In case you missed the epic pwnage

ib1yysguy

ib1yysguy

Junior Member
PostmodernProphet said:
no you don't.....I don't think there is any credible economist who thinks the current stimulus plan is a good idea......
Click to expand...

ib1yysguy said:
Thats because they all thought it should have been larger.

Not that your view of who makes an economist credible is reasonable. I could show you an economist who won the Nobel prize in economics telling you it was a good idea but for the fact that it wasn't big enough and you would say he wasn't credible.
Click to expand...

PostmodernProphet said:
I will say YOU aren't credible, for saying there is an economist who won the Nobel Prize who thinks the stimulus wasn't big enough....
Click to expand...

ib1yysguy said:
Oh my.

"Paul Krugman, the professor of economics at Princeton University and a Nobel Prize winner, spoke Tuesday to CNBC, where he discussed his views on the stimulus package.

The $787 billion stimulus is not nearly enough to fill the "well over $2 trillion hole" in the economy, Krugman said. "A fair bit of the bill is not really stimulus," he adding, noting that just about $650 billion would actually spur consumer spending and other types of stimulus."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/17/paul-krugman-stimulus-too_n_167721.html

YouTube - Paul Krugman: Fixing the Financial Crisis

That was easy. PWNED.
Click to expand...

Man, that was awesome.
 
lol....you were a bit quick to claim ownage, you probably don't want to draw attention to a thread where you embarrass yourself so easily....now that I have your attention, however, how about going back and explaining your position regarding the stimulus plan in light of the failure of identical efforts in Japan since 1991......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
lol....you were a bit quick to claim ownage, you probably don't want to draw attention to a thread where you embarrass yourself so easily....now that I have your attention, however, how about going back and explaining your position regarding the stimulus plan in light of the failure of identical efforts in Japan since 1991......
Click to expand...

They're not at all identical. It's that simple.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
lol....you were a bit quick to claim ownage, you probably don't want to draw attention to a thread where you embarrass yourself so easily....now that I have your attention, however, how about going back and explaining your position regarding the stimulus plan in light of the failure of identical efforts in Japan since 1991......
Click to expand...

he is very insecure and has the mentality of a 5 year old....starting a whole new thread based on posts already in another thread simply to claim pwnage....well....somebody needs some attention and apparently doesn't feel they are right often so they have to proclaim it in *lights*
 
actually, krugman doesn't really prove your point as he points out not everything is stimulus..."a FAIR AMOUNT"...IOW...quite a bit....

"Paul Krugman, the professor of economics at Princeton University and a Nobel Prize winner, spoke Tuesday to CNBC, where he discussed his views on the stimulus package.

The $787 billion stimulus is not nearly enough to fill the "well over $2 trillion hole" in the economy, Krugman said. "A fair bit of the bill is not really stimulus," he adding, noting that just about $650 billion would actually spur consumer spending and other types of stimulus."
Click to expand...

you dems suck at everything...even krugman thinks you suck....notwithstanding i think the whole bill is hogwash
 
the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. the dems are doing the same thing that FDR did and they expect it to boost the economy. in reality, it will extend the recession just like it did with FDR.

therefore, dems are insane.
 
ib1yysguy said:
They're not at all identical. It's that simple.
Click to expand...

the quotes from the New York Times article make them sound eerily similar...

let's repeat them, just for the fun of it...
In total, Japan spent $6.3 trillion on construction-related public investment between 1991 and September of last year, according to the Cabinet Office. The spending peaked in 1995 and remained high until the early 2000s, when it was cut amid growing concerns about ballooning budget deficits. More recently, the governing Liberal Democratic Party has increased spending again to revive the economy and the party’s own flagging popularity.

In the end, say economists, it was not public works but an expensive cleanup of the debt-ridden banking system, combined with growing exports to China and the United States, that brought a close to Japan’s Lost Decade. This has led many to conclude that spending did little more than sink Japan deeply into debt, leaving an enormous tax burden for future generations.
Click to expand...

and
Among ordinary Japanese, the spending is widely disparaged for having turned the nation into a public-works-based welfare state and making regional economies dependent on Tokyo for jobs. Much of the blame has fallen on the Liberal Democratic Party, which has long used government spending to grease rural vote-buying machines that help keep the party in power.
Click to expand...
 
Again, if you're not retarded (like say, you won a Nobel Prize in economics) you understand that Japan's economic woes bared no similarity to our own. The comparison is without merit. You want to draw some similarity because you see the words "Liberal Democratic" and think that every other factor doesn't matter.

Fact: Before about an hour ago you had no idea any economists thought stimulus spending was a good idea. You laughed at the idea. I corrected you hard-core. The vast majority of economists recognize deficit/stimulus spending as tremendously helpful in recessions caused by drops in private sector investment and consumption (ours). Japan's recession was due to huge, out of control inflationary issues which made their government's spending on infrastructure much, much less effective. The comparison, again, is totally retarded and it's a very sorry attempt to draw attention away from the fact that you were totally uninformed (read: ignorant) as to the economics behind stimulus spending and the fact that most economists recognize it as legit.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Click to expand...

No it isn't.

SmarterThanYou said:
the dems are doing the same thing that FDR did and they expect it to boost the economy. in reality, it will extend the recession just like it did with FDR.

therefore, dems are insane.
Click to expand...

Despite his reputation, FDR didn't actually do much to stimulate the economy. Or not nearly enough. Only WWII would provide the spending necessary to get us out of the conservative dark ages.
 
Watermark said:
No it isn't.



Despite his reputation, FDR didn't actually do much to stimulate the economy. Or not nearly enough. Only WWII would provide the spending necessary to get us out of the conservative dark ages.
Click to expand...

BUT COMMON SENSE! NO MONEY NO ICE CREAM!
 
If Joe had gotten a loan, he would have been able to buy the ice cream. It's just amazing that Dixie thought that this argument had validity at all. What was his point? That if we took out a loan it doesn't count and we can't pay for anything? WTF? How does a human mind work long this?

And BTW, Dixie made the Joe story up. Just want to warn you.
 
Watermark said:
If Joe had gotten a loan, he would have been able to buy the ice cream. It's just amazing that Dixie thought that this argument had validity at all. What was his point? That if we took out a loan it doesn't count and we can't pay for anything? WTF? How does a human mind work long this?

And BTW, Dixie made the Joe story up. Just want to warn you.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if Joe was making any kind of income, he'd have paid back the debt of like $1.35 with some interest. So the ice cream man would have made his profit, the lender would have made profit, and Joe would have gotten his ice cream and greased the wheels of commerce at the same time.

What happened instead is Joe got no ice cream, the ice cream man made no money, and the person who would have lent him money had no interest earned on the loan that was never made.

Retarded on a surreal level was right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top