Whats the problem with the US Economy

[Dante]

It is well documented.

There is a video of a conference above as just one slice of this well documented fact.

any economist you could cite, would give their left ball or left tit for a Nobel in Economics.

Krugman has a Nobel in Economics

YOU?

An anonymous scream name on the world wide web

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It is well documented.

There is a video of a conference above as just one slice of this well documented fact.

any economist you could cite, would give their left ball or left tit for a Nobel in Economics.

Krugman has a Nobel in Economics

YOU?

An anonymous scream name on the world wide web

And? is this suppose to some how make him correct even when it is blatantly obvious he is wrong?

He should stick to international trade theories and skip pontification on macroeconomics.

Not that someone as half-wit as yourself would know the difference.

 

[Dante]

It is well documented.

There is a video of a conference above as just one slice of this well documented fact.

any economist you could cite, would give their left ball or left tit for a Nobel in Economics.

Krugman has a Nobel in Economics

YOU?

An anonymous scream name on the world wide web

And? is this suppose to some how make him correct even when it is blatantly obvious he is wrong?

He should stick to international trade theories and skip pontification on macroeconomics.

Not that someone as half-wit as yourself would know the difference.

you keep on attacking Krugman personally and never address specific points he makes

stick to predicting Presidential races.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I'm not attacking Krugman "personally", you half brained, fucktard. I'm attacking is dogmatic pontification on macroeconomics, while you full blown retards keep pointing to the Nobel prize he won.......for international trade theory.

I have before, and can again, point out why, where and how many times he has been wrong on business cycle theory, inflation, deficits, government spending and most of all, making up his own facts.
But why? You'll just run off singing the prasises of a man who is not an expert in macroecon, yet anything he says you take as gospel.

You're a useful idiot. In case you missed it, I AM attacking you. Because you're a retard, which makes it fun and easy.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Your favorite political hack economist is a political hack economist. I'm sorry you're so slow. Better luck next time.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There does seem to be some sort of a hack in this conversation. Had you noticed that one instance (2004) had a decent economy that should have supported employment growth, and a different instance that was trying to recover from a serious recssion without any stimulus help coming from the republican party.

Good try at defending the hack.

By the way, did you ever get back to me with an actual defense of that study you like? Or did you just run away like the coward you are?

Not a try, just the truth.


Relative to your question. No defense needed. it is what it is. Did you believe you said something to negate it in your mind???
All I saw was a series of lies about it coming from you. No tearing it up, as you promised. Cmon, me con tool, tear it up.
Then you can take on the other 30 or so out ther now. Problem is, they always come to the same conclusion.

You haven't posted the study yet, all you posted was a link to a story about the study that mostly debunked it. My challenge was for you to defend it while I tore it apart, and you won't even post it.

 

[Rshermr]

Good try at defending the hack.

By the way, did you ever get back to me with an actual defense of that study you like? Or did you just run away like the coward you are?

Not a try, just the truth.


Relative to your question. No defense needed. it is what it is. Did you believe you said something to negate it in your mind???
All I saw was a series of lies about it coming from you. No tearing it up, as you promised. Cmon, me con tool, tear it up.
Then you can take on the other 30 or so out ther now. Problem is, they always come to the same conclusion.

You haven't posted the study yet, all you posted was a link to a story about the study that mostly debunked it. My challenge was for you to defend it while I tore it apart, and you won't even post it.

First off, Windbag, the link that I posted debunked nothing, except your claim to have a clue about how to critique a study. You are a con tool. So, conversation or debate are beyond you. You simply post drivel, and con dogma.
So, let me understand this, Windbag. You want me to post the links to information about the study. then, you want me to name a study, and I said, several time, pick your own choice. You then keep pushing me to name a specific study, so I simply name one. You make some stupid responses about the web site that has responsibility for the study. And now you want me to deliver the study to you.
To which I say, .... and the horse you rode in on, dipshit. You do a little work. You are the one who wanted to do this, so go find the study. Or pick another. Point is, you are just a simple con tool. You do not have the mental capability or experience to critique a study. You have proven that already. If you would like, I can post another 10 studies that come to the same conclusion. But again, Windbag, if it is wrong, show me a study that agrees with you. An actual study, windbag, if you understand what that is.

 

[usmcstinger]

Obama's use of Keynesian Economics. Soon we will be Greece!

Does your social worker at the VA hospital know you're back on the internet?

The only thing you know about the VA is you can't go there. People like you would soil themselves at the thought of having to go into ground combat against an enemy force.
You are nothing more than a little puke, sucking his thumb in a dark corner with his blankie.

 

[Rshermr]

any economist you could cite, would give their left ball or left tit for a Nobel in Economics.

Krugman has a Nobel in Economics

YOU?

An anonymous scream name on the world wide web

And? is this suppose to some how make him correct even when it is blatantly obvious he is wrong?

He should stick to international trade theories and skip pontification on macroeconomics.

Not that someone as half-wit as yourself would know the difference.

you keep on attacking Krugman personally and never address specific points he makes

stick to predicting Presidential races.

You must understand. Take a step back is a con tool. He makes accusations, but does not support his accusations with any kind of evidence. Very typical of cons. But, you see, that is all he can do. Because being a con is a mental ailment. He believes what he wants to believe. And attacks others because he needs to try to make himself feel knowledgeable.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I'm not a conservative, but thanks for the ad hominem built on false allegations.



Let me help you find out why Krugman is a hack:

This tool is your friend.

 

[jillian]

Please tell us or admit to being a low IQ liberal

That's a bit redundant, isn't it?

rightwingnut projection again?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Please tell us or admit to being a low IQ liberal

That's a bit redundant, isn't it?

rightwingnut projection again?

Of course the problem with the economy is having an anti-business socialist president. Can anyone justify socialism? Shall we tell China to switch back to socialism??

 

[Toro]

any economist you could cite, would give their left ball or left tit for a Nobel in Economics.

Krugman has a Nobel in Economics

YOU?

An anonymous scream name on the world wide web

And? is this suppose to some how make him correct even when it is blatantly obvious he is wrong?

He should stick to international trade theories and skip pontification on macroeconomics.

Not that someone as half-wit as yourself would know the difference.

you keep on attacking Krugman personally and never address specific points he makes

stick to predicting Presidential races.

I totally respect Paul Krugman as a theorist in trade. He is a brilliant guy. Partisan, but brilliant. So I'm not going to tear him down simply because I disagree with his politics sometimes. And I will listen to him on any topic in economics.

However, if you want to point to credentials to substantiate an argument, Robert Lucas won the Nobel Prize in macroeconomics, which is the subject of the debate. And Lucas disagrees with Krugman. So, the Nobel Prize winner in the topic of discussion disagrees with the guy who did not win the Nobel Prize in the topic. Does that mean we then disregard what Krugman says because his intellectual counterpart one-ups him in the Nobel Prize department?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

you keep on attacking Krugman personally and never address specific points he makes

Krugmans only point is that government can stimulate the economy even when we all know it is impossible since the government does not invent new products.

We didn't get from the stone age to here because the liberals spent Solyndra, A123 Systems, soviet money, but because heroic businessmen invented new products.

Who can argue with the obvious??

 

[TakeAStepBack]

And? is this suppose to some how make him correct even when it is blatantly obvious he is wrong?

He should stick to international trade theories and skip pontification on macroeconomics.

Not that someone as half-wit as yourself would know the difference.

you keep on attacking Krugman personally and never address specific points he makes

stick to predicting Presidential races.

I totally respect Paul Krugman as a theorist in trade. He is a brilliant guy. Partisan, but brilliant. So I'm not going to tear him down simply because I disagree with his politics sometimes. And I will listen to him on any topic in economics.

However, if you want to point to credentials to substantiate an argument, Robert Lucas won the Nobel Prize in macroeconomics, which is the subject of the debate. And Lucas disagrees with Krugman. So, the Nobel Prize winner in the topic of discussion disagrees with the guy who did not win the Nobel Prize in the topic. Does that mean we then disregard what Krugman says because his intellectual counterpart one-ups him in the Nobel Prize department?

Absolutely not. His voice can be heard and his input is welcome. But when you're wrong, and it is pointed out why, btu then you claim that isn't what you said, you tend to stain your own credibility. To make matters worse, he continues to keep shamelessly plugging the same issues with the same rhetoric even after being called out. Being shown to be wrong.

 

[Rshermr]

What is not wrong with the US Economy is the wealth of the rich. They have gotten much richer over the past few years. It is not corporate profits. They are at record levels. The market is doing well, almost back to where it was before the market crashed.
What is not back is employment levels, and the related unemployment rate. And the deficit will not really start declining until unemployment is back. Economic history shows this clearly. All economists know that employment is the last thing to recover after a major recession, or a depression.
So, the related problem is why. Why is the unemployment rate not moving down as fast as it should. And that makes looking at history useful. What worked to bring unemployment down in past recessions.
So, during the great depression, Americans watched unemployment rates move from under 5% to over 20% from late '28 to early '33. And it did not stop until stimulus spending started in earnest. During Reagan's administration, unemployment reached 10.8% in '82. Stimulus spending brought the rate down rather quickly. When Clinton took over a poor economy, stimulus spending brought the rate back into order. But in this really large recession, we have had very little stimulus. What we had, worked. But it was a small stimulus. And the republican party has absolutely blocked any additional stimulus. Because they have backed the source of revenue to support the stimulus, which of necessity needs to be additional tax revenue.
It is as simple as that.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

So fight the disease by introducing more of it into the host?

Interesting theory.

Following the great depression, was the fed/state/local and citizenry as highly levered as they are now? Just how much M1 and M2 should we "stimulate" the economy with in order to reduce UE?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And it[unemployment] did not stop until stimulus spending started in earnest..

perfectly idiotic and 100% liberal. You assume liberal spending is stimulative when it is actually depressing.

Liberals don't invent new products so can't stimulate the economy. This is done in the private sector.


We got from the stone age to here because Republicans invented new products, not because liberals and soviets wasted money on Solyndra, A123 Systems, and bridges to no where mal-investment. Sorry, don't mean to shatter your world, but you don't really want to be a liberal all your life do you??.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not a try, just the truth.


Relative to your question. No defense needed. it is what it is. Did you believe you said something to negate it in your mind???
All I saw was a series of lies about it coming from you. No tearing it up, as you promised. Cmon, me con tool, tear it up.
Then you can take on the other 30 or so out ther now. Problem is, they always come to the same conclusion.

You haven't posted the study yet, all you posted was a link to a story about the study that mostly debunked it. My challenge was for you to defend it while I tore it apart, and you won't even post it.

First off, Windbag, the link that I posted debunked nothing, except your claim to have a clue about how to critique a study. You are a con tool. So, conversation or debate are beyond you. You simply post drivel, and con dogma.
So, let me understand this, Windbag. You want me to post the links to information about the study. then, you want me to name a study, and I said, several time, pick your own choice. You then keep pushing me to name a specific study, so I simply name one. You make some stupid responses about the web site that has responsibility for the study. And now you want me to deliver the study to you.
To which I say, .... and the horse you rode in on, dipshit. You do a little work. You are the one who wanted to do this, so go find the study. Or pick another. Point is, you are just a simple con tool. You do not have the mental capability or experience to critique a study. You have proven that already. If you would like, I can post another 10 studies that come to the same conclusion. But again, Windbag, if it is wrong, show me a study that agrees with you. An actual study, windbag, if you understand what that is.

Keep telling yourself that.

 

[Rshermr]

Ok