PAUL KRUGMAN DEFINES THE ECONOMIC CHOICES STIMULUS vs AUSTARITY DEM. VS REP.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Cite Krugman and what did you expect?

I expected that conservatives would post pictures, complain that the source was Krugman, and respond by saying:

ARAHAHRHRHAHARHHRAARAHAHRHRHAHARHHRAARAHAHRHRHAHARHHRA

My expectations were met.

On the other hand, if someone had offered a cogent critique of the flaws in Krugman's analysis, my wife would currently be searching for a defibrillator to restart my heart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Krugman is partisan obama supporter

The flaw in his presentation is that he is an Obama supporter? You need a Fox Detox.[/quote

Your preferred alternatve is an argument ad hominium ??? You shouldn't flaunt your intellect
when you've had a dose of Fox Kool Aide. You're an embarrassment to all wing nuts

[Anonymous]

Conservatives do not believe in Keynesian economics. It's like asking a catholic pastor when he had his last abortion.

[Anonymous]

Quote function didn't work as planned

Your preferred alternatve is an argument ad hominium ??? You shouldn't flaunt your intellect
when you've had a dose too many of Fox Kool Aide. You're an embarrassment to all wing nuts
I await a comparable analysis from a conservative. Hopefully the children picture posters and name callers can express their position in the AM, because this is what the election is about.
Well not for the self hating women ready to toss their health care into the hands of mealy mouth whie fools like Aiken an the crew in Va

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Quote function didn't work as planned

Your preferred alternatve is an argument ad hominium ??? You shouldn't flaunt your intellect
when you've had a dose too many of Fox Kool Aide. You're an embarrassment to all wing nuts
I await a comparable analysis from a conservative. Hopefully the children picture posters and name callers can express their position in the AM, because this is what the election is about.
Well not for the self hating women ready to toss their health care into the hands of mealy mouth whie fools like Aiken an the crew in Va

Libertarians don't give a fuck, go have 10 abortions .

[Anonymous]

Http://www.theantiliberalzone.com/2012/05/19/keynesian-clown-paul-krugman/

[Anonymous]

Still waiting for actual conservative thinking in a post. This is like getting my kids to eat their broccoli. Btw someone copy/pasting a link saying libtard and jackass does not improve your position, even if it includes a spiffy if gratuitous picture of the founders. So put away that tricorn hat, it doesn't make you look any smarter than Sarah Palins glasses.

It's sad when people are so confident in the messages spoon fed to them that they can't even explain it themselves. Lazy lazy lazy.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cite Krugman and what did you expect?

I expected that conservatives would post pictures, complain that the source was Krugman, and respond by saying:

ARAHAHRHRHAHARHHRAARAHAHRHRHAHARHHRAARAHAHRHRHAHARHHRA

My expectations were met.

On the other hand, if someone had offered a cogent critique of the flaws in Krugman's analysis, my wife would currently be searching for a defibrillator to restart my heart.

You hope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cite Krugman and what did you expect?

I expected that conservatives would post pictures, complain that the source was Krugman, and respond by saying:

ARAHAHRHRHAHARHHRAARAHAHRHRHAHARHHRAARAHAHRHRHAHARHHRA

My expectations were met.

On the other hand, if someone had offered a cogent critique of the flaws in Krugman's analysis, my wife would currently be searching for a defibrillator to restart my heart.

You hope.

Is this Medical Device Lady? If so you just got upgraded to Crazy Medical Device Lady.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Conservatives do not believe in Keynesian economics. It's like asking a catholic pastor when he had his last abortion.

Because men can get abortions? Wow, that IS news. You win for the stupidest analogy ever on DCUM. Congratulations!

[Anonymous]

Never take money advice from people who look like they may be crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Conservatives do not believe in Keynesian economics. It's like asking a catholic pastor when he had his last abortion.

Because men can get abortions? Wow, that IS news. You win for the stupidest analogy ever on DCUM. Congratulations!

Really? So when Mitt Romney argues that defense cuts will cost Virginians jobs, what is that if not Keynesian economics?

Practically everyone believes in Keynesian economics. It's all a matter of the degree to which we believe that the government can influence demand in the short term, and the negative effects of that influence. The main principles of Keynesian economics are indisputable, and that is what Krugman is writing about.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:On the other hand, if someone had offered a cogent critique of the flaws in Krugman's analysis, my wife would currently be searching for a defibrillator to restart my heart.

You hope.

Good point. Thanks to the life insurance I've taken out, I'm probably worth more dead than alive.

[Anonymous]

I am pretty sure you don't actually want a critique of the Krugman piece since they are out there already.

Even if one suggests one to you pick it apart. Because in the end you don't really want to hash out the issues.

We get it. You-- being the Cap Lock stuck for Titles Poster (and Jeff) like Obama. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/opinion/krugman-the-iphone-stimulus.html


The best analysis of why Romney's economic austarity plan will fail and Keynesian Econonics (government spending) will succeed in turning our economy around.
Conservatives please point out the flaws in Krugman's presentation

Ok I'll bite because I have some extra time this morning. But this is really the last time I'll try this...if those of you who worship at the alter of Klugman/Friedman and all things NYT really want some differing views they're readily available. If you want regular spoon-feeding, go to the parenting forum. But please, do not make the mistake of thinking dcum and RR ads in any way exemplify thoughtful and differing approaches to economic issues. I read the Times...and the WSJ and the Economist. What do you read beside the Post and NYT (and dcum!)

I don't deny a quarter of 2 of iphone sales will be good for the economy. It's the free market that's working here, not a simple demand push from ill-conceived programs like cash for clunkers (which only shift demand forward for a temporary sugar high with zero long term gain and higher deficits.) But to use a hot product as evidence that "demand, not supply, is holding the economy back" ignores:

--continued aggregate consumer debt as % of household net worth which inhibit spending as consumers continue a multi-year exercise in balance sheet repair
--if you look at the aggregate increase in consumer spending since crisis lows, indeed we've seen a rebound. But most of the increase has come from higher prices (inflation) not increased unit sales. A stressed consumer is spending to maintain standard of living
--yes businesses are sitting on cash. Can't we at least consider that regulatory uncertainty is an element in their reluctance to make investments? One example: cheap NatGas should incent mfg companies who use gas as a feedstock to be building new factories here. But we can't figure out if we'll embrace this new source or regulate it away.
--his quoting Keynes was really an embrace of Shrumpeter's creative destruction. We free-marketers are all for it. But not selectively (hurrah for Apple, boo to Walmart)
--"why not have govt spend on education and infrastructure" ok to infrastructure, but we blew through most of the stimulus $ on transfer payments and we fiscal conservatives believe in stubborn facts and numbers---we misallocated much of the stimulus money and there ain't much left. re: education spending, please let's see the data on efficacy of increased spending here before writing the checks...remembering the money we spend on our kids will need to be repaid by them too.
---"govt employment has plunged" can we ask why? Maybe it got way ahead of itself? Prior to the crisis, over the previous decade we had seen no net gain in pvt sector jobs; all employment growth had come from the public sector. Was that due to genuine need..or maybe just a sector run amok? I'm asking the question and searching for the data...how about you?

Finally, I'm not gonna engage in a long debate here with a Nobel economist. But there are plenty of equally-trained economist who will..they're out there, look for yourself.