Krugman: personal austerity versus government austerity

[itfitzme]

It's none of the govt's damn business how much I eat, drink, spend or sleep.

However, IT IS my business how much gov't eats, drinks, spends and sleeps because they steal money from us to pay for it.

I take it then that you;

don't use the public roads when you got to work.

don't use the sidewalk.

have an outhouse, so you don't use the sewer system.

don't borrow books from the library.

don't and never have called 911, for any reason.

don't report any incident of crime to you to the local police department.

don't call the fire department if your house is on fire.

only purchase property using unlicensed real estate brokers.

only get medical care from an unlicensed medical practitioner.

refuse to purchase agricultural products unless they come from an unregulated and un-inspected farm because e-coli poisoning is not an issue for you.

only buy beef from an un-inspected source.

don't or wouldn't use the court system to sue another for breach of contract or failure of payment.

don't have a driver's license.

never visited a park. (which you couldn't, seeing as you don't drive on the roads or walk on the sidewalks.)

never went to a public school and don't have kids that go to a public school. Seeing as you didn't, I am quite impressed by your ability to read and write. You must be an absolute genius. Did you teach yourself mathematics too? It is apparent that you skipped the course on government. Perhaps you should demand your money back.

Because if you did, then you received services for that tax money and by definition, stealing is taking something from another without return compensation. Actually driving on the road or calling 911 is receiving like compensation for your money.

And I assume that you have never drawn UE benefits and will refuse to collect Social Security as it can only be "stealing" if you don't. As soon as you do, it's not stealing.

If you don't do any of that, drop out of society all together, and live in a shack in the Montana, you can not pay taxes. Perhaps that is what you should do.

When has the government every made it their business how much you sleep?

Really, what are you talking about? The dream police that live inside of your head?

By the way, the government doesn't eat, drink, or sleep. The government isn't a person, it is a bit more of an abstract concept, the collective actions of a group of people, but independent of the actual individuals that it is comprised of.

People that work for the government eat, drink, and sleep. And it doesn't seem like any of your business how much anyone else sleeps.

Have you surrounded your bed with electro-magnetic shielding to keep the CIA from beaming microwaves into your head while you sleep and mind controlling you? A fine netting of conductive metal mesh works well enough. You can look up Faraday Cage for instructions on how to create an electro-magnetically isolated chamber.

You won't be able to receive radio broadcasts, but that's okay, you don't like listening to that FCC regulated radio spectrum anyways.

p.s. Would you please post your address because, seeing as you don't use 911, the police services, or the fire department, there are a lot of people that would be happy to come over, steal everything you own, then set your house of fire, just for the fun of it. We could all have a marshmallow roast.

 

[itfitzme]

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?

Really? You are confused by

a) "A person is not a country"

b) "if many individuals cut back it will depress the economy"

Really?

Okay, I believe that you really don't understand those two. Let me see if I can help.

A country consists of a collection of people. The US has a population of over 360 million individuals. I suppose that, if you want to, you can go buy some island in the South Pacific and declare your sovereignty. I don't see that your sovereign country of Edmonton is going to look like much of a country, by any standard. For instance, it would be stupid for you to have a central bank and issue your own currency so that you can buy products from your own farm, then sell them at your own store to yourself and pay yourself wages. Seems kind of ridiculous.

On the second, let's see. If everyone in the US stopped purchasing everything, stopped purchasing fuel, food, DVDs, cars, internet connectivity, and every manner of product, then what would happen. Oh, there would be no economy. No demand would result in no production. No production would result in no employment. No employment would result in no wages or income. And that is okay because no one is purchasing anything anyways.

Really, you really don't understand that?

I am pretty sure that it is so obvious that it's not even taught as an economic principle. It is just obvious to everyone, like breathing.

Are you actually dedicated to making your stupider and stupider, by refusing to grasp even the most obvious things so you can say, "Oh, that doesn't make sense, how does that make sense?"

I believe that, given a few more months, you may actually be unable to read and write. In a few more years, may actually de-evolve into a caveman.

This is some sort of passive aggressive childhood behavior, isn't it. "Oh, I just don't understand what you mean by 'tie my shoes'. I can't do it."

 

[itfitzme]

Krugman wants you to spend less so the fucking government can take more of your money.

When did Krugman, or any economist, say they want people to spend less money?

 

[editec]

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.

 

[starcraftzzz]

Krugman is a Keynesian in regards to stimulus. Its kind of like doubling down after losing the first bet. 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.

If there wasn't govt stimulus the US economy would of stayed in recession in 2010, and grown by 0% in 2011... But ig uess according to you economic growth si a failure. Given that Europe is implmenting the opposite of stimulus and as a result in still in recession and has a wrose economy then they did in the 30's anyone with a brain would conclude that stimulus is a good idea

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Given that Europe is implmenting the opposite of stimulus and as a result in still in recession and has a wrose economy then they did in the 30's anyone with a brain would conclude that stimulus is a good idea

actually Europe is socialist and so not using austerity at all. Some have merely cut back the rate of growth in spending but intelligent people would not call this austerity.

Germany is the exception, it is financially responsible and Republican with tiny deficits and no minimum wage. etc. Guess what? Its doing very well.

If libtard stimulus( government deficit spending) worked the USA would be booming since we are $16 trillion in debt from deficit spending with libtard BO spending 40 cents of every dollar with borrowed money!!

All way over a liberals head!!

 

[ThinkCritically]

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.

1. I have a degree in economics
2. Liberal? Which part of my "throwing shit against the wall" metaphor made you think I was liberal?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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.

1. I have a degree in economics
2. Liberal? Which part of my "throwing shit against the wall" metaphor made you think I was liberal?

if someone says that public works projects make the economy grow he is a liberal although perhaps without the IQ to know it.

 

[ThinkCritically]

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.

1. I have a degree in economics
2. Liberal? Which part of my "throwing shit against the wall" metaphor made you think I was liberal?

if someone says that public works projects make the economy grow he is a liberal although perhaps without the IQ to know it.

Ok...I was trying to be diplomatic about it. I wasn't in favor of the bail out, but it would have been better to give it to works projects than banks thats all....

 

[starcraftzzz]

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.

Considering you brain is unable to think beyond anything 101 perhaps you should just stick to coloring books

 

[starcraftzzz]

Given that Europe is implmenting the opposite of stimulus and as a result in still in recession and has a wrose economy then they did in the 30's anyone with a brain would conclude that stimulus is a good idea

actually Europe is socialist and so not using austerity at all.

Jesus plz try to speak English.

Some have merely cut back the rate of growth in spending but intelligent people would not call this austerity.

I see so according to you intelligent people would not call cutting spending cutting spending....

Germany is the exception, it is financially responsible and Republican with tiny deficits and no minimum wage. etc. Guess what? Its doing very well.

Germany didn't implement stimulus in fact it increased speeding by 2%... but I dont except you to have a clue

If libtard stimulus( government deficit spending) worked the USA would be booming since we are $16 trillion in debt from deficit spending with libtard BO spending 40 cents of every dollar with borrowed money!!

The US implemented stimulus, and its economy has grown 10% compared to the EU who implemented Austerity and saw its economy shrink by 5%..

All way over a liberals head!!

Yes ypou being cluless and stupid and only having the ability to grasp concepts of one demisinons means other people are dumb

 

[Mr. Jones]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T7ihhl2ScM&feature=player_embedded]Ron Paul vs Paul Krugman... Paul 1 - Krugman 0 - YouTube[/ame]

Krugman speaks about regaining the confidence in the economy, but how is that supposed to actually happen when you have an economy that is counting on dept to grow and function? It is a pyramid scheme, and every dollar is an IOU not backed by tangible goods that holds value, such as gold. Instead they're backed only by the promise and good faith of the country that prints them.
In all actuality these debt backed currencies are backed by only more debt or more promise to pay and nothing more.

Article Source: The Truth Be Told About The Dollar And Gold

 

[itfitzme]

Given that Europe is implmenting the opposite of stimulus and as a result in still in recession and has a wrose economy then they did in the 30's anyone with a brain would conclude that stimulus is a good idea

Now that is a testable statement. I actually believe it because it is objectively measurable and you have the balls to commit to something measurable.

Got a good reference article or something?

 

[itfitzme]

Krugman speaks about regaining the confidence in the economy, but how is that supposed to actually happen when you have an economy that is counting on dept to grow and function? It is a pyramid scheme, and every dollar is an IOU not backed by tangible goods that holds value, such as gold. Instead they're backed only by the promise and good faith of the country that prints them.
In all actuality these debt backed currencies are backed by only more debt or more promise to pay and nothing more.

Article Source: The Truth Be Told About The Dollar And Gold

Dude, gold doesn't have intrinsic value. Nothing has intrinsic value. Gold does not add anything useful to money.

"'they're backed only by the promise and good faith of the country that prints them." is the only thing that gives money value. The "promise to pay" is the extrinsic value, that is it, that is all it ever was. There never was and never will be a "guarantee to pay". It has always been based on good will, a firm handshake, and the strength of one's word. All we have done is taken that and made it a social norm, the money is backed by the full faith and credit of everyone that is part of the economy. You can take US dollars to most every countries and it is backed by the full faith and credit there as well.

You can't make the honoring of contracts, the promise to pay, good faith, and good will intrinsic to some object. They are only intrinsic to people.

It doesn't matter if the money is backed by pigs, gold, diamonds, automobiles, capital equipment, or real estate. Oh, in fact it is backed by pigs, gold, diamonds, automobiles, capital equipment, real estate, and in some parts of the US, marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines. Money is already backed by everything that people find of value and are willing to part with for money.

The money, whether gold coins, bank notes, or sea shells, is nothing but a tool. It's just an IOU that says someone, somewhere, owes you some stuff and if you walk around a lot, you might just find someone that will trade you some stuff for that money.

Now that isn't to say that I am not annoyed by having "an economy that is counting on dept to grow and function".

That the economy depends on this underlying process of growth in order to continue to function also has nothing to do with the extrinsic value of money. Money is just our best manner of representing growth.

The problem has to do with whether people see opportunities for growth or see the need to consolidate.

What annoys me the most is that it appears as if there is no level of sustainability. If the economy isn't growing sufficiently, then it goes into recession. Like a deflationary spiral, it seems that the aggregate behavior can drive a recessionary spiral.

Without the money, the economy simply sucks, it just doesn't function effectively. Money is society's greatest tool, greatest invention. It makes the reallocation of scarce resources highly efficient. But that doesn't mean that with it there is a guarantee that the economy doesn't suck, it just sucks less often.

And gold isn't going to fix it.

 

[starcraftzzz]

Given that Europe is implmenting the opposite of stimulus and as a result in still in recession and has a wrose economy then they did in the 30's anyone with a brain would conclude that stimulus is a good idea

Now that is a testable statement. I actually believe it because it is objectively measurable and you have the balls to commit to something measurable.

Got a good reference article or something?

The Greater Depression - NYTimes.com
The Worse-than Club - NYTimes.com
Euro-Region Economy Contracts as Investment, Exports Decline - Bloomberg

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Given that Europe is implmenting the opposite of stimulus and as a result in still in recession

actually Germany is forcing austerity- i.e., fiscal responsibility on much of Europe so much of Europe can be as successful as Germany. Germany has a near balanced budget, trade surplus, and no minimum wage. Germany proves what is obvious, namely, fiscal responsibility works. Pouring more gas on the fire does not help nor does giving a drunk more booze.

Marxists can get liberals to parrot anything they want it seems. Tell them up is down and they will parrot it.

 

[starcraftzzz]

Given that Europe is implmenting the opposite of stimulus and as a result in still in recession

actually Germany is forcing austerity- i.e., fiscal responsibility on much of Europe so much of Europe can be as successful as Germany. Germany has a near balanced budget, trade surplus, and no minimum wage. Germany proves what is obvious, namely, fiscal responsibility works. Pouring more gas on the fire does not help nor does giving a drunk more booze.

Marxists can get liberals to parrot anything they want it seems. Tell them up is down and they will parrot it.

Yep Europe being in a depression is certainly working out very well

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Given that Europe is implmenting the opposite of stimulus and as a result in still in recession

actually Germany is forcing austerity- i.e., fiscal responsibility on much of Europe so much of Europe can be as successful as Germany. Germany has a near balanced budget, trade surplus, and no minimum wage. Germany proves what is obvious, namely, fiscal responsibility works. Pouring more gas on the fire does not help nor does giving a drunk more booze.

Marxists can get liberals to parrot anything they want it seems. Tell them up is down and they will parrot it.

Yep Europe being in a depression is certainly working out very well

If they would try German austerity( Republican fiscal responsibility) their depression would end. Over your head??

 

[starcraftzzz]

actually Germany is forcing austerity- i.e., fiscal responsibility on much of Europe so much of Europe can be as successful as Germany. Germany has a near balanced budget, trade surplus, and no minimum wage. Germany proves what is obvious, namely, fiscal responsibility works. Pouring more gas on the fire does not help nor does giving a drunk more booze.

Marxists can get liberals to parrot anything they want it seems. Tell them up is down and they will parrot it.

Yep Europe being in a depression is certainly working out very well

If they would try German austerity( Republican fiscal responsibility) their depression would end. Over your head??

Yes doing more of what got them in a depression will end their depression... just like blood lettings cures diseases.
Its amazing 4 post up I arledy debunked your stupidity and your response is to just make a new post with the same stupidity
Furthermore plz learn English