Do you have adblock enabled?
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)   Encouraging different spending behavior during economic downturns versus economic upswings is based on science, and as such, we reject it   (nytimes.com) divider line 126
    More: Scary, recession, austerity measures, economic expansion  
•       •       •

6047 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Apr 2013 at 9:20 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-29 08:48:04 AM  
The economy should be in a huge upswing by now.

The problem is is perception. We are in a shiatty economy because we believe we are in a shiatty economy. This makes us change our spending habits and the change of spending habits forces others to change theirs as well. This lack of spending means lower tax collection. The lower tax collection means that you have less money for social services. Less money for social services means that those who depend on it for their business income arent getting as much as they used to. That changes their spending habits, taking us back to step 1. It is an endless cycle.

This is not a "nation of whiners" speech. I am not saying that people are not suffering, because they are. People are indeed suffering because we collectively think this economy is in the shiatter. These people lose their jobs because of perception that the economy can go from bad to insanely bad in a heartbeat.
 
2013-04-29 08:56:33 AM  

cman: The problem is is perception. We are in a shiatty economy because we believe we are in a shiatty economy. This makes us change our spending habits and the change of spending habits forces others to change theirs as well. This lack of spending means lower tax collection. The lower tax collection means that you have less money for social services. Less money for social services means that those who depend on it for their business income arent getting as much as they used to. That changes their spending habits, taking us back to step 1. It is an endless cycle a positive feedback loop.


It would be nice if there was a systematic way to counter-act that.
 
2013-04-29 09:23:36 AM  
The state Attorney General's office said Friday the so-called Narragansett Rune Stone was returned to state custody April 16, following a joint investigation by that office and the state Department of Environmental Management.
 
2013-04-29 09:23:51 AM  

impaler: cman: The problem is is perception. We are in a shiatty economy because we believe we are in a shiatty economy. This makes us change our spending habits and the change of spending habits forces others to change theirs as well. This lack of spending means lower tax collection. The lower tax collection means that you have less money for social services. Less money for social services means that those who depend on it for their business income arent getting as much as they used to. That changes their spending habits, taking us back to step 1. It is an endless cycle a positive feedback loop.

It would be nice if there was a systematic way to counter-act that.


SOSHULIZIMSZ!
 
2013-04-29 09:24:24 AM  

cman: The economy should be in a huge upswing by now.

The problem is is perception. We are in a shiatty economy because we believe we are in a shiatty economy. This makes us change our spending habits and the change of spending habits forces others to change theirs as well. This lack of spending means lower tax collection. The lower tax collection means that you have less money for social services. Less money for social services means that those who depend on it for their business income arent getting as much as they used to. That changes their spending habits, taking us back to step 1. It is an endless cycle.

This is not a "nation of whiners" speech. I am not saying that people are not suffering, because they are. People are indeed suffering because we collectively think this economy is in the shiatter. These people lose their jobs because of perception that the economy can go from bad to insanely bad in a heartbeat.


This.  Consider the number of job openings vs the number of unemployed.  Businesses are skittish about their economic futures, and as such aren't willing to invest in training up someone and are holding out for Mr./Ms. Right.
 
2013-04-29 09:26:14 AM  
Paul Krugman - writing the same article over & over again since 2008.

"Ha Ha! Look how right I am!"

I wish congress would just do what he says. If it works, fantastic. If it doesn't, well at least we tried something different. But most importantly, it'll get Krugman to shut up for a few minutes before he starts the "No no that isn't what I said to do" articles.
 
2013-04-29 09:26:27 AM  
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
Unavailable for comment.
 
2013-04-29 09:26:51 AM  
Unfortunately, it works the exact opposite way:
Federal spending is up during good times.
Federal spending is down during bad times.
 
2013-04-29 09:28:47 AM  
In the battle between Economics and Reaganomics, the Gipper always wins.

/always
//trickle down will eventually work
 
2013-04-29 09:29:40 AM  

cman: This is not a "nation of whiners" speech.


Saying it isn't doesn't change the fact that it is.

/why don't people listen to you when you tell them to think positive?
//because you try to feed them BS lines like that, and nobody is buying it any more
///even if you happen to be correct
 
2013-04-29 09:29:49 AM  

cman: The problem is is perception.


Bullshiat, the problem is the reality of unused capacity.  Which we could be utilizing, thus putting people to work by spending some money; money we borrow at a lower rate than inflation.  Money we create out of thin air for no other purpose than to facilitate economic activity we're neglecting to address right now.  The last 5 years have been a self inflicted wound in the name of misguided austerity because half wits think people need to suffer for their sins against the economy.
 
2013-04-29 09:32:00 AM  

Stoj: Paul Krugman - writing the same article over & over again since 2008.

"Ha Ha! Look how right I am!"

I wish congress would just do what he says. If it works, fantastic. If it doesn't, well at least we tried something different. But most importantly, it'll get Krugman to shut up for a few minutes before he starts the "No no that isn't what I said to do" articles.


Maybe he wouldn't have to keep writing the same article over and over if they didn't keep making the same dumbass mistakes over and over
 
2013-04-29 09:32:02 AM  
The only way to get rid of a mess is to clean it up.  There has been little to no cleaning done during this economic downturn, therefore there is no sense that the problem has been rectified.
 
2013-04-29 09:33:17 AM  

DubtodaIll: The only way to get rid of a mess is to clean it up.  There has been little to no cleaning done during this economic downturn, therefore there is no sense that the problem has been rectified.


What do you mean by 'clean up'?
 
2013-04-29 09:35:34 AM  

DarnoKonrad: cman: The problem is is perception.

Bullshiat, the problem is the reality of unused capacity.  Which we could be utilizing, thus putting people to work by spending some money; money we borrow at a lower rate than inflation.  Money we create out of thin air for no other purpose than to facilitate economic activity we're neglecting to address right now.  The last 5 years have been a self inflicted wound in the name of misguided austerity because half wits think people need to suffer for their sins against the economy.


If it was as simple as commit sin X receive punishment -X.  But that's not what we see happen.  Instead, those who commit the sins by and large are not the ones who pay for them.  Instead it's more like commit sin X receive punishment 0, and commit sin 0 receive punishment -X.  That, I am not cool with.
 
2013-04-29 09:35:44 AM  
The problem with Krugman is that he doesn't understand the nature of government. In theory he is correct, but in practice his stimulus spending would never be rolled back in good times. Too many "critical" projects in congresional district X.... Too many contractors at the teet... Too much "won't someone please think of the children" rhetoric.... So in practice what he's asking for is the perpetually higher spending and deficits he says he's not advocating for.
 
2013-04-29 09:36:55 AM  
Unemployment remains high because there is no replacement for the booming home construction, fueled by a couple trillion in hot checks.

New construction both supplies jobs directly to low-skill and no-skill workers who are otherwise unemployable and throws off additional positions down stream in retail, finance, etc. New construction also gins up property values, increasing the tax base, and hence revenue for localities to spend on teachers, firemen, police, etc.

In sum, the feds can spend all they want, nothing is going to bring back the 2003-2007 bubble except another bubble. Bubble.
 
2013-04-29 09:37:20 AM  

DarnoKonrad: cman: The problem is is perception.

Bullshiat, the problem is the reality of unused capacity.  Which we could be utilizing, thus putting people to work by spending some money; money we borrow at a lower rate than inflation.  Money we create out of thin air for no other purpose than to facilitate economic activity we're neglecting to address right now.  The last 5 years have been a self inflicted wound in the name of misguided austerity because half wits think people need to suffer for their sins against the economy.


The Treasury should be selling 100-year bonds.  Lock in those sub-zero interest rates and Arab/Chinese money for a long time.
 
2013-04-29 09:37:21 AM  

Stoj: Paul Krugman - writing the same article over & over again since 2008.

"Ha Ha! Look how right I am!"

I wish congress would just do what he says. If it works, fantastic. If it doesn't, well at least we tried something different. But most importantly, it'll get Krugman to shut up for a few minutes before he starts the "No no that isn't what I said to do" articles.


"the problem is that the stimulus was not large enough to have the quantitative effect, so I'm still right!"

/social "science"
 
2013-04-29 09:37:47 AM  

impaler: cman: The problem is is perception. We are in a shiatty economy because we believe we are in a shiatty economy. This makes us change our spending habits and the change of spending habits forces others to change theirs as well. This lack of spending means lower tax collection. The lower tax collection means that you have less money for social services. Less money for social services means that those who depend on it for their business income arent getting as much as they used to. That changes their spending habits, taking us back to step 1. It is an endless cycle a positive feedback loop.

It would be nice if there was a systematic way to counter-act that.


Sure, but where do you start. I mean we have been attempting to counter-act that problem since 1981.
 
2013-04-29 09:38:51 AM  

painless42: The problem with Krugman is that he doesn't understand the nature of government. In theory he is correct, but in practice his stimulus spending would never be rolled back in good times. Too many "critical" projects in congresional district X.... Too many contractors at the teet... Too much "won't someone please think of the children" rhetoric.... So in practice what he's asking for is the perpetually higher spending and deficits he says he's not advocating for.


The government being too stupid or impotent to do what he recommends doesn't make him wrong
 
2013-04-29 09:39:17 AM  

Tomahawk513: DarnoKonrad: cman: The problem is is perception.

Bullshiat, the problem is the reality of unused capacity.  Which we could be utilizing, thus putting people to work by spending some money; money we borrow at a lower rate than inflation.  Money we create out of thin air for no other purpose than to facilitate economic activity we're neglecting to address right now.  The last 5 years have been a self inflicted wound in the name of misguided austerity because half wits think people need to suffer for their sins against the economy.

If it was as simple as commit sin X receive punishment -X.  But that's not what we see happen.  Instead, those who commit the sins by and large are not the ones who pay for them.  Instead it's more like commit sin X receive punishment 0, and commit sin 0 receive punishment -X.  That, I am not cool with.



Whatever that's supposed to mean.  The problem is unused capacity, fill it.  Leave the moralizing to theologians.
 
2013-04-29 09:39:21 AM  

painless42: The problem with Krugman is that he doesn't understand the nature of government. In theory he is correct, but in practice his stimulus spending would never be rolled back in good times. Too many "critical" projects in congresional district X.... Too many contractors at the teet... Too much "won't someone please think of the children" rhetoric.... So in practice what he's asking for is the perpetually higher spending and deficits he says he's not advocating for.


Sadly you are right. in 2000-2001 we had the opportunity to roll back stimulus spending, lower the deficit, and reduce the debt. We chose to decrease taxes instead.
 
2013-04-29 09:39:25 AM  

painless42: The problem with Krugman is that he doesn't understand the nature of government. In theory he is correct, but in practice his stimulus spending would never be rolled back in good times. Too many "critical" projects in congresional district X.... Too many contractors at the teet... Too much "won't someone please think of the children" rhetoric.... So in practice what he's asking for is the perpetually higher spending and deficits he says he's not advocating for.


We have bridges that need repair, roads that need fixing, and instead we're spending money on tanks no one wants.

It's not even a question of how much but where. And really, you can only 'fix' a bridge or road every so often. Spend now on projects that have defined limits and obvious benefits.
 
2013-04-29 09:39:26 AM  

Epoch_Zero: DubtodaIll: The only way to get rid of a mess is to clean it up.  There has been little to no cleaning done during this economic downturn, therefore there is no sense that the problem has been rectified.

What do you mean by 'clean up'?


I'm not really sure as far as I'm not a person in power.  But as far as I can tell all the decision makers who drove us in to this mess are still making important decisions.  That really shouldn't be the case.  There may have been a faster turnaround on this if we had found the originators of the mechanisms that broke the system.  It's difficult to propose what to actually do with these people because they didn't really do anything illegal, but there should be consequences to creating problems that would no exist without their ideas.  What ended up happening is that the originators of the problems continued to succeed while everyone else is taking the shaft.  That's where the "problem of perception" is coming from.
 
2013-04-29 09:39:45 AM  

Slaves2Darkness: impaler: cman: It would be nice if there was a systematic way to counter-act that.

Sure, but where do you start. I mean we have been attempting to counter-act that problem since 1981.


And when you do start to climb back on your feet, Europe comes staggering past all wild-eyed drunk and trips you.
 
2013-04-29 09:41:48 AM  

painless42: The problem with Krugman is that he doesn't understand the nature of government. In theory he is correct, but in practice his stimulus spending would never be rolled back in good times. Too many "critical" projects in congresional district X.... Too many contractors at the teet... Too much "won't someone please think of the children" rhetoric.... So in practice what he's asking for is the perpetually higher spending and deficits he says he's not advocating for.


spurious logic.  We don't have to choose bad policy.  Government at one time did do a good job regulating the economy, and then the ideology of neoliberalism took over.
 
2013-04-29 09:42:05 AM  

painless42: The problem with Krugman is that he doesn't understand the nature of government. In theory he is correct, but in practice his stimulus spending would never be rolled back in good times. Too many "critical" projects in congresional district X.... Too many contractors at the teet... Too much "won't someone please think of the children" rhetoric.... So in practice what he's asking for is the perpetually higher spending and deficits he says he's not advocating for.


You're correct, that is the unfortunate reality in which we live, which is why laws need to be carefully tied to the situations they're supposed to resolve.  For example, if I crafted a law that would increase government spending for the purpose of lowering unemployment, I would need to set up an automatic trigger that would discontinue or lessen the spending based on decreases in unemployment year by year.
 
2013-04-29 09:43:14 AM  

legion_of_doo: Stoj: Paul Krugman - writing the same article over & over again since 2008.

"Ha Ha! Look how right I am!"

I wish congress would just do what he says. If it works, fantastic. If it doesn't, well at least we tried something different. But most importantly, it'll get Krugman to shut up for a few minutes before he starts the "No no that isn't what I said to do" articles.

"the problem is that the stimulus was not large enough to have the quantitative effect, so I'm still right!"

/social "science"


Half the 'stimulus' was tax breaks, not spending targeted at providing work or help to unemployed or directed at promoting hiring. The Republicans refused more direct stimulus. Except in terms of Detroit, where some supported it but they rail against it now that its a good idea.
 
2013-04-29 09:45:39 AM  

Deneb81: painless42: The problem with Krugman is that he doesn't understand the nature of government. In theory he is correct, but in practice his stimulus spending would never be rolled back in good times. Too many "critical" projects in congresional district X.... Too many contractors at the teet... Too much "won't someone please think of the children" rhetoric.... So in practice what he's asking for is the perpetually higher spending and deficits he says he's not advocating for.

We have bridges that need repair, roads that need fixing, and instead we're spending money on tanks no one wants.

It's not even a question of how much but where. And really, you can only 'fix' a bridge or road every so often. Spend now on projects that have defined limits and obvious benefits.


I am curious to know how much of the failing infrastructure is owned by the fed.

I live in Maine. I have been all over New England. One thing is very certain: MA roads are nearly undrivable and ME roads are mostly pristine. I really havent seen much failure of infrastructure in my state. I am certain that it is indeed out there, maybe farther north, but pretty much the blight is personal ownership related.
 
2013-04-29 09:47:11 AM  

Slaves2Darkness: painless42: The problem with Krugman is that he doesn't understand the nature of government. In theory he is correct, but in practice his stimulus spending would never be rolled back in good times. Too many "critical" projects in congresional district X.... Too many contractors at the teet... Too much "won't someone please think of the children" rhetoric.... So in practice what he's asking for is the perpetually higher spending and deficits he says he's not advocating for.

Sadly you are right. in 2000-2001 we had the opportunity to roll back stimulus spending, lower the deficit, and reduce the debt. We chose to decrease taxes instead.


Which acted as stimulus for when the bubble that caused the surpluss crashed, shortening that recession.  What you wanted Bush to go all austerity?
 
2013-04-29 09:48:14 AM  
Did you know that inflation is at Weimar Republic levels because of Paul Krugman's magic money printing press.

That's why all my money is in bitcoins.  It's not just a piece of paper!
 
2013-04-29 09:48:40 AM  

cman: I am curious to know how much of the failing infrastructure is owned by the fed.

I live in Maine. I have been all over New England. One thing is very certain: MA roads are nearly undrivable and ME roads are mostly pristine. I really havent seen much failure of infrastructure in my state. I am certain that it is indeed out there, maybe farther north, but pretty much the blight is personal ownership related.


You're kidding, right?
 
2013-04-29 09:49:32 AM  

cman: Deneb81: painless42: The problem with Krugman is that he doesn't understand the nature of government. In theory he is correct, but in practice his stimulus spending would never be rolled back in good times. Too many "critical" projects in congresional district X.... Too many contractors at the teet... Too much "won't someone please think of the children" rhetoric.... So in practice what he's asking for is the perpetually higher spending and deficits he says he's not advocating for.

We have bridges that need repair, roads that need fixing, and instead we're spending money on tanks no one wants.

It's not even a question of how much but where. And really, you can only 'fix' a bridge or road every so often. Spend now on projects that have defined limits and obvious benefits.

I am curious to know how much of the failing infrastructure is owned by the fed.

I live in Maine. I have been all over New England. One thing is very certain: MA roads are nearly undrivable and ME roads are mostly pristine. I really havent seen much failure of infrastructure in my state. I am certain that it is indeed out there, maybe farther north, but pretty much the blight is personal ownership related.


See: population density.
 
2013-04-29 09:49:47 AM  

Epoch_Zero: cman: I am curious to know how much of the failing infrastructure is owned by the fed.

I live in Maine. I have been all over New England. One thing is very certain: MA roads are nearly undrivable and ME roads are mostly pristine. I really havent seen much failure of infrastructure in my state. I am certain that it is indeed out there, maybe farther north, but pretty much the blight is personal ownership related.

You're kidding, right?


No
 
2013-04-29 09:51:05 AM  
Hey cman:

Cool anecdote about MA roads, bro!

/Massachusetts resident.
 
2013-04-29 09:52:16 AM  

FarkedOver: Hey cman:

Cool anecdote about MA roads, bro!

/Massachusetts resident.


Have you ever been to Bedford?

God damn I am surprised we didnt lose a tire on those roads
 
2013-04-29 09:52:48 AM  

cman: FarkedOver: Hey cman:

Cool anecdote about MA roads, bro!

/Massachusetts resident.

Have you ever been to Bedford?

God damn I am surprised we didnt lose a tire on those roads


You mean it varies from town to town!? The hell you say!
 
2013-04-29 09:53:10 AM  
I saw this from Krugman the other day. It does a great job of explaining exactly what he thinks (sorry for the length):
In order:

1. The economy isn't like an individual family that earns a certain amount and spends some other amount, with no relationship between the two. My spending is your income and your spending is my income. If we both slash spending, both of our incomes fall.

2. We are now in a situation in which many people have cut spending, either because they chose to or because their creditors forced them to, while relatively few people are willing to spend more. The result is depressed incomes and a depressed economy, with millions of willing workers unable to find jobs.

3. Things aren't always this way, but when they are, the government is not in competition with the private sector. Government purchases don't use resources that would otherwise be producing private goods, they put unemployed resources to work. Government borrowing doesn't crowd out private borrowing, it puts idle funds to work. As a result, now is a time when the government should be spending more, not less. If we ignore this insight and cut government spending instead, the economy will shrink and unemployment will rise. In fact, even private spending will shrink, because of falling incomes.

4. This view of our problems has made correct predictions over the past four years, while alternative views have gotten it all wrong. Budget deficits haven't led to soaring interest rates (and the Fed's "money-printing" hasn't led to inflation); austerity policies have greatly deepened economic slumps almost everywhere they have been tried.

5. Yes, the government must pay its bills in the long run. But spending cuts and/or tax increases should wait until the economy is no longer depressed, and the private sector is willing to spend enough to produce full employment. Is this impossibly complicated? I don't think so.
 
2013-04-29 09:53:49 AM  

cman: Epoch_Zero: cman: I am curious to know how much of the failing infrastructure is owned by the fed.

I live in Maine. I have been all over New England. One thing is very certain: MA roads are nearly undrivable and ME roads are mostly pristine. I really havent seen much failure of infrastructure in my state. I am certain that it is indeed out there, maybe farther north, but pretty much the blight is personal ownership related.

You're kidding, right?

No


Okay then, so, just confirming: You think the problem of our crumbling infrastructure is that people aren't fixing the bridges they own?
 
2013-04-29 09:54:35 AM  

Rapmaster2000: That's why all my money is in bitcoins.  It's not just a piece of paper!


You foolish person.
 
2013-04-29 09:55:02 AM  

FarkedOver: cman: FarkedOver: Hey cman:

Cool anecdote about MA roads, bro!

/Massachusetts resident.

Have you ever been to Bedford?

God damn I am surprised we didnt lose a tire on those roads

You mean it varies from town to town!? The hell you say!

 Ok, wise guy, tell me, where in MA do they have drivable roads?
 
2013-04-29 09:56:09 AM  

Epoch_Zero: cman: Epoch_Zero: cman: I am curious to know how much of the failing infrastructure is owned by the fed.

I live in Maine. I have been all over New England. One thing is very certain: MA roads are nearly undrivable and ME roads are mostly pristine. I really havent seen much failure of infrastructure in my state. I am certain that it is indeed out there, maybe farther north, but pretty much the blight is personal ownership related.

You're kidding, right?

No

Okay then, so, just confirming: You think the problem of our crumbling infrastructure is that people aren't fixing the bridges they own?


No

I think the problem with the crumbling infrastructure is related to the fact that states are doing a shiatty job at upkeep
 
2013-04-29 09:56:59 AM  
The problem is that no one with decision making power has ever played EU3.  If this guy had played EU3 he would understand economics beyond the small-scale window he's looking at.  So would congress critters (hopefully, assuming they all aren't corrupt).

Deficit spending works, as he says, to help boost the economy in the long run. In the short term you're in the negative. He is correct about this.  However, after the economy is deemed "boosted" you need to tax the shiat out of your constituents to make back what you lost, or help pay off loans you took in order to do the deficient spending.

Also, every single war in the history of mankind has had war taxes of some form, except the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
 
2013-04-29 09:57:50 AM  

cman: No

I think the problem with the crumbling infrastructure is related to the fact that states are doing a shiatty job at upkeep


cman: I am certain that it is indeed out there, maybe farther north, but pretty much the blight is personal ownership related.

 
2013-04-29 09:58:24 AM  

cman: Deneb81: painless42: The problem with Krugman is that he doesn't understand the nature of government. In theory he is correct, but in practice his stimulus spending would never be rolled back in good times. Too many "critical" projects in congresional district X.... Too many contractors at the teet... Too much "won't someone please think of the children" rhetoric.... So in practice what he's asking for is the perpetually higher spending and deficits he says he's not advocating for.

We have bridges that need repair, roads that need fixing, and instead we're spending money on tanks no one wants.

It's not even a question of how much but where. And really, you can only 'fix' a bridge or road every so often. Spend now on projects that have defined limits and obvious benefits.

I am curious to know how much of the failing infrastructure is owned by the fed.

I live in Maine. I have been all over New England. One thing is very certain: MA roads are nearly undrivable and ME roads are mostly pristine. I really havent seen much failure of infrastructure in my state. I am certain that it is indeed out there, maybe farther north, but pretty much the blight is personal ownership related.


Generally transportation funds are partially fed and partially state funded - but usually state controlled. The idea being that states are better suited to know where the funds need to be spent. The federal funds have to be used on transit maintenance.

However, they're generally not enough to do everything, particularly in states with a lot of state run roads. This is doubly true in the case of bridges, where major repairs isn't just typical annual maintenance, but a large cost. The funds for typical road maintenance are already stretched and the once in a decade (or 4) repairs aren't in it.

And of course the providing of fed funds often is used as an excuse to cut state funding for it... By idiots looking to make a short term gain with much greater long term costs...
 
2013-04-29 09:58:27 AM  
Rich people hate any policy that might increase inflation because it erodes their wealth. They feel that inflationary policy unfairly taxes them because poor people don't have any wealth.

In reality inflation effects everybody - people living paycheck to paycheck find their paycheck buying less.

However a person with 10 million sees 5% inflation as a $500,000 loss being much more important than the $500 loss that someone with only $10,000 would experience. Plus if you are rich then you have a lot of at risk money that you can spend on lobbyists and legislators to prevent the risk.
 
2013-04-29 09:58:30 AM  

cman: FarkedOver: cman: FarkedOver: Hey cman:

Cool anecdote about MA roads, bro!

/Massachusetts resident.

Have you ever been to Bedford?

God damn I am surprised we didnt lose a tire on those roads

You mean it varies from town to town!? The hell you say!
 Ok, wise guy, tell me, where in MA do they have drivable roads?


Take a ride on the south shore some time.  Plymouth county.  Route 18 has been revitalized and expanded to two lanes in most areas. Route 3 is a pretty damn good highway that connects the south shore/cape cod to Rt. 93 (which is also a pretty decent road, minus the traffic during rush hour).

In Bristol county, drive through Taunton. The roads suck.  Once you leave Taunton the roads get better, in any direction.  It's as if it varies from town to town..... so strange, right!?
 
2013-04-29 09:59:18 AM  

thehack: In the battle between Economics and Reaganomics, the Gipper always wins.

/always
//trickle down will eventually work


Yeah, still trying to figure out how Steve Cohen buying a 12 million dollar shark in a tank by Damien Hirst is actually going to trickle down to anyone other than Larry Gagosian and Charles Saatchi.
 
2013-04-29 10:02:41 AM  

Private_Citizen: I saw this from Krugman the other day. It does a great job of explaining exactly what he thinks (sorry for the length):
In order:

1. The economy isn't like an individual family that earns a certain amount and spends some other amount, with no relationship between the two. My spending is your income and your spending is my income. If we both slash spending, both of our incomes fall.

2. We are now in a situation in which many people have cut spending, either because they chose to or because their creditors forced them to, while relatively few people are willing to spend more. The result is depressed incomes and a depressed economy, with millions of willing workers unable to find jobs.

3. Things aren't always this way, but when they are, the government is not in competition with the private sector. Government purchases don't use resources that would otherwise be producing private goods, they put unemployed resources to work. Government borrowing doesn't crowd out private borrowing, it puts idle funds to work. As a result, now is a time when the government should be spending more, not less. If we ignore this insight and cut government spending instead, the economy will shrink and unemployment will rise. In fact, even private spending will shrink, because of falling incomes.

4. This view of our problems has made correct predictions over the past four years, while alternative views have gotten it all wrong. Budget deficits haven't led to soaring interest rates (and the Fed's "money-printing" hasn't led to inflation); austerity policies have greatly deepened economic slumps almost everywhere they have been tried.

5. Yes, the government must pay its bills in the long run. But spending cuts and/or tax increases should wait until the economy is no longer depressed, and the private sector is willing to spend enough to produce full employment. Is this impossibly complicated? I don't think so.


tl:dr

too logical : derp rules!
 
Displayed 50 of 126 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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