Magox Posted January 30, 2013 Author Share Posted January 30, 2013 (edited) Apparently Magox can only focus on one thing too. It's a pretty simple argument: we should focus on the unemployment short term thingy now; then worry about the Medicare long term thingy in a few years, since it's the FUTURE increase in costs and spending, not today's costs and spending, which create a deficit in the future. Btw, the deficit as a % of GDP has been trending down since 2009, and will reach a sustainable level in another year (unless of course the tax increases and coming spending cuts push us back into recession). Wow! For being a professor you're inability to comprehend the English language is pretty astounding. Here's what you said : It's a pretty simple argument: we should focus on the unemployment short term thingy now; then worry about the Medicare long term thingy in a few years, Few means a small number generally less than 5. Krugman says we shouldn't address it within the next 10 years. So which is it? Within the next few years or further out than a decade? No one is saying that we shouldn't enact pro growth policies, the argument being made is that we can do both. Reasonable people can argue in what those pro growth measures should entail, but just because you're one of the looney lefty zombie disciples of the school of Krugman shouldn't nullify your ability to reason and reject his opinion regarding that matter. You can do it TPS... I know you can, just say it, he's wrong about that. Edited January 30, 2013 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 30, 2013 Author Share Posted January 30, 2013 On a sidenote, those tax increases are just what the economy needs, specially with the latest GDP report showing a Robust -.1% contraction in the economy. Yes We Can! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjl2nd Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 I'm saying for you to call projections "the truth" is assinine. Why don't you give some reasons for the deficits going down by that much? Increased revenues and slowing government spending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 Silly me, but I could have sworn the Administration was laser focused on employment back in 2009? BTW, how did the economy fare in 4Q12, before the tax hikes came in? As our favorite villian pointed out, the stimulus was too small, and I'll add that the focus was on bailouts more than stimulus. I see the markets are really worried about that... It raises an interesting issue that I read about during the election, that the administration accelerated defense expenditures in Q3 to prop up the growth number (unexpected 3.1%) before the election--and these numbers confirm it. Surprised none of the wackas jumped on this? Consumer spending increased during Christmas season? You don't say. How did it increase relative to other 4Qs, considering it was a modest increase relative to 3Q12? Spin it any way you want, I'm still waiting for the 2009 Summer of Recovery to kick in. The numbers are always seasonally adjusted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 (edited) Wow! For being a professor you're inability to comprehend the English language is pretty astounding. Here's what you said : Few means a small number generally less than 5. Krugman says we shouldn't address it within the next 10 years. So which is it? Within the next few years or further out than a decade? No one is saying that we shouldn't enact pro growth policies, the argument being made is that we can do both. Reasonable people can argue in what those pro growth measures should entail, but just because you're one of the looney lefty zombie disciples of the school of Krugman shouldn't nullify your ability to reason and reject his opinion regarding that matter. You can do it TPS... I know you can, just say it, he's wrong about that. You don't need to start thinking about it for another few years since it's a problem that needs to be addressed beginning in about 10 years. If you really tried to listen to the discussion, you would've heard all of them talk about the dysfunction in DC and all of them agree that DC CAN'T seem to solve 2 issues at once. He understands you CAN do both, but DC seems incapable of chewing and walking at the same time. Btw, as everyone also seems to agree on, the main driver of those really, really large FUTURE deficits are health-related costs. That's what will need to be fixed. PK also said that the future deficits were projected based on the assumption that costs will continue to rise as they have been, and that's why he mentioned the uncertainties in the futre. Edited January 30, 2013 by TPS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 Btw, as everyone also seems to agree on, the main driver of those really, really large FUTURE deficits are health-related costs. That's what will need to be fixed. PK also said that the future deficits were projected based on the assumption that costs will continue to rise as they have been, and that's why he mentioned the uncertainties in the futre. How do you deal with health related costs? I don't know any doctors that are willing to take a pay cut and the increasing costs has to pay for the expensive R&D somehow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 30, 2013 Author Share Posted January 30, 2013 (edited) You can try to interpret it any way you like, the fact is that no one on that panel agreed with him, Ed Rendel, super lefty Mica B, Joe S, Haas and Steve Rattner, none of them, (all of them liberals except Joe S.) It was quite clear that he not only believes that it doesn't need to be addressed within the next 10 years, but that he even doubts that there is a risk within the system. He literally scoffed at the suggestion of addressing the issue now. No one is proposing to cutting Medicare within the next few years, the arguments being made is that we will address it now and make cuts later. Why are you so adamantly opposed to that? The fact is that Krugman has now become more of a liberal hyper partisan activist than he is economist. The only people who agree with Krugman are his looney lefty zombie disciples. Edited January 30, 2013 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 How do you deal with health related costs? I don't know any doctors that are willing to take a pay cut and the increasing costs has to pay for the expensive R&D somehow. It's a triple edged sword. Cost inflation for the same traditional procedures that have been in place for many years, new technology and procedures (and drugs) for everything under the sun and a larger older population drawing benefits for a longer period of time. 30 years ago Uncle Charlie limped with arthritis until he died. Now Uncle Charlie gets a knee replacement. If there is a tax to be raised, the employee portion of the Medicare tax should probably be increased to cover the extra benefits that are provided compared to many years ago. Require everyone to have a medical P of A's and DNR's on file. End of life costs are a huge part of the problem. Officials in DC should take one issue at a time IMO. Spending reductions, Medicare, SS, Medicaid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 Increased revenues and slowing government spending. Where are the increased revenues coming from? What makes you think that in the next four years the government will reduce spending? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 I'm curious about the professer's notion that the reality of a failing system, unaddressed, either won't lead to a much more confiscatory tax rate or a major increase in personal savings, both of which will drastically curtail spending and depress the job market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 As our favorite villian pointed out, the stimulus was too small, and I'll add that the focus was on bailouts more than stimulus. Ah yes, the "Spending money we don't have to aid the recovery that won't really happen without real changes in fundamental policy". Kick that can a little further down the road. Party now, Paul! Surprised none of the wackas jumped on this? Give the fact that the for profit media basically ignored it... That's OK, government employees at the Pentagon have been told that have to take 22 unpaid furlough days by the end of the fiscal year, so at least some of the penance will be paid by Obama voters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 31, 2013 Author Share Posted January 31, 2013 (edited) I'm curious about the professer's notion that the reality of a failing system, unaddressed, either won't lead to a much more confiscatory tax rate or a major increase in personal savings, both of which will drastically curtail spending and depress the job market. I'm in the guess who said this mode: The basic point is that the recession of 2001 wasn't a typical postwar slump, brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raises interest rates and easily ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again. This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance. To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble. Who Predicted the ongoing Default scares of Europe over the past few years? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't the guy who I quoted up above. Who said this? "Latvia is the New Argentina." He was predicting their demise, and from his perspective a near certain Sovereign Default, like what happened to Argentina in 2001. Of course he hated the Baltic nations, has written at least half a dozen blogs criticizing the Baltic nations, he despises their austerity measures, and this past year they had growth rates north of 6% GDP.... Let's put it this way, whatever Krugman advised them to do, they did the opposite. And as a result they have the best growth rates in Europe. The guy did some good work on patterns of international trade, but let's call him for what he is, an intelligent deeply divisive partisan with an agenda. He's a tool, and no one in their right mind should trust what he has to say about sovereign debt. Edited January 31, 2013 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Reminds me of this : http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303665904577452022368273502.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 31, 2013 Author Share Posted January 31, 2013 I mean seriously, could he have been more wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 I'm in the guess who said this mode: Who Predicted the ongoing Default scares of Europe over the past few years? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't the guy who I quoted up above. Who said this? He was predicting their demise, and from his perspective a near certain Sovereign Default, like what happened to Argentina in 2001. Of course he hated the Baltic nations, has written at least half a dozen blogs criticizing the Baltic nations, he despises their austerity measures, and this past year they had growth rates north of 6% GDP.... Let's put it this way, whatever Krugman advised them to do, they did the opposite. And as a result they have the best growth rates in Europe. The guy did some good work on patterns of international trade, but let's call him for what he is, an intelligent deeply divisive partisan with an agenda. He's a tool, and no one in their right mind should trust what he has to say about sovereign debt. Yes, Latvia, the country where people are pouring into to jump on their growth train...oops! Check that, it seems everyone is leaving...http://www.france24.com/en/20120522-latvia-emigration-population-brain-drain-economy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Yes, Latvia, the country where people are pouring into to jump on their growth train...oops! Check that, it seems everyone is leaving... http://www.france24....n-drain-economy I get it. So since Latvia sucks as a place to live generally because it is Latvia and not related to its economic policies, then Krugman is right? You may share the same ideology with the bearded douche but you can't deny that he's a partisan hack just as Sowell has now become. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-30/ken-aint-different-rogoff-crushes-infinite-dream-crude-keynesian-stimulus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 I really don't get calingl him a partisan hack. I mean, he's clearly a democrat...but whatever you may think of his economic analysis he's an economist and he believes it. Just to call him a partisan hack and brush off what he says as partisan hackery said to promote the democrats...not really all that true he's been critical when they don't do things he thinks they should do.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 I really don't get calingl him a partisan hack. I mean, he's clearly a democrat...but whatever you may think of his economic analysis he's an economist and he believes it. Just to call him a partisan hack and brush off what he says as partisan hackery said to promote the democrats...not really all that true he's been critical when they don't do things he thinks they should do.... Because politics shouldn't interfere with his analysis. There is a difference from being "left leaning" or "right leaning" and voicing an opinion and simply being "Republicans suck at everything" and "Liberals rock" which is what I call the Ann Coulter approach. Watch a Coulter interview, she can't finish a conversation without "Liberals suck" because she is so !@#$ing blind in her partisan beliefs that it makes it hard for anyone that isn't a partisan hack to listen to her speak. Even if I may agree with some of the things she says, I still think she's a tool, and that is precisely what Krugman is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 I get it. So since Latvia sucks as a place to live generally because it is Latvia and not related to its economic policies, then Krugman is right? You may share the same ideology with the bearded douche but you can't deny that he's a partisan hack just as Sowell has now become. It's one thing to criticize the guy, but when one creates a strawman to tear down, that's another. His basic argument on Joe was, since DC seems to be able to focus on only one thing at a time, then focus on the immediate problem of high unemployment and tackle the medicare problem (that starts in 2024) later. There is no reason to hold the economy hostage over a problem that can be addressed a few years from now. Those who are pushing the line of having to cut a deal on entitlements now are the partisan hacks. Btw, thought I posted a response to your healthcare question, but guess not. I think we have the system assbackwards in that we don't do preventative, rather we try to find a magic pill or operate when a festering issue finally explodes. I think so many health problems are related to the ****ty diet that pervades our culture. Obesity and diabetes are epidemics. Everyone knows the rising costs are not sustainable, and changes are being made, but more to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts