Well, Will was wrong about those mortgages. Will talks about price controls ... something only Republican Presidents have done ... Nixon and Ford. Gee, it's OK when Republicans do it, but when when Democrats do not even do it, but do something that is somewhat a little bit like it, then he goes nuts with the finger pointing on all Liberals.
Please note that my book Keynes Hayek: The Clash That Shaped Modern Economics is published by W.W.Norton in October.
Professor John B.Taylor says that: “Nicholas Wapshott brings the Keynes-Hayek fight of the 20th century back to life, making the clash both entertaining and highly relevant for understanding economic crises of the 21st century.”
Read an extract at: sites.google.com/site/wapshottkeyneshayek/
:45 George Will hits the nail on the head. "look if you now have Wall St. socialism ... if you are socializing losses and keeping profits private, why not help EVERYBODY". That has been PRECISELY the point of Dems and socialists this whole time. Corporate socialism isn't a new concept in America, ALL the major corporations have government loans, deals and subsidies to thank, while idiot puppets are railing against "socialism" for the poor, they don't realize that CORPORATIONS are subsidized too.
@justgivemethetruth I don't know what the fuck you're smoking, Mussolini described fascism as state capitalism which he further defines as government control of corporations.
@justgivemethetruth So who the fuck should I believe? Some old illiterate dumb fuck on the internet or the leader and a key player in the creation of Fascism? The very definition and concept of a fascist state is one that is ruled by a single party authoritarian government.. The government simply operated in a corporate manner you dolt.
@emp0rizzle Don't believe the first, and don't believe the second. Fascism is a very complex phenomenon which cannot be reduced to some simple formula like "government control of corporations" or the reverse.
@justgivemethetruth and if corporations were so fucking powerful, why even bother with a fucking middle man? That's like a legit fortune teller that doesn't use her "gift" to buy a lotto ticket. Instead she's reading palms for $20. Cart before the horse and shit.
Actually, liberals are KOOL AID based. Just like you've demonstrated.
You attack me, yet have you even bothered to RESEARCH what I've written to see that it's factual? No. You just plod through life with your head firmly inserted up your ass.
LOOK UP WHAT RIECH WROTE.
He unambiguously advocated withholding medical care from old people and LETTING THEM DIE. Are you so childish that you want to argue over what we CALL this policy? As far as I'm concerned, DEATH PANELS is as good a name as any.
Robert Reich in no way is advocating withholding Medicare, or letting old people die ... what a laugh, what an idiot you are. You know the Conservatives/Republicans are really desperate when their whole platform is based on groundless wild lies like that one.
You have your head firmly planted up your ass. That's probably why you're unaware of this quote from a speech Robert Reich gave at Berkeley in Sept. 2007:
QUOTE: "...if you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life...It's too expensive...so we're going to let you die."
Go fuck yourself, you Kool Aid-drinking liberal moron.
@UncleIrv It is a difficult question: "how much of our tax dollars should the government spend on the terminally ill?" As well, so is this question: "How much is too much to spend on the military?" These are difficult questions. It's obvious that the answer isn't this: "Every single penny and some." Once we know out the absurd extreme, we have to argue and debate until we come to some kind of compromise on these difficult issues.
Actually, these questions aren't as difficult as you make them out.
"How much tax dollars should the government spend on health care?" If it's the FEDERAL government, the answer is ZERO. All social welfare spending should be controlled at the STATE level. That would vastly increase accountability and introduce innovation-producing competition and experimentation. Note that states cannot PRINT dollars.
"How much should we spend on the military?" Simple. NOT MORE THAN WE HAVE.
So it is ROBERT RIECH who dares to throw the "eat cake" accusation?
Liberals are such existential hypocrites that I ponder how the entire universes does not implode from some weird quantum effect whenever they open their mouths.
Let's not forget that it was RIECH who, in his recommendations for health care, openly advocated DEATH PANELS FOR OLD PEOPLE to save their medical expenses.
So it is ROBERT RIECH who dares to throw the "eat cake" accusation?
Liberals are such existential hypocrites that I ponder how the entire universes does not implode from some weird quantum effect whenever they open their mouths.
Let's not forget that it was RIECH who, in his recommendations for health care, openly advocated DEATH PANELS FOR OLD PEOPLE to save their medical expenses.
Liberals are reality-based, unlike you and other conservatives, with your baseless accusations. BTW there are no death panels, you putz. Love how you show you have no idea what's going on.
So it is ROBERT RIECH who dares to throw the "eat cake" accusation?
Liberals are such existential hypocrites that I ponder how the entire universes does not implode from some weird quantum effect whenever they open their mouths.
Let's not forget that it was RIECH who, in his recommendations for health care, openly advocated DEATH PANELS FOR OLD PEOPLE to save their medical expenses.
It's people like Riech that make me regret my conviction against shooting these evil fucks in the head.
With regards to Katrina all I have to see is that is what Flood Insurance is for. If you live on the coast and you don't have Flood Insurance then you have nobody to blame but yourself. It's not the Governments responsibility to buy you a new home.
Krugman advocates for even MORE Federal debt- Paul, enough is enough. The comparison to Katrina is laughable since the people who borrowed too much and lended too much are to blame.
I have no debt and yet I am handed the cost of bailing them (US) out?
@matthewelync Everyone has to pay in one way or another. Would you rather pay to keep them up in shelter? What about a prison? What about paying for a new window and television cause they broke in and took yours?
I love how he says the "administration" told people that there is no bubble but I'd bet my life if you asked him if Barney Frank is somehow culpable in this mess he would find a way to say "No."
Frank btw can be found here on YouTube saying exactly that in 2005 and then, 3 years later, denying that he was for housing and saying he was pro-rental homes instead. Fat lying bastard.
Reich, Krugman, Stephanopoulus and the Black woman...4 Liberal to 1 Conservative...Gee, I guess the mainstream media thinks that's fair odds. Of course it is! Liberals are such morons...Krugman is proof you don't have to know anything at all about Economics to win the Nobel Prize for Economics! Is this thing on?
@vince33x Y'know who else won the Prize? Friedrich Von Hayek. He caters to your tastes and he didn't write about economics at all, he wrote about principals. . .principals rooted in falsities. Meanwhile, Stephanopolus? That's a stretch, and just "black woman"? If you're assuming she's liberal just because of that, you've got a lot of nerve. The real scoreboard is 2 unknowns, 1 Con man and 2 Liberals. Still unfair, but any 1 man should be able to defend from all rhetorical angles, especially sinc
@TheKevinWalker Of course the difference between Krugman & Hayek is that Hayek understands economics and Krugman does not.
You then give yourself away as either a liar or an imbecile: Reich, Krugman, Stephenapolus, and Edelman (the black woman) are ALL Liberals! So mainstream media bias is on display for all to see. Of course, if the viewers are like you, they are still clueless.
@vince33x Henry Hazlitt wasn't a "trained" economist, yet his book: ECONOMICS IN ONE LESSON remains the largest selling book on the subject ever written. BTW, if you chose 1,000 black women at random, you would be right 98% of the time in calling each of them a Liberal!
@TheKevinWalker BTW, what the hell is a "neo-Keynsian." What is that? New to stupid? Only the news media and the Democratic Party think Keynes is back - the empirical data shows quite the contrary. Please name one country that has spent and borrowed its way to wealth and prosperity?
@vince33x Reich and Krugman both took essentially the same angle. Meanwhile those are Liberal ECONOMISTS who are, when down to specifics, much less prone to regulatory measures than just a regular liberal. Krugman, in "Depression Economics" has even, to a small degree, argued that as long as the Federal Reserve works correctly, the economy should be fine in all runs. He argues for regulations from the perspective that it makes it much less likely that banks will spontaneously fail and create
@TheKevinWalker Re: the Federal Reserve: Between 1789 and 1913 the USD gained 8% in value; since 1913 (yr Federal Reserve created) the USD has LOST 92% of its value! Great Job Fed!
@TheKevinWalker Aye, there's the operative: "'as long as' the Federal Reserve works correctly" and that's the point, isn't it - the Fed has rarely "operated correctly!" AS I noted previously: From 1789 to 1913 the USD gained 8% in value; from 1913 (yr Fed created) to 2010, the USD has lost 92% of its value.
Ultmately all arms of government function "politically" while the Private Sector responds to economic rationality unless government actions preclude such behavior (e.g> w/subsidies, etc.).
@vince33x economic downturns, IE WHAT HAPPENED. Always take note that economists, REAL economists, not Austrain-scholars, will usually only reccomend the common sense regulations like a re-instatement of the Banking Act of 1933 (repealed in 1999), which Krugman himself has yet to say the repeal of had any truly notable effect on the creation of the recession itself. Reich I cannot speak for, but Economists, in short, are always unique thinkers on Public Policy. Choose words carefully, sir.
@TheKevinWalker Our current economic issues were caused by our own gov't, thru the actions of the Fed (keeping interest rates artificially too low), the CRA (forcing banks to make bad loans), Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, & Maxine Waters blocking Republican efforts to regulate FANNIE & FREDDIE - Dems luv to regulate Private Sector but hate it when anyone wants to regulate the gov't sector.
@vince33x Did I say anything about Henry Hazlitt? My textbook on the subject is the 2nd edition of "ECONOMICS" by Paul Krugman and Robin Wells. You act as though the value of the currency itself is the most important thing to an economy, it's not. Short term devaluations of currency (the solution to most every economic slump), have little to no real long-term effects. It is acceptable to have a currency whose worth is determined by it's public trust.
@TheKevinWalker So is it your contention that a declining currency is a sign of good economic health. If so, Zimbabwe should be booming! Instead, what was once the 2nd richest nation in Africa and a huge food exporter is now destitute and starving!
BTW, 3 presidents came into office w/economies worse than Obama's: Warren Harding (18% unemployment), FDR (24% unemployment & Great Depression), Ronnie Reagan (12.5% inflation, 9.7% unemployment, 15% interest rate). Harding & Reagan initiated large
@vince33x tax cuts and relaxed regulations and in both cases the economy quickly recovered. FDR instituted massive new government programs, including Social Security - the world's largest Ponzi Scheme; tried to "pack" the Supreme Court when they declared a number of his new programs unconstitutional; increased Federal Spending (Harding cut Fed spending; Reagan tried to - he did slow rate of growth) and the Depression continued another 9 years, until WWII began for USA in Dec., 1941.
@vince33x The school is nototrious for it's lack of empiricism. The CRA has virtually no evidence connecting it as the main cause of the housing crisis, regardless of whether the program actually works or not (unclear). Meanwhile there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the regulations and welfare state policies put in by the New Deal to suggest their effectiveness, mainly the over 60 years without an economic deppression.
"ACORN was issuing fact sheets bragging about relaxations of credit standards that it had won on behalf of minorities."
In Fall of 1999, Clinton Treas. Sec'y Larry Summers warned, "Debates about systemic risk should also now include government-sponsored enterprises, which are large and growing rapidly." The GSEs he was talking about were FANNIE & FREDDIE who were rapidly buying sub-prime loans because of the CRA (this meant the taxpayer was
In 2005, Republicans tried to institute new regulations on FANNIE & FREDDIE. These regulations, designed to tighten up the standards on the loans these GSEs were buying, were blocked by Barney Frank (D-MA), Maxine Waters (D-CA) & Chris Dodd (D-CT).
Meanwhile taxpayer-funded "brownshirts" fr ACORN were protesting at bank execs HOMES demanding MORE sub-prime loans (IOW Lower loan standards - a hallmark of the CRA!). CRA, FANNIE, FREDDIE caused Meltdown
@TheKevinWalker I did not say the CRA was the "main cause" of our current economic crisis but actions of our Government WERE the main causes (Interest rates too low for too long - the Fed & Greenspan; CRA-pushing banks & mortgage companies into sub-prime loans; FANNIE & FREDDIE urging banks to write bad loans - "we'll buy them"; Dems in Congress blocking Republican attempts to rein-in reckless policies of FANNIE & FREDDIE) - taken together, this was a "witches brew" for a meltdown!
@vince33x As for "Neo-Keynesian", lets take a little score here. I simply said that the Austrians dealt more in principles, not practice, and certainly not science. You called Keynesians outright stupid. There are plenty of intelligent Austrians who are blinded by the principles of the school, or in the case of the people who fund the institutes CATO, Ludwig von Mises, etc., blinded by their greed. Keynesianism was devastated in the late 70's when Economist Robert Lucas of the Monetarist school
@vince33x of the Monetarist or "Chicago" school noted that Keynesiansim was not rooted in microeconomics, unsuprising considering JMK invented the school of macroeconomics almost out of thin air, and it probably hit the school a bit too hard considering the fact that the success of Keynesian policy was plainly apparent in the 30 years after the end of WWII. However, in the 90's, Keynesian thinkers were able to make the connection, foudning the "Neo-Keynesian" school.
@TheKevinWalker Keynsian policies were not a success! The USA was virtually the ONLY country in the world with its infrastructure intact after WWII. The Marshall Plan was put forth to rebuild Europe but it was loaded with lard & fraud. Had Europe been rebuilt Privately it would have been done with far less waste & fraud.
LBJ's policies of "Guns & Butter" led to real decline in the values of USA businesses of 80% between 1966 & 1982. It was only w/Reagan tax cuts that values recovered!
@vince33x I apologize, I confused my schools, the New Keynesians are the ones with microeconomic roots. The Neo-Keynesians are still busy reading the "General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money." We've moved on to "Depression Economics"
@TheKevinWalker The Depression was caused by the Fed, when, in the wake of the '29 Stock Crash, the Fed REDUCED money supply by 33% causing a MASSIVE LIQUIDITY CRISIS. This was exacerbated by Congress, which passed the SMOOT-HAWLET TARIFF act, which all but halted world trade. As is usually the case, government action causes economic destruction. When is the Left going to "get it?"
So how do you morons on here who shot your mouth off a year or more ago think about what you said today? Reich, Krugman, Bernake, Paulson, Geithner, crooks and idiots.
@equsnarnd I think they are, for the most part morons. Krugman is a genuinely evil guy and so are Reich and Bernanke. Geithner and Paulson are just idiots.
@vince33x Well, that certainly 'feels' true but I wonder what particular evidence you use to differentiate them. I've always thought of Reich as a simpleton and a bumbler but I could easily be convinced to your POV.
@equsnarnd Reich as well as Krugman are Keynsians, which is another way of saying they are idiots! Where Keynes really gets it wrong is his belief in the need to "stimulate" demand during an economic downturn. This ought to be, on the face of it, obviously wrong. Anyone who has children knows that you don't ever need to stimulate demand. Human demands and wants are unlimited.
Ronnie Reagan, while no academic, proved himself smarter than all the eggheads in Washington by following the advice of
@equsnard: Art Laffer, father of the "Laffer Curve" which he developed from, of all people: Keynse & Arab historian Ibd Khalud. Reagan followed the advice of Laffer (but he also knew instinctively) and got a Democratic Congress to agree to the largest tax cuts in USA history (reduced top marginal rates fr 70% dn to 28%). As a result, 23M jobs were created during the Reagan yrs + huge capital investment occurred, cutting in half the avg age of plant & equipment in the USA.
@equsnard: continued to call Reagan an "amiable dunce." Of course the real dunces were in the bureaucracy and the halls of the academy. Meanwhile Reagan's policies resulted in huge cleanups of the environment (new plant pollute far less than old ones), greater productive efficiencies, and the fall of the Soviet Union w/out firing a single shop - now that's worthy of a Nobel Prize (as opposed for getting one for being black and denigrating the USA!).
@vince33x Well, as someone who follows the Austrian school of economics you don't need to convince me of the stupidity of Keynes. But you were talking about evil as opposed to mere idiocy and self-interest. As for Reagan, he needs to thank Paul Volker for his part at the Fed in not screwing things up. Greenspan who I actually admired (he wrote articles on the soundness of gold years ago) screwed things up royally and we have a housing bubble (& Frank, Pelosi, Read, Dodd, Bush etal).
@equsnarnd The Left is evil because its twin pillars are: ENVY and THEFT. The Left is all about creating envy in the minds of the populace by BEARING FALSE WITNESS re: Capitalism. The Left in media report the lie that our economic meltdown was caused by "Wall Street" or "Market Failure." these are bald faced lies and anyone who has the slightest knowledge of economic history knows this.
The Left HAS TO LIE because its message is a lie and its practice has resulted in millions of deaths!
@equsnarnd Even though Mr. Volcker was appointed by Jimmy Carter, he may very well have been the best Fed chairman ever. During the 80s, rather than acting "politically" he acted responsibly by reining in the money supply and thus bring the inflation of the late 60s, 70s, & early 80s to a halt. This + the Reagan tax cuts (biggest in USA history) brought the economy roaring back. USA was re-industrialized w/23M new jobs created + numerous new IPOs.
@equsnarnd Greenspan was, at one time, a great libertarian economist who, in my opinion, became drunk with power. This happens to so many who spend too much time in Washington DC.
A once great man who is now a doddering old fool married to the Ultra-Left-Wing MSNBC "reporter" Andrea Mitchell.
@TheTypicalGirl I'll say it again, the Socialists DO NOT LIKE Obama. I myself am a Neo-Keynesian, but I know many Socialists personally who, of course, argue that all of the major prog victories have been tepid at best, and the head of the USA Socialist Party wrote a "Washington Post" editorial on how little Socialist tendencies the Obama campaign showed. Meanwhile, it could be argued that virtually all of the major prog victories themselves could've been SLIGHTLY more leftist.
@TheKevinWalker Oh come on Kevin, the ONLY self-pronounced Socialist in Congress-Bernie Sanders (VT) love Obama! The late Norman Thomas, long time head of the Socialist Party of the USA said: "we may as well disband the Socialist Party as the Democrats WANT TO ACCOMPLISH THE SAME THINGS WE DO!"
I'll take the leader of the Socialist Party at his word thank-you. The Dems have been Socialists since the days of William Jennings Bryan. You ought to know that!
Peer-reviewed study finds Paul Krugman is the most partisan economist. Krugman was the only economist to "significantly" change his stances for partisan reasons. Krugman has even gone so far as to contradict his own findings to bash Republican politicians.
The peer-reviewed research was published in May 2010 issue of the Econ Journal Watch (EJW), edited by Daniel B. Klein. Seven Nobel laureates are members of the EJW Advisory Council.
Nobody should ever be held responsible for the consequences of their actions. Even when a whole 10 percent thought there was a free lunch, the 90 percent who knew better should be made to bail them out. Sure. Makes perfect sense to me.
Why is G Will given air time except maybe on Fox Newsless. Not once has he ever said anything, now, or in the last 8 years, that can be considered profound
or insightful. He is just another Fox Newsless jester posing as a conservative journalist.
These shows are all the same. A group of liberals sitting around a table talking and, oh by the way, there's one conservative. It's shameful. "This Week" is about on the same level as "The View." Pathetic.
A group of liberals. A group of people with brains.. You must think that every debate outside of fox news is liberal garbage. Step outside your american conservative bubble, and see that the world is not as conservative as you think america is.
The point that ''these shows are all the same" because they have fewer conservatives on is a line from FOX news. If you were a centrist or a liberal, or if you didn't pay attention to politics that much, you probably wouldn't see it that way.
I think so because his ideas tend to actually make sense, he was right about the Bush administraion's failed policies before anyone else, and he is skeptical of the Obama administration's life support for the 'zombie banks'. Plus, he won the Nobel Prize/
By now you've realized that the Nobel prize committee uses their awards to push political agendas. The World Bank, IMF, US, et al. all support the failed Keynesian model as it gives central governments a lot of power and has the slow, yet powerful, effect of wealth transfer from the middle to upper class.
Krugman supports Keynesian economics, governments, especially these days, like to here that, and the puzzle starts fitting together.
Obama's peace prize? It was to 'guide' him. Just watch.
While the poor are richer in Europe its not by much.
Fewer Europeans them make it rich or middle class. Because of low job creation high taxation and high regulations there are lower rates of entrepreneurship in Europe than the US.
Entrepreneurship is the driving force for most American immigrants. Regardless of whether they are low skilled mexican immigrants such as creating a lanscaping companies or higher skilled Asian immigrants tech start ups. h t t p : / / tiny .c c / gjA0i
If abortion was the cause of the drop in crime it would have fallen at the same rate nationally. But that is not the case. Compton had an increase in violence while the Bronx decreased during the 1990's But the abortion theory relies on the assumption that there are fewer single mothers. But in fact there are more single mothers than ever before. In the years after welfare the number of single parent head of households rose to 40% now its 70%. more poor blacks=more crime but crime decreased
George Will is an idiot? I'm an ardent Democrat but George Will makes some of the most consistently persuasive arguments for conservatism that I've ever heard. If more political roundtables welcomed the views of George Will and David Brooks, rather than the shrill partisan whining of most hacks, well... our political discourse would both enriched and civilized.
News flash we spent billions of dollars on New Orleans. The fact that there is little has been reconstructed is a failure of government. What has happened in New Orleans is not because supposed "let them eat cake mentality"....
The stimulus bill is just going to be like Katrina billions of dollars wasted little to show for it...
Mohamed Yunus is a big critic of the World Bank and traditional state run welfare. He said you would have a greater economic effect dumping money from a helicopter in the sky than to fund many of the infrastructure and welfare programs
And his opinion is valuable. But something to keep in mind, a properly funded welfare state is two things : an automatic Keynesian stimulus, and the most cost effective way to prevent crime.
In the international sense, which I'm guess is in part what he was talking about, aid can do more harm than good. If you drop free or super subsidized food on a nation, you put their farmers out of work, and potentially kill their local economy.
The Welfare state is the most cost effective way to prevent crime. When they increased welfare spending from 1965-1975 crime skyrocketed in New York and large cities. Some parts of NY were in absolute anarchy. When Guilani had welfare to work plans tax cuts with increased policing crime declined 78% and poverty decreased.
Whether its welfare to countries our welfare to individuals they have the same effect it cripples the economy and the individual. A job is the best anti-poverty technique.
A) The economic collapse of the inner city after white flight
B)Racial tensions were extremely high during this period in time
C) The Drop in crime was due to the effect of Roe V. Wade, as you see that drop almost nation wide, even in areas with no changes to welfare
So, instead of taking a short period of time when racial tensions were high, lets take a long period of time that is an established trend: Europe vs. the United States.
And Just to be clear, A job is the best anti-poverty technique, but it is not always possible. And expropriation through taxation is one of the worst ways to produce equality. However, we live in the United States, and these are the tools we have at this point in time.
Its not possible to have jobs because of high minmum wages high taxes that prevent restrict low skilled workers from entering into the workplace. To pay for welfare you need high taxes. Higher taxes means that there is less money for employers to spend on workers. Which creates more unemployment which creates the need for more welfare etc.
I am not saying that we should not give any welfare or assistance. Much of the poverty eliviation creates more problems than it solves.
What caused White Flight? High taxes was one of the main causes.....White flight was reversed when the lowered the taxes. Now there are so many Professional middle class Families in NYC that there aren't enough elementary schools for them.
White flight was caused by the expansionary boom of the 50's and 60's, the development of the interstate system to make commuting possible, and some clever engineering.
I never said that welfare decreases racial tensions. They are independent of each other, and sometimes used as a excuse to legitimize bigotry.
The minimum wage and high taxes argument is a bunch of nonsense. Europe has similar unemployment numbers, when you consider they count more people when they take the stats.
Further more, the abortion argument has nothing to do with single parents, it has to do with over population, and "unwanted kids".
Second, it wouldn't decrease equally across the country, it would decrease more in areas where the most abortions where preformed. Which is what happened.
Europe similar unemployment numbers I beg to differ. France declared unemployment stats is often double the US according to the CIA factbook. Then there is the 21% unemployment for the youth and the 30% unemployment for those in the ghettos. h t t p : / / tiny. c c / france
States with low taxes and low minimum wages have higher overall job creation and higher increases in wages. h t t p : / / tiny. c c / ohio
Youth don't have to work to get through college, its completely covered by the public in France. And because they they count those people on their unemployment numbers, it inflates those statistics. Employment of 20-54 age group in france is about the same as in the states. Their biggest problem is they fucked up their public pension plan, and people retire at 54(I think thats right).
Your right they do have free public education. But unless you make it to a their version of the ivy's you really don't have a choice on which university you can attend Many have college degrees but the universities don't change to reflect the needs of businesses. Therefore they graduate too many liberal arts degree majors with few business skills. Employers are not willing to risk lifetime employment on graduates that have few skills which = high unemployment
Second, comparing Ohio, and manufacturing economy that has lost the most jobs due to NAFTA, to Texas, and Oil State, over a period of extremely high oil prices, is hardly fair.
Second, in the other article, Comparing very urbanized states (NY, IL, CA) to Virginia, Idaho, Wyoming, is also unfair. You can figure out why for yourself.
Finally, I'm not disputing that taxes contribute to why people move. People can, and do move based on that. But it's not the only reason.
Welfare is not the best solution to our inequality, but the number of children living in poverty in Europe is much, much lower than in the states (19% to 3% i think). Violent crime is lower in Europe. That is norm that as been sustained for decades. Cases that argue otherwise are the exception, not the rule.
What are the reasons then? I would argue that the reasons are primarily financial and due to the quality and cost of the government services. Its a cost benefit type decision.
For example 40k in Alabama is a lot more than 40k in CA. In CA 40k is working poor in AL its middle class
South Dakota is in the top 10 of migration to has a positive net migration of immigrants. But its neighbor North Dakota is a top 10 loss of residents. They are similar in a lot of ways ND has a income tax
It was comparing their manufacturing stats and not the oil production so its not an apples to oranges comparision. GM is closing plants in Michigan but opening plants near Dallas.
If Tax cuts don't work why has Ohio exports surged 11% after the 2005-2007 tax cuts? h t t p : / / tiny . c c / ohio803
You would think that urban centers with great universities are better prepared to compete in the global economy. That if people had the choice to live anywhere they would live in NYC Chicago etc. They answer is the many of the rich and the highly skilled do choose to live there. But the high taxes high regulations high minimum wages discourages small business ownership & low skill jobs that the poor rely on. The majority of people who are not highly skilled professionals are leaving.
It was government spending and higher taxes compared to the suburbs. that provided incentives for people to leave. Spending on highways cheap home loans and cheaper homes because of loose zoning laws and more land. Combined with higher taxes in the cities and lower taxes in the suburbs. High taxes were an economic disincentive But your post war boom argument does not factor in why families have moved back to the city when taxes were lower and crime were lower.
You were saying that welfare decreases crime and racial tensions. But when the welfare state was strongest so was racial tensions. Welfare to work programs decreased racial tensions. If the welfare state decreases racial tensions why Muslims revolt in Paris in 2005? France has an extremely generous welfare state. Many of the immigrants were college educated but they still burned buildings.
Middle Class blacks are like others middle class are moving to low tax red states such as Atlanta
@BitterBosh No offense, but you don't learn "leadership" by being a member of a 100% equal-power, cooperative body, and you certainly don't learn it while being tortured in the Hanoi Hilton. No Senator can make the "leadership" arguement, and only someone who could somehow be governor of between 10-15 states at a time can even have a TASTE of the responsibilites of the Presidency, not a Gvr. of a single state. The Presidency is on-job training, and, frankly, it should be that way.
don't under estimate the blind devotion to right-wing idealogy. Some people can't admit when their wrong, and some people just don't care becuase it deosn't affect them personally, take george will for example.
Why in the world isn't Peter Schiff ever allowed in the same room as Paul Krugman to school him about economics? And doesn't it strike you that because the Democrats are in power (at the moment) that if the economy collapses and the dollar collapses that people will blame the Democrats for years to come on their handling of the crisis? You'll never see a Democrat on the ballot again. Checks and Balances' work. Dictatorship leads to revolutions.
I hate to break this to you... The economy has already collapsed! Since you must've been on Neptune-- sadly, I regret to inform you that the economy tanked last fall with Bush, a Republican, in his 8th year of office! Paulson, Bush's TS, threw 350 BILLION into giant financial institutions to keep them from going belly up. Lehman Bros went bankrupt in Sept. 2008. Many others were already in the same line. We're already a year into a deep recession. I know it's scary, but someone had to tell you.
Now, I know somebody of your intelligence should know that the more we spend, the more we put ourselves into debt to other nations. When those other nations refuse to buy debt from us, we're screwed. The economy hasn't completely collapsed yet. You can blame Bush if you want. If you finished your research, you'd think differently. $350 Billion is nothing compared to the trillions Geithner is spending. While I was on Neptune, you've must have been in another galaxy. Sorry, but I had to tell you.
Oh, the Republicans are worried about our national debt NOW? How convenient. First, they try to bankrupt the country with unnecessary war. Essentially BURN taxpayer money on defense contracts with absolutely no oversight. Give two enormous tax breaks to the rich while simultaneously wasting trillions on unnecessary war with literally billions unaccounted for to this day. Double the national debt in 8 yrs. The facts blame the Bush Admin, not me. Next post, the financial industry!
Yes, but look at who buys our debt. It's China. Their economy depends on the United States buying their goods. If they stop buying our debt, or we default on it, the value of the dollar collapses. That means Americans won't be able to buy their goods, and then their economy collapses.
And I'm against the bailouts, we need to complete restructure our financial system, not toss tons of money into it.
@diezungen Krugman is far from being brilliant. He's wrong on just about everything. I read his columns over the years and I think the guy is as dumb as a box of rocks.
@juscurious Peer-reviewed study finds Paul Krugman is the most partisan economist. Krugman was the only economist to "significantly" change his stances for partisan reasons. Krugman has even gone so far as to contradict his own findings to bash Republican politicians.
The peer-reviewed research was published in May 2010 issue of the Econ Journal Watch (EJW), edited by Daniel B. Klein. Seven Nobel laureates are members of the EJW Advisory Council.
yeah, videocalf - this isn't about left/right. Will's point is to NOT bail out corrupt corporatist fascist bankers - get it? When you blur the issue with social compassion morality issues - you play into the endgame. Time for Americans to pull together and use their heads. Let the monopolies collapse on their accountability. Stop propping them up. THEY WILL EAT YOU AND ALL YOUR POOR. Grow up. The Great Society - if you STILL don't see the fascist sham in that - you are a lost cause.
Jpb - Jon Doe? Fred Flinstone? Al Franken Jones? What is wrong with you? You are really a modern thinker with a long memory. You know so much about the Renaissance and the Greeks. Don't you now. O, I'm the smug one. Okay, if you say 2 + 2 = 5, I guess we're all supposed to suck it. Move to a Despotic society. They'll find you very tasty.
Will doesn't himself as a compassionate conservative. I believe this term was coined during the first Bush 43 campaign. Practically, it means that the power of government is increased in order to further causes which are important to social conservatives. Will is more interested in governmental restraint than in furthering a social agenda. Like him or hate him, he is not hypocritical. He has little or no interest in compassionate conservative causes.
Poor George knows that he's about to get called on being intellectually out of gas for the last 15 years! Such a beautiful clip! Thank you for posting
"Pursuit of Virtue" was well done--and Will played an important role in offering some intellectual undergirding to the conservative cause during the 80's. It's not his fault that GW has sold out every honest conservative ideal, but it IS his fault that he's stopped thinking critically and curbed his contrarian streak. To someone like Buckley's credit, he made no secret of his absolute disgust with GW Bush. George Will still needs a meal ticket on the speech circuit so he comes to heel.
But the threat of global warming is greatly overstated. Humanity's existence is no more threatened by global warming today than it was by global freezing in the 1970's (when climate experts assured us we would be in a new Ice Age by the year 2000). Every generation wants to believe the world is coming to an end in their lifetimes and every generation thus far has been proved wrong. Nothing suggests to me this is going to change.
Reich needs to read his history, Hoover WAS very activist. He prolonged the depression, and made it so much worse than it needed to be. Even Roosevelt's chief advisor admitted that all FDR's programs were really just extensions of what Hoover had already done. DPM is right, "you are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts." Read Amity Shales' "The Forgotten Man" or Paul Johnson's "Modern Times" and tell me Hoover wasn't EXTREEMLY activist.
Time to medicate Krugman and put him to bed. Of course! 2% of homes in foreclosure is JUST like Katrina! Good lord. Um, let's see, would I rather have the mcmansion I should never have purchased be foreclosed on, or drown to death in a huge flood. Hm...
You can find Krugman predicting recession going back to 2002. Hasn't happened yet. When and if it finally does he'll say, see! I knew it! He's a dishonest person. He's an activist not an economist.
He had accurately predicted the housing bubble. Not just a recession. He had also accurately predicted the NASDAQ crash. And no I don't think he predicted a recession in 2002 since the USA was just recovering from one (he DID predict) at the time.
So why not bail out the people with outstanding mortgages instead of beailing out the fucking BANK! It was government sponsered theft with the losers being the share holders(resold at next to nothing) the borrowers, and you and I in FEDInCMTax plain and simple.
Also, if you want foreclosed properties to be occupied, then lower the f**king price! That will sure make them sell. With all the bad decisions that were made by borrowers and lenders the last few years, home prices in places like So-Cal went up 10% to 20% a year while incomes only rose 3%. It did not take a rocket scientist to figure out that this was a huge problem and would lead to all the foreclosures we have now.
If you, Rieche & Krugman believe Will is "uncompassionate" I suggest you all get out of your ivory tower and speak with the people who rented the last several years since we wanted no part of the insane real estate prices because we knew it was not financially prudent.The idea that savers should have to bailout flippers, lenders, and others who made bad decisions is just immoral
For those borrowers who truly were victims of loan fraud, go after the lenders and their CEOs, not the taxpayers.
david: thanks for your sensible post. I got a mortgage in early 2006 and laughed at the loan officer when she offerred APR. Anyone with a brain KNEW rates were going up sooner rather than later. IMO it was greedy people that bought more house than they could afford that are in trouble now. However, for all our sakes, I support restructuring these loans; they still have to pay 100% of what the borrowed, but over a longer period of time to reduce their monthly payments.
lol it pretty much is dealt with at the state level...
BNCcooperative 1 month ago
USA is FASCIST country. Watch for SS Police knock on your door.
aviomaster 2 months ago
Liquidate the investors of banks. If they are international seize their off-short assets and banks.
Foreshadow44 4 months ago
Except the flooding of New Orleans was not a natural disaster.
ls1z28chris 5 months ago
Well, Will was wrong about those mortgages. Will talks about price controls ... something only Republican Presidents have done ... Nixon and Ford. Gee, it's OK when Republicans do it, but when when Democrats do not even do it, but do something that is somewhat a little bit like it, then he goes nuts with the finger pointing on all Liberals.
justgivemethetruth 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please note that my book Keynes Hayek: The Clash That Shaped Modern Economics is published by W.W.Norton in October.
Professor John B.Taylor says that: “Nicholas Wapshott brings the Keynes-Hayek fight of the 20th century back to life, making the clash both entertaining and highly relevant for understanding economic crises of the 21st century.”
Read an extract at: sites.google.com/site/wapshottkeyneshayek/
Nicholas Wapshott
nhwapshott 7 months ago
:45 George Will hits the nail on the head. "look if you now have Wall St. socialism ... if you are socializing losses and keeping profits private, why not help EVERYBODY". That has been PRECISELY the point of Dems and socialists this whole time. Corporate socialism isn't a new concept in America, ALL the major corporations have government loans, deals and subsidies to thank, while idiot puppets are railing against "socialism" for the poor, they don't realize that CORPORATIONS are subsidized too.
truthslap 7 months ago
@truthslap
Because is you help the people it is Democracy, but if you help corporations it is facism, that is what we have.
Communism is when the government dominates corporations.
Fascism is when corporations dominate governments ....
the US should walk that line between, but we keep crushing our own peoiple,
and letting corporations take over the government.
justgivemethetruth 7 months ago
@justgivemethetruth I don't know what the fuck you're smoking, Mussolini described fascism as state capitalism which he further defines as government control of corporations.
emp0rizzle 6 months ago
@emp0rizzle
Why do you have to swear to make your point ... which is wrong by the way. Fascism is the government controlled by corporations.
justgivemethetruth 6 months ago
@justgivemethetruth So who the fuck should I believe? Some old illiterate dumb fuck on the internet or the leader and a key player in the creation of Fascism? The very definition and concept of a fascist state is one that is ruled by a single party authoritarian government.. The government simply operated in a corporate manner you dolt.
emp0rizzle 6 months ago
@emp0rizzle Don't believe the first, and don't believe the second. Fascism is a very complex phenomenon which cannot be reduced to some simple formula like "government control of corporations" or the reverse.
TheRacistsMustDie 2 months ago
@justgivemethetruth and if corporations were so fucking powerful, why even bother with a fucking middle man? That's like a legit fortune teller that doesn't use her "gift" to buy a lotto ticket. Instead she's reading palms for $20. Cart before the horse and shit.
emp0rizzle 6 months ago
Actually, liberals are KOOL AID based. Just like you've demonstrated.
You attack me, yet have you even bothered to RESEARCH what I've written to see that it's factual? No. You just plod through life with your head firmly inserted up your ass.
LOOK UP WHAT RIECH WROTE.
He unambiguously advocated withholding medical care from old people and LETTING THEM DIE. Are you so childish that you want to argue over what we CALL this policy? As far as I'm concerned, DEATH PANELS is as good a name as any.
UncleIrv 7 months ago
@UncleIrv
Robert Reich in no way is advocating withholding Medicare, or letting old people die ... what a laugh, what an idiot you are. You know the Conservatives/Republicans are really desperate when their whole platform is based on groundless wild lies like that one.
justgivemethetruth 7 months ago
@justgivemethetruth
You have your head firmly planted up your ass. That's probably why you're unaware of this quote from a speech Robert Reich gave at Berkeley in Sept. 2007:
QUOTE: "...if you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life...It's too expensive...so we're going to let you die."
Go fuck yourself, you Kool Aid-drinking liberal moron.
UncleIrv 7 months ago
@UncleIrv It is a difficult question: "how much of our tax dollars should the government spend on the terminally ill?" As well, so is this question: "How much is too much to spend on the military?" These are difficult questions. It's obvious that the answer isn't this: "Every single penny and some." Once we know out the absurd extreme, we have to argue and debate until we come to some kind of compromise on these difficult issues.
Problems don't get fixed by ignoring them.
quidproquo2004 2 months ago
@quidproquo2004
Actually, these questions aren't as difficult as you make them out.
"How much tax dollars should the government spend on health care?" If it's the FEDERAL government, the answer is ZERO. All social welfare spending should be controlled at the STATE level. That would vastly increase accountability and introduce innovation-producing competition and experimentation. Note that states cannot PRINT dollars.
"How much should we spend on the military?" Simple. NOT MORE THAN WE HAVE.
UncleIrv 2 months ago
Paul Krugman is a statist assclown, the Republicans are just hypocrites and liars.
pretorious700 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So it is ROBERT RIECH who dares to throw the "eat cake" accusation?
Liberals are such existential hypocrites that I ponder how the entire universes does not implode from some weird quantum effect whenever they open their mouths.
Let's not forget that it was RIECH who, in his recommendations for health care, openly advocated DEATH PANELS FOR OLD PEOPLE to save their medical expenses.
UncleIrv 1 year ago
So it is ROBERT RIECH who dares to throw the "eat cake" accusation?
Liberals are such existential hypocrites that I ponder how the entire universes does not implode from some weird quantum effect whenever they open their mouths.
Let's not forget that it was RIECH who, in his recommendations for health care, openly advocated DEATH PANELS FOR OLD PEOPLE to save their medical expenses.
UncleIrv 1 year ago
@UncleIrv
Liberals are reality-based, unlike you and other conservatives, with your baseless accusations. BTW there are no death panels, you putz. Love how you show you have no idea what's going on.
manhunter86 7 months ago 2
So it is ROBERT RIECH who dares to throw the "eat cake" accusation?
Liberals are such existential hypocrites that I ponder how the entire universes does not implode from some weird quantum effect whenever they open their mouths.
Let's not forget that it was RIECH who, in his recommendations for health care, openly advocated DEATH PANELS FOR OLD PEOPLE to save their medical expenses.
It's people like Riech that make me regret my conviction against shooting these evil fucks in the head.
UncleIrv 1 year ago
@UncleIrv Is this Loughner's Youtube account?
DancingTableLeg 10 months ago
@DancingTableLeg
No. First, Laughner was a leftist. Second, he obviously did not share my conviction against shooting people in the head.
UncleIrv 10 months ago
With regards to Katrina all I have to see is that is what Flood Insurance is for. If you live on the coast and you don't have Flood Insurance then you have nobody to blame but yourself. It's not the Governments responsibility to buy you a new home.
DanielDamascusKimery 1 year ago
Krugman advocates for even MORE Federal debt- Paul, enough is enough. The comparison to Katrina is laughable since the people who borrowed too much and lended too much are to blame.
I have no debt and yet I am handed the cost of bailing them (US) out?
Its ludicrous.
matthewelync 1 year ago
@matthewelync Everyone has to pay in one way or another. Would you rather pay to keep them up in shelter? What about a prison? What about paying for a new window and television cause they broke in and took yours?
mjelwin 1 year ago
@mjelwin Not totally clear who 'them' is you are referring to. My point is why can't people take responsibilty for their own actions?
matthewelync 1 year ago
I love how he says the "administration" told people that there is no bubble but I'd bet my life if you asked him if Barney Frank is somehow culpable in this mess he would find a way to say "No."
Frank btw can be found here on YouTube saying exactly that in 2005 and then, 3 years later, denying that he was for housing and saying he was pro-rental homes instead. Fat lying bastard.
RichMorti 1 year ago
Reich, Krugman, Stephanopoulus and the Black woman...4 Liberal to 1 Conservative...Gee, I guess the mainstream media thinks that's fair odds. Of course it is! Liberals are such morons...Krugman is proof you don't have to know anything at all about Economics to win the Nobel Prize for Economics! Is this thing on?
Beam me up Scotty!
vince33x 1 year ago
@vince33x Y'know who else won the Prize? Friedrich Von Hayek. He caters to your tastes and he didn't write about economics at all, he wrote about principals. . .principals rooted in falsities. Meanwhile, Stephanopolus? That's a stretch, and just "black woman"? If you're assuming she's liberal just because of that, you've got a lot of nerve. The real scoreboard is 2 unknowns, 1 Con man and 2 Liberals. Still unfair, but any 1 man should be able to defend from all rhetorical angles, especially sinc
TheKevinWalker 1 year ago
@TheKevinWalker Of course the difference between Krugman & Hayek is that Hayek understands economics and Krugman does not.
You then give yourself away as either a liar or an imbecile: Reich, Krugman, Stephenapolus, and Edelman (the black woman) are ALL Liberals! So mainstream media bias is on display for all to see. Of course, if the viewers are like you, they are still clueless.
vince33x 1 year ago
@vince33x Henry Hazlitt wasn't a "trained" economist, yet his book: ECONOMICS IN ONE LESSON remains the largest selling book on the subject ever written. BTW, if you chose 1,000 black women at random, you would be right 98% of the time in calling each of them a Liberal!
vince33x 1 year ago
@TheKevinWalker BTW, what the hell is a "neo-Keynsian." What is that? New to stupid? Only the news media and the Democratic Party think Keynes is back - the empirical data shows quite the contrary. Please name one country that has spent and borrowed its way to wealth and prosperity?
vince33x 1 year ago
@vince33x Reich and Krugman both took essentially the same angle. Meanwhile those are Liberal ECONOMISTS who are, when down to specifics, much less prone to regulatory measures than just a regular liberal. Krugman, in "Depression Economics" has even, to a small degree, argued that as long as the Federal Reserve works correctly, the economy should be fine in all runs. He argues for regulations from the perspective that it makes it much less likely that banks will spontaneously fail and create
TheKevinWalker 1 year ago
@TheKevinWalker Re: the Federal Reserve: Between 1789 and 1913 the USD gained 8% in value; since 1913 (yr Federal Reserve created) the USD has LOST 92% of its value! Great Job Fed!
vince33x 1 year ago
@TheKevinWalker Aye, there's the operative: "'as long as' the Federal Reserve works correctly" and that's the point, isn't it - the Fed has rarely "operated correctly!" AS I noted previously: From 1789 to 1913 the USD gained 8% in value; from 1913 (yr Fed created) to 2010, the USD has lost 92% of its value.
Ultmately all arms of government function "politically" while the Private Sector responds to economic rationality unless government actions preclude such behavior (e.g> w/subsidies, etc.).
vince33x 1 year ago
@vince33x economic downturns, IE WHAT HAPPENED. Always take note that economists, REAL economists, not Austrain-scholars, will usually only reccomend the common sense regulations like a re-instatement of the Banking Act of 1933 (repealed in 1999), which Krugman himself has yet to say the repeal of had any truly notable effect on the creation of the recession itself. Reich I cannot speak for, but Economists, in short, are always unique thinkers on Public Policy. Choose words carefully, sir.
TheKevinWalker 1 year ago
@TheKevinWalker Our current economic issues were caused by our own gov't, thru the actions of the Fed (keeping interest rates artificially too low), the CRA (forcing banks to make bad loans), Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, & Maxine Waters blocking Republican efforts to regulate FANNIE & FREDDIE - Dems luv to regulate Private Sector but hate it when anyone wants to regulate the gov't sector.
vince33x 1 year ago
@vince33x Did I say anything about Henry Hazlitt? My textbook on the subject is the 2nd edition of "ECONOMICS" by Paul Krugman and Robin Wells. You act as though the value of the currency itself is the most important thing to an economy, it's not. Short term devaluations of currency (the solution to most every economic slump), have little to no real long-term effects. It is acceptable to have a currency whose worth is determined by it's public trust.
TheKevinWalker 1 year ago
@TheKevinWalker So is it your contention that a declining currency is a sign of good economic health. If so, Zimbabwe should be booming! Instead, what was once the 2nd richest nation in Africa and a huge food exporter is now destitute and starving!
BTW, 3 presidents came into office w/economies worse than Obama's: Warren Harding (18% unemployment), FDR (24% unemployment & Great Depression), Ronnie Reagan (12.5% inflation, 9.7% unemployment, 15% interest rate). Harding & Reagan initiated large
vince33x 1 year ago
@vince33x tax cuts and relaxed regulations and in both cases the economy quickly recovered. FDR instituted massive new government programs, including Social Security - the world's largest Ponzi Scheme; tried to "pack" the Supreme Court when they declared a number of his new programs unconstitutional; increased Federal Spending (Harding cut Fed spending; Reagan tried to - he did slow rate of growth) and the Depression continued another 9 years, until WWII began for USA in Dec., 1941.
vince33x 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheKevinWalker 1 year ago
@vince33x The school is nototrious for it's lack of empiricism. The CRA has virtually no evidence connecting it as the main cause of the housing crisis, regardless of whether the program actually works or not (unclear). Meanwhile there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the regulations and welfare state policies put in by the New Deal to suggest their effectiveness, mainly the over 60 years without an economic deppression.
TheKevinWalker 1 year ago
@TheKevinWalker From the Chicago Tribune in 1992:
"ACORN was issuing fact sheets bragging about relaxations of credit standards that it had won on behalf of minorities."
In Fall of 1999, Clinton Treas. Sec'y Larry Summers warned, "Debates about systemic risk should also now include government-sponsored enterprises, which are large and growing rapidly." The GSEs he was talking about were FANNIE & FREDDIE who were rapidly buying sub-prime loans because of the CRA (this meant the taxpayer was
vince33x 1 year ago
@vince33x now "on the hook" for these loans."
In 2005, Republicans tried to institute new regulations on FANNIE & FREDDIE. These regulations, designed to tighten up the standards on the loans these GSEs were buying, were blocked by Barney Frank (D-MA), Maxine Waters (D-CA) & Chris Dodd (D-CT).
Meanwhile taxpayer-funded "brownshirts" fr ACORN were protesting at bank execs HOMES demanding MORE sub-prime loans (IOW Lower loan standards - a hallmark of the CRA!). CRA, FANNIE, FREDDIE caused Meltdown
vince33x 1 year ago
@TheKevinWalker I did not say the CRA was the "main cause" of our current economic crisis but actions of our Government WERE the main causes (Interest rates too low for too long - the Fed & Greenspan; CRA-pushing banks & mortgage companies into sub-prime loans; FANNIE & FREDDIE urging banks to write bad loans - "we'll buy them"; Dems in Congress blocking Republican attempts to rein-in reckless policies of FANNIE & FREDDIE) - taken together, this was a "witches brew" for a meltdown!
vince33x 1 year ago
@vince33x As for "Neo-Keynesian", lets take a little score here. I simply said that the Austrians dealt more in principles, not practice, and certainly not science. You called Keynesians outright stupid. There are plenty of intelligent Austrians who are blinded by the principles of the school, or in the case of the people who fund the institutes CATO, Ludwig von Mises, etc., blinded by their greed. Keynesianism was devastated in the late 70's when Economist Robert Lucas of the Monetarist school
TheKevinWalker 1 year ago
@vince33x of the Monetarist or "Chicago" school noted that Keynesiansim was not rooted in microeconomics, unsuprising considering JMK invented the school of macroeconomics almost out of thin air, and it probably hit the school a bit too hard considering the fact that the success of Keynesian policy was plainly apparent in the 30 years after the end of WWII. However, in the 90's, Keynesian thinkers were able to make the connection, foudning the "Neo-Keynesian" school.
TheKevinWalker 1 year ago
@TheKevinWalker Keynsian policies were not a success! The USA was virtually the ONLY country in the world with its infrastructure intact after WWII. The Marshall Plan was put forth to rebuild Europe but it was loaded with lard & fraud. Had Europe been rebuilt Privately it would have been done with far less waste & fraud.
LBJ's policies of "Guns & Butter" led to real decline in the values of USA businesses of 80% between 1966 & 1982. It was only w/Reagan tax cuts that values recovered!
vince33x 1 year ago
@vince33x We're the exact opposite of Neo-Cons. Instead of suggesting old policies that don't work, we suggest old policies which do. Simple shit.
TheKevinWalker 1 year ago
@vince33x I apologize, I confused my schools, the New Keynesians are the ones with microeconomic roots. The Neo-Keynesians are still busy reading the "General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money." We've moved on to "Depression Economics"
TheKevinWalker 1 year ago
@TheKevinWalker The Depression was caused by the Fed, when, in the wake of the '29 Stock Crash, the Fed REDUCED money supply by 33% causing a MASSIVE LIQUIDITY CRISIS. This was exacerbated by Congress, which passed the SMOOT-HAWLET TARIFF act, which all but halted world trade. As is usually the case, government action causes economic destruction. When is the Left going to "get it?"
vince33x 1 year ago
So how do you morons on here who shot your mouth off a year or more ago think about what you said today? Reich, Krugman, Bernake, Paulson, Geithner, crooks and idiots.
equsnarnd 1 year ago
@equsnarnd I think they are, for the most part morons. Krugman is a genuinely evil guy and so are Reich and Bernanke. Geithner and Paulson are just idiots.
vince33x 1 year ago
@vince33x Well, that certainly 'feels' true but I wonder what particular evidence you use to differentiate them. I've always thought of Reich as a simpleton and a bumbler but I could easily be convinced to your POV.
equsnarnd 1 year ago
@equsnarnd Reich as well as Krugman are Keynsians, which is another way of saying they are idiots! Where Keynes really gets it wrong is his belief in the need to "stimulate" demand during an economic downturn. This ought to be, on the face of it, obviously wrong. Anyone who has children knows that you don't ever need to stimulate demand. Human demands and wants are unlimited.
Ronnie Reagan, while no academic, proved himself smarter than all the eggheads in Washington by following the advice of
vince33x 1 year ago
@equsnard: Art Laffer, father of the "Laffer Curve" which he developed from, of all people: Keynse & Arab historian Ibd Khalud. Reagan followed the advice of Laffer (but he also knew instinctively) and got a Democratic Congress to agree to the largest tax cuts in USA history (reduced top marginal rates fr 70% dn to 28%). As a result, 23M jobs were created during the Reagan yrs + huge capital investment occurred, cutting in half the avg age of plant & equipment in the USA.
Dems & media
vince33x 1 year ago
@equsnard: continued to call Reagan an "amiable dunce." Of course the real dunces were in the bureaucracy and the halls of the academy. Meanwhile Reagan's policies resulted in huge cleanups of the environment (new plant pollute far less than old ones), greater productive efficiencies, and the fall of the Soviet Union w/out firing a single shop - now that's worthy of a Nobel Prize (as opposed for getting one for being black and denigrating the USA!).
vince33x 1 year ago
@vince33x Well, as someone who follows the Austrian school of economics you don't need to convince me of the stupidity of Keynes. But you were talking about evil as opposed to mere idiocy and self-interest. As for Reagan, he needs to thank Paul Volker for his part at the Fed in not screwing things up. Greenspan who I actually admired (he wrote articles on the soundness of gold years ago) screwed things up royally and we have a housing bubble (& Frank, Pelosi, Read, Dodd, Bush etal).
equsnarnd 1 year ago
@equsnarnd The Left is evil because its twin pillars are: ENVY and THEFT. The Left is all about creating envy in the minds of the populace by BEARING FALSE WITNESS re: Capitalism. The Left in media report the lie that our economic meltdown was caused by "Wall Street" or "Market Failure." these are bald faced lies and anyone who has the slightest knowledge of economic history knows this.
The Left HAS TO LIE because its message is a lie and its practice has resulted in millions of deaths!
vince33x 1 year ago
@equsnarnd Even though Mr. Volcker was appointed by Jimmy Carter, he may very well have been the best Fed chairman ever. During the 80s, rather than acting "politically" he acted responsibly by reining in the money supply and thus bring the inflation of the late 60s, 70s, & early 80s to a halt. This + the Reagan tax cuts (biggest in USA history) brought the economy roaring back. USA was re-industrialized w/23M new jobs created + numerous new IPOs.
The Left hates Reagan for his success.
vince33x 1 year ago
@equsnarnd Greenspan was, at one time, a great libertarian economist who, in my opinion, became drunk with power. This happens to so many who spend too much time in Washington DC.
A once great man who is now a doddering old fool married to the Ultra-Left-Wing MSNBC "reporter" Andrea Mitchell.
vince33x 1 year ago
Two years later, things have only gotten worse. Obama is socialist scum.
TheTypicalGirl 1 year ago
@TheTypicalGirl I'll say it again, the Socialists DO NOT LIKE Obama. I myself am a Neo-Keynesian, but I know many Socialists personally who, of course, argue that all of the major prog victories have been tepid at best, and the head of the USA Socialist Party wrote a "Washington Post" editorial on how little Socialist tendencies the Obama campaign showed. Meanwhile, it could be argued that virtually all of the major prog victories themselves could've been SLIGHTLY more leftist.
TheKevinWalker 1 year ago
@TheKevinWalker Oh come on Kevin, the ONLY self-pronounced Socialist in Congress-Bernie Sanders (VT) love Obama! The late Norman Thomas, long time head of the Socialist Party of the USA said: "we may as well disband the Socialist Party as the Democrats WANT TO ACCOMPLISH THE SAME THINGS WE DO!"
I'll take the leader of the Socialist Party at his word thank-you. The Dems have been Socialists since the days of William Jennings Bryan. You ought to know that!
vince33x 1 year ago
@TheTypicalGirl Well, you're not the TYPICAL GIRL because most girls don't realize that Obama IS SOCIALIST SCUM!!!
vince33x 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Peer-reviewed study finds Paul Krugman is the most partisan economist. Krugman was the only economist to "significantly" change his stances for partisan reasons. Krugman has even gone so far as to contradict his own findings to bash Republican politicians.
The peer-reviewed research was published in May 2010 issue of the Econ Journal Watch (EJW), edited by Daniel B. Klein. Seven Nobel laureates are members of the EJW Advisory Council.
islandmuffin 1 year ago
hey guys let's regulate natural selection.
jhardknox 1 year ago
i would more animation
Runstockkse 1 year ago
Nobody should ever be held responsible for the consequences of their actions. Even when a whole 10 percent thought there was a free lunch, the 90 percent who knew better should be made to bail them out. Sure. Makes perfect sense to me.
j1a2r34 2 years ago
Why is G Will given air time except maybe on Fox Newsless. Not once has he ever said anything, now, or in the last 8 years, that can be considered profound
or insightful. He is just another Fox Newsless jester posing as a conservative journalist.
he has not been right about anything.
judedelux 2 years ago
lol... did these people ever get out of grad school?
Sakamachi25 2 years ago
And yes, listening to Krugman pervert economics the way he does, and selling out in the name of wealth, prestige, and power, is immoral.
In 2002, Krugman actually called on Greenspan to create a housing bubble. The guy is slime.
00dfm00 2 years ago 2
These shows are all the same. A group of liberals sitting around a table talking and, oh by the way, there's one conservative. It's shameful. "This Week" is about on the same level as "The View." Pathetic.
yahazif 2 years ago
You have a point, but the problem is that there is a severe lack of intelligent conservatives.
hoodoo961 2 years ago 2
A group of liberals. A group of people with brains.. You must think that every debate outside of fox news is liberal garbage. Step outside your american conservative bubble, and see that the world is not as conservative as you think america is.
caFexpo00 2 years ago
I will point out that you don't even try to address the point I was making. lol
yahazif 2 years ago
The point that ''these shows are all the same" because they have fewer conservatives on is a line from FOX news. If you were a centrist or a liberal, or if you didn't pay attention to politics that much, you probably wouldn't see it that way.
caFexpo00 2 years ago
Paul Krugman is a good economist, so shut the hell up.
hoodoo961 2 years ago
Just curious, no disrespect intended: Why do you think so?
Apmhflick 2 years ago
I think so because his ideas tend to actually make sense, he was right about the Bush administraion's failed policies before anyone else, and he is skeptical of the Obama administration's life support for the 'zombie banks'. Plus, he won the Nobel Prize/
hoodoo961 2 years ago
good argument.....
kwalk30 2 years ago
Paul Krugman is a fucking idiot. How the fuck the the nobel committee pick him??
kwalk30 2 years ago
Same way they picked Al Gore. It's in vogue right now. Once Obama fails, some Friedmen-esque economist will come along and win one as well.
shitandpissinmymouth 2 years ago
By now you've realized that the Nobel prize committee uses their awards to push political agendas. The World Bank, IMF, US, et al. all support the failed Keynesian model as it gives central governments a lot of power and has the slow, yet powerful, effect of wealth transfer from the middle to upper class.
Krugman supports Keynesian economics, governments, especially these days, like to here that, and the puzzle starts fitting together.
Obama's peace prize? It was to 'guide' him. Just watch.
00dfm00 2 years ago
@kwalk30 Because they are 'EFFIN' idiots as well!
vince33x 1 year ago
one correction for g.Will,vis-a-vis his recent article on the defeat of CA tax proposals.San quentin prison sits on bay view property,not oceanview.
rw5791 2 years ago
While the poor are richer in Europe its not by much.
Fewer Europeans them make it rich or middle class. Because of low job creation high taxation and high regulations there are lower rates of entrepreneurship in Europe than the US.
Entrepreneurship is the driving force for most American immigrants. Regardless of whether they are low skilled mexican immigrants such as creating a lanscaping companies or higher skilled Asian immigrants tech start ups. h t t p : / / tiny .c c / gjA0i
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
In 1950 85% of black children were born in a two parent household. Just 15 years later the number of single moms was 40% and now its 70%
h t t p : / / tiny . c c / black281
Single parent head of household incomes doubled from 1991-2005. h t t p : / / tiny. c c / welfare77
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
If abortion was the cause of the drop in crime it would have fallen at the same rate nationally. But that is not the case. Compton had an increase in violence while the Bronx decreased during the 1990's But the abortion theory relies on the assumption that there are fewer single mothers. But in fact there are more single mothers than ever before. In the years after welfare the number of single parent head of households rose to 40% now its 70%. more poor blacks=more crime but crime decreased
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
George Will is an idiot. But one must congratulate him on his uncanny ability to connect with his fellow idiots.
diezungen 2 years ago
George Will is an idiot? I'm an ardent Democrat but George Will makes some of the most consistently persuasive arguments for conservatism that I've ever heard. If more political roundtables welcomed the views of George Will and David Brooks, rather than the shrill partisan whining of most hacks, well... our political discourse would both enriched and civilized.
jcyjr36 2 years ago
robert reich is the idiot here, look him up and his 'white male construction workers' comment.
neshkod 2 years ago
News flash we spent billions of dollars on New Orleans. The fact that there is little has been reconstructed is a failure of government. What has happened in New Orleans is not because supposed "let them eat cake mentality"....
The stimulus bill is just going to be like Katrina billions of dollars wasted little to show for it...
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
Muhammad Yunus' Bank is another step in the correct direction.
RedKruzer 3 years ago
Mohamed Yunus is a big critic of the World Bank and traditional state run welfare. He said you would have a greater economic effect dumping money from a helicopter in the sky than to fund many of the infrastructure and welfare programs
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
And his opinion is valuable. But something to keep in mind, a properly funded welfare state is two things : an automatic Keynesian stimulus, and the most cost effective way to prevent crime.
In the international sense, which I'm guess is in part what he was talking about, aid can do more harm than good. If you drop free or super subsidized food on a nation, you put their farmers out of work, and potentially kill their local economy.
nzkobc 2 years ago
The Welfare state is the most cost effective way to prevent crime. When they increased welfare spending from 1965-1975 crime skyrocketed in New York and large cities. Some parts of NY were in absolute anarchy. When Guilani had welfare to work plans tax cuts with increased policing crime declined 78% and poverty decreased.
Whether its welfare to countries our welfare to individuals they have the same effect it cripples the economy and the individual. A job is the best anti-poverty technique.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
There are problems with this example :
A) The economic collapse of the inner city after white flight
B)Racial tensions were extremely high during this period in time
C) The Drop in crime was due to the effect of Roe V. Wade, as you see that drop almost nation wide, even in areas with no changes to welfare
So, instead of taking a short period of time when racial tensions were high, lets take a long period of time that is an established trend: Europe vs. the United States.
nzkobc 2 years ago
And Just to be clear, A job is the best anti-poverty technique, but it is not always possible. And expropriation through taxation is one of the worst ways to produce equality. However, we live in the United States, and these are the tools we have at this point in time.
nzkobc 2 years ago
Its not possible to have jobs because of high minmum wages high taxes that prevent restrict low skilled workers from entering into the workplace. To pay for welfare you need high taxes. Higher taxes means that there is less money for employers to spend on workers. Which creates more unemployment which creates the need for more welfare etc.
I am not saying that we should not give any welfare or assistance. Much of the poverty eliviation creates more problems than it solves.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
What caused White Flight? High taxes was one of the main causes.....White flight was reversed when the lowered the taxes. Now there are so many Professional middle class Families in NYC that there aren't enough elementary schools for them.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
White flight was caused by the expansionary boom of the 50's and 60's, the development of the interstate system to make commuting possible, and some clever engineering.
I never said that welfare decreases racial tensions. They are independent of each other, and sometimes used as a excuse to legitimize bigotry.
The minimum wage and high taxes argument is a bunch of nonsense. Europe has similar unemployment numbers, when you consider they count more people when they take the stats.
nzkobc 2 years ago
Further more, the abortion argument has nothing to do with single parents, it has to do with over population, and "unwanted kids".
Second, it wouldn't decrease equally across the country, it would decrease more in areas where the most abortions where preformed. Which is what happened.
nzkobc 2 years ago
You need to prove to me that there were more abortions in New York than in Detroit. But you failed to site any evidence of that.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
Europe similar unemployment numbers I beg to differ. France declared unemployment stats is often double the US according to the CIA factbook. Then there is the 21% unemployment for the youth and the 30% unemployment for those in the ghettos. h t t p : / / tiny. c c / france
States with low taxes and low minimum wages have higher overall job creation and higher increases in wages. h t t p : / / tiny. c c / ohio
h t t p : / / tiny. c c / states
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
Youth don't have to work to get through college, its completely covered by the public in France. And because they they count those people on their unemployment numbers, it inflates those statistics. Employment of 20-54 age group in france is about the same as in the states. Their biggest problem is they fucked up their public pension plan, and people retire at 54(I think thats right).
nzkobc 2 years ago
Your right they do have free public education. But unless you make it to a their version of the ivy's you really don't have a choice on which university you can attend Many have college degrees but the universities don't change to reflect the needs of businesses. Therefore they graduate too many liberal arts degree majors with few business skills. Employers are not willing to risk lifetime employment on graduates that have few skills which = high unemployment
h t t p : / / tiny. c c / france42
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
Second, comparing Ohio, and manufacturing economy that has lost the most jobs due to NAFTA, to Texas, and Oil State, over a period of extremely high oil prices, is hardly fair.
Second, in the other article, Comparing very urbanized states (NY, IL, CA) to Virginia, Idaho, Wyoming, is also unfair. You can figure out why for yourself.
nzkobc 2 years ago
Finally, I'm not disputing that taxes contribute to why people move. People can, and do move based on that. But it's not the only reason.
Welfare is not the best solution to our inequality, but the number of children living in poverty in Europe is much, much lower than in the states (19% to 3% i think). Violent crime is lower in Europe. That is norm that as been sustained for decades. Cases that argue otherwise are the exception, not the rule.
Lastly, Binary Economics, you'll like it. I do.
nzkobc 2 years ago
What are the reasons then? I would argue that the reasons are primarily financial and due to the quality and cost of the government services. Its a cost benefit type decision.
For example 40k in Alabama is a lot more than 40k in CA. In CA 40k is working poor in AL its middle class
South Dakota is in the top 10 of migration to has a positive net migration of immigrants. But its neighbor North Dakota is a top 10 loss of residents. They are similar in a lot of ways ND has a income tax
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
It was comparing their manufacturing stats and not the oil production so its not an apples to oranges comparision. GM is closing plants in Michigan but opening plants near Dallas.
If Tax cuts don't work why has Ohio exports surged 11% after the 2005-2007 tax cuts? h t t p : / / tiny . c c / ohio803
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
You would think that urban centers with great universities are better prepared to compete in the global economy. That if people had the choice to live anywhere they would live in NYC Chicago etc. They answer is the many of the rich and the highly skilled do choose to live there. But the high taxes high regulations high minimum wages discourages small business ownership & low skill jobs that the poor rely on. The majority of people who are not highly skilled professionals are leaving.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
It was government spending and higher taxes compared to the suburbs. that provided incentives for people to leave. Spending on highways cheap home loans and cheaper homes because of loose zoning laws and more land. Combined with higher taxes in the cities and lower taxes in the suburbs. High taxes were an economic disincentive But your post war boom argument does not factor in why families have moved back to the city when taxes were lower and crime were lower.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
You were saying that welfare decreases crime and racial tensions. But when the welfare state was strongest so was racial tensions. Welfare to work programs decreased racial tensions. If the welfare state decreases racial tensions why Muslims revolt in Paris in 2005? France has an extremely generous welfare state. Many of the immigrants were college educated but they still burned buildings.
Middle Class blacks are like others middle class are moving to low tax red states such as Atlanta
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
Krugman & Reich.
Now we have direction.
RedKruzer 3 years ago
George will is such a pompous ass who shows total idiocy by endorsing McCain who openly admitted he knew nothing about the economy.
Thank Xrist McCain lost
spookytom 3 years ago 5
It was reluctant.
jd24717 3 years ago
@spookytom Better than idiotically supporting a candidate who had no leadership experience whatsoever.
BitterBosh 1 year ago
@BitterBosh No offense, but you don't learn "leadership" by being a member of a 100% equal-power, cooperative body, and you certainly don't learn it while being tortured in the Hanoi Hilton. No Senator can make the "leadership" arguement, and only someone who could somehow be governor of between 10-15 states at a time can even have a TASTE of the responsibilites of the Presidency, not a Gvr. of a single state. The Presidency is on-job training, and, frankly, it should be that way.
TheKevinWalker 1 year ago
How in the world is someone as brilliant as Krugman being allowed on television???
Don't they know that if they let intelligent people on these news shows to tell the truth that people will wind up never voting republican again?
diezungen 3 years ago 3
don't under estimate the blind devotion to right-wing idealogy. Some people can't admit when their wrong, and some people just don't care becuase it deosn't affect them personally, take george will for example.
melowar78 3 years ago
Why in the world isn't Peter Schiff ever allowed in the same room as Paul Krugman to school him about economics? And doesn't it strike you that because the Democrats are in power (at the moment) that if the economy collapses and the dollar collapses that people will blame the Democrats for years to come on their handling of the crisis? You'll never see a Democrat on the ballot again. Checks and Balances' work. Dictatorship leads to revolutions.
golbyaka 2 years ago
I hate to break this to you... The economy has already collapsed! Since you must've been on Neptune-- sadly, I regret to inform you that the economy tanked last fall with Bush, a Republican, in his 8th year of office! Paulson, Bush's TS, threw 350 BILLION into giant financial institutions to keep them from going belly up. Lehman Bros went bankrupt in Sept. 2008. Many others were already in the same line. We're already a year into a deep recession. I know it's scary, but someone had to tell you.
dcgrrl321 2 years ago
Now, I know somebody of your intelligence should know that the more we spend, the more we put ourselves into debt to other nations. When those other nations refuse to buy debt from us, we're screwed. The economy hasn't completely collapsed yet. You can blame Bush if you want. If you finished your research, you'd think differently. $350 Billion is nothing compared to the trillions Geithner is spending. While I was on Neptune, you've must have been in another galaxy. Sorry, but I had to tell you.
golby513 2 years ago
Oh, the Republicans are worried about our national debt NOW? How convenient. First, they try to bankrupt the country with unnecessary war. Essentially BURN taxpayer money on defense contracts with absolutely no oversight. Give two enormous tax breaks to the rich while simultaneously wasting trillions on unnecessary war with literally billions unaccounted for to this day. Double the national debt in 8 yrs. The facts blame the Bush Admin, not me. Next post, the financial industry!
dcgrrl321 2 years ago
Yes, but look at who buys our debt. It's China. Their economy depends on the United States buying their goods. If they stop buying our debt, or we default on it, the value of the dollar collapses. That means Americans won't be able to buy their goods, and then their economy collapses.
And I'm against the bailouts, we need to complete restructure our financial system, not toss tons of money into it.
nzkobc 2 years ago
@diezungen Krugman is far from being brilliant. He's wrong on just about everything. I read his columns over the years and I think the guy is as dumb as a box of rocks.
juscurious 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@juscurious Peer-reviewed study finds Paul Krugman is the most partisan economist. Krugman was the only economist to "significantly" change his stances for partisan reasons. Krugman has even gone so far as to contradict his own findings to bash Republican politicians.
The peer-reviewed research was published in May 2010 issue of the Econ Journal Watch (EJW), edited by Daniel B. Klein. Seven Nobel laureates are members of the EJW Advisory Council.
islandmuffin 1 year ago
yeah, videocalf - this isn't about left/right. Will's point is to NOT bail out corrupt corporatist fascist bankers - get it? When you blur the issue with social compassion morality issues - you play into the endgame. Time for Americans to pull together and use their heads. Let the monopolies collapse on their accountability. Stop propping them up. THEY WILL EAT YOU AND ALL YOUR POOR. Grow up. The Great Society - if you STILL don't see the fascist sham in that - you are a lost cause.
marcusbarr 3 years ago 3
Would you teenage Alex Jones educated punks either shut up or be less smug for once? you know nothing.
jpbalkenende 3 years ago 3
Jpb - Jon Doe? Fred Flinstone? Al Franken Jones? What is wrong with you? You are really a modern thinker with a long memory. You know so much about the Renaissance and the Greeks. Don't you now. O, I'm the smug one. Okay, if you say 2 + 2 = 5, I guess we're all supposed to suck it. Move to a Despotic society. They'll find you very tasty.
marcusbarr 3 years ago
Will doesn't himself as a compassionate conservative. I believe this term was coined during the first Bush 43 campaign. Practically, it means that the power of government is increased in order to further causes which are important to social conservatives. Will is more interested in governmental restraint than in furthering a social agenda. Like him or hate him, he is not hypocritical. He has little or no interest in compassionate conservative causes.
botheredsoul 3 years ago
2:17 George Will looks over at Krugman...as in, "Are you going to call me on my wildly reductive, nonsense answer?" A scared little bunny he is!
jackspicerisland 3 years ago
No! George cannot believe he just heard someone compare Hurracane Katrina with someone borrowing off a bank.
bradforever 3 years ago
Poor George knows that he's about to get called on being intellectually out of gas for the last 15 years! Such a beautiful clip! Thank you for posting
jackspicerisland 3 years ago
Since neither of them are great American catastrophes, God no!
Questpeace 3 years ago
"Pursuit of Virtue" was well done--and Will played an important role in offering some intellectual undergirding to the conservative cause during the 80's. It's not his fault that GW has sold out every honest conservative ideal, but it IS his fault that he's stopped thinking critically and curbed his contrarian streak. To someone like Buckley's credit, he made no secret of his absolute disgust with GW Bush. George Will still needs a meal ticket on the speech circuit so he comes to heel.
jackspicerisland 3 years ago
As usual, logical arguments (Reich, Krugman) kicking Will's stuffy ass!
jimijames69 3 years ago 2
fuck him-he defended phil gramm
awwcrap1 3 years ago 2
Any talk of crisis is music to a Democrat's ears.
butteryblue 3 years ago 3
To a Republican's ears too. (Cases in point: morality crisis, war on terror, etc.)
Both parties use propaganda.
Slimdawgc 3 years ago 3
True. I guess, the difference is the nature of the crises. Republicans are scared of Islamic Jihadism, Democrats are scared of Global Warming.
butteryblue 3 years ago
Well, anthropogenic global warming is a crisis. Islamic extremism is too, but the way the Republican party exploits it is propaganda-like.
But anthropogenic climate change is definitely something to be worried about.
Slimdawgc 3 years ago 3
But the threat of global warming is greatly overstated. Humanity's existence is no more threatened by global warming today than it was by global freezing in the 1970's (when climate experts assured us we would be in a new Ice Age by the year 2000). Every generation wants to believe the world is coming to an end in their lifetimes and every generation thus far has been proved wrong. Nothing suggests to me this is going to change.
Gerkinstock 3 years ago
Yes, we are unsure but we should still take steps and I agree with McCain's proposal on nuclear power.
unknownunknowns 3 years ago
True or untrue, man made global warming has been exploited and propagandized in some pretty astounding ways. It really does cut both ways.
botheredsoul 3 years ago
Fair enough.
Slimdawgc 3 years ago
It's so easy if you look at it like that ....
oetnar06 3 years ago
Reich needs to read his history, Hoover WAS very activist. He prolonged the depression, and made it so much worse than it needed to be. Even Roosevelt's chief advisor admitted that all FDR's programs were really just extensions of what Hoover had already done. DPM is right, "you are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts." Read Amity Shales' "The Forgotten Man" or Paul Johnson's "Modern Times" and tell me Hoover wasn't EXTREEMLY activist.
yaworske 3 years ago 2
Damn Hippies
ImmortalWom847 3 years ago
Somebody help George out, why shouldn't America help BearSterns?
BirdlandBeat 3 years ago
These democrats are pathetic. BIG FED must "help" everyone.
Maxwedge12000 3 years ago
Time to medicate Krugman and put him to bed. Of course! 2% of homes in foreclosure is JUST like Katrina! Good lord. Um, let's see, would I rather have the mcmansion I should never have purchased be foreclosed on, or drown to death in a huge flood. Hm...
timmerwin 3 years ago
Krugmann predicted this crisis and the tech bubble. He commands more respect than George or you.
jpbalkenende 3 years ago
You can find Krugman predicting recession going back to 2002. Hasn't happened yet. When and if it finally does he'll say, see! I knew it! He's a dishonest person. He's an activist not an economist.
timmerwin 3 years ago 2
He had accurately predicted the housing bubble. Not just a recession. He had also accurately predicted the NASDAQ crash. And no I don't think he predicted a recession in 2002 since the USA was just recovering from one (he DID predict) at the time.
jpbalkenende 3 years ago
1. "Right now it looks as if the economy is stalling..." — Paul Krugman, September 2002
2. "We have a sluggish economy, which is, for all practical purposes, in recession..." — Paul Krugman, May 2003
3. "An oil-driven recession does not look at all far-fetched." — Paul Krugman, May 2004
4. "A mild form of stagflation - rising inflation in an economy still well short of full employment - has already arrived." — Paul Krugman, April 2005
and it goes on from there, year after year.
timmerwin 3 years ago
What are the sources. 3 was pretty spot on though.
jpbalkenende 3 years ago
So why not bail out the people with outstanding mortgages instead of beailing out the fucking BANK! It was government sponsered theft with the losers being the share holders(resold at next to nothing) the borrowers, and you and I in FEDInCMTax plain and simple.
glamndring 3 years ago
Wasn't Robert Reich Clinton's Labor Sec. or some key economic adviser?? And now he works at Hippie College USA (aka Berkeley)?? Lol
Whoo69 3 years ago
Also, if you want foreclosed properties to be occupied, then lower the f**king price! That will sure make them sell. With all the bad decisions that were made by borrowers and lenders the last few years, home prices in places like So-Cal went up 10% to 20% a year while incomes only rose 3%. It did not take a rocket scientist to figure out that this was a huge problem and would lead to all the foreclosures we have now.
davidinla36 3 years ago
If you, Rieche & Krugman believe Will is "uncompassionate" I suggest you all get out of your ivory tower and speak with the people who rented the last several years since we wanted no part of the insane real estate prices because we knew it was not financially prudent.The idea that savers should have to bailout flippers, lenders, and others who made bad decisions is just immoral
For those borrowers who truly were victims of loan fraud, go after the lenders and their CEOs, not the taxpayers.
davidinla36 3 years ago
Right on brother.
axisboldas 3 years ago
david: thanks for your sensible post. I got a mortgage in early 2006 and laughed at the loan officer when she offerred APR. Anyone with a brain KNEW rates were going up sooner rather than later. IMO it was greedy people that bought more house than they could afford that are in trouble now. However, for all our sakes, I support restructuring these loans; they still have to pay 100% of what the borrowed, but over a longer period of time to reduce their monthly payments.
JohnR22926 3 years ago
TEST
davidinla36 3 years ago