Hey Thought1, Paul Krugman Suggests A Space Alien Economy?
- Thread starter Lamarr
- Start date
"Oh My, Another Conspiracy!"
<iframe src="http://www.dazenews.com/articles/life/michio+kaku+and+paul+krugman+agree+we+need+a+fake+alien+invasion+to+save+the+world/1299" width=800 height=1000></iframe>
Okay, for greater context (for shame, Lamarr), it's not like Krugman was making up something new, even in politics.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#44153818
an assist would be appreciated (I gotta learn how to do that)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#44153818
an assist would be appreciated (I gotta learn how to do that)
Assist:
<param name="FlashVars" value="launch=44153818&width=420&height=245" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc97a2ac" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=44153818&width=420&height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">news about the economy</a></p>
"Lamarr, There You Go Again!"
"Lamarr, There You Go Again!"
sooo they're not saying he didn't say it?
sooo they're not saying he didn't say it?
Of course he said it, it's on video and he said it on television but Lamarr didn't place it in it's correct context, either intentionally or out of ignorance. Obviously, Krugman wasn't being serious and if he was, he wouldn't have said it on a nationally televised show.
He didn't read the entire thread. No need to respond to halfwits.
<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/bB6KFa7-6B4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Fuck that out of context shit... When I say that about a comment Rush makes, y'all
me out the board. GTFOH with that "out of context" shit. Face it, your side is crazy like our side. Actually, MORE deranged because your side got everything that you wanted, and YOUR SIDE IS STILL MAD.
Your basic conservative/libertarian just wants a job, savings in the bank, and be left the fuck alone. Your side needs to find extra shit to bitch about. Thus, your side will never be happy.
Fuck that out of context shit... When I say that about a comment Rush makes, y'all
GTFOH with that "out of context" shit. Face it, your side is crazy like our side. Actually, MORE deranged because your side got everything that you wanted, and YOUR SIDE IS STILL MAD.
Your basic conservative/libertarian just wants a job, savings in the bank, and be left the fuck alone. Your side needs to find extra shit to bitch about. Thus, your side will never be happy.
We both know there is a difference between Rush Limbaugh and Paul Krugman.
I'm not sure exactly how "my side" got everything we wanted but I will agree that there are crazies (idealogues to be polite) on both sides.
Those things you say a basic conservative/libertarian want are the same for any basic liberal/progressive. Any thinking otherwise plays into the foolishness that keeps people divided. I don't have a problem with anyone who calls themselves a "conservative" until they expose themselves as hypocrites or if they're political views are based on lies and they support destructive politicians.
sooo they're not saying he didn't say it?
Of course he said it and its consistent with some of the other Keynesian nonsense he spouts from time to time.
He is suggesting that it would be helpful to have an "alien defense" bubble; no different, logically, than the housing bubble which he promoted. The whole problem is that "alien defense" is not what people value in the long term. After the aliens are adequately defended against, the "alien defense" is no longer needed. All of the resources which went into building and maintaining alien defense must be reallocated (the bubble bursts). But, no fear, according to Krugman we can just keep creating bubbles. Krugman seems to think, that the movement of resources is what is good for the economy. He can't see beyond his statistics and equations. He refuses to consider the long-term consequences of funneling resources to a bad or unsustainable place. This is the view of someone who has a hard time with the logical "thought" process.
Pure Keynesian BS!
Paul Krugman - Master of the Economy
He thought an inflated housing bubble was a good idea but he didn't advocate for the criminal behavior that came with it. That was what killed the housing industry.
You're saying it is surprising that crimes occur during financial bubbles?
Did it ever occur to you that a financial bubble is a crime?
But Dave, with all respect......................its still a "bubble"
After every inflationary boom, there is a deflationary bust!
Now that's true but not all bubbles are created equal. When the dotcom bubble burst, it didn't crater the entire economy and it wasn't rife with illegality (not saying everything was above board but it wasn't nearly the level of the housing mess).
Yep, like that communist deity Ronald Reagan.
Dude, read the threads sometimes before you say something stupid.
Yep, like that communist deity Ronald Reagan.
Dude, read the threads sometimes before you say something stupid.
Did I strike a cord?
1. I was well aware of Krugman's assertions. Just didn't post his claim
2. He made it.
3. In come Dave as usual to defend the most wildest statement by a so called Nobel winner.
4. NOTHING IS FRICKING WORKING THAT YOU DEFEND WHOLE-HEARTEDLY!!!. Insert the economy, jobs 9% blk community 16%, green jobs, global warming, Wisconsin will have a surplus due to the cuts by the governor. Ya boy had both houses and didn't do shit. Half of it is unconstitutional.
The dotcom bubble set the stage for the housing bubble.
There was rampant criminality in the dotcom bubble, it's just that when Wall Street breaks the law, it isn't a crime.
So when Wall Street realized there were no consequences from the SEC, they knew the housing bubble would be clear sailing from the goobermint.
The stock analysts, with their fradulent strong buy recommendations was the precursor to the bond rating agencies and their AAA ratings.
Same scam, different characters, same result.
Small bubbles always lead to big bubbles.
You've nailed the underlying flaws in Keynesian theory! The dotcom bubble bursted but before all the debt could be liquidated and the resources re-allocated; Greenspan, along with Krugman's recommendation, seemlessly started pumping the housing bubble. Krugman, even in this article, has always advocated creating a bubble to "cure the economy". And more & more, this philosophy is being rejected. It also amazes me when "leading economists" get on TV and say "no one could've seen this coming". Well Austrian economist saw it coming long ago. I saw a clip yesterday, with Ron Paul talking about all this in 2001. The idea that government or the Fed can micro-manage the economy by stepping in as needed, is absurd. Heck the Fed could not even see a "housing bubble" or a recession and it is supposed to manage the economy?
This Keynesian approach was around long before Obama was elected, as others on the board may want you to believe. It's not a right vs. left issue. Let me outline 16 types of stimulus the govt has tried in the last 10 years. And what do we have to show for these actions.......more debt and 9% unemployment!
Is there any kind of stimulus the US did not try in the last 10 years?
Last edited:
Did I strike a cord?
1. I was well aware of Krugman's assertions. Just didn't post his claim
2. He made it.
3. In come Dave as usual to defend the most wildest statement by a so called Nobel winner.
4. NOTHING IS FRICKING WORKING THAT YOU DEFEND WHOLE-HEARTEDLY!!!. Insert the economy, jobs 9% blk community 16%, green jobs, global warming, Wisconsin will have a surplus due to the cuts by the governor. Ya boy had both houses and didn't do shit. Half of it is unconstitutional.
First, unless it's been found to be so by the Supreme Court, he's done nothing unconstitutional.
I'm not defending anything, there is nothing to defend, unless you really think Krugman was advocating the alien invasion idea.
You've nailed the underlying flaws in Keynesian theory! The dotcom bubble bursted but before all the debt could be liquidated and the resources re-allocated; Greenspan, along with Krugman's recommendation, seemlessly started pumping the housing bubble. Krugman, even in this article, has always advocated creating a bubble to "cure the economy". And more & more, this philosophy is being rejected. It also amazes me when "leading economists" get on TV and say "no one could've seen this coming". Well Austrian economist saw it coming long ago. I saw a clip yesterday, with Ron Paul talking about all this in 2001. The idea that government or the Fed can micro-manage the economy by stepping in as needed, is absurd. Heck the Fed could not even see a "housing bubble" or a recession and it is supposed to manage the economy?
This Keynesian approach was around long before Obama was elected, as others on the board may want you to believe. It's not a right vs. left issue. Let me outline 16 types of stimulus the govt has tried in the last 10 years. And what do we have to show for these actions.......more debt and 9% unemployment!
Is there any kind of stimulus the US did not try in the last 10 years?
You know Greenspan's not a Keynesian, right?
I like that list, very thorough. Some of them failed badly but some of them had the desired result.
Ahhhh! I'm not gonna argue this, but let me make some observations about "1966 Greenspan" and "2005 Greenspan"! That cat knew exactly what he was doing; Confiscating Wealth
1966 Greenspan;
That was from one of his publishings back in da day. Now fast forward to 2005 and all his talk of "irrational exuberance". We know now that it was a "bubble". So, in 1966, he warns that the absence of control, over the creation of money threatens economic stability. Then, absent of control, (The Gold Standard) over the creation of money, his policies created so much money that it led to a crisis.
Keynesian policies inflated the "bubble", from the left & the right
Last edited:
....still on Bush?
Dude, Bush is such a small fry in this monetary game, he's barely worth mentioning. Do you not understand how Zero interest rate policies affect Americans ability to save?
In order to provide jobs, we first need capital. In order to have capital, we need savings. In order to incentivize people to save, we need higher interest rates! As long as we have 0% interest rates, we will continue down this road (heard of Japan's lost decade? hell make it 20 years).
Zero percent interest rates drive investments abroad as people seek to find investments with a higher return, whereas, higher interest rates invite domestic investment. So, its not so much a stab at Pres Obama, but I'm targeting Bernanke & Geithner/Paulson for pursuing a 'weak' dollar policy.
A healthy economy is one that saves & produces and currently, we are on the opposite end of the spectrum as we borrow to consume everything in site. Fundamentals my friend! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Once again, from 1966 Alan Greenspan (Wealth is being confiscated) This is how they attack the middle-class. Taxes on anyone only exacerbates the attack
First, unless it's been found to be so by the Supreme Court, he's done nothing unconstitutional. UPGRADE DAVE
That's a spurious statement. Many cases don't even make it to the supreme court. Parts of Obama care was ruled unconstitutional by a court last week. Even a liberal Justice appointed by Clinton said it was unconstitutional.
That's a spurious statement. Many cases don't even make it to the supreme court. Parts of Obama care was ruled unconstitutional by a court last week. Even a liberal Justice appointed by Clinton said it was unconstitutional.
You should be careful speaking on topics which you are unfamiliar.
It is a well-established principle that federal courts assume the constitutional validity of legislation passed by Congress. That presumption continues to be operative, especially so, when the legislation is challenged in Court -- which means that the party alleging its invalidity has the burden of proving its invalidity.
Even if a court in one federal circuit holds an enactment unconstitutional, courts and entities within that particular jurisdiction may carry-on in reliance upon such an interpretation, BUT, a holding in a particular circuit DOES NOT become the law of the land. There are numerous issues where the circuits disagree or approach differently. The law of the land, however, with respect to judicial interpretation affecting the constitutionality of legislation enacted by Congress rests with the U.S. Supreme Court.
In other words, they (laws enacted by Congress) aren't Hanes (unconstitutional) until they (the U.S. Supreme Court) say they are Hanes (unconstitutional).
Why start now?
I'm sure he'll be back in this thread or another talking that same nonsense like this post never existed.