Krugman: "policy makers are in denial"

[johnrocks]

Nobel prize winner is just someone elected by others, hell, Bush,Carter and Hoover were elected

Personally, I like people like Jim Rogers,Peter Schiff(who warned of this meltdown years ago) and Walter Williams over people who have more in common with Karl Marx than they do our Founding Fathers.

I'll take the above as proof you know little to nothing about the Founders.


note: yet t hear a credible or rational argument taking Krugman on.

par for the course at the new USMB

Meh, I interpret the Constitution the way I define it as do most everyone else ,what I strive not doing is to go around saying sanctimonious 6th grade crap like "I know more than you do, nanna ,nanna, boo,boo"


Krugman thinks government IS the solution, he thinks that government is the catalyst and that demand ;if only government spends enough; is what is needed.

I don't, that is called a difference of opinion, it does not mean you nor I are idiots, what shows that is making this crap so personal,imho.

 

[loosecannon]

The economy will start to rebound once we take the gavel from Nancy's hand and halt the Progressive Jihad on free enterprise

That's lunacy.

There are real and severe core problems that are preventing a recovery from self manufacturing.

And neither party dares to confront them.

 

[loosecannon]

I tend to ignore Krugman for two reasons. One, he is an ideologue. Two, he has never dirtied his hands. He has no practical knowledge or experience. It is all intellectual exercise and theory. If I'm having an operation, I want a doctor who has actually had his hands in someone's gut before, not a guy who has read all the textbooks. Krugman is the ultimate economic armchair quarterback.

He was also wrong for 10 solid years about how to help the japanese economy escape a deflationary trap.

 

[johnrocks]

The problem, folks is that we (meaning the Austrian school economic thinkers who have been running this natuion for the last couple decades) have rewarded the SUPPLE SIDE to the detriment of the DEMAND side of the economic balance.

Austrian economics has not been running this or any other country in generations, Keynesians and Moneterists have, mainly Keynesians.

 

[loosecannon]

you criticize an economist, a nobel prize winner, for being an ideologue.

hello?

you cannot name an economist you appreciate, nobel prize winner or not, who is NOT an ideologue, and you tell me to what?

Indeed. I can only think of two "credible" economists with alphabet degrees who managed to predict the credit crisis before it happened.....

Whereas thousands of people who are not ideologically steeped in the alchemy of today's economic dogmas got it right.

trusting economists to manage the economy is like trusting Dr Kavorkian with your healthcare.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Nobel prize winner is just someone elected by others, hell, Bush,Carter and Hoover were elected

Personally, I like people like Jim Rogers,Peter Schiff(who warned of this meltdown years ago) and Walter Williams over people who have more in common with Karl Marx than they do our Founding Fathers.

I'll take the above as proof you know little to nothing about the Founders.


note: yet t hear a credible or rational argument taking Krugman on.

par for the course at the new USMB

Meh, I interpret the Constitution the way I define it as do most everyone else ,what I strive not doing is to go around saying sanctimonious 6th grade crap like "I know more than you do, nanna ,nanna, boo,boo"


Krugman thinks government IS the solution, he thinks that government is the catalyst and that demand ;if only government spends enough; is what is needed.

I don't, that is called a difference of opinion, it does not mean you nor I are idiots, what shows that is making this crap so personal,imho.

If only government spends enough -- in this situation.

If you continue to take things out of context you only highlight your ignorance, and that is an ugly way to get me to drop out of this thread.

A few of the Founders spouted sanctimonious crap. What do you think of them -- as you hide behind them in argument?

 

[loosecannon]

The problem, folks is that we (meaning the Austrian school economic thinkers who have been running this natuion for the last couple decades) have rewarded the SUPPLE SIDE to the detriment of the DEMAND side of the economic balance.

Austrian economics has not been running this or any other country in generations, Keynesians and Moneterists have, mainly Keynesians.

actually mostly monetarists. Monetarism is the foundation of our whole economy. And the root of our current predicament.

i don't know if there is a way to fix our economy unless you reject monetarism (and perhaps globalization)entirely and establish a durable currency.

 

[loosecannon]

If only government spends enough -- in this situation.

A few months ago Krugman was brazenly calling for aggressive tarriffs on Chinese imports.

He failed entirely to predict this recession.

He still embraces most of the BS theories that landed us in this impasse.

And his remedies did jack shit to help Japan escape their lost decade.

Why would you take his obviously politicized advise now?

 

[johnrocks]

I'll take the above as proof you know little to nothing about the Founders.


note: yet t hear a credible or rational argument taking Krugman on.

par for the course at the new USMB

Meh, I interpret the Constitution the way I define it as do most everyone else ,what I strive not doing is to go around saying sanctimonious 6th grade crap like "I know more than you do, nanna ,nanna, boo,boo"


Krugman thinks government IS the solution, he thinks that government is the catalyst and that demand ;if only government spends enough; is what is needed.

I don't, that is called a difference of opinion, it does not mean you nor I are idiots, what shows that is making this crap so personal,imho.

If only government spends enough -- in this situation.

If you continue to take things out of context you only highlight your ignorance, and that is an ugly way to get me to drop out of this thread.

A few of the Founders spouted sanctimonious crap. What do you think of them -- as you hide behind them in argument?

I'm not asking you to drop anything;your the one who created this thread; it's fine with me if you continue to show everyone that your panties are in a bunch simply due to me having an opposing viewpoint, you'll never see me put someone's name in a flame thread , only the lonely and immature; does things like that, you want to debate like an adult;fine, you've found someone who will gladly do that, you want to spend the day like a couple of 4 year olds, I guess I can do that too

I'm not "hiding" behind anyone, I simply stated an OPINION that he has more in common with Karl Marx than he does with our Founders, he is loved by Socialists so I guess that ;while there were Founders like Hamilton; who advocated a more powerful centralized government and even won the battle so far, the Constitution wasn't written within that context.

 

[editec]

The problem, folks is that we (meaning the Austrian school economic thinkers who have been running this natuion for the last couple decades) have rewarded the SUPPLE SIDE to the detriment of the DEMAND side of the economic balance.

Austrian economics has not been running this or any other country in generations, Keynesians and Moneterists have, mainly Keynesians.

Is FREE TRADE a Keynesian policy?

How about tax break for billionaires?

Don't get hung up on labels, amigo.

When you create policies that help the investor class, and pretend that by doing so you are allowing the "free market" to operate you are supporting the SUPPLY SIDE of the economic equasion.

There is no such thing as a free market.

There is, was and always will be a market and a government.

Without governance there can BE NO MARKETS.

It's the interaction between those two forces where the rubber meets the road.

 

[johnrocks]

The problem, folks is that we (meaning the Austrian school economic thinkers who have been running this natuion for the last couple decades) have rewarded the SUPPLE SIDE to the detriment of the DEMAND side of the economic balance.

Austrian economics has not been running this or any other country in generations, Keynesians and Moneterists have, mainly Keynesians.

Is FREE TRADE a Keynesian policy?

How about tax break for billionaires?

Don't get hung up on labels, amigo.

When you create policies that help the investor class, and pretend that by doing so you are allowing the "free market" to operate you are supporting the SUPPLY SIDE of the economic equasion.

There is no such thing as a free market.

There is, was and always will be a market and a government.

Without governance there can BE NO MARKETS.

It's the interaction between those two forces where the rubber meets the road.

We don't have fre trade, we have managed trade,can I trade with Cuba or Iran, can I bring sugar cane in from Brazil?


I don't support either DEMAND or SUPPLY SIDE, it takes BOTH to have a good economy Amigo.

I never stated there should be no governance.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If only government spends enough -- in this situation.

A few months ago Krugman was brazenly calling for aggressive tarriffs on Chinese imports.

He failed entirely to predict this recession.

He still embraces most of the BS theories that landed us in this impasse.

And his remedies did jack shit to help Japan escape their lost decade.

Why would you take his obviously politicized advise now?

Predict this recession? What economist did? The conservative ones that advised the 2 Bush administrations?

You keep monday morning quarterbacking and imagining it makes you an adequate coach.

step up your game

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Meh, I interpret the Constitution the way I define it as do most everyone else ,what I strive not doing is to go around saying sanctimonious 6th grade crap like "I know more than you do, nanna ,nanna, boo,boo"


Krugman thinks government IS the solution, he thinks that government is the catalyst and that demand ;if only government spends enough; is what is needed.

I don't, that is called a difference of opinion, it does not mean you nor I are idiots, what shows that is making this crap so personal,imho.

If only government spends enough -- in this situation.

If you continue to take things out of context you only highlight your ignorance, and that is an ugly way to get me to drop out of this thread.

A few of the Founders spouted sanctimonious crap. What do you think of them -- as you hide behind them in argument?

I'm not asking you to drop anything; your the one who created this thread; it's fine with me if you continue to show everyone that your panties are in a bunch simply due to me having an opposing viewpoint, you'll never see me put someone's name in a flame thread , only the lonely and immature; does things like that, you want to debate like an adult;fine, you've found someone who will gladly do that, you want to spend the day like a couple of 4 year olds, I guess I can do that too

I'm not "hiding" behind anyone, I simply stated an OPINION that he has more in common with Karl Marx than he does with our Founders, he is loved by Socialists so I guess that ;while there were Founders like Hamilton; who advocated a more powerful centralized government and even won the battle so far, the Constitution wasn't written within that context.

Opposing views are encouraged. Smug bs is not. You attacked the source of an OP and you have lost all ability to comprehend.

I have no panties, in a bunch or otherwise. But you? How do we explain your saying you have an opposing opinion?

Read the OP!!!


Krugman says policy makers are in denial.

I said: "Most credible economists admitted early on to being for or against the stimulus on principle." while admitting that they may have been ideologically opposed to the stimulus.

so: what were you supposed to be opposing?
Quote: Originally Posted by johnrocks
Nobel prize winner is just someone elected by others...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Austrian economics has not been running this or any other country in generations, Keynesians and Moneterists have, mainly Keynesians.

Is FREE TRADE a Keynesian policy?

How about tax break for billionaires?

Don't get hung up on labels, amigo.

When you create policies that help the investor class, and pretend that by doing so you are allowing the "free market" to operate you are supporting the SUPPLY SIDE of the economic equasion.

There is no such thing as a free market.

There is, was and always will be a market and a government.

Without governance there can BE NO MARKETS.

It's the interaction between those two forces where the rubber meets the road.

We don't have fre trade, we have managed trade,can I trade with Cuba or Iran, can I bring sugar cane in from Brazil?


I don't support either DEMAND or SUPPLY SIDE, it takes BOTH to have a good economy Amigo.

I never stated there should be no governance.

governance = regulation.

The real arguments are over what kind of regulation, yet almost all here and in the media who argue against regulation infer and more that NO regulation would be the ultimate goal of a true Free Market.

governance would = regulation which would = managed trade -- which you keep saying you are against.

 

[johnrocks]

If only government spends enough -- in this situation.

If you continue to take things out of context you only highlight your ignorance, and that is an ugly way to get me to drop out of this thread.

A few of the Founders spouted sanctimonious crap. What do you think of them -- as you hide behind them in argument?

I'm not asking you to drop anything; your the one who created this thread; it's fine with me if you continue to show everyone that your panties are in a bunch simply due to me having an opposing viewpoint, you'll never see me put someone's name in a flame thread , only the lonely and immature; does things like that, you want to debate like an adult;fine, you've found someone who will gladly do that, you want to spend the day like a couple of 4 year olds, I guess I can do that too

I'm not "hiding" behind anyone, I simply stated an OPINION that he has more in common with Karl Marx than he does with our Founders, he is loved by Socialists so I guess that ;while there were Founders like Hamilton; who advocated a more powerful centralized government and even won the battle so far, the Constitution wasn't written within that context.

Opposing views are encouraged. Smug bs is not. You attacked the source of an OP and you have lost all ability to comprehend.

I have no panties, in a bunch or otherwise. But you? How do we explain your saying you have an opposing opinion?

Read the OP!!!


Krugman says policy makers are in denial.

I said: "Most credible economists admitted early on to being for or against the stimulus on principle." while admitting that they may have been ideologically opposed to the stimulus.

so: what were you supposed to be opposing?
Quote: Originally Posted by johnrocks
Nobel prize winner is just someone elected by others...

Would the menstruating bitch who started a flame thread because their panties are in a bunch please rise.....

Your one to ever even use words like "smug","condescending" or "bs", it's an opinion site, I stated an opinion; that Krugman is an idiot, you got your widdle feelings hurt and took it personal and call other people idiots You want to show you rise above that then let's debate economics, can we do that without the 5th grade dribble though?

 

[johnrocks]

Is FREE TRADE a Keynesian policy?

How about tax break for billionaires?

Don't get hung up on labels, amigo.

When you create policies that help the investor class, and pretend that by doing so you are allowing the "free market" to operate you are supporting the SUPPLY SIDE of the economic equasion.

There is no such thing as a free market.

There is, was and always will be a market and a government.

Without governance there can BE NO MARKETS.

It's the interaction between those two forces where the rubber meets the road.

We don't have fre trade, we have managed trade,can I trade with Cuba or Iran, can I bring sugar cane in from Brazil?


I don't support either DEMAND or SUPPLY SIDE, it takes BOTH to have a good economy Amigo.

I never stated there should be no governance.

governance = regulation.

The real arguments are over what kind of regulation, yet almost all here and in the media who argue against regulation infer and more that NO regulation would be the ultimate goal of a true Free Market.

governance would = regulation which would = managed trade -- which you keep saying you are against.

You seem to think that I support anarchy just because I don't support or that I oppose the status quo which isn't the case.

 

[johnrocks]

If only government spends enough -- in this situation.

A few months ago Krugman was brazenly calling for aggressive tarriffs on Chinese imports.

He failed entirely to predict this recession.

He still embraces most of the BS theories that landed us in this impasse.

And his remedies did jack shit to help Japan escape their lost decade.

Why would you take his obviously politicized advise now?

Predict this recession? What economist did? The conservative ones that advised the 2 Bush administrations?

You keep monday morning quarterbacking and imagining it makes you an adequate coach.

step up your game

Peter Schiff and Ron Paul are two people that predicted it.

 

[California Girl]

A large part of the issue with the stimulus is not the actual amount.... it is the way it was spent that was a waste. Had we spent it right, we would be in better shape now.... and in that circumstance, I probably would have high fived Obama ... as it is, it didn't solve anything and I'm pissed at Obama for having wasted yet more of our money.

Just wanted to point out the obvious while y'all are busy whining at each other.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I'm not asking you to drop anything; your the one who created this thread; it's fine with me if you continue to show everyone that your panties are in a bunch simply due to me having an opposing viewpoint, you'll never see me put someone's name in a flame thread , only the lonely and immature; does things like that, you want to debate like an adult;fine, you've found someone who will gladly do that, you want to spend the day like a couple of 4 year olds, I guess I can do that too

I'm not "hiding" behind anyone, I simply stated an OPINION that he has more in common with Karl Marx than he does with our Founders, he is loved by Socialists so I guess that ;while there were Founders like Hamilton; who advocated a more powerful centralized government and even won the battle so far, the Constitution wasn't written within that context.

Opposing views are encouraged. Smug bs is not. You attacked the source of an OP and you have lost all ability to comprehend.

I have no panties, in a bunch or otherwise. But you? How do we explain your saying you have an opposing opinion?

Read the OP!!!


Krugman says policy makers are in denial.

I said: "Most credible economists admitted early on to being for or against the stimulus on principle." while admitting that they may have been ideologically opposed to the stimulus.

so: what were you supposed to be opposing?
Quote: Originally Posted by johnrocks
Nobel prize winner is just someone elected by others...

Would the menstruating bitch who started a flame thread because their panties are in a bunch please rise.....

Your one to ever even use words like "smug","condescending" or "bs", it's an opinion site, I stated an opinion; that Krugman is an idiot, you got your widdle feelings hurt and took it personal and call other people idiots You want to show you rise above that then let's debate economics, can we do that without the 5th grade dribble though?

gawd, you are a woman.

I do know many of you are in cliques here and that science points towards women in cliques bleeding together who hang together.

later


dD

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

A few months ago Krugman was brazenly calling for aggressive tarriffs on Chinese imports.

He failed entirely to predict this recession.

He still embraces most of the BS theories that landed us in this impasse.

And his remedies did jack shit to help Japan escape their lost decade.

Why would you take his obviously politicized advise now?

Predict this recession? What economist did? The conservative ones that advised the 2 Bush administrations?

You keep monday morning quarterbacking and imagining it makes you an adequate coach.

step up your game

Peter Schiff and Ron Paul are two people that predicted it.

They may as well be Psychics making so many broad predictions that when one finally comes true they look simply genius -- to the simply simple.


throw enough shit at the wall and some of it is sure to stick
bye