Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Prove Krugman said it. Simple enough, if true. Which it is not. Which is why you can not prove it.hardly a lie but perfectly consistent for Krugman who also called for a pretend war against space alien invaders to simulate WW2 spending. He really thinks that mass producing weapons and dumping them into the sea would stimulate the economy.
keep trying and one of these times you wont make a fool of yourself!!
Paul Krugman: Fake Alien Invasion Would End Economic ...
www.huffingtonpost.com/.../paul-krugman-fake-alie...
The Huffington Post
Aug 15, 2011 - Paul Krugman is so frustrated by the lack of support for another round ... "If we discovered that, you know, space aliens were planning to attack
Again we see how the Regressives can't comprehend simple English. The article may have been written by Krugman, but he was QUOTING someone else who called for a double-dip!!!!!
From your link:
''I must confess to being amazed at the venom my double dip call still elicits,'' Mr. Roach wrote yesterday at cbsmarketwatch.com.
He was using someone else's thought to validate is own argument, moron. It's pretty simple to comprehend that. He referred to what someone else said, he did not QUOTE him, imbecile. Or it would be in quotation marks.
No, he was merely saying that THEIR argument made sense. He clearly is not calling FOR a double dip, but just saying those who are predicting a double dip have a good argument!!!
Again from your link:
But there were a few dogged iconoclasts out there, most notably Stephen Roach at Morgan Stanley. As I've repeatedly said in this column, the arguments of the double-dippers made a lot of sense. And their story now looks more plausible than ever.
snip/
But wishful thinking aside, I just don't understand the grounds for optimism. Who, exactly, is about to start spending a lot more? At this point it's a lot easier to tell a story about how the recovery will stall than about how it will speed up. And while I like movies with happy endings as much as the next guy, a movie isn't realistic unless the story line makes sense.
Apparently the right wing hive's talking point generator told the members of the right wing hive to being this up on different threads in the Econ forum today.Prove Krugman said it. Simple enough, if true. Which it is not. Which is why you can not prove it.
keep trying and one of these times you wont make a fool of yourself!!
Paul Krugman: Fake Alien Invasion Would End Economic ...
www.huffingtonpost.com/.../paul-krugman-fake-alie...
The Huffington Post
Aug 15, 2011 - Paul Krugman is so frustrated by the lack of support for another round ... "If we discovered that, you know, space aliens were planning to attack
From your own link, FOOL!
Of course, Krugman is just using a space invasion as an example. But that hasn't stopped some people from framing his comments as part of a giant conspiracy by a shadowy group of elites to enslave the world through a fake alien attack.
You've shown only that you don't understand the nature of bubbles. You have not shown how regulatory changes in the US could cause bubbles in multiple countries. You've shown an ignorance of what has happened in other countries.
That's because you are wrong.
By their own words, the Fed implicitly acknowledges their role in the housing crisis. Fed members today talk about setting monetary policy that doesn't destabilize asset markets in ways they never did in the past.
Got it dickweed you'll stick with AEI talking points despite EVIDENCE that Dubya policy allowed the subprime bubble to explode in the US as the Banksters created a WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE
The basic structure of the adjustable-rate mortgages that lenders used to grow the subprime market was premised on continued house appreciation. Once the housing bubble peaked subprime ARM loans suddenly became extremely prone to default.
NOT THE FED
I noted earlier that the most important source of lower initial monthly payments, which allowed more people to enter the housing market and bid for properties, was not the general level of short-term interest rates, but the increasing use of more exotic types of mortgages and the associated decline of underwriting standards. That conclusion suggests that the best response to the housing bubble would have been regulatory, not monetary. Stronger regulation and supervision aimed at problems with underwriting practices and lenders' risk management would have been a more effective and surgical approach to constraining the housing bubble than a general increase in interest rates. Moreover, regulators, supervisors, and the private sector could have more effectively addressed building risk concentrations and inadequate risk-management practices without necessarily having had to make a judgment about the sustainability of house price increases.
Chairman Ben S. Bernanke
Monetary Policy and the Housing Bubble
FRB: Speech--Bernanke, Monetary Policy and the Housing Bubble--January 3, 2010
Did the Fed Cause the housing Bubble?
According to research by Ambrogio Cesa-Bianchi and Alessandro Rebucci, the housing bubble was caused by "regulatory rather than monetary-policy failures":
Economist's View: Did the Fed Cause the housing Bubble?
Your inability to answer how an international housing bubble was caused by US subprime mortgages, your linking to sites which confuse you, and your Bush Derangement Syndrome are all noted.
You can call him a loon all you want, he was 100% correct and knew what was happening while morons like Krugman were pushing for a real estate bubble due to moribund investments. Regardless of that, the real estate bubble was pumped, as explained by Paul, when the NASDAQ bubble burst. That was 2000-2001. THAT is when the bubble was being pushed to the danger point, as was warned. And less than 5 years later it came true with 100% accuracy on why by Paul.
But anyone who isn't fucking retarded, must be a loon.
I'm done with you now, shit stain. You've proven to be too stupid to debate this issue with. Toro proved it before, I just did it again and yet you persist. You're insane.
Got it, you'll hang onto right wing bullshit and lies. Krugman didn't do that, BTW, ANOTHER right wing lie. I'm shocked
Another Day, Another Slander of Krugman
Subprime mortgage lending jumped dramatically during the 2004-2006 period preceding the crisis (source: Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission Report
Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.
http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf
so can you tell us what role Fed Fan Fred played in crisis? Cut and paste tells us you don't know. We could all cut and paste forever- right?
He wasn't the Fed Chair when the bubble started. And most of the loans that were the cause of the bubble bursting were outside of the scope of theFederal Reserve, as it deals with banks.And Bernanke saying his policies weren't responsible for the Housing Bubble?
Who would have thought?
He was on the Federal Reserve Board and supported the policies of Greenspan. They don't call him Helicopter Ben for nothing.
The Fed sets and influences the price of credit. The reason why so much subprime was created in the first place was because yield starved institutions needed higher income to meet liabilities. That subprime and alt-A made its way into the derivatives machine, which were purchased by banks, pensions, insurance cos, etc. because similarly- rated product paid 30-40 bps over, a chasm in fixed income land.
Yes, the market went haywire with all these garbage securities. But the source was the mispricing of credit.
Lol@ Buffett on taxes when virtually all of his acquisitions are structured as tax free exchanges of stock.OMG of course!! Eliminate corporate taxes so our corps will move back here. THe highest taxes rate in the world make it mandatory to move out. Thats another great liberal policy!!
Capitalism would have recovered economy in a year or less.
RECORD CORP PROFITS, LOWEST TAX BURDEN IN 40+ YEARS (ON US PROFITS)...
Yeah, taxes are driving them offshore *shaking head*
Warren Buffett: It Is A Myth That U.S. Corporate Taxes Are High
So our corporate tax rate last year, effectively, in terms of taxes paid for the United States, was around 12 percent, which is well below those existing in most of the industrialized countries around the world. So it is a myth that American corporations are paying 35 percent or anything like it Corporate taxes are not strangling American competitiveness.
When looking at the rate that corporations actually pay (as opposed to the statutory rate that only exists on paper), the U.S. has the second-lowest corporate tax rate in the developed world, and raises far less than other nations in corporate tax revenue.
Warren Buffett: 'It Is A Myth' That U.S. Corporate Taxes Are High | ThinkProgress
Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of Federal Revenue
1955 . . . 27.3%
2010 . . . 8.9%
Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of GDP
1955 . . . 4.3%
2010 . . . 1.3%
Corporate Profits Are At An All-Time High
'corporate profits are at an all-time high as a percentage of the economy, wages are at an all-time low.'
'Last year, corporations made a record $824 billion, which didnt stop conservatives from continually claiming that President Obama is anti-business.'
Corporate Profits Are At An All-Time High | ThinkProgress
Next up Hannibal Letter shares his favorite finger food recipe for unexpected summer visitors
you can not show a single time when lowering taxes has helped an economy with high unemployment.
of course thats 100% idiotic and perfectly liberal. Ireland reduced taxes to 10% and every corp in the world moved there and employment dropped to lowest in EU. We dropped luxury tax on yachts and entire industry bounced back over-night. When you drop taxes you drop prices, people can buy more, and so you need to employ more to produce more.
It pays to think before you post!
you can not show a single time when lowering taxes has helped an economy with high unemployment.
of course thats 100% idiotic and perfectly liberal. Ireland reduced taxes to 10% and every corp in the world moved there and employment dropped to lowest in EU. We dropped luxury tax on yachts and entire industry bounced back over-night. When you drop taxes you drop prices, people can buy more, and so you need to employ more to produce more.
It pays to think before you post!
Prove Krugman said it. Simple enough, if true. Which it is not. Which is why you can not prove it.hardly a lie but perfectly consistent for Krugman who also called for a pretend war against space alien invaders to simulate WW2 spending. He really thinks that mass producing weapons and dumping them into the sea would stimulate the economy.
Dubya's Double Dip? - NYTimes.com
A few months ago the vast majority of business economists mocked concerns about a ''double dip,'' a second leg to the downturn. But there were a few dogged iconoclasts out there, most notably Stephen Roach at Morgan Stanley. As I've repeatedly said in this column, the arguments of the double-dippers made a lot of sense. And their story now looks more plausible than ever.
The basic point is that the recession of 2001 wasn't a typical postwar slump, brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raises interest rates and easily ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again. This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance. To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.
Judging by Mr. Greenspan's remarkably cheerful recent testimony, he still thinks he can pull that off. But the Fed chairman's crystal ball has been cloudy lately; remember how he urged Congress to cut taxes to head off the risk of excessive budget surpluses? And a sober look at recent data is not encouraging.
Now back in the REAL world, what other factors played a part in Irelands 'sucess'
Again we see how the Regressives can't comprehend simple English. The article may have been written by Krugman, but he was QUOTING someone else who called for a double-dip!!!!!
From your link:
''I must confess to being amazed at the venom my double dip call still elicits,'' Mr. Roach wrote yesterday at cbsmarketwatch.com.
He was using someone else's thought to validate is own argument, moron. It's pretty simple to comprehend that. He referred to what someone else said, he did not QUOTE him, imbecile. Or it would be in quotation marks.
Now back in the REAL world, what other factors played a part in Irelands 'sucess'
question was whether dropping taxes back in 70's produced instant boom in Ireland's economy. Of course it did, which explains why EU is trying to force them to hike it back up.
Do you understand now?
Again we see how the Regressives can't comprehend simple English. The article may have been written by Krugman, but he was QUOTING someone else who called for a double-dip!!!!!
From your link:
''I must confess to being amazed at the venom my double dip call still elicits,'' Mr. Roach wrote yesterday at cbsmarketwatch.com.
He was using someone else's thought to validate is own argument, moron. It's pretty simple to comprehend that. He referred to what someone else said, he did not QUOTE him, imbecile. Or it would be in quotation marks.
DUMBFUK
" To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.
Judging by Mr. Greenspan's remarkably cheerful recent testimony, he still thinks he can pull that off. But the Fed chairman's crystal ball has been cloudy lately; remember how he urged Congress to cut taxes to head off the risk of excessive budget surpluses? And a sober look at recent data is not encouraging.
..The administration needs a recovery because, with deficits exploding, the only way it can justify that tax cut is by pretending that it was just what the economy needed. Mr. Greenspan needs one to avoid awkward questions about his own role in creating the stock market bubble.
But wishful thinking aside, I just don't understand the grounds for optimism. Who, exactly, is about to start spending a lot more? At this point it's a lot easier to tell a story about how the recovery will stall than about how it will speed up.
Dubya's Double Dip? - NYTimes.com
Prove Krugman said it. Simple enough, if true. Which it is not. Which is why you can not prove it.hardly a lie but perfectly consistent for Krugman who also called for a pretend war against space alien invaders to simulate WW2 spending. He really thinks that mass producing weapons and dumping them into the sea would stimulate the economy.
keep trying and one of these times you wont make a fool of yourself!!
Paul Krugman: Fake Alien Invasion Would End Economic ...
www.huffingtonpost.com/.../paul-krugman-fake-alie...
The Huffington Post
Aug 15, 2011 - Paul Krugman is so frustrated by the lack of support for another round ... "If we discovered that, you know, space aliens were planning to attack
He was using someone else's thought to validate is own argument, moron. It's pretty simple to comprehend that. He referred to what someone else said, he did not QUOTE him, imbecile. Or it would be in quotation marks.
DUMBFUK
" To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.
Judging by Mr. Greenspan's remarkably cheerful recent testimony, he still thinks he can pull that off. But the Fed chairman's crystal ball has been cloudy lately; remember how he urged Congress to cut taxes to head off the risk of excessive budget surpluses? And a sober look at recent data is not encouraging.
..The administration needs a recovery because, with deficits exploding, the only way it can justify that tax cut is by pretending that it was just what the economy needed. Mr. Greenspan needs one to avoid awkward questions about his own role in creating the stock market bubble.
But wishful thinking aside, I just don't understand the grounds for optimism. Who, exactly, is about to start spending a lot more? At this point it's a lot easier to tell a story about how the recovery will stall than about how it will speed up.
Dubya's Double Dip? - NYTimes.com
why not just tell us what Krugman ever said that you think was important?
He wasn't the Fed Chair when the bubble started. And most of the loans that were the cause of the bubble bursting were outside of the scope of theFederal Reserve, as it deals with banks.
He was on the Federal Reserve Board and supported the policies of Greenspan. They don't call him Helicopter Ben for nothing.
The Fed sets and influences the price of credit. The reason why so much subprime was created in the first place was because yield starved institutions needed higher income to meet liabilities. That subprime and alt-A made its way into the derivatives machine, which were purchased by banks, pensions, insurance cos, etc. because similarly- rated product paid 30-40 bps over, a chasm in fixed income land.
Yes, the market went haywire with all these garbage securities. But the source was the mispricing of credit.
Yet YOU dumbfuk, can't seem to grasp it was a REGULATOR failure over a monetary one that caused the subprime crisis to happen!!!!
Again we see how the Regressives can't comprehend simple English. The article may have been written by Krugman, but he was QUOTING someone else who called for a double-dip!!!!!
From your link:
''I must confess to being amazed at the venom my double dip call still elicits,'' Mr. Roach wrote yesterday at cbsmarketwatch.com.
He was using someone else's thought to validate is own argument, moron. It's pretty simple to comprehend that. He referred to what someone else said, he did not QUOTE him, imbecile. Or it would be in quotation marks.
DUMBFUK
" To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.
Judging by Mr. Greenspan's remarkably cheerful recent testimony, he still thinks he can pull that off. But the Fed chairman's crystal ball has been cloudy lately; remember how he urged Congress to cut taxes to head off the risk of excessive budget surpluses? And a sober look at recent data is not encouraging.
..The administration needs a recovery because, with deficits exploding, the only way it can justify that tax cut is by pretending that it was just what the economy needed. Mr. Greenspan needs one to avoid awkward questions about his own role in creating the stock market bubble.
But wishful thinking aside, I just don't understand the grounds for optimism. Who, exactly, is about to start spending a lot more? At this point it's a lot easier to tell a story about how the recovery will stall than about how it will speed up.
Dubya's Double Dip? - NYTimes.com
