Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You realize the people who created Apple started off poor dont you? Oh you dont well thats not surprising because you know absolutely nothing about anything1) A person is not a country , according to Krugman
2) If a person spends, drinks, or takes drugs too much the obvious solution is to cut back, according to Krugman. But if many individuals cut back it will depress the economy he says.
3) Conversely, if a drunken government spends too much the solution is too keep spending since that stimulates the economy. To cut back would depress the economy and sustain the Obama depression, according to Krugman.
Does this make sense to anyone?
Krugman is a highly touted idiot.
Idiot??? It makes perfect sense to tax the rich so they cant start more companies like Apple and Google in order to get more bridges to nowhere!
Its very stimulative too because when government spends money it magicially and multiplies while when the people who earned the money spend it, it doesn't.
I know of no instance where either an individual or a country managed to spend themselves out of debt or a recession. Stimulus is a temporary balm, it picks up an economy until the money runs out and then you're almost back where you started but you now have more debt.
You realize the people who created Apple started off poor dont you? Oh you dont well thats not surprising because you know absolutely nothing about anythingKrugman is a highly touted idiot.
Idiot??? It makes perfect sense to tax the rich so they cant start more companies like Apple and Google in order to get more bridges to nowhere!
Its very stimulative too because when government spends money it magicially and multiplies while when the people who earned the money spend it, it doesn't.
Keynesian economics actually can be effective if used judiciously and carefully in ways that promote economic activity. But true Keynesian economics is intended to be short lived and reasonable and with the expectation that the increased economic activity will allow the monies to be repaid to the public treasury within a short period. No expenditures that will create permanent deficits or permanently add to the national debt are true Keynesian expenditures.
Also bailouts of financial institutions, floundering corporations, unions, or stressed state and municipal governments is NOT Keynesian spending, nor is that funneled to cronies or those owed something for campaign contributions.
The main criticism I've seen of Paul Krugman is that when he is in ultra partisan mode, he seems to be blind to that fact.
Also bailouts of financial institutions, floundering corporations, unions, or stressed state and municipal governments is NOT Keynesian spending, nor is that funneled to cronies or those owed something for campaign contributions.
The main criticism I've seen of Paul Krugman is that when he is in ultra partisan mode, he seems to be blind to that fact.
Keynesian economics actually can be effective if used judiciously and carefully in ways that promote economic activity. But true Keynesian economics is intended to be short lived and reasonable and with the expectation that the increased economic activity will allow the monies to be repaid to the public treasury within a short period. No expenditures that will create permanent deficits or permanently add to the national debt are true Keynesian expenditures.
Also bailouts of financial institutions, floundering corporations, unions, or stressed state and municipal governments is NOT Keynesian spending, nor is that funneled to cronies or those owed something for campaign contributions.
The main criticism I've seen of Paul Krugman is that when he is in ultra partisan mode, he seems to be blind to that fact.
That's what I was taught too, along with "FDR rescued us from the Depression" and "Joe McCarthy started a Red Scare" and NONE of it, absolutely None of it is true
Keynesian economics actually can be effective if used judiciously and carefully in ways that promote economic activity. But true Keynesian economics is intended to be short lived and reasonable and with the expectation that the increased economic activity will allow the monies to be repaid to the public treasury within a short period. No expenditures that will create permanent deficits or permanently add to the national debt are true Keynesian expenditures.
Also bailouts of financial institutions, floundering corporations, unions, or stressed state and municipal governments is NOT Keynesian spending, nor is that funneled to cronies or those owed something for campaign contributions.
The main criticism I've seen of Paul Krugman is that when he is in ultra partisan mode, he seems to be blind to that fact.
That's what I was taught too, along with "FDR rescued us from the Depression" and "Joe McCarthy started a Red Scare" and NONE of it, absolutely None of it is true
Well Keynesian economics as I defined it is how Keynes himself described it. Keynes was required reading in Introduction to Economics and Economics 101 et al. In recent decades, his ideas have been so amended, revised, and stretched in many different ways by many, including Paul Krugman, that what is taught of him these days bears little semblance to what he actually wrote and taught.
That's what I was taught too, along with "FDR rescued us from the Depression" and "Joe McCarthy started a Red Scare" and NONE of it, absolutely None of it is true
Well Keynesian economics as I defined it is how Keynes himself described it. Keynes was required reading in Introduction to Economics and Economics 101 et al. In recent decades, his ideas have been so amended, revised, and stretched in many different ways by many, including Paul Krugman, that what is taught of him these days bears little semblance to what he actually wrote and taught.
True. Obama dragged Keynesian economics down to the bottom with his one failed term
1) A person is not a country , according to Krugman
2) If a person spends, drinks, or takes drugs too much the obvious solution is to cut back, according to Krugman. But if many individuals cut back it will depress the economy he says.
3) Conversely, if a drunken government spends too much the solution is too keep spending since that stimulates the economy. To cut back would depress the economy and sustain the Obama depression, according to Krugman.
Does this make sense to anyone?
^^^^
Appeal to authority.
^^^^
Appeal to authority.
1) A person is not a country , according to Krugman
2) If a person spends, drinks, or takes drugs too much the obvious solution is to cut back, according to Krugman. But if many individuals cut back it will depress the economy he says.
3) Conversely, if a drunken government spends too much the solution is too keep spending since that stimulates the economy. To cut back would depress the economy and sustain the Obama depression, according to Krugman.
Does this make sense to anyone?
The above doesn't make sense.
If course the above doesn't really even remotely describe the real policy changes that Krugman is proposing either.
Basically you are proposing to debate against a straw man of you own device.
The reason the stimulus has been such a colossal failure has been due to the fact that there wasn't enough public works programs, not that I'm sure that would have completely fixed the economy anyways, but at least it would have gotten dollars into the hands of workers instead of the banks.
a little Econ 101 for you. If getting money into people's hands worked the government could merely print it and mail it out rather than waste years searching for shovel ready projects. As a liberal you won't have clue how to understand that. Sorry.
Actually more inflation would improve the economy. Higher inflation lowers debt burdens meaning more inflation would solve the consumer problem. Furthermore inflation would stimulate consumption.If the Fed continues to print money to keep real interest rates negative by buying up Treasuries, the GDP may rise nominally, but real GDP would fall in inflation adjusted terms and could even precipitate a collapse of the dollar.
Actually Liberals do have a easy fix, its called more government deficit spendingIt is bad all around and getting worse, and your partisan ass kissing is a failure to realize that the liberals or the so called conservatives have no answer that is going to be an easy and fluid fix.
What a totally ignorant fuckwad. You should get the Krugman Noble Prize for being Wrong in the Trillions Column
The reason that Keynes' model does not work is that "governments worldwide are totally incapable of stopping the money printing.
this is 100% true. Krugman says deficitis are important but we'll worry about them later. In turth, liberals never worry about them because their only real priority is more and more welfare entitlement Marxist redistribution vote buying.
Liar.Krugman is a hack and he knows it. About a year back he wrote a terrible piece that completely defied economic sense and the commenters took him on and he got owned so bad that he had to turn off the comments.
I like your other suit better.1) A person is not a country , according to Krugman
2) If a person spends, drinks, or takes drugs too much the obvious solution is to cut back, according to Krugman. But if many individuals cut back it will depress the economy he says.
3) Conversely, if a drunken government spends too much the solution is too keep spending since that stimulates the economy. To cut back would depress the economy and sustain the Obama depression, according to Krugman.
Does this make sense to anyone?
Yes. See "thrift, paradox of".
No, dumbass. You print money to pay construction firms, fixing bridges, roads, interstates, schools, etc.
These projects employ 100s of people.
