World Politics

[Anonymous]

Funny, I read the stupidity that was your link. Hint here, their take on 1937 is interesting. Maybe do some research and see what it was that FDR did in 1937 that helps prove that your fancy theory actually has a negative effect on the economy.

I getting weary with this.

I cannot tell you what would have happened if FDR didn't do what he did, it's all conjecture. I can't tell you where we would be economically had Carter been re-elected either.

I think FDR made mistakes that made the depression worse. I don't think that's what he set out to do just as I think a very similar thing is happening now. You disagree.

How big does this govt have to be before you think it may be too big, or is there such a thing?

 

[Anonymous]

Yea, written in 2008 in FORBES magazine...well then, it must be true...

Ok. I'm done.

The Huffington post is cool but forbes and heritage are fools. There is no way to argue with you so I will not bother.

 

[Anonymous]

Funny, I read the stupidity that was your link. Hint here, their take on 1937 is interesting. Maybe do some research and see what it was that FDR did in 1937 that helps prove that your fancy theory actually has a negative effect on the economy.

And in the future, if you want to be taken seriously on this subject, please provide an example of your pet theory at work in the real world during that time. Otherwise, you just spout inane political propaganda I can hear by turning in to the biggest windbag on the planet, Mr Rush Limbaugh.

Well, TFF, I actually am in the business world. I don't give a shit if you take what I think seriously or not.

 

[ravens]

Funny, I read the stupidity that was your link. Hint here, their take on 1937 is interesting. Maybe do some research and see what it was that FDR did in 1937 that helps prove that your fancy theory actually has a negative effect on the economy.

And in the future, if you want to be taken seriously on this subject, please provide an example of your pet theory at work in the real world during that time. Otherwise, you just spout inane political propaganda I can hear by turning in to the biggest windbag on the planet, Mr Rush Limbaugh.

So when he tries to provide info, it is dismissed as not credible, and when you provide info, ie, Krugman, I regard krugman as not credible. You find my beliefs to be idiotic and whatever ad hominem insults can also be tossed in, I find your beliefs to be idiotic and whatever ad hominem insults can also be tossed in, and round and round we go.

3000 posts and counting. It's a funny thing to me.

 

[Hugh Januss]

So when he tries to provide info, it is dismissed as not credible, and when you provide info, ie, Krugman, I regard krugman as not credible. You find my beliefs to be idiotic and whatever ad hominem insults can also be tossed in, I find your beliefs to be idiotic and whatever ad hominem insults can also be tossed in, and round and round we go.

3000 posts and counting. It's a funny thing to me.

All that is true, but bottom line is TFF is right and you are wrong.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

"Krugman is far more politically partisan than any of the recent award winners. Joe Stiglitz became more ideological and partisan after he won the prize, Ned Phelps used the platform of the prize to think "big" thoughts about the capitalist system, but Krugman became ideological and partisan more than a decade prior to the announcement of his prize. And he has not really written serious academic papers or books in economics during that time span. Krugman more or less abandoned scientific economics when he decided to start writing for a broader audience in the 1990s. "

http://www.forbes.com/2008/10/13/krugman-nobel-economics-oped-cx_pb_1013boettke.html

This article was written in 2008.

I was just wondering if you had any thoughts of your own or if you were going to cite someone else's opinion of Krugman as evidence against him.

But ok, I see your argument is that Krugman is bad because an op-ed in Forbes says so. If that's enough for you, well, whatever. But you still haven't refuted Krugman's analysis of the Reagan tax cuts.

Moreover, what exactly does Boettke mean by "partisan"? If an economist holds a particular view and supports a party that makes said view a part of their platform, does that make him/her "partisan"? How is that a negative reflection on the economist?

 

[Anonymous]

I getting weary with this.

I cannot tell you what would have happened if FDR didn't do what he did, it's all conjecture. I can't tell you where we would be economically had Carter been re-elected either.

I think FDR made mistakes that made the depression worse. I don't think that's what he set out to do just as I think a very similar thing is happening now. You disagree.

How big does this govt have to be before you think it may be too big, or is there such a thing?

Funny, I was talking about what he DID in 1937 that made things worse. Hint, it rhymes with "putt fending." Your website is interesting in its complete overlooking of this little fact.

 

[Anonymous]

So when he tries to provide info, it is dismissed as not credible, and when you provide info, ie, Krugman, I regard krugman as not credible. You find my beliefs to be idiotic and whatever ad hominem insults can also be tossed in, I find your beliefs to be idiotic and whatever ad hominem insults can also be tossed in, and round and round we go.

3000 posts and counting. It's a funny thing to me.

Ummm...I didn't cite Krugman, that was someone else. I have not attacked you in that way at all. Get off the cross, we need the wood.

 

[ravens]

All that is true, but bottom line is TFF is right and you are wrong.

No he isn't. I'm right.

 

[ravens]

Ummm...I didn't cite Krugman, that was someone else. I have not attacked you in that way at all. Get off the cross, we need the wood.

Try and follow the point, I made it as simple as I could so you could follow along. I'll try and dumb it down for to the pre-school level next time just for you.

 

[ravens]

I was just wondering if you had any thoughts of your own or if you were going to cite someone else's opinion of Krugman as evidence against him.

But ok, I see your argument is that Krugman is bad because an op-ed in Forbes says so. If that's enough for you, well, whatever. But you still haven't refuted Krugman's analysis of the Reagan tax cuts.

Moreover, what exactly does Boettke mean by "partisan"? If an economist holds a particular view and supports a party that makes said view a part of their platform, does that make him/her "partisan"? How is that a negative reflection on the economist?

The guy cites Krugman, and then accuses you of not coming up with an original thought. Pot meet kettle.

Hilarious!

 

[Anonymous]

I getting weary with this.

I cannot tell you what would have happened if FDR didn't do what he did, it's all conjecture. I can't tell you where we would be economically had Carter been re-elected either.

I think FDR made mistakes that made the depression worse. I don't think that's what he set out to do just as I think a very similar thing is happening now. You disagree.

How big does this govt have to be before you think it may be too big, or is there such a thing?

The government needs to be as big as it needs to be for the particular circumstances we face at any given time. That number changes. I believe in that. You appear to only believe that the number needs to be less regardless of the circumstance. I am sorry that the attack you guys use to fight this battle has no real world example. I am glad that you are a business owner. I bet your employees appreciate the jobs you provide. I am also sorry that your philosophy of taxes and government spending rests solely on how much money you think you deserve to keep instead of ceding a portion for the general welfare. My wife owns a business, and its funny that her attitude is that she is willing to sacrifice a certain amount for the common good.

I don't want your tax burden to be so heavy as to cause your business to fail. Neither does Obama. Fact is that thus far, in times of prosperity, been able to overcome the deficits we created during more difficult circumstances. You can check the numbers if you like. Fact is that I believe the same will happen with this deficit also.

 

[Anonymous]

I was just wondering if you had any thoughts of your own or if you were going to cite someone else's opinion of Krugman as evidence against him.

But ok, I see your argument is that Krugman is bad because an op-ed in Forbes says so. If that's enough for you, well, whatever. But you still haven't refuted Krugman's analysis of the Reagan tax cuts.

Moreover, what exactly does Boettke mean by "partisan"? If an economist holds a particular view and supports a party that makes said view a part of their platform, does that make him/her "partisan"? How is that a negative reflection on the economist?

You are either using Alinsky tactics knowingly (bad), or unknowingly (worse). Either way, I'm bored with it.

Even a casual google of Krugman will turn up information you are sure not to like.

If you care to, Google Thomas Sowell.

I'm not going to define 'partisan' for you as I will cite the dictionary and you will blast me for it. Do it yourself.

If you want to learn a little about Reagan you can start here (although I can only imagine your comments on the source).

http://www.heritage.org/

 

[Anonymous]

Try and follow the point, I made it as simple as I could so you could follow along. I'll try and dumb it down for to the pre-school level next time just for you.

Sweetie, that is cute that you think you are smart enough to write such things. Why not go back to the challenge I made a few weeks ago and lets discuss the actual nuts and bolts of the issue...oh wait, you only write posts to incite. Oh well, I try to be nice to the little people and this is what I get...

 

[Anonymous]

No he isn't. I'm right.

You're actually nothing in if we are judging based on substantive content. Dang.

 

[Anonymous]

So when he tries to provide info, it is dismissed as not credible, and when you provide info, ie, Krugman, I regard krugman as not credible. You find my beliefs to be idiotic and whatever ad hominem insults can also be tossed in, I find your beliefs to be idiotic and whatever ad hominem insults can also be tossed in, and round and round we go.

3000 posts and counting. It's a funny thing to me.

Now try to follow along without mouthing the words as you read: I didn't cite Krugman.

 

[Hugh Januss]

You are either using Alinsky tactics knowingly (bad), or unknowingly (worse). Either way, I'm bored with it.

Even a casual google of Krugman will turn up information you are sure not to like.

If you care to, Google Thomas Sowell.

I'm not going to define 'partisan' for you as I will cite the dictionary and you will blast me for it. Do it yourself.

If you want to learn a little about Reagan you can start here (although I can only imagine your comments on the source).

http://www.heritage.org/

Hah, that is like being directed to the Ford Motor Co. official website to find out about repair incidence rates for Mustangs.

 

[Anonymous]

Hah, that is like being directed to the Ford Motor Co. official website to find out about repair incidence rates for Mustangs.

Opinions and sourced position papers well written by really smart people that contradict what you think definately should be avoided at all costs.

 

[Anonymous]

Well, TFF, I actually am in the business world. I don't give a shit if you take what I think seriously or not.

I was speaking only of the issue The Heritage Foundation, and CATO Institute have with FDR. Nothing more. My point being that neither you nor they have any examples to back up the implicit argument that your favored fiscal policy would have produced better results during the Great Depression. No examples at all. Not one. Yet you cite resources that claim to prove he did the wrong thing. Do you see the problem with saying he did the wrong thing, claiming that your ideas would have worked better, and having no real world example with which you can prove the assertion? It isn't like there are just a couple of countries that weathered the economic downturn of the 1930's. And the fact that not one used your ideas (though they were out there to be used. It isn't like you guys discovered some new toy that nobody had ever heard of.) does not seem to bother you in the slightest.

Here is the other kicker, we are discussing this because your intent in doing so is to paint the policies of the Obama administration as though they are bound to fail by citing FDR as precedent for your assertions. Couple of problems with that:
1. Debt as a percentage of GDP is nowhere near what it was during the 1930's. Not even close
2. Obama is this big socialist boogey man to you, yet he has not proposed ANYTHING like the New Deal. There is no bill to create the CCC, AAA, REA or anything like them. Yet you guys seem to think FDR is a credible measure of the Obama policy?

Look, again, I don't want to make this personal with you because you are an intelligent, well read person whose opinion happens to differ with mine. However, I address your critiques of the Obama presidency, and on many occasions, all I get from the right is more attacks and no answers regarding the beliefs you hold in regards to the direction of fiscal policy. Asking the question "How big should it be?" is not an answer. That is obfuscation of the point at hand which is this, come to the table with real numbers and real examples of your policies producing positive results in the eras you critique, or maybe don't make the critique. What I find is that most people hear the "taxes are bad, spending is bad" mantra and never ask questions of those making the proclamation because the just assume that must be right. However, I am not one of those people because I know the history they bastardize to make their dishonest points, and will confront the said fictional accounts whenever I hear the propaganda being spewed. Your theory is a paper tiger. Sorry, but that is just the way it is.

 

[Anonymous]

Opinions and sourced position papers well written by really smart people that contradict what you think definately should be avoided at all costs.

And have no real world application to back them up considering that every major industrialized nation on the planet has a mixed economic system that includes the evil "socialist principles" thingie.

Ask yourself this, if government spending and control of the economy is absolutely terrible and will never produce economic prosperity, explain China. (and no, I am not advocating communism, I am merely pointing to the fact that an argument inherent in your position and the position of the CATO Institute and Heritage Foundation is that socialist principles don't work. And in fact, if they are used in over abundance, they will work even worse than if they are used a little. Because I can assure you that, while they allow free trade to an extent, the Chinese government takes quite a bit of the pie...yet they flourish. They will fail too sooner or later, but according to your pet theory, they should never boom in the first place.)

 

[ravens]

Now try to follow along without mouthing the words as you read: I didn't cite Krugman.

What part of that's beside the point are you having trouble with? Krugman has zip to do with what I said. My God you are dumb.

 

[ravens]

Sweetie, that is cute that you think you are smart enough to write such things. Why not go back to the challenge I made a few weeks ago and lets discuss the actual nuts and bolts of the issue...oh wait, you only write posts to incite. Oh well, I try to be nice to the little people and this is what I get...

I have already posted why earlier today before you even posted this. It won't make a difference to you and even if I thought it would, you are far too unimportant to me to give a siht about.

 

[Anonymous]

I have already posted why earlier today before you even posted this. It won't make a difference to you and even if I thought it would, you are far too unimportant to me to give a siht about.

I will call my ego and tell it that, I am sure it will be devastated...

 

[Anonymous]

What part of that's beside the point are you having trouble with? Krugman has zip to do with what I said. My God you are dumb.

Um, you cannot even read the words you posted, yet I am dumb? Your point was that someone posted something I disagree with, and I posted something they disagree with...only I didn't post the referenced author. I guess me pointing out your factual challenges makes me dumb? Oh well, you win some, and you win some that the idiot who loses isn't smart or honest enough to recognize.

 

[ravens]

Um, you cannot even read the words you posted, yet I am dumb? Your point was that someone posted something I disagree with, and I posted something they disagree with...only I didn't post the referenced author. I guess me pointing out your factual challenges makes me dumb? Oh well, you win some, and you win some that the idiot who loses isn't smart or honest enough to recognize.

uhhhh.... yeahhhhh.....whatever