Paul Krugman shut the FUCK UP

[bigdarryl]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/01/opinion/the-president-surrenders-on-debt-ceiling.html?_r=1

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Uh oh...

:popcorn:

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Demeter]

3. What's the Matter? Can't Handle Reality?

Don't shoot the messenger.

[mucifer]

4. freedom of speech from a prize winning economist?

[GreenPartyVoter]

7. Well, it's a very worrying article that paints a frightening future for our nation and those

of us who are "have nots." I guess I don't really want to hear it either. :(

[mucifer]

10. true

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[izquierdista]

Now that's something to agree with

:thumbsup:

[City Lights]

6. Unrec.

:eyes:

[AVID]

8. from Krugmans own words: "...economists shouldn't govern"

He has it the easiest today.

[elleng]

34. Right, shouldn't and probably couldn't

(except for Jeb Bartlet, of The West Wing!!!)

[liberalmuse]

9. He's right - but not sure what Obama is supposed to do...

Krugman has been right for years, but no one's listening to him. He says what he says because he knows what he knows and sees what he sees, but he isn't in President Obama's position of having to bargain with a bunch of crazy dipshits on a daily basis. Normally you should never give their ilk the time of day, but they have been put in power by We The People and will continue to bring us to the brink until we're a fucking Banana Republic. Unless President Obama does something absolutely remarkable and unconventional that is still within the boundaries of The Constitution, then we're going to see this nonsense over and over and over again. This is only the beginning. They've pretty much got him by the balls - and I wouldn't want to be in his position. He loses no matter what. And we lose, because the collective we belong to is filled with a lot of stupid, ill-informed, easily manipulated people.

[classof56]

13. Right on! Could not agree more.

Thanks and :thumbsup: I'll be quoting you if you don't mind.

Tired Old Cynic

[liberalmuse]

14. Not at all.

And thank you! :)

[JoePhilly]

15. +1

[brewens]

16. I've thought that Obama has been playing everything to not

spook the stock markets. That is understandable in a way. So many people have their retirement in their 401k plans. If that's tour main concern he's done pretty well.

I think he should have mad more aggressive moves from the start while the market was still down. During the HCR debate and process I was hoping to see insurance company stocks tank. I would have felt that showed we were getting something worthwhile.

Tough financial reform would have slowed things at first but resulted in growth people could feel was more secure.

[zalinda]

38. The problem is the repubs have him pegged.

They KNEW he was going to cave, and said so publicly. If he hadn't blinked during these debt talks, he probably could have done some damage to them in the next election. Obama came off as a weak President, he showed the world who he really is.

zalinda

[Igel]

42. He's right in a very specific way.

Some of what he said would happen happened. Not always the way he said it, not on the right time frame, and once you move beyond specifics to generalities what he said would happen was most assuredly going to happen.

Most of the rest is only as accurate as it is untested. It's like so much else that we confuse for facts.

"My model predicts that the economy predicts that the economy would be doing worse if we didn't do the stimulus. My model predicts that if we have a second stimulus, it would be doing much better. The proof? Let's compare what my model says would have been the case with what the model says would be the case. See, my model predicts that without help the economy would be such that marble would spontaneously revert to limestone, Aspen would have beachfront property and all the oxygen in the atmosphere would spontaneously become ozone. Whereas with a second stimulus you would not only have full employment, but the ocean levels would stop rising, pigs would spontaneously fall apart into pre-cooked bacon and chickens would eat dried vegetables and lay hot Spanish omelettes. It's *your* fault that poor farmers don't have a constant supply of pre-made breakfast foods." Of course, if you point out that it's just models and the models have been pretty consistently wrong in the last 3 years you just don't understand science.

[CTyankee]

11. I have been reading Paul Krugman ever since he started at the NYT.

Sadly, I've seen him be right on every call he's made.

I think Krugman really wanted Obama to succeed because Krugman is a progressive and a Keynesian. He has always been consistent, too.

I wish I could say he's wrong but so far he never has been. So I'm beyond anger now. I am in deep mourning...

[Party Line]

12. Excellent article

Thanks for pointing it out to me.

[Mass]

17. Why? You cant stand the heat?

[Lucky 13]

18. Is there anything in particular you don't like?

Or when you hear someone that doesn't share your view of the world, you tell them to STFU.

Seems pretty weak-minded to me.

[truebrit71]

19. Why? Because the truth hurts?

I'll go with the Nobel Economics winner whose math has been proven right, rather than the Nobel Peace Prize winner that continues to fight/start/escalate wars...

[Ghost of Tom Joad]

58. exactly!

[Blaukraut]

20. Why should he? He might not always be on target, but this time he is

President Obama surrendered, plain and simple. This is what he gets for starting negotiations in the middle instead of the left. The Republicans have his number at this point.

[mn9driver]

21. Krugman is a Keynesian, and I am confident that he is correct.

His predictions on the economy as a result of recent economic policy have been very accurate.

[bornskeptic]

32. Krugman's understanding of economics is only matched by his cluelessness about politics.

[mn9driver]

37. Next year, we'll see.

If he's right, the economy will have tipped back into recession or worse, the jobless rate will be higher than it is now, and voters are going to be very unhappy. The political side of this travesty will become "who" the voters blame more.

I think the above things are very likely to happen. Since we know the Teapublicans are going to launch a full frontal assault blaming Obama, it is really up to Obama to finally take control of the debate and make his case. So far that hasn't happened.

Once the Teapubs put up their candidate, Krugman will no doubt write many columns comparing brand X with Obama, and I'm not worried about which camp he will land in, even if he has to hold his nose to do so.

[themaguffin]

52. that's right he's not a politician. that doesn't mean he should be silent on what he KNOWS

[AngryAmish]

33. Ever hear of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy?

Paul Krugman makes a lot of predictions. He also has a newspaper column. When he is right ab out something he says in a later column that he predicted it. If he is wrong you do not hear about it.

His main problem is that he is an economist. He is not alone in that. Economist's problems is that they think they can predict the future. No one, not even a person who calls themselves an economist, can do so. You can make guesses, nothing more.

[harun]

55. Krugman is right.

[PVnRT]

22. CRITICISM WILL NOT BE TOLERATED

[dgibby]

23. What does your brother, littledarryl think? n/t

[CreekDog]

45. his other brother Darryl?

:rofl:

[dgibby]

49. Thanks!

I couldn't resist!:hi:

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

24. Coffee is on!!

wake up and smell it

[chaperonio]

25. Classy post

I trust your economic expertise, not Krugman's.

[Evergreen Emerald]

26. Paul Krugman SHOUT FROM THE ROOF TOPS

I am tired of the through-the-looking-glass reality where corporations steal our treasury and we truth tellers are marginalized as the "radical left," by Obama.

The reality is that we had two choices when Bush, et. al purposefully destroyed our economy: we could have invested in the nation, propping up the economy, increasing jobs and increasing demand until we got out of the crisis; or we could further the disaster by pulling as much money as we could from the economy increasing the collapse.

Obama originally gave a half-assed attempt before he allowed the repubs to dictate the narrative.

And now: we are becoming a third-world nation.

Keep telling us the truth Krugman, there are so few truthtellers left.

[themaguffin]

27. "Paul Krugman shut the FUCK UP" says every Republican

[Vanje]

28. Great article. Thanks for posting it. Rec!

[RBInMaine]

29. Krugman: "More stimulus, more stimulus, more stimulus...!!!" Hey numbskull, IT CAN'T PASS.

This guy is a smart economist, but he doesn't understand a fucking single thing about the American system of government. The President is one branch. ONE. Not all three. More stimulus and many of his other rant-filled pipe dreams CAN NOT PASS THE CONGRESS. If they could, Obama would do it. He needs to get a clue.

[Ikonoklast]

30. They want a dictator.

It doesn't work that way.

The president does not rule by fiat, yet Krugman bases his opinions on one that does.

[Hawkowl]

46. But Obama needs to try

If he tried and failed, the country could at least discern a difference. All this compromise and bipartisanship is disastrous because all it is doing is making the economic situation worse. If worsening is inevitable because of Republican intransigence, then Obama and the Dems need to wash their hands of it and squarely place the blame on the Rethuglicans. Yes, it is bad for the country in the short run, but this may be the only way that Americans can learn-- the hard way.

If the Rethuglicans are never held accountable for their disaster making policies, voters will never kick them to the curb. Obama's conflation of the two parties and insistence on owning whatever piece of shit legislation is passed can only damage him.

[Logical]

50. LOL....you think Paul knows less than you about politics? How about....

Obama going on TV weekly saying we need a stimulus immediately and laying out the reasons why! It is called "being a leader"!

[themaguffin]

51. that doesn't change the fact that it's needed

[harun]

56. You fail to see the error in the negotiations. If Obama wants to

get Republican's to pass things he needs to threaten alternatives they don't want. Starting negotiations with the least bad Republican position and then arguing about the crazy shit doesn't make them do anything.

When they bring up how they want to tie spending to the debt ceiling here is what Obama needs to tell them, that he will start closing overseas bases, he will begin immediate withdrawal of Iraq and Afghanistan, that he will end foreign aid, particularly to Israel and Egypt and that he will work on ending 401k's. And if that doesn't get their attention tell them you plan on reducing the age to receive SS and medicare.

You don't win a debate with Republicans with Republican positions, you win it with Progressive alternatives on the table.

Krugman is right.

[Fire1]

65. This is the problem in most instances. n/t

[jzodda]

31. Thanks for the GREAT article link

n/t

[snagglepuss]

35. Hmmm. Internationally renowned prof of economics vs a keyboard jockey.

:eyes:

[ejbr]

39. !!!

:rofl:

[Akoto]

36. Don't worry! Krugman's opinion will have changed tomorrow, and again the next day, and again .. n/t

[pscot]

59. Unlike the President, who take a firm position

and then takes two steps back and takes another firm position, and then...

[TBF]

40. Never mind those silly economists - what could they possibly know? nt

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

43. This is a long-standing debate between economists and political scientists

The reason why economists are seldom right is because they are incredible naive about the political process. Krugman should know that any proposal or legislative package must go through the U.S. House of Representatives FIRST. Well, if that chamber is now dominated by Teabaggers/Republicans, then Krugman needs to pull his head out of the sand and explain how ANY Democratic proposal gets through that chamber--especially if it's one that Obama backs.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

41. EXACTLY!!! K&R!!!!! n/t

[Pisces]

44. He is just like Jim Cramer - always wrong and always lighting his hair on fire.

[themaguffin]

54. wow

[Logical]

47. Wow, what a detailed examination of your issues with his article! LOL!

[budkin]

48. Why? He's completely right.

[Nedsdag]

53. +1

[chervilant]

57. hmm...

Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine and Marilyn French's Beyond Power have helped me understand how capitalism promotes greed and entrenches its sycophants in a financially stultifying hierarchy, which concentrates power and wealth in the hands of a VERY few at the expense of the VERY many. I am never surprised when someone born and raised in capitalism fights tooth and nail to defend it, because that is how the system works: dangle the proverbial wealth carrot so that the hoi polloi is deluded into believing 'we too can be wealthy if we just work hard enough and live frugally.' And, the 'almost half' of us who are functionally illiterate and easily manipulated will have a pure-dee conniption if anyone reminds us we're just as likely unlikely to win the lottery as we are to get rich.

The vast majority of 'both parties' are now aligned with the Corporate Megalomaniacs who've usurped our media, our politics, and our global economy. For these obscenely wealthy hedonists, hegemony is sacrosanct. They will use EVERY means available to safeguard their hegemony, including (but not limited to) destroying Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unions, and public education.

When even the 'left leaning' folk (like the naysayers here who are jumping on the bash Krugman bandwagon) buy the corporate lies, I think it's highly unlikely we'll avoid our impending extinction event.

It couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch...

[tweeternik]

60. This judgmental academic is and has been bitter toward

Obama since his inaugeration ..... obviously disappointed in our President! :cry:
Maybe he should run in 2012 and show us how it's supposed to be done! :sarcasm:

[Logical]

61. Yes, because Paul Krugman is an idiot. LOL.....get a clue. n-t

[tweeternik]

64. Did I say he was an idiot ???

I said bitter!! It would be easier to "get a clue" if you could comprehend the written word!

[Phx_Dem]

62. Thank you! Arm chair quarterbacks who have no responsibility are a

dime a dozen, and worthless.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

63. Yeah, Paul. Just the fuck up! Until you have been in the position to govern,

you don't know jackshit!

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/08/paul-krugman-is-political-rookie-or-how.html?spref=fb

[catrose]

66. Sounds like my economics textbooks

And that's a bad thing?

[vaberella]

67. Dude man, just open a twitter account. You play whatever field you want. n/t