cybercoma Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 (edited) Contrary to popular belief, OWS does have a message and economists are coming out in support of it. edit: vimeo links can't be embedded and there is no copy of this on youtube yet. Edited November 26, 2011 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 Contrary to popular belief, OWS does have a message and economists are coming out in support of it. edit: vimeo links can't be embedded and there is no copy of this on youtube yet. Wow krugman and his let's save the economy by preparing for an alien invasion plan!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 26, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 How many Nobel Prizes do you have? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 (edited) How many Nobel Prizes do you have? How many do you have? Friedman has one yet he doesn't advocate going into debt to prepare for an alien invasion to stimulate the economy. Oh let's throw in nobel prize winner freidrich hayek in there as well. Edited November 26, 2011 by blueblood Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 26, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 I don't have a Nobel Prize, but I'm not so stupid that I think Krugman was being literal about the alien invasion. He was making a humourous example of Keynesian economics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 I don't have a Nobel Prize, but I'm not so stupid that I think Krugman was being literal about the alien invasion. He was making a humourous example of Keynesian economics. Yet he is the one saying the stimulus wasn't big enough. Sounds like a keynesian to me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 26, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 Sounds like a keynesian to me... Ya think!? He's suggesting a massive government spending project on avoiding a mythical alien invasion, "making a humourous example of Keynesian economics." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 Ya think!? He's suggesting a massive government spending project on avoiding a mythical alien invasion, "making a humourous example of Keynesian economics." If you would watch his other interviews, he advocates for massive stimulus. He's still wrong. That kind of stimulus would make as much sense as prepping for an alien invasion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPCFTW Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 (edited) Whoa 200 economists!?! That's gotta be almost 0.1% of economists in the world! They really do speak for the 99%! Edited November 26, 2011 by CPCFTW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 Does it make sense to pay out people to do nothing while the infrastructure crumbles ? One of the things about deficit spending is that you do it when there is a recession, when there is oversupply of goods and labour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 Does it make sense to pay out people to do nothing while the infrastructure crumbles ? One of the things about deficit spending is that you do it when there is a recession, when there is oversupply of goods and labour. No because you go into debt and instead of infrastructure spending in good times, your paying off debt. Your better off letting the economy correct itself and capping spending because the next recession will be worse because of the debt still needing to be paid, as is happening now. If infrastructure is crumbling, that's a misallocation of govt funds. For example 1.1 billion to the cbc and we have bridges falling apart, really? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 No because you go into debt and instead of infrastructure spending in good times, your paying off debt. Your better off letting the economy correct itself and capping spending because the next recession will be worse because of the debt still needing to be paid, as is happening now. If infrastructure is crumbling, that's a misallocation of govt funds. For example 1.1 billion to the cbc and we have bridges falling apart, really? Harper spent $1b on 'security' for the G20 to imprison over 1000 innocent citizens, with associated policing and court costs (the latter not included in the estimates) without blinking. Doesn't look to me that he's too committed to value for our money! The only people who continue to complain about the CBC are those addicted to the un-news of Fox network, who've been dumbed down by it to the point that they don't know what real news is! They also pretend that the 'free market' takes care of everything, but it doesn't: remote communities would be cut off the instant public broadcasting ceased. CBC not only provides news, but creates original Canadian programming that informs us about ourselves and other communities across the country. It's not just a news agency, but cultural documentation, historical archives, and a creater and purveyor of a national consciousness for Canadians. Creating dramatic programming isn't cheap, but it's critically important. As a moderate voice, it doesn't appeal to extreme thinkers. So ... they can watch something else ... but too bad about what they're missing! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 No because you go into debt and instead of infrastructure spending in good times, your paying off debt. Your better off letting the economy correct itself and capping spending because the next recession will be worse because of the debt still needing to be paid, as is happening now. But it's easier to pay off debt in good times than bad times, and as I pointed out it's also cheaper to buy things when the market is down. When the economy was good (last time) we had a surplus and paid down debt didn't we ? If infrastructure is crumbling, that's a misallocation of govt funds. For example 1.1 billion to the cbc and we have bridges falling apart, really? That's a different problem. It sounds like they're not planning for the projects that people want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted November 27, 2011 Report Share Posted November 27, 2011 But it's easier to pay off debt in good times than bad times, and as I pointed out it's also cheaper to buy things when the market is down. When the economy was good (last time) we had a surplus and paid down debt didn't we ? That's a different problem. It sounds like they're not planning for the projects that people want. It is easier to pay debt off in good times, however that debt shouldn't have been racked up in the first place. Instead of doing infrastructure we had to pay for trudeau and mulroney's bender. The best way to deal with bad times is to swallow your medicine and cut spending until the fundamentals turn positive again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted November 27, 2011 Report Share Posted November 27, 2011 It is easier to pay debt off in good times, however that debt shouldn't have been racked up in the first place. Instead of doing infrastructure we had to pay for trudeau and mulroney's bender. The best way to deal with bad times is to swallow your medicine and cut spending until the fundamentals turn positive again. No the government should always build the infrastructure the economy needs whether it has to borrow money or not. It should use GCM not BCM, but defecit spending on infrastructure is fine if the projects are worthy and the right ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted November 27, 2011 Report Share Posted November 27, 2011 (edited) Contrary to popular belief, OWS does have a message and economists are coming out in support of it.Krugman is an American leftist and the Swedes gave him a "Nobel" prize because of this, like when the Norwegians gave a prize to Obama.Some Scandinavians like to give awards to foreigners who kowtow to them. Edited November 27, 2011 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 27, 2011 Report Share Posted November 27, 2011 It is easier to pay debt off in good times, however that debt shouldn't have been racked up in the first place. Instead of doing infrastructure we had to pay for trudeau and mulroney's bender. The best way to deal with bad times is to swallow your medicine and cut spending until the fundamentals turn positive again. And you think the fundamentals are going to turn positive by magic? The fact is that bridges and roads need to be rebuilt. Inflation is low and borrowing costs are even lower. With lots of people out of work this seems like a good time to start in on those repairs. We're not talking about throwing money away. We're talking about intelligent investments in our infrastructure which will also, happily, employ a lot of people and stimulate economic activity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 27, 2011 Report Share Posted November 27, 2011 It is easier to pay debt off in good times, however that debt shouldn't have been racked up in the first place. Instead of doing infrastructure we had to pay for trudeau and mulroney's bender. The best way to deal with bad times is to swallow your medicine and cut spending until the fundamentals turn positive again. Debt makes sense in some cases - for example, paying for infrastructure over the long term, or funding EI or social assistance in the short term when times are bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 27, 2011 Krugman is an American leftist and the Swedes gave him a "Nobel" prize because of this, like when the Norwegians gave a prize to Obama. Some Scandinavians like to give awards to foreigners who kowtow to them. They just gave it away to him, like that. I can't seem to reconcile your theory with Milton Friedman getting the prize though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 27, 2011 Report Share Posted November 27, 2011 They just gave it away to him, like that. I can't seem to reconcile your theory with Milton Friedman getting the prize though. Maybe the nature of economics as an inexact science allows for strong - but competing - theories to be recognized as they help with the public dialogue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 27, 2011 Maybe the nature of economics as an inexact science allows for strong - but competing - theories to be recognized as they help with the public dialogue. I'm sure it does, which is why they probably don't just give out Nobel Prizes to people because they're on the Left. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted November 27, 2011 Report Share Posted November 27, 2011 Maybe the nature of economics as an inexact science allows for strong - but competing - theories to be recognized as they help with the public dialogue. Yeah thats pretty much it. Major contributors to the various schools of economic thought have all been honored. Whether anyone agrees with Paul Krugman or not is besides the point. He represents the school of economics our whole system is based on, and as weve seen in the other threads theres a lot of room for argument around whether its been successful or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 Debt makes sense in some cases - for example, paying for infrastructure over the long term, or funding EI or social assistance in the short term when times are bad. No, no, no. Govt debt is a huge moral hazard because there is no time limit to pay it off and it opens the door for fiscal stupidity. Blowing money on social assistance when times are bad hurts society in the long term. People are going to have to realize that the gov't can't save people even if it wanted to. Blowing money on temporary ei devalues Tyne dollar and makes products more expensive, resulting in people still being poor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted November 28, 2011 Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 And you think the fundamentals are going to turn positive by magic? The fact is that bridges and roads need to be rebuilt. Inflation is low and borrowing costs are even lower. With lots of people out of work this seems like a good time to start in on those repairs. We're not talking about throwing money away. We're talking about intelligent investments in our infrastructure which will also, happily, employ a lot of people and stimulate economic activity. The fundamentals turn positive when prices are lower, unfortunately people like you don't want that to happen. Lower prices for products benefit the consumer by making products more affordable to them. Low interest rates are a time to be paying off debt, not racking it up. The roads and bridges should be rebuilt by slashing spending on feel good save the poor people programs. Do you think digging ditches and filling them up is stimulating the economy? What good is building a road, if no goods are going to be traveling on it, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2011 No, no, no. Govt debt is a huge moral hazard because there is no time limit to pay it off and it opens the door for fiscal stupidity. Blowing money on social assistance when times are bad hurts society in the long term. People are going to have to realize that the gov't can't save people even if it wanted to. Blowing money on temporary ei devalues Tyne dollar and makes products more expensive, resulting in people still being poor. Every single part of this post is wrong. 1) Social assistance and EI are two different things 2) EI is an insurance scheme, not a government handout. The government doesn't blow money on EI. The program has a tripartite administration with representatives for the workers, the employers and the government. 3) Social assistance is built up during the good times when less people are on it and pays out when the economy is bad and more people need it. It keeps them from losing everything, living on the streets, and resorting to crime to survive. It serves to protect those with capital from civil unrest. Money is not saving up during the good times.blown on social assistance in bad times. It is paid out in the interest of stability and security after being banked through the good times. 4) The government doesn't do anything (in regards to saving people). It simply administers programs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.