Paul Krugman slams Art Laffer & Ayn Rand-type economics

[Oddball]

Art Laffer is a small, non-threatening, squirelly-looking fellow. Quite nice actually BUT Paul Krugman ripped his head off in this debate Librals won this one.

And Krugman is a puny, greasy, non-threatening, weasely-looking fellow, who blew any credibility that he had in claiming that 9/11™ was a sort of left-handed stimulus/jobs program for NYC.

Lolberals will never win anything with that sleazeball arguing their case.

 

[Toro]

Haring, Coolidge, Kennedy and Reagan cut taxes and the US economy flourished.

FDR and Obama raised taxes, the economy sucked.

It's not that hard, people

Clinton raised taxes. The economy boomed.

Raising taxes built out the Internet?

Wow

The things I learn at USMB

That's the point.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Topics such as wealth inequality is generally misunderstood by most. overall wealth disparity historically has not changed. In fact, there is a very easy way for anyone in the Bottom 99% to make it among the Top 1%.

Not without pushing someone else into the bottom 99% you dolt.

The easiest way to be in the top 1% is to be born to the right parents in the right country at the right time.

 

[AmazonTania]

Topics such as wealth inequality is generally misunderstood by most. overall wealth disparity historically has not changed. In fact, there is a very easy way for anyone in the Bottom 99% to make it among the Top 1%.

Not without pushing someone else into the bottom 99% you dolt.

The easiest way to be in the top 1% is to be born to the right parents in the right country at the right time.

The Top 1% is an income threshold. Not a social distribution group.

When I say this topic is generally misunderstood, you are an example why...

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Topics such as wealth inequality is generally misunderstood by most. overall wealth disparity historically has not changed. In fact, there is a very easy way for anyone in the Bottom 99% to make it among the Top 1%.

Not without pushing someone else into the bottom 99% you dolt.

The easiest way to be in the top 1% is to be born to the right parents in the right country at the right time.

The Top 1% is an income threshold. Not a social distribution group.

When I say this topic is generally misunderstood, you are an example why...

What the hell is a "social distribution" ?

 

[AmazonTania]

Not without pushing someone else into the bottom 99% you dolt.

The easiest way to be in the top 1% is to be born to the right parents in the right country at the right time.

The Top 1% is an income threshold. Not a social distribution group.

When I say this topic is generally misunderstood, you are an example why...

What the hell is a "social distribution" ?

Apparently what you are trying to describe. That someone makes it into the Top 1% by effectively bringing someone else who use to belong into that income group down into the bottom 99%. It doesn't work that way, at all.

Now to my initial point, surprisingly no one wants to know how they can be in the Top 1% as well. I would figure that the clowns who are always going off about income disparity would be all over this. It's really that easy...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Clinton raised taxes. The economy boomed.

Raising taxes built out the Internet?

Wow

The things I learn at USMB

That's the point.

Countries with high taxes have Mo' n Betta Internet?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Topics such as wealth inequality is generally misunderstood by most. overall wealth disparity historically has not changed. In fact, there is a very easy way for anyone in the Bottom 99% to make it among the Top 1%.

Not without pushing someone else into the bottom 99% you dolt.

The easiest way to be in the top 1% is to be born to the right parents in the right country at the right time.

It's not a Zero Sum game. It's like saying Jimmy Page and Frank Zappa took their guitar playing talents from tone deaf weasels like myself.

Your points sound, like cool, and "intellectual" when you're in Middle School, but grow the fuck up already

 

[PoliticalChic]

I don't understand why Krugman only debates politicians like Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich. Preheps if he were to debate someone who was somewhat knowledgeable on the area of economics, he would have a difficult time defending his rhetoric.

And he is using Ireland as an example of lower taxation? Sure, Ireland is economically freer than most economies in the world, but there are much better examples than Ireland.

Paul Krugman won the Nobel Prize for Economics in 2008. He teaches economics at Princeton and writes a column for The New York Times. I am confident that he could wipe the floor with any right wing economist. Keep in mind that right wing economists like Arthur Laffer and Milton Friedman promoted the scam of supply side economics.

The countries that have responded best to the Great Recession are the Scandinavian countries, Germany, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. They have higher taxes than the United States and single payer health plans.

Tax Tea Party Time? - Forbes

1. In the run-up to ObamaCare, Krugman wrote " The United States is the only advanced nation without universal health care, and it also has by far the world’s highest health care costs." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/19/opinion/19krugman.html

One would think that this prize winner would know that the calculation 'one sixth of the nation's income,' includes not just spending by insurance companies, individuals, and government on healthcare, but spending on building, medical equipment for doctors and hospitals, in other words, the money paid for an MRI procedure, plus the money paid for the MRI machine? The 'one sixth' figure is not a figure for healthcare services.


2. Keynesian Krugman was a huge supporter of the 'Stimulus,' and actually wanted far more than the trillion dollars. Paul Krugman: Stimulus Too Small, Second Package Likely (VIDEO)
He says: "I am still guessing that we will peal out at around 9% [unemployment] and that would be late this year [2009]." It peaked at 10% and remained above 9 for two more years.



3. Krugman embraces the Keynesian idea that there is value in increasing spending for its own sake, no matter if jobs are temporary, or unskilled...digging ditches and filling them in...as long as workers are employed, and pay taxes. " Think about World War II, right? That was actually negative social product spending, and yet it brought us out.[of the Depression]...


If we discovered that space aliens were planning to attack and we needed a massive buildup to counter the space alien threat and really inflation and budget deficits took secondary place to that, this slump would be over in 18 months. And then if we discovered, oops, we made a mistake, there aren't any aliens, we'd be better –" Watch GPS: Krugman calls for space aliens to fix U.S. economy? ? Global Public Square - CNN.com Blogs

a. Really? It doesn't matter how resources are spent? Was 'Cash for Clunkers' the way to go? Spending on alternative energy companies? Ethanol, when gasoline costs half as much and produces more energy? Give that man a prize!




4. For the Liberal, the Keynesian, i.e., Krugman, government spending is the panacea for all that ails ya.' What is forgotten is that the level of government spending determines the level of taxation ( well, for conservatives....for liberals it must be multiplied to advance 'equality), And financing spending through borrowing simply means even higher taxes in the future. Most importantly, taxes discourage investment and work. Despite Keynes, and Krugman's happy theories, taxes are a drag on the economy.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The Top 1% is an income threshold. Not a social distribution group.

When I say this topic is generally misunderstood, you are an example why...

What the hell is a "social distribution" ?

Apparently what you are trying to describe. That someone makes it into the Top 1% by effectively bringing someone else who use to belong into that income group down into the bottom 99%. It doesn't work that way, at all.

I can tell math isn't your strong suit.

Now to my initial point, surprisingly no one wants to know how they can be in the Top 1% as well. I would figure that the clowns who are always going off about income disparity would be all over this. It's really that easy...

We can all be in the top 1%, right? LOL!

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Top 1% is an income threshold. Not a social distribution group.

When I say this topic is generally misunderstood, you are an example why...

What the hell is a "social distribution" ?

Apparently what you are trying to describe. That someone makes it into the Top 1% by effectively bringing someone else who use to belong into that income group down into the bottom 99%. It doesn't work that way, at all.

Now to my initial point, surprisingly no one wants to know how they can be in the Top 1% as well. I would figure that the clowns who are always going off about income disparity would be all over this. It's really that easy...

According to Nicole Lapin of CNN, financial services professionals make up just 14 percent of that top 1 percent of wage earners. Their average salary of $311,000 per year, while quite gaudy, falls just below the threshold needed to break into the highest-earning subset.


To get into the “top 1%” of Americans you don’t need to be a billionaire or millionaire or half-millionaire. The minimum wage earners in that group make about $343k/year….The “top 1%” of wage earners earn 17% of the nation’s income. Nicole Lapin, Who the Heck Are the "Top 1%"?!!



In NYC, it is possible for a married couple, both police officers, to make that amount.

 

[Kimura]

Topics such as wealth inequality is generally misunderstood by most. overall wealth disparity historically has not changed. In fact, there is a very easy way for anyone in the Bottom 99% to make it among the Top 1%.

I assume that like you don't believe inflation statistics, you don't believe in published measures of income inequality?

Incorrect. I find zero fault in how income inequality is measured. I just believe that the entire concept is misunderstood and blown out of proportion. At least, in the United States.

As I have said before, there is a very easy way for one who is not in the Top 1% to become a member of the Top 1%.

Not everyone can become part of the 1%. If everyone could obtain massive amounts of wealth…….they simply would.

The ridiculous amount of money going to the 1% is essentially comprised of economically useless activities. We’ve got CEOs of investment banks, people deriving income off of stock dividends, speculation, etc. The problem stems from the financialization of the overall economy. The concentration of wealth at the very top is becoming increasing difficult to rationalize even for the shills over at Forbes and the WSJ. It’s also sort of crazy to believe that these people deserve what they have from their marginal contributions to production.

The name of the game, like I’ve said in previous posts, is rent-seeking. This is how the 1% have monopolized or captured a very large percentage of income in the US economy.

 

[eflatminor]

It's not a Zero Sum game. It's like saying Jimmy Page and Frank Zappa took their guitar playing talents from tone deaf weasels like myself.

You point sounds, like cool, and "intellectual" when you're in Middle School, but grow the fuck up already

Someone gets it.



They talk of wealth as though it is a pile of cash from which me all must draw. So if someone has more than another, they MUST have taken what didn't belong to them. It's astoundingly ignorant...like assuming that if a fat man is standing next to a skinny man, the fatso must have taken the skinny guy's food. Crazy.

 

[Toro]

Raising taxes built out the Internet?

Wow

The things I learn at USMB

That's the point.

Countries with high taxes have Mo' n Betta Internet?

I believe that's true, but that's not the point.

The point is that there are many, many, many other things that drive economic growth or the lack thereof other than taxes.

 

[Dot Com]

You Randites, like your golden boy- Ryan (R) or Greenspan for that matter (both kool aid drinking Randians), JUST DON'T GET IT!!!

THATS why Paul & George handily won the debate. Krugman even challenged Laffer to "step outside" & they could settle matters by throwing spreadsheets at each other.

 

[eflatminor]

You Randites, like your golden boy- Ryan (R) or Greenspan for that matter (both kool aid drinking Randians), JUST DON'T GET IT!!!

THATS why Paul & George handily won the debate. Krugman even challenged Laffer to "step outside" & they could settle matters by throwing spreadsheets at each other.

Because YOU say so?

Yea...pass.

 

[Dot Com]

Haring, Coolidge, Kennedy and Reagan cut taxes and the US economy flourished.

FDR and Obama raised taxes, the economy sucked.

It's not that hard, people

Clinton raised taxes. The economy boomed.

Raising taxes built out the Internet?

Wow

The things I learn at USMB

sounds funny on its face until you realize that without tax funding to DARPA & State Universities (you people seem to love to hate higher education) you wouldn't be able to be here tossing your partisan bombs
You owe Krugman an apology Frank DO IT!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Clinton raised taxes. The economy boomed.

Raising taxes built out the Internet?

Wow

The things I learn at USMB

sounds funny on its face until you realize that without tax funding to DARPA & State Universities (you people seem to love to hate higher education) you wouldn't be able to be here tossing your partisan bombs
You owe Krugman an apology Frank DO IT!!!

 

[AmazonTania]

What the hell is a "social distribution" ?

Apparently what you are trying to describe. That someone makes it into the Top 1% by effectively bringing someone else who use to belong into that income group down into the bottom 99%. It doesn't work that way, at all.

I can tell math isn't your strong suit.

You can tell by your inability to differentiate between an income threshold and a social group? Okay...

We can all be in the top 1%, right? LOL!

Considering that who comprises the Top 1% changes overtime, sure. Are you a homeowner?

 

[AmazonTania]

What the hell is a "social distribution" ?

Apparently what you are trying to describe. That someone makes it into the Top 1% by effectively bringing someone else who use to belong into that income group down into the bottom 99%. It doesn't work that way, at all.

Now to my initial point, surprisingly no one wants to know how they can be in the Top 1% as well. I would figure that the clowns who are always going off about income disparity would be all over this. It's really that easy...

According to Nicole Lapin of CNN, financial services professionals make up just 14 percent of that top 1 percent of wage earners. Their average salary of $311,000 per year, while quite gaudy, falls just below the threshold needed to break into the highest-earning subset.


To get into the “top 1%” of Americans you don’t need to be a billionaire or millionaire or half-millionaire. The minimum wage earners in that group make about $343k/year….The “top 1%” of wage earners earn 17% of the nation’s income. Nicole Lapin, Who the Heck Are the "Top 1%"?!!



In NYC, it is possible for a married couple, both police officers, to make that amount.

Don't explain that to Oopapoo. He still thinks the Top 1% refers to a social group...