Paul Krugman Goes to B-----n and Embarrasses Some Non-American Teabaggers: Calls Them Liars

[evanrick]

Krugman is obnoxious and treated the other 2 very badly

he was condescending, dismissive and accused them of lying

what a wonderful "guest"

and i believe the point of growing private relative to public sector is THE KEY

Krugman is ALL ABOUT lack of demand - that spending fixes everything

Krugman is smart but sadly it's book smart

as for "embarrassment" i'd say paul k embarrassed himself with his smarmy and boorish behavior

projecting much today?

i keep wondering why you are always posting threads that lead to nowhere, because you always end up undermining your own position whenever you say something.

 

[chance1]

projecting much today?

i keep wondering why you are always posting threads that lead to nowhere, because you always end up undermining your own position whenever you say something.

Says the guy who touted Jamie Dimon's pro Obama stance just following the "loss" of $2 billion in assets that sent his company and the market into a spin

As for Paul K on BBC ....

He's a douche and clearly uncomfortable speaking to others - he speaks down to them as if......

Accused them of lying - nice

That said, the woman's idea of college grads starting new businesses was silly

And the idea of building roads, schools, bridges, basic infrastructure not for the sake of but because it works on 2 levels is a sound one

And I have been espousing that for a long time

Get some sleep and come down from whatever you're on

 

[chance1]

i keep wondering why you are always posting threads that lead to nowhere, because you always end up undermining your own position whenever you say something.

not to mention the big David Letterman/Bill O'Reilly 15 minute video that you teed up with the promise that David gave it to him, was hilarious and owned Big Bad Bill

imagine our surprise when the actual footage showed Bill being agreeable and non partisan, David hitting him on Dick Cheney of all people (VP what 3 years ago) and basically nothing like the title or substance of YOUR thread .............. don't ask me ask the others who posted as such

unlike you, my position is not based on ideology but rather on best ideas

and unlike you, when I post a link, it supports my contention - I sort of insist on that as a rule

 

[Kulindahr]

As Jon Stewart often says, we have de-coupled "spending" from "value". The debate should not be "how much can we cut", but "how little can we spend whilst getting the most value?"

OMG, how conservative of him!

 

[Kulindahr]

as for "spending" i agree with infrastructure/new deal esque type spending which is invst. based

otherwise i prefer making it easier to private business to expand vs. govt. expanding

There's no objection there, because the two are the same: infrastructure spending helps private business to expand or, as here, to at least survive. Getting US 101 turned into an actual highway again let several local businesses limp along instead of folding -- if they'd fixed the railroad, too, we'd have been even better off.

But if we're going to do infrastructure, it should be done WPA style, not the usual way -- one problem with the highway deal here was that a lot of the work was done by contractors from a good hundred miles away, leaving locals wondering just how this stimulus money was stimulating them.

A little CCC effort wouldn't hurt, either -- we could use a few thousand people hiking shoulder-to-shoulder through the forests, pulling invasive species that are screwing up resources at just about every level. If those continue to spread, business is going to suffer badly, and the governments will be facing monstrous costs to get rid of them.

But business is a good measure for choosing infrastructure projects: if two projects seem otherwise equal, but one can be shown to benefit local business more than the other, go with that one.

 

[Kulindahr]

The problem with austerity programmes is that government actions act as a beacon for the private sector to follow.
Government wage cuts and layoffs increase the pool of unemployed, and decreases the wages necessary to attract staff in the private sector (employment rates and pay for full time workers may decrease overall across an economy). This reduces money spent by consumers, which harms the profitability of the private sector.

Cuts in government spending are often at the expense of private sector providers of goods and services to government.
A sharp reduction or freeze in spending on services and goods from the private sector is an easy first step for an austerity programme. But this reduces the profitability of affected private sector companies and their ability to employ staff, and may cause some companies to fail entirely. A sharp reduction in spending by any large entity in an economy harms the private sector.

It's more constructive to reduce government spending during the boom years, when employment and spending in the private sector is booming, as opposed to the bust years.

But politicians in boom years love to increase the size of government so they can proclaim to all just how much they're doing for us!

More than a few states are in trouble for the reason Oregon is: during the boom years, government grew faster than the economy, including with programs that can't be changed.

 

[Lostlover]

The video is very interesting, and thanks for posting it.
It is clear, as Paul Krugman points out, that austerity isn't working, especially in Europe, and increasingly in the US.
His opponents, as he highlights, have a deeper ideological agenda, which is a deep new-liberal hatred of the state, and that markets alone can solve our problems.
Nothing could be further from the truth. As Will Hutton says in a recent article:



http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/02/austerity-failed-will-hutton

Good article. I forwarded this on to several people I know.

 

[evanrick]

OMG, how conservative of him!

but as krugman pointed out they are not sincere about anything, they just want to use the economic downturn as an opportunity to attack social programs.

its kinda like how joe liberman offered a compromise on his vote for Obamacare, then said he would vote against his own idea if it ended up in the bill.

some republicans would have us believe they are reasonable, but they are not, its not just insincere, its un-American, especially since you are apologizing for people who are standing in the way of job growth to spite a president by holding the economy hostage in a fake debt ceiling crisis - house republicans.

jeopardizing the entire American economy to 'make a point' is a no-no.

 

[evanrick]

not to mention the big David Letterman/Bill O'Reilly 15 minute video that you teed up with the promise that David gave it to him, was hilarious and owned Big Bad Bill

imagine our surprise when the actual footage showed Bill being agreeable and non partisan, David hitting him on Dick Cheney of all people (VP what 3 years ago) and basically nothing like the title or substance of YOUR thread .............. don't ask me ask the others who posted as such

unlike you, my position is not based on ideology but rather on best ideas

and unlike you, when I post a link, it supports my contention - I sort of insist on that as a rule

your saying Oreilly is normally disagreeable and partisan? i wasnt surprised at all because Bill knew whos show he was on, if Bill wants to barf out republican talking points he has his own show for that.

 

[chance1]

^ no thats your POV

the point is YOU teed up a good time

And delivered a soft cock

Just read your post again and read the "what the fuck" responses from the 85

 

[Kulindahr]

but as krugman pointed out they are not sincere about anything, they just want to use the economic downturn as an opportunity to attack social programs.

its kinda like how joe liberman offered a compromise on his vote for Obamacare, then said he would vote against his own idea if it ended up in the bill.

some republicans would have us believe they are reasonable, but they are not, its not just insincere, its un-American, especially since you are apologizing for people who are standing in the way of job growth to spite a president by holding the economy hostage in a fake debt ceiling crisis - house republicans.

jeopardizing the entire American economy to 'make a point' is a no-no.

So... like, treason is still treason when it's hiding in the flag?

 

[Kulindahr]

your saying Oreilly is normally disagreeable and partisan? i wasnt surprised at all because Bill knew whos show he was on, if Bill wants to barf out republican talking points he has his own show for that.

He knows Letterman can ruin someone with humor, so he was nice.

But Letterman was also nice -- he knows how big an audience O'Reilly has.

So it was amusing watching two guys who love to skewer others being so nice. If they did that for a year with all their guests, the American public would [STRIKE]become more civilized[/STRIKE] wonder what the frak was going on.