Morgenthal didn't support the New Deal, but did support the disastrous tax increases that led to the second downturn of the 1930's. The deficit was NOT the problem in the 1930's--- and it certainly was not helped by inducing a recession. This is a point present day austerity advocates consistently fail to address: how do you solve a deficit problem when you destroy a country's ability to pay off its debt?
George Will is a blogger and lightweight "intellectual" with no internationally acclaimed academic contributions. Like any fundamentalist his preachings are merely intended for consumption by an ignorant domestic public of acolytes and he lacks all credibility outside of the bubble.
Paul Krugman is a nobel laureate in economics and an intellectual heavyweight. Regardless if one agrees with him or not.
George Will is what my dad used to call an educated idiot.He makes an argument based on HIS assumptions without offering one single fact to back them up. IE: 16,000 new IRS employees? Based on what estimation? Millions will go on Medicade? Medicade is actually hard to qualify for, you have to be really, really poor to get it. Give me a break and stop talking through your hat George! Here's an idea, go do what Paul did and study economics and how it applies to the real world and read his book!
@Bullettube No, George Will is completely correct and his numbers come from...the GAO!!!! Your whole post boils down to YOUR assumptions and bias. Will decimates Krugman and Obamacare, uses facts and figures to back up his point, and it pisses you off. So you then attack him. Nice, exactly the DNC strategy. Obama's campaign already admits they can't run on his terrible record so their complete strategy is a negative, attack campaign...with a billion dollars stolen from taxpayers.
@svvmichael1 The fact is, the US pays twice as much per capita for a medical system that serves it's people far worse than the rest of the first world countries. We need to be listening to the rest of the world and not preaching in this area.
@sfjeff1089 Our medical system is by far the best in the world in terms of quality. So in what way does it serve its people worse? People need to take responsibility for themselves and not look for handouts. The best ways to cut costs, though, is blocked by leftists. Tort reform and getting gov't out of healthcare would drop costs 20-30% immediatelty.
@svvmichael1 Google "us quality of health care" and read any of the top 5 links.
One example: "The report notes that while the U.S. spends more than twice as much on each person compared with most other industrialized nations, we're in last place when it comes to preventing deaths through appropriate medical care. Meanwhile, access to care has gotten worse since the group's first report card in 2006, the report concludes.
@sfjeff1089 That report is wrong. Every other study finds that US healthcare is the most technologically advanced in the world, and that people who live in "free" healthcare countries come here for advanced treatment. If the gov't was out of healthcare entirely we'd pay 30% less immediately FACT.
@svvmichael1 what report. I just googled and picked a link at random. You are probably right that the US health system is better if you are in the top 1%, but so what? It might surprise you to learn that 99% of us are *not* in the top 1%.
I don't consider the fact that we have the most effective health care system for our rich yet the vast majority of people with treatable diseases are much better off in Europe anything to brag about.
@svvmichael1 what report. I just googled and picked a link at random. You are probably right that the US health system is better if you are in the top 1%, but so what? It might surprise you to learn that 99% of us are *not* in the top 1%.
I don't consider the fact that we have the most effective health care system for our rich yet the vast majority of people with treatable diseases are much better off in Europe anything to brag about.
@svvmichael1 what report?? I just googled and picked a link at random. You are probably right that the US health system is better if you are in the top 1%, but so what? It might surprise you to learn that 99% of us are *not* in the top 1%.
I don't consider the fact that we have the most effective health care system for our rich yet the vast majority of people with treatable diseases are much better off in Europe anything to brag about.
@svvmichael1 what report?? I just googled and picked a link at random. You are probably right that the US health system is better if you are in the top 1%, but so what? It might surprise you to learn that 99% of us are not in the top 1%.
I don't consider the fact that we have the most effective health care system for our rich yet the vast majority of people with treatable diseases are much better off in Europe anything to brag about.
@sfjeff1089 That is false. Everyone in the US can get insurance. I pay $4000 a year for a family of 5, that is affordable. California has a program where low-income people can get insurance for children for $2/month, yet most don't buy it and are a burden on medicaid. We don't force people to be responsible. If you don't plan, screw you, it isn't everyone else's responsibility to support you because you are selfish.
@svvmichael1 There are two separate issues here. One issue is whether people are better off and the other issue is, whose fault it is. If there are two systems and people use one effectively but not the other, then you can make an objective decision about which system is better even if you can also correctly place blame on people not using their system correctly. Decision making on the part of consumers and producers of public services are separate and have to be analyzed separately.
@sfjeff1089 This country was built on small government, low taxes, few regulations, personal freedom, and personal responsibility. Those things created the greatest economy in the history of the world, and the greatest lifestyle. Unfortunately leftisits felt the USSR model was better, and decided to make the masses dumber, and enslave them under massive governemnt. They told them they weren't responsible for any of their failings. Now we have people who just want hand outs.
@svvmichael1 This country was also built on slave labor, harsh working conditions, etc. Back then we spent a much bigger amount of time in recession. In 1868 or so, a 40 hour work week law was passed. It only applied to a minority of workers, but it did some good. With the expansion of the work force this required, growth was fast the next thirty years or so. Enter the fed, but there was still a gold standard and Warren Harding returned to laissez faire (cont.)
@sfjeff1089 the roaring 20s actually saw the real economy shrink while the asset bubbles formed, just like the last 30 years. This is the only possible result of the money supply of the bottom 95% shrinking while the money supply in the hands of the top 5% explodes. The great depression occurred when the financial bubbles popped and we couldn't increase money velocity fast enough. Of course, rapid monetary expansion would not have been necessary if the real economy were still intact.
@sfjeff1089 (cont 2) The great depression did not end because it had run it's course, because labor actually follows inelastic, rather than elastic laws of supply and demand meaning when the price is down supply increases rather than decreasing, and the problem accelerates. The great depression ended because we realized that new economic activity requires both makers and buyers and made sure buying was possible. 1933-1942 was by far the fastest growth period of the last century.
@sfjeff1089 Wow, everything you posted is WRONG. We've always had free-market trends toward helping workers. The reason is simple, a happy work-force works better. And by increasing the flow of money it allows more consumption of businesses products. That is why gov't intervention has always caused recessions. The period of 1922-1929 was the fastest economic growth of the first half-century. 1933-1942 saw an explosion of debt, unconstitutional programs, and escalating unemployment...
@svvmichael1 Re. 1922-1929 vs 1933-1942. That is a myth put out by people that don't want another New Deal. The following graph compares 1933-1942 vs 1980-2010 debt vs GDP. You can see that New Deal debt was flat with GDP until we hit the WWII build-up, whereas Reagan's period, after he implemented many of the same policies Warren Harding put into place 1922-1929, had a massive explosion of debt compared with GDP.
@sfjeff1089 ...FDR tried many ways to get into WWII so he could start a wartime expansion. Joseph Kennedy tried to convince him to go in on the side of Germany because he hated the british. From 1941-1945 the economy finally recovered from the terrible New Deal depression solely because of wartime debt spending. You just continue to lie,lie,lie like every leftist. Every study proves that total taxes (fed,state,local,ALL) that are between 12-16% of GDP create more revenue...
@svvmichael1 Not true. The Growth spike at the end of the 1937 recession started 3 years before the WWII debt spike of 1942. It is true that they were aware of the war over these years and would have increased war spending, but obviously not too much because debt to GDP was flat until 1942. You can see this clearly in my previous graphs. I think he might have gotten into WWII to stop Germany and Japan. Please tell me what studies. And by all means if I am lying, find a way to prove it.
@sfjeff1089 WRONG. 1922-1929 saw 45% GDP increase and 5-6% unemployment. 1934-1941 saw 32% GDP increase (and defense spending grew massively starting in late 1939) with 12-17% unemployment. Friedman, Hayek, Schiff, etc have all proven that the New Deal DEEPENED the depression by a factor of 2.5 to 3 times and lengthened it by at least 3 years. You need to learn economics and history. FDR not only looked into getting into the war on GERMANY's side, but he had 3 days warning...
@svvmichael1 Re: FDR, JFK. I am not sure what you are referring to, but I think it is a distraction. If this interests you, though, you should look into Prescott Bush, Allen Dulles, etc. We owe a lot to Smedley Butler.
@sfjeff1089 ...about Pearl Harbor and let all those U.S. servicemen die so he could have his "day that will live in infamy" and allow him to enter the war. FDR's Sec of the Treasury (William Woodin)said later that they knew the depression would deepen again, probably worse than ever, if they couldn't enter the war and have an excuse for HUGE deficit spending on defense. Did we need to fight it? Yes, but that was the ONLY thing that saved FDR from being outed as a charlatan...
@svvmichael1 Re: WWII solving the great depression. You are welcome to provide evidense. I have provided mine and it says we had over 30% growth in the 3 years before we entered the war.
Here is another graph from wikipedia. It says GDP increased from about 570 in 1922 to about 830 at the 1929 peak. From 1933 - 1940, it went from around 600 to 980. Numbers are in Billions of 1999 dollars. Keep in mind, 1920s had a lot of fake asset money growth.
@sfjeff1089 1939 to 1942 were WAR YEARS. We ramped up defense production starting in July/Aug 1939. BTW, Wikipedia is the resource for lazy, stupid people. Anyone can post/change a wikipedia entry. I use gov't sites, and scholarly sites. You can even google them. Plus the 20s had almost NO fake asset growth. That wouldn't even count in GDP which measures consumption, investment, and gov't spending. You lose again.
Are you saying you never heard of the bucket shops or all the fly-by-night real estate companies in the 20's? You have yet to show a single iota of proof of your position.
No, our big debt jump was in 1942 - 1945, NOT in 1939. Was war spending 0 in 1939? Of course not. But it was small enough to not push the debt up significantly.
@sfjeff1089 I proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are wrong and I am right. "New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America" more proof. Even more " FDR's programs didn't succeed in pushing unemployment below 20 percent." You can google these articles and see mountains of graphs. The growth of '22-'29 far surpasses '34-'41 and has 1/3 the unemployment and 58% of the taxes. Taxes are theft, and anyone advocating high taxes is a lazy, jealous loser.
@sfjeff1089 BTW, isn't it funny you won't talk about FDR's SecTreasury Morgenthau who said "I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. ... And an enormous debt to boot." ABOUT HIS OWN PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Did you know that FDR allowed hundreds of people to die building Hoover Dam just so he'd have a monument to his failed socialist policies?
Morgenthal was the leading advocate for the tax increases that produced the recession of 1937. His goal was to balance the budget instead of growing the economy (sound familiar?).
Also, beware of some of the bogus unemployment stats (Amity Shlaes) regarding the Depression. Historian Eric Rauchway has a good post on that on his The Edge of the American West blog (Nov 6, 2008 post).
@lumpinwomper Morganthal DIDN'T support the New Deal, and was against the massive crippling debt it put on the economy. The New Deal is the reason non-farm unemployment NEVER fell below 20%. If they had let the free market alone the depression would've been over in '34, instead crippling taxes, massive spending, and crushing debt on top of destructive regulations kept the economy in the toilet. Friedman has proven it so.
@sfjeff1089 ...and his own SecTreasury admitted it. And The SecTreasury who said it was Henry Morgenthau (I mistyped in previous post). Morgenthau wrote a couple books about how bad the New Deal actually was.
@sfjeff1089 Morgenthau fought several of FDR idiotic spending programs tooth and nail and strove to balance the budget saying "cutting spending will revive the economy". FDR's own SecTreasury. OOPS. JFK reduced taxes GDP grew, Reagan reduced taxes GDP grew, Newt Gingrich forced tax cuts in '97,'98, and '99 and GDP grew. Heck, the GWB tax cuts caused big GDP growth. The problem in ALL but the Gingrich cuts was the Congress continued to spend like drunk sailors. LEARN.
@sfjeff1089 ...than higher taxes do. They also allow GDP growth of 3.5%-7.5% growth. Reagan had 7.4% growth because of tax cuts that freed the economy. Only an idiot believes high taxes, massive regualtion, and high gov't spending is good for the economy. ALL EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE PROVES YOU WRONG. Now go learn.
Here is a graph of GDP growth per capita on a log scale. It is straight from the world bank, so I don't see how you can argue with it. It shows that growth slowed dramatically starting in 1980:
Remove the space from: bit .ly/sS0Tib
We have not had a single year of 5% GDP growth rate since 1980. Before 1980 they were common. 1938-1942 we had 4 years that averaged about 13%.
Let's see. George Will, a character with a Ph.D. in Political Science, and a standard Conservative blovator, thinks that he is qualified to comment on the Nobel Prize Committee's choice on a matter in ECONOMICS. Since when is a Ph.D. in Political Science anything more than a testament to the fact that you can kiss the asses of a Ph.D. committee? George Will knows about as much Economics as Rush Limbaugh, the college flunkout---nothing, nothing and more nothing.
Krugman is neither a fool nor an idiot. They don't give Nobel Prizes to idiots. He does to live her because he works to solve problems created by conservative nutjobs. Will isn't as bright as people think, but there are plenty of pinheads that fall for Will. Got it nutjob/pinhead?
George Will was a speechwriter for Reagan at the same time he was a political commentator for ABC News, which means George Will was commenting on content written by George Will but said by Reagan. Does anyone think he was negative? Does anyone think he was objective?
Does anyone think corporate media like ABC, NBC (co owned by weapons profiteer GE), Fox, CBS or even PBS (which takes corporate money) should be trusted with telling us the truth?
Krugman is a leftist shill, twitchy little bastard says 'we know it can be worked' ...yea 0:58 thats why he twitched like he was slapped when he realized the plan to hire IRS agents and track down common workers for $1500 will be a force of 16,000 black clothed agents. I think I like things the way they are now and the crackheads & alcoholics can stop smoking crack / drinking and buy insurance.
I am not surprised George Will lecturing Krugman on economy. By the way, this guy Krugman is all books and all theory . Policy making based on judgement of a guy with only academic background is a huge mistake.
@xoxak888 The guy is a brilliant trade theorist. I find it appalling when a person who doesn't know what a general equilibrium model talks badly about the ideas of a man who wins a Nobel Prize in my field. It would be like if I talked down to Marie Curie about radiation. I'd be the fool, not her.
When it comes to economics George Will us clueless. He has a kind of sentimental conservative mind pining for the Edmund Burke's lost empire. He's full of colorful quotes of historical figures, but he does not have a quantitative mind. There is very little disagreement among actual economists about the general outlines of a sustainable health insurance policy. George Will needs to leave the 19th century behind.
@time903 Damn! You summed up Will very well in your post. I read his column from time to time because he writes well, and I must give him that, but I concur wholeheartedly with your summation.
The selection process for the Nobel prize in Economics (and Physics, Medicine, Literature, etc) is vastly different from that of the Peace prize. The economics prize nominees are nominated by people in their own field, economists in this case, and these submissions for nomination are then screened by a committee of individuals in the said field. The Peace prize is open to those working in politics and/or social issues. So, no, Obama's Peace prize doesn't delegitimize anything.
Comparing Economics to other fields of medicine is unfair as well. A Code of Ethics has JUST been drafted in response to the attack that "Inside Job" makes concerning conflicts of interest and overall douchebaggery.
What? I wasn't comparing economics to medicine and neither is the Nobel prize committee. I was merely pointing out that the selection process of the economics prize, like that of medicine, physics, etc, is much more detailed vis a vis the peace prize selection process. As for the rest of your comment, I have to say I don't understand what you're saying.
@SteelCityEcologist As one goes down the through the Nobel catagories, there are levels of politics that play a part on who is nominated and who wins. Peace prize is at the top. But I wanted to point out that the Econ prize, while being more legitimate, is not all-important.. Bottom line: I think the Economic community is rife with corruption and political number-bending, so I look sideways at the guys at the top i.e. Nobel Prize winners.
I don't disagree with your sentiments about the economics "community". In fact, I propose we begin calling it the "dismal science" once again. As for your thoughts on the "politics" of each prize, I think now you're referring an epistemological problem with the process, which I can't corroborate, but which I'm inclined to not think of as accurate. Back to the topic, though, I still don't have reason to believe Obama's peace prize delegitimizes all other Nobel prizes given.
Paul Krugman makes a thoughtful comment based on his study of the healthcare legislation and the best George Will can come up with is a scare comment about the IRS which is specious at best. The IRS is there to enforce the law of the land and that's all they do.
@dsgregg Ooh...that was a real zinger! Krugman is both a fool and an idiot. He really doesn't belong living in the U.S. because he is a socialist. He can't hold a candle to Will because his thought processes are so irrational and illogical.
Krugman is an ideological hack, which is probably why, like Obama, he received a Nobel prize. It's no wonder liberals are against spanking! Nobody likes to get spanked like that--especially in public! Thank you George Will. That was truly entertaining.
@newenlightenmentow How are we getting out of the credit crisis? Not from Keynesian economics. We have spent over a trillion dollars in stimuli and it still continues.
@newenlightenmentow "Non-degree having George Will"? Wow. He is a Rhodes Scholar with a doctorate from Princeton. How did we get out of the Great Depression? Not from Keynesian economics. It was the start of WWII. Even Keynes confided in Hayek that he was rethinking his theories. Unfortunately, Keynes died soon after that discussion. If Keynes theories of economic stimuli worked, we would never have had a great depression as Hoover and Roosevelt each doubled the federal budget.
How about showing the whole conversation. You know the Krugman's rebuttel instead of just fawning over your piece of shit, non-degree having George Will. I've been reading Will's column for about 10 years now and his predictions have NEVER been correct.
Krugman clings to Keynesian economics even though it's never worked. He is a media darling & Nobel Laureate because he is so liberal. Nobel committee members stated the voted for him because he is anti-Bush. He constantly interrupts people, as in this video, to press his point. A more rational person should be featured on Thid
@odinswald Oh is that a fact? Do you even know what he received the award for? His research was on trade policy. Particularly using tarrifs to protect strategic industries, such as japan's auto industry. He used evidence, you know, facts, to demonstrate his claims. Keynsian economics didn't work? Hmm, then how did we get out of the depression? How is it that we're getting our of the credit crisis which your neo-con crony capitalists caused?
If you didn't understand the english language, you could still see how Will owns Krugman. Look at the body language. Krugman looks like a kid whose just been told there is no Santa Claus......almost panic stricken.
@rubbersole79 Hmm, that's not what I saw. In fact I saw the entire interview, not just the edited propaganda that you contards watch to make yourselves feel good.
@leftwingersareweak Oh really? Where is George Will's nobel prize? Where is it? Krugman's research has been peer reviewed. That is checked for flaws in research and to see if the evidence supports the conclusions. It's been cited many times, hence why he was given the prise. When has a contard like yourself or will received the prize? Never because you pull your ideas straight from your own asses!
@Newenlightenmentnow " Krugman's research has been peer reviewed. " Yea, Peer Reviewed by Liberals and Progressives and guess what, Liberals and Progressives agree with Krugman. Conservatives don't want Liberal or Progressive " Prizes ". Getting a degree from a Liberal or Progressive school or receiving a prize from a Liberal or Progressive institution just means you've been accepted by like minded Socialists and Marxists.
@chaumont20 No moron, you have no clue as to how the scientific method works. I'm sorry that your contard ideas don't stand up to the scrutany of peer review, but that's just tough shit. Peer review means it's checked for academic honesty by ALL in the field of economics, including people who might agree with conservatives (there are plenty (see chicago school, see austrian school), for academic honesty, and to see if the research supports the conclusion.
@chaumont20 I'm very sorry you're too stupid to understand this. Oh I have another beef with the movie expelled. The professor who was whining and bitching that the University fired him for trying to publish a creationist paper? No he didn't get fired for publishing it. He got fired for not having his work peer reviewed by other academics at the University. He back doored the whole scientific process. Again I'm sorry you're too stupid to understand peer review. I'm done spoon feeding you.
@Newenlightenmentnow You missed the point of that movie. Big surprise, eh? The fact is that no one would be allowed to get a "peer review" if they did not tow the party line with regard to "natural selection". Get it?
@leftwingersareweak No fucktard, that's not how the scientific process works. That's something I'm not surprised you don't get. You submit the paper for review amongst your collegues to check to see if you were academcially honest. For example, did you forge, finess the data to make your claim? Did you draw a conclusion that isn't supported by data? Did you plagerise your work? In the academic world, you do not publish without this process, to prevent from embarassing the University.
@Newenlightenmentnow Oooh. Someone is getting very grumpy. Well, I'm not surprised as leftists such as yourself have no reason to be content. I find you so impressively intelligent...especially based on your grammar and spelling skills. Back to the point though. Krugman is a fool and has a politically philosophy that is all about big government. He should go live in a country that is consistent with that philosophy. George Will is extremely intelligent and thoughtful.
@leftwingersareweak I'm very sorry you're so incredibly stupid to understand the basics. As stated before, I'm not surprised. Duke University and Georgia State University did a study proving that refuting incorrect information only strengthens the false belief with conservatives. It seems conservativism is some sort of mental handicap. Finally natual selection is a fact. Want proof? Go get antibiotic reistant TB. One less contard ruining civil society.
@chaumont20 Wow, let's compare apples to apples shall we? The two nominations you disagree with were for the peace prize, which is entirely political. The nobel prize for any scientfic field is for demonstrated acheivement in that field. I actually agree with you on the peace prize. I don't agree with mother theresa getting the prize. She equated birth control with abortion and abortion with murder. So logically anyone who uses a condom threatens world peace.
@leftwingersareweak Yes, and so did Ludwig von Misses (nobel prize for economics), and Mother Theresa (peace). The nobel prize for any scientific field is purely for acheivement, which can be demonstrated in that field. The peace prize is political. It is NOT the same as say the nobel prize for economics or the nobel prize for chemistry. Let's compare apples to apples. Oh and George Will is a right wing shrill (sic), who has no credentials besides a big mouth.
@Newenlightenmentnow Let me repeat one more time for you. Krugman is a fool whose left-wing economic philosophy is antiquated. He lives in the wrong country as our Founding Fathers promoted limited government, not big government. Maybe a move to Europe would be more accommodating to his economic philosophy.
@Newenlightenmentnow Well...Al Gore won a Nobel Prize as well. Those are about as valuable as snow is to Eskimos. Krugman is a left-wing ideologue and a fool as well.
@GnomesAmok Ummm, Nobel Prize is not a big deal anymore. Krugman is a fraud, and he got one for some VERY shoddy research. They gave Hussein Obama a Peace Prize for NOTHING. I think the actual award says he stopped a fight between his 2 daughters, so they gave him a NOBEL. LOL. Krugman is not a smart man. He can't understand why 60 years of research shows that Keynsian plans fail miserably. He needs to go back toschool.
@svvmichael1 You misunderstand completely. It is only the Nobel Peace prize that has no real meaning, as it can be given for almost anything. Nobel prizes in specific disciplines are still given for the profound impact the individual had in his or her field. Because Krugman is guarded and soft-spoken, Jerry Springer style armchair economists believe that he is being defeated in a debate, but otherwise have no idea how to verify research. But Obama's middle name is Hussein, so you got that one.
@sevenslimysnails 1) That is wrong. The Nobel Prize for Economics has really lost its prestige. 2) Krugman is not a good economist. He positions are riddled with errors and are just rehashed socialist tripe. If you ever read any of his papers you'd understand he seems to have a very tenuous grasp on the nature of markets. But to know that you'd have to be educated yourself. 3) You obviously aren't knowledgable on these matters, so stick to posting in SpongeBob pages.
@svvmichael1 the usa is the only country i know that mocks people for being intelligent and saying that the NP for economics has lost it's prestige is just as fucking delusional as the birther movement.
@UberTankred No, because the "NP" is a bullshit award nowadays. Obama got it for NOTHING. It is simply a left-wing popularity contest now. Krugman's theories have been disproven for DECADES. Maybe if your education was better you'd understand that. Do some research.
@UberTankred So in your mind, BHO deserved his for a speech? NP is only as legitimate as those that laud the award make it. By the by, one has to lobby for the award and raise money. ........Real legit!
@luke55664 bho got the nobel prize for peace. although there is always a lobby behind it it's very unlikely that you get a np for economics because the committee believes that it would be nice to have a beer with you. you can mock absolutely everything but gwb will always be the easiest target because he raped the usa into submission and the fox-folks don't stop defending him.
@UberTankred BHO got the prize for a speech about peace, there were no "Works." Terror sponsor Yasser Arafat and corrupt Kofi Annan also received the award. In 1990 Mikhail Gorbachev was awarded as he rolled tanks into Lithuania. And let us not forget, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) , Al Gore Jr. also received the award in spite of the fact that their models were not only overstated, but confirmed corrupt by Phil Jones himself. The prize has no intellectual credibility.
@luke55664 While the Peace Prize is occassionally even given to People like Henry Kissinger and is a political decision, can you name even one Nobel Prize in Economics that was not well deserved? Can you even explain what subject matter it was given for? It is clear that George Will, your hero, cannot.
@AttyCPA1 ""that George Will, your hero, "" You assume this because? The fact that Krugman is a useful idiot bears no sentiment either way with respect to Will. But you so smart, you knew that already. Krugman is a tool period. The Alfred Nobel prize has become a joke. It is written in your own response should you have a relative comprehension as to what you post. Congratulations for admitting you agree with me that the prize is worthless and nothing more than mere political theater.
@luke55664 By the by, to answer your question, technically speaking, there is no Nobel Prize for economics. Only a memorial prize and that was first awarded in 1969. Peter Nobel criticizes the awarding institution of misusing his family's name, and states that no member of the Nobel family has ever had the intention of establishing a prize in economics. I am quite certain my opinion on the award is in good company.
@AttyCPA1 There is no Nobel Prize for economics. Only a "Nobel Memorial" prize which was first awarded in 1969. Peter Nobel criticizes the awarding institution of misusing his family's name, and states that no member of the Nobel family has ever had the intention of establishing a prize in economics. I am quite certain my opinion on the award is in good company.
@luke55664 Arguing with dissapointemnts in nobel peace prize (political) against prize in economics(science)...Two very different categories...very credible argument...And the Algoe argument? I cant help it, but it seems to me that you are a far right conservative who cannnot just stand the fact that global warming is real...
@Vrchni "dissapointemnts " (spelled wrong, what a shock), There is no Nobel prize in economics. End of story. "far right conservative" wrong again dummy. The prism in which you view the world is not only inane, but equally pedestrian. Global warming is a cyclical phenomenon which has been repeated at least 18 times in the past 1.5 million years. You and those like you that attribute warming to human activity or carbon emissions, are being used to push a political agenda. Ignorant tool.
@UberTankred Uh..............I am not aware of commenting on GW or FOX. I think those are your issues and I'd appreciate you not projecting. The Nobel prize is only as legitimate as those that laud the award make it. That's my comment.
7) Saying "I read some papers" and then repeating your opinion is no more believable than just repeating your opinion.
umlaut) My involvement in the Squarepants revival movement does not disqualify me from this mature, fascinating discussion.
squirrel) Your iron-fisted grip on the nature of markets notwithstanding, I guarantee no one on earth would deem you qualified to determine if Ph.D.-level economic research is "riddled with errors."
@sevenslimysnails Your ignorant response is basically a white flag of surrender. Anyone can read research and make determinations on it. I have a BSME and an MBA. I own and run a very successful business. I am well-qualified to comment on the terrible research methodology of Paul Krugman. Krugman's policies are just rehashes of the failed Keynesian approach that has been debunked ferociously the last 5 decades. No go finish making that Frappacino or you'll get no tip.
@svvmichael1 So you rebut statements about the futility of boasting of your success and intelligence with more boasts of your success and intelligence. Well done.
Your confusion of the term "to determine" with "to talk about" is frustrating, but I will forgive you. No one cares that you have other people's opinions on things you never read. Your belief that having a bachelors degree of some kind gives you the skills to correct post-graduate research in an entirely different field is perplexing.
@sevenslimysnails So, an MBA is a abachelor's degree. That is perplexing. Last time I checked my diploma it said Master's Degree. And it was concentrated in Finance...kinda gives me a huge insight into Economics. Especially since I had a 3.88 GPA at Northwestern. Oops, you've just been owned. Plus the fact I actually create jobs, revenue, and cash flow in the economy. You are a high school educated punk without any social value.
@svvmichael1 Actually, I didn't even consider the imaginary MBA, since they are handed out so readily. I was only including the engineering degree that you pretend to have. Now that you have constructed an imaginary world for yourself, complete with a slightly lesser-known prestigious school and an unrounded number to make it all appear more real, I can understand why you would not follow the same empirical principles as other scientists. I'm sure things work much differently inside your head.
@sevenslimysnails So an MBA from one of the finest schools in the world is "handed out to anyone". Hmmm, I'll let the Dean at Northwestern know that, I'm sure he'll chuckle a bit. And your high school diploma is more prestigious than my degrees why? Oh, because you are a world-class online liar you perceive that everyone else is too. Now I understand. Google "Krugman is a fool", and you'll find libraries full of his disproven lies, and his debunked research. In the circles...
@sevenslimysnails ...of people knowledgable in economics, finance, and accounting Krugman is a laughing stock. He doesn't understand even basic economic theory because 1)he is blinded by partisanship and 2) he has never worked in the real world. Please disprove me with empirical evidence (ps- you can google the big words I used so that you can truly understand my posts).
@svvmichael1 You cannot prove or disprove motivation or character... how can you not know this?
When you make an obviously biased, unsupported statement, it is not up to everyone else in the world to support it. This is called the burden of proof. That lesson was free. My how Northwestern has let itself go.
I am not going to argue about the relative value of MBA's since you don't even have one anyway.
@sevenslimysnails Hmmm, so you can NOT prove even one of your baseless accusations. You are a true liberal then, as the definition of a liberal is someone who makes ignorant conclusion based on zero evidence. Kudos for meeting the ideal standard. Why should I care if you believe me or not? When I go to the bank to make a deposit they don't ask me if an internet troll named sevenslimysnails believes I am what I say, they just give me a receipt. Have a boring,ignorant, poverty-stricken life fool
@sevenslimysnails I have no blind hatred, if I ever feel hatred it is for a very visible reason. Therefore, I don't hate you. I pity your cocoon of ignorance, and I weep for our country that it has fools like you in its population.
@svvmichael1 Well I'm glad I was able to dial you down from wishing suffering on those you've never met to indulging in trite melodrama, but this has gotten too silly even for me. Now that you have gone from making vapid remarks about public figures to desperately clawing for authority to just crying, I'm wondering how much more uncomfortable you can actually make this.
@sevenslimysnails Wow, I have never seen anyone as ignorant and borderline psychopathic as you. Please go receive some counselling before you turn your lurid eye onto small children. And btw, attacking someone who out debates you on every point is very weak. Go to Amazon and purchase a book on debating techniques, you really need it. Also a book on macro-economics would help.
@leftwingersareweak ; Well put. It's unfortunate that more people don't see this. Krugman & like minded liberal progressive's have absolutely no concept of what is in store for the economy and our nation should Obama's health plan replace the current system. The big question in my mind is why these issues haven't seen the light of day.
@leftwingersareweak Listen pal, you're a lightweight. I doubt you could ever get on this show and speak knowledgeably about Washington politics or economics, for that matter.
Mass Plan. Umm? They are losing money! Hello! Doesnt anyone get it? It aint free, someone has to pay, the money has to come from somewhere and if you dont have the money you need to cut services. That is economics. Now maybe if you got every doctor to donate 2 weeks of his service it would be free to the patient, but the doctor still has to pay money to get to work, eat live, pay his staff, etc. Nothing is free. Morons! Yeah, google the Mass Plan and see how it is working.
"Unintended consequences" can be good or bad. It's not conservative for anything.
Central planning of any type doesn't work b/c a small group of people can't possibly determine the needs of 300 million people then figure out the best manner to deliver those solutions...then adjust, adjust and adjust. Big is not better.
Why do party-liners believe that our political leaders are looking out for them?
"Unintended consequences" can be good or bad. It's not conservative for anything.
Central planning of any type doesn't work b/c a small group of people can't possibly determine the needs of 300 million people then figure out the best manner to deliver those solutions...then adjust, adjust and adjust. Big is not better.
Why do party-liners believe that our political leaders are looking out for them?
@chewbaca1989 When it cost $50,000 to buy groceries due to hyper inflation(Ask the germans about that little gem) what will be your next recomendation, Mr. Wizard? The Russians might have some bad ideas you can champion left over from the days they promised to bury us.
@0spiker Really shit for brains? Do you have any clue as to what caused the hyperinflation? It was paying off the war debt. That's it, nothing more. Not socialism, as this was impossible. The Weimar republic was capitalist, so try again. Go learn some god damn history before you open your mouth.
@Newenlightenmentnow I can tell you this much, poopypants, New Enlightenment sounds like old stupidity. Paying a debt does not cause inflation, hyper or otherwise. Printing too much money, does.
I never claimed it was due to socialism.No Professor grumpy pants, Wiemar was constitutionally social democrat (read socialist). When you and your boyfriends finish disporting with each other in the Fourth Reich closet, go learn some god damn history before you open your mouth.
George's Will once said that Iraq (2003) was the greatest military victory of all time. 'nuff said.
Tsnore 2 days ago
Morgenthal didn't support the New Deal, but did support the disastrous tax increases that led to the second downturn of the 1930's. The deficit was NOT the problem in the 1930's--- and it certainly was not helped by inducing a recession. This is a point present day austerity advocates consistently fail to address: how do you solve a deficit problem when you destroy a country's ability to pay off its debt?
lumpinwomper 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You are comparing apples to oranges here..
George Will is a blogger and lightweight "intellectual" with no internationally acclaimed academic contributions. Like any fundamentalist his preachings are merely intended for consumption by an ignorant domestic public of acolytes and he lacks all credibility outside of the bubble.
Paul Krugman is a nobel laureate in economics and an intellectual heavyweight. Regardless if one agrees with him or not.
schatz87 1 month ago 5
Comment removed
schatz87 1 month ago
Comment removed
schatz87 1 month ago
Comment removed
schatz87 1 month ago
What would a George Will enema look like?
Tippersnore 1 month ago
George Will is what my dad used to call an educated idiot.He makes an argument based on HIS assumptions without offering one single fact to back them up. IE: 16,000 new IRS employees? Based on what estimation? Millions will go on Medicade? Medicade is actually hard to qualify for, you have to be really, really poor to get it. Give me a break and stop talking through your hat George! Here's an idea, go do what Paul did and study economics and how it applies to the real world and read his book!
Bullettube 1 month ago 2
@Bullettube No, George Will is completely correct and his numbers come from...the GAO!!!! Your whole post boils down to YOUR assumptions and bias. Will decimates Krugman and Obamacare, uses facts and figures to back up his point, and it pisses you off. So you then attack him. Nice, exactly the DNC strategy. Obama's campaign already admits they can't run on his terrible record so their complete strategy is a negative, attack campaign...with a billion dollars stolen from taxpayers.
svvmichael1 1 month ago
@svvmichael1 The fact is, the US pays twice as much per capita for a medical system that serves it's people far worse than the rest of the first world countries. We need to be listening to the rest of the world and not preaching in this area.
sfjeff1089 1 month ago
@sfjeff1089 Our medical system is by far the best in the world in terms of quality. So in what way does it serve its people worse? People need to take responsibility for themselves and not look for handouts. The best ways to cut costs, though, is blocked by leftists. Tort reform and getting gov't out of healthcare would drop costs 20-30% immediatelty.
svvmichael1 1 month ago
@svvmichael1 Google "us quality of health care" and read any of the top 5 links.
One example: "The report notes that while the U.S. spends more than twice as much on each person compared with most other industrialized nations, we're in last place when it comes to preventing deaths through appropriate medical care. Meanwhile, access to care has gotten worse since the group's first report card in 2006, the report concludes.
sfjeff1089 1 month ago
@sfjeff1089 That report is wrong. Every other study finds that US healthcare is the most technologically advanced in the world, and that people who live in "free" healthcare countries come here for advanced treatment. If the gov't was out of healthcare entirely we'd pay 30% less immediately FACT.
svvmichael1 1 month ago
@svvmichael1 what report. I just googled and picked a link at random. You are probably right that the US health system is better if you are in the top 1%, but so what? It might surprise you to learn that 99% of us are *not* in the top 1%.
I don't consider the fact that we have the most effective health care system for our rich yet the vast majority of people with treatable diseases are much better off in Europe anything to brag about.
sfjeff1089 1 month ago
@svvmichael1 what report. I just googled and picked a link at random. You are probably right that the US health system is better if you are in the top 1%, but so what? It might surprise you to learn that 99% of us are *not* in the top 1%.
I don't consider the fact that we have the most effective health care system for our rich yet the vast majority of people with treatable diseases are much better off in Europe anything to brag about.
sfjeff1089 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@svvmichael1 what report?? I just googled and picked a link at random. You are probably right that the US health system is better if you are in the top 1%, but so what? It might surprise you to learn that 99% of us are *not* in the top 1%.
I don't consider the fact that we have the most effective health care system for our rich yet the vast majority of people with treatable diseases are much better off in Europe anything to brag about.
sfjeff1089 1 month ago
@svvmichael1 what report?? I just googled and picked a link at random. You are probably right that the US health system is better if you are in the top 1%, but so what? It might surprise you to learn that 99% of us are not in the top 1%.
I don't consider the fact that we have the most effective health care system for our rich yet the vast majority of people with treatable diseases are much better off in Europe anything to brag about.
sfjeff1089 1 month ago
@sfjeff1089 That is false. Everyone in the US can get insurance. I pay $4000 a year for a family of 5, that is affordable. California has a program where low-income people can get insurance for children for $2/month, yet most don't buy it and are a burden on medicaid. We don't force people to be responsible. If you don't plan, screw you, it isn't everyone else's responsibility to support you because you are selfish.
svvmichael1 1 month ago
@svvmichael1 There are two separate issues here. One issue is whether people are better off and the other issue is, whose fault it is. If there are two systems and people use one effectively but not the other, then you can make an objective decision about which system is better even if you can also correctly place blame on people not using their system correctly. Decision making on the part of consumers and producers of public services are separate and have to be analyzed separately.
sfjeff1089 1 month ago
@sfjeff1089 This country was built on small government, low taxes, few regulations, personal freedom, and personal responsibility. Those things created the greatest economy in the history of the world, and the greatest lifestyle. Unfortunately leftisits felt the USSR model was better, and decided to make the masses dumber, and enslave them under massive governemnt. They told them they weren't responsible for any of their failings. Now we have people who just want hand outs.
svvmichael1 1 month ago
@svvmichael1 This country was also built on slave labor, harsh working conditions, etc. Back then we spent a much bigger amount of time in recession. In 1868 or so, a 40 hour work week law was passed. It only applied to a minority of workers, but it did some good. With the expansion of the work force this required, growth was fast the next thirty years or so. Enter the fed, but there was still a gold standard and Warren Harding returned to laissez faire (cont.)
sfjeff1089 1 month ago
@sfjeff1089 the roaring 20s actually saw the real economy shrink while the asset bubbles formed, just like the last 30 years. This is the only possible result of the money supply of the bottom 95% shrinking while the money supply in the hands of the top 5% explodes. The great depression occurred when the financial bubbles popped and we couldn't increase money velocity fast enough. Of course, rapid monetary expansion would not have been necessary if the real economy were still intact.
sfjeff1089 1 month ago
@sfjeff1089 (cont 2) The great depression did not end because it had run it's course, because labor actually follows inelastic, rather than elastic laws of supply and demand meaning when the price is down supply increases rather than decreasing, and the problem accelerates. The great depression ended because we realized that new economic activity requires both makers and buyers and made sure buying was possible. 1933-1942 was by far the fastest growth period of the last century.
sfjeff1089 1 month ago
@sfjeff1089 Wow, everything you posted is WRONG. We've always had free-market trends toward helping workers. The reason is simple, a happy work-force works better. And by increasing the flow of money it allows more consumption of businesses products. That is why gov't intervention has always caused recessions. The period of 1922-1929 was the fastest economic growth of the first half-century. 1933-1942 saw an explosion of debt, unconstitutional programs, and escalating unemployment...
svvmichael1 1 month ago
@svvmichael1 Re. 1922-1929 vs 1933-1942. That is a myth put out by people that don't want another New Deal. The following graph compares 1933-1942 vs 1980-2010 debt vs GDP. You can see that New Deal debt was flat with GDP until we hit the WWII build-up, whereas Reagan's period, after he implemented many of the same policies Warren Harding put into place 1922-1929, had a massive explosion of debt compared with GDP.
Remove the space from bit .ly/zRFTwe
Growth spike 1933-1942: bit .ly/v83Eo7
sfjeff1089 4 weeks ago
@sfjeff1089 ...FDR tried many ways to get into WWII so he could start a wartime expansion. Joseph Kennedy tried to convince him to go in on the side of Germany because he hated the british. From 1941-1945 the economy finally recovered from the terrible New Deal depression solely because of wartime debt spending. You just continue to lie,lie,lie like every leftist. Every study proves that total taxes (fed,state,local,ALL) that are between 12-16% of GDP create more revenue...
svvmichael1 1 month ago
@svvmichael1 Not true. The Growth spike at the end of the 1937 recession started 3 years before the WWII debt spike of 1942. It is true that they were aware of the war over these years and would have increased war spending, but obviously not too much because debt to GDP was flat until 1942. You can see this clearly in my previous graphs. I think he might have gotten into WWII to stop Germany and Japan. Please tell me what studies. And by all means if I am lying, find a way to prove it.
sfjeff1089 4 weeks ago
@sfjeff1089 WRONG. 1922-1929 saw 45% GDP increase and 5-6% unemployment. 1934-1941 saw 32% GDP increase (and defense spending grew massively starting in late 1939) with 12-17% unemployment. Friedman, Hayek, Schiff, etc have all proven that the New Deal DEEPENED the depression by a factor of 2.5 to 3 times and lengthened it by at least 3 years. You need to learn economics and history. FDR not only looked into getting into the war on GERMANY's side, but he had 3 days warning...
svvmichael1 4 weeks ago
@svvmichael1 Re: FDR, JFK. I am not sure what you are referring to, but I think it is a distraction. If this interests you, though, you should look into Prescott Bush, Allen Dulles, etc. We owe a lot to Smedley Butler.
sfjeff1089 4 weeks ago
@sfjeff1089 You have been so soundly defeated you need to slink away leftist.
svvmichael1 4 weeks ago
@svvmichael1 Show me a single graph.
sfjeff1089 4 weeks ago
@sfjeff1089 ...about Pearl Harbor and let all those U.S. servicemen die so he could have his "day that will live in infamy" and allow him to enter the war. FDR's Sec of the Treasury (William Woodin)said later that they knew the depression would deepen again, probably worse than ever, if they couldn't enter the war and have an excuse for HUGE deficit spending on defense. Did we need to fight it? Yes, but that was the ONLY thing that saved FDR from being outed as a charlatan...
svvmichael1 4 weeks ago
@svvmichael1 Re: WWII solving the great depression. You are welcome to provide evidense. I have provided mine and it says we had over 30% growth in the 3 years before we entered the war.
Here is another graph from wikipedia. It says GDP increased from about 570 in 1922 to about 830 at the 1929 peak. From 1933 - 1940, it went from around 600 to 980. Numbers are in Billions of 1999 dollars. Keep in mind, 1920s had a lot of fake asset money growth.
Remove the space from bit .ly/xULhTH
sfjeff1089 4 weeks ago
@sfjeff1089 1939 to 1942 were WAR YEARS. We ramped up defense production starting in July/Aug 1939. BTW, Wikipedia is the resource for lazy, stupid people. Anyone can post/change a wikipedia entry. I use gov't sites, and scholarly sites. You can even google them. Plus the 20s had almost NO fake asset growth. That wouldn't even count in GDP which measures consumption, investment, and gov't spending. You lose again.
svvmichael1 4 weeks ago
@svvmichael1 Show me a single graph.
Are you saying you never heard of the bucket shops or all the fly-by-night real estate companies in the 20's? You have yet to show a single iota of proof of your position.
No, our big debt jump was in 1942 - 1945, NOT in 1939. Was war spending 0 in 1939? Of course not. But it was small enough to not push the debt up significantly.
debt: bit .ly/zRFTwe
growth spike: bit .ly/v83Eo7
growth per capita: bit .ly/sS0Tib
another GDP: bit .ly/xULhTH
sfjeff1089 4 weeks ago
@sfjeff1089 I proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are wrong and I am right. "New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America" more proof. Even more " FDR's programs didn't succeed in pushing unemployment below 20 percent." You can google these articles and see mountains of graphs. The growth of '22-'29 far surpasses '34-'41 and has 1/3 the unemployment and 58% of the taxes. Taxes are theft, and anyone advocating high taxes is a lazy, jealous loser.
svvmichael1 4 weeks ago
@sfjeff1089 BTW, isn't it funny you won't talk about FDR's SecTreasury Morgenthau who said "I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. ... And an enormous debt to boot." ABOUT HIS OWN PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Did you know that FDR allowed hundreds of people to die building Hoover Dam just so he'd have a monument to his failed socialist policies?
svvmichael1 4 weeks ago
@svvmichael1
Morgenthal was the leading advocate for the tax increases that produced the recession of 1937. His goal was to balance the budget instead of growing the economy (sound familiar?).
Also, beware of some of the bogus unemployment stats (Amity Shlaes) regarding the Depression. Historian Eric Rauchway has a good post on that on his The Edge of the American West blog (Nov 6, 2008 post).
lumpinwomper 3 weeks ago
@lumpinwomper Morganthal DIDN'T support the New Deal, and was against the massive crippling debt it put on the economy. The New Deal is the reason non-farm unemployment NEVER fell below 20%. If they had let the free market alone the depression would've been over in '34, instead crippling taxes, massive spending, and crushing debt on top of destructive regulations kept the economy in the toilet. Friedman has proven it so.
svvmichael1 3 weeks ago
@sfjeff1089 ...and his own SecTreasury admitted it. And The SecTreasury who said it was Henry Morgenthau (I mistyped in previous post). Morgenthau wrote a couple books about how bad the New Deal actually was.
svvmichael1 4 weeks ago
@sfjeff1089 Morgenthau fought several of FDR idiotic spending programs tooth and nail and strove to balance the budget saying "cutting spending will revive the economy". FDR's own SecTreasury. OOPS. JFK reduced taxes GDP grew, Reagan reduced taxes GDP grew, Newt Gingrich forced tax cuts in '97,'98, and '99 and GDP grew. Heck, the GWB tax cuts caused big GDP growth. The problem in ALL but the Gingrich cuts was the Congress continued to spend like drunk sailors. LEARN.
svvmichael1 4 weeks ago
@sfjeff1089 ...than higher taxes do. They also allow GDP growth of 3.5%-7.5% growth. Reagan had 7.4% growth because of tax cuts that freed the economy. Only an idiot believes high taxes, massive regualtion, and high gov't spending is good for the economy. ALL EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE PROVES YOU WRONG. Now go learn.
svvmichael1 1 month ago
@svvmichael1 Reagan had 7.4% growth in what?
Here is a graph of GDP growth per capita on a log scale. It is straight from the world bank, so I don't see how you can argue with it. It shows that growth slowed dramatically starting in 1980:
Remove the space from: bit .ly/sS0Tib
We have not had a single year of 5% GDP growth rate since 1980. Before 1980 they were common. 1938-1942 we had 4 years that averaged about 13%.
sfjeff1089 4 weeks ago
Let's see. George Will, a character with a Ph.D. in Political Science, and a standard Conservative blovator, thinks that he is qualified to comment on the Nobel Prize Committee's choice on a matter in ECONOMICS. Since when is a Ph.D. in Political Science anything more than a testament to the fact that you can kiss the asses of a Ph.D. committee? George Will knows about as much Economics as Rush Limbaugh, the college flunkout---nothing, nothing and more nothing.
AttyCPA1 1 month ago
Krugman is neither a fool nor an idiot. They don't give Nobel Prizes to idiots. He does to live her because he works to solve problems created by conservative nutjobs. Will isn't as bright as people think, but there are plenty of pinheads that fall for Will. Got it nutjob/pinhead?
dsgregg 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
George Will was a speechwriter for Reagan at the same time he was a political commentator for ABC News, which means George Will was commenting on content written by George Will but said by Reagan. Does anyone think he was negative? Does anyone think he was objective?
Does anyone think corporate media like ABC, NBC (co owned by weapons profiteer GE), Fox, CBS or even PBS (which takes corporate money) should be trusted with telling us the truth?
CI9TK 2 months ago
Comment removed
CI9TK 2 months ago
Alfred is rotating in his grave, since there truly is no such thing as a Nobel prize in economics.
denderon1 3 months ago
Krugman is a leftist shill, twitchy little bastard says 'we know it can be worked' ...yea 0:58 thats why he twitched like he was slapped when he realized the plan to hire IRS agents and track down common workers for $1500 will be a force of 16,000 black clothed agents. I think I like things the way they are now and the crackheads & alcoholics can stop smoking crack / drinking and buy insurance.
woofielove1970 3 months ago
@woofielove1970 You conservatives are a bought and paid for fool. If, some conservatives tell you something. you believe it!
jrwel14 2 months ago
I am not surprised George Will lecturing Krugman on economy. By the way, this guy Krugman is all books and all theory . Policy making based on judgement of a guy with only academic background is a huge mistake.
xoxak888 3 months ago
@xoxak888 George couldn't teach no one!
jrwel14 2 months ago
@xoxak888 The guy is a brilliant trade theorist. I find it appalling when a person who doesn't know what a general equilibrium model talks badly about the ideas of a man who wins a Nobel Prize in my field. It would be like if I talked down to Marie Curie about radiation. I'd be the fool, not her.
ralph489 2 months ago
When it comes to economics George Will us clueless. He has a kind of sentimental conservative mind pining for the Edmund Burke's lost empire. He's full of colorful quotes of historical figures, but he does not have a quantitative mind. There is very little disagreement among actual economists about the general outlines of a sustainable health insurance policy. George Will needs to leave the 19th century behind.
time903 4 months ago
@time903 Damn! You summed up Will very well in your post. I read his column from time to time because he writes well, and I must give him that, but I concur wholeheartedly with your summation.
MrEatonbeaver 2 months ago
Krugman is no George Will. How unfortunate for the world and Mr. Krugman.
ladylordess 4 months ago
It should be mocked-the Nobel crew, in their infinite wisdom, gave Barack Obama a Peace Prize. That sort of taints the legitimacy of it.
torr59622 4 months ago
@torr59622
The selection process for the Nobel prize in Economics (and Physics, Medicine, Literature, etc) is vastly different from that of the Peace prize. The economics prize nominees are nominated by people in their own field, economists in this case, and these submissions for nomination are then screened by a committee of individuals in the said field. The Peace prize is open to those working in politics and/or social issues. So, no, Obama's Peace prize doesn't delegitimize anything.
SteelCityEcologist 4 months ago
Comparing Economics to other fields of medicine is unfair as well. A Code of Ethics has JUST been drafted in response to the attack that "Inside Job" makes concerning conflicts of interest and overall douchebaggery.
torr59622 4 months ago
@torr59622
What? I wasn't comparing economics to medicine and neither is the Nobel prize committee. I was merely pointing out that the selection process of the economics prize, like that of medicine, physics, etc, is much more detailed vis a vis the peace prize selection process. As for the rest of your comment, I have to say I don't understand what you're saying.
SteelCityEcologist 4 months ago
@SteelCityEcologist As one goes down the through the Nobel catagories, there are levels of politics that play a part on who is nominated and who wins. Peace prize is at the top. But I wanted to point out that the Econ prize, while being more legitimate, is not all-important.. Bottom line: I think the Economic community is rife with corruption and political number-bending, so I look sideways at the guys at the top i.e. Nobel Prize winners.
torr59622 4 months ago
@torr59622
I don't disagree with your sentiments about the economics "community". In fact, I propose we begin calling it the "dismal science" once again. As for your thoughts on the "politics" of each prize, I think now you're referring an epistemological problem with the process, which I can't corroborate, but which I'm inclined to not think of as accurate. Back to the topic, though, I still don't have reason to believe Obama's peace prize delegitimizes all other Nobel prizes given.
SteelCityEcologist 4 months ago
George Willi is a dickhead.
Foreshadow44 5 months ago
Paul Krugman makes a thoughtful comment based on his study of the healthcare legislation and the best George Will can come up with is a scare comment about the IRS which is specious at best. The IRS is there to enforce the law of the land and that's all they do.
dsgregg 5 months ago
@dsgregg You totally missed the point. But that is not surprising.
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak You are wrong on both counts. And your yahoo id suggests that you are also a pinhead.
dsgregg 2 months ago
@dsgregg Ooh...that was a real zinger! Krugman is both a fool and an idiot. He really doesn't belong living in the U.S. because he is a socialist. He can't hold a candle to Will because his thought processes are so irrational and illogical.
Got it pinhead?
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
He didnt say a damn thing about Krugman's Nobel Prize
GnomesAmok 6 months ago
@GnomesAmok Err. yeah he did.
jgrab1 6 months ago
Krugman is a joke. a very very bad joke.
Rawego 7 months ago 8
@Rawego so is friedman a very bad joke and so is rand a big joke. Just don't say that to the republicans
dancthegr 3 months ago
@Rawego You are a fool. a very bad fool!
jrwel14 2 months ago
Obama doesn't even follow the economic principles of Paul Krugman, why the hell do people think they can make a mockery of his work?
QaranTV 7 months ago
Krugman has no clue what he's talking about because he does not live in the real world.
axual 8 months ago
@axual And George Will does...
jgrab1 6 months ago
Krugman is an ideological hack, which is probably why, like Obama, he received a Nobel prize. It's no wonder liberals are against spanking! Nobody likes to get spanked like that--especially in public! Thank you George Will. That was truly entertaining.
MrFreeLibertarian 8 months ago
@newenlightenmentow How are we getting out of the credit crisis? Not from Keynesian economics. We have spent over a trillion dollars in stimuli and it still continues.
odinswald 9 months ago
@newenlightenmentow "Non-degree having George Will"? Wow. He is a Rhodes Scholar with a doctorate from Princeton. How did we get out of the Great Depression? Not from Keynesian economics. It was the start of WWII. Even Keynes confided in Hayek that he was rethinking his theories. Unfortunately, Keynes died soon after that discussion. If Keynes theories of economic stimuli worked, we would never have had a great depression as Hoover and Roosevelt each doubled the federal budget.
odinswald 9 months ago
How about showing the whole conversation. You know the Krugman's rebuttel instead of just fawning over your piece of shit, non-degree having George Will. I've been reading Will's column for about 10 years now and his predictions have NEVER been correct.
Newenlightenmentnow 9 months ago
The important thing, George Will, is that those people not be allowed access to the healthcare system so we can save a buck, right?
jazzgtrplayer 11 months ago
...This Week in his place.
odinswald 1 year ago
Krugman clings to Keynesian economics even though it's never worked. He is a media darling & Nobel Laureate because he is so liberal. Nobel committee members stated the voted for him because he is anti-Bush. He constantly interrupts people, as in this video, to press his point. A more rational person should be featured on Thid
odinswald 1 year ago 2
@odinswald Oh is that a fact? Do you even know what he received the award for? His research was on trade policy. Particularly using tarrifs to protect strategic industries, such as japan's auto industry. He used evidence, you know, facts, to demonstrate his claims. Keynsian economics didn't work? Hmm, then how did we get out of the depression? How is it that we're getting our of the credit crisis which your neo-con crony capitalists caused?
Newenlightenmentnow 9 months ago
If you didn't understand the english language, you could still see how Will owns Krugman. Look at the body language. Krugman looks like a kid whose just been told there is no Santa Claus......almost panic stricken.
rubbersole79 1 year ago 2
@rubbersole79 Hmm, that's not what I saw. In fact I saw the entire interview, not just the edited propaganda that you contards watch to make yourselves feel good.
Newenlightenmentnow 9 months ago
George Will seethes with jealousy of Krugman's accomplishments and reduces his own stature by engaging in schoolgirl sniping. What a sad old fossil.
ProlefeedTV 1 year ago
Damn george will is good, it hate to have to debate that guy
TheProgressistViewer 1 year ago
Thankfully we have George to bring clarity. There are few others who tow the line.
DCUPtoejuice 1 year ago
George Will just owns fools.
wReCktangle 1 year ago
Will shows what a lightweight Krugman is in this segment.
leftwingersareweak 1 year ago 7
@leftwingersareweak george will is a moron, and peggy noonan is an even bigger moron
zdog1566 1 year ago
@zdog1566 It takes one to know one...a moron, I mean.
zeekwolfe 1 year ago
@zdog1566 So you know what that makes you, right?
leftwingersareweak 9 months ago
@leftwingersareweak Oh really? Where is George Will's nobel prize? Where is it? Krugman's research has been peer reviewed. That is checked for flaws in research and to see if the evidence supports the conclusions. It's been cited many times, hence why he was given the prise. When has a contard like yourself or will received the prize? Never because you pull your ideas straight from your own asses!
Newenlightenmentnow 9 months ago
@Newenlightenmentnow " Krugman's research has been peer reviewed. " Yea, Peer Reviewed by Liberals and Progressives and guess what, Liberals and Progressives agree with Krugman. Conservatives don't want Liberal or Progressive " Prizes ". Getting a degree from a Liberal or Progressive school or receiving a prize from a Liberal or Progressive institution just means you've been accepted by like minded Socialists and Marxists.
chaumont20 9 months ago
@chaumont20 No moron, you have no clue as to how the scientific method works. I'm sorry that your contard ideas don't stand up to the scrutany of peer review, but that's just tough shit. Peer review means it's checked for academic honesty by ALL in the field of economics, including people who might agree with conservatives (there are plenty (see chicago school, see austrian school), for academic honesty, and to see if the research supports the conclusion.
Newenlightenmentnow 9 months ago
@chaumont20 I'm very sorry you're too stupid to understand this. Oh I have another beef with the movie expelled. The professor who was whining and bitching that the University fired him for trying to publish a creationist paper? No he didn't get fired for publishing it. He got fired for not having his work peer reviewed by other academics at the University. He back doored the whole scientific process. Again I'm sorry you're too stupid to understand peer review. I'm done spoon feeding you.
Newenlightenmentnow 9 months ago
@Newenlightenmentnow You missed the point of that movie. Big surprise, eh? The fact is that no one would be allowed to get a "peer review" if they did not tow the party line with regard to "natural selection". Get it?
leftwingersareweak 9 months ago
@leftwingersareweak No fucktard, that's not how the scientific process works. That's something I'm not surprised you don't get. You submit the paper for review amongst your collegues to check to see if you were academcially honest. For example, did you forge, finess the data to make your claim? Did you draw a conclusion that isn't supported by data? Did you plagerise your work? In the academic world, you do not publish without this process, to prevent from embarassing the University.
Newenlightenmentnow 9 months ago
@Newenlightenmentnow Oooh. Someone is getting very grumpy. Well, I'm not surprised as leftists such as yourself have no reason to be content. I find you so impressively intelligent...especially based on your grammar and spelling skills. Back to the point though. Krugman is a fool and has a politically philosophy that is all about big government. He should go live in a country that is consistent with that philosophy. George Will is extremely intelligent and thoughtful.
leftwingersareweak 9 months ago
@leftwingersareweak I'm very sorry you're so incredibly stupid to understand the basics. As stated before, I'm not surprised. Duke University and Georgia State University did a study proving that refuting incorrect information only strengthens the false belief with conservatives. It seems conservativism is some sort of mental handicap. Finally natual selection is a fact. Want proof? Go get antibiotic reistant TB. One less contard ruining civil society.
Newenlightenmentnow 9 months ago
@Newenlightenmentnow Liberalism is a mental disorder. You are a case in point.
leftwingersareweak 9 months ago
@chaumont20 Wow, let's compare apples to apples shall we? The two nominations you disagree with were for the peace prize, which is entirely political. The nobel prize for any scientfic field is for demonstrated acheivement in that field. I actually agree with you on the peace prize. I don't agree with mother theresa getting the prize. She equated birth control with abortion and abortion with murder. So logically anyone who uses a condom threatens world peace.
Newenlightenmentnow 9 months ago
@Newenlightenmentnow Yassar Arafat received a Nobel Prize. So did Barack Obama. So excuse me if I'm not all that impressed with Nobel Prize winners.
Krugman is such a leftist shrill. I don't care for his so-called awards to be honest. He is clueless most of the time.
So internet tough guy, chill out. Your hero Krugman knows very little, especially compared to G. Will.
leftwingersareweak 9 months ago
@leftwingersareweak Yes, and so did Ludwig von Misses (nobel prize for economics), and Mother Theresa (peace). The nobel prize for any scientific field is purely for acheivement, which can be demonstrated in that field. The peace prize is political. It is NOT the same as say the nobel prize for economics or the nobel prize for chemistry. Let's compare apples to apples. Oh and George Will is a right wing shrill (sic), who has no credentials besides a big mouth.
Newenlightenmentnow 9 months ago
@Newenlightenmentnow Again...you are proving yourself to be an idiot.
leftwingersareweak 9 months ago
@Newenlightenmentnow Let me repeat one more time for you. Krugman is a fool whose left-wing economic philosophy is antiquated. He lives in the wrong country as our Founding Fathers promoted limited government, not big government. Maybe a move to Europe would be more accommodating to his economic philosophy.
leftwingersareweak 9 months ago
@Newenlightenmentnow Well...Al Gore won a Nobel Prize as well. Those are about as valuable as snow is to Eskimos. Krugman is a left-wing ideologue and a fool as well.
leftwingersareweak 2 months ago
@leftwingersareweak So do you have any more for me, mrleft wingers are weak, as I just PWNED your sorry ass.
Newenlightenmentnow 9 months ago
@Newenlightenmentnow Youtube should ban 13 year old kids from taking part in discussions on this web site. You are pathetic and a fool.
leftwingersareweak 9 months ago
@leftwingersareweak
If a nobel-prize winning economist is a lighweight, what are you?
GnomesAmok 6 months ago
@GnomesAmok Ummm, Nobel Prize is not a big deal anymore. Krugman is a fraud, and he got one for some VERY shoddy research. They gave Hussein Obama a Peace Prize for NOTHING. I think the actual award says he stopped a fight between his 2 daughters, so they gave him a NOBEL. LOL. Krugman is not a smart man. He can't understand why 60 years of research shows that Keynsian plans fail miserably. He needs to go back toschool.
svvmichael1 5 months ago
@svvmichael1 You misunderstand completely. It is only the Nobel Peace prize that has no real meaning, as it can be given for almost anything. Nobel prizes in specific disciplines are still given for the profound impact the individual had in his or her field. Because Krugman is guarded and soft-spoken, Jerry Springer style armchair economists believe that he is being defeated in a debate, but otherwise have no idea how to verify research. But Obama's middle name is Hussein, so you got that one.
sevenslimysnails 5 months ago
@sevenslimysnails 1) That is wrong. The Nobel Prize for Economics has really lost its prestige. 2) Krugman is not a good economist. He positions are riddled with errors and are just rehashed socialist tripe. If you ever read any of his papers you'd understand he seems to have a very tenuous grasp on the nature of markets. But to know that you'd have to be educated yourself. 3) You obviously aren't knowledgable on these matters, so stick to posting in SpongeBob pages.
svvmichael1 5 months ago
@svvmichael1 the usa is the only country i know that mocks people for being intelligent and saying that the NP for economics has lost it's prestige is just as fucking delusional as the birther movement.
UberTankred 5 months ago
@UberTankred No, because the "NP" is a bullshit award nowadays. Obama got it for NOTHING. It is simply a left-wing popularity contest now. Krugman's theories have been disproven for DECADES. Maybe if your education was better you'd understand that. Do some research.
svvmichael1 5 months ago
@svvmichael1 shut up confused cracka....lol
drakehilton300 5 months ago
@drakehilton300 Wow, typical Obama/Krugman follower. LOL.
svvmichael1 5 months ago
@UberTankred And BTW, George Will is 5 times as intelligent as all the other people at that table combined. FACT.
svvmichael1 5 months ago
@UberTankred So in your mind, BHO deserved his for a speech? NP is only as legitimate as those that laud the award make it. By the by, one has to lobby for the award and raise money. ........Real legit!
luke55664 5 months ago
@luke55664 bho got the nobel prize for peace. although there is always a lobby behind it it's very unlikely that you get a np for economics because the committee believes that it would be nice to have a beer with you. you can mock absolutely everything but gwb will always be the easiest target because he raped the usa into submission and the fox-folks don't stop defending him.
UberTankred 5 months ago
@UberTankred BHO got the prize for a speech about peace, there were no "Works." Terror sponsor Yasser Arafat and corrupt Kofi Annan also received the award. In 1990 Mikhail Gorbachev was awarded as he rolled tanks into Lithuania. And let us not forget, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) , Al Gore Jr. also received the award in spite of the fact that their models were not only overstated, but confirmed corrupt by Phil Jones himself. The prize has no intellectual credibility.
luke55664 5 months ago
@luke55664 While the Peace Prize is occassionally even given to People like Henry Kissinger and is a political decision, can you name even one Nobel Prize in Economics that was not well deserved? Can you even explain what subject matter it was given for? It is clear that George Will, your hero, cannot.
AttyCPA1 1 month ago
@AttyCPA1 ""that George Will, your hero, "" You assume this because? The fact that Krugman is a useful idiot bears no sentiment either way with respect to Will. But you so smart, you knew that already. Krugman is a tool period. The Alfred Nobel prize has become a joke. It is written in your own response should you have a relative comprehension as to what you post. Congratulations for admitting you agree with me that the prize is worthless and nothing more than mere political theater.
luke55664 1 month ago
@luke55664 By the by, to answer your question, technically speaking, there is no Nobel Prize for economics. Only a memorial prize and that was first awarded in 1969. Peter Nobel criticizes the awarding institution of misusing his family's name, and states that no member of the Nobel family has ever had the intention of establishing a prize in economics. I am quite certain my opinion on the award is in good company.
luke55664 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AttyCPA1 There is no Nobel Prize for economics. Only a "Nobel Memorial" prize which was first awarded in 1969. Peter Nobel criticizes the awarding institution of misusing his family's name, and states that no member of the Nobel family has ever had the intention of establishing a prize in economics. I am quite certain my opinion on the award is in good company.
luke55664 1 month ago
@luke55664 Arguing with dissapointemnts in nobel peace prize (political) against prize in economics(science)...Two very different categories...very credible argument...And the Algoe argument? I cant help it, but it seems to me that you are a far right conservative who cannnot just stand the fact that global warming is real...
Vrchni 1 month ago
@Vrchni "dissapointemnts " (spelled wrong, what a shock), There is no Nobel prize in economics. End of story. "far right conservative" wrong again dummy. The prism in which you view the world is not only inane, but equally pedestrian. Global warming is a cyclical phenomenon which has been repeated at least 18 times in the past 1.5 million years. You and those like you that attribute warming to human activity or carbon emissions, are being used to push a political agenda. Ignorant tool.
luke55664 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@UberTankred Uh..............I am not aware of commenting on GW or FOX. I think those are your issues and I'd appreciate you not projecting. The Nobel prize is only as legitimate as those that laud the award make it. That's my comment.
luke55664 5 months ago
@svvmichael1
7) Saying "I read some papers" and then repeating your opinion is no more believable than just repeating your opinion.
umlaut) My involvement in the Squarepants revival movement does not disqualify me from this mature, fascinating discussion.
squirrel) Your iron-fisted grip on the nature of markets notwithstanding, I guarantee no one on earth would deem you qualified to determine if Ph.D.-level economic research is "riddled with errors."
sevenslimysnails 5 months ago
@sevenslimysnails Your ignorant response is basically a white flag of surrender. Anyone can read research and make determinations on it. I have a BSME and an MBA. I own and run a very successful business. I am well-qualified to comment on the terrible research methodology of Paul Krugman. Krugman's policies are just rehashes of the failed Keynesian approach that has been debunked ferociously the last 5 decades. No go finish making that Frappacino or you'll get no tip.
svvmichael1 5 months ago
@svvmichael1 So you rebut statements about the futility of boasting of your success and intelligence with more boasts of your success and intelligence. Well done.
Your confusion of the term "to determine" with "to talk about" is frustrating, but I will forgive you. No one cares that you have other people's opinions on things you never read. Your belief that having a bachelors degree of some kind gives you the skills to correct post-graduate research in an entirely different field is perplexing.
sevenslimysnails 5 months ago
@sevenslimysnails So, an MBA is a abachelor's degree. That is perplexing. Last time I checked my diploma it said Master's Degree. And it was concentrated in Finance...kinda gives me a huge insight into Economics. Especially since I had a 3.88 GPA at Northwestern. Oops, you've just been owned. Plus the fact I actually create jobs, revenue, and cash flow in the economy. You are a high school educated punk without any social value.
svvmichael1 5 months ago
@svvmichael1 Actually, I didn't even consider the imaginary MBA, since they are handed out so readily. I was only including the engineering degree that you pretend to have. Now that you have constructed an imaginary world for yourself, complete with a slightly lesser-known prestigious school and an unrounded number to make it all appear more real, I can understand why you would not follow the same empirical principles as other scientists. I'm sure things work much differently inside your head.
sevenslimysnails 5 months ago
@sevenslimysnails So an MBA from one of the finest schools in the world is "handed out to anyone". Hmmm, I'll let the Dean at Northwestern know that, I'm sure he'll chuckle a bit. And your high school diploma is more prestigious than my degrees why? Oh, because you are a world-class online liar you perceive that everyone else is too. Now I understand. Google "Krugman is a fool", and you'll find libraries full of his disproven lies, and his debunked research. In the circles...
svvmichael1 5 months ago
@sevenslimysnails ...of people knowledgable in economics, finance, and accounting Krugman is a laughing stock. He doesn't understand even basic economic theory because 1)he is blinded by partisanship and 2) he has never worked in the real world. Please disprove me with empirical evidence (ps- you can google the big words I used so that you can truly understand my posts).
svvmichael1 5 months ago
@svvmichael1 You cannot prove or disprove motivation or character... how can you not know this?
When you make an obviously biased, unsupported statement, it is not up to everyone else in the world to support it. This is called the burden of proof. That lesson was free. My how Northwestern has let itself go.
I am not going to argue about the relative value of MBA's since you don't even have one anyway.
sevenslimysnails 5 months ago
@sevenslimysnails Hmmm, so you can NOT prove even one of your baseless accusations. You are a true liberal then, as the definition of a liberal is someone who makes ignorant conclusion based on zero evidence. Kudos for meeting the ideal standard. Why should I care if you believe me or not? When I go to the bank to make a deposit they don't ask me if an internet troll named sevenslimysnails believes I am what I say, they just give me a receipt. Have a boring,ignorant, poverty-stricken life fool
svvmichael1 5 months ago
@svvmichael1 Your blind hatred is refreshing. At least you've finally said something with some degree of truth or significance.
sevenslimysnails 5 months ago
@sevenslimysnails I have no blind hatred, if I ever feel hatred it is for a very visible reason. Therefore, I don't hate you. I pity your cocoon of ignorance, and I weep for our country that it has fools like you in its population.
svvmichael1 5 months ago
@svvmichael1 Well I'm glad I was able to dial you down from wishing suffering on those you've never met to indulging in trite melodrama, but this has gotten too silly even for me. Now that you have gone from making vapid remarks about public figures to desperately clawing for authority to just crying, I'm wondering how much more uncomfortable you can actually make this.
sevenslimysnails 5 months ago
@sevenslimysnails Wow, I have never seen anyone as ignorant and borderline psychopathic as you. Please go receive some counselling before you turn your lurid eye onto small children. And btw, attacking someone who out debates you on every point is very weak. Go to Amazon and purchase a book on debating techniques, you really need it. Also a book on macro-economics would help.
svvmichael1 5 months ago
@leftwingersareweak ; Well put. It's unfortunate that more people don't see this. Krugman & like minded liberal progressive's have absolutely no concept of what is in store for the economy and our nation should Obama's health plan replace the current system. The big question in my mind is why these issues haven't seen the light of day.
1954tele 5 months ago
@leftwingersareweak Listen pal, you're a lightweight. I doubt you could ever get on this show and speak knowledgeably about Washington politics or economics, for that matter.
cutis1000 5 months ago
Mass Plan. Umm? They are losing money! Hello! Doesnt anyone get it? It aint free, someone has to pay, the money has to come from somewhere and if you dont have the money you need to cut services. That is economics. Now maybe if you got every doctor to donate 2 weeks of his service it would be free to the patient, but the doctor still has to pay money to get to work, eat live, pay his staff, etc. Nothing is free. Morons! Yeah, google the Mass Plan and see how it is working.
tuanische 1 year ago
@tuanische ... and the Mass plan has one of the highest rates, if not THE highest rate, of claims rejection in the medical insurance industry.
wetwingnut 1 year ago
right, Will is.
chewbaca1989 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
will is the mongoose to krugman's cobra. rikki tikki tavi, asshole.
johnbourbon 1 year ago
Comment removed
johnbourbon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Unintended consequences" can be good or bad. It's not conservative for anything.
Central planning of any type doesn't work b/c a small group of people can't possibly determine the needs of 300 million people then figure out the best manner to deliver those solutions...then adjust, adjust and adjust. Big is not better.
Why do party-liners believe that our political leaders are looking out for them?
davejoe75 1 year ago
"Unintended consequences" can be good or bad. It's not conservative for anything.
Central planning of any type doesn't work b/c a small group of people can't possibly determine the needs of 300 million people then figure out the best manner to deliver those solutions...then adjust, adjust and adjust. Big is not better.
Why do party-liners believe that our political leaders are looking out for them?
davejoe75 1 year ago 11
@davejoe75 Great post
SuperGuitarman69 5 months ago
"Unintended consequences." That's conservative shorthand for "we don't know why, but bad stuff will happen, trust us!!"
Z200a 1 year ago
@Z200a Or perhaps it's shorthand, from any point on the political spectrum, for "read your history."
chrismca 1 year ago
@Z200a
Show me the money. Don't have it, don't care, just print some more and tax the "rich". LOL.
chewbaca1989 1 year ago
@chewbaca1989 When it cost $50,000 to buy groceries due to hyper inflation(Ask the germans about that little gem) what will be your next recomendation, Mr. Wizard? The Russians might have some bad ideas you can champion left over from the days they promised to bury us.
0spiker 1 year ago
@0spiker
Oh, it's happening now. Print em'
chewbaca1989 1 year ago
@0spiker Really shit for brains? Do you have any clue as to what caused the hyperinflation? It was paying off the war debt. That's it, nothing more. Not socialism, as this was impossible. The Weimar republic was capitalist, so try again. Go learn some god damn history before you open your mouth.
Newenlightenmentnow 9 months ago
@Newenlightenmentnow I can tell you this much, poopypants, New Enlightenment sounds like old stupidity. Paying a debt does not cause inflation, hyper or otherwise. Printing too much money, does.
I never claimed it was due to socialism.No Professor grumpy pants, Wiemar was constitutionally social democrat (read socialist). When you and your boyfriends finish disporting with each other in the Fourth Reich closet, go learn some god damn history before you open your mouth.
sp1ke0kill3r 9 months ago