Krugman Decapitated!

[Olde Europe]

Certainly I'll be happy to give you a lesson in 'context.'

"Most economists were dismissive, but by 2008, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote that peak oil was “a dismal theory that keeps getting more plausible.” Two years later, he declared that “peak oil has arrived.”
Have Concerns Over Peak Oil Peaked - Collide-a-Scape


Sorry to have made you look so stupid.

It would appear you still haven't found the time to check the quote? What Krugman actually wrote in December 2010 was that (paraphrasing), oil output hasn't changed at all during the last years, and "in that sense, at least, peak oil has arrived".

So, that's a lesson in context. No need to thank me.

You may now resume the re-bleating.

 

[Antares]

Certainly I'll be happy to give you a lesson in 'context.'

"Most economists were dismissive, but by 2008, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote that peak oil was “a dismal theory that keeps getting more plausible.” Two years later, he declared that “peak oil has arrived.”
Have Concerns Over Peak Oil Peaked - Collide-a-Scape


Sorry to have made you look so stupid.

It would appear you still haven't found the time to check the quote? What Krugman actually wrote in December 2010 was that (paraphrasing), oil output hasn't changed at all during the last years, and "in that sense, at least, peak oil has arrived".

So, that's a lesson in context. No need to thank me.

You may now resume the re-bleating.

Fine, but what did he mean by using the phrase?

 

[hazlnut]

Another rant from PoliChic -- everybody stand back, she's gonna blow!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Certainly I'll be happy to give you a lesson in 'context.'

"Most economists were dismissive, but by 2008, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote that peak oil was “a dismal theory that keeps getting more plausible.” Two years later, he declared that “peak oil has arrived.”
Have Concerns Over Peak Oil Peaked - Collide-a-Scape


Sorry to have made you look so stupid.

It would appear you still haven't found the time to check the quote? What Krugman actually wrote in December 2010 was that (paraphrasing), oil output hasn't changed at all during the last years, and "in that sense, at least, peak oil has arrived".

So, that's a lesson in context. No need to thank me.

You may now resume the re-bleating.

Ah...now you require a lesson beyond context...one in comprehension.

"What Krugman actually wrote in December 2010 was that"...
"...peak oil was “a dismal theory that keeps getting more plausible.” Two years later, he declared that “peak oil has arrived.”
Have Concerns Over Peak Oil Peaked - Collide-a-Scape


In fact, you now look even more stupid.


In this thread, both the dolt Krugman, and the other dolt...you...have been proven wrong.

 

[Olde Europe]

"What Krugman actually wrote in December 2010 was that"...
"...peak oil was “a dismal theory that keeps getting more plausible.” Two years later, he declared that “peak oil has arrived.”

Yeah. The former was taken from a discussion as to the conditions under which hard to extract, and costly to produce oil resources might hit the markets, and the impact that would be having on the inevitable arrival of "peak oil", whereas the latter was from a discussion of what it meant to live in a world of finite resources, stating that for the time being (2010) oil production has peaked for a number of years.

Of course, that's a little more complex than the simplicity your handlers feed you, and about which you prefer to hyperventilate.

Krugman is an outstanding economist, and a clear-eyed commentator on U.S. politics and policies who consistently puts flat-earthers and their crackpot "theories" to shame, and so it isn't that hard to understand that he'll draw a lot of flack from these quarters. The U.S. of A. is better off for him, and for fact-based humiliations he's regularly inflicting on the flat-earthers in particular.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Certainly I'll be happy to give you a lesson in 'context.'

"Most economists were dismissive, but by 2008, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote that peak oil was “a dismal theory that keeps getting more plausible.” Two years later, he declared that “peak oil has arrived.”
Have Concerns Over Peak Oil Peaked - Collide-a-Scape


Sorry to have made you look so stupid.

It would appear you still haven't found the time to check the quote? What Krugman actually wrote in December 2010 was that (paraphrasing), oil output hasn't changed at all during the last years, and "in that sense, at least, peak oil has arrived".

So, that's a lesson in context. No need to thank me.

You may now resume the re-bleating.

ROFLMNAO! "Olde Europe".

A continent which still specializes in the same chaos, calamity and catastrophe that it has always specialized.

 

[Antares]

"What Krugman actually wrote in December 2010 was that"...
"...peak oil was “a dismal theory that keeps getting more plausible.” Two years later, he declared that “peak oil has arrived.”

Yeah. The former was taken from a discussion as to the conditions under which hard to extract, and costly to produce oil resources might hit the markets, and the impact that would be having on the inevitable arrival of "peak oil", whereas the latter was from a discussion of what it meant to live in a world of finite resources, stating that for the time being (2010) oil production has peaked for a number of years.

Of course, that's a little more complex than the simplicity your handlers feed you, and about which you prefer to hyperventilate.

Krugman is an outstanding economist, and a clear-eyed commentator on U.S. politics and policies who consistently puts flat-earthers and their crackpot "theories" to shame, and so it isn't that hard to understand that he'll draw a lot of flack from these quarters. The U.S. of A. is better off for him, and for fact-based humiliations he's regularly inflicting on the flat-earthers in particular.

"Yeah. The former was taken from a discussion as to the conditions under which hard to extract, and costly to produce oil resources might hit the markets, "and the impact that would be having on the inevitable arrival of "peak oil"
, whereas the latter was from a discussion of what it meant to live in a world of finite resources, stating that for the time being (2010) oil production has peaked for a number of years."


There is no "inevitable" reaching of "Peak Oil" at all.
It was simply another theory of how man "might" be exhausting the planet's "resources".

What we have seen is that the new technologies render the theory outdated and useless.
Oil production now soars at unprecedented levels.

As for your "opinion" concerning Krugman

Well let's just say you have your "opinion?.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"What Krugman actually wrote in December 2010 was that"...
"...peak oil was “a dismal theory that keeps getting more plausible.” Two years later, he declared that “peak oil has arrived.”

Yeah. The former was taken from a discussion as to the conditions under which hard to extract, and costly to produce oil resources might hit the markets, and the impact that would be having on the inevitable arrival of "peak oil", whereas the latter was from a discussion of what it meant to live in a world of finite resources, stating that for the time being (2010) oil production has peaked for a number of years.

Of course, that's a little more complex than the simplicity your handlers feed you, and about which you prefer to hyperventilate.

Krugman is an outstanding economist, and a clear-eyed commentator on U.S. politics and policies who consistently puts flat-earthers and their crackpot "theories" to shame, and so it isn't that hard to understand that he'll draw a lot of flack from these quarters. The U.S. of A. is better off for him, and for fact-based humiliations he's regularly inflicting on the flat-earthers in particular.

1. I have no problem rubbing your face in it again: he said exactly what I said he did.
Further, he was proven wrong by experts, such as "A recent article in EnergyWirecanvassed experts from think tanks and universities. Their verdict:

The peak-oil concept is increasingly out of date less than a decade after its proponents said global output would surely hit the halfway mark. And few of these sources [experts] came from what one would think of as traditionally right-leaning or “pro-energy” institutions."

How ya' like that, boyyyyeeeeee???



2. "Krugman is an outstanding economist, and a clear-eyed commentator on U.S. politics and policies..."
And therein you provided the proof that you are an imbecile:

"Detroit is “just an innocent victim of market forces.” There is no bigger lesson here, saidNew York Timeseconomist Paul Krugman. “For the most part, it’s just one of those things that happens now and then in an ever changing economy” (July 21). What garbage.

. .... Detroit filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy. The filing, if approved, would make it the largest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history, and probably the biggest municipal bankruptcy of any advanced nation ever. But according to [Krugman], there isno lessonto be learned here!

. Apparently, a population crash from 2 million to 700,000 isjust one of those things.The white flight is historic and well documented. But there is also black flight. And the flight of the dead. That’s right: People are actually exhuming dead relatives to move them out of the city because it is too dangerous to visit the cemeteries."
Detroit Bankruptcy mdash Nothing to See Here - theTrumpet.com



Here comes the money line:
"During that whole time, the city was run by one political party, adhering to a specific economic philosophy. Politicians said they wanted to create a “fairer” city by raising taxes on businesses and productive individuals and redistributing it. The effect was to drive business out and make everyone poor... Thissame economic philosophy is currently being nationalized."
Ibid.

Krugman is a paid apologist for Liberal/Progressive Democrats....and you're a proven imbecile.

Liars like Krugman are lavishly paid to hide the truth. This is the truth:
The legacy of Barack Obama: Nidal Hasan is alive, and Detroit is Dead.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Another rant from PoliChic -- everybody stand back, she's gonna blow!!

Go to Tehran and announce loudly that you're a "homosexual muslim". See how tolerant your piece of shit religion is.

 

[JoeB131]

No, it wasn't. Nobody forced Germany to become militaristic again. In fact, at the first sign of it, we should have crushed them quickly.

Wow, dude, there was a reason why they didn't. Mostly, it was because the wealthy who wanted the first war were more afraid of their own workers than the "Enemy" after revolutions toppled the Tsar and the Kaisers.

 

[JoeB131]

No one cares about your personal story, Job. The overall consensus is that the VA is awful

And does anyone seriously listen to Krugman anymore?.

Who is the "overall consensus".

News Releases - Office of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs

April 16, 2014 Independent 2013 Survey Shows Veterans Highly Satisfied with VA Care Higher rating than Private-Sector Hospitals on Average

WASHINGTON -- The American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI), an independent customer service survey, ranks the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) customer satisfaction among Veteran patients among the best in the nation and equal to or better than ratings for private sector hospitals. The 2013 ACSI report assessed satisfaction among Veterans who have recently been patients of VA’s Veterans Health Administration (VHA) inpatient and outpatient services. ACSI is the nation’s only cross-industry measure of customer satisfaction, providing benchmarking between the public and private sectors.

In 2013, the overall ACSI satisfaction index for VA was 84 for inpatient care and 82 for outpatient care, which compares favorably with the U.S. hospital industry (scores of 80 and 83, respectively). Since 2004, the ACSI survey has consistently shown that Veterans give VA hospitals and clinics a higher customer satisfaction score, on average, than patients give private sector hospitals. These overall scores are based on specific feedback on customer expectations, perceived value and quality, responsiveness to customer complaints, and customer loyalty. One signature finding for 2013 is the continuing high degree of loyalty to VA among Veterans, with a score of 93 percent favorable. This score has remained high (above 90 percent) for the past ten years.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

No, it wasn't. Nobody forced Germany to become militaristic again. In fact, at the first sign of it, we should have crushed them quickly.

Wow, dude, there was a reason why they didn't. Mostly, it was because the wealthy who wanted the first war were more afraid of their own workers than the "Enemy" after revolutions toppled the Tsar and the Kaisers.

Oh, do tell! Who was it who wanted Germany to invade their countries the first time around?

 

[BullKurtz]

Oil is a non-renewable resource which means its continued use will deplete it.

If you want to argue about the timeframe, fine. But its eventual depletion is an irrefutable fact.

Oil is an abiotic resource we'll never run out of because the inner earth continues to produce it. This is evidenced by wells thought to be depleted begin producing again. So the "peak oil" scam is not only wrong, it's a criminal attempt to keep price-fixing it. And of course "BIG OIL" is going along with this caper so you'll think oil is a dwindling commodity when in fact, we've barely scratched the surface of the SEA of OIL under us.

 

[JoeB131]

No, it wasn't. Nobody forced Germany to become militaristic again. In fact, at the first sign of it, we should have crushed them quickly.

Wow, dude, there was a reason why they didn't. Mostly, it was because the wealthy who wanted the first war were more afraid of their own workers than the "Enemy" after revolutions toppled the Tsar and the Kaisers.

Oh, do tell! Who was it who wanted Germany to invade their countries the first time around?

The first time around, Germany was reacting to french and Russian aggression.

 

[JoeB131]

Oil is an abiotic resource we'll never run out of because the inner earth continues to produce it. This is evidenced by wells thought to be depleted begin producing again. So the "peak oil" scam is not only wrong, it's a criminal attempt to keep price-fixing it. And of course "BIG OIL" is going along with this caper so you'll think oil is a dwindling commodity when in fact, we've barely scratched the surface of the SEA of OIL under us.

Dumbass, the inner earth can't produce oil as fast as we are depleting it.

 

[Antares]

Oil is an abiotic resource we'll never run out of because the inner earth continues to produce it. This is evidenced by wells thought to be depleted begin producing again. So the "peak oil" scam is not only wrong, it's a criminal attempt to keep price-fixing it. And of course "BIG OIL" is going along with this caper so you'll think oil is a dwindling commodity when in fact, we've barely scratched the surface of the SEA of OIL under us.

Dumbass, the inner earth can't produce oil as fast as we are depleting it.

Sissy boy we have plenty.

 

[JoeB131]

Oil is an abiotic resource we'll never run out of because the inner earth continues to produce it. This is evidenced by wells thought to be depleted begin producing again. So the "peak oil" scam is not only wrong, it's a criminal attempt to keep price-fixing it. And of course "BIG OIL" is going along with this caper so you'll think oil is a dwindling commodity when in fact, we've barely scratched the surface of the SEA of OIL under us.

Dumbass, the inner earth can't produce oil as fast as we are depleting it.

Sissy boy we have plenty.

No, we don't. Certainly not if China and India start using petroleum at the rate that the west uses it. Even the oil industry admits the world only has 53 years of petroleum left.

 

[Antares]

Oil is an abiotic resource we'll never run out of because the inner earth continues to produce it. This is evidenced by wells thought to be depleted begin producing again. So the "peak oil" scam is not only wrong, it's a criminal attempt to keep price-fixing it. And of course "BIG OIL" is going along with this caper so you'll think oil is a dwindling commodity when in fact, we've barely scratched the surface of the SEA of OIL under us.

Dumbass, the inner earth can't produce oil as fast as we are depleting it.

Sissy boy we have plenty.

No, we don't. Certainly not if China and India start using petroleum at the rate that the west uses it. Even the oil industry admits the world only has 53 years of petroleum left.

NOBODY knows what reserves there are Joemama, nobody.

 

[JoeB131]

Here's what BP says...

Total world proved oil reserves reached 1687.9 billion barrels at the end of 2013, sufficient to meet 53.3 years of global production. The largest additions to reserves came from Russia, adding 900 million barrels and Venezuela adding 800 million barrels. OPEC members continue to hold the majority of reserves, accounting for 71.9% of the global total. South & Central America continues to hold the highest R/P ratio. Over the past decade, global proved reserves have increased by 27%, or over 350 billion barrels.

BP Says The World Only Has 53 Years Of Oil Left Should You Panic

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oil is a non-renewable resource which means its continued use will deplete it.

If you want to argue about the timeframe, fine. But its eventual depletion is an irrefutable fact.

Oil is an abiotic resource we'll never run out of because the inner earth continues to produce it. This is evidenced by wells thought to be depleted begin producing again. So the "peak oil" scam is not only wrong, it's a criminal attempt to keep price-fixing it. And of course "BIG OIL" is going along with this caper so you'll think oil is a dwindling commodity when in fact, we've barely scratched the surface of the SEA of OIL under us.

Where are the wells pumping newly produced oil, specifically, oil that was created in the last 100 years, or 50 years, or last year?