1970s. Your knowledge of that period is less than could be garnered from fifteen minutes on Wikipedia.


Explain how they printed money to pay their bills in the 70s then.
 
2012-11-26 03:10:45 PM

czetie: 70's stagflation was brought on largely via the 1973 OPEC oil embargo. Oil prices went through the roof. The embargo was in turn caused by the US sucking Israeli dick during the 1973 Yom Kippur war. So technically, the 70's stagflation was caused by a blow job.

The Oil Shock was certainly a huge factor


You think?

research.stlouisfed.org
 
2012-11-26 04:58:48 PM
Congratulations!

The American economy is now exactly where it would be without Bush, Greenspan, "irrational exuberance", both parties playing to the peanut gallery by meddling with the housing market, and Donald Trump. Now, if America never goes on a spending bender using home stock equity and then home equity then credit cards to keep going, things will be fine for another thirty years until you forget and go Oops! I did it again!

On the down side, of course, you've just been through Bush, Greenspan, "irrational exuberance", Freddie and Fannie, a crashed housing market and Donald Trump constantly on TV, but if you're like me you never turn your TV on any more, so you haven't seen Donald Trump bicycle helmet hair except by the free choice of clicking on a weblink, you don't have a snowball's chance of building equity in a home, and you never caught Bush-mania, Greenspan-mania, "irrational exuberance" or any kind of contagious delusion.

Pessimism! It's like wearing a thick sweater on a hot summer's day. Sure you're ten or twenty degrees hotter, but everybody is ten or twenty degrees hotter just looking at you, so you end up millions of degrees ahead!
 
2012-11-26 05:11:21 PM

Leeds: Is this about Obama?

// NYT blocked for me


No, the other bête noire of conservatism, Paul Nobel Prize Winner Krugman.

You should keep up on your Nobel Prizes. The Norwegians give them out as well as the Swedes, sort of. Economics isn't really a Nobel Prize, but they keep calling it that, so it is.

I'd love to watch the Gnomes of Oslo (or Stockholm) decide who to give the Nobel Prize for Economics or Peace to.

Since they discovered they can troll right wingers either way, they've been having fun, I bet.

OK. Let's brainstorm this year's Nobel. Just shout out any name. There are no wrong answers when you are brain-storming!

First, let's do the Peace Prize.

Who do you think would annoy the Americans most?

Putin!

Good, good.

Tony Benn!

Americans don't know who that is but good, it'll annoy the Britishia

tom of Finland!

Um, Tom of Finland is not eligible.

Tom of Maine.

Better.

Joe Biden.

Funny, very funny. But a bit too outré, don'tchurthink?

Try to stick to politicians.

The Premier of China.

No. Too new.

The Generals of Myanmar.

Good, but only if they promise to stop killing people and to not change the name of their country again.

George Brown.

Oh, definitely, that's a contender I think. More George Browns, please!

Angela Merkel!

Now, really. Do you think that is fair?

Dr. Kevorkian.

Again, funny but not very realistic.

Al Gore!

We did Gore already.

Tipper Gore!

No, don't waste magic marker.

Hilary Clinton!

Now you're cooking with gas!

Bill Clinton!

Are you just copying the guy who said Hillary or are you really thinking Bill should get it already?

Bill and Hilary Clinton!

OK, I guess that will work.

Bill and Melinda Gates!

OK. A bit derivative but good.

Bill Clinton and Melinda Gates?

Oh, you! Let's see. We have about 10 viable options. How about a quick show of hands?

Bill Clinton and Melinda Gates it is!
 
2012-11-26 07:19:33 PM

Dinki: AverageAmericanGuy: Famous last words.

Call us when it actually does. After all, what do university trained economic analysts know, right?


Economists have been wrong before. Ref. "Say's Law." They are probably more right than anyone else, but they are hardly perfect.
 
2012-11-26 07:50:51 PM

czetie: But none of this explains stagflation itself which, as I said, was supposed to be impossible according to orthodox Keynesian theories


Stagflation is perfectly consistent with Keynesian theory when there is a supply shock. During the 70s, there were two of the largest the country has ever experienced.
 
2012-11-26 08:42:06 PM

Barfmaker: So our government, unlike the Greek government, literally can't run out of money. After all, it can print the stuff.

They should print enough so that everyone can just retire.


$16 trillion or so ought to cover it. Next item up for business?...
 
2012-11-26 09:48:50 PM
"For we have our own currency - and almost all of our debt, both private and public, is denominated in dollars. So our government, unlike the Greek government, literally can't run out of money. After all, it can print the stuff. So there's almost no risk that America will default on its debt"

"As far as I can tell, every example supposedly illustrating the dangers of debt involves either a country that, like Greece today, lacked its own currency, or a country that, like Asian economies in the 1990s, had large debts in foreign currencies. Countries with large debts in their own currency, like France after World War I, have sometimes experienced big loss-of-confidence drops in the value of their currency - but nothing like the debt-induced recession we're being told to fear."


Maybe Krugman needs to address the what occurred in Germany after World War I when it printed lots of its own currency. How does he explain the hyper-inflation that crippled the country. After all it was a large debt in its own currency, Germany literally couldn't have run out of money, after all it could print the stuff.
 
2012-11-26 09:50:03 PM

cman: aaronx: As far as I have seen, Krugman's ideological opponents have, basically, used three lines of counter-attack:

- Point to various discredited-by-history Austrian-school theories
- Point to Greece, a country that doesn't even have its own currency, let alone any chance of borrowing in Drachmas.
- Point out that Krugman has a beard and the habit of saying mean things about their dumb ideas.

And yet they get treated as though their arguments are credible by most of the major news outlets.

Makes me kinda' angry, actually.

Now you know how I feel when people on my side have their political speech dismissed as a "racist attack" just because they *GASP* make an advertisement critical of the President


No serious mainstream liberal is actually paying any attention to Bill Maher - he is an entertainer. The same cannot be said about mainstream conservatives and Rush Limbaugh, Ted Nugent, Hannity, or Glenn Beck, etc.
 
2012-11-26 10:11:53 PM

gblive: Maybe Krugman needs to address the what occurred in Germany after World War I when it printed lots of its own currency. How does he explain the hyper-inflation that crippled the country. After all it was a large debt in its own currency, Germany literally couldn't have run out of money, after all it could print the stuff.


Your in luck

Link
 
2012-11-26 10:12:31 PM
You're, rather.
 
2012-11-27 09:24:02 AM

impaler: You're, rather.


Pdfs should come with warnings.
 
2012-11-27 10:05:25 AM

bronyaur1: cman: aaronx: As far as I have seen, Krugman's ideological opponents have, basically, used three lines of counter-attack:

- Point to various discredited-by-history Austrian-school theories
- Point to Greece, a country that doesn't even have its own currency, let alone any chance of borrowing in Drachmas.
- Point out that Krugman has a beard and the habit of saying mean things about their dumb ideas.

And yet they get treated as though their arguments are credible by most of the major news outlets.

Makes me kinda' angry, actually.

Now you know how I feel when people on my side have their political speech dismissed as a "racist attack" just because they *GASP* make an advertisement critical of the President

No serious mainstream liberal is actually paying any attention to Bill Maher - he is an entertainer. The same cannot be said about mainstream conservatives and Rush Limbaugh, Ted Nugent, Hannity, or Glenn Beck, etc.


You went just slightly too far there. Rush Limbaugh openly admits (even emphatically admits) that he is an entertainer. He's in precisely the same boat as Bill Maher.
 
Displayed 38 of 88 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report