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.
Discussing Austrian failures would take millions of lifetimes.Its like shooting fish in a barrel for him:
Economics and Politics by Paul Krugman - The Conscience of a Liberal - NYTimes.com
discuss Austrian failure(s)...
Good post. I know, Krugmanknows it, and; more importantly, the American people know it!!!
Discussing Austrian failures would take millions of lifetimes.
Good post. I know, Krugman
but as a typical liberal you lack the IQ to explain to us why you feel freedom and capitalism is bad and socialism is good?
Good post. I know, Krugman
but as a typical liberal you lack the IQ to explain to us why you feel freedom and capitalism is bad and socialism is good?
Ah so you're the guy responsible for teaching people to be stupid. Got it!
And as Sosnik says more or less clearly, the craziness of the right in some ways empowers the moderate left. Time was when centrist Democrats would in effect urge appeasement: dont talk about inequality or say nasty things about privatization, or the right will get mad. But now its clear that no matter what you do, short of destroying the entire legacy of the New Deal, the mere fact of being a Democrat will bring accusations that youre an atheist Islamic communist. So why not stand up for some liberal principles?
[/QUOTE]So why not stand up for some liberal principles?
EdwardBaiamonte doesn't have an high enough IQ to be posting in this thread
As to my OP, Krugman pwns Righties and their zany econ models for sport
If you bother to read what he said there are no reasonable Republicans, in spite of the bit of generalization he does. He's right, in that in spite of the Obama Administration offering to work with Republicans and being slapped in the face, the unprecedented obstruction, the squealing about Obama somehow being a socialist, and general antipathy towards the US by the GOP, you see that there aren't many reasonable Republicans left. Sure, there's a moment on an issue or two where some will be reasonable. But at the end of the day, they put their caucus in front of doing what's good for the nation in a way the Democrats could never have the discipline for, or notion to conceive.How is that any different than what Krugman did as noted in the link from John Cochrane?
see below:
OK, then
Its like shooting fish in a barrel for him:
Economics and Politics by Paul Krugman - The Conscience of a Liberal - NYTimes.com
discuss Austrian failure(s)...
Odd you picked krugman, a self-described liberal. Now, if you are an liberal kind of economist, you are by definition an ideological leftist. And ideological leftists pretty much always criticize economists who see things in a different way. Pretty much 24/7.
Imagine what it would be like if liberals could use impartial sources. This was simply another liberal hit piece published in another lib rag. Ever heard of impartial sources??? Just wondering.
See how easy it is to just dismiss someone's argument because you don't agree with their ideology?
Edit - and as a reminder about how biased Krugman is There are no reasonable Republicans
If you bother to read what he said there are no reasonable Republicans, in spite of the bit of generalization he does. He's right, in that in spite of the Obama Administration offering to work with Republicans and being slapped in the face, the unprecedented obstruction, the squealing about Obama somehow being a socialist, and general antipathy towards the US by the GOP, you see that there aren't many reasonable Republicans left. Sure, there's a moment on an issue or two where some will be reasonable. But at the end of the day, they put their caucus in front of doing what's good for the nation in a way the Democrats could never have the discipline for, or notion to conceive.see below:
OK, then
Odd you picked krugman, a self-described liberal. Now, if you are an liberal kind of economist, you are by definition an ideological leftist. And ideological leftists pretty much always criticize economists who see things in a different way. Pretty much 24/7.
Imagine what it would be like if liberals could use impartial sources. This was simply another liberal hit piece published in another lib rag. Ever heard of impartial sources??? Just wondering.
See how easy it is to just dismiss someone's argument because you don't agree with their ideology?
Edit - and as a reminder about how biased Krugman is There are no reasonable Republicans
If you bother to read what he said there are no reasonable Republicans, in spite of the bit of generalization he does. He's right, in that in spite of the Obama Administration offering to work with Republicans and being slapped in the face, the unprecedented obstruction, the squealing about Obama somehow being a socialist, and general antipathy towards the US by the GOP, you see that there aren't many reasonable Republicans left. Sure, there's a moment on an issue or two where some will be reasonable. But at the end of the day, they put their caucus in front of doing what's good for the nation in a way the Democrats could never have the discipline for, or notion to conceive.see below:
OK, then
Odd you picked krugman, a self-described liberal. Now, if you are an liberal kind of economist, you are by definition an ideological leftist. And ideological leftists pretty much always criticize economists who see things in a different way. Pretty much 24/7.
Imagine what it would be like if liberals could use impartial sources. This was simply another liberal hit piece published in another lib rag. Ever heard of impartial sources??? Just wondering.
See how easy it is to just dismiss someone's argument because you don't agree with their ideology?
Edit - and as a reminder about how biased Krugman is There are no reasonable Republicans
[MENTION=2926]Toro[/MENTION]
Obama somehow being a socialist,
The same ones who told everyone to bet the farm on high inflation the last six years? LOL! Yeah, listening to economists like them will get you broke and looking foolish. Their models couldn't withstand the economics of the real world. Krugman and other New Keynesians were able to predict the results of the policies taken, and not taken, and come out looking like prophets.I did read it. And if you bothered to read the retort, you would see that hundreds of highly respected economists supported Romney.
Look, when you compromise with insane people, like the GOP has become the last twenty or more years, the results are based in insanity. So, why compromise with unreasonable people for their unreasonable demands? Plus, the righties don't offer compromise to lessen their insanity.Anyone who thinks there are no reasonable Republicans is a partisan hack. I expect that from a Rush Limbaugh. I don't from a Nobel Laureate.
Krugman was being tongue in cheek. You should read the blog posting one day. He used it as a way to make a point about how deficit spending in WWII ended the Great Depression. And because the GOP were complete dopes, they blocked recovery any way they could in the Great Recession.Ever since Larson stopped "The Far Side", Paul Krugman is the funniest thing in the newspaper.
Even funnier is the people who think he's serious....LOL War against Space Aliens to drive the economy!!! Woohooo!!
He had no communist parents, and even if he did, there's nothing suggesting him to be a communist. He's fairly conservative in his approach to the economy. Everyone who looks at the successes of single payer across the world, and in the US, knows it's a great watts help foster job growth in the private sector, by lowering healthcare costs.Obama somehow being a socialist,
Somehow?? Dear, he had 3 communist parents, supports single payer, and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders the only open sosialist senator.
You want to saddle the US with lower economic growth, higher deficits and see a bunch of far right nationalists end economic and personal liberty for some well heeled billionaires to control everything. You stand against everything Americans stand for. It's right wing nuts flying confederate flags and making fallacy arguments against the US Constitution and replaced with "states rights"You want to pretend he's not a socialist becuase you know America is for freedom! You are a traitor and anti American!
That guys reads as stupid as Thomas Sowell does.Norman Thomas quotes: http://quotes.liberty-
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.
Well, this is all irrelevant to American liberalism. Really, relying on Buckley, CSS Lewis and those guys will only make you look stupid, regurgitating their stupidity.This was precisely the tactic of “infiltration” advocated by Lenin and Stalin.[3] As Communist International General Secretary Georgi Dimitroff told the Seventh World Congress of the Comintern in 1935:
"Comrades, you remember the ancient tale of the capture of Troy. Troy was inaccessible to the armies attacking her, thanks to her impregnable walls. And the attacking army, after suffering many sacrifices, was unable to achieve victory until, with the aid of the famous Trojan horse, it managed to penetrate to the very heart of the enemy’s camp."[4]
C. S. Lewis on Diabolical Democracy, Socialism, and Public Education « Conservative Colloquium
Buckley endorsed Chambers’ analysis of modern liberalism as a watered-down version of Communist ideology. The New Deal, Chambers insists, is not liberal democratic but “revolutionary” in its nature and intentions, seeking “a basic change in the social and, above all, the power relationships within the nation.”
"I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."
--- Roger Nash Baldwin
The same ones who told everyone to bet the farm on high inflation the last six years? LOL! Yeah, listening to economists like them will get you broke and looking foolish. Their models couldn't withstand the economics of the real world. Krugman and other New Keynesians were able to predict the results of the policies taken, and not taken, and come out looking like prophets.I did read it. And if you bothered to read the retort, you would see that hundreds of highly respected economists supported Romney.
Look, when you compromise with insane people, like the GOP has become the last twenty or more years, the results are based in insanity. So, why compromise with unreasonable people for their unreasonable demands? Plus, the righties don't offer compromise to lessen their insanity.Anyone who thinks there are no reasonable Republicans is a partisan hack. I expect that from a Rush Limbaugh. I don't from a Nobel Laureate.
You can kvetch over that, but reality dictates dealing with reality. And that means not allowing your ideological lens, that's proven to be wrong, to blind you to rational responses to problems.
Ed simply posts conservative dogma from right wing bat shit crazy conservative web sites. He is totally incapable of rational thought or debate.He had no communist parents, and even if he did, there's nothing suggesting him to be a communist. He's fairly conservative in his approach to the economy. Everyone who looks at the successes of single payer across the world, and in the US, knows it's a great watts help foster job growth in the private sector, by lowering healthcare costs.Obama somehow being a socialist,
Somehow?? Dear, he had 3 communist parents, supports single payer, and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders the only open sosialist senator.
And his Senate votes were not especially liberal.
You want to saddle the US with lower economic growth, higher deficits and see a bunch of far right nationalists end economic and personal liberty for some well heeled billionaires to control everything. You stand against everything Americans stand for. It's right wing nuts flying confederate flags and making fallacy arguments against the US Constitution and replaced with "states rights"
Some effing traitor like you doesn't rate to question my commitment to take this country back to the America of my father and grandfathers. So listen up, Princess. If you can't debate the issues, then bow out with the last shred of your dignity.
That guys reads as stupid as Thomas Sowell does.Norman Thomas quotes: http://quotes.liberty-
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.
Well, this is all irrelevant to American liberalism. Really, relying on Buckley, CSS Lewis and those guys will only make you look stupid, regurgitating their stupidity.This was precisely the tactic of “infiltration” advocated by Lenin and Stalin.[3] As Communist International General Secretary Georgi Dimitroff told the Seventh World Congress of the Comintern in 1935:
"Comrades, you remember the ancient tale of the capture of Troy. Troy was inaccessible to the armies attacking her, thanks to her impregnable walls. And the attacking army, after suffering many sacrifices, was unable to achieve victory until, with the aid of the famous Trojan horse, it managed to penetrate to the very heart of the enemy’s camp."[4]
C. S. Lewis on Diabolical Democracy, Socialism, and Public Education « Conservative Colloquium
Buckley endorsed Chambers’ analysis of modern liberalism as a watered-down version of Communist ideology. The New Deal, Chambers insists, is not liberal democratic but “revolutionary” in its nature and intentions, seeking “a basic change in the social and, above all, the power relationships within the nation.”
"I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."
--- Roger Nash Baldwin
Yup, just to prove you are a con tool (and a political hack), you provide a link to THE DAILY CALLER. If a progressive used a piece from MoveOn.org, you would rightly suggest that that person was a left wing tool, and not worth discussion with. Perhaps we should just have dueling right and left wing nut case web sites determining our points of view. Perfect.The same ones who told everyone to bet the farm on high inflation the last six years? LOL! Yeah, listening to economists like them will get you broke and looking foolish. Their models couldn't withstand the economics of the real world. Krugman and other New Keynesians were able to predict the results of the policies taken, and not taken, and come out looking like prophets.I did read it. And if you bothered to read the retort, you would see that hundreds of highly respected economists supported Romney.
Look, when you compromise with insane people, like the GOP has become the last twenty or more years, the results are based in insanity. So, why compromise with unreasonable people for their unreasonable demands? Plus, the righties don't offer compromise to lessen their insanity.Anyone who thinks there are no reasonable Republicans is a partisan hack. I expect that from a Rush Limbaugh. I don't from a Nobel Laureate.
You can kvetch over that, but reality dictates dealing with reality. And that means not allowing your ideological lens, that's proven to be wrong, to blind you to rational responses to problems.
If you think there are "no reasonable Republicans," you are allowing your ideological lens to overwhelm your life.
More than 500 economists, 5 Nobel laureates back Romney’s economic strategy
So, the list of 500 is 500 divided by 15,000, or ONE IN THIRTY, OR ABOUT 3% OF ALL ECONOMISTS ARE ON THE LIST AS SUPPORTING ROMNEY You can be absolutely certain, of course, that at least 500 of those are bought and paid for by the far right. Should we assume that 97% of all economists, or something like 14,500 support Obama. Only if we are left wing nut cases with about the same integrity as someone who would use The Daily Caller as a source, like say Toro. Or, we could keep or integrity and admit that we have no clue and that sources like MoveOn or TheDailyCaller are of no rational value as sources of impartial information. You use them only to bolster those things that you may WANT to believe.The last statistic is from 2006. Economists held about 15,000 jobs in 2006.
http://answerparty.com/question/ans...-are-there-approximately-in-the-united-states
