expat_panama
Gold Member
- Apr 12, 2011
- 3,899
- 814
- 130
...racist republicans and their name calling...
Are you making a joke or are you serious?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
...racist republicans and their name calling...
Except it's not a silly mistake...It's what Keynesian witch doctors like Krugman truly believe.Poor choice nothing...It's a window into the "thought process" (for lack of a better description) of economic alchemists like Krugman.That was an extremely poor choice of words by Krugman. He should not have described Greenspan's plan as "housing bubble" in the first place. This is what he meant when he said that he did not call for a housing bubble -- although not saying it exacerbated the first mistake.
Very unfortunate, but that is all there is to it.
It's not a window into anything. We all make silly mistakes.
Consumers kept spending as the Internet bubble collapsed; they kept spending despite terrorist attacks. Taking advantage of low interest rates, they refinanced their houses and took the proceeds to the shopping malls.
But predictions of an imminent recovery in business investment keep turning out to be premature. Most businesses are in no hurry to go on another spending spree. And those that might have started to invest again have been deterred by sliding stock prices, widening bond spreads and revelations about corporate scandal..
the recession of 2001 wasn't a typical postwar slump, brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raises interest rates and easily ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again. This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance. To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.
Poor choice nothing...It's a window into the "thought process" (for lack of a better description) of economic alchemists like Krugman.I should have worn my fly fishing waders in here. Why not post all of the context into a post. Krugman is a fucking liar, and a retard. I'm not going to dig up the info to fix your mistake. You do it. He called and clamored for this the same as other LOLberal economists and officials. Your attempt at deflection is laughable with this backpeddle by Krugman.
That was an extremely poor choice of words by Krugman. He should not have described Greenspan's plan as "housing bubble" in the first place. This is what he meant when he said that he did not call for a housing bubble -- although not saying it exacerbated the first mistake.
Very unfortunate, but that is all there is to it.
did I call for a bubble? The quote comes from this 2002 piece, in which I was pessimistic about the Feds ability to generate a sustained economy. If you read it in context, youll see that I wasnt calling for a bubble I was talking about the limits to the Feds powers, saying that the only way Greenspan could achieve recovery would be if he were able to create a new bubble, which is NOT the same thing as saying that this was a good idea. Of course, I know that this explanation wont keep the haters from pulling up the same quote out of context, over and over. - Krugman
Me And The Bubble - NYTimes.com
more proof Oddball Dude is a lying piece of shit.
I should have worn my fly fishing waders in here. Why not post all of the context into a post. Krugman is a fucking liar, and a retard. I'm not going to dig up the info to fix your mistake. You do it. He called and clamored for this the same as other LOLberal economists and officials. Your attempt at deflection is laughable with this backpeddle by Krugman.
Because it bears repeating, what a totally delusional economic kamikaze ole Ferret Face is:
Me And The Bubble - NYTimes.com Unlike the Oddball Dude, Dante provides a link -- for the purposes of context
Oddball Dude USMB Official Hater
feel free to reuse the link, in context, over and over: http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/4999/krugmanr.jpg
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Random adjectives are what vague and flaky is....high unemployment and GDP tracking significantly below potential (does not mean that GDP is not growing)...
Clear is saying GDP falls by more than 1% and unemployment more than 6%.
Lots of examples of spending cuts > 10% that end up improving GDP/unemployment from the above numbers.
Nobody's come up with numbers for European countries backing up this nonsense either....Ireland or Greece are great examples...
I defy you to not think of a big red stop sign......Fool.did I call for a bubble? The quote comes from this 2002 piece, in which I was pessimistic about the Fed’s ability to generate a sustained economy. If you read it in context, you’ll see that I wasn’t calling for a bubble — I was talking about the limits to the Fed’s powers, saying that the only way Greenspan could achieve recovery would be if he were able to create a new bubble, which is NOT the same thing as saying that this was a good idea. Of course, I know that this explanation won’t keep the haters from pulling up the same quote out of context, over and over. - Krugman
Me And The Bubble - NYTimes.com
more proof Oddball Dude is a lying piece of shit.
I should have worn my fly fishing waders in here. Why not post all of the context into a post. Krugman is a fucking liar, and a retard. I'm not going to dig up the info to fix your mistake. You do it. He called and clamored for this the same as other LOLberal economists and officials. Your attempt at deflection is laughable with this backpeddle by Krugman.
Dante posted context and a link, and Oddball Dude and the Right Wing Lunacy @ USMB has not: score one for liberals
---
Me And The Bubble - NYTimes.com Unlike the Oddball Dude, Dante provides a link -- for the purposes of context
Oddball Dude USMB Official Hater
feel free to reuse the link, in context, over and over: http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/4999/krugmanr.jpg
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Because it bears repeating, what a totally delusional economic kamikaze ole Ferret Face is:
Me And The Bubble - NYTimes.com Unlike the Oddball Dude, Dante provides a link -- for the purposes of context
Oddball Dude USMB Official Hater
feel free to reuse the link, in context, over and over: http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/4999/krugmanr.jpg
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Dubya's Double Dip?
If the story of the current U.S. economy were made into a movie, it would look something like ''55 Days at Peking.'' A ragtag group of ordinary people -- America's consumers -- is besieged by a rampaging horde, the forces of recession. To everyone's surprise, they have held their ground.
But they can't hold out forever. Will the rescue force -- resurgent business investment -- get there in time?
The screenplay for that kind of movie always ratchets up the tension. The besieged citadel fends off assault after assault, but again and again rescue is delayed. And so it has played out in practice. Consumers kept spending as the Internet bubble collapsed; they kept spending despite terrorist attacks. Taking advantage of low interest rates, they refinanced their houses and took the proceeds to the shopping malls.
But predictions of an imminent recovery in business investment keep turning out to be premature. Most businesses are in no hurry to go on another spending spree. And those that might have started to invest again have been deterred by sliding stock prices, widening bond spreads and revelations about corporate scandal.
Will the rescuers arrive in the nick of time? Not necessarily. This movie may not be ''55 Days at Peking'' after all. It may be ''A Bridge Too Far.''
A few months ago the vast majority of business economists mocked concerns about a ''double dip,'' a second leg to the downturn. But there were a few dogged iconoclasts out there, most notably Stephen Roach at Morgan Stanley. As I've repeatedly said in this column, the arguments of the double-dippers made a lot of sense. And their story now looks more plausible than ever.
The basic point is that the recession of 2001 wasn't a typical postwar slump, brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raises interest rates and easily ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again. This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance. To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.
In order to apply that idea to real life we have to say first what 'austerity' is in terms of spending cut by a stated numerical amount, and second what the 'economy' is in terms of a stated numerical amount of GDP and employment growth....there is nothing that can offset the drag that austerity puts on the economy...
Exactly. You're willing to make an opinion and argue it, and we're all clear that it's a view with no basis in fact....I am not doing the research...
Jesus, LOLberals are fucking twisted in the brain. Here is the entire article from 8/2/2002
Dubya's Double Dip? - Op-Ed - NYTimes.com
(It's against the rules to post the entire article, but I will show you why Krugman's backpeddle later on AFTER the fact, is simply that. A backpeddling.
Poor Oddball Dude of USMB, the hater that keeps on giving. :
In order to apply that idea to real life we have to say first what 'austerity' is in terms of spending cut by a stated numerical amount, and second what the 'economy' is in terms of a stated numerical amount of GDP and employment growth....there is nothing that can offset the drag that austerity puts on the economy...
Exactly. You're willing to make an opinion and argue it, and we're all clear that it's a view with no basis in fact....I am not doing the research...
...why don't you prove me wrong......You're willing to make an opinion and argue it, and we're all clear that it's a view with no basis in fact.
...why don't you prove me wrong......You're willing to make an opinion and argue it, and we're all clear that it's a view with no basis in fact.
left wing logic-- simply elegant! Demand taxes and pork spending because of some wild goofball reason that's supposed to be true because the tax'n'spender says it's true.
...Not with my checkbook. Real world logic says us taxpayers are not parting with one more penny until we're given proof that we're willing to accept.
Hey guy, demanding a tax-hike handout and then getting ugly is not the way we want to go here. Sounds too much like a scene from a Charles Bronson movie.Bullshit --
-- I have explained to you many times and in great details how stimulus helps to end depression and to reduce budget deficits.
Because it bears repeating, what a totally delusional economic kamikaze ole Ferret Face is:
Me And The Bubble - NYTimes.com Unlike the Oddball Dude, Dante provides a link -- for the purposes of context
Oddball Dude USMB Official Hater
feel free to reuse the link, in context, over and over: http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/4999/krugmanr.jpg
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
lying through omission = propaganda