FACTS on Dubya's great recession

[edthecynic]

hardly a lie but perfectly consistent for Krugman who also called for a pretend war against space alien invaders to simulate WW2 spending. He really thinks that mass producing weapons and dumping them into the sea would stimulate the economy.

Prove Krugman said it. Simple enough, if true. Which it is not. Which is why you can not prove it.

keep trying and one of these times you wont make a fool of yourself!!


Paul Krugman: Fake Alien Invasion Would End Economic ...
www.huffingtonpost.com/.../paul-krugman-fake-alie...
The Huffington Post
Aug 15, 2011 - Paul Krugman is so frustrated by the lack of support for another round ... "If we discovered that, you know, space aliens were planning to attack

From your own link, FOOL!

Of course, Krugman is just using a space invasion as an example. But that hasn't stopped some people from framing his comments as part of a giant conspiracy by a shadowy group of elites to enslave the world through a fake alien attack.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Again we see how the Regressives can't comprehend simple English. The article may have been written by Krugman, but he was QUOTING someone else who called for a double-dip!!!!!

From your link:

''I must confess to being amazed at the venom my double dip call still elicits,'' Mr. Roach wrote yesterday at cbsmarketwatch.com.

He was using someone else's thought to validate is own argument, moron. It's pretty simple to comprehend that. He referred to what someone else said, he did not QUOTE him, imbecile. Or it would be in quotation marks.

No, he was merely saying that THEIR argument made sense. He clearly is not calling FOR a double dip, but just saying those who are predicting a double dip have a good argument!!!

Again from your link:

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.
snip/
But wishful thinking aside, I just don't understand the grounds for optimism. Who, exactly, is about to start spending a lot more? At this point it's a lot easier to tell a story about how the recovery will stall than about how it will speed up. And while I like movies with happy endings as much as the next guy, a movie isn't realistic unless the story line makes sense.

YOu have to be several shades of fuckin' stiupid to not see that he was DESCRIBING the recession of 2001 and then what would be needed to snap out of it. His verdict? As usual, stimulus. That's what you got. A lot of M2 going into real estate to offset the bad investment climate. In other words, they created another bubble to offset the effects of the one they created before, and Krugman is on board to this approach by his own words RIGHT there in front of you.

 

[Shanty]

Prove Krugman said it. Simple enough, if true. Which it is not. Which is why you can not prove it.

keep trying and one of these times you wont make a fool of yourself!!


Paul Krugman: Fake Alien Invasion Would End Economic ...
www.huffingtonpost.com/.../paul-krugman-fake-alie...
The Huffington Post
Aug 15, 2011 - Paul Krugman is so frustrated by the lack of support for another round ... "If we discovered that, you know, space aliens were planning to attack

From your own link, FOOL!

Of course, Krugman is just using a space invasion as an example. But that hasn't stopped some people from framing his comments as part of a giant conspiracy by a shadowy group of elites to enslave the world through a fake alien attack.

Apparently the right wing hive's talking point generator told the members of the right wing hive to being this up on different threads in the Econ forum today.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Yeah, Krugman used it as an example. An example of his bottomless pit of economic stupidity.

 

[Dad2three]

You've shown only that you don't understand the nature of bubbles. You have not shown how regulatory changes in the US could cause bubbles in multiple countries. You've shown an ignorance of what has happened in other countries.

That's because you are wrong.

By their own words, the Fed implicitly acknowledges their role in the housing crisis. Fed members today talk about setting monetary policy that doesn't destabilize asset markets in ways they never did in the past.

Got it dickweed you'll stick with AEI talking points despite EVIDENCE that Dubya policy allowed the subprime bubble to explode in the US as the Banksters created a WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE

The basic structure of the adjustable-rate mortgages that lenders used to grow the subprime market was premised on continued house appreciation. Once the housing bubble peaked subprime ARM loans suddenly became extremely prone to default.



NOT THE FED


I noted earlier that the most important source of lower initial monthly payments, which allowed more people to enter the housing market and bid for properties, was not the general level of short-term interest rates, but the increasing use of more exotic types of mortgages and the associated decline of underwriting standards. That conclusion suggests that the best response to the housing bubble would have been regulatory, not monetary. Stronger regulation and supervision aimed at problems with underwriting practices and lenders' risk management would have been a more effective and surgical approach to constraining the housing bubble than a general increase in interest rates. Moreover, regulators, supervisors, and the private sector could have more effectively addressed building risk concentrations and inadequate risk-management practices without necessarily having had to make a judgment about the sustainability of house price increases.

Chairman Ben S. Bernanke

Monetary Policy and the Housing Bubble

FRB: Speech--Bernanke, Monetary Policy and the Housing Bubble--January 3, 2010



Did the Fed Cause the housing Bubble?

According to research by Ambrogio Cesa-Bianchi and Alessandro Rebucci, the housing bubble was caused by "regulatory rather than monetary-policy failures":

Economist's View: Did the Fed Cause the housing Bubble?

Your inability to answer how an international housing bubble was caused by US subprime mortgages, your linking to sites which confuse you, and your Bush Derangement Syndrome are all noted.

Got it, YOU are a moron

Banksters created a WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE. One that Bush was REPEATEDLY urged to stop in the US from FBI warnings, to Dems like Barney Frank, instead he pushed his 'home ownership society' on US, AND had his regulators ignore what the Banksters were doing WORLD WIDE AND IN THE US

Not a right winger huh? lol

 

[Dad2three]

And Bernanke saying his policies weren't responsible for the Housing Bubble?

Who would have thought?

Nope, he said Allen 'Ayn Rand' Greenspans' weren't. So you CAN'T refute his OR the studies EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that he's correct. Got it...

 

[Dad2three]

You can call him a loon all you want, he was 100% correct and knew what was happening while morons like Krugman were pushing for a real estate bubble due to moribund investments. Regardless of that, the real estate bubble was pumped, as explained by Paul, when the NASDAQ bubble burst. That was 2000-2001. THAT is when the bubble was being pushed to the danger point, as was warned. And less than 5 years later it came true with 100% accuracy on why by Paul.

But anyone who isn't fucking retarded, must be a loon.





I'm done with you now, shit stain. You've proven to be too stupid to debate this issue with. Toro proved it before, I just did it again and yet you persist. You're insane.

Got it, you'll hang onto right wing bullshit and lies. Krugman didn't do that, BTW, ANOTHER right wing lie. I'm shocked

Another Day, Another Slander of Krugman


Subprime mortgage lending jumped dramatically during the 2004-2006 period preceding the crisis (source: Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission Report



Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.


http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf

so can you tell us what role Fed Fan Fred played in crisis? Cut and paste tells us you don't know. We could all cut and paste forever- right?

Very minor, what they did as they lost a HUGE share of the market thanks to those Banksters on wall street NOT following rules that applied to GSE's or commercial banks, was they collapsed their standards in LATE 2005 to chase the Bankster who had taken so much of their share of the market. WHO allowed that you ask? Well the Executive Branch headed by Dubya of course was their regulator!

Why did F/F fail? Well largely do to Dubya requiring them to purchase $440 BILLION in MBS's in the secondary market to meet Dubya's 'goals', the ones that he increased from 50% to 56% in 2004, where he ALSO took Clinton's rule about HIGH COST (see subprime) NOT qualifying torwards those goals!

 

[Dad2three]

And Bernanke saying his policies weren't responsible for the Housing Bubble?

Who would have thought?

He wasn't the Fed Chair when the bubble started. And most of the loans that were the cause of the bubble bursting were outside of the scope of theFederal Reserve, as it deals with banks.

He was on the Federal Reserve Board and supported the policies of Greenspan. They don't call him Helicopter Ben for nothing.

The Fed sets and influences the price of credit. The reason why so much subprime was created in the first place was because yield starved institutions needed higher income to meet liabilities. That subprime and alt-A made its way into the derivatives machine, which were purchased by banks, pensions, insurance cos, etc. because similarly- rated product paid 30-40 bps over, a chasm in fixed income land.

Yes, the market went haywire with all these garbage securities. But the source was the mispricing of credit.

Yet YOU dumbfuk, can't seem to grasp it was a REGULATOR failure over a monetary one that caused the subprime crisis to happen!!!!

 

[Dad2three]

OMG of course!! Eliminate corporate taxes so our corps will move back here. THe highest taxes rate in the world make it mandatory to move out. Thats another great liberal policy!!
Capitalism would have recovered economy in a year or less.

RECORD CORP PROFITS, LOWEST TAX BURDEN IN 40+ YEARS (ON US PROFITS)...


Yeah, taxes are driving them offshore *shaking head*


Warren Buffett: ‘It Is A Myth’ That U.S. Corporate Taxes Are High

So our corporate tax rate last year, effectively, in terms of taxes paid for the United States, was around 12 percent, which is well below those existing in most of the industrialized countries around the world. So it is a myth that American corporations are paying 35 percent or anything like it…Corporate taxes are not strangling American competitiveness.


When looking at the rate that corporations actually pay (as opposed to the statutory rate that only exists on paper), the U.S. has the second-lowest corporate tax rate in the developed world, and raises far less than other nations in corporate tax revenue.


Warren Buffett: 'It Is A Myth' That U.S. Corporate Taxes Are High | ThinkProgress



Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of Federal Revenue

1955 . . . 27.3%
2010 . . . 8.9%

Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of GDP

1955 . . . 4.3%
2010 . . . 1.3%

Corporate Profits Are At An All-Time High

'corporate profits are at an all-time high as a percentage of the economy, wages are at an all-time low.'

'Last year, corporations made a record $824 billion, which didn’t stop conservatives from continually claiming that President Obama is anti-business.'
Corporate Profits Are At An All-Time High | ThinkProgress

Lol@ Buffett on taxes when virtually all of his acquisitions are structured as tax free exchanges of stock.

Next up Hannibal Letter shares his favorite finger food recipe for unexpected summer visitors

Got it, So you can't prove his statement wrong.

 

[Dad2three]

you can not show a single time when lowering taxes has helped an economy with high unemployment.

of course thats 100% idiotic and perfectly liberal. Ireland reduced taxes to 10% and every corp in the world moved there and employment dropped to lowest in EU. We dropped luxury tax on yachts and entire industry bounced back over-night. When you drop taxes you drop prices, people can buy more, and so you need to employ more to produce more.

It pays to think before you post!

NOW back in the REAL world, WHAT other factors played a part in Irelands 'sucess' (HINT WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE) ? Weird how right wingers used to LOVE pointing to them. How about now? lol


When Ireland made the decision to protect all of its banks from losses and cover those losses by imposing austerity measures in 2008, Paul Krugman made hash of the conservatives' argument for adopting that policy. As it turns out, he was right.

Ireland relented on Sunday and formally applied for a rescue package worth tens of billions of dollars, after months of trying to survive its financial crisis with austerity measures and strict budgetary planning.

European Union officials, who had been pushing Ireland to accept help, quickly agreed to the request, committing a staggering amount of funds to an ailing member for the second time in six months.

Ireland's fiscal crisis, like ours, has a mortgage meltdown as its root cause. However, the decision to impose severe austerity measures, including a big tax hike on Irish workers while insisting that the corporate tax rate remain one of the lowest in the world has not proven itself to be effective.

Austerity's Failure: Ireland Finally Asks For Help | Crooks and Liars

LOL

 

[Dad2three]

you can not show a single time when lowering taxes has helped an economy with high unemployment.

of course thats 100% idiotic and perfectly liberal. Ireland reduced taxes to 10% and every corp in the world moved there and employment dropped to lowest in EU. We dropped luxury tax on yachts and entire industry bounced back over-night. When you drop taxes you drop prices, people can buy more, and so you need to employ more to produce more.

It pays to think before you post!

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory

The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”


Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes

 

[Dad2three]

hardly a lie but perfectly consistent for Krugman who also called for a pretend war against space alien invaders to simulate WW2 spending. He really thinks that mass producing weapons and dumping them into the sea would stimulate the economy.

Prove Krugman said it. Simple enough, if true. Which it is not. Which is why you can not prove it.

Dubya's Double Dip? - NYTimes.com

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.

Judging by Mr. Greenspan's remarkably cheerful recent testimony, he still thinks he can pull that off. But the Fed chairman's crystal ball has been cloudy lately; remember how he urged Congress to cut taxes to head off the risk of excessive budget surpluses? And a sober look at recent data is not encouraging.

Got it, YOU are to ignorant to get SNARK


AND

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… Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.”

This apparently is the latest Krugman "smoking gun."

I wrote back:

"First, you leave out the ellipsis: 'as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it,' so Krugman was quoting someone else. (I don't blame you, That's probably the form in which it's making the right wing rounds.) Second, the rest of the quote makes it apparent that Krugman was using a bit of snark to make fun of Greenspan's too rosy testimony:"


Krugman needs to know enough to avoid snarky comments that could be taken seriously ten years later!

Another Day, Another Slander of Krugman

WANT TO TRY AGAIN BUBBA?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Now back in the REAL world, what other factors played a part in Irelands 'sucess'

question was whether dropping taxes back in 70's produced instant boom in Ireland's economy. Of course it did, which explains why EU is trying to force them to hike it back up.

Do you understand now?

 

[Dad2three]

Dubya's Double Dip? - NYTimes.com

Again we see how the Regressives can't comprehend simple English. The article may have been written by Krugman, but he was QUOTING someone else who called for a double-dip!!!!!

From your link:

''I must confess to being amazed at the venom my double dip call still elicits,'' Mr. Roach wrote yesterday at cbsmarketwatch.com.

He was using someone else's thought to validate is own argument, moron. It's pretty simple to comprehend that. He referred to what someone else said, he did not QUOTE him, imbecile. Or it would be in quotation marks.

DUMBFUK

" 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.

Judging by Mr. Greenspan's remarkably cheerful recent testimony, he still thinks he can pull that off. But the Fed chairman's crystal ball has been cloudy lately; remember how he urged Congress to cut taxes to head off the risk of excessive budget surpluses? And a sober look at recent data is not encouraging.



..The administration needs a recovery because, with deficits exploding, the only way it can justify that tax cut is by pretending that it was just what the economy needed. Mr. Greenspan needs one to avoid awkward questions about his own role in creating the stock market bubble.

But wishful thinking aside, I just don't understand the grounds for optimism. Who, exactly, is about to start spending a lot more? At this point it's a lot easier to tell a story about how the recovery will stall than about how it will speed up.

Dubya's Double Dip? - NYTimes.com

 

[Dad2three]

Now back in the REAL world, what other factors played a part in Irelands 'sucess'

question was whether dropping taxes back in 70's produced instant boom in Ireland's economy. Of course it did, which explains why EU is trying to force them to hike it back up.

Do you understand now?

Got it, YOU'll still get you economic advice from Rushblo...

If you think cutting taxes did it for them, I have some land on the coast of Japan I need to unload!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Again we see how the Regressives can't comprehend simple English. The article may have been written by Krugman, but he was QUOTING someone else who called for a double-dip!!!!!

From your link:

''I must confess to being amazed at the venom my double dip call still elicits,'' Mr. Roach wrote yesterday at cbsmarketwatch.com.

He was using someone else's thought to validate is own argument, moron. It's pretty simple to comprehend that. He referred to what someone else said, he did not QUOTE him, imbecile. Or it would be in quotation marks.

DUMBFUK

" 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.

Judging by Mr. Greenspan's remarkably cheerful recent testimony, he still thinks he can pull that off. But the Fed chairman's crystal ball has been cloudy lately; remember how he urged Congress to cut taxes to head off the risk of excessive budget surpluses? And a sober look at recent data is not encouraging.



..The administration needs a recovery because, with deficits exploding, the only way it can justify that tax cut is by pretending that it was just what the economy needed. Mr. Greenspan needs one to avoid awkward questions about his own role in creating the stock market bubble.

But wishful thinking aside, I just don't understand the grounds for optimism. Who, exactly, is about to start spending a lot more? At this point it's a lot easier to tell a story about how the recovery will stall than about how it will speed up.

Dubya's Double Dip? - NYTimes.com

why not just tell us what Krugman ever said that you think was important?

 

[Dad2three]

hardly a lie but perfectly consistent for Krugman who also called for a pretend war against space alien invaders to simulate WW2 spending. He really thinks that mass producing weapons and dumping them into the sea would stimulate the economy.

Prove Krugman said it. Simple enough, if true. Which it is not. Which is why you can not prove it.

keep trying and one of these times you wont make a fool of yourself!!


Paul Krugman: Fake Alien Invasion Would End Economic ...
www.huffingtonpost.com/.../paul-krugman-fake-alie...
The Huffington Post
Aug 15, 2011 - Paul Krugman is so frustrated by the lack of support for another round ... "If we discovered that, you know, space aliens were planning to attack

Gawwddamn ignorant right wingers are getting to me today


Krugman noted that the effort of World War II helped end the Great Depression, and joked that something similar was needed today.

"If we discovered that, you know, space aliens were planning to attack and we needed a massive buildup to counter the space alien threat and really inflation and budget deficits took secondary place to that, this slump would be over in 18 months," he said. "And then if we discovered, oops, we made a mistake, there aren't any aliens, we'd be better--"

"We need Orson Welles, is what you're saying," Rogoff cut in.

"There was a 'Twilight Zone' episode like this in which scientists fake an alien threat in order to achieve world peace," Krugman said. "Well, this time, we don't need it, we need it in order to get some fiscal stimulus."

Of course, Krugman is just using a space invasion as an example. But that hasn't stopped some people from framing his comments as part of a giant conspiracy by a shadowy group of elites to enslave the world through a fake alien attack.



Paul Krugman: Fake Alien Invasion Would End Economic Slump (VIDEO)

 

[Dad2three]

He was using someone else's thought to validate is own argument, moron. It's pretty simple to comprehend that. He referred to what someone else said, he did not QUOTE him, imbecile. Or it would be in quotation marks.

DUMBFUK

" 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.

Judging by Mr. Greenspan's remarkably cheerful recent testimony, he still thinks he can pull that off. But the Fed chairman's crystal ball has been cloudy lately; remember how he urged Congress to cut taxes to head off the risk of excessive budget surpluses? And a sober look at recent data is not encouraging.



..The administration needs a recovery because, with deficits exploding, the only way it can justify that tax cut is by pretending that it was just what the economy needed. Mr. Greenspan needs one to avoid awkward questions about his own role in creating the stock market bubble.

But wishful thinking aside, I just don't understand the grounds for optimism. Who, exactly, is about to start spending a lot more? At this point it's a lot easier to tell a story about how the recovery will stall than about how it will speed up.

Dubya's Double Dip? - NYTimes.com

why not just tell us what Krugman ever said that you think was important?

Why? I showed you just LIED. Why prove anything on Krug?

 

[Toro]

He wasn't the Fed Chair when the bubble started. And most of the loans that were the cause of the bubble bursting were outside of the scope of theFederal Reserve, as it deals with banks.

He was on the Federal Reserve Board and supported the policies of Greenspan. They don't call him Helicopter Ben for nothing.

The Fed sets and influences the price of credit. The reason why so much subprime was created in the first place was because yield starved institutions needed higher income to meet liabilities. That subprime and alt-A made its way into the derivatives machine, which were purchased by banks, pensions, insurance cos, etc. because similarly- rated product paid 30-40 bps over, a chasm in fixed income land.

Yes, the market went haywire with all these garbage securities. But the source was the mispricing of credit.

Yet YOU dumbfuk, can't seem to grasp it was a REGULATOR failure over a monetary one that caused the subprime crisis to happen!!!!

Retard2three

Get back to us when you can explain how "regulator fail" caused housing bubbles in Canada, the UK, Ireland, Denmark, Holland, Spain, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, China, etc.

Oh wait. You can't. You're a cut & paste hack with Bush Derangement Syndrome who can only POST IN CAPS!

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Again we see how the Regressives can't comprehend simple English. The article may have been written by Krugman, but he was QUOTING someone else who called for a double-dip!!!!!

From your link:

''I must confess to being amazed at the venom my double dip call still elicits,'' Mr. Roach wrote yesterday at cbsmarketwatch.com.

He was using someone else's thought to validate is own argument, moron. It's pretty simple to comprehend that. He referred to what someone else said, he did not QUOTE him, imbecile. Or it would be in quotation marks.

DUMBFUK

" 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.

Judging by Mr. Greenspan's remarkably cheerful recent testimony, he still thinks he can pull that off. But the Fed chairman's crystal ball has been cloudy lately; remember how he urged Congress to cut taxes to head off the risk of excessive budget surpluses? And a sober look at recent data is not encouraging.



..The administration needs a recovery because, with deficits exploding, the only way it can justify that tax cut is by pretending that it was just what the economy needed. Mr. Greenspan needs one to avoid awkward questions about his own role in creating the stock market bubble.

But wishful thinking aside, I just don't understand the grounds for optimism. Who, exactly, is about to start spending a lot more? At this point it's a lot easier to tell a story about how the recovery will stall than about how it will speed up.

Dubya's Double Dip? - NYTimes.com

You miss judge Krugman's pessimism for a market intervention of stimulus for how he felt about it happening. Worst of all? It was already happening. Pimpco simply signlaed that is what it would take to avert a "double dip" (oh, the irony). Krugman defends and then expounds on the "double dip" "theory" and how to dodge it.

WOOOPS!