Krugman Nails GOP Lunatic Hypocrisy

[Dr.House]

Krugman should know all about hypocrisy.

he's nothing but a two bit Democrat-Progressive whore.

Now that post took some real intelligence and some real class!! Whoa!! Heavy!! That was Heavy!!

Way to show us some facts or to come up with a real arguement!! Awsome man!! That is just awsome!!



Truth hurts don't it!!

Repukes did do all those things and have tried to cut medicare!! They cut education, and anything that actually does some good in this nation.. Repukes have done nothing positive for this nation.. Nothing.. And that is a fact!! But feel free to try and prove me wrong on that one..

Try a little harder on your posts dude.. Use your head for something other than a hair factory..

Have a nice day...

Damn...

You're one bitter level 80 blood elf paladin... Maybe you just need more Herbalism in your diet...

Cage the rage, douchebag...

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Thats a common technique.

I issue you the same challenge I gave Dante.... Find an actual thesis and argument that we can discuss beyond the level of `Republicans are _______________` (Fill in pejorative de jour. )

Until then, I will respond in kind. Paul Krugman is a Sirocco... A hot dry desert wind that goes on forever and makes for madness.

Fair enough. Ok, here we go..

I hated Sirocco's but I loved the GTI. I got one in 87. Loved that car and VW back then was worth it. Not so much now.

The Sirocco's body style was not for me at all. I liked the boxy cut of the GTI much better and you would be amazed how many after market body parts they had for that car. As long as you didn't over do it, they can look great.

I shudder to think what you would have come up with if I had said Santa Anna instead.

 

[manifold]

You'd just continue with your[Dante] juvenile sneering and self-proclaimed victory, no matter what anyone says.

That could be the most astute thing I've ever seen you post.

and this juvenile sneer is based on..?

Just an honest observation, relating to both author and subject.

 

[manifold]

As I said before, Krugman is a drunken Keynesian, unable to accept that both Nixon and Obama's administration have disproven Keynesian stimulus theory.

To Krugman, the reason why Obama's attempt at Keynesian stimulus failed is because Obama didn't spend enough. He cannot even imagine that the Austrian school may be correct. Further, Krugman's argument is unfalsifiable...no matter how much we spend in so-called stimulus, Krugman can always claim that "we didn't spend enough". No matter what happens, he's always right, in his mind.


He refuses to accept evidence contradicting his theory and makes unfalsifiable claims...nothing more needs to be said.

 

[Article 15]

I only got halfway through this thread but I doubt any righty managed to do anything other than attack the messenger for the second half either.

 

[Modbert]

I only got halfway through this thread but I doubt any righty managed to do anything other than attack the messenger for the second half either.

You would be correct.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Oh his support of some of the causes that led up to this mess is a problem with me as well.
And is likely the main answer why the right can not really find fault with his statements?

I am of the opinion that much of what our economists were taught and have practiced for decades are now obsolete.

I don't doubt the guy is brilliant. I have read some of his stuff, and he knows whereof he speaks. He has issues. He is the same kind of help to the Democratic party that he was to his former bosses at Enron. He adds an intellectual flavor for stupid or dangerous.

As EaglesEleven noted up Topic, Krugman is one of those who believes the 70's didn't happen, and that you can fool all the people all the time. It won't work.

Keynes made the basic formulation that economic activity is Money in Circulation times the Velocity of money equals the prices of goods available times their quantity. The reason for TARP and the Stimulus package was to prevent the Quantity of money in circulation from shrinking, or to expand it.

For a 70's Style Keynesian, the source of the money supply is irrelevant. The economy moves as long as money keeps moving. The experience of the 70's was that if you throw money in like Obama and co are doing now, and Carter, Nixon and Co did back then, all you will get is higher prices, not greater economic activity. And the 70s had decline in activity as well. Government tossing money into the rat hole seems to have distorting effects that take resources away from productive areas and move them to unproductive areas that reduce the amount of resources available for real growth.

Economics hasn't moved that much away from its classical roots. When folks try and fudge numbers and do non euclidian stuff with theory, you get smashes.

So Ol Paul knows better, and does worse.

 

[manifold]

I only got halfway through this thread but I doubt any righty managed to do anything other than attack the messenger for the second half either.

What else is there?

I mean really, the guy points out that politicians are unprincipled, opportunistic whores and Dante wants to give him a pulitzer prize. If that's not a message worthy of derision, what is?

 

[Oddball]

I only got halfway through this thread but I doubt any righty managed to do anything other than attack the messenger for the second half either.

Pretty tough to take a guy seriously who is either wrong most of the time or spends most of his time attacking those with the "wrong" politics.....like Krugman.

 

[Article 15]

I only got halfway through this thread but I doubt any righty managed to do anything other than attack the messenger for the second half either.

Pretty tough to take a guy seriously who is either wrong most of the time or spends most of his time attacking those with the "wrong" politics.....like Krugman.

You just did it again ...

 

[Oddball]

I only got halfway through this thread but I doubt any righty managed to do anything other than attack the messenger for the second half either.

Pretty tough to take a guy seriously who is either wrong most of the time or spends most of his time attacking those with the "wrong" politics.....like Krugman.

You just did it again ...

Yeah....Ain't it great?

So why are so many people complaining? There are three main groups of critics.First, there’s the crazy right, the tea-party and death-panel people — a lunatic fringe that has moved into the heart of the Republican Party. In the past, there was a general understanding that major parties would at least pretend to distance themselves from irrational extremists. But those rules are no longer operative. No, Virginia, at this point, there is no sanity clause.

~Paul Krugman

Paul Krugman: “crazy,” “lunatic,” “irrational extremist” | wakalix

An Open Letter to Paul Krugman - Tech Central Station

 

[Modbert]

You just did it again ...

Chalk it up to the internet version of chewing your nails.

 

[William Joyce]

My hat's off to Paul Krugman for being the first and only Jew to break into the opinion-writing business for the New York Times. Wow!

 

[Oddball]

You just did it again ...

Chalk it up to the internet version of chewing your nails.

What more could any of you schlubbs expect from a thread title that starts off calling people lunatics?

 

[uscitizen]

As I said before, Krugman is a drunken Keynesian, unable to accept that both Nixon and Obama's administration have disproven Keynesian stimulus theory.

To Krugman, the reason why Obama's attempt at Keynesian stimulus failed is because Obama didn't spend enough. He cannot even imagine that the Austrian school may be correct. Further, Krugman's argument is unfalsifiable...no matter how much we spend in so-called stimulus, Krugman can always claim that "we didn't spend enough". No matter what happens, he's always right, in his mind.


He refuses to accept evidence contradicting his theory and makes unfalsifiable claims...nothing more needs to be said.

That is unfortunately part of his problem. That problem seems to be an epidemic in the economic sector.

 

[eagleseven]

That is unfortunately part of his problem. That problem seems to be an epidemic in the economic sector.

I've personally been trained in the Chicago School (Friedman), but see that both Keynesians and the Austrians (Hayek) have valid insights.

Then again, I haven't invested my career and credibility in the success of any one school (Krugman).

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I'm starting to like Paul Krugman more and more as time goes on.Today's NYT:

While Krugman is correct about the Republicans' hypocrisy concerning Medicare, he is as much a biased ideologue as those he criticizes, so I would exercise caution in the use of his words without verifying them through a secondary source first.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Wasn't that article in the National Enquirer also ? .....

Hey, the National Enquirer brought down John Edwards.

 

[MIPS]

That is unfortunately part of his problem. That problem seems to be an epidemic in the economic sector.

I've personally been trained in the Chicago School (Friedman), but see that both Keynesians and the Austrians (Hayek) have valid insights.

Then again, I haven't invested my career and credibility in the success of any one school (Krugman).

You mean Austrians (Von Mises, Menger, von Bohm-Bawerk), don't you? Friedrich von Hayek was a "disciple" of Von Mises and Menger after all and wasn't one of the founders of the Austrian School, although in my own estimation Hayek was one of it's most important members.

 

[Polk]

It's not a cut when budget totals increase.

Hack.

That's especially ironic coming from a goldbug.