Paul Krugman is a jackass (1 Viewer)

[Slapdash]

http://dilbert.com/strips/2013-06-03/

So true...

 

[Slapdash]

This thread makes me miss the subtitles a great deal. :(

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Detroit = #### happens

Krugman states: "So was Detroit just uniquely irresponsible? Again, no. Detroit does seem to have had especially bad governance, but for the most part the city was just an innocent victim of market forces."

I do not agree. The political forces and blatant corruption played a significant role in the demise, and the people of the city bear responsibility for repeatedly voting in greedy, incompetent leaders that never diversified the economy to rely on more than just one cyclical industry. All they did was blame outside forces for years while at the same time stealing from the city and doing absolutely nothing that would further the long term economic prospects for the city.

Yes Detroit was uniquely irresponsible. If you ranked leadership of the top 50 cities in the country over the last 50 years, they would rank dead last. I defy Krugman to pick a bigger loser. New Orleans no. Pittsburgh no. Cleveland no. Detroit had the worst combination of corruption, stupidity, and gross mismanagement of resources. It's like a chain smoker wondering how they got terminal lung cancer after 50 years and taking no responsibility.

Krugman has a problem here because every answer to questions about what attracts business and what drives business away can be answered in the negative and the affirmative in Detroit.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Detroit = #### happens

Krugman states: "So was Detroit just uniquely irresponsible? Again, no. Detroit does seem to have had especially bad governance, but for the most part the city was just an innocent victim of market forces."

I do not agree. The political forces and blatant corruption played a significant role in the demise, and the people of the city bear responsibility for repeatedly voting in greedy, incompetent leaders that never diversified the economy to rely on more than just one cyclical industry. All they did was blame outside forces for years while at the same time stealing from the city and doing absolutely nothing that would further the long term economic prospects for the city.

Yes Detroit was uniquely irresponsible. If you ranked leadership of the top 50 cities in the country over the last 50 years, they would rank dead last. I defy Krugman to pick a bigger loser. New Orleans no. Pittsburgh no. Cleveland no. Detroit had the worst combination of corruption, stupidity, and gross mismanagement of resources. It's like a chain smoker wondering how they got terminal lung cancer after 50 years and taking no responsibility.

What also needs to be stated is that this city was exclusively run by Democrats and the left for the last 60 years. That cannot be overlooked.

 

[Dr Oadi]

Detroit = #### happens

Krugman states: "So was Detroit just uniquely irresponsible? Again, no. Detroit does seem to have had especially bad governance, but for the most part the city was just an innocent victim of market forces."

I do not agree. The political forces and blatant corruption played a significant role in the demise, and the people of the city bear responsibility for repeatedly voting in greedy, incompetent leaders that never diversified the economy to rely on more than just one cyclical industry. All they did was blame outside forces for years while at the same time stealing from the city and doing absolutely nothing that would further the long term economic prospects for the city.

Yes Detroit was uniquely irresponsible. If you ranked leadership of the top 50 cities in the country over the last 50 years, they would rank dead last. I defy Krugman to pick a bigger loser. New Orleans no. Pittsburgh no. Cleveland no. Detroit had the worst combination of corruption, stupidity, and gross mismanagement of resources. It's like a chain smoker wondering how they got terminal lung cancer after 50 years and taking no responsibility.

What also needs to be stated is that this city was exclusively run by Democrats and the left for the last 60 years. That cannot be overlooked.

Republicans stopped revenue sharing! It's the republicans fault!

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Detroit = #### happens

Krugman states: "So was Detroit just uniquely irresponsible? Again, no. Detroit does seem to have had especially bad governance, but for the most part the city was just an innocent victim of market forces."

I do not agree. The political forces and blatant corruption played a significant role in the demise, and the people of the city bear responsibility for repeatedly voting in greedy, incompetent leaders that never diversified the economy to rely on more than just one cyclical industry. All they did was blame outside forces for years while at the same time stealing from the city and doing absolutely nothing that would further the long term economic prospects for the city.

Yes Detroit was uniquely irresponsible. If you ranked leadership of the top 50 cities in the country over the last 50 years, they would rank dead last. I defy Krugman to pick a bigger loser. New Orleans no. Pittsburgh no. Cleveland no. Detroit had the worst combination of corruption, stupidity, and gross mismanagement of resources. It's like a chain smoker wondering how they got terminal lung cancer after 50 years and taking no responsibility.

Besides, the auto industry isn't in any particular decline. The Big Three have had their struggles of course, but the historical reasons for that (overpriced labor and bad corporate decision making) aren't what you would normally describe as "market forces." Technically they are, but in the sense of what Krugman is talking about.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Detroit = #### happens

Krugman states: "So was Detroit just uniquely irresponsible? Again, no. Detroit does seem to have had especially bad governance, but for the most part the city was just an innocent victim of market forces."

I do not agree. The political forces and blatant corruption played a significant role in the demise, and the people of the city bear responsibility for repeatedly voting in greedy, incompetent leaders that never diversified the economy to rely on more than just one cyclical industry. All they did was blame outside forces for years while at the same time stealing from the city and doing absolutely nothing that would further the long term economic prospects for the city.

Yes Detroit was uniquely irresponsible. If you ranked leadership of the top 50 cities in the country over the last 50 years, they would rank dead last. I defy Krugman to pick a bigger loser. New Orleans no. Pittsburgh no. Cleveland no. Detroit had the worst combination of corruption, stupidity, and gross mismanagement of resources. It's like a chain smoker wondering how they got terminal lung cancer after 50 years and taking no responsibility.

Besides, the auto industry isn't in any particular decline. The Big Three have had their struggles of course, but the historical reasons for that (overpriced labor and bad corporate decision making) aren't what you would normally describe as "market forces." Technically they are, but in the sense of what Krugman is talking about.

I don't know enough about Detroit's governance to know whether it was bad like lots of other cities, or uniquely bad on a whole different level. What is it that made Detroit's government so much worse than places like Washington DC, Fresno, New Orleans, Miami, or other poorly-run cities?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Republicans stopped revenue sharing! It's the republicans fault!

That's what Ed Schultz says.

The monologue. - Holy ####! He actually called in Bernie Sanders!?

That guy was a sportscaster in Fargo when I grew up. It can't be understated how much of an ### clown that guy is.

 

[Joe T]

Republicans stopped revenue sharing! It's the republicans fault!

That's what Ed Schultz says.

The monologue. - Holy ####! He actually called in Bernie Sanders!?

That guy was a sportscaster in Fargo when I grew up. It can't be understated how much of an ### clown that guy is.

"Detroit once saved the world..."

I'm not so amazed by how bad that segment is. I'm more amazed that people actually watch that garbage.

 

[Rove!]

Krugman is to economics what Helen Thomas was to Journalism.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Don't you dare call my duck a duck.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Don't you dare call my duck a duck.

Just curious, how much of Piketty have you read to determine that it's some form of Marxism?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Don't you dare call my duck a duck.

I think your reading comprehension is broken.

Piketty might be a Marxist (he may even be an avowed Marxist, though I haven't seen that yet).

But pointing out that he's a Marxist doesn't really address Piketty's research.

Well, outside a narrow slice of brain-dead knee-jerk America anyhow.

H2H

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Don't you dare call my duck a duck.

I think your reading comprehension is broken.

Piketty might be a Marxist (he may even be an avowed Marxist, though I haven't seen that yet).

But pointing out that he's a Marxist doesn't really address Piketty's research.

Well, outside a narrow slice of brain-dead knee-jerk America anyhow.

H2H

Oh, I don't think so. I've read a few substantive articles that summarize quite fine why Piketty's work is Marxist.

But Krugman would never admit as such so, of course he's going to dismiss such charges as a matter of course.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Don't you dare

Don't you dare call my duck a duck.

I think your reading comprehension is broken.

Piketty might be a Marxist (he may even be an avowed Marxist, though I haven't seen that yet).

But pointing out that he's a Marxist doesn't really address Piketty's research.

Well, outside a narrow slice of brain-dead knee-jerk America anyhow.

H2H

Oh, I don't think so. I've read a few substantive articles that summarize quite fine why Piketty's work is Marxist.

But Krugman would never admit as such so, of course he's going to dismiss such charges as a matter of course.

call my duck a duck.

I think your reading comprehension is broken.

Piketty might be a Marxist (he may even be an avowed Marxist, though I haven't seen that yet).

But pointing out that he's a Marxist doesn't really address Piketty's research.

Well, outside a narrow slice of brain-dead knee-jerk America anyhow.

H2H

Oh, I don't think so. I've read a few substantive articles that summarize quite fine why Piketty's work is Marxist.

But Krugman would never admit as such so, of course he's going to dismiss such charges as a matter of course.

Except he doesn't dismiss it at all. He dismisses the idea that simply saying "Piketty is a Marxist" is a valid critique of the actual research and findings.

 

[Lutherman2112]

Don't you dare call my duck a duck.

I think your reading comprehension is broken.

Piketty might be a Marxist (he may even be an avowed Marxist, though I haven't seen that yet).

But pointing out that he's a Marxist doesn't really address Piketty's research.

Well, outside a narrow slice of brain-dead knee-jerk America anyhow.

H2H

Oh, I don't think so. I've read a few substantive articles that summarize quite fine why Piketty's work is Marxist.

But Krugman would never admit as such so, of course he's going to dismiss such charges as a matter of course.

Everytime I see you criticize economists, I just shake my head and say, "This is the economic genius that thought selling Amway was a good idea."

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Also, still no inflation, or hyperinflation, or currency collapse.

And in fact deflation appears to be reemerging despite all of the "money printing" around the world for the past six years.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Don't you dare call my duck a duck.

I think your reading comprehension is broken.

Piketty might be a Marxist (he may even be an avowed Marxist, though I haven't seen that yet).

But pointing out that he's a Marxist doesn't really address Piketty's research.

Well, outside a narrow slice of brain-dead knee-jerk America anyhow.

H2H

Oh, I don't think so. I've read a few substantive articles that summarize quite fine why Piketty's work is Marxist.

But Krugman would never admit as such so, of course he's going to dismiss such charges as a matter of course.

I'm reading the book, and can report that for the first 100 or so pages he's pretty hard on Marx in terms of both data gathering techniques and on his central prognostications. He's also quite clear that the West was incredibly beneficial to end up adopting social Democratic reforms as opposed to the Communist revolutions in Eastern Europe and Asia.

His data does seem to pretty clearly demonstrate one of Marx's principle ideas, that Capitalism, absent intervening policies or external shocks, will tend to lend itself towards an economic divergence of income that over time concentrates wealth. He specifically stops short of reaching Marx's conclusion that Capitalism is therefor inherently flawed, and doomed to collapse into revolution. Greatly simplifying, he just concludes that maybe an estate tax isn't a bad idea.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Except he doesn't dismiss it at all. He dismisses the idea that simply saying "Piketty is a Marxist" is a valid critique of the actual research and findings.

Except that nobody is "simply" saying that and the idea that they are is "simply" a strawman.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Everytime I see you criticize economists, I just shake my head and say, "This is the economic genius that thought selling Amway was a good idea."

Does your mom know you're a stalker?

 

[timschochet]

It seems to me that so much of the dislike of Krugman is not about what he says, but how he says it. When you watch him on the talk shows, he is incredibly smug, patronizing, contemptuous of opposing ideas (especially conservative ones), and always appears to be nervous and irritated. In short, he is almost the perfect representation of the conservative caricature of progressives.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

It seems to me that so much of the dislike of Krugman is not about what he says, but how he says it. When you watch him on the talk shows, he is incredibly smug, patronizing, contemptuous of opposing ideas (especially conservative ones), and always appears to be nervous and irritated. In short, he is almost the perfect representation of the conservative caricature of progressives.

It's not a caricature.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I'm reading the book, and can report that for the first 100 or so pages he's pretty hard on Marx in terms of both data gathering techniques and on his central prognostications. He's also quite clear that the West was incredibly beneficial to end up adopting social Democratic reforms as opposed to the Communist revolutions in Eastern Europe and Asia.

His data does seem to pretty clearly demonstrate one of Marx's principle ideas, that Capitalism, absent intervening policies or external shocks, will tend to lend itself towards an economic divergence of income that over time concentrates wealth. He specifically stops short of reaching Marx's conclusion that Capitalism is therefor inherently flawed, and doomed to collapse into revolution. Greatly simplifying, he just concludes that maybe an estate tax isn't a bad idea.

I think there needs to be more of a distinction when discussing the term "Capitalism". To me, there seems to be two parts to it, at least here in America; the production part and the investment part.

When we talk about "taxing the wealthy" the line between the two are blurred and our (particularly the right's) sensibilities are offended because (and I think we all agree) that it's not "fair" to take what someone has "earned". But there are differences in how wealth is earned.

The "problem", as it were, is that there really are a lot of the upper crust that make their money by moving money and not by producing. The former make me as nervous as big government. But Piketty, from what I understand, advocates U.S. tax rate of 80 percent on incomes over $500,000 per year (among many other things, I know). That's just not going to fly.

In short, I'm actually in favor of increased taxation on investment income and/or adding brackets to the progressive income tax rates (as long as we're not going to replace it with a flat/fair tax).

 

[Slapdash]

I really miss the subtitle to this thread

 

[DiStefano]

I'm reading the book, and can report that for the first 100 or so pages he's pretty hard on Marx in terms of both data gathering techniques and on his central prognostications. He's also quite clear that the West was incredibly beneficial to end up adopting social Democratic reforms as opposed to the Communist revolutions in Eastern Europe and Asia.

His data does seem to pretty clearly demonstrate one of Marx's principle ideas, that Capitalism, absent intervening policies or external shocks, will tend to lend itself towards an economic divergence of income that over time concentrates wealth. He specifically stops short of reaching Marx's conclusion that Capitalism is therefor inherently flawed, and doomed to collapse into revolution. Greatly simplifying, he just concludes that maybe an estate tax isn't a bad idea.

I think there needs to be more of a distinction when discussing the term "Capitalism". To me, there seems to be two parts to it, at least here in America; the production part and the investment part.

When we talk about "taxing the wealthy" the line between the two are blurred and our (particularly the right's) sensibilities are offended because (and I think we all agree) that it's not "fair" to take what someone has "earned". But there are differences in how wealth is earned.

The "problem", as it were, is that there really are a lot of the upper crust that make their money by moving money and not by producing. The former make me as nervous as big government. But Piketty, from what I understand, advocates U.S. tax rate of 80 percent on incomes over $500,000 per year (among many other things, I know). That's just not going to fly.

In short, I'm actually in favor of increased taxation on investment income and/or adding brackets to the progressive income tax rates (as long as we're not going to replace it with a flat/fair tax).

The attack on inequality has really only one objective. To frame the discussion so that government gets more money, which they will then dispense as goodies to the populace. Those who are leading the attack on inequality are usually those who have become rich through government--such as Obama and Harry Reid and others in Congress, who went to Congress with relatively modest means and now are multi-multi millionaires. Oh, yes, they made "lucky" investments.

 

[igbomb]

I'm reading the book, and can report that for the first 100 or so pages he's pretty hard on Marx in terms of both data gathering techniques and on his central prognostications. He's also quite clear that the West was incredibly beneficial to end up adopting social Democratic reforms as opposed to the Communist revolutions in Eastern Europe and Asia.

His data does seem to pretty clearly demonstrate one of Marx's principle ideas, that Capitalism, absent intervening policies or external shocks, will tend to lend itself towards an economic divergence of income that over time concentrates wealth. He specifically stops short of reaching Marx's conclusion that Capitalism is therefor inherently flawed, and doomed to collapse into revolution. Greatly simplifying, he just concludes that maybe an estate tax isn't a bad idea.

I think there needs to be more of a distinction when discussing the term "Capitalism". To me, there seems to be two parts to it, at least here in America; the production part and the investment part.

When we talk about "taxing the wealthy" the line between the two are blurred and our (particularly the right's) sensibilities are offended because (and I think we all agree) that it's not "fair" to take what someone has "earned". But there are differences in how wealth is earned.

The "problem", as it were, is that there really are a lot of the upper crust that make their money by moving money and not by producing. The former make me as nervous as big government. But Piketty, from what I understand, advocates U.S. tax rate of 80 percent on incomes over $500,000 per year (among many other things, I know). That's just not going to fly.

In short, I'm actually in favor of increased taxation on investment income and/or adding brackets to the progressive income tax rates (as long as we're not going to replace it with a flat/fair tax).

The attack on inequality has really only one objective. To frame the discussion so that government gets more money, which they will then dispense as goodies to the populace. Those who are leading the attack on inequality are usually those who have become rich through government--such as Obama and Harry Reid and others in Congress, who went to Congress with relatively modest means and now are multi-multi millionaires. Oh, yes, they made "lucky" investments.

I applaud your complete dissociation from any rational argument in an effort to actually frame the folks who worry about income inequality as the greedy ones. That's some serious mental gymnastics there.

 

[RCon]

This thread is a perfect example of the downside of the new board. I really miss the "Jackasses insulted by comparison" subheading...

 

[Slapdash]

Forgot I had complained about this already

 

[Todd Andrews]

It seems to me that so much of the dislike of Krugman is not about what he says, but how he says it. When you watch him on the talk shows, he is incredibly smug, patronizing, contemptuous of opposing ideas (especially conservative ones), and always appears to be nervous and irritated. In short, he is almost the perfect representation of the conservative caricature of progressives.

Whenever I read your posts, I picture Krugman typing them.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Six years later... still no inflation even with massive "money printing".

...the European Central Bank cut its benchmark interest rate to a record low and took the unprecedented step of lowering the bank deposit rate below zero.

The announcement Thursday in Frankfurt, Germany, marks the first time that a major central bank has pushed down a key rate into negative territory. Not even the Bank of Japan during its two-decade battle with deflation or the Federal Reserve in the wake of the Great Recession has tried such an unusual approach.

The negative-rate move was the most eye-catching of a series of steps unveiled by Mario Draghi, president of the ECB, who two years ago helped stabilize the Eurozone by saying the central bank would do whatever it takes to preserve the euro currency.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

It seems to me that so much of the dislike of Krugman is not about what he says, but how he says it. When you watch him on the talk shows, he is incredibly smug, patronizing, contemptuous of opposing ideas (especially conservative ones), and always appears to be nervous and irritated. In short, he is almost the perfect representation of the conservative caricature of progressives.

If it makes you feel any better, he is widely disliked by his colleagues in the discipline for the same reason. Everybody agrees that he's a great economist. But he really is an ###.

Edit: A good way to put it is that economists who agree with Krugman on almost every issue still probably don't like him. Whereas pretty much everybody likes and respects Greg Mankiw (well, except for Krugman of course) even if they disagree with his economic or political views.

 

[pantagrapher]

It seems to me that so much of the dislike of Krugman is not about what he says, but how he says it. When you watch him on the talk shows, he is incredibly smug, patronizing, contemptuous of opposing ideas (especially conservative ones), and always appears to be nervous and irritated. In short, he is almost the perfect representation of the conservative caricature of progressives.

If it makes you feel any better, he is widely disliked by his colleagues in the discipline for the same reason. Everybody agrees that he's a great economist. But he really is an ###.

Edit: A good way to put it is that economists who agree with Krugman on almost every issue still probably don't like him. Whereas pretty much everybody likes and respects Greg Mankiw (well, except for Krugman of course) even if they disagree with his economic or political views.

Appropriately, this post is a microcosm of the kind of Very Serious People tribalism Krugman hates.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Appropriately, this post is a microcosm of the kind of Very Serious People tribalism Krugman hates.

It's pretty much human nature. We're wired to believe people we like even if what they're selling is complete BS. (There's a reason you don't see many anti-social con men or sales people.)

Pretty sure I'd want to punch Krugman in the face if I met him, but I can still respect that he was right about the nature of the crisis we're in and very few other people were.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

It seems to me that so much of the dislike of Krugman is not about what he says, but how he says it. When you watch him on the talk shows, he is incredibly smug, patronizing, contemptuous of opposing ideas (especially conservative ones), and always appears to be nervous and irritated. In short, he is almost the perfect representation of the conservative caricature of progressives.

If it makes you feel any better, he is widely disliked by his colleagues in the discipline for the same reason. Everybody agrees that he's a great economist. But he really is an ###.

Edit: A good way to put it is that economists who agree with Krugman on almost every issue still probably don't like him. Whereas pretty much everybody likes and respects Greg Mankiw (well, except for Krugman of course) even if they disagree with his economic or political views.

Appropriately, this post is a microcosm of the kind of Very Serious People tribalism Krugman hates.

No, I'm talking about academic economists, not pundits and politicians. Nobody, not even Krugman, thinks that people like Greg Mankiw fit his caricature of Very Serious People. My point is just that Krugman really is an #######. He's an ####### when he's writing about politics, he's an ####### when he's talking to his colleagues about the implications of increasing returns to scale on international trade flows, and he's probably an ####### when he's ordering the ceasar salad off a menu.

Believe it or not, there are people out there who really do know what they're talking about who still manage to communicate like gentlemen. If you want a good left-wing example of someone Krugman could take a lesson from, Joe Stiglitz would be a good one.

 

[pantagrapher]

It seems to me that so much of the dislike of Krugman is not about what he says, but how he says it. When you watch him on the talk shows, he is incredibly smug, patronizing, contemptuous of opposing ideas (especially conservative ones), and always appears to be nervous and irritated. In short, he is almost the perfect representation of the conservative caricature of progressives.

If it makes you feel any better, he is widely disliked by his colleagues in the discipline for the same reason. Everybody agrees that he's a great economist. But he really is an ###.

Edit: A good way to put it is that economists who agree with Krugman on almost every issue still probably don't like him. Whereas pretty much everybody likes and respects Greg Mankiw (well, except for Krugman of course) even if they disagree with his economic or political views.

Appropriately, this post is a microcosm of the kind of Very Serious People tribalism Krugman hates.

No, I'm talking about academic economists, not pundits and politicians. Nobody, not even Krugman, thinks that people like Greg Mankiw fit his caricature of Very Serious People. My point is just that Krugman really is an #######. He's an ####### when he's writing about politics, he's an ####### when he's talking to his colleagues about the implications of increasing returns to scale on international trade flows, and he's probably an ####### when he's ordering the ceasar salad off a menu.

Believe it or not, there are people out there who really do know what they're talking about who still manage to communicate like gentlemen. If you want a good left-wing example of someone Krugman could take a lesson from, Joe Stiglitz would be a good one.

Touched a nerve.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

It seems to me that so much of the dislike of Krugman is not about what he says, but how he says it. When you watch him on the talk shows, he is incredibly smug, patronizing, contemptuous of opposing ideas (especially conservative ones), and always appears to be nervous and irritated. In short, he is almost the perfect representation of the conservative caricature of progressives.

If it makes you feel any better, he is widely disliked by his colleagues in the discipline for the same reason. Everybody agrees that he's a great economist. But he really is an ###.

Edit: A good way to put it is that economists who agree with Krugman on almost every issue still probably don't like him. Whereas pretty much everybody likes and respects Greg Mankiw (well, except for Krugman of course) even if they disagree with his economic or political views.

Appropriately, this post is a microcosm of the kind of Very Serious People tribalism Krugman hates.

No, I'm talking about academic economists, not pundits and politicians. Nobody, not even Krugman, thinks that people like Greg Mankiw fit his caricature of Very Serious People. My point is just that Krugman really is an #######. He's an ####### when he's writing about politics, he's an ####### when he's talking to his colleagues about the implications of increasing returns to scale on international trade flows, and he's probably an ####### when he's ordering the ceasar salad off a menu.

Believe it or not, there are people out there who really do know what they're talking about who still manage to communicate like gentlemen. If you want a good left-wing example of someone Krugman could take a lesson from, Joe Stiglitz would be a good one.

Touched a nerve.

Why do you say that? I work in the same discipline as the people I'm talking about here -- not closely of course, but we attend some of the same conferences. I can definitely assure you that when somebody says that Paul Krugman is an #######, they're not just saying that because they happen to disagree with his latest paper.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Good article by Krugman here: Why We Fight Wars.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Krugman calls Obama's presidency a success.

 

[Joe T]

Krugman calls Obama's presidency a success.

The Nobel Prize-winning economist, once one of the president’s most notable critics, on why Obama is a historic success

I stopped reading here.

 

[lod01]

Good article by Krugman here: Why We Fight Wars.

I knew it!!!! Link goes to footballguys forums.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Good article by Krugman here: Why We Fight Wars.

I knew it!!!! Link goes to footballguys forums.

LOL. Here's the correct link: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/opinion/paul-krugman-why-we-fight.html

 

[MaxThreshold]

Krugman calls Obama's presidency a success.

I actually just threw up a little bit in my mouth when I saw your link.

 

[Good Posting Judge]

Krugman calls Obama's presidency a success.

I actually just threw up a little bit in my mouth when I saw your link.

Never enough hyperbole on the internet, that's what I always say.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Pretty good example of a reverse jinx thread.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Krugman calls Obama's presidency a success.

The Nobel Prize-winning economist, once one of the president’s most notable critics, on why Obama is a historic success

I stopped reading here.

It's like you've made up your mind what Krugman has said and written without actually listening or reading any of it.

Hey, wait a minute...

As a public service:

Krugman led the charge against Obama in 2009 and 2010. He banged on him weekly.

Krugman is still right about what happens at zero interest rates -- and the high interest rates/high inflation people are still wrong without addressing or acknowledging that every prediction they made fell flat.

 

[Slapdash]

Krugman calls Obama's presidency a success.

The Nobel Prize-winning economist, once one of the president’s most notable critics, on why Obama is a historic success

I stopped reading here.

It's like you've made up your mind what Krugman has said and written without actually listening or reading any of it.

Hey, wait a minute...

As a public service:

Krugman led the charge against Obama in 2009 and 2010. He banged on him weekly.

Krugman is still right about what happens at zero interest rates -- and the high interest rates/high inflation people are still wrong without addressing or acknowledging that every prediction they made fell flat.

We're still at zero and will continue to be for some time.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Good article by Krugman here: Why We Fight Wars.

I knew it!!!! Link goes to footballguys forums.

LOL. Here's the correct link: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/opinion/paul-krugman-why-we-fight.html

I like that the post it links to is "It's pretty much human nature".

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I was soooo close to agreeing with his entire article...but then he blew the "working families" anti-dog whistle and took his all too familiar potshot at the "other side" and the thread title was once again confirmed.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I was soooo close to agreeing with his entire article...but then he blew the "working families" anti-dog whistle and took his all too familiar potshot at the "other side" and the thread title was once again confirmed.

Truth stings, eh Andy?

 

[Jack White]

Does anyone take this clown Krugman seriously?