doublegunshop.com - home Forums Ken Burn's Teddy R.

Krugman is the laughing stock of economists,there is NO credible proof he has EVER been correct.

BTW Charts don't lie King it FAILED, just like it always does !

some o youse guys often use the terms"libertard" and "statist". i hope you know what you are trying to say, but some of us here do not. please define libertard and statist for us.

Hopefully it would not be spun as hateful, particularly since it is related to the current policy of promoting entitlement reliance. Does this 'historically accurate' source take into account any effect of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act had.

I don't see any mention of where jobs, wages or family incomes went up because of welfare entitlements. He does not seem to delve into the voodoo of the significant job market influence of being paid not to work.

Didn't pelosi assert the voodoo that every dollar spent on food stamps net the economy $1.84. Do the economic indicators reflect this success rate. Wasn't she directly refuting the Gingrich clinton era Contract with America and referencing keynes.

Quote:
"...."The 1990s, however, were bad news for voodoo. Conservatives confidently predicted economic disaster after Bill Clinton�s 1993 tax hike. What happened instead was a boom that surpassed the Reagan expansion in every dimension: G.D.P., jobs, wages and family incomes...."

The above is absolute crap because of the lag times between implementing an economic policy and when it actually takes effect.
The eventual result of the Reagan tax cuts was the economic boom experienced during Clinton's years. The bust period were still in now is partially the result of Libtard policies under the Clinton administration led by the CRA.
Of course: We all know, including the Libtards here although the won't admit it, that the absolute disaster was set off by the implementation of the CRA of 1977 under Clinton which led to the housing meltdown and the recession we're still in.
Apparently some of you (probably socialogy majors) can't or won't comprehend basic economics.

Well,okay, you know more than Krugman. Done.

Craig, there are some good books on the current US job market as it relates to jobs, wages, family incomes. When people can't get work they are given money, as in most countries, and a looming social issue is a legislated "living wage."

No one here likes spongers and laggards. A modern society doesn't leave its citizens high and dry when the deserving are shut out of the work force because of lack of skills, poor education, criminal records, racist attitudes etc.

About a third of all state prison inmates and more than half of federal prison inmates in 2010 were drug offenders. I recommend On the Run: Fugitive Life in an American City (University of Chicago Press) by Alice Goffman.

There are times when the US needs a little dose of the parliamentary system and regulations, and this is one of them. Leaders with majorities do things, implement their policies. Their test of performance is elections.

All we see are the US wonders of checks and balances producing lame ducks, unwarranted obstruction, dysfunctional governance and executive privilege---the notion of a superpower president doing what he was elected to do.

Oh, my, the horror.

Well, okay, Dave. He's a Nobel laureate in economics, columnist in your country's distinguished newspaper of record, who according to you has has never been accurate and the laughing stock of economists. Thanks.

Statism is the belief that the State is supreme (i.e. The Ruling Class in Power) and that the very concept of Individual Freedom and Equality does not exist. It is the oldest organized religion, coming about shortly after the Dawn of Civilization. It is the belief that the ruling class is somehow superior and elite, and is entitled to inflict their actions on their subjects. This irregardless of how they came to power, either by Coup, Conquest, or election.

The modern rationalization for this comes from the philosopher Hegel, who believe that Man's utility was derived from his usefulness to the State, and was not a free and equal individual. In Hegel's time, Christianity was a binding influence in Western Society, so one of his assumptions was that ruler's would act according to Christian morality, and would rule as a type of "Enlightned Despot", and be bound by the Morals of Christianity. This was merely a rationalization of an age-old concept, as rulers have always sought to seek moral validation of their rule, usually by manipulation of existing religious beliefs on order to manipulate the subjective morality of a society. If we look back through history, the examples are obvious. The creation of the early "God Kings" throughout history in common, as rulers use religion to rationalize their tyrannical pseudo-elitism. Often creating the mythology of semi-divinity, simply asserting that one of their ancestors either was or mated with a God, so as to rationalize the divine nature of their rule and consequential moral superiority. Once a ruler is "Divine", to oppose what they say ceases to be a political difference and instead becomes a religious issue, with the opposition being able to be religiously demonized, and opposed on a moral basis, rather than an intellectual one. That's why the typical religious response to opposition is Deny, Dismiss, and Demonize, rather than intellectual rebuttal or refutation. Comrade King is the best example of this on this board.

Roman Emperors, starting with the attempt by Julius Caesar and achieved by Augustus are excellent examples of the creation of the God-King/Emperor concept.

After the fall of Rome and the firm establishment of Christianity in Constantinople the Christian Church was used to validate rulers, so strong was the influence of Christianity in Europe. The Dogma of the "Divine Right of Kings" is the example for this. This continued up to the Reformation, when Roman Christianity was rejected due to widespread corruption with Protestantism asserting that Man could have an individual relationship with God, and the the concept of Catholic intercession was not required. It was during this time the the concept of a Free and Equal person or citizen was first asserted in the modern sense, although the English had somewhat started the concept of "Rights" with the Magna Carta in earlier times.

Jumping back to Hegel. Hegel was a great admirer of Napoleon, as well as the early Prussian State, but he considered both bound by a christian sense of morality, the "Enlightened Despot" concept. One thing is certain, Hegel led to Marx. Marx demonized Capitalism and the concept of individual freedom. We still see this today, which leads us to the next, and current version of Religious Statism, that of Soviet Union Communism. In reality there was little that was "Communistic" about the Soviet Union, Communist rule was really a form of sociopathic feudalism, where an enslaved populace was held in thrall and ruled over by the neo-nobility of the Communist party, which exploited the populace for their own gain. In was merely rationalized by Communist Doctrine, and indoctrinated using the Soviet social science of Psychopolitics, which is merely a sociopathic religious dogma, or a faith-based belief taught on a strictly subjective morality basis, rather than any form of objective reality. It was/is a moral rationalization for enslavement, and the tyranny of a pseudo-elitist ruling class.

What is happening in America today is purely psychopolitical, and even though the Soviet Union (another classic example of a historical failure) is long gone, the ideology indoctrinated, starting mainly in the 1920s-1930s, still marches on. It's home is now the Democrat party, Obama is clearly an example of statist, religious, pseudo-elitism, as he doesn't consider that the individual exists, and is free to inflict whatever sociopathic dogma he chooses on free and equal individuals.

Now you can see why Obama's opposition is demonized according to faith-based statist morality, and why statist religious ideologues are able to simply deny, dismiss, and demonize opposition rather than actually respond intellectually.

Ahh, Comrade King, you always deliver.

Your capacity for religious denial, dismissal, and demonization is boundless. Despite all the data and analysis posted on this thread. BFD if he's a Nobel Laureate, so is Obama. The Nobel organization, as far as economics, is dominated by Keynesians, so big deal, that's like an Islamic terrorist receiving the "Osama bin Laden" award for International Politics.

The New York Times was once a great paper. No longer. It might as well be called "Pravda West". Notice the massive recent layoffs in the editorial department? How about the massive declining net worth? Let's have a little more denial, dismissal, and demonization...

Paul Krugman Now Laughingstock On Two Continents

http://reason.com/blog/2010/06/24/pa...-laughingstock

It's always the right time to ignore Paul Krugman, the New York Times columnist, Nobel Laureate and four-time Latin Grammy nominee whose drink-yourself-sober advice on handling the debt crisis is so sharply at odds with reality.

Of late, Krugman has had his Irish up at Europeans who are resisting the Obama Administration's plan to continue spending hundreds of billions on financial stimulus. (Not that he agrees with the administration, which Krugman has been arguing for the last 18 months should be spending trillions, not mere billions, on stimulus.) And in the case of Bundesbank president Axel Weber -- whom Krugman called out recently in the daily Handelsblatt for trying to shore up the falling euro at the expense of government job creation -- it's created a backlash. The Wall Street Journal reports that Krugman's criticism has turned him into the anti-Hasselhoff and boosted Weber's popularity as he pursues the top job at the European Central Bank:

Wolfgang Franz, who heads the German government�s economic advisory panel known as the Wise Men, tore into Krugman � and the US � in an op-ed in the German business daily Wednesday, titled �How about some facts, Mr. Krugman?�

�Where did the financial crisis begin? Which central bank conducted monetary policy that was too loose? Which country went down the wrong path of social policy by encouraging low income households to take on mortgage loans that they can never pay back? Who in the year 2000 weakened regulations limiting investment bank leverage ratios, let Lehman Brothers collapse in 2008 and thereby tipped world financial markets into chaos?� he wrote.

Unfortunately, as Krugman notes in his response, Franz managed to find the weakest arguments against the Times' fiscal shaman. Europeans have lost their appetite for digging deeper holes of debt for the same reason Americans have: because they don't have a choice. As Margaret Thatcher predicted would happen, we have all run out of other people's money. That reality explains a lot more than airy references to Germans' anti-inflationary mass psychology.

We're at the tail end of the largest economic intervention since World War II, and even on its own narrow, nebulous terms, it has been a colossal failure. The failure is obvious to working people. It's obvious to unemployed people. It's obvious to kindergarteners, to dogs and cats. Only Paul Krugman persists in thinking good things will happen if we just throw more money on the barbecue.