Krugman for President

Discussion in 'Politics' started by walter4, Jan 5, 2012.

  1. Ricter

    Ricter

    Ahh, so in reality, at this time, they cannot actually get a "fucking job", because there are not enough to go around. Got it.


    We've been through this a hundred times. There is no evidence of crowding out. Cash reserves, here, just now starting to be spent, are at record levels. Bond rates, record lows. Interest rates and inflation, zip. Regulation, as reported by businesses themselves, not on the radar. In fact, self reporting has been consistently naming insufficient DEMAND as the biggest obstacle.

    So now you see the consumer beginning to spend more, and what follows? That's right, purchasing, inventory stocking, and hiring. Not the other way around.
     
    #31     Jan 5, 2012
  2. Ricter

    Ricter

    I'm genuinely impressed. Someone on the right/libertarian side asking for evidence. *salute*
     
    #32     Jan 5, 2012
  3. Max E.

    Max E.

    Since you seem to keep missing my point i was forced to toss out the best argument i could think of..... the "nuclear option".....

    "Nope, that's not what Im saying." :D



     
    #33     Jan 5, 2012
  4. Max E.

    Max E.

    Feel free to start taking this post apart, instead of skipping over reality.

    It is not "Caricature" its the truth. The same fool (krugman) who was crying about deficits under Bush is now saying we need to spend more and more and more. He reminds me of a relentless gambler, who gives trading a try and just keeps doubling down repeatedly on his position until he blows out his entire account.

    Keynes seemed to ignore the fact that government is full of red tape, and it is simply the most inefficient way that you can possibly spend money. Obama loves to credit his stimulus fuck up for stopping the great depression, but the fact of the matter is that by the time a single stimulus dollar made its way into the economy, we had already stopped shedding jobs, and started gaining jobs. The biggest problem with keynes was that he seemed to assume that we had a government, who was not only trust worthy, but also efficient. We only ever see one side of keynes and that is the spending side.

    Keynesian economics should work, in theory, but it relies on the government taking money out of the economy in boom times and setting it aside, and it also relies on the government efficiently getting the money out the door when we are trying to "stimulate an economy" On both fronts we already know that simply doesnt happen. Obama himself joked that he didnt seem to understand that there is no such thing as a shovel ready job, yet he wants to spend more money?!??!

    Krugman loves to argue that the reason the stimulus failed was because we simply didnt spend enough money, and he argues that "deficits dont matter cause we dont have to pay them back." Both Krugman and Keynes seemed to believe in the absurd idea of a “free lunch.” They never seem to see the consequences of relentless spending.

    The destruction of the dollar through Keynesian economics has brought along with it, higher oil prices, which in turn inflates the price of everything else consumer have to buy, so while idiots like krugman are busy decimating the dollar by printing and spending money we end up with a larger and larger government, and meanwhile everyone in the private sector is decimated through inflation.

    The last ridiculous point I want to focus on that Kurgman dismisses in his article is that “we don’t have to pay the debt back so it doesn’t matter” He is actually right on one point, we will never pay the debt back, I am sure of that one. With that said, what would happen to us if interest rates went to 10% tomorrow and we currently have to service 15 trillion of debt? That would mean that 1.5 trillion of our dollars would be spent simply servicing previous debt, and once again, that money has to come from somewhere, so the 2 choices we are left with is either dismantling the government, or inflating our way out in which case you can pretty much guarantee we will crush every single lower to middle income family, as all their money will now have to be spent on inflated necessities such as oil and food, and they will lose their disposable income.

    The other problem is that it puts us in a position of vulnerability if a crisis ever comes, if we are attacked on our soil, and, we need to figure out a way to foot the bill for the spending to defend ourselves, and our debt to GDP hits levels like 150% all of a sudden no one is willing to finance us any more in times when our lives desperately depend on it.

    If you want a real education on where Keynesian economics has gotten us, and where it will inevitably end up, You should read the books

    "Where keynes went wrong"
    by Hunter Lewis

    or

    "Paper money Collapse"
    by Detlev Schlicter.
     
    #34     Jan 5, 2012
  5. Ricter

    Ricter

    He's not saying "more and more and more", that's your emotion talking. Anyway, it's interesting, he just answered this three days ago.

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/mistakes-and-how-to-deal-with-them/
     
    #35     Jan 5, 2012
  6. Max E.

    Max E.

    You are targeting 1 sentence, feel free to pick the rest of the paragraph apart with your own thoughts, and a thorough explanation as to how keynesian economics has benefit us over the past 3 decades. I would love to hear someone explain to me how we have benefit in the last 30 years from keynesian economics. Maybe you could point to Japan.... they did fantastic with "stimulus spending" all through the 80's. :D

     
    #36     Jan 5, 2012
  7. Tsing Tao

    Tsing Tao

    Keep following the Keynesian high priest into the abyss. Fools.
     
    #37     Jan 6, 2012
  8. Lucrum

    Lucrum

    True for some. MOST of the perma welfare queens though do NOT want to work.

    Many of the OWS crowd said on camera they don't want a job.
     
    #38     Jan 6, 2012
  9. rew

    rew

    Krugman won the Nobel Prize in economics so he must be right -- debt matters for individuals but not for the U.S. government.

    So we should adopt the following policies:

    1. Eliminate all federal taxes and pay for the federal government entirely with debt.

    2. Instead of individuals taking out mortgages the government should borrow the money and give the proceeds to the individuals to pay for their houses. Likewise the government should borrow all money needed by businesses and give the proceeds to the businesses. This transfers all debt from places where it matters (individuals) to where it doesn't (the federal government). Note that the government already does this partially when the Federal Reserve buys dodgy mortgages from banks. I'm saying that that policy should be available to all Americans, not just well connected bankers.

    Our economy will soar!
     
    #39     Jan 6, 2012
  10. Max E.

    Max E.

    Dont give Krugman any new ideas, he probably blew his load at the mere thought of paying for taxes and mortgages entirely through freshly printed dollars...... :D

     
    #40     Jan 6, 2012