LittlePinky82
Well-Known Member
Why do you think I give two rats butts about either of them? News flash: I'm a communist.
If you're trying to "trick" me nice try. Those little tricks don't fly.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Where are the responsible Republicans?
- Thread starter Engyo
- Start date
Why do you think I give two rats butts about either of them? News flash: I'm a communist.
If you're trying to "trick" me nice try. Those little tricks don't fly.
dust1n
Zindīq
I can agree with the man on many points but I don't know I could call him responsible.
He's the only one who comes to mind. It's possible there's another. I don't know.
Unfortunately, many crimes against the Constitution aren't prosecutable. Examples from the Clinton era.
Dereliction Of Duty: The Constitutional Record of President Clinton
I'd like to have ridden GWB out of town on a rail, but I ran out of chicken feathers & tar.
He's one of those pro-life libertarians. I can respect his position, since he opposes gov't prohibition of abortion. Legally, this makes him pro-choice.
Source please?
I do strive to be entertaining.
Why do you think I give two rats butts about either of them? News flash: I'm a communist.
It's a joke, but I see you've no sense of humor.
(Btw, your moniker was the tip-off that you're a commie. Duh!)
Last edited:
LittlePinky82
Well-Known Member
Pointing to someone else doesn't fly. This is about HIM being responsible. He rails all the time about the Constitution yet he did jack when it counted. Only two people in congress ever brought up charges against George Bush. Cynthia McKinney and Dennis Kucinich. No Ron Paul to be found. So please spare me the insults of my intelligence. Not everyone who you talk to about libertarianism is stupid.
Are you kidding me? How in all things holy is that pro choice? You are aware of what "pro-choice" means right?
It's called looking at his record. You can do the google yourself.
It's called pathetic.
Oh yeah because everyone knows I'm a mind reader (sarcasm).
OK, if you can't be any fun, have any fun, or do civil repartee, I'll just have to pass on trying to converse with you.
LittlePinky82
Well-Known Member
If I find something pathetic I'm going to say so. If you don't like it oh well. And on edit I'm again not a mind reader. This isn't a Sookie Stackhouse novel and I'm not Sookie Stackhouse.
Scarlett Wampus
psychonaut
SS this is not good enough for me! I need Krugman to speak up and be correct about more important things than listed in that article.Krugman wrote in April 2008, "One of the defining features of the last 8 years or so has been the way ideas go from crazy stuff that only DFHs believe to stuff everyone knows, without ever going through a stage in which the holders of conventional wisdom acknowledge that they were wrong. Oh, and the people who were right are still considered DFHs; you see, they were right too soon."
The above was an observation about Peak Oil. Has he said anything else on the subject since? Barely. The problem with this is that I'm a DFH and I need people to be right too soon because otherwise they're wrong far, far too late. Krugman doesn't dare step into the DFH spotlight himself and as such is no good for me.
Hmmm. That does put a difference perspective on it. Nevertheless, RAAAAAAA!
Darkness
Psychoanalyst/Marxist
I am curious as to this horrible track record you speak of. Paul Krugman's predictions about interest-rates on bonds have been dead on, when all the inflation hawks were squawking. He stated from the beginning that the Stimulus Plan was not large enough and that it would not restore the economy.
Why should I trust the theory and language of modern economic theories, which told us that a crisis of this magnitude would not happen and that if we let the free-market be, everything would be peachy? Keynesianism is especially relevant today.
Will an interview from 2006 do?
[youtube]qo4ExWEAl_k[/youtube]
I stated from the beginning that the stimulus plan was way too large (ie, it should be zero) & that its cost would be a damper on the economy.
How would anyone know who is right since one cannot do a controlled experiment? I speculate that he holds his beliefs for the same reasons I do,
ie, values rather than analysis. He likes big gov't. I don't.
First, economics is much like religion - it's not wise to trust any economic theories which aren't well grounded in evidence in the real world.
An economist friend became disillusioned with the field when he noticed you could build models & tweak the assumptions to prove just about any theory.
Second, a question is are begged: Did we actually have a free market...or was it a chimera? The big crash started with the failure Fannie & Freddie, both
created & run by the federal gov't. (I'm ignoring the earlier & smaller crash in 2001, when business became less expansive & commercial real estate started
losing value.) Then banks who made risky residential loans began failing. These were highly regulated banks, who made many loans at the behest of federal
regulators, who wanted more lending to marginal borrowers & made red lining illegal. Is this a free market? Only partially so. The kind of regulation imposed
on the lending market actually increased instability.
Finally, system response of a laissez faire market is self regulating, but not without cycles & instabilities. Good regulation should ease those risks, but the
wrong regulation can create problems. Subsidies of the housing market caused inflated prices, while low down payments let buyers have high payment to
earning ration, but with no equity. This model is stable as long as we have inflation & economic growth. But it risks catastrophic losses if the economy has
a hiccup.
By then, housing prices were stagnating or falling (depending upon region). Dang near everyone paying attention knew it. Moreover, Krugman provided no
analysis for any of his opinions....just passing judgment. (Btw, I agree with him that the "Bush tax cuts" were poorly designed. Likely, our reasoning differs.
I'd say that marginal rates weren't lowered enuf & too many subsidies in the form of deductions remained to really spur productivity.)
Do you know that you're a lot of work to respond to? It's a lot easier when someone just calls me a greedy ignorant fool - less response is needed.
Last edited:
You can call it tying up his Presidency, I call it damage control.
FlyingTeaPot
Irrational Rationalist. Educated Fool.
Well, I think his beliefs are based on analysis rather than values, actually. The stimulus package has the greatest multiplying factor as an input to the economy. A higher stimulus package would lead to greater spending multiplier numbers for the economy.
And why the gratuitous dig at him for liking big gov't? what's that gotta do with it?
Last edited:
I believe the whole concept of a "multiplier" is a ruse designed to justify taking money from Peter & giving it to Paul. Just say Paul has a bigger multiplier,
& they can rationalize taking as much money from us as they want. How is it that if the gov't spends $100 of my money on a typewriter, it does more good
than if I buy a new hydraulic jack?
Oh, no...it's neither gratuitous nor a dig. He's not wrong to favor big gov't, just as I'm not right or wrong to dislike it. I simply point out that we have differentAnd why the gratuitous dig at him for liking big gov't? what's that gotta do with it?
orientations, which I believe drive economic thought. If economics were a more objective & quantitative science (like thermodynamics), then we'd see less
diversity of opinion. It is the source of that diversity which I addressed. So I don't think that Krugman is any more right or wrong than say...Milton Friedman.
I only prefer the views of the latter. (Frankly, I think Krugman is a little cutie....I just hold different values. Well...I think he's short on reasoning & evidence
when he speaks to the media. Perhaps that's just the nature of the circumstances though.)
Last edited:
Darkness
Psychoanalyst/Marxist
I am in half-agreement with you. He obviously holds his economic beliefs because of his moral convictions and values, but I do think there is a strong case for Keynesian economics having real-world efficacy. Truthfully, I think I was more converted to the left-wing because of events, rather than philosophical underpinnings. There are no such a thing as controlled-experiments in Economics, unfortunately. However, Ireland is a good example of austerity, and so far the bond-markets have not treated it kindly, as the deficit hawks claimed it would.
It is the dismal science.
The data I have seen indicates that the mortgages certified under the CRA were more secure and less delinquent than those not made under the CRA. Also, Fannie May and Freddie Mac were government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) not really run by the government. That is, they had government backing, but still remained private. If you think that is a dangerous and stupid arrangement, I agree with you. It is the very epitome of moral hazard. :yes:
Additionally, I agree that we do not have a laissez-faire market. We have a mixed economy. Every country, save pre-millennial Hong Kong has a mixed economy. We are simply less mixed than most Western states. I think that, too often, social liberals (Democrats) simply try to return the market economy to equilibrium. With the boom-and-bust cycle, that is a must, specially the job of the central bank. Yet, we should be using the State to control outcomes, not just balance the market to equilibrium. I am reminded of that V8 commercial, "put good in, get good out."
Do you think we should have regulation of LTV ratios and how much of a mortgage originators can sell as debt securities?
Now, I have to search his columns.
I am for higher marginal income tax rates, but for a lower corporate tax rate. For crying out loud, the socialist paradise known as Sweden only has its corporate tax rate set at 26.3 per cent, compared with our top corporate tax of 39 per cent.
I'm a lot of work. That's the pot calling the kettle black. I spent the last half-hour writing this, interspersed with Journey. :rainbow1:
FlyingTeaPot
Irrational Rationalist. Educated Fool.
Fiscal multiplier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. You are entitled to your opinion, of course. I'd prefer taking economic advice from an economist rather than a layman such as yourself.
As far as providing reasoning and evidence when he speaks to the media, I'd like to see some examples of what you mean. Even if what you claim is true, it is probably because he thinks "I'm a nobel prize winning economist, *****, deal with it and accept my word as the true word."
As far as providing reasoning and evidence when he speaks to the media, I'd like to see some examples of what you mean. Even if what you claim is true, it is probably because he thinks "I'm a nobel prize winning economist, *****, deal with it and accept my word as the true word."
Fiscal multiplier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. You are entitled to your opinion, of course. I'd prefer taking economic advice from an economist rather than a layman such as yourself.
My best advice is to not take my advice. But a fiscal multiplier is a theoretical concept which cannot be applied without political misinterpretation & mischief.
Ironically though, whatever advice I might offer, there's likely an economist out there somewhere who would hold the same view. That's why economists are
superfluous - a politician who wants to justify a particular agenda need only select an agreeing economist from a smorgasbord of ideologies.
Darkness just posted one. Try any of his NYT columns. My favorite was the one wherein he claimed that European leaders were embracing austerity
not for economic reasons, but to make the poor suffer for political gain...pure unsupported demagogy.
I'm hesitant to take someone's word just cuz they have this whole high priest mojo going on. Economics shouldn't be faith based.Even if what you claim is true, it is probably because he thinks "I'm a nobel prize winning economist, *****, deal with it and accept my word as the true word."
Darkness
Psychoanalyst/Marxist
I love Paul Krugman to death, but he is a preacher, not an apologist. I read his column to reinforce my faith, not to tackle the big issues surrounding economics. His blog is more facts based, and not as preachy, though.
Scarlett Wampus
psychonaut
Admittedly my perception of Krugman is based upon what he doesn't talk about, not what he does. His track record of forecasting might be good. I haven't noticed because when his writings come up for discussion, and they always tend to, I find myself frustrated that he consistently misses the big picture. Someone like Celente, wild as he is and fond of hyperbole, is at least willing to point to it. So crucially, Krugman's big prediction (and everything that follows) in even being a Keynesian is that the current system can be salvaged. It cannot. Keynesianism is especially irrelevant today because of that.
In short, what we're dealing with right now is mounting downward pressure due to reaching the outer shockwaves of the global limits of expansion. The response has been to continuously make sacrifices to the failed god of endless growth, the banking system, no matter what the cost to real human lives while simultaneously racking up ever more junk debt in an effort to keep everything going. This is a very short-sighted & catastrophically stupid thing to do. Even if we manage one last economic arc upwards it will be over quickly and will have helped ensure that the crash to end all crashes will be that much worse when it exhausts our upward struggling. What only the apolitical financial anarchists seem to be willing to say is that the course of action that makes most sense would be a pre-emptive controlled demolition of the banking system and a consequential dismantling of the economy. We should jump before we're pushed. At least then it won't come as such a shock.
Darkness
Psychoanalyst/Marxist
Sounds similar to Vladimir Lenin's writings, or New World Order Conservatives. Not entirely sure which camp to place you in.
While not osetensibly run by the federal gov't, the extent of de facto governmental control rises to the level of management.
Also, as one can see in the below article, there are close ties between the Democratic Party & the corporations leaders.
Fannie Mae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But I quibble....we have detente. Woo hoo!
There's the rub...using market controls wisely & to good effect. I see socialism
as coming, but I'd like to see it more wisely implemented than it has been so far.
It should recognize & exploit market freedom wherever useful.
I'd prefer elimination of subsidy of low LTV loans, which would serve the same master. But if that fails, I could favor regulatory limits.
There are 2 ways to collect tax revenue: 1) High rates with lots'o deductions 2) Low rates with no deductions. The reason I favor low rates is that it would have less incentive for an underground economy & more incentive for voluntary compliance. It also has an advantage for wards of the state, who will get to keep more of the money they earn over & above gov't benefits. It's not a morals based matter....just systematically better.[/quote]
I'm a lot of work. That's the pot calling the kettle black. I spent the last half-hour writing this, interspersed with Journey. :rainbow1:[/quote]
My apologies for being a pain in the lermquack.
Hey, how are the econ studies going?
Last edited: