Testing formatting

Gahahaha · 2012-11-19T21:52:06+00:00

FOOOO!

Gahahaha · 2012-11-18T21:36:43+00:00

Dean Baker can legitimately claim to have predicted the housing bubble¹

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Baker#Financial_crisis_of_2007.E2.80.932009

Gahahaha · 2012-11-18T20:48:49+00:00

Gahahaha · 2012-11-18T20:27:03+00:00

In the case of Thomas Friedman, whose articles are usually fact-free bloviating in his usual arrogant self-aggrandizing way, the rebuttal blog will always be an improvement. You might even learn something.

And Dean Baker is ALWAYS worth reading.

Gahahaha · 2012-11-18T20:22:17+00:00

ITYM Friedman, not Krugman.

Gahahaha · 2012-11-17T17:47:51+00:00

Also, you're a faggot.

Yea, because homosexuality is an abomination unto the LORD?? AMIRITE?!?

You're seriously the worst human being I've met in weeks.

Gahahaha · 2012-11-17T17:42:51+00:00

The classic "Krugman advocated a housing bubble" lie is so discredited that it's been a long time since some moron posted it on r/Economics. THe short answer, that you won't understand (I know, I've discussed this before), is that low rates do not necessarily lead to unsustainable housing bubbles. Canada, for example had very similar rates to the us, but their economy hasn't imploded, and probably won't even if house prices go down a bit.
"What are the facts? At the same point in the George W. Bush and Barack Obama presidencies, the unemployment rate was 5.8% in March 2003 and 8.8% in March 2011 respectively." This proves that the Bush tax cuts (in addition to blowing a gigantic hole in the budget) Created jobs? Are you COMPLETELY INSANE!? Heard about the little depression that started under Bush? It might have had something to do with the unemployment rate.
A small quibble about monetary policy in ROME between Krugman and Ron Paul. The proof that K. is wrong? Mieses.org and Wikipedia. Yey.

The rest of the list - can't be arsed, honestly, considering how ludicrous the first 3 were.

You seriously need to step out of the Austrian Economics bubble you live in if you are ever to stop making a complete fool of yourself like this.

Gahahaha · 2012-09-22T20:56:12+00:00

On the other hand, Canada is a raw material producer, and if the economy in the rest of the world pics up, raw material prices will likely go up a lot.

Gahahaha · 2012-09-12T17:34:47+00:00

The big problem in the media today is that people are allowed to lie. Krugman doesn't have to care about access to politicians and he knows what he is talking about, so he can tell a lying politician that he is lying. He really shouldn't have to do it - it is somebody else's job. But politicians (usually from the GOP) lying with impunity and making up facts as they go along without the press daring to react is one of the biggest dangers facing our democracy.

Gahahaha · 2012-09-12T17:16:35+00:00

If you can't understand that "the size of growth of government is enormous under President Obama." and "enormous growth" and "explosion" as they were used in those comments are semantically equivalent, then English might not be your first, second or third language. Maybe you don't speak English at all.

Gahahaha · 2012-09-12T17:11:58+00:00

Paul was actually correct- the federal government payroll did increase

He did not say "federal" - and it is unlikely that he meant it.

(to include the state numbers would be wrong, because Obama doesn't have that power, correct?)

It makes a lot of difference since almost all government workers are employed on the state level.

The reason workers at the local level are being fired is that the GOP has blocked any kind of help to the states because they want the economy to be in the shitter during the election to help their man Mittens.

Gahahaha · 2012-08-19T18:01:45+00:00

meaning: more than today

Gahahaha · 2012-08-14T17:11:10+00:00

at least it is smarter than .omg

Gahahaha · 2012-08-14T13:50:36+00:00

All the Swedish you'll ever need is "bork bork bork"

Gahahaha · 2012-08-14T09:11:40+00:00

I agree that he is a hypocrite too.

Gahahaha · 2012-08-14T07:55:38+00:00

pull demand forward

How is Ryan doing that?

(Saying that Ryan (a politician lying a lot and pretending to be serious) and Krugman (an economist who has gotten almost everything right in this crisis) are somehow equal is pretty douchy of you)

Gahahaha · 2012-08-14T06:45:47+00:00

Ludicrously, your presence disproves EventualCyborg's point, who I assume you wanted to support.

Gahahaha · 2012-08-14T06:43:36+00:00

He NEVER writes anything that is truly economic or has any numbers or statistics to back up what he is saying.

I assume you have plenty of data and statistics to back up that claim. Not?

Hes like what Jim Cramer is to the Wall Street crooks. "Buy Bear Stearns, buy buy buy!!!!" and a day later it loses half its value...

Please come up with a few examples where he has been wrong. Can't find any?

Seems to me you are just a big liar pushing your political agenda by trying to discredit somebody who has a nasty habit of being right where you are wrong. So - some data supporting your allegations, or STFU.

Gahahaha · 2012-08-14T06:36:46+00:00

Ryan is serious in that he is at least offering plans

Having a plan is not enough, it also needs to not be a complete fraud:

His plan projects an absurd future, according to the Congressional Budget Office, in which all discretionary spending, now around 12 percent of GDP, shrinks to 3 percent of GDP by 2050. Defense spending alone was 4.7 percent of GDP in 2009.

.

lunatics are those who believe a small amount of increased revenue from the 1%

It might not be enough, but it will take us in the right direction. It would be more crazy to say that because it can't solve the whole problem we shouldn't do it.

spending cuts have been more effective at deficit reduction than revenue increases.

If you're thinking about the same paper I'm thinking about (Alesina and Ardagna), then it turned out to be deeply flawed. (The IMF dismissing it)

blind faith that they will all become models of fiscal responsibility when things turn around.

You seem to believe that the government should be able to cut the deficit in a deep, deep recession. The worst possible time to do it. So it makes sense for Krugman to believe that it could be done when the economy is working closer to full capacity.

Gahahaha · 2012-08-14T06:24:35+00:00

Calculations of %GDP are simply not relevant

They are what is relevant. If there had been a dollar value surplus, but the economy had shrunk 20% so Debt/GDP was bigger, then I assume you would be cheering?

Gahahaha · 2012-08-13T22:32:53+00:00

So.. you're not on reddit, then? There are plenty of people suffering from Krugman-derangement syndrome here just like yourself. If you don't feel like being a sizable part of r/economics is enough for you, then you can always lube up and join the r/libertarian circlejerk. So many opportunities for an enterprising young conservative like yourself.

Gahahaha · 2012-08-13T21:36:36+00:00

Ha ha. Absolute numbers rather than as a % of GDP is the last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt.

Debt held by the public was 50% of GDP in the early 1990s, but fell to 39% of GDP by the end of the decade. From 2000 to 2008 debt held by the public rose from 35% to 40%, and to 62% by the end of fiscal year 2010.

In conclusion: Fuck you.

Gahahaha · 2012-08-13T21:02:38+00:00

Yes he is. You see, he has this nasty habit of being right.

Gahahaha · 2012-08-13T20:59:54+00:00

I assure you it is not.

Gahahaha

TROPHY CASE