Krugman kicks von Mises acolyte while he's down

[Skull Pilot]

This is one of those times when cuts are not really cuts at all but rather smaller than planned increases

 

[Dot Com]

not surprising from a 100% fool who thinks Friedman is a lib commie progressive when thats the last way he would describe himself or the last way other well know economists would describe him!! Slow?

I never said he was a "lib commie progressive".

Wow.

This is why I had to put that low-IQ troll on ignore. Nothing personal, just he doesn't know what he's supposed to be debating > 1/2 the time.

As to Krugman, he justified why he calls-out the libertarian economist hack/cranks:
from OP source (snip)

Now, when I say things like that, people start howling about lack of civility. But I wasn’t insulting someone for the sake of insult; if you didn’t understand the essential dishonesty of the plan, you weren’t getting the story right. Yes, I could have used diffident language — but why? Readers deserve to be told clearly what is going on.

Just so @crusderfrank doesn't miss the reasoning behind Krugman's calling out of Lyin' Ryan (R) [the last Repub VP candidate ]

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I never said he was a "lib commie progressive".

Wow.

This is why I had to put that low-IQ troll on ignore. Nothing personal, just he doesn't know what he's supposed to be debating > 1/2 the time.

As to Krugman, he justified why he calls-out the libertarian economist hack/cranks:
from OP source (snip)

Now, when I say things like that, people start howling about lack of civility. But I wasn’t insulting someone for the sake of insult; if you didn’t understand the essential dishonesty of the plan, you weren’t getting the story right. Yes, I could have used diffident language — but why? Readers deserve to be told clearly what is going on.

Just so @crusderfrank doesn't miss the reasoning behind Krugman's calling out of Lyin' Ryan (R) [the last Repub VP candidate ]

dear, if you have something intelligent to say against conservatism please tell us what it is or admit you can't defend your positions.

 

[bripat9643]

First Ryan (R) put forward his budget that was universally decried/derided by the Catholic church for punishing the Poor while simultaneously showering tax cuts on the Rich.

THEN, the von Mises acolyte ran on the last Repub ticket and lost

Now Krugman calls him out for his rw/psychotic libertarian failings:


Fiscal Flimflam, Revisited
(snip)

As I and others pointed out at the time, when you looked at the substance of what Ryan was proposing, it didn’t at all match up to his supposed deep concern over the deficit. Specifically, in the first decade he proposed savage cuts in aid to the poor, but he also proposed huge tax cuts for the rich — and the tax cuts for the rich were bigger than the aid cuts for the poor, so that the specifics of the plan were actually deficit-increasing, not deficit-reducing.

So how did he claim otherwise? By declaring that he would make his tax cuts deficit-neutral by closing loopholes — but he refused to say anything about which loopholes he would close; and by claiming that he would make huge cuts in discretionary spending, again without specifying what he would cut. So the budget was essentially a con job.

Way to go Paul Keep exposing those rw snake oil salesmen who just happen to be, sadly, in republican leadership positions

It's really not difficult to point out the multiple problems with the Austrian School. The problem I have is most our self-appointed economic geniuses on the forum have never taken an economics class, unless you count rereading axioms by a dead Austrian sociologist.

And this guy:

YEah, the Keynesian quacks are so credible. No problems with that theory. There's a long list of predictions made by Keynes that turned out to be utterly wrong, but that doesn't matter to the "hear-no-evil, see-no-evil, speak no evil" crowd.

 

[bripat9643]

It's what inevitably happens when you base your worldview around nonsense.

please give us your most substantive example of nonsense or admit you cant defend what you say.

I've spent countless threads debating the ABCT, Praexology, the natural rate of interest, Say's Law, etc, etc, etc.

The forum has a search function, Einstein.

Yeah, I've participated in some of that discussion, and it's utterly hilarious!

 

[bripat9643]

It's really not difficult to point out the multiple problems with the Austrian School. The problem I have is most our self-appointed economic geniuses on the forum have never taken an economics class, unless you count rereading axioms by a dead Austrian sociologist.

And this guy:

why do they cling to these theories even after they're shown to have been based on a hunch rather than facts-based. scientific inquiry?

It's what inevitably happens when you base your worldview around nonsense.

Irony!

 

[ShackledNation]

First Ryan (R) put forward his budget that was universally decried/derided by the Catholic church for punishing the Poor while simultaneously showering tax cuts on the Rich.

THEN, the von Mises acolyte ran on the last Repub ticket and lost

Now Krugman calls him out for his rw/psychotic libertarian failings:


Fiscal Flimflam, Revisited
(snip)

As I and others pointed out at the time, when you looked at the substance of what Ryan was proposing, it didn’t at all match up to his supposed deep concern over the deficit. Specifically, in the first decade he proposed savage cuts in aid to the poor, but he also proposed huge tax cuts for the rich — and the tax cuts for the rich were bigger than the aid cuts for the poor, so that the specifics of the plan were actually deficit-increasing, not deficit-reducing.

So how did he claim otherwise? By declaring that he would make his tax cuts deficit-neutral by closing loopholes — but he refused to say anything about which loopholes he would close; and by claiming that he would make huge cuts in discretionary spending, again without specifying what he would cut. So the budget was essentially a con job.

Way to go Paul Keep exposing those rw snake oil salesmen who just happen to be, sadly, in republican leadership positions

Ryan is a Mises acolyte? Really? REALLY?

 

[rdean]

First Ryan (R) put forward his budget that was universally decried/derided by the Catholic church for punishing the Poor while simultaneously showering tax cuts on the Rich.

THEN, the von Mises acolyte ran on the last Repub ticket and lost

Now Krugman calls him out for his rw/psychotic libertarian failings:


Fiscal Flimflam, Revisited
(snip)

As I and others pointed out at the time, when you looked at the substance of what Ryan was proposing, it didn’t at all match up to his supposed deep concern over the deficit. Specifically, in the first decade he proposed savage cuts in aid to the poor, but he also proposed huge tax cuts for the rich — and the tax cuts for the rich were bigger than the aid cuts for the poor, so that the specifics of the plan were actually deficit-increasing, not deficit-reducing.

So how did he claim otherwise? By declaring that he would make his tax cuts deficit-neutral by closing loopholes — but he refused to say anything about which loopholes he would close; and by claiming that he would make huge cuts in discretionary spending, again without specifying what he would cut. So the budget was essentially a con job.

Way to go Paul Keep exposing those rw snake oil salesmen who just happen to be, sadly, in republican leadership positions

dear, if you have something against conservatism why not tell us exactly what it is or admit you lack the IQ for it.

Conservatism is a failed ideology. The facts support such an accusation are endless and have been linked to many times on this site .

How's that?

 

[Shanty]

First Ryan (R) put forward his budget that was universally decried/derided by the Catholic church for punishing the Poor while simultaneously showering tax cuts on the Rich.

THEN, the von Mises acolyte ran on the last Repub ticket and lost

Now Krugman calls him out for his rw/psychotic libertarian failings:


Fiscal Flimflam, Revisited
(snip)

As I and others pointed out at the time, when you looked at the substance of what Ryan was proposing, it didn’t at all match up to his supposed deep concern over the deficit. Specifically, in the first decade he proposed savage cuts in aid to the poor, but he also proposed huge tax cuts for the rich — and the tax cuts for the rich were bigger than the aid cuts for the poor, so that the specifics of the plan were actually deficit-increasing, not deficit-reducing.

So how did he claim otherwise? By declaring that he would make his tax cuts deficit-neutral by closing loopholes — but he refused to say anything about which loopholes he would close; and by claiming that he would make huge cuts in discretionary spending, again without specifying what he would cut. So the budget was essentially a con job.

Way to go Paul Keep exposing those rw snake oil salesmen who just happen to be, sadly, in republican leadership positions

It's really not difficult to point out the multiple problems with the Austrian School. The problem I have is most our self-appointed economic geniuses on the forum have never taken an economics class, unless you count rereading axioms by a dead Austrian sociologist.

And this guy:

Ask them for the data. Then watch the Austrian School cultists squirm because their own theories say they can't accept empirical evidence over an axiom.

 

[Dot Com]

First Ryan (R) put forward his budget that was universally decried/derided by the Catholic church for punishing the Poor while simultaneously showering tax cuts on the Rich.

THEN, the von Mises acolyte ran on the last Repub ticket and lost

Now Krugman calls him out for his rw/psychotic libertarian failings:


Fiscal Flimflam, Revisited
(snip)


Way to go Paul Keep exposing those rw snake oil salesmen who just happen to be, sadly, in republican leadership positions

dear, if you have something against conservatism why not tell us exactly what it is or admit you lack the IQ for it.

Conservatism is a failed ideology. The facts support such an accusation are endless and have been linked to many times on this site .

How's that?

all one has to do is see what happens when one of their people institutes those policies.

 

[Kimura]

First Ryan (R) put forward his budget that was universally decried/derided by the Catholic church for punishing the Poor while simultaneously showering tax cuts on the Rich.

THEN, the von Mises acolyte ran on the last Repub ticket and lost

Now Krugman calls him out for his rw/psychotic libertarian failings:


Fiscal Flimflam, Revisited
(snip)


Way to go Paul Keep exposing those rw snake oil salesmen who just happen to be, sadly, in republican leadership positions

It's really not difficult to point out the multiple problems with the Austrian School. The problem I have is most our self-appointed economic geniuses on the forum have never taken an economics class, unless you count rereading axioms by a dead Austrian sociologist.

And this guy:

YEah, the Keynesian quacks are so credible. No problems with that theory. There's a long list of predictions made by Keynes that turned out to be utterly wrong, but that doesn't matter to the "hear-no-evil, see-no-evil, speak no evil" crowd.

Not true at all. Many self-proclaimed Keynesians of the IMF and World Bank variety chime in with absurd nonsense like "fiscal space" which means a country can't stimulate its economy because it cannot "borrow". A monetary sovereign doesn't need to borrow its own money to stimulate its economy.

With that being said, Keynes made innumerable insights in the General Theory, which opened the door for many economists.

 

[Kimura]

please give us your most substantive example of nonsense or admit you cant defend what you say.

I've spent countless threads debating the ABCT, Praexology, the natural rate of interest, Say's Law, etc, etc, etc.

The forum has a search function, Einstein.

Yeah, I've participated in some of that discussion, and it's utterly hilarious!

It is.

This coming from a guy that refers to a monetarily sovereign government's ability to issue its own currency as counterfeiting.

 

[Kimura]

First Ryan (R) put forward his budget that was universally decried/derided by the Catholic church for punishing the Poor while simultaneously showering tax cuts on the Rich.

THEN, the von Mises acolyte ran on the last Repub ticket and lost

Now Krugman calls him out for his rw/psychotic libertarian failings:


Fiscal Flimflam, Revisited
(snip)


Way to go Paul Keep exposing those rw snake oil salesmen who just happen to be, sadly, in republican leadership positions

It's really not difficult to point out the multiple problems with the Austrian School. The problem I have is most our self-appointed economic geniuses on the forum have never taken an economics class, unless you count rereading axioms by a dead Austrian sociologist.

And this guy:

Ask them for the data. Then watch the Austrian School cultists squirm because their own theories say they can't accept empirical evidence over an axiom.

That's right. Oh yeah, they also reject econometrics. We'd don't need any data or statistical analysis, that's for the evil statists.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It's really not difficult to point out the multiple problems with the Austrian School. The problem I have is most our self-appointed economic geniuses on the forum have never taken an economics class, unless you count rereading axioms by a dead Austrian sociologist.

And this guy:

Ask them for the data. Then watch the Austrian School cultists squirm because their own theories say they can't accept empirical evidence over an axiom.

That's right. Oh yeah, they also reject econometrics. We'd don't need any data or statistical analysis, that's for the evil statists.

dear we have data, China just switched to free markets and they saved 50 million from slowly starving to death from continued liberal interference!! Do you understand now?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I've spent countless threads debating the ABCT, Praexology, the natural rate of interest, Say's Law, etc, etc, etc.

The forum has a search function, Einstein.

Yeah, I've participated in some of that discussion, and it's utterly hilarious!

It is.

This coming from a guy that refers to a monetarily sovereign government's ability to issue its own currency as counterfeiting.

if a crook prints money to pay his bills its counterfeiting, but when a govt does its not??

 

[Kimura]

Ask them for the data. Then watch the Austrian School cultists squirm because their own theories say they can't accept empirical evidence over an axiom.

That's right. Oh yeah, they also reject econometrics. We'd don't need any data or statistical analysis, that's for the evil statists.

dear we have data, China just switched to free markets and they saved 50 million from slowly starving to death from continued liberal interference!! Do you understand now?

China is hardly "free market", they have a strong state sector.

 

[Kimura]

Yeah, I've participated in some of that discussion, and it's utterly hilarious!

It is.

This coming from a guy that refers to a monetarily sovereign government's ability to issue its own currency as counterfeiting.

if a crook prints money to pay his bills its counterfeiting, but when a govt does its not??

Please tell me the difference between federal spending that's printing money and federal spending that's not printing money.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It is.

This coming from a guy that refers to a monetarily sovereign government's ability to issue its own currency as counterfeiting.

if a crook prints money to pay his bills its counterfeiting, but when a govt does its not??

Please tell me the difference between federal spending that's printing money and federal spending that's not printing money.

what? Spending from tax revenue is not counterfeiting, spending from printing is counterfeiting. Get it now?

 

[Kimura]

if a crook prints money to pay his bills its counterfeiting, but when a govt does its not??

Please tell me the difference between federal spending that's printing money and federal spending that's not printing money.

what? Spending from tax revenue is not counterfeiting, spending from printing is counterfeiting. Get it now?

That's not how it works. Under our fiat system, spending precedes taxation. All tax payments and bond purchases are made with $$$ that is already spent. If this wasn't the case, there'd be ZERO $$$$ to purchase Treasuries or any $$$$ to pay your tax obligations.

The settlement of bond auctions and tax payments to Treasury only occur through reserve accounts. The balances in these reserve accounts emanate from previous government deficits from FED loans or credits to these reserve accounts. These FED loans can be made by the purchase of private securities, loans, and repos.

It all boils down to spending first. Get it now?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Please tell me the difference between federal spending that's printing money and federal spending that's not printing money.

what? Spending from tax revenue is not counterfeiting, spending from printing is counterfeiting. Get it now?

That's not how it works. Under our fiat system, spending precedes taxation. All tax payments and bond purchases are made with $$$ that is already spent. If this wasn't the case, there'd be ZERO $$$$ to purchase Treasuries or any $$$$ to pay your tax obligations.

The settlement of bond auctions and tax payments to Treasury only occur through reserve accounts. The balances in these reserve accounts emanate from previous government deficits from FED loans or credits to these reserve accounts. These FED loans can be made by the purchase of private securities, loans, and repos.

It all boils down to spending first. Get it now?

dear, the issue is whether the govt intends to cover its spending from taxes or from merely printing more money. I'm not surprised that a progressive libertarian would be equally confused about everything!