Paul Krugman is without any doubt, the stupidest so called "economist" to ever live.. He is absolutely a HUGE part of why this country is falling.. There are certain people in this country that need to be kicked in the nuts... He is one of them.. Along with Frank Dodd and Obama
Krugman is the ultimate bullshit artist. The poster boy for any big Government plan to 'fix' the economy. Gets it wrong every time and it still heralded as a genious.
Anyone who thinks that Obamacare will reduce costs need their head checked.
@LibertyDownUnder So you have a Nobel Prize in Economics then? I mean, you must, because it's not like you're some guy who just talks about things he knows nothing about.
@CheckVerb, prizes are not an exact measure of someone's ideas. Many economists who also have an opposing view to Krugman.
If you listen to some of his proposed solutions to the financial crisis, you'll see what I mean. He suggested that an alien invasion would have a positive impact on the economy. He also suggested paying people to dig up ditches and paying others to fill them up would be good.
His whole approach is based on printing money and throwing it around.
@CheckVerb politically-biased, shiny medals aside, Krugman was completely clueless to the coming meltdown, and declared the economy to be in great shape, right up to the collapse. What's more, when the Fed-induced dot-com bubble burst in the early 2000s, Krugman SPECIFICALLY called for the inflation of a housing bubble to stave off the recession and stimulate the economy - the genius, Nobel Prize winner saw no problem creating another bubble which ended up 10 times worse.
@LibertyDownUnder And? He's simply making an analogy with the second world war which effectively - through enormous public spending - ended the great depression and started a decade-long period of sustained growth. That does not mean he's hoping for an alien invasion. Do you not grasp the logic here?
@theNetworkCH, wars make unemployment charts look better, but they don't solve economic problems.
What DID get the US out of trouble was the immediate & deep cuts to Government spending and borrowing after world war 2 (same as after world war 1 under Harding).
Killing millions of people doesn't bring prosperity, I'm a bit embarassed I have to explain this idea to adults.
@theNetworkCH, which part of my story is not supported on Wikipedia, the fact that sending millions of soldiers to war isn't a good thing for the economy?
If you judge the economy based on unemployment charts, well then yes, obviously war is a good thing.
If you measure prosperity based on new homes built, new factories, industries etc that the people actually want - then war is not a good thing.
Here is a 3 minute video summarizing this: /watch?v=SQFhm4s_-Pk
@LibertyDownUnder Again: The discussion was what brought and end to the depression. You said "What DID get the US out of trouble was the immediate & deep cuts to Government spending and borrowing after world war 2" You still need to document that claim and explain to me why the wikipedia article is wrong.
@theNetworkCH, well I don't know how to put it all into a catch phrase, but I'll try.
Before the war, there was mass unemployment due to crippling regulations, import tarriffs and taxes. The war took millions of people out of the labour market - so the unemployment rate 'fell'.
After the war the Government cut spending to the bone, started paying off debts & deregulated big parts of the economy, which brought prosperity, low unemployment and a rising quality of living.
@theNetworkCH sorry, you need to bone-up on the data, which shows that the Depression did not end until, at earliest, 1946 - a clue for you - conscripting people into the military, rationing food / clothing / fuel, and cranking-out machinery which destroys life and property is not, nor can it ever be, a formula for prosperity. Wealth is created and grows by producing things people need / want, not by killing millions of people or turning whole cities into rubble. Please discover sound economics.
@gergenheimer Try to read the wikipedia article. The GDP and Unemployment chart show nothing special around 1946. In fact, if anything, unemployment went up between 46 and 50.
I support you are now going to say that Wikipedia was written by communist, kenyan, islamists?
@theNetworkCH Keynesians are the ones who predicted massive unemployment when the war ended, because they don't grasp that mere spending is not what makes an economy "go" - "employing" people to destroy entire nations and kill millions of people, isn't the same as building Oldsmobiles. Interwar employment and GDP figures were based on military conscription and the "growth industry" of destroying life and property. Starting to see the difference, yet?
@gergenheimer So you are claiming that Keynesians predicted high unemployment following the end of the war because they think that the ecocomy is driven by mere spending (Can you document that?).
In any case, the discussion was not who said what or predicted what, but instead what ended the depression. I (and wikipedia, if you read the article) said the builtup to WWII and WWII itself. You said something about 1946, which you still need to document.
@theNetworkCH for evidence of Keynesian predictions, see Paul Samuelson's, “Full Employment after the War" (1943) The U.S. rapidly demobilized troops, phased-out price controls, and brought military production to a halt - according to Samuelson this should have "ushered in the greatest period of unemployment and industrial dislocation which any economy has ever faced." A war economy is a net destroyer of wealth, no matter how many people are stimulated into "employment" in the process.
Think of the implications. According to the Keynesian paradigm, spending is the engine that drives the economy, because a dollar spent is a dollar of income to a producer, which becomes a dollar of wages to a consumer, and so on. If consumers fail to spend, any arbitrary spending can and should fill the gap. If this is true, we should be able to permanently end unemployment by creating "SpendBots" - automated robots that would go into stores, buy items and then destroy them. See the fallacy yet?
You obviously do not understand. Firstly, I'll straigthen out the how-to's. We should speak of new keynesian economics, by the way, not of keynesian economics.
What they say is that in a RECESSION the government should pursue deficit to fill in the gap or at least a part of the gap created in the demand fall. We're far from spending creates everything dumbly: we're at using it in specific cases and ways.
@KrugmanTheKing The fact that you qualify new Keynesians as advocating deficit spending only in times of recession doesn't change my salient point at all - this spending is still arbitrary - the "experts" have near-meaningless aggregate "data" (As someone with a background in science, I can tell you that economic aggregates are not remotely scientific) Also the NK position ignores the very real possibility that their own policies created the boom-bust in the first place.
The point is that fiscal austerity will not restore magically confidence, will not allow the markets to re-structure... if new keynesian economists are right, fiscal austerity should be contractionary. And that's what all data so far collected suggests.
Why? Well, I'll help you out a bit. People save money at the bank. Banks take that money and loan it. Some people think if you let prices adjust, the interest rate should ensure investments always clear the money market.
That happens to not be true all the time. You may find yourself into a situation wherein interest rates even near zero wouldn't be low enough for people to borrow all the money there is to borrow. If you know anything in economics, tell me what happens when the price is above the equilibrium? Exactly: surpluses. Is that good? No.
An other thing also happens in those situations: people get fired, massively.
@KrugmanTheKing You have to ask yourself, what causes interest rates to be pushed to near-zero in the first place? This isn't something that could be arrived-at in free market conditions. The reason you end up in a liquidity trap in the first place is because of sustained monetary stimulus and "pump-priming". In short, it is inevitably true that "all bills eventually come due" A deficit isn't just a monetary number, it's a promise to produce something of value in the future.
Again, this is a surplus. Then the simple minded tells himself that wages are overpriced and if you lower them, it should solve the issue. Hear the buzzer my friend. Not only your wage will face nominal rigidity, but unemployed people don't spend as much. Where will your product go? That's why you don't invest as much: there's no place for your stuff to be sold at.
If you want to understand fiscal expansion, look at the two big surpluses: money in banks and unemployed people.
@KrugmanTheKing You are looking at a static snapshot - if wages fall generally, it's true that producer costs are reduced, but if consumer spending is reduced by falling wages, there will also be downward pressure on consumer prices - this assumes, of course, that we don't have an army of experts and bureaucrats engaged in price-fixing at all levels of the economy - oh, wait - we have that.
@KrugmanTheKing The lack of saving and investment we see today, and that we saw in the Great Depression are largely due to what Bob Higgs calls "regime uncertainty". People then and now are reluctant to save and invest because the climate of uncertainty surrounding never-ending government intrusions into the marketplace. Entrepreneurs and investors are unable to calculate risk vs. reward because they don't know what inane policies will be passed tomorrow.
That's what fiscal expansion is meant to do: create a short-term deficit to create investment prospects and improve your long term balance sheet. Or, more simply put, use otherwise unemployed resources.
It's not magical and it can't produce 100% employment. But unless you're a big zero in economics, you understand this can potentially prevent further contraction of the economy.
The other alternative is to try and balance your budget, but we know it doesn't work.
@KrugmanTheKing "Preventing further contraction" in an economy where resources have been misallocated only serves to kick the can down the road. Credit expansion - whether done by banks, governments or both together - distorts market signals, sewing the seeds for an inevitable boom-bust. Also, because of Cantillon effects, credit expansion results in a net transfer of wealth to the first receivers of the new "money", at the expense of low- and fixed-income earners.
Credit is what allows growth -- it actually constitutes a Pareto improvement upon an absence of it. Do you even know why? Because it allows the money to go from people without project and with money to people with projects, but without money. The resources are more optimally allocated through lending than without lending.
@KrugmanTheKing credit that comes from real savings CAN promote growth (or it can be wasted), but you are conflating nominal monetary expansion with actual growth. Real savings (i.e deferred consumption) provides both the monetary funds and the physical resources to build capital and thereby ramp-up wealth creation over time. Printing money isn't the same as "extending credit" - that is, debasing the currency isn't a sound substitute for real savings and deferred consumption.
@KrugmanTheKing It may not be fun, but budgets ultimately must be balanced - why? Because a budget / balance sheet is nothing more than an abstracted monetary expression of "can I provide goods and services of value in exchange for the goods and services I receive?" If NK can't do better than having "borrowing to consume" as one of its primary policy tools, it deserves a place in the dustbin of history.
You see, that's why you do not understand anything about economics: you think it's a matter of balancing the budget. Usually, if you open a business, what do you do? You borrow -- and it's often more than you have. The idea is short-term debt to prevent contraction. That doesn't mean not allowing some businesses to fail; it means literally using resources on behalf of the people: we're speaking of a governmental project.
@KrugmanTheKing When a business borrows money, it is to increase productivity and create products and services people want (i.e. create wealth) - the ability of the business to pay back the loan comes from the extra wealth they generated. In the case of credit expansion, a promise to pay with goods and services in the future is being made to fund the consumption of goods and services in the present. Do you see the folly and unsustainability of the "borrow-to-consume" paradigm?
By credit I meant lending... I wasn't necessarily thinking about lending for purpose of consumption.
But anyway, you're never inventing money when you run a deficit, private or public. The public debt is ultimately the sum of the assets of some people and/or of other governments. When the government borrows, we hope it's borrowing from its citizen, but it has to borrow from someone, no matter what.
@KrugmanTheKing The "public debt" of the U.S. is approx. $15 trillion dollars right now ($100+ trillion if you count unfunded liabilities like SS and Medicare) There are no assets backing-up these debts - do you really not understand that they will just create money out of thin air to "pay the bills"? But remember, a debt is just a promise to provide goods and services in the future, printing money can't make debts go away.
By balanced sheet I have in head 0 in total when you consider expenditures and revenues... when I say that you WANT to run a deficit in some cases, I mean that allowing the economy to re-structure will be less efficient in both the short and long term, given that your interest rates may be required to fall bellow zero and that your wages will face short rigidity as well as an overall impossibility to fall low enough given information asymmetry.
@KrugmanTheKing You must be using a strange definition of "efficiency" - by bailing out failed industries and printing money to paper-over losses, we ensure that those bad investments, price distortions and risks will be continued rather than allowing for a re-alignment of land, labor and capital. How is it "efficient" to re-inflate bubbles like the housing bubble, and encourage production of something we already over-produced?
It doesn't even make sense halfway trying to make a case for not spending. You can't crowd out investors because the fact you're there to spend is that no one wants to borrow; you can't think it'll cost you a lot because you do that after your interest rates have hit the floor; and you can't make the case you'll be better off later by letting billions of working hours unused...
It's as straight forward as raise demand a bit and the private sector will slowly take back its place.
@KrugmanTheKing So your argument goes "The government can't be crowding-out investors, because, look - there are no investors." Again, you should discover the concept of regime uncertainty - and understand that for the past 10-12 years, the government's ever-increasing intrusions into the market have created a climate of fear, causing capital to flee the U.S. Interest rates are ARTIFICIALLY low because they were pushed there by the inane policies of D.C. and the Fed.
It's not very complicated to see... you do a few graphs and it tells that kind of story; you look at the current situation and it's again that same story it tells.
I really don't know where you got this impression the government was somehow artificially making things grow... no. It takes an underachieving economy and kick it back to more or less where it should be. This doesn't mean putting back all the same businesses, it means getting people back into the system.
@KrugmanTheKing "This doesn't mean putting back all the same businesses" Really? GM, Chrysler (2 times), Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Amtrak, U.S. postal service . . . shall I go on?
@KrugmanTheKing Allow me to elaborate - imagine two brothers, each of whom has nothing but a bundle of rope to his name. Each brother wants to borrow five fish from you. Brother 1 plans to sustain himself with the fish while he weaves a fishing net from his rope. The net will allow him to feed himself and generate extra fish to pay back the loan. Brother 2 plans to create a hammock from the rope and lie on the beach eating fish. Which loan is better for society?
If you want to know, they actually think you should be at 0 on an annual basis or running surpluses in between the slumps.
Now, new keynesian economics don't look exactly like what Keynes wrote in especially one aspect: they work on establishing proper microeconomic foundations for their macroeconomic principles. It's from there you get terms such as "market failures" which do exist. One of them is information asymmetry and it's one reason why unemployment will always exist.
@KrugmanTheKing If NK's claim to recognize the proper economic foundations, such as marginal utility, subjective value, supply and demand, etc. - the only logically-consistent conclusion is that macroeconomics is politically-convenient sophistry. Macro-economists pay lip service to the foundations of microeconomics and then throw them out the window to parrot the hard sciences with complex, but meaningless mathematics.
It's not even a question to ask. The IMF made a point of trying to follow that kind of policy you advocate and if you plan on turning America into the next East Asia kind of thing, go ahead, de-regulate and cut the government down. It created exactly what we would have expected: volatility, instability and crisis after crisis...
I perfectly understand the idea of liberalization and why you think it will work. The problem is that the conditions required do not exist in reality.
Spending for the war effort was fiscal expansion and, YES, cutting the deficit down was exactly what had to be done. Why? Because the markets were ready to fun again.
Secondly, yes, war is expansionary despite the fact that it's a socially negative spending. And yes, you are right: it would have been better and quicker to spend less (and within the US borders) to build factories, homes, etc. That's what Stiglitz said: war was nice, but infrastructure would have been better.
I'd like to also bring down a national myth you probably think occurred: the 1920's were not highly regulated years. People could even buy stocks at credit -- imagine the kind of trouble it could (and did) put us into if the stock crashes because that means people's saving would have been lost, vanished. There were no regulations against that. After that, in 1933, Americans passed a bill to prevent certain types of banks to play casino...
If you even hear Stiglitz or Krugman speak and give them a chance to say two words before you start thinking they're wrong, you'll realize they cite the period of 1939 to 1973 as being precisely the one in which regulations were the most compelling. Until Reagan, markets were fettered -- his administration stripped regulations away.
Don't invent a side dimension: the US was very liberal until the depression, then became much more constrictive, and went back to opening markets.
Paul Krugman is in the tank for the left and it's depressing. I'm not sure where, when, or why he cashed in his brain for Nancy Pelosi's hand, but there's no way she can drink water while he talks. Depressing.
This guy is not an economist, he is a political hack. He attacks Bush and defends Obama. If anyone had half a brain and knew about health care in the rest of the world they would know that it isn't free. You get taxed up the ying yang and you don't get the same level of service or care. There is no savings in spending money! Get it through your thick skulls!
@tuanische So the fact that all available data suggests the rest of the industrialized world has lower prices and most have better healthcare outcomes and drastically higher access to healthcare does not mean anything?
@jazzgtrplayer Show the data, because the places I have lived and the data that has been used is not the same data. e.g. the U.S. considers a child born with a live birth, so if it dies 30 seconds later it is considered a mortality. Some countries use length of the child, or when the born child was registered. So there are many inconsistent ways they measure. Life Expectancy and $ per patient, and number of doctors can all sound like factors, but there are numerous other items that are excluded.
The two major flaws with how health care is supposedly going to save money are not unique to health care legislation but to almost every major bill. The CBO is a great organization put they only rate bills at a 10 yr window so at first the health care bill looks great because it collects taxes for 10 years but only pays out benefits for 6 years. This works for the first 10 yrs but after that it will be 10 yrs in and 10 yrs out which at best will even out...
To continue my points the second problem that is particular to the bill is that it is suppose to collect many by taxing "Cadillac" health care plans. This seems like a great idea but the problem is that those Cadillac health care plans belong to union members who are a major contributor to the democratic party and if they allow that to pass it would be political suicide. meaning we will probably see relatively soon a bill to push back when that tax comes into effect.
Lastly, This is written not as a democrat or republican but as an economist that doesn't like the politics that are but into the economics of it. These are problems that are apart of our political process and not exclusive to either party.
To continue my points the second problem that is particular to the bill is that it is suppose to collect many by taxing "Cadillac" health care plans. This seems like a great idea but the problem is that those Cadillac health care plans belong to union members who are a major contributor to the democratic party and if they allow that to pass it would be political suicide. meaning we will probably see relatively soon a bill to push back when that tax comes into effect.
@FixedNewsChannel See the little abc logo in the corner, that's a hint part of it's lies. All major media is bought and puts the whole left right show on for people when since 911 both are basically the same. The lie here is about the cbo and how they are only allowed to use the figures they're given to compute cost and doesnt check the numbers to see if they're right. Both sides use this. We are in a fascist country by definition, have been for years. we show most of the 14 main signs imho
@ROBERT195911577 Yeah, but the Dems have done nothing but cave in to the Republicans. Public option? Not a chance. Medicare buy-in? Fat chance. In fact, the corporate puppet show that is the Republican Party (and 1/2 of the Democratic Party) have cut all similar cost-CONTAINING provisions.
You can blame the Democrats, but only to the extent that they're too bought or afraid to punch the Reps in the face.
@ROBERT195911577 Because the current healthcare system is saving us more money? Even if healthcare reform comes in at twice the price, it would save us versus using a system whose prices are rising so quickly it will soon either bring down our economy or make it impossible for anyone but the elite to have access to healthcare.
@jazzgtrplayer No. Because once you go beyond preventing abuse and criminal behavior, you create false incentives. I watched government regulation destroy a very vibrant health insurence market in the late 70's and early 80's. There were a wide variety of insurance products for every budget. Union and political pressure caused certain bills to pass. Before they did, there were over 45 companies writing medical ins. in NY. Now there are 3 or 4. Unions refuse to pay for their benefits.
She lived and I filed bankruptcy over 30K in uncovered procedures and meds. We both worked in healthcare for > 22 years and she was let go by the hospital she worked at while on FMLA. Before that I probably would have not been for Health reform, but I am now !!!! I know many stories similar. I left the Republican party for the democrats, as it became clear to many who is sucking big business balls the most - GOP/FOX
Also our insurance premiums 10 years ago was $180 for family, now it is $380.
People that have insurance, nothing will change except now you cant lose you policy if you get sick, you wont be denied for pre-existing conditions, and you can take the insurance policy with you if you change jobs. While the influx of new people should lower the premiums, it wont because they are greedy bastards. Id' tell you what up for the uninsured, but I know you rightys dont give a flying fuck. My wife had cancer, too sick to work, "eliminated" her job, lost the insurance, cobra $1200/mon
There is always a "but" in all the talk this administration does. This clown is a moron to think the government has a great plan going. Its all new taxes, "Don't cut benefits" and "raise taxes" thats all this administration does. In less than a year you will see tax revolts.
"Nearly two-thirds of Americans say the health care overhaul signed into law last week costs too much and expands the government's role in health care too far, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, underscoring an uphill selling job ahead for President Obama and congressional Democrats."
Also
53% call the way it was passed an "abuse of power"
50% say it will drive up their hc costs, 21% say it won't.
But, let's make a deal...if this govt program ends up running a huge deficit every year like every other govt program ever has always done, all you liberals will shut up, rescind the entire welfare state, and move to Massachusetts? Deal?
Let's make a wager on the outcome of whether or not this new bloated govt program stays within budget, if you lose, the whole welfare state is gone, the taxes paying for them are returned to the people and theyrun charity
@Lighthouse724 What don't you understand? Do something research! Look at what Medicare was projected to cost in it's first year and what is ACTUALLY cost!
@micsc50 and you know more about economics than Krugman? Who do we trust, you, who insults a person who is knoweldgeable and highly educated or a PhD world renowned expert......
you sound jealous, you just knew you had "stupidest person on earth" locked up didnt you... you sir, are a loser... go back to your clan rally dicksmoker
I am amazed and highly entertained of how many of the commentators haves the balls to think they are way smarter than a nobel price winner... Funny stuff!
@crazyological Barrack Obama won his Nobel Peace Prize while expanding the war in Afghanistan. Does anyone still believe that a Nobel prize means anything? Krugman is silly, nervous little cheerleader for the fools who are running the formerly great US economy into the ground and nothing more.
hey beedipshit, the economy hasnt been great since Clinton was president. if the nobel didnt mean anything they would hand 'em out to scum like you, wheres yours? oh thats right, you dont do shit to help anything, you just sit back and whine like a bitch... go back to your clan rally you republican homo
cheering on the people who ran the economy into the ground? I don't recall Krugman cheering on the Bush administration economic policies... and if you meant Obama (I know you did), he's been very critical of just about everything he's done
in addition to that, people need to have some realistic expectations, the economy did not tank overnight, it's been on the decline for at least ten years, don't expect to have Obama fix it in one year.
@crazyological Just b/c he won a (very liberal) price about something to do with trade in international markets doesn't mean everything he says is smart, as is clearly evident after listening to him speak for 2 minutes.
Krugman is nothing more than a cheerleader for the idiots who are currently running the US economy into the ground. Krugman is horribly wrong about everything he says.
whine whine whine, you have no answers, just crying like a bitch... what can fix it then mr. smartass? thats what i thought, you dont know shit...your a dumbass who probly didnt even finish high school LMAO
average people only get their information from cable news. it's crazy that people don't trust experts anymore. Maybe it's because most of them are partisan which makes it hard to tell fact from fiction. But if people just look at the items in the bill, themselves, they will see it's middle of the road. It would be a bill that a Libertarian and a Liberal would come up with. Not to say it's perfect, because neither side has all the best ideas, but it stays true to our capitalist system
Krugman is a partisan idiot. He's intelligent, but that doesn't mean his viewpoints are believable. Clearly he's going to be on the wrong side of history.
Krugman Schools? Did the person that posted this vidoe actually watch it? This nervous little fellow actually thinks things are going to be BETTER than the CBO estimated? lol
Henry Waxman, Chair of the House Committee on Energy & Commerce. Sent a letter demanding AT&T & other companies who've publicly disclosed the fiscal repercussions of Ohealth care, appear before the committee & bring their analysis of the fiscal impact, & any documents including emails & messages reviewed by their senior officials that support their claim of increased operating costs.
Result of disclosure =Ordered to appear before Congress starting April 21st to prove their claims.
They did NOTHING wrong. Big companies make announcements like this all the time. WITHOUT being called before Congress & pretty much liars!
Waxman stated, such news causes them "Concern"
Reid & Pelosi got a letter last Dec. from Deere & others( Hubby's employer, Verizon). It said the health care reform then under consideration would negatively impact both retirees & companies. The American Benefits Council & Union warned them as well.
I've been reading Paul Krugman's articles for over a decade. In 2005 he started warning of the housing bubble, in 2006 and 2007, the derivatives and credit default swaps on Wall Street. His warnings have all been justified. When he says this health care reform will save money, I have a tendency to believe him. He has his liberal bent, but when it comes to economic assessment, he's all geek. Economics is a science, and Krugman's one of the best.
Krugman is a political hack. He has been caught publishing completely contradictory statements in his column - depending upon who is President. If taking one position and spewing his mindless drivel made Bush look bad, he wrote the mindless drivel. If stating a 180-degree contradictory view helps to make Obama look good, he'll go ahead and change his mind 2 years later. He's a parasite and a scumbag.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
this guy is an idiot, does anyone really think the gov. is capable of running something more efficiant, from past expiriences the gov screws us. America is done for, Bush dug the hole, and obama is filling it in.
@ZKoftherebellion its my home, there is no other place in the world i would want to live, even though i dont believe in the way our gov. runs things. things will get a lot worse financially because of gov intervention.
@alanshanelewis I wouldnt mind considering this bill without the mandate, and if the country was financially stable. No one every really talks about how the other gov programs have cost way to much and will eventually bankrupt this country. Schumer said this morning that this bill willl keep medicare alive for five more years before it goes bankrupt by 2017 not very encouraging. I will always keep an open mind about health reform ideas but have to take into account our financial stability.
@dpo5000 the fed gov doesnt run schools, pd, or firedpt. Also the gov is not in the health insurance business. Why would you trust the gov enough to do this when there is plenty of evidence they are incapable.
@dpo5000 I just can't understand why so many dopes keep saying this. The Federal Government does not run local schools, police, and or fire depts. The town runs the schools, police and fire through property taxes. But that not to say that the Federal Government is not trying to step in. Now they are the only lender for school loans. No child left Behind. If the states wanted to offer health care to its people, they can vote on it state by state.
@sdlvx definately sound like a typical lib. And yes on question one, i take responsibility for myself, but america is still the greatest country to live in despite what you think BITCH.
@KataVideo medicare, social security, post office which all are in financial disaster. your right, the Gov def. made sure to take care of the big bad insurance company. Millions of new insurers thanks.
@roaddog0111 you conservatards have been claiming medicare, social security and the post office (which is ben franklin's idea.. why do you hate ben franklin?) are under the falling sky for DECADES. shift some money from the fucking pentagon and everything is better.
@KataVideo dont group me in with anyone, conservatives arent the only ones that know thos programs are financial disasters, even obama said it at a town hall meeting about the post office. I dont care if george washington started the post office its still a financial disaster that serves as a good example why gov. is bad at running things.
Govt does work, although some administrations make bad policy. Bush admin policy was anywhere from absurd to surreal.
Obama's policies are working (and I did not vote for him). The stimulus is working, net job losses are in the low 4 digits per month recently whereas they were approaching 1 million per month at the end of Bush. The CBO says that the deficit will be down around $500 Million by 2013, down from over $1 Trillion.
@lynchmobb2000 obamas policy have done little to nothing except spend more money. Everything you listed is highly debateable. I think everyone is afraid of having to face hardships to make things right, so just let the gov. take care of us until they fail.
@roaddog0111 - His point of view on govt hardly makes him an idiot. While it pains me slightly to say it, our govt isn't terrible at *everything* it does. Take a look at the thousands of thing that are "socialized" in this country, and then travel the world to see just how "bad" we have it here. Get my drift?
@brighteye007 I am not claiming to know more about the economy than this guy, just that the us gov. is not good at what they do, and this guy is an idiot for believing they are going to be abl to actually come through for america.
@roaddog0111 The government run Medicare which happens to be the MOST EFFICIENT HEALTHCARE SYSTEM in the U.S. in terms of the percentage of money taken in versus the amount paid out in actual benefits. If private insurance companies could even approach the efficiency of Medicare then premiums would be much more affordable.
@kaysandesses yea, maybe, but it still doesnt excuse the fact that its going broke, The government run Medicare which happens to be the MOST EFFICIENT HEALTHCARE SYSTEM in the U.S. in terms of the percentage of money taken in versus the amount paid out in actual benefits. doesnt this mean it spends more money than takes in? It has to, why else will it be bankrupt in a few years
@roaddog0111 "doesnt this mean it spends more money than takes in?"
It's actually two different but related issues. Yes, Medicare is underfunded, but it is still pays out 97% of what it receives in actual healthcare dollars. The closest any private insurer can muster is about 82%, and some (the most profitable ones) are less than 50%. The greatest problem with Medicare is unneeded procedures or tests. The health care bill will fix much of that.
@kaysandesses ok, but why is it still going bankrupt? despite how great it is, it is still going to fail, chuck schumer stated that " this bill will keep medicare around for five more years and it wil be bankrupt by 2017 or 2019" sunday morning.
@kaysandesses I dont think you could "spell out" the whole process of paying for this or cutting costs in on paragraph. If thats all you need to know to think this will work there is little hope for you. Also if medicare is underfunded how are they going to cut 500 billion from it?
@Pseudologic so if i dont have a nobel prize i cant disagree or criticize him. the Nobel prize is a joke, just like your argument. I have a bach. of comp. science degree. DICK
@sidplicity Only the mindless fringe. Most of the real humans on the right are fact based and to lump them together like this makes you no better than the reicher's who call out "libtard" or "moonbat". I try to treat sincere but misinformed friends on the right with respect and honesty and in doing so I managed to get quite a few votes for Obama. As to the flaming rightists? Heap the scorn on with a snow shovel.
lol Krugmas owns repbulicans by denying the findings of the CBO lol? Fucking libtards.
F1reF0rEffect 1 month ago
FDR would hate Krugman
Salvysahagun 3 months ago
Paul Krugman is without any doubt, the stupidest so called "economist" to ever live.. He is absolutely a HUGE part of why this country is falling.. There are certain people in this country that need to be kicked in the nuts... He is one of them.. Along with Frank Dodd and Obama
SuperGuitarman69 3 months ago
I seriously cannot believe this guy is still relevant.
notadirector 3 months ago
how come every paul krugman clip on youtube is 2 to 5 minutes long?
bobsacamano1 7 months ago
@bobsacamano1 Because any larger a dose of Krugman would cause people to commit mass suicide.
s0beit 6 months ago
Krugman is the ultimate bullshit artist. The poster boy for any big Government plan to 'fix' the economy. Gets it wrong every time and it still heralded as a genious.
Anyone who thinks that Obamacare will reduce costs need their head checked.
LibertyDownUnder 11 months ago
@LibertyDownUnder So you have a Nobel Prize in Economics then? I mean, you must, because it's not like you're some guy who just talks about things he knows nothing about.
CheckVerb 5 months ago
@CheckVerb, prizes are not an exact measure of someone's ideas. Many economists who also have an opposing view to Krugman.
If you listen to some of his proposed solutions to the financial crisis, you'll see what I mean. He suggested that an alien invasion would have a positive impact on the economy. He also suggested paying people to dig up ditches and paying others to fill them up would be good.
His whole approach is based on printing money and throwing it around.
LibertyDownUnder 5 months ago
@LibertyDownUnder I dispair. You do know that he's not seriously hoping for an alien invation, right?
theNetworkCH 4 months ago
@CheckVerb politically-biased, shiny medals aside, Krugman was completely clueless to the coming meltdown, and declared the economy to be in great shape, right up to the collapse. What's more, when the Fed-induced dot-com bubble burst in the early 2000s, Krugman SPECIFICALLY called for the inflation of a housing bubble to stave off the recession and stimulate the economy - the genius, Nobel Prize winner saw no problem creating another bubble which ended up 10 times worse.
gergenheimer 3 months ago
@LibertyDownUnder Documentation please?
theNetworkCH 4 months ago
@theNetworkCH, here you go: /watch?v=E1Fzzs7oVaA
Krugman discussing the positive impact of an alien invasion.
LibertyDownUnder 4 months ago
@LibertyDownUnder And? He's simply making an analogy with the second world war which effectively - through enormous public spending - ended the great depression and started a decade-long period of sustained growth. That does not mean he's hoping for an alien invasion. Do you not grasp the logic here?
theNetworkCH 4 months ago
@theNetworkCH, wars make unemployment charts look better, but they don't solve economic problems.
What DID get the US out of trouble was the immediate & deep cuts to Government spending and borrowing after world war 2 (same as after world war 1 under Harding).
Killing millions of people doesn't bring prosperity, I'm a bit embarassed I have to explain this idea to adults.
LibertyDownUnder 4 months ago
@LibertyDownUnder I just read the wikipedia article on the depression and there is nothing in there to support your story. Just saying ...
theNetworkCH 3 months ago
@theNetworkCH, which part of my story is not supported on Wikipedia, the fact that sending millions of soldiers to war isn't a good thing for the economy?
If you judge the economy based on unemployment charts, well then yes, obviously war is a good thing.
If you measure prosperity based on new homes built, new factories, industries etc that the people actually want - then war is not a good thing.
Here is a 3 minute video summarizing this: /watch?v=SQFhm4s_-Pk
I can send you more if you like
LibertyDownUnder 3 months ago
@LibertyDownUnder Again: The discussion was what brought and end to the depression. You said "What DID get the US out of trouble was the immediate & deep cuts to Government spending and borrowing after world war 2" You still need to document that claim and explain to me why the wikipedia article is wrong.
theNetworkCH 3 months ago
@theNetworkCH, well I don't know how to put it all into a catch phrase, but I'll try.
Before the war, there was mass unemployment due to crippling regulations, import tarriffs and taxes. The war took millions of people out of the labour market - so the unemployment rate 'fell'.
After the war the Government cut spending to the bone, started paying off debts & deregulated big parts of the economy, which brought prosperity, low unemployment and a rising quality of living.
Not sure what I can add.
LibertyDownUnder 3 months ago
@theNetworkCH sorry, you need to bone-up on the data, which shows that the Depression did not end until, at earliest, 1946 - a clue for you - conscripting people into the military, rationing food / clothing / fuel, and cranking-out machinery which destroys life and property is not, nor can it ever be, a formula for prosperity. Wealth is created and grows by producing things people need / want, not by killing millions of people or turning whole cities into rubble. Please discover sound economics.
gergenheimer 3 months ago
@gergenheimer Try to read the wikipedia article. The GDP and Unemployment chart show nothing special around 1946. In fact, if anything, unemployment went up between 46 and 50.
I support you are now going to say that Wikipedia was written by communist, kenyan, islamists?
theNetworkCH 3 months ago
@theNetworkCH Keynesians are the ones who predicted massive unemployment when the war ended, because they don't grasp that mere spending is not what makes an economy "go" - "employing" people to destroy entire nations and kill millions of people, isn't the same as building Oldsmobiles. Interwar employment and GDP figures were based on military conscription and the "growth industry" of destroying life and property. Starting to see the difference, yet?
gergenheimer 3 months ago
@gergenheimer So you are claiming that Keynesians predicted high unemployment following the end of the war because they think that the ecocomy is driven by mere spending (Can you document that?).
In any case, the discussion was not who said what or predicted what, but instead what ended the depression. I (and wikipedia, if you read the article) said the builtup to WWII and WWII itself. You said something about 1946, which you still need to document.
PS. Nobody said war is great
theNetworkCH 3 months ago
@theNetworkCH for evidence of Keynesian predictions, see Paul Samuelson's, “Full Employment after the War" (1943) The U.S. rapidly demobilized troops, phased-out price controls, and brought military production to a halt - according to Samuelson this should have "ushered in the greatest period of unemployment and industrial dislocation which any economy has ever faced." A war economy is a net destroyer of wealth, no matter how many people are stimulated into "employment" in the process.
gergenheimer 3 months ago
Think of the implications. According to the Keynesian paradigm, spending is the engine that drives the economy, because a dollar spent is a dollar of income to a producer, which becomes a dollar of wages to a consumer, and so on. If consumers fail to spend, any arbitrary spending can and should fill the gap. If this is true, we should be able to permanently end unemployment by creating "SpendBots" - automated robots that would go into stores, buy items and then destroy them. See the fallacy yet?
gergenheimer 3 months ago
@gergenheimer
You obviously do not understand. Firstly, I'll straigthen out the how-to's. We should speak of new keynesian economics, by the way, not of keynesian economics.
What they say is that in a RECESSION the government should pursue deficit to fill in the gap or at least a part of the gap created in the demand fall. We're far from spending creates everything dumbly: we're at using it in specific cases and ways.
KrugmanTheKing 2 months ago
@KrugmanTheKing The fact that you qualify new Keynesians as advocating deficit spending only in times of recession doesn't change my salient point at all - this spending is still arbitrary - the "experts" have near-meaningless aggregate "data" (As someone with a background in science, I can tell you that economic aggregates are not remotely scientific) Also the NK position ignores the very real possibility that their own policies created the boom-bust in the first place.
gergenheimer 2 months ago
@gergenheimer
The point is that fiscal austerity will not restore magically confidence, will not allow the markets to re-structure... if new keynesian economists are right, fiscal austerity should be contractionary. And that's what all data so far collected suggests.
Why? Well, I'll help you out a bit. People save money at the bank. Banks take that money and loan it. Some people think if you let prices adjust, the interest rate should ensure investments always clear the money market.
KrugmanTheKing 2 months ago
@gergenheimer
That happens to not be true all the time. You may find yourself into a situation wherein interest rates even near zero wouldn't be low enough for people to borrow all the money there is to borrow. If you know anything in economics, tell me what happens when the price is above the equilibrium? Exactly: surpluses. Is that good? No.
An other thing also happens in those situations: people get fired, massively.
KrugmanTheKing 2 months ago
@KrugmanTheKing You have to ask yourself, what causes interest rates to be pushed to near-zero in the first place? This isn't something that could be arrived-at in free market conditions. The reason you end up in a liquidity trap in the first place is because of sustained monetary stimulus and "pump-priming". In short, it is inevitably true that "all bills eventually come due" A deficit isn't just a monetary number, it's a promise to produce something of value in the future.
gergenheimer 2 months ago
@gergenheimer
Again, this is a surplus. Then the simple minded tells himself that wages are overpriced and if you lower them, it should solve the issue. Hear the buzzer my friend. Not only your wage will face nominal rigidity, but unemployed people don't spend as much. Where will your product go? That's why you don't invest as much: there's no place for your stuff to be sold at.
If you want to understand fiscal expansion, look at the two big surpluses: money in banks and unemployed people.
KrugmanTheKing 2 months ago
@KrugmanTheKing You are looking at a static snapshot - if wages fall generally, it's true that producer costs are reduced, but if consumer spending is reduced by falling wages, there will also be downward pressure on consumer prices - this assumes, of course, that we don't have an army of experts and bureaucrats engaged in price-fixing at all levels of the economy - oh, wait - we have that.
gergenheimer 2 months ago
@KrugmanTheKing The lack of saving and investment we see today, and that we saw in the Great Depression are largely due to what Bob Higgs calls "regime uncertainty". People then and now are reluctant to save and invest because the climate of uncertainty surrounding never-ending government intrusions into the marketplace. Entrepreneurs and investors are unable to calculate risk vs. reward because they don't know what inane policies will be passed tomorrow.
gergenheimer 2 months ago
@gergenheimer
That's what fiscal expansion is meant to do: create a short-term deficit to create investment prospects and improve your long term balance sheet. Or, more simply put, use otherwise unemployed resources.
It's not magical and it can't produce 100% employment. But unless you're a big zero in economics, you understand this can potentially prevent further contraction of the economy.
The other alternative is to try and balance your budget, but we know it doesn't work.
KrugmanTheKing 2 months ago
@KrugmanTheKing "Preventing further contraction" in an economy where resources have been misallocated only serves to kick the can down the road. Credit expansion - whether done by banks, governments or both together - distorts market signals, sewing the seeds for an inevitable boom-bust. Also, because of Cantillon effects, credit expansion results in a net transfer of wealth to the first receivers of the new "money", at the expense of low- and fixed-income earners.
gergenheimer 2 months ago
@gergenheimer
Credit is what allows growth -- it actually constitutes a Pareto improvement upon an absence of it. Do you even know why? Because it allows the money to go from people without project and with money to people with projects, but without money. The resources are more optimally allocated through lending than without lending.
KrugmanTheKing 2 months ago
@KrugmanTheKing credit that comes from real savings CAN promote growth (or it can be wasted), but you are conflating nominal monetary expansion with actual growth. Real savings (i.e deferred consumption) provides both the monetary funds and the physical resources to build capital and thereby ramp-up wealth creation over time. Printing money isn't the same as "extending credit" - that is, debasing the currency isn't a sound substitute for real savings and deferred consumption.
gergenheimer 2 months ago
@KrugmanTheKing It may not be fun, but budgets ultimately must be balanced - why? Because a budget / balance sheet is nothing more than an abstracted monetary expression of "can I provide goods and services of value in exchange for the goods and services I receive?" If NK can't do better than having "borrowing to consume" as one of its primary policy tools, it deserves a place in the dustbin of history.
gergenheimer 2 months ago
@gergenheimer
You see, that's why you do not understand anything about economics: you think it's a matter of balancing the budget. Usually, if you open a business, what do you do? You borrow -- and it's often more than you have. The idea is short-term debt to prevent contraction. That doesn't mean not allowing some businesses to fail; it means literally using resources on behalf of the people: we're speaking of a governmental project.
KrugmanTheKing 2 months ago
@KrugmanTheKing When a business borrows money, it is to increase productivity and create products and services people want (i.e. create wealth) - the ability of the business to pay back the loan comes from the extra wealth they generated. In the case of credit expansion, a promise to pay with goods and services in the future is being made to fund the consumption of goods and services in the present. Do you see the folly and unsustainability of the "borrow-to-consume" paradigm?
gergenheimer 2 months ago
@gergenheimer
By credit I meant lending... I wasn't necessarily thinking about lending for purpose of consumption.
But anyway, you're never inventing money when you run a deficit, private or public. The public debt is ultimately the sum of the assets of some people and/or of other governments. When the government borrows, we hope it's borrowing from its citizen, but it has to borrow from someone, no matter what.
KrugmanTheKing 2 months ago
@KrugmanTheKing The "public debt" of the U.S. is approx. $15 trillion dollars right now ($100+ trillion if you count unfunded liabilities like SS and Medicare) There are no assets backing-up these debts - do you really not understand that they will just create money out of thin air to "pay the bills"? But remember, a debt is just a promise to provide goods and services in the future, printing money can't make debts go away.
gergenheimer 2 months ago
@gergenheimer
By balanced sheet I have in head 0 in total when you consider expenditures and revenues... when I say that you WANT to run a deficit in some cases, I mean that allowing the economy to re-structure will be less efficient in both the short and long term, given that your interest rates may be required to fall bellow zero and that your wages will face short rigidity as well as an overall impossibility to fall low enough given information asymmetry.
KrugmanTheKing 2 months ago
@KrugmanTheKing You must be using a strange definition of "efficiency" - by bailing out failed industries and printing money to paper-over losses, we ensure that those bad investments, price distortions and risks will be continued rather than allowing for a re-alignment of land, labor and capital. How is it "efficient" to re-inflate bubbles like the housing bubble, and encourage production of something we already over-produced?
gergenheimer 2 months ago
@gergenheimer
It doesn't even make sense halfway trying to make a case for not spending. You can't crowd out investors because the fact you're there to spend is that no one wants to borrow; you can't think it'll cost you a lot because you do that after your interest rates have hit the floor; and you can't make the case you'll be better off later by letting billions of working hours unused...
It's as straight forward as raise demand a bit and the private sector will slowly take back its place.
KrugmanTheKing 2 months ago
@KrugmanTheKing So your argument goes "The government can't be crowding-out investors, because, look - there are no investors." Again, you should discover the concept of regime uncertainty - and understand that for the past 10-12 years, the government's ever-increasing intrusions into the market have created a climate of fear, causing capital to flee the U.S. Interest rates are ARTIFICIALLY low because they were pushed there by the inane policies of D.C. and the Fed.
gergenheimer 2 months ago
@gergenheimer
It's not very complicated to see... you do a few graphs and it tells that kind of story; you look at the current situation and it's again that same story it tells.
I really don't know where you got this impression the government was somehow artificially making things grow... no. It takes an underachieving economy and kick it back to more or less where it should be. This doesn't mean putting back all the same businesses, it means getting people back into the system.
KrugmanTheKing 2 months ago
@KrugmanTheKing "This doesn't mean putting back all the same businesses" Really? GM, Chrysler (2 times), Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Amtrak, U.S. postal service . . . shall I go on?
gergenheimer 2 months ago
@KrugmanTheKing Allow me to elaborate - imagine two brothers, each of whom has nothing but a bundle of rope to his name. Each brother wants to borrow five fish from you. Brother 1 plans to sustain himself with the fish while he weaves a fishing net from his rope. The net will allow him to feed himself and generate extra fish to pay back the loan. Brother 2 plans to create a hammock from the rope and lie on the beach eating fish. Which loan is better for society?
gergenheimer 2 months ago
@gergenheimer
If you want to know, they actually think you should be at 0 on an annual basis or running surpluses in between the slumps.
Now, new keynesian economics don't look exactly like what Keynes wrote in especially one aspect: they work on establishing proper microeconomic foundations for their macroeconomic principles. It's from there you get terms such as "market failures" which do exist. One of them is information asymmetry and it's one reason why unemployment will always exist.
KrugmanTheKing 2 months ago
@KrugmanTheKing If NK's claim to recognize the proper economic foundations, such as marginal utility, subjective value, supply and demand, etc. - the only logically-consistent conclusion is that macroeconomics is politically-convenient sophistry. Macro-economists pay lip service to the foundations of microeconomics and then throw them out the window to parrot the hard sciences with complex, but meaningless mathematics.
gergenheimer 2 months ago
@gergenheimer
It's not even a question to ask. The IMF made a point of trying to follow that kind of policy you advocate and if you plan on turning America into the next East Asia kind of thing, go ahead, de-regulate and cut the government down. It created exactly what we would have expected: volatility, instability and crisis after crisis...
I perfectly understand the idea of liberalization and why you think it will work. The problem is that the conditions required do not exist in reality.
KrugmanTheKing 2 months ago
@gergenheimer
Spending for the war effort was fiscal expansion and, YES, cutting the deficit down was exactly what had to be done. Why? Because the markets were ready to fun again.
Secondly, yes, war is expansionary despite the fact that it's a socially negative spending. And yes, you are right: it would have been better and quicker to spend less (and within the US borders) to build factories, homes, etc. That's what Stiglitz said: war was nice, but infrastructure would have been better.
KrugmanTheKing 2 months ago
@gergenheimer
I'd like to also bring down a national myth you probably think occurred: the 1920's were not highly regulated years. People could even buy stocks at credit -- imagine the kind of trouble it could (and did) put us into if the stock crashes because that means people's saving would have been lost, vanished. There were no regulations against that. After that, in 1933, Americans passed a bill to prevent certain types of banks to play casino...
KrugmanTheKing 2 months ago
@gergenheimer
If you even hear Stiglitz or Krugman speak and give them a chance to say two words before you start thinking they're wrong, you'll realize they cite the period of 1939 to 1973 as being precisely the one in which regulations were the most compelling. Until Reagan, markets were fettered -- his administration stripped regulations away.
Don't invent a side dimension: the US was very liberal until the depression, then became much more constrictive, and went back to opening markets.
KrugmanTheKing 2 months ago
@gergenheimer, very true. So simple, yet so far beyond Paul Krugman's understanding.
LibertyDownUnder 3 months ago
The Nobel cachet is slipping
rubbersole79 1 year ago
Krugster's solution to our nation's problems is to fly a jet with a printing press in it over the country and drop $20 bills everywhere.
And he wins a Nobel Prize for this???
casabravo666 1 year ago
Paul Krugman school anyone??? .. naaaa .. all ihe does is tell lies with a straight face ..
kagiso3741 1 year ago
Paul Krugman is in the tank for the left and it's depressing. I'm not sure where, when, or why he cashed in his brain for Nancy Pelosi's hand, but there's no way she can drink water while he talks. Depressing.
majordawg 1 year ago
This guy is not an economist, he is a political hack. He attacks Bush and defends Obama. If anyone had half a brain and knew about health care in the rest of the world they would know that it isn't free. You get taxed up the ying yang and you don't get the same level of service or care. There is no savings in spending money! Get it through your thick skulls!
tuanische 1 year ago
@tuanische So the fact that all available data suggests the rest of the industrialized world has lower prices and most have better healthcare outcomes and drastically higher access to healthcare does not mean anything?
jazzgtrplayer 11 months ago
@jazzgtrplayer Show the data, because the places I have lived and the data that has been used is not the same data. e.g. the U.S. considers a child born with a live birth, so if it dies 30 seconds later it is considered a mortality. Some countries use length of the child, or when the born child was registered. So there are many inconsistent ways they measure. Life Expectancy and $ per patient, and number of doctors can all sound like factors, but there are numerous other items that are excluded.
tuanische 10 months ago
The two major flaws with how health care is supposedly going to save money are not unique to health care legislation but to almost every major bill. The CBO is a great organization put they only rate bills at a 10 yr window so at first the health care bill looks great because it collects taxes for 10 years but only pays out benefits for 6 years. This works for the first 10 yrs but after that it will be 10 yrs in and 10 yrs out which at best will even out...
Darkschuyler 1 year ago
To continue my points the second problem that is particular to the bill is that it is suppose to collect many by taxing "Cadillac" health care plans. This seems like a great idea but the problem is that those Cadillac health care plans belong to union members who are a major contributor to the democratic party and if they allow that to pass it would be political suicide. meaning we will probably see relatively soon a bill to push back when that tax comes into effect.
Darkschuyler 1 year ago
Lastly, This is written not as a democrat or republican but as an economist that doesn't like the politics that are but into the economics of it. These are problems that are apart of our political process and not exclusive to either party.
Darkschuyler 1 year ago
To continue my points the second problem that is particular to the bill is that it is suppose to collect many by taxing "Cadillac" health care plans. This seems like a great idea but the problem is that those Cadillac health care plans belong to union members who are a major contributor to the democratic party and if they allow that to pass it would be political suicide. meaning we will probably see relatively soon a bill to push back when that tax comes into effect.
Darkschuyler 1 year ago
So little truth to everything he said I dont know where to start.
ROBERT195911577 1 year ago
@ROBERT195911577 That is why you won't start. No substance to back-up a shit statement.
FixedNewsChannel 1 year ago 2
Name a single government program that came close to its original cost projection. I'll ever settle for twice its original cost.
Doesnt exist.
Any other questions?
ROBERT195911577 1 year ago
@ROBERT195911577 Yes, the original one. Where are the "lies" here?
FixedNewsChannel 1 year ago 4
Original what?
ROBERT195911577 1 year ago
@FixedNewsChannel See the little abc logo in the corner, that's a hint part of it's lies. All major media is bought and puts the whole left right show on for people when since 911 both are basically the same. The lie here is about the cbo and how they are only allowed to use the figures they're given to compute cost and doesnt check the numbers to see if they're right. Both sides use this. We are in a fascist country by definition, have been for years. we show most of the 14 main signs imho
william0873 1 year ago 2
@william0873 You are a nutjob!
jrwel14 2 months ago
@ROBERT195911577 If the program goes over its initial cost projection it'll be because the Republicans have sabotaged it.
MomSaysImCool 1 year ago
@MomSaysImCool You have no basis for that. Dems have brought us an add'l 6 trillion in debt since 2007
ROBERT195911577 1 year ago
@ROBERT195911577 Yeah, but the Dems have done nothing but cave in to the Republicans. Public option? Not a chance. Medicare buy-in? Fat chance. In fact, the corporate puppet show that is the Republican Party (and 1/2 of the Democratic Party) have cut all similar cost-CONTAINING provisions.
You can blame the Democrats, but only to the extent that they're too bought or afraid to punch the Reps in the face.
MomSaysImCool 1 year ago
@MomSaysImCool Name a single federal program other than The Panama Canal that came anywhere near its original projected cost.
You are over your head here and the punch lines you have repeated here from wherever you have found them are without any basis in fact or history.
Give it a rest.
I won't respond to any future posting from you.
ROBERT195911577 1 year ago
@ROBERT195911577 Because the current healthcare system is saving us more money? Even if healthcare reform comes in at twice the price, it would save us versus using a system whose prices are rising so quickly it will soon either bring down our economy or make it impossible for anyone but the elite to have access to healthcare.
jazzgtrplayer 11 months ago
@jazzgtrplayer No. Because once you go beyond preventing abuse and criminal behavior, you create false incentives. I watched government regulation destroy a very vibrant health insurence market in the late 70's and early 80's. There were a wide variety of insurance products for every budget. Union and political pressure caused certain bills to pass. Before they did, there were over 45 companies writing medical ins. in NY. Now there are 3 or 4. Unions refuse to pay for their benefits.
ROBERT195911577 11 months ago
She lived and I filed bankruptcy over 30K in uncovered procedures and meds. We both worked in healthcare for > 22 years and she was let go by the hospital she worked at while on FMLA. Before that I probably would have not been for Health reform, but I am now !!!! I know many stories similar. I left the Republican party for the democrats, as it became clear to many who is sucking big business balls the most - GOP/FOX
Also our insurance premiums 10 years ago was $180 for family, now it is $380.
clevy911 1 year ago
People that have insurance, nothing will change except now you cant lose you policy if you get sick, you wont be denied for pre-existing conditions, and you can take the insurance policy with you if you change jobs. While the influx of new people should lower the premiums, it wont because they are greedy bastards. Id' tell you what up for the uninsured, but I know you rightys dont give a flying fuck. My wife had cancer, too sick to work, "eliminated" her job, lost the insurance, cobra $1200/mon
clevy911 1 year ago
It will INCREASE the deficite
XXTHE12THMANXX 1 year ago
There is always a "but" in all the talk this administration does. This clown is a moron to think the government has a great plan going. Its all new taxes, "Don't cut benefits" and "raise taxes" thats all this administration does. In less than a year you will see tax revolts.
maximouni 1 year ago
New Health Care Polls from USA Today:
"Nearly two-thirds of Americans say the health care overhaul signed into law last week costs too much and expands the government's role in health care too far, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, underscoring an uphill selling job ahead for President Obama and congressional Democrats."
Also
53% call the way it was passed an "abuse of power"
50% say it will drive up their hc costs, 21% say it won't.
"Health Care Law Too Costly, Most Say" 3/29/10
RuflessRecords 1 year ago
@RuflessRecords Shows how little most Americans know, huh?
marcomariaz26 1 year ago
Not much schooling going on here.
But, let's make a deal...if this govt program ends up running a huge deficit every year like every other govt program ever has always done, all you liberals will shut up, rescind the entire welfare state, and move to Massachusetts? Deal?
Let's make a wager on the outcome of whether or not this new bloated govt program stays within budget, if you lose, the whole welfare state is gone, the taxes paying for them are returned to the people and theyrun charity
RuflessRecords 1 year ago
@RuflessRecords massachusetts? why not the dirtiest part of L.A.
freakfiend32 1 year ago
@RuflessRecords
If it ends up running a huge deficit, etc., then raise taxes on the rich. I don't care how much it costs, it's the moral thing to do.
Skydancer365 1 year ago
@Lighthouse724 What don't you understand? Do something research! Look at what Medicare was projected to cost in it's first year and what is ACTUALLY cost!
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
Krugman is coming across a a Marxist who supports Central Economic Planning...look it up...
midwestcharm 1 year ago
This is why the nobel prize fails, its highly political.
jobrien2001 1 year ago
Paul has a Nobel prize for being the stupidest person on earth.
micsc50 1 year ago
@micsc50 and you know more about economics than Krugman? Who do we trust, you, who insults a person who is knoweldgeable and highly educated or a PhD world renowned expert......
lisabob22 1 year ago
you sound jealous, you just knew you had "stupidest person on earth" locked up didnt you... you sir, are a loser... go back to your clan rally dicksmoker
paclives692002 1 year ago
A progressive is a cowardly piece of scum.
jsruss1961 1 year ago
I am amazed and highly entertained of how many of the commentators haves the balls to think they are way smarter than a nobel price winner... Funny stuff!
crazyological 1 year ago
@crazyological Barrack Obama won his Nobel Peace Prize while expanding the war in Afghanistan. Does anyone still believe that a Nobel prize means anything? Krugman is silly, nervous little cheerleader for the fools who are running the formerly great US economy into the ground and nothing more.
beebaabaa 1 year ago
hey beedipshit, the economy hasnt been great since Clinton was president. if the nobel didnt mean anything they would hand 'em out to scum like you, wheres yours? oh thats right, you dont do shit to help anything, you just sit back and whine like a bitch... go back to your clan rally you republican homo
paclives692002 1 year ago
cheering on the people who ran the economy into the ground? I don't recall Krugman cheering on the Bush administration economic policies... and if you meant Obama (I know you did), he's been very critical of just about everything he's done
trtnec 1 year ago
in addition to that, people need to have some realistic expectations, the economy did not tank overnight, it's been on the decline for at least ten years, don't expect to have Obama fix it in one year.
jtonyd 1 year ago
@crazyological Just b/c he won a (very liberal) price about something to do with trade in international markets doesn't mean everything he says is smart, as is clearly evident after listening to him speak for 2 minutes.
Sivels 1 year ago 2
Actually, Krugman did see what the stimulus would do. More lies made up by right wingnuts
girardbcp 1 year ago
Krugman is nothing more than a cheerleader for the idiots who are currently running the US economy into the ground. Krugman is horribly wrong about everything he says.
beebaabaa 1 year ago
@beebaabaa what proof do we have of that? none
lisabob22 1 year ago
whine whine whine, you have no answers, just crying like a bitch... what can fix it then mr. smartass? thats what i thought, you dont know shit...your a dumbass who probly didnt even finish high school LMAO
paclives692002 1 year ago
average people only get their information from cable news. it's crazy that people don't trust experts anymore. Maybe it's because most of them are partisan which makes it hard to tell fact from fiction. But if people just look at the items in the bill, themselves, they will see it's middle of the road. It would be a bill that a Libertarian and a Liberal would come up with. Not to say it's perfect, because neither side has all the best ideas, but it stays true to our capitalist system
Venue0309 1 year ago
krugman is a total moron.
he didn't see the .dot com bubble coming
he didn't see the sub prime bubble coming
his prediction on the stimulus didn't materialize
he's a hack
a total f'n hack
go to mises(.)org if you want real information from real economists.
suedeslounge 1 year ago 2
apparently Mr. Krugman knows nothing of history, because the actual cost of government programs always exceed the estimates.
opie314 1 year ago
Krugman is a partisan idiot. He's intelligent, but that doesn't mean his viewpoints are believable. Clearly he's going to be on the wrong side of history.
jwinter228 1 year ago
Krugman Schools? Did the person that posted this vidoe actually watch it? This nervous little fellow actually thinks things are going to be BETTER than the CBO estimated? lol
gtkpaladin 1 year ago
Henry Waxman, Chair of the House Committee on Energy & Commerce. Sent a letter demanding AT&T & other companies who've publicly disclosed the fiscal repercussions of Ohealth care, appear before the committee & bring their analysis of the fiscal impact, & any documents including emails & messages reviewed by their senior officials that support their claim of increased operating costs.
Result of disclosure =Ordered to appear before Congress starting April 21st to prove their claims.
LetTheSCRebelsYell 1 year ago
@LetTheSCRebelsYell But dont you think that those companies should report any big changes like that immediately?
joepglass 1 year ago
@joepglass
Absolutely!
They did NOTHING wrong. Big companies make announcements like this all the time. WITHOUT being called before Congress & pretty much liars!
Waxman stated, such news causes them "Concern"
Reid & Pelosi got a letter last Dec. from Deere & others( Hubby's employer, Verizon). It said the health care reform then under consideration would negatively impact both retirees & companies. The American Benefits Council & Union warned them as well.
Nobody was listening.
LetTheSCRebelsYell 1 year ago
@LetTheSCRebelsYell Good points. What do you think of the bill?
joepglass 1 year ago
I've been reading Paul Krugman's articles for over a decade. In 2005 he started warning of the housing bubble, in 2006 and 2007, the derivatives and credit default swaps on Wall Street. His warnings have all been justified. When he says this health care reform will save money, I have a tendency to believe him. He has his liberal bent, but when it comes to economic assessment, he's all geek. Economics is a science, and Krugman's one of the best.
julsHz 1 year ago
Just look at the history of Medicare. They have never gotten the costs right yet!
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Krugman is a political hack. He has been caught publishing completely contradictory statements in his column - depending upon who is President. If taking one position and spewing his mindless drivel made Bush look bad, he wrote the mindless drivel. If stating a 180-degree contradictory view helps to make Obama look good, he'll go ahead and change his mind 2 years later. He's a parasite and a scumbag.
RomeoMD25 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Krugman, Gore, IPCC, ... Nobel has morphed into a fraud machine.
RomeoMD25 1 year ago
Yeah, just give national defense completely to private contractors.
My gosh, these notion that government is always wrong is just hilarious
MrFluxcompensator 1 year ago
should be obvious from the part where he says "rework the calculus"
yamaha893 1 year ago 2
obama, gore and kissinger won the nobel prize as well.
google krugman in the news this past week, so many economists disagree with him.
RevolutionNewz 1 year ago
They still burn books in Mississippi don't they? Haley Barbour? Get the fuck outta here.
dizzymasekela 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this guy is an idiot, does anyone really think the gov. is capable of running something more efficiant, from past expiriences the gov screws us. America is done for, Bush dug the hole, and obama is filling it in.
roaddog0111 1 year ago
if the government is so horrible and hopless, why are u still living here?
ZKoftherebellion 1 year ago 10
@ZKoftherebellion its my home, there is no other place in the world i would want to live, even though i dont believe in the way our gov. runs things. things will get a lot worse financially because of gov intervention.
roaddog0111 1 year ago
ever heard of free speech?
why don't YOU leave if you have a problem with people voicing their opinions?
sure, the govt is corrupt... don't dissent, just leave!
what a joke!
RevolutionNewz 1 year ago
@roaddog0111 please move to a country where the government is capable of running things. Adios.
integral 1 year ago
@integral which is?
roaddog0111 1 year ago
@roaddog0111 in canada i live off OHIP it's pretty sweet trust me consider it
alanshanelewis 1 year ago
@alanshanelewis I wouldnt mind considering this bill without the mandate, and if the country was financially stable. No one every really talks about how the other gov programs have cost way to much and will eventually bankrupt this country. Schumer said this morning that this bill willl keep medicare alive for five more years before it goes bankrupt by 2017 not very encouraging. I will always keep an open mind about health reform ideas but have to take into account our financial stability.
roaddog0111 1 year ago
@roaddog0111
the gov runs school, police dept, fire department, and other things. why cant they offer a healthcare insurance plan?
dpo5000 1 year ago
@dpo5000 the fed gov doesnt run schools, pd, or firedpt. Also the gov is not in the health insurance business. Why would you trust the gov enough to do this when there is plenty of evidence they are incapable.
roaddog0111 1 year ago
@dpo5000 I just can't understand why so many dopes keep saying this. The Federal Government does not run local schools, police, and or fire depts. The town runs the schools, police and fire through property taxes. But that not to say that the Federal Government is not trying to step in. Now they are the only lender for school loans. No child left Behind. If the states wanted to offer health care to its people, they can vote on it state by state.
mickeysears 1 year ago
Americans put these people into office. Do you see the rest of the developed world running governments as shitty as ours?
Accept responsibility for your shitty country you fat fucking American cow.
sdlvx 1 year ago
@sdlvx definately sound like a typical lib. And yes on question one, i take responsibility for myself, but america is still the greatest country to live in despite what you think BITCH.
roaddog0111 1 year ago
@roaddog0111 lol
petieee 1 year ago
@roaddog0111
what is the gov't running? private insurance gets the lion's share. LOL
KataVideo 1 year ago
@KataVideo medicare, social security, post office which all are in financial disaster. your right, the Gov def. made sure to take care of the big bad insurance company. Millions of new insurers thanks.
roaddog0111 1 year ago
@roaddog0111 you conservatards have been claiming medicare, social security and the post office (which is ben franklin's idea.. why do you hate ben franklin?) are under the falling sky for DECADES. shift some money from the fucking pentagon and everything is better.
KataVideo 1 year ago 2
@KataVideo dont group me in with anyone, conservatives arent the only ones that know thos programs are financial disasters, even obama said it at a town hall meeting about the post office. I dont care if george washington started the post office its still a financial disaster that serves as a good example why gov. is bad at running things.
roaddog0111 1 year ago
@roaddog0111
He's an idiot? How many Nobel Peace Prizes in economics do you have?
itsmidge 1 year ago
@itsmidge how many nobel peace prizes does it take, to realize that gov. run anything is a joke.
roaddog0111 1 year ago
@roaddog0111
Govt does work, although some administrations make bad policy. Bush admin policy was anywhere from absurd to surreal.
Obama's policies are working (and I did not vote for him). The stimulus is working, net job losses are in the low 4 digits per month recently whereas they were approaching 1 million per month at the end of Bush. The CBO says that the deficit will be down around $500 Million by 2013, down from over $1 Trillion.
It's working so far.
lynchmobb2000 1 year ago
@lynchmobb2000 obamas policy have done little to nothing except spend more money. Everything you listed is highly debateable. I think everyone is afraid of having to face hardships to make things right, so just let the gov. take care of us until they fail.
roaddog0111 1 year ago
@roaddog0111 - So let me get this straight...you're calling a man who holds a Nobel Prize in economics an "idiot"? Interesting.
ebruceii 1 year ago
@ebruceii hes not an idiot for having a nobel peace prize, hes an idiot for believing the gov. is capable of doing this.
roaddog0111 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@roaddog0111 - His point of view on govt hardly makes him an idiot. While it pains me slightly to say it, our govt isn't terrible at *everything* it does. Take a look at the thousands of thing that are "socialized" in this country, and then travel the world to see just how "bad" we have it here. Get my drift?
ebruceii 1 year ago
@roaddog0111 Yeah. An idiot. With a NOBEL PRIZE in economics.
egl204 1 year ago
A nobel price winner in economics kind of idiot, what does he know about economy ? I am sure that you know better.
brighteye007 1 year ago
@brighteye007 I am not claiming to know more about the economy than this guy, just that the us gov. is not good at what they do, and this guy is an idiot for believing they are going to be abl to actually come through for america.
roaddog0111 1 year ago
@roaddog0111 The government run Medicare which happens to be the MOST EFFICIENT HEALTHCARE SYSTEM in the U.S. in terms of the percentage of money taken in versus the amount paid out in actual benefits. If private insurance companies could even approach the efficiency of Medicare then premiums would be much more affordable.
kaysandesses 1 year ago
@kaysandesses yea, maybe, but it still doesnt excuse the fact that its going broke, The government run Medicare which happens to be the MOST EFFICIENT HEALTHCARE SYSTEM in the U.S. in terms of the percentage of money taken in versus the amount paid out in actual benefits. doesnt this mean it spends more money than takes in? It has to, why else will it be bankrupt in a few years
roaddog0111 1 year ago
@roaddog0111 "doesnt this mean it spends more money than takes in?"
It's actually two different but related issues. Yes, Medicare is underfunded, but it is still pays out 97% of what it receives in actual healthcare dollars. The closest any private insurer can muster is about 82%, and some (the most profitable ones) are less than 50%. The greatest problem with Medicare is unneeded procedures or tests. The health care bill will fix much of that.
kaysandesses 1 year ago
@kaysandesses ok, but why is it still going bankrupt? despite how great it is, it is still going to fail, chuck schumer stated that " this bill will keep medicare around for five more years and it wil be bankrupt by 2017 or 2019" sunday morning.
roaddog0111 1 year ago
@roaddog0111 Did you actually read my reply? I spelled it all out there.
kaysandesses 1 year ago
@kaysandesses I dont think you could "spell out" the whole process of paying for this or cutting costs in on paragraph. If thats all you need to know to think this will work there is little hope for you. Also if medicare is underfunded how are they going to cut 500 billion from it?
roaddog0111 1 year ago
Paul Krugman has a Nobel prize in Economics. When you have one, or at least high-school education, you are allowed to criticize him.
Pseudologic 1 year ago
@Pseudologic so if i dont have a nobel prize i cant disagree or criticize him. the Nobel prize is a joke, just like your argument. I have a bach. of comp. science degree. DICK
roaddog0111 1 year ago
Oh you can disagree in much the same way a 4 year old will disagree with his parents that vitamins are good for him.
Pseudologic 1 year ago
The problem with Krugmans comments are facts are irrelevant to the right wing.
sidplicity 1 year ago 33
@sidplicity Only the mindless fringe. Most of the real humans on the right are fact based and to lump them together like this makes you no better than the reicher's who call out "libtard" or "moonbat". I try to treat sincere but misinformed friends on the right with respect and honesty and in doing so I managed to get quite a few votes for Obama. As to the flaming rightists? Heap the scorn on with a snow shovel.
MrTearsintherain 1 year ago
When during the past 14 months can you point a finger to an instance that the right has dealt with facts?
sidplicity 1 year ago 13