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.
Even most liberals think liberal econ is bull****. Most liberals I know, generally have some sort of a dislaimer before admitting their political postitions, something to the effect of "I'm socially liberal, but lean fiscally conservative".
Honestly, if conservatives weren't so crazy on certain social issues, liberalism would cease to exist. I think everyone is looking for a party of sanity, but it doesn't exist - socially or economically.
How many successful business has Paul Krugman started or ran? Or is he one of those clowns who couldn't cut it in the businesses world so he became a "academic"?
How many successful business has Paul Krugman started or ran? Or is he one of those clowns who couldn't cut it in the businesses world so he became a "academic"?
Who cares if he ran a business? It's a mere (ignorant) presumption that if one is a successful business person they must indeed be an expert in macro economics. It's a presumption that has no merit. Mitt Romney is a successful businessman who during the campaign spewed nothing but economic nonsense. There is no reason to think that one who ran a hedge fund, a store or factories must know about the overall economy, such as the IS-LM model, multiplier effects or monetary policy.
Nothing about Austerity benefits the economy. Stop making that argument. If you want to argue for austerity, then at least argue for it correctly, and own up to the result.
It's not that hard to understand: the economy doesn't care if money is from the gov't or from JP Morgan or from you who got your money from the gov't or JP Morgan. When you cut out a significant source of money from the economy, the economy contracts. If you're okay w/ austerity, then that's a fact you need to accept.
Who cares if he ran a business? It's a mere (ignorant) presumption that if one is a successful business person they must indeed be an expert in macro economics. It's a presumption that has no merit. Mitt Romney is a successful businessman who during the campaign spewed nothing but economic nonsense. There is no reason to think that one who ran a hedge fund, a store or factories must know about the overall economy, such as the IS-LM model, multiplier effects or monetary policy.
Lol, typical liberal nonsense. I'm going to take the advice of somebody who's actually done it, then some clown liberal professer.
How many successful business has Paul Krugman started or ran? Or is he one of those clowns who couldn't cut it in the businesses world so he became a "academic"?
Famed economist..never saw it coming, thought the stimulus was great and is now wondering why the economy didn't soar since 2009.
The unemployment rate of the Eurozone is about 12%, which happens to be LOWER than our unemployment rate if you count all of those who stopped looking for work due to Obama and Krugmans policies.
How the hell can you guys not understand that taking money out of the economy is BAD, and pumping it back in, doesnt create jobs. If it did, areas with high welfare would be booming with jobs...
Name for me ONE neighborhood that turned around because of welfare programs. JUST ONE.
In other words, our unemployment rate is higher if you fudge the definition to make it higher.
Economic stimulus is a proven method to boost the economy when it is depressed due to lack of demand. It isn't even arguable and is in every freshman economics textbook.
Obama isn't following Krugman's advice. If he had the economy would have recovered by now.
In other words, our unemployment rate is higher if you fudge the definition to make it higher.
Um, we are fudging the numbers to keep it lower
Or dont those people that quit looking for a job matter to you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
Economic stimulus is a proven method to boost the economy when it is depressed due to lack of demand. It isn't even arguable and is in every freshman economics textbook.
Obama isn't following Krugman's advice. If he had the economy would have recovered by now.
Even the founder of Keynesian economics opposed deficit spending to boost the economy. Tell me why you think you're smarter than he is?
Tell me why the economy boomed after Clinton CUT the growth of spending?
Tell me ONE neighborhood that had an economic recovery due to increased welfare spending. Come on MTA, backup your own bull **** by giving us examples..
Famed economist..never saw it coming, thought the stimulus was great and is now wondering why the economy didn't soar since 2009.
If you were paying attention through the years, you would know that Krugman argued that the stimulus passed was way too small to fully boost the economy to pre-great recession levels. It would help, but not get us back to where we wanted to be. He calculated far more was needed. He was correct, it boosted the economy but did not negate the 6-8% drop in GDP.
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.
