Krugman Trounces Conservatives For "making Stuff Up"...

[Dot Com]

86 views? Not bad. Nobel Laureates get people's interest piqued

Heritage sure does have a lot of egg on its face after being shown to be sketchy, at best, in their *cough* "research"

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Government interference in the economy is still government interference.

Yes, so the soviets found out!! Someone ought to tell our liberals all about it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

86 views? Not bad. Nobel Laureates get people's interest piqued

Heritage sure does have a lot of egg on its face after being shown to be sketchy, at best, in their *cough* "research"

dear, if you think Libertarianism is sketchy please say why or admit you lack the IQ for it as a liberal and have no business being here.

 

[MisterBeale]

86 views? Not bad. Nobel Laureates get people's interest piqued

Heritage sure does have a lot of egg on its face after being shown to be sketchy, at best, in their *cough* "research"

dear, if you think Libertarianism is sketchy please say why or admit you lack the IQ for it as a liberal and have no business being here.

The Heritage foundation DOES NOT present a picture of Libertarianism. They push monetarism. Which is still a way of theft. It messes with the value of fiat currency.

True Libertarian economic policy originates from the Austrian School economists. I don't think the Heritage Foundation supports the work of any Austrian School economists, though I could be wrong. Libertarians aren't known to be war mongers, the Heritage foundation is, so I don't go there. The MSM largely ignores the Mises Institue, and for good reason. If the public ever knew what good policy making was, corporate interests, environmental interests, labor interests, and well, all other interests would probably take a back seat to the public's national economic interests.

A very intelligent, but lying politician once said, "It's the economy stupid." And he was correct. That trumps all interests. But most Americans don't really KNOW what policies and ideas are the best, the MSM lies to them.

But really, the best policies, economists, and ideas originate from the Mises Institute.

 

[Dot Com]

Who said anything about libertarianism? Most people move on from that, just like they move on from Lord of the Rings, after they leave college. If you haven't seen how much of a unworkable fantasy it is by your mid-20's then I can't help you

 

[MisterBeale]

Who said anything about libertarianism? Most people move on from that, just like they move on from Lord of the Rings, after they leave college. If you haven't seen how much of a unworkable fantasy it is by your mid-20's then I can't help you

I brought it up b/c EdwardBaiamonte has this wacky notion that the Heritage foundation has some connection to Libertarian thinking??

Whatever. . . . .

Just because Keynesian theory is more advantageous for governments, and government run schools teach Keynesian economic theory, doesn't mean that the Austrian School isn't a superior theory. When folks are educated in government schools, they can't help but be mis-educated, government schools have an agenda. Sorry for your lack of knowledge and understanding. Being mentally conditioned and "brainwashed" is a terrible thing.

 

[Kimura]

...not that its hard to do

Krugman slams ANOTHER one home. No wonder he's a Nobel Prize Winner

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/30/whats-the-matter-with-alabama/?_php=true&_type=blogs&module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body&_r=0

You can clearly see how states with job-destroying liberal Democratic governors have fared much worse than those with job-creating conservative Republican governors. Oh, wait

Why one editor won t run any more op-eds by the Heritage Foundation s top economist Columbia Journalism Review

It all began a month ago, when the Star ran a piece by the Nobel Prize-winning economist-turned- liberal New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, as it does regularly. The column named Moore as one of the “charlatans and cranks” who have influenced policymakers at all levels to enact low-tax, supply-side economic policies—with ruinous effects, according to Krugman. The sweeping 2013 tax cut in Kansas is only the latest example, he wrote, citing unfavorable economic and fiscal news in the Sunflower State

Krugman Trounces Conservatives For "making Stuff Up"...

Only Krugman gets to make stuff up. LOL!
What a clown.

He's actually brilliant. His problem is he doesn't do well in front of crowds or cameras at all. I suspect he may suffer from social anxiety. I've been in the audience at conferences where he was a keynote. He has problems with social interactions, it's pretty obvious.

 

[bendog]

I'm not sure I'd agree that Heritage pushes monetarism. Monetarism is merely an economic theory that may explain why the economy(ies) perform the way it does, and how it may be guided to certain outcomes. Heritage pushes an agenda that is not really libertarian. It acts to further the interests of the very rich who created it and support it. The irony de jour is the universal mandate for HC emerged, or got support there, only for it to be quickly abandoned in light of the TPM, as former supporters in the gop were de-elected from congress. That has nothing to do with monetarism.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

...not that its hard to do

Krugman slams ANOTHER one home. No wonder he's a Nobel Prize Winner

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/30/whats-the-matter-with-alabama/?_php=true&_type=blogs&module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body&_r=0

You can clearly see how states with job-destroying liberal Democratic governors have fared much worse than those with job-creating conservative Republican governors. Oh, wait

Why one editor won t run any more op-eds by the Heritage Foundation s top economist Columbia Journalism Review

It all began a month ago, when the Star ran a piece by the Nobel Prize-winning economist-turned- liberal New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, as it does regularly. The column named Moore as one of the “charlatans and cranks” who have influenced policymakers at all levels to enact low-tax, supply-side economic policies—with ruinous effects, according to Krugman. The sweeping 2013 tax cut in Kansas is only the latest example, he wrote, citing unfavorable economic and fiscal news in the Sunflower State

Krugman Trounces Conservatives For "making Stuff Up"...

Only Krugman gets to make stuff up. LOL!
What a clown.

He's actually brilliant. His problem is he doesn't do well in front of crowds or cameras at all. I suspect he may suffer from social anxiety. I've been in the audience at conferences where he was a keynote. He has problems with social interactions, it's pretty obvious.

Yeah, he's a geeky, liberal a-hole.

 

[MisterBeale]

I'm not sure I'd agree that Heritage pushes monetarism. Monetarism is merely an economic theory that may explain why the economy(ies) perform the way it does, and how it may be guided to certain outcomes. Heritage pushes an agenda that is not really libertarian. It acts to further the interests of the very rich who created it and support it. The irony de jour is the universal mandate for HC emerged, or got support there, only for it to be quickly abandoned in light of the TPM, as former supporters in the gop were de-elected from congress. That has nothing to do with monetarism.

My mistake then. I don't really follow Heritage foundation literature that closely. I have an older publication from the late 80's which is clearly influenced by Milton Friedman's Principles, and that is from the Reagan/Bush era. If they have gone through an evolution, well, I guess their goal is strictly partisan, not ideological. If that's the case, their goal is to project power, not to study truth. Not much of a think tank if you ask me.

But then, the same can be said of Krugman, if any one had bothered reading that piece I posted about him. The facts bear that out.

"Conscience of a liberal?" Yeah, not much of social science and an apolitical approach to analyzing data there buddy. Economists shouldn't HAVE A Conscience. No one can take an "economist" seriously that writes opinion pieces. He ceased being an economist, and started being a pundit when he started writing opinion pieces.

 

[bendog]

I'm not sure I'd agree that Heritage pushes monetarism. Monetarism is merely an economic theory that may explain why the economy(ies) perform the way it does, and how it may be guided to certain outcomes. Heritage pushes an agenda that is not really libertarian. It acts to further the interests of the very rich who created it and support it. The irony de jour is the universal mandate for HC emerged, or got support there, only for it to be quickly abandoned in light of the TPM, as former supporters in the gop were de-elected from congress. That has nothing to do with monetarism.

My mistake then. I don't really follow Heritage foundation literature that closely. I have an older publication from the late 80's which is clearly influenced by Milton Friedman's Principles, and that is from the Reagan/Bush era. If they have gone through an evolution, well, I guess their goal is strictly partisan, not ideological. If that's the case, their goal is to project power, not to study truth. Not much of a think tank if you ask me.

But then, the same can be said of Krugman, if any one had bothered reading that piece I posted about him. The facts bear that out.

"Conscience of a liberal?" Yeah, not much of social science and an apolitical approach to analyzing data there buddy. Economists shouldn't HAVE A Conscience. No one can take an "economist" seriously that writes opinion pieces. He ceased being an economist, and started being a pundit when he started writing opinion pieces.

hey, I wasn't dissing you. Heritage has gone through several metamorphises. (sp) I read conscience of a liberal sometime back. All I recall is my general take, and I loaned the book to someone who didn't give it back. I don't agree with Krugman's view that "the great compression" of the late 60s, where post-tax incomes were more so than less so equalized, was really the heyday of the US and civilization in general. However, I do think he had a stroke of genius in his take that without unions to give political voice to forcing higher wages, we should elect leaders who use progressive taxes to fund stuff like healthcare, that back when there were unions, workers forced the few that own the vast maj of equities to provide as part of wages.

Thing about Krugman is that he's both a writer/commentator who seeks to communicate with everyday morons like us, and who is also a very reputable economist whose major work was being sort of seminal in international trade economics. Conscience of a liberal was a short little treatise on how govt can act, if we want it to. And sure, he's as apt to use data for his purpose as is anyone else when he's got his writer/commentator hat on.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I'm not sure I'd agree that Heritage pushes monetarism. Monetarism is merely an economic theory that may explain why the economy(ies) perform the way it does, and how it may be guided to certain outcomes. Heritage pushes an agenda that is not really libertarian. It acts to further the interests of the very rich who created it and support it. The irony de jour is the universal mandate for HC emerged, or got support there, only for it to be quickly abandoned in light of the TPM, as former supporters in the gop were de-elected from congress. That has nothing to do with monetarism.

My mistake then. I don't really follow Heritage foundation literature that closely. I have an older publication from the late 80's which is clearly influenced by Milton Friedman's Principles, and that is from the Reagan/Bush era. If they have gone through an evolution, well, I guess their goal is strictly partisan, not ideological. If that's the case, their goal is to project power, not to study truth. Not much of a think tank if you ask me.

But then, the same can be said of Krugman, if any one had bothered reading that piece I posted about him. The facts bear that out.

"Conscience of a liberal?" Yeah, not much of social science and an apolitical approach to analyzing data there buddy. Economists shouldn't HAVE A Conscience. No one can take an "economist" seriously that writes opinion pieces. He ceased being an economist, and started being a pundit when he started writing opinion pieces.

hey, I wasn't dissing you. Heritage has gone through several metamorphises. (sp) I read conscience of a liberal sometime back. All I recall is my general take, and I loaned the book to someone who didn't give it back. I don't agree with Krugman's view that "the great compression" of the late 60s, where post-tax incomes were more so than less so equalized, was really the heyday of the US and civilization in general. However, I do think he had a stroke of genius in his take that without unions to give political voice to forcing higher wages, we should elect leaders who use progressive taxes to fund stuff like healthcare, that back when there were unions, workers forced the few that own the vast maj of equities to provide as part of wages.

Thing about Krugman is that he's both a writer/commentator who seeks to communicate with everyday morons like us, and who is also a very reputable economist whose major work was being sort of seminal in international trade economics. Conscience of a liberal was a short little treatise on how govt can act, if we want it to. And sure, he's as apt to use data for his purpose as is anyone else when he's got his writer/commentator hat on.

more importantly, does Krugman have any rational ideas. If so name a substantive one or admit you are wasting time on trivia that suits your low liberal IQ while making you think you're discussing something important.

 

[bendog]

I'm not sure I'd agree that Heritage pushes monetarism. Monetarism is merely an economic theory that may explain why the economy(ies) perform the way it does, and how it may be guided to certain outcomes. Heritage pushes an agenda that is not really libertarian. It acts to further the interests of the very rich who created it and support it. The irony de jour is the universal mandate for HC emerged, or got support there, only for it to be quickly abandoned in light of the TPM, as former supporters in the gop were de-elected from congress. That has nothing to do with monetarism.

My mistake then. I don't really follow Heritage foundation literature that closely. I have an older publication from the late 80's which is clearly influenced by Milton Friedman's Principles, and that is from the Reagan/Bush era. If they have gone through an evolution, well, I guess their goal is strictly partisan, not ideological. If that's the case, their goal is to project power, not to study truth. Not much of a think tank if you ask me.

But then, the same can be said of Krugman, if any one had bothered reading that piece I posted about him. The facts bear that out.

"Conscience of a liberal?" Yeah, not much of social science and an apolitical approach to analyzing data there buddy. Economists shouldn't HAVE A Conscience. No one can take an "economist" seriously that writes opinion pieces. He ceased being an economist, and started being a pundit when he started writing opinion pieces.

hey, I wasn't dissing you. Heritage has gone through several metamorphises. (sp) I read conscience of a liberal sometime back. All I recall is my general take, and I loaned the book to someone who didn't give it back. I don't agree with Krugman's view that "the great compression" of the late 60s, where post-tax incomes were more so than less so equalized, was really the heyday of the US and civilization in general. However, I do think he had a stroke of genius in his take that without unions to give political voice to forcing higher wages, we should elect leaders who use progressive taxes to fund stuff like healthcare, that back when there were unions, workers forced the few that own the vast maj of equities to provide as part of wages.

Thing about Krugman is that he's both a writer/commentator who seeks to communicate with everyday morons like us, and who is also a very reputable economist whose major work was being sort of seminal in international trade economics. Conscience of a liberal was a short little treatise on how govt can act, if we want it to. And sure, he's as apt to use data for his purpose as is anyone else when he's got his writer/commentator hat on.

more importantly, does Krugman have any rational ideas. If so name a substantive one or admit you are wasting time on trivia that suits your low liberal IQ while making you think you're discussing something important.

I find it very substantive to suggest the dem party (or gop) use progressive taxes to fund workers' healthcare. The gop was not opposed to that prior to 2008. I also find it substantive to use progressive taxes to educate a work force.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I find it very substantive to suggest the dem party (or gop) use progressive taxes to fund workers' healthcare.

too stupid by 1000% !! You forgot to say why you want to steal from others to pay for health care.

Actually its not that you forgot its that you're too slow to know you should have a rationale for the stealing you find substantive.

 

[bendog]

Fck you, azzhole. For the personal insult.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Fck you, azzhole. For the personal insult.

too stupid by 1000% !! You forgot to say why you want to steal from others to pay for health care.

Actually its not that you forgot its that you're too slow to know you should have a rationale for the stealing you find substantive.

 

[bendog]

Fck you, azzhole. For the personal insult.

too stupid by 1000% !! You forgot to say why you want to steal from others to pay for health care.

Actually its not that you forgot its that you're too slow to know you should have a rationale for the stealing you find substantive.

A difference of opinion is to be respected. An insult just make you asshole piece of shit.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Fck you, azzhole. For the personal insult.

too stupid by 1000% !! You forgot to say why you want to steal from others to pay for health care.

Actually its not that you forgot its that you're too slow to know you should have a rationale for the stealing you find substantive.

A difference of opinion is to be respected. An insult just make you asshole piece of shit.

dear, you said redistribution was substantive but lacked the brains to tell us why you support redistribution!! See why we say uber slow?

 

[Dot Com]

Fck you, azzhole. For the personal insult.

too stupid by 1000% !! You forgot to say why you want to steal from others to pay for health care.

Actually its not that you forgot its that you're too slow to know you should have a rationale for the stealing you find substantive.

A difference of opinion is to be respected. An insult just make you asshole piece of shit.

you DON'T have edwardbaiamonte on ignore? You have more patience than me. I don't have time for low- IQ- types like him.

as to the OP, Krugman busting AEI for misrepresenting data is too easy for him

 

[MisterBeale]

I'm not sure I'd agree that Heritage pushes monetarism. Monetarism is merely an economic theory that may explain why the economy(ies) perform the way it does, and how it may be guided to certain outcomes. Heritage pushes an agenda that is not really libertarian. It acts to further the interests of the very rich who created it and support it. The irony de jour is the universal mandate for HC emerged, or got support there, only for it to be quickly abandoned in light of the TPM, as former supporters in the gop were de-elected from congress. That has nothing to do with monetarism.

My mistake then. I don't really follow Heritage foundation literature that closely. I have an older publication from the late 80's which is clearly influenced by Milton Friedman's Principles, and that is from the Reagan/Bush era. If they have gone through an evolution, well, I guess their goal is strictly partisan, not ideological. If that's the case, their goal is to project power, not to study truth. Not much of a think tank if you ask me.

But then, the same can be said of Krugman, if any one had bothered reading that piece I posted about him. The facts bear that out.

"Conscience of a liberal?" Yeah, not much of social science and an apolitical approach to analyzing data there buddy. Economists shouldn't HAVE A Conscience. No one can take an "economist" seriously that writes opinion pieces. He ceased being an economist, and started being a pundit when he started writing opinion pieces.

hey, I wasn't dissing you. Heritage has gone through several metamorphises. (sp) I read conscience of a liberal sometime back. All I recall is my general take, and I loaned the book to someone who didn't give it back. I don't agree with Krugman's view that "the great compression" of the late 60s, where post-tax incomes were more so than less so equalized, was really the heyday of the US and civilization in general. However, I do think he had a stroke of genius in his take that without unions to give political voice to forcing higher wages, we should elect leaders who use progressive taxes to fund stuff like healthcare, that back when there were unions, workers forced the few that own the vast maj of equities to provide as part of wages.

Thing about Krugman is that he's both a writer/commentator who seeks to communicate with everyday morons like us, and who is also a very reputable economist whose major work was being sort of seminal in international trade economics. Conscience of a liberal was a short little treatise on how govt can act, if we want it to. And sure, he's as apt to use data for his purpose as is anyone else when he's got his writer/commentator hat on.

more importantly, does Krugman have any rational ideas. If so name a substantive one or admit you are wasting time on trivia that suits your low liberal IQ while making you think you're discussing something important.

I find it very substantive to suggest the dem party (or gop) use progressive taxes to fund workers' healthcare. The gop was not opposed to that prior to 2008. I also find it substantive to use progressive taxes to educate a work force.

The reason neither party is opposed to using peoples money to make them into slaves is because the elites in either party are not averse to the growth of the government beyond it's constitutionally proscribed bounds. The constitution originally DID NOT call for a private central banking cartel. In fact, most of the founders knew it was more of a danger to American liberty then foreign dictators.

That is the reason Krugman is so misguided and a terrible American. Krugman supports the concept of the Central Bank, (or Federal Reserve) which destroys the value of the currency. THIS IS A REGRESSIVE TAX. It is not a progressive tax. This has had, by far, a much larger effect on the economy than any other tax proposed by the government. This effectively makes saving money a waste of time. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT KEYNESIANS ABHOR. They hate savers. The elites know it. That is why they have bought off politicians on the left and on the right. Talking about taking money out of the economy, from the rich to educate and care for the population is peanuts. The truth is, the currency gets devalued every year, It is worth less and less. So now, it's worthless.

So who cares if the so called leftists get a so called "progressive" tax structure? With the currency devalued so much, they won't be able to do shit with it. Besides, official government channels are useless for getting anything done. Bureaucratic red tape makes everything costly and inefficient. Public schools and national health care are both a costly joke. When people were responsible for pursuing their own dreams before the turn of the 20th century, even before public schooling was entrenched, America's education was FAR better.

But really, it's a fact. As government grows and gets more involved in health care and education, as it taxes folks more, these sectors of the economy and their success at delivering these services goes down. It isn't progressive, it's regressive. Why do people want to deny that? It happens the same way in nation after nation. Time after time.



Elite foundations get everything done. That is how the laws have been written. Big money has made sure of that.

Both conservatives and liberals support different forms of Keynsianism. It allows them to borrow and spend. The biggest losers of this policy are the poor. Their purchasing power is eroded with each successive decade. Leftest politicians that support loose fiscal policy try to hide this corrupt monetary policy by bribing the public with promises of "minimum wage increases." They do this so the electorate won't ever figure out that the reason their food, gas and rent costs have been increasing each year is because the central bank has been debasing their purchasing power with the printing press. Thus, they will never be able to save and invest.

But the right is not guilt free. They do THE EXACT SAME THING. Only to a lesser degree. (Military spending and bank bail outs usually, but not always, don't cost as much.)

Oh, but to look forward to the day when the Republican actually passes a balanced budget amendment like it always claims it will. They don't have a clue. I support it though. It is akin to declaring war on the FED. The first thing to go would have to be the interest payments. They would have two choices; either default on the loans, or get rid of the free loaders at the Fed. There is a lot more voters that receive entitlements than bankers that receive dividends.

TAXATION IS THEFT.

Letting the government determine the value of the currency? It makes it's subjects into slaves.