“If you can’t trust a Nobel Prize winner who can you trust?”
Yeah! Like Algore and Obama!
…and Arafat.
This applies to all models: If the results of your model don’t match reality, it isn’t reality that’s wrong.
The Democrats pushed through their so-called stimulus package two years ago to the tune of about $800 billion. We were told it would go to “shovel-ready” infrastructure projects and if it passed, unemployment wouldn’t top 8%. Except most of the money didn’t go to infrastructure projects (which even Obama admitted were not “shovel-ready”) and unemployment has been at or above 9% for some time now. In short, the stimulus failed. Rather than admit that, Krugman argues that it wasn’t a big enough stimulus. He’s crying out for ever-more government stimulus to boost the economy. At what point does the statement “one definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while hoping for a different outcome” break through to him? I doubt it ever will for that would require him to admit he is wrong.
Krugman may qualify as an expert on economics. Perhaps he hasn’t heard what Carl Sandburg said about experts. “An expert is a damn fool a long way from home.”
Except that Krugman at the time said the stimulus was too small. Except that it did work.
We went from jettisoning a million jobs a month to adding 120,00 jobs. (Yes, not enough additional jobs) We went from a Dow in freefall on the way to 6,800 to a Dow after this week’s losses of 11,444. In short, it looks to me like we took a dose of medicine, it helped, but it’s wearing off and we need another one.
Regarding the linked article’s statement that “Whatever jobs are created by government programs and government expansion are simply not as valuable as the same job created by a private firm” – yes, correct. But they are significantly more valuable than no job at all.
we took a dose of medicine, it helped, but it’s wearing off and we need another one.
I know an alcoholic who says the same thing.
The New Deal, “wasn’t big enough”, either.
“In short, it looks to me like we took a dose of medicine, it helped, but it’s wearing off and we need another one.:”
Because if history shows us anything, is that if giving more power and money to the State doesn’t bring prosperity, giving even MORE power and money to the State will!
Good little serf, Gerrib.
In short, it looks to me like we took a dose of medicine, it helped, but it’s wearing off and we need another one.
“Doctor, I’ve applied the leeches, but my wife is still pale and listless.”
“Well then, double the number of leeches, and bring her by tomorrow for a bloodletting.”
Mr. Ladd also echoes the point I’ve raised before: when does the debt get paid down?
Chris Gerrib said:
We went from jettisoning a million jobs a month to adding 120,00 jobs.
The only month when more than 1 million jobs were lost was Jan 2009 when 1.123 million jobs were lost from the prior month. At that time we were down 3.08% from our peak in Nov-2007. Today we are 5.23% down from that same peak.
Source: Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey — (Seas) Employment Level — Series ID LNS12000000
Regarding the linked article’s statement that “Whatever jobs are created by government programs and government expansion are simply not as valuable as the same job created by a private firm” – yes, correct. But they are significantly more valuable than no job at all.
And generally come at the cost of one less private firm job.
Except that it did work.
This statement is worthy of some thought. Hmmm… Assume any one government job created by the stimulus.
Where did the money come from?
How will that money be sustained?
Is that job different from a private sector job in any ways?
Your problem Chris is you don’t know the correct answer to any of these three questions. Your equations don’t balance because you left out some important pieces. I don’t even have to point out any of the missing pieces because they are obvious to any that haven’t taken the kool aid.
Once you have the correct equations with all the missing pieces you will find that one job to be a drain on the economy which must them be multiplied by all those phantom jobs created.
Similarly, Nancy Pelosi is an idiot when she considers unemployment to be an economic boost.
BTW, no insurance is ever an economic boost. That’s not the nature or purpose of insurance. It is simply a transfer of risk.
I guess in a similar vein I should also point out…
they are significantly more valuable than no job at all
…is also glaringly wrong for the same reasons as above.
We went from jettisoning a million jobs a month to adding 120,00 jobs.
All due to the stimuseless, huh? I have this rock I’d like to sell you.
“I have this rock I’d like to sell you.”
LoL
If the ‘My Pet Rock’ really does come back then my god the 70’s will have truly come full circle.
Gerrib, get back to us when the DJIA is back where it was before the Democrats took over Congress.
If the ‘My Pet Rock’ really does come back then my god the 70′s will have truly come full circle.
The people who rated subprime-backed securities are now declaring that they are the judges of fiscal policy? Really?
Typical leftard, blaming the messenger.
From the article:
But mostly it just means that I’m smarter than Paul Krugman.
I doubt that. The problem with Krugman isn’t that he’s not smart, the problem is that he is very smart and that he is an apologist for socialist thieves who is masquerading as an objective and dispassionate scientist. He’s not dumb, he’s one of the bad guys.
Don’t miss Krugman’s comment on Standard & Poors downgrade
Why not? If that’s the take-away quote, you’ve saved us the trouble.
The people who rated subprime-backed securities are now declaring that they are the judges of fiscal policy? Really?
Indeed, sub-prime is a term that means “rated less than prime”. Usually, that rating is based on a judgement of fiscal policy. So its not much of a surprise that an organization that rated something sub-prime would be involved in judging fiscal policy.
It’s all about misdirection. Our enemy is the government so they have to provide enemies for distraction. What is the purpose of a rating agency if not to publish ratings? The idea that doing so makes them evil is not only ridiculous but a big tell regarding the nature of our government.
Every government employee job created requires the taxes of many private sector employees to pay for the salary and benefits. That’s why government jobs are a drain on the economy while private sector jobs aren’t. Obama’s so-called stimulus package gave a lot of money to states to maintain bloated employee rosters. All that did was increase debt while delaying the needed corrections necessary to get the government employee workforce to a more sustainable level. That’s even more stupid than “cash for clunkers” and other Obama economic initiatives.
That’s the idiocy of the left Larry. They can’t see past “significantly more valuable than no job” totally ignoring the cost.
You see Chris, “no job”, has the advantage of not taking the whole economy down with it. Jobs created in the process of creating wealth lifts the whole economy. That is, by definition, not a government job.
All government jobs, including the ones conservative like, drag the economy down. That’s why defense is in the constitution. It’s a necessary evil. It does not stimulate the economy even though it does spend money on research that can be of some benefit.
How do we know? Because all wealth comes from free trade. Government jobs are not about free trade at all. They are either a necessary evil or just plain evil and unnecessary. We’ve gone far too far over to the dark side.
The left sees the economy as a perpetual motion machine… just print money.
Being wrong is a career move on the left.
“If you can’t trust a Nobel Prize winner who can you trust?”
Yeah! Like Algore and Obama!
…and Arafat.
This applies to all models: If the results of your model don’t match reality, it isn’t reality that’s wrong.
The Democrats pushed through their so-called stimulus package two years ago to the tune of about $800 billion. We were told it would go to “shovel-ready” infrastructure projects and if it passed, unemployment wouldn’t top 8%. Except most of the money didn’t go to infrastructure projects (which even Obama admitted were not “shovel-ready”) and unemployment has been at or above 9% for some time now. In short, the stimulus failed. Rather than admit that, Krugman argues that it wasn’t a big enough stimulus. He’s crying out for ever-more government stimulus to boost the economy. At what point does the statement “one definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while hoping for a different outcome” break through to him? I doubt it ever will for that would require him to admit he is wrong.
Krugman may qualify as an expert on economics. Perhaps he hasn’t heard what Carl Sandburg said about experts. “An expert is a damn fool a long way from home.”
Except that Krugman at the time said the stimulus was too small. Except that it did work.
We went from jettisoning a million jobs a month to adding 120,00 jobs. (Yes, not enough additional jobs) We went from a Dow in freefall on the way to 6,800 to a Dow after this week’s losses of 11,444. In short, it looks to me like we took a dose of medicine, it helped, but it’s wearing off and we need another one.
Regarding the linked article’s statement that “Whatever jobs are created by government programs and government expansion are simply not as valuable as the same job created by a private firm” – yes, correct. But they are significantly more valuable than no job at all.
we took a dose of medicine, it helped, but it’s wearing off and we need another one.
I know an alcoholic who says the same thing.
The New Deal, “wasn’t big enough”, either.
“In short, it looks to me like we took a dose of medicine, it helped, but it’s wearing off and we need another one.:”
Because if history shows us anything, is that if giving more power and money to the State doesn’t bring prosperity, giving even MORE power and money to the State will!
Good little serf, Gerrib.
“Doctor, I’ve applied the leeches, but my wife is still pale and listless.”
“Well then, double the number of leeches, and bring her by tomorrow for a bloodletting.”
Mr. Ladd also echoes the point I’ve raised before: when does the debt get paid down?
Chris Gerrib said:
The only month when more than 1 million jobs were lost was Jan 2009 when 1.123 million jobs were lost from the prior month. At that time we were down 3.08% from our peak in Nov-2007. Today we are 5.23% down from that same peak.
Source: Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey — (Seas) Employment Level — Series ID LNS12000000
And generally come at the cost of one less private firm job.
Except that it did work.
This statement is worthy of some thought. Hmmm… Assume any one government job created by the stimulus.
Where did the money come from?
How will that money be sustained?
Is that job different from a private sector job in any ways?
Your problem Chris is you don’t know the correct answer to any of these three questions. Your equations don’t balance because you left out some important pieces. I don’t even have to point out any of the missing pieces because they are obvious to any that haven’t taken the kool aid.
Once you have the correct equations with all the missing pieces you will find that one job to be a drain on the economy which must them be multiplied by all those phantom jobs created.
Similarly, Nancy Pelosi is an idiot when she considers unemployment to be an economic boost.
BTW, no insurance is ever an economic boost. That’s not the nature or purpose of insurance. It is simply a transfer of risk.
I guess in a similar vein I should also point out…
they are significantly more valuable than no job at all
…is also glaringly wrong for the same reasons as above.
All due to the stimuseless, huh? I have this rock I’d like to sell you.
“I have this rock I’d like to sell you.”
LoL
If the ‘My Pet Rock’ really does come back then my god the 70’s will have truly come full circle.
Gerrib, get back to us when the DJIA is back where it was before the Democrats took over Congress.
If the ‘My Pet Rock’ really does come back then my god the 70′s will have truly come full circle.
He is talking about Lisa’s Tiger Rock.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdBn5G7Y2RA
And generally come at the cost of at least one less private firm job.
FTFY.
Don’t miss Krugman’s comment on Standard & Poors downgrade:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/05/sp-and-the-usa/
The people who rated subprime-backed securities are now declaring that they are the judges of fiscal policy? Really?
Typical leftard, blaming the messenger.
From the article:
But mostly it just means that I’m smarter than Paul Krugman.
I doubt that. The problem with Krugman isn’t that he’s not smart, the problem is that he is very smart and that he is an apologist for socialist thieves who is masquerading as an objective and dispassionate scientist. He’s not dumb, he’s one of the bad guys.
Why not? If that’s the take-away quote, you’ve saved us the trouble.
The people who rated subprime-backed securities are now declaring that they are the judges of fiscal policy? Really?
Indeed, sub-prime is a term that means “rated less than prime”. Usually, that rating is based on a judgement of fiscal policy. So its not much of a surprise that an organization that rated something sub-prime would be involved in judging fiscal policy.
It’s all about misdirection. Our enemy is the government so they have to provide enemies for distraction. What is the purpose of a rating agency if not to publish ratings? The idea that doing so makes them evil is not only ridiculous but a big tell regarding the nature of our government.
Every government employee job created requires the taxes of many private sector employees to pay for the salary and benefits. That’s why government jobs are a drain on the economy while private sector jobs aren’t. Obama’s so-called stimulus package gave a lot of money to states to maintain bloated employee rosters. All that did was increase debt while delaying the needed corrections necessary to get the government employee workforce to a more sustainable level. That’s even more stupid than “cash for clunkers” and other Obama economic initiatives.
That’s the idiocy of the left Larry. They can’t see past “significantly more valuable than no job” totally ignoring the cost.
You see Chris, “no job”, has the advantage of not taking the whole economy down with it. Jobs created in the process of creating wealth lifts the whole economy. That is, by definition, not a government job.
All government jobs, including the ones conservative like, drag the economy down. That’s why defense is in the constitution. It’s a necessary evil. It does not stimulate the economy even though it does spend money on research that can be of some benefit.
How do we know? Because all wealth comes from free trade. Government jobs are not about free trade at all. They are either a necessary evil or just plain evil and unnecessary. We’ve gone far too far over to the dark side.
The left sees the economy as a perpetual motion machine… just print money.