|
|
Post by aztec70 on May 9, 2013 7:37:59 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 9, 2013 16:11:15 GMT -8
Krugman writes another opinion based on nothing factual. His time has passed if it were ever here. The only stupidity in view would be anyone having any faith in what Krugman says.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on May 9, 2013 19:52:48 GMT -8
Poor win.
|
|
|
|
Post by azson on May 10, 2013 8:40:50 GMT -8
I try not to spend too much time on it, but I do wonder occasionally if Win truly believes his own tripe or if, as his avatar warns us, he is ‘just here to annoy us’ and troll.
Let’s see, PK is a Professor of Economics and International Affairs and a Nobel Prize winner. In addition, there have been numerous accounts in the last few years of how he has the highest rate of prognostication among well known pundits.
Let’s set that against the tin-foil-hat/wing-nut sources that Win posts on a daily basis. I agree, poor Win (or poor Win’s wife?).
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 10, 2013 16:01:14 GMT -8
You guys are pretty funny. Rather than try to defend an opinion piece based on nothing, you launch personal attacks people on people who expose the folly that is Krugman.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on May 11, 2013 16:28:14 GMT -8
Troll on, little win.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 28, 2013 12:08:35 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on May 29, 2013 13:46:10 GMT -8
Yeah, they don't like it when he points that their work is flawed. He so impolite.  Not like he is the only one saying so. He just has a more bully pulpit. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 29, 2013 15:40:51 GMT -8
Yeah, they don't like it when he points that their work is flawed. He so impolite. Not like he is the only one saying so. He just has a more bully pulpit. When will the dense figure out that disagreeing with Krugman is the first step to being right? You just can't spend and inflate without disastrous consequences. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on May 30, 2013 11:35:02 GMT -8
Yeah, they don't like it when he points that their work is flawed. He so impolite. Not like he is the only one saying so. He just has a more bully pulpit. When will the dense figure out that disagreeing with Krugman is the first step to being right? You just can't spend and inflate without disastrous consequences. You amuse me.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2013 14:17:34 GMT -8
Yeah, they don't like it when he points that their work is flawed. He so impolite. Not like he is the only one saying so. He just has a more bully pulpit. When will the dense figure out that disagreeing with Krugman is the first step to being right? You just can't spend and inflate without disastrous consequences. There is a difference between seeking the truth and thinking you already know it so you look for it in the data....unfortunately those that have tried to bring Krugman down on the subject of Austerity have been exposed as the later. www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/30/reinhart-rogoff-debunked_n_3361299.html |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 1, 2013 15:43:08 GMT -8
When will the dense figure out that disagreeing with Krugman is the first step to being right? You just can't spend and inflate without disastrous consequences. There is a difference between seeking the truth and thinking you already know it so you look for it in the data....unfortunately those that have tried to bring Krugman down on the subject of Austerity have been exposed as the later. www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/30/reinhart-rogoff-debunked_n_3361299.htmlAn Economics Prof and a Student? They completely ignore the inflationary damage done by printing money. Huff Post restates this opinion but does not really support their opinion other than with a graph that may or may not be based on real data and as with any model, it is not complete. Common Sense says you need to have your budget in balance or you will be in trouble over the long run. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecmusician on Jun 4, 2013 9:53:41 GMT -8
I try not to spend too much time on it, but I do wonder occasionally if Win truly believes his own tripe or if, as his avatar warns us, he is ‘just here to annoy us’ and troll. Let’s see, PK is a Professor of Economics and International Affairs and a Nobel Prize winner. In addition, there have been numerous accounts in the last few years of how he has the highest rate of prognostication among well known pundits. Let’s set that against the tin-foil-hat/wing-nut sources that Win posts on a daily basis. I agree, poor Win (or poor Win’s wife?). College professor and Nobel Prize winner. Progressives certainly honor their own. If Krugman could actually back up his opinions with data then I would be inclined to give him some due respect. But he never does, so he is just another cog in the liberal propaganda machine. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2013 11:08:25 GMT -8
I try not to spend too much time on it, but I do wonder occasionally if Win truly believes his own tripe or if, as his avatar warns us, he is ‘just here to annoy us’ and troll. Let’s see, PK is a Professor of Economics and International Affairs and a Nobel Prize winner. In addition, there have been numerous accounts in the last few years of how he has the highest rate of prognostication among well known pundits. Let’s set that against the tin-foil-hat/wing-nut sources that Win posts on a daily basis. I agree, poor Win (or poor Win’s wife?). College professor and Nobel Prize winner. Progressives certainly honor their own. If Krugman could actually back up his opinions with data then I would be inclined to give him some due respect. But he never does, so he is just another cog in the liberal propaganda machine. Hilarious. The data is Europe, and Japan, and the US during the great depression when we double dipped. Now if you actually believe austerity works in an inflation based fiat currency countries that utilize central banking as there economic driver ask your self this question. Can any country, using the afore mentioned banking systems actually pay off all their debts if they were all called in at the same time? If you don't know that paying off the owed balance is these cases are mathematically impossible then you have already waded into a conversation that you could never except the facts of because you still don't understand the basic underlying banking system on which this is all based. This doesn't mean we can load unlimited debt, and that is not what Krugman is saying either. He is simply stating the fact based truth, which is the most cost effective way, long term, to recharge the economy is not austerity. It's low interest spending. As someone who studied economics and holds a masters in business with an emphasis in accounting it blows my mind that no one seems to understand the basic math involved. Last try....if you cut spending and raise taxes, the lost growth always exceeds the cost of the interest on borrowering an equivalent amount of money to what you would've cut/taxed in the system. Why is that so har dto understand? One is more cost effective then the other and hisotry has proven it time and time again in the last 100 years. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 4, 2013 16:03:44 GMT -8
College professor and Nobel Prize winner. Progressives certainly honor their own. If Krugman could actually back up his opinions with data then I would be inclined to give him some due respect. But he never does, so he is just another cog in the liberal propaganda machine. Hilarious. The data is Europe, and Japan, and the US during the great depression when we double dipped. Now if you actually believe austerity works in an inflation based fiat currency countries that utilize central banking as there economic driver ask your self this question. Can any country, using the afore mentioned banking systems actually pay off all their debts if they were all called in at the same time? If you don't know that paying off the owed balance is these cases are mathematically impossible then you have already waded into a conversation that you could never except the facts of because you still don't understand the basic underlying banking system on which this is all based. This doesn't mean we can load unlimited debt, and that is not what Krugman is saying either. He is simply stating the fact based truth, which is the most cost effective way, long term, to recharge the economy is not austerity. It's low interest spending. As someone who studied economics and holds a masters in business with an emphasis in accounting it blows my mind that no one seems to understand the basic math involved. Last try....if you cut spending and raise taxes, the lost growth always exceeds the cost of the interest on borrowering an equivalent amount of money to what you would've cut/taxed in the system. Why is that so har dto understand? One is more cost effective then the other and hisotry has proven it time and time again in the last 100 years. Your last paragraph shows you have a built in bias. We are talking about cutting non-productive spending and keeping taxes in check. We are talking about cutting waste. You also seem to think that fiat money is a good idea rather than a solid currency. The stagnant economies in Japan and Europe are the result of ill advised policy in more areas than what we are talking about, but stifling tax policy and irresponsible spending will never have a positive outcome. Krugman seems to think that just dumping money in the economy and depending on the velocity of money to stimulate growth will only work in the short term and depends on increased spending by every person and every government entity. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2013 16:14:31 GMT -8
Hilarious. The data is Europe, and Japan, and the US during the great depression when we double dipped. Now if you actually believe austerity works in an inflation based fiat currency countries that utilize central banking as there economic driver ask your self this question. Can any country, using the afore mentioned banking systems actually pay off all their debts if they were all called in at the same time? If you don't know that paying off the owed balance is these cases are mathematically impossible then you have already waded into a conversation that you could never except the facts of because you still don't understand the basic underlying banking system on which this is all based. This doesn't mean we can load unlimited debt, and that is not what Krugman is saying either. He is simply stating the fact based truth, which is the most cost effective way, long term, to recharge the economy is not austerity. It's low interest spending. As someone who studied economics and holds a masters in business with an emphasis in accounting it blows my mind that no one seems to understand the basic math involved. Last try....if you cut spending and raise taxes, the lost growth always exceeds the cost of the interest on borrowering an equivalent amount of money to what you would've cut/taxed in the system. Why is that so har dto understand? One is more cost effective then the other and hisotry has proven it time and time again in the last 100 years. Your last paragraph shows you have a built in bias. We are talking about cutting non-productive spending and keeping taxes in check. We are talking about cutting waste. You also seem to think that fiat money is a good idea rather than a solid currency. The stagnant economies in Japan and Europe are the result of ill advised policy in more areas than what we are talking about, but stifling tax policy and irresponsible spending will never have a positive outcome. Krugman seems to think that just dumping money in the economy and depending on the velocity of money to stimulate growth will only work in the short term and depends on increased spending by every person and every government entity. Wrong again, making a statement of fact is not bias, sorry. If you really believe what you are saying then you disagree with Krugman because his ideas use the federal reserve the way it was intended whereas you obviously don't think the reserve should exist at all. Not saying that is or isn't a good idea, but that means your rememidy is based on a fundamentally different currency system then the one is place for the last century. Is it time to change that system? Maybe...but if we don't Krugmans growth strategy is based in mathematical fact. not fiction. To me this is the greatest undiscussed issue affecting the spending debate, because clearly a growing faction or conservative, libertarian, and even liberal Americans are questioning the existence and function of the fed. But ultimately that is a fundamentally different conversation then what to do to get the best result with the system currently in place. Hate to break it to you, but the fed isn't going anywhere. Central banking based on inflationary fiat currency has spread the world over. The gold and silver standards are long gone, likely never to return. |
|
|
|
Post by pdraztec on Jun 5, 2013 8:55:51 GMT -8
Krugman is a Kensian dunce and spews garbage all the time. Nobel prize winner? Gosh! Didn't Obama win one?...
for doing nothing.
Spending is the solution? Ask Europe how that is working out along with taxing everyone and everything.
|
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Jun 5, 2013 9:35:17 GMT -8
Krugman is a Kensian dunce and spews garbage all the time. Nobel prize winner? Gosh! Didn't Obama win one?... for doing nothing. Spending is the solution? Ask Europe how that is working out along with taxing everyone and everything. Kensian... Yup, let's take economics lessons from this guy |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2013 11:43:38 GMT -8
Krugman is a Kensian dunce and spews garbage all the time. Nobel prize winner? Gosh! Didn't Obama win one?... for doing nothing. Spending is the solution? Ask Europe how that is working out along with taxing everyone and everything. Europe is in the shitter becuase of an extreme attempt at Austerity. So basically your prescribed cure made the patient more sick. Believe what you want guys, evidence obviously is not a factor. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 5, 2013 14:29:13 GMT -8
Your last paragraph shows you have a built in bias. We are talking about cutting non-productive spending and keeping taxes in check. We are talking about cutting waste. You also seem to think that fiat money is a good idea rather than a solid currency. The stagnant economies in Japan and Europe are the result of ill advised policy in more areas than what we are talking about, but stifling tax policy and irresponsible spending will never have a positive outcome. Krugman seems to think that just dumping money in the economy and depending on the velocity of money to stimulate growth will only work in the short term and depends on increased spending by every person and every government entity. Wrong again, making a statement of fact is not bias, sorry. If you really believe what you are saying then you disagree with Krugman because his ideas use the federal reserve the way it was intended whereas you obviously don't think the reserve should exist at all. Not saying that is or isn't a good idea, but that means your rememidy is based on a fundamentally different currency system then the one is place for the last century. Is it time to change that system? Maybe...but if we don't Krugmans growth strategy is based in mathematical fact. not fiction. To me this is the greatest undiscussed issue affecting the spending debate, because clearly a growing faction or conservative, libertarian, and even liberal Americans are questioning the existence and function of the fed. But ultimately that is a fundamentally different conversation then what to do to get the best result with the system currently in place. Hate to break it to you, but the fed isn't going anywhere. Central banking based on inflationary fiat currency has spread the world over. The gold and silver standards are long gone, likely never to return. Well, we are indeed talking about the Central Banking System that allows run away spending and inflation because there is no strict discipline nor any consequences for irresponsible spending other than inflation and the need to increase the tax load to keep things moving. I agree that things will most likely not change in respect to the Fed, but I do see a path to responsible spending and a fair code. It takes an administration and a Fed willing to live within it's means without putting more money in play. The money supply should expand as a result of expansion of the economy expands and not in hope of the opposite. Now it may be true the economy of Europe is suffering on a short term basis due to the austerity moves, but you need that bump in the road to turn the corner. One other thing that was never well thought out was the creation of the EU. You should not be surprised that a common currency and intertwined economy should falter when hard working Germans are supporting the irresponsible Greeks for example. In a related matter, now is the ideal opportunity to down size the IRS by making a much simpler and fairer tax code. The light now being shined on IRS should signal law makers that we have a much too complicated system that is way over staffed compared to what it should be. With two or three tiered brackets with very limited deductions we could save a lot of time effort and grief. Politics has been playing a much too large of a role in tax policy and/or tax rulings for much too long a time. |
|
Not like he is the only one saying so. He just has a more bully pulpit.
