Paul Krugman meme thread

Chimera Kitty said:
What should I call you if not your display name?
Click to expand...
My display name is "Leoreth". People I know and respect may nickname me.

Mouthwash said:
And at this point one of you guys will have to fill in for Krugman: http://krugmandebate.com/
Click to expand...
I guess you know that it's the oldest trick in the book to pledge some amount of money to get someone who's way out of your league to address your talking points? If he ignores you, who can claim he has just wasted money, if he addresses you, he gives you the publicity you don't deserve. Usually it's the tactic creationists use to try and discredit people like Dawkins.

innonimatu said:
To be fair Krugman hasn't been the brightest bulb around either.
Click to expand...
TLDR, can't you compress your argument into one infantile meme picture? I've heard they automatically make everything you say right.

(I did read your post, of course)
 
Krugman15.jpg


Actually he is right, the Yanquis stimulus turned out to be too small
 
innonimatu said:
Arguments can also be compressed into one infantile phrase, it seems.
Click to expand...

Sorry. A re-reading of your argument from a properly caffeinated state of mind leads me to suspect that your overall point was "deficit spending on its own doesn't do jack; properly restarting capitalism requires a massive redistribution of wealth". Is that about right? If so, you could have just said that from the beginning. It would have made your post much easier to follow.
 
Chimera Kitty said:
Sorry. A re-reading of your argument from a properly caffeinated state of mind leads me to suspect that your overall point was "deficit spending on its own doesn't do jack; properly restarting capitalism requires a massive redistribution of wealth". Is that about right? If so, you could have just said that from the beginning. It would have made your post much easier to follow.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was. Sorry for the hostile response too. You're new here, naturally you didn't knew I've been insisting on that as a major issue of this political/economic crisis.

I do tend to also be somewhat verbose. I have this (mostly vain) hope of persuading those undecided or of a different mind, and that requires lengthy explanations. One-liners, I'm afraid, do nothing to advance discussion, only serve for each "political club" to feel good in agreeing with its fellows, or attacking its adversaries with similar one-liners. But perhaps I'm overdoing it.
 
Politically this isn't so much a discussion forum as it as a black-hole for fact checking... And here were into something close to "proving a negative" territory... But anyway:

From the libertarian "Library of Economics and Liberty"
Defending what Paul Krugman Wrote

The lede:
In 2002, he passed along a joke that the economy needed a housing bubble. Krugman is controversial, so the post generated comments on this blog and elsewhere, some of which are overly "gotcha" in character.
Click to expand...

Krugman's own guess as to the source of the leme ("leme" means "lame meme"):
Dubya's Double Dip?

Sarcasm is not advocacy. Sarcasm is not a suggestion. Sarcasm is, perhaps, the only way to actually reach most of the boneheaded drips that make up much of the no-hoper economic right. But - obviously - it's not foolproof. (Oh, if only.)
 
Chimera Kitty said:
A "Search Members" search comes up with nothing, so I can't help you there.
Click to expand...

Try Chitleng. Chitlins is my pet name for him because it's a dish mainly enjoyed by minorities and he seems to have a dislike for them.

And my first impression of your first post that I noticed was you sounded a lot like him in sentiment(though not style). Though further posts by you have destroyed that allusion (for the better IMHO).
 
Chimera Kitty said:
Sorry I didn't respond to this earlier.

Citations
Click to expand...

And you *still* haven't responded. Well, not in a useful or constructive manner. Are you still sorry?

There was nothing sarcastic about what he was saying.
Click to expand...

At the very least it was analysis couched in irony.

Good example of nit-picking at word choice rather than addressing the issue, btw.

And now I'm activating my FTL drive to escape the black hole.
But first this seems appropriate for a couple of obvious reasons:

091811krugman3-blog480.jpg
 
Leoreth said:
Thanks for the link; I watched it because I expected a curbstomb and I was not disappointed. If you really think Paul "owned" anyone there you just know as little about economics as he does. His argument collapsed under his insane concoction of baseless assertions, wishful thinking and a hilariously wrong understanding of history, up to the Diocletian strawman and the Friedman reference that flew right back into his face. Seriously, Paul should only stick his fingers into things he was educated to stick them in, and that sure ain't economics.
Click to expand...

Paul Krugman?

Glad we agree:p

In all seriousness though, Krugman wanting to put the debt on MY credit card, for me to pay after he is dead, is more than a little disturbing. In spite of his age, at least Ron Paul doesn't want to saddle young people like me with the debt.
 
GhostWriter16 said:
In all seriousness though, Krugman wanting to put the debt on MY credit card, for me to pay after he is dead, is more than a little disturbing. In spite of his age, at least Ron Paul doesn't want to saddle young people like me with the debt.
Click to expand...
It's an economic debate. What you'd like to happen has no bearing on who's right. I'm left with the impression that you think Ron Paul won because he said things you wanted to hear. It was already pretty lame of him to use words like "big government liberal" which no self-respecting economist would have used.
 
It's an economic debate. What you'd like to happen has no bearing on who's right.
Click to expand...

Krugman's policies would eventually leave me paying the national debt until the day I die with nothing to show for it. He's either delusional or despicable. I'm sure Krugman's policies would help now. Is he incapable of thinking about what happens after our debt level reaches 20 trillion? 30? 50?

I'm left with the impression that you think Ron Paul won because he said things you wanted to hear.
Click to expand...

I was kind of joking in my assessment. Krugman didn't do a poor job defending his position, its the position itself that I object to. However, Ron Paul, and this is in all seriousness, surely did not get "Curb-stomped." When I think "Curb-stomp" I think "Make the other person look like a total idiot", not simply manage to not look stupid. And if you throw in the fact that Ron Paul is not an economist, it makes Krugman's failure all the more apparent.

I can only imagine if the two debated medicine:lol:

It was already pretty lame of him to use words like "big government liberal" which no self-respecting economist would have used.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you. I of course use those words all the time, but I agree with you that its an unfair way of winning an economic debate.

We can agree on certain things and still disagree on policy. I agree with you that (Up to a certain threshold which I can't really define, but probably higher than what we have) that more taxes = more revenue. I disagree with you that it is, therefore, a good idea. Because I don't consider maximizing government revenue to be an intristic good. There are people on here that think, at least if its coming from the rich, that maximizing government revenue is desirable and good. I don't. But I still agree that taxes increase revenue.

Krugman says that expanding the debt (I actually watched this debate awhile ago so if I miss an important detail feel free to point it out) is a possibility but he doesn't know by how much. Since I am 100% certain that Paul Krugman understands the economy more than I do, I will give this to him. However, what he's essentially proposing to do is gamble with my future in order to maintain government spending. I can agree that it "Just might" work and still object to it.

And I think trying to spend your way out of the national debt is not only absurd, but pathetically so. Forgive me for using teenage common sense, but spending more and more is not going to make us money. I'm sorry, but its just not going to work.
 
Leoreth said:
My display name is "Leoreth". People I know and respect may nickname me.


I guess you know that it's the oldest trick in the book to pledge some amount of money to get someone who's way out of your league to address your talking points? If he ignores you, who can claim he has just wasted money, if he addresses you, he gives you the publicity you don't deserve. Usually it's the tactic creationists use to try and discredit people like Dawkins.


TLDR, can't you compress your argument into one infantile meme picture? I've heard they automatically make everything you say right.

(I did read your post, of course)
Click to expand...

You know that Murphy is one of the most famous Austrian economists today and has written like six books? And that they've already argued with each other on their blogs?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Quantitative Easing 2. Some Economists Weigh In.
3 4 5
Replies
89
Views
6K
JerichoHill
JerichoHill
innonimatu
(Yet another thread about) the causes of the Great Depression
Replies
0
Views
495
innonimatu
innonimatu
crabapple
Is doomsday coming for the American dollar?
2 3
Replies
44
Views
5K
Whomp
Whomp
N
Banking Dictatorship?
Replies
0
Views
360
NoWords
N
scipian
Wall Street Slammed After China Stock Woes
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
JerichoHill
JerichoHill
Back
Top Bottom