Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Paul Krugman has all the credentials of a ranking member of the East Coast liberal establishment: a column in The New York Times, a professorship at Princeton, a Nobel Prize in economics. He is the type you might expect to find holding forth at a Georgetown cocktail party or chumming around in the White House Mess of a Democratic administration
These men and women have "no venality," Krugman hastened to say in an interview with NEWSWEEK. But they are suffering from "osmosis," from simply spending too much time around investment bankers and the like. In his Times column the day Geithner announced the details of the administration's bank-rescue plan, Krugman described his "despair" that Obama "has apparently settled on a financial plan that, in essence, assumes that banks are fundamentally sound and that bankers know what they're doing. It's as if the president were determined to confirm the growing perception that he and his economic team are out of touch, that their economic vision is clouded by excessively close ties to Wall Street
I wouldn't worry too much about it. After all, most of those on the right dismiss the Nobel Prize as a "mere popularity contest".
Hmmm, I should do a search and see if you've referrred to it as such.
golfgod
They also dismiss Krugman as merely partisan.. What are they going to say when he is criticizing them again??? Since he is now credible, as many of us have known. Krugman is one of the best economist of our time and hopefully his critics will always be taken into consideration.
Last edited by lamexican; 04-30-2009 at 10:04 PM..
You can do a search all you want, I just posted the story along with quotes. On purpose I did not comment, expecting this type of reaction.
I note how you've simply responded by attacking the me, rather than discussing the thread.
I guess the only way to find out who is right is to wait. Honestly, I have no idea. By the way, there have been other Nobel Prize winners who disagree with Krugman's ideas.
Econ 101: That Old-Time Keynesian Theory (http://www.businessandmedia.org/commentary/2009/20090121144938.aspx - broken link)
This isn't a defense of Obama's economic policy. I'm only pointing out that there are many other economists you could have quoted. Here is a more recent article than the one I just linked.
Krugman's "theories" on free-trade, international fianance, and globalization is the reason for millions of Americans losing their jobs to countries with no labor or environmental regulations. F him!
One of the reasons we study history is to try to NOT repeat the mistakes of the past. While there is legitimate disagreement among economists (note-Matt Drudge, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are NOT economists) about what should be done, most of that discussion is "around the edges". There is general agreement about not only the "causes" for the Great Depression but what was done to prolong it.
pghquest wrote;
Quote:
I just posted the story along with quotes.
Since you've never said anything positive about Obama maybe the moderators should "flag" you for trying to start a flame war.
And;
Quote:
I note how you've simply responded by attacking the me, rather than discussing the thread.
Attack you! You've got to be kidding me. Are you that thin-skinned that you call my statement about the statements of others, and suggesting that I search to see if you've done the same, as an attack? Somehow the right always think they're being attacked whenever anyone suggests they should be "fact checked".
I wasn't really going to do it, but maybe now I will, you seem to protest too much.
(note-Matt Drudge, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are NOT economists)
Who claimed that they were and what do they have to do with the topic?
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfgod
Attack you! You've got to be kidding me. Are you that thin-skinned that you call my statement about the statements of others, and suggesting that I search to see if you've done the same, as an attack? Somehow the right always think they're being attacked whenever anyone suggests they should be "fact checked".
I'm just wondering when your going to discuss the topic, and when I questioned that, your response was again to discuss me..
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfgod
Since you've never said anything positive about Obama maybe the moderators should "flag" you for trying to start a flame war.
Ahh, so sensor those that dont agree with you... I again note, you dont wish to discuss the topic, or just me the OP?
There is some interesting reading on the author, who seems a bit nutty and has attacked both sides during his career, he's not exactly a liberal.
He didnt seem to have a problem being called one for the news story
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
