Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
That he knows what he is talking about in no way challenges the rather clear evidence that what he knows is wrong.
Rand Paul bashes McCain for pulling a Pelosi
- Thread starter JollyRoger
- Start date
Zarn
Le Républicain Catholique
As long as Overlord Krugman says otherwise, it does not matter.
This is despite the fact that Krugman gets his butt kicked everytime he and Paul square off. I'm sure there are videos out there.
Berzerker
Deity
mccain voted to invade Iraq, I doubt either Paul would
all i need to know about them
all i need to know about them
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
Are you actually capable of responding to my points with more than unsubstantiated quotes from the Goldbug Bible or is this already stretching your capacity?
Look, I'm trying really hard to actually engage you in a conversation but you seem to be actively avoiding it, content to make snarky side comments that betray either an unfamiliarity with basic economic theory or actual misinformation.
Why should their ability to argue in live debates mean anything? It isn't like they are competing on Americas Next Top Economist or something like that.
Zarn
Le Républicain Catholique
I honestly cannot take anyone seriously, if they use Krugman as a valid source.
I've heard his talking points way too much. He believes we can continue to spend at a increasing deficit with no problems attached. It is beyond looney.
I've heard his talking points way too much. He believes we can continue to spend at a increasing deficit with no problems attached. It is beyond looney.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
Why? Because he disagrees with you?
While I am not particularly familiar with Krugman, the only way one could get that impression of bog-standard Keynesianism is if they stopped reading the sentence through. As two professional economists (Integral and JerichoHill) who used to frequent OT have pointed out, deficit size does not matter so long as GDP growth keeps the debt size at a constant percentage, assuming a functioning economy and discounting cases such as Greece (where tax evasion is a national sport and creating useless politicians is their main domestic industry) or Zimbabwe (which has just fallen apart). The US is in an even easier position as the US dollar serves as a world reserve currency allowing us to avoid the problems associated with risk premiums. When we start being measurably affected by risk premiums, the rest of the world's economies will be so far gone we might as well be living in the Fallout universe.
That said, the real world does not work out as nicely as economic theory would like it to be and having a perpetually increasing debt size is not a particularly grand state of affairs and should be reduced when economically feasible. It is a basic law of economics across the board that the primary driver of economic growth is increased consumption. Slashing spending, jacking up taxes, and raising interest rates to shrink the money supply is the last thing you want to do in a recession-except possibly if inflation is an issue. Thankfully, inflation is near zero despite expansionary fiscal and monetary policy.
As far as Krugman himself goes, he may appear a bit out there when he goes off on his liberal soapboxing but his understanding of economics is sound and decidedly mainstream on very basic issues such as the role of central banks and the basic drivers of economic growth. Again I ask, what level of economic education have you had that makes you think removing one of the best tools of economic growth, monetary policy, from effective control is in any way shape or form a good idea?
In a Rand Paul thread, Krugman is the one that can't be taken seriously?
GhostWriter16
Deity
I've seen the two debate. Krugman wants to play fiscal games with the future of my generation but he doesn't even know how much debt the nation can take. The answer, of course, is that its irrelevant, because every bit of debt increases the amount of GDP wasted, so the proper amount is "Zero."
Ron Paul actually did vote against it. Rand wasn't in the senate at the time so he didn't have a vote but he did state at the time that he was against the war.
The thing is, Ron and Rand Paul both have brains. John McCain does not. Really all that needs to be said.
Yes, Krugman is the one that can't be taken seriously here. I don't take pirate seriously either
At best it will be hopelessly inflated. More likely we'll go bankrupt by then.
Just to note, however, they will never "Owe" me anything. Nothing is stored in an account. Anything I ever pay in will be gone long before I retire.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Dear lolbertarians,
Maybe people would take you more seriously if you ever picked a leader who wasn't a straight white upper class Anglo-Saxon Protestant male. I mean, even the Objectivists managed a Jewish lady! It's not that hard.
Sincerely,
Rest Of Us.
Maybe people would take you more seriously if you ever picked a leader who wasn't a straight white upper class Anglo-Saxon Protestant male. I mean, even the Objectivists managed a Jewish lady! It's not that hard.
Sincerely,
Rest Of Us.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
I'm observing that libertarians seem to think nobody else can.
albie_123
Modding In Secret
One of the most influential libertarian economists of the recent past.
You were saying?
Also, I just noticed you mentioned Jewish.
Rothbard and Von Mises, the founders of laisez-faire capitalist thought, were both Jews.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Jewish and female, yes, but also not a libertarian. As a rule, right-wing "libertarians" of GhostWriter's sort will meet at least four out of six of the criteria: straight, male, white, Northern European background, Protestant, wealthy. The most favoured sons (Gary Johnson, the Family Paul, etc.) meet all six.
I'm sure that somewhere out there, there's a gay working class Chinese Mexican woman who thinks that libertarianism is the dog's bollocks, but let's be frank that she's not looking at a presidential campaign any time soon.
albie_123
Modding In Secret
First woman (first Jewish person as well, I might add) to receive an electoral vote in an election:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonie_Nathan
Any guesses as to which party she was running for?
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
I agree TF's message could use improving. Here's a proposal:
Oh, running for, not from. My bad. Carry on.
No one really takes you seriously
The Holocaust Beach Party?
Oh, running for, not from. My bad. Carry on.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Good for her. But, it does little to challenge the point, that the American "libertarian" movement, whether within or without the Republican Party, is not a diverse body of people.
rugbyLEAGUEfan
Deity
@Ziggy....The obvious problem with that being that the rest of us take ourselves seriously. Fraught with danger right there.
albie_123
Modding In Secret
"Good for her"?
Really?
Again. Read that Thomas Sowell quote once more. And, y'know, the fact that the libertarian party has a diverse set of founders and a history of anti-racism. The democratic or republican party can't exactly claim either.
I don't take issue with the fact that the American 'libertarian' movement (which is hardly libertarian at all, thanks to the Tea Party) isn't as diverse as it could or should be because libertarianism as an ideology cannot be racist, sexist, or classist if implemented properly.
And, yeah, I am aware that's a pipe dream, but hey - if Communists can claim 'that wasn't real communism', why can't we claim 'that's not real libertarianism'?
Gary Johnson is a libertarian. Ron Paul is a libertarian when he's not forgetting that abortion is a freedom as well. Rand Paul is just looking for votes.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
What does that have to do with anyone taking you seriously?
Similar threads
