Austerity fails as predicted (by some): Britain back in recession

Quote from larrymoencurly : Give an intelligent and credible explanation of where Krugman is wrong, why he's wrong, and what should be done instead.

I just did in post 59.

Quote from Deusxmachina : I just did in post 59.

No, you didn't. Instead it turns out you did quote the kind of fake pseudo think tank intellectual I assumed you would (OK, I said Cato Institute, not just Heritage Foundation), Niles Gardiner, who apparently is not an economist but a historian. You know the Heritage Foundation -- the people who predicted that implementing the Paul Ryan plan would cut unemployment down to 2.8% by 2012, a forecast they believed in so strongly that they withdrew it from their website. And Gardiner did give the usual reflexive criticism of Keynes that's been so fashionable in the right wing establishment, ignoring the usual evidence again.

So again, where's your credible explanation?

Quote from larrymoencurly : No, you didn't. Instead it turns out you did quote the kind of fake pseudo think tank intellectual I assumed you would

If so, makes everything even with fake pseudo intellectual Paul Krugman then.

Why is Germany doing better than other countries anyway (such as the fake pseudo think tank intellectual I quoted mentioned)?

"We're not saying that saving solves all problems," Ms Merkel said at a conference in Berlin. "[But] you can't spend more than you take in. You can't live your whole life this way. Everybody knows this."

Quote from larrymoencurly : No, you didn't. Instead it turns out you did quote the kind of fake pseudo think tank intellectual I assumed you would (OK, I said Cato Institute, not just Heritage Foundation), Niles Gardiner, who apparently is not an economist but a historian. You know the Heritage Foundation -- the people who predicted that implementing the Paul Ryan plan would cut unemployment down to 2.8% by 2012, a forecast they believed in so strongly that they withdrew it from their website. And Gardiner did give the usual reflexive criticism of Keynes that's been so fashionable in the right wing establishment, ignoring the usual evidence again. So again, where's your credible explanation?

Quote from Deusxmachina : If so, makes everything even with fake pseudo intellectual Paul Krugman then. Why is Germany doing better than other countries anyway (such as the fake pseudo think tank intellectual I quoted mentioned)? "We're not saying that saving solves all problems," Ms Merkel said at a conference in Berlin. "[But] you can't spend more than you take in. You can't live your whole life this way. Everybody knows this."

Your comment about Krugman is immature and empty. Why don't you instead use your vast amount of factual information to present a case against him? If you have valid criticism, it will be backed by representative and relevant facts.

The German economy is far more trade oriented than the US economy is, with roughly a third of its GDP involved in export, which in dollars is roughly equal to our exports, despite the US economy being about 4-5 times as large. Germany sells lots of machinery, i.e., the stuff factories are made of, and guess who's been building lots of factories? China, a country that's been growing 8-10% a year. Also for the past decade, Germany's labor costs have risen among the least in Europe, and when the recession came, the usual German cooperation between business and labor probably prevented a lot of layoffs. OTOH Germany's GDP has been recovering at about the same pace as ours.

Quote from larrymoencurly : Your comment about Krugman is immature and empty. Why don't you instead use your vast amount of factual information to present a case against him? If you have valid criticism, it will be backed by representative and relevant facts.

Fact: As shown the other day, Krugman doesn't even know what money is. He's a fake pseudo intellectual moron.

Quote from Deusxmachina : Fact: As shown the other day, Krugman doesn't even know what money is. He's a fake pseudo intellectual moron.

What is moronic is claiming a professor of economics does not know what money is.

Esp by someone with no credentials, no cite, and therefore no credibility.

Quote from 124nic8 : What is moronic is claiming a professor of economics does not know what money is. Esp by someone with no credentials, no cite, and therefore no credibility.

It's the interwebz, any moron can and do claim all kinds of shit.

Quote from 124nic8 : What is moronic is claiming a professor of economics does not know what money is. Esp by someone with no credentials, no cite, and therefore no credibility.

lol, "no cite." He just said it in the Paul/Paul debate -- which you probably didn't watch yet are spewing your nonsense anyway.

I know he's your hero because lefties apparently love government racking up huge debt and devaluing the currency and destroying the buying power and savings of poor people, but, sorry, he's still a moron.

Quote from Deusxmachina : lol, "no cite." He just said it in the Paul/Paul debate -- which you probably didn't watch yet are spewing your nonsense anyway.

Krugman said he doesn't know what money is?

Quote : I know he's your hero because lefties apparently love government racking up huge debt and devaluing the currency and destroying the buying power and savings of poor people, but, sorry, he's still a moron.

If you think posts like these are enhancing your credibility, you're sadly mistaken.

Quote from 124nic8 : Krugman said he doesn't know what money is? If you think posts like these are enhancing your credibility, you're sadly mistaken.

I can tell you still haven't watched the debate and thus you are still spewing your nonsense without knowing what you are talking about. No surprise.

Credibility? 124nic8, what's 2+2? Oops, or should I say, "What's 2+2 of?" You can't even admit when you're wrong at math.

Run along now.

Quote from Deusxmachina : Fact: As shown the other day, Krugman doesn't even know what money is. He's a fake pseudo intellectual moron.

It's darn unlikely that anyone with even a bachelor's degree in economics would fail at that. You need to come up with some criticism that at the very least seems valid.

Quote from Deusxmachina : lol, "no cite." He just said it in the Paul/Paul debate -- which you probably didn't watch yet are spewing your nonsense anyway. I know he's your hero because lefties apparently love government racking up huge debt and devaluing the currency and destroying the buying power and savings of poor people, but, sorry, he's still a moron.

This is still the GW Bush/Republican debt, you deniers, and if you think lefties rack up debt, then you have to explain why one of our most leftist presidents, Lyndon Johnson, was one of the last of either party to balance the budget, and he did it with a leftist Congress, an expansion of social programs (Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps were introduced by him), a war that cost more than Afghanistan and Iraq combined, a very expensive space program, and a tax hike. The last Republican to balance the budget was Eisenhower, whose politics were centrist and today would be completely rejected by the Republican leadership.

Give some responses that are based on representative facts, not anything cherry picked from commentators who just happen to agree with you or from cartoon propaganda. You haven't, so far, and I have a feeling you can't because you're too emotional to think straight, and the facts just don't add up to your side being right.

Quote from Deusxmachina : I can tell you still haven't watched the debate and thus you are still spewing your nonsense without knowing what you are talking about. No surprise. Credibility? 124nic8, what's 2+2? Oops, or should I say, "What's 2+2 of?" You can't even admit when you're wrong at math. Run along now.

You can't even provide any credentials nor a cite which says what you claim.

All you've got is ad hominems and cartoons.

Quote from larrymoencurly : This is still the GW Bush/Republican debt, you deniers,

I was mainly poking fun at 124nic8's and so many lefties' love for Krugman (and The Fed) who continually promotes destroying the value of poor people's money and promotes apparently-endless debt to steal from and enslave their children.

But, come on, lefties love racking up huge debt. They constantly try to do it. They can't even be bothered to pass a budget in the Democrat-majority Senate.

Lots of Republicans like to spend money too. No doubt. Bush is a big reason why the Tea Party came into being.

Quote from larrymoencurly : It's darn unlikely that anyone with even a bachelor's degree in economics would fail at that. You need to come up with some criticism that at the very least seems valid.

Quote from 124nic8 : You can't even provide any credentials nor a cite which says what you claim. All you've got is ad hominems and cartoons.

What's 2+2, nic?

Did either of you watch the debate yet? Didn't think so. Because if you did, you'd have already seen Krugman look like a deer in headlights and wouldn't continue to spew your nonsense because you guys are just too emotional to think straight.