Total Posts:85|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How many times does Krugman have to be wrong?

BennyW
Posts: 698
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 11:59:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
You would think he would get it eventually?
You didn't build that-Obama
It's pretty lazy to quote things you disagree with, call it stupid and move on, rather than arguing with the person. -000ike
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 1:12:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
xD. Whilst I did find Krugman's attempt at drumming up a Canadian base funny, I don't think failing to guess the healthcare preferences of a random seven members of any Commonwealth country is evidence of a life misspent.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 1:20:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 1:18:45 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Seven people...

That's not necessarily the point. Krugman has been wrong in virtually every single thing that he preached. He was in favour of the stimulus, which got us absolutely nowhere, he is in favour of deficit spending that crowds out private investments, and so forth.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 1:29:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 1:20:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/19/2012 1:18:45 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Seven people...

That's not necessarily the point. Krugman has been wrong in virtually every single thing that he preached. He was in favour of the stimulus, which got us absolutely nowhere, he is in favour of deficit spending that crowds out private investments, and so forth.

It's not at all a foregone conclusion that the stimulus had no effect.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 1:45:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
No surprise here. Americans are actually more satisfied with their HC than Canadians are.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
BennyW
Posts: 698
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 2:36:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 1:20:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/19/2012 1:18:45 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Seven people...

That's not necessarily the point. Krugman has been wrong in virtually every single thing that he preached. He was in favour of the stimulus, which got us absolutely nowhere, he is in favour of deficit spending that crowds out private investments, and so forth.
Exactly can someone name one thing Krugman got right?
You didn't build that-Obama
It's pretty lazy to quote things you disagree with, call it stupid and move on, rather than arguing with the person. -000ike
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 2:51:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 1:29:04 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 7/19/2012 1:20:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/19/2012 1:18:45 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Seven people...

That's not necessarily the point. Krugman has been wrong in virtually every single thing that he preached. He was in favour of the stimulus, which got us absolutely nowhere, he is in favour of deficit spending that crowds out private investments, and so forth.

It's not at all a foregone conclusion that the stimulus had no effect.

Two years after the stimulus, it's pretty clear that its effect was either completely minimal or non-existent.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 3:00:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 2:36:02 PM, BennyW wrote:
At 7/19/2012 1:20:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/19/2012 1:18:45 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Seven people...

That's not necessarily the point. Krugman has been wrong in virtually every single thing that he preached. He was in favour of the stimulus, which got us absolutely nowhere, he is in favour of deficit spending that crowds out private investments, and so forth.
Exactly can someone name one thing Krugman got right?

He's right about one particular school of economics being wrong about everything and being biased towards certain, incorrect, conclusions because they are bought and sold by government officials.

He was just wrong about which school of economics that would be.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
BennyW
Posts: 698
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 3:04:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 3:00:36 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 7/19/2012 2:36:02 PM, BennyW wrote:
At 7/19/2012 1:20:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/19/2012 1:18:45 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Seven people...

That's not necessarily the point. Krugman has been wrong in virtually every single thing that he preached. He was in favour of the stimulus, which got us absolutely nowhere, he is in favour of deficit spending that crowds out private investments, and so forth.
Exactly can someone name one thing Krugman got right?


He's right about one particular school of economics being wrong about everything and being biased towards certain, incorrect, conclusions because they are bought and sold by government officials.

He was just wrong about which school of economics that would be.

True, but being right about something being wrong but wrong about what exactly is wrong is still technically wrong. I would though repeat that saying that even a broken clock is right twice a day so if on rare occasions he is right, it is completely accidental.
You didn't build that-Obama
It's pretty lazy to quote things you disagree with, call it stupid and move on, rather than arguing with the person. -000ike
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 8:25:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 1:45:24 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
No surprise here. Americans are actually more satisfied with their HC than Canadians are.

That's not true. In total, 43% of Canadians are satisfied with their system, in America it's 40%. France though, it is 65%.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 8:26:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 2:51:32 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/19/2012 1:29:04 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 7/19/2012 1:20:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/19/2012 1:18:45 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Seven people...

That's not necessarily the point. Krugman has been wrong in virtually every single thing that he preached. He was in favour of the stimulus, which got us absolutely nowhere, he is in favour of deficit spending that crowds out private investments, and so forth.

It's not at all a foregone conclusion that the stimulus had no effect.

Two years after the stimulus, it's pretty clear that its effect was either completely minimal or non-existent.

You cannot fill a hole that is over $3 trillion large with a stimulus package of about $600 billion (tax cuts are less effective than spending increases, in general).
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 9:31:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 8:26:17 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/19/2012 2:51:32 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/19/2012 1:29:04 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 7/19/2012 1:20:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/19/2012 1:18:45 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Seven people...

That's not necessarily the point. Krugman has been wrong in virtually every single thing that he preached. He was in favour of the stimulus, which got us absolutely nowhere, he is in favour of deficit spending that crowds out private investments, and so forth.

It's not at all a foregone conclusion that the stimulus had no effect.

Two years after the stimulus, it's pretty clear that its effect was either completely minimal or non-existent.

You cannot fill a hole that is over $3 trillion large with a stimulus package of about $600 billion (tax cuts are less effective than spending increases, in general).

Stimuluses aren't meant to fill holes; they are meant to jumpstart creation of filling the hole- which it obviously didn't do.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 9:48:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 9:31:04 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/19/2012 8:26:17 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/19/2012 2:51:32 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/19/2012 1:29:04 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 7/19/2012 1:20:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/19/2012 1:18:45 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Seven people...

That's not necessarily the point. Krugman has been wrong in virtually every single thing that he preached. He was in favour of the stimulus, which got us absolutely nowhere, he is in favour of deficit spending that crowds out private investments, and so forth.

It's not at all a foregone conclusion that the stimulus had no effect.

Two years after the stimulus, it's pretty clear that its effect was either completely minimal or non-existent.

You cannot fill a hole that is over $3 trillion large with a stimulus package of about $600 billion (tax cuts are less effective than spending increases, in general).

Stimuluses aren't meant to fill holes; they are meant to jumpstart creation of filling the hole- which it obviously didn't do.

Still though, you cannot jumpstart growth when the net change in the economy is negative 2.6 trillion or so. You can reduce the impact, which the stimulus did do, but you cannot return to pre recession levels by this alone.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 9:54:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 9:48:11 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/19/2012 9:31:04 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/19/2012 8:26:17 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/19/2012 2:51:32 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/19/2012 1:29:04 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 7/19/2012 1:20:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/19/2012 1:18:45 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Seven people...

That's not necessarily the point. Krugman has been wrong in virtually every single thing that he preached. He was in favour of the stimulus, which got us absolutely nowhere, he is in favour of deficit spending that crowds out private investments, and so forth.

It's not at all a foregone conclusion that the stimulus had no effect.

Two years after the stimulus, it's pretty clear that its effect was either completely minimal or non-existent.

You cannot fill a hole that is over $3 trillion large with a stimulus package of about $600 billion (tax cuts are less effective than spending increases, in general).

Stimuluses aren't meant to fill holes; they are meant to jumpstart creation of filling the hole- which it obviously didn't do.

Still though, you cannot jumpstart growth when the net change in the economy is negative 2.6 trillion or so. You can reduce the impact, which the stimulus did do, but you cannot return to pre recession levels by this alone.

Nobody said you could. However, the recovery done by the stimulus was absolutely non-existent, and the minimality could be accounted for by natural business cycle recovery.

The problem wasn't the stimulus, per se, it was what the stimulus spent money on. Instead of focusing on investment, it focused on consumption too much.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 9:57:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 9:54:52 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/19/2012 9:48:11 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/19/2012 9:31:04 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/19/2012 8:26:17 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/19/2012 2:51:32 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/19/2012 1:29:04 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 7/19/2012 1:20:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/19/2012 1:18:45 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Seven people...

That's not necessarily the point. Krugman has been wrong in virtually every single thing that he preached. He was in favour of the stimulus, which got us absolutely nowhere, he is in favour of deficit spending that crowds out private investments, and so forth.

It's not at all a foregone conclusion that the stimulus had no effect.

Two years after the stimulus, it's pretty clear that its effect was either completely minimal or non-existent.

You cannot fill a hole that is over $3 trillion large with a stimulus package of about $600 billion (tax cuts are less effective than spending increases, in general).

Stimuluses aren't meant to fill holes; they are meant to jumpstart creation of filling the hole- which it obviously didn't do.

Still though, you cannot jumpstart growth when the net change in the economy is negative 2.6 trillion or so. You can reduce the impact, which the stimulus did do, but you cannot return to pre recession levels by this alone.

Nobody said you could. However, the recovery done by the stimulus was absolutely non-existent, and the minimality could be accounted for by natural business cycle recovery.

The problem wasn't the stimulus, per se, it was what the stimulus spent money on. Instead of focusing on investment, it focused on consumption too much.

Because consumption is needed for investment to be useful. What kind of investment would you suggest, if gov't were to give another round of stimulus?
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 9:59:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 9:57:24 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/19/2012 9:54:52 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/19/2012 9:48:11 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/19/2012 9:31:04 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/19/2012 8:26:17 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/19/2012 2:51:32 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/19/2012 1:29:04 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 7/19/2012 1:20:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/19/2012 1:18:45 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Seven people...

That's not necessarily the point. Krugman has been wrong in virtually every single thing that he preached. He was in favour of the stimulus, which got us absolutely nowhere, he is in favour of deficit spending that crowds out private investments, and so forth.

It's not at all a foregone conclusion that the stimulus had no effect.

Two years after the stimulus, it's pretty clear that its effect was either completely minimal or non-existent.

You cannot fill a hole that is over $3 trillion large with a stimulus package of about $600 billion (tax cuts are less effective than spending increases, in general).

Stimuluses aren't meant to fill holes; they are meant to jumpstart creation of filling the hole- which it obviously didn't do.

Still though, you cannot jumpstart growth when the net change in the economy is negative 2.6 trillion or so. You can reduce the impact, which the stimulus did do, but you cannot return to pre recession levels by this alone.

Nobody said you could. However, the recovery done by the stimulus was absolutely non-existent, and the minimality could be accounted for by natural business cycle recovery.

The problem wasn't the stimulus, per se, it was what the stimulus spent money on. Instead of focusing on investment, it focused on consumption too much.

Because consumption is needed for investment to be useful.

Consumption is short term; investment is long term.

What kind of investment would you suggest, if gov't were to give another round of stimulus?

If I had to implement a stimulus (I wouldn't), I would focus it heavily on manufacturing jobs as those are the jobs that generate real productivity. Also, I would cut out all the renewable energy stuff.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 10:03:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 9:59:00 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/19/2012 9:57:24 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/19/2012 9:54:52 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/19/2012 9:48:11 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/19/2012 9:31:04 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/19/2012 8:26:17 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/19/2012 2:51:32 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/19/2012 1:29:04 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 7/19/2012 1:20:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/19/2012 1:18:45 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Seven people...

That's not necessarily the point. Krugman has been wrong in virtually every single thing that he preached. He was in favour of the stimulus, which got us absolutely nowhere, he is in favour of deficit spending that crowds out private investments, and so forth.

It's not at all a foregone conclusion that the stimulus had no effect.

Two years after the stimulus, it's pretty clear that its effect was either completely minimal or non-existent.

You cannot fill a hole that is over $3 trillion large with a stimulus package of about $600 billion (tax cuts are less effective than spending increases, in general).

Stimuluses aren't meant to fill holes; they are meant to jumpstart creation of filling the hole- which it obviously didn't do.

Still though, you cannot jumpstart growth when the net change in the economy is negative 2.6 trillion or so. You can reduce the impact, which the stimulus did do, but you cannot return to pre recession levels by this alone.

Nobody said you could. However, the recovery done by the stimulus was absolutely non-existent, and the minimality could be accounted for by natural business cycle recovery.

The problem wasn't the stimulus, per se, it was what the stimulus spent money on. Instead of focusing on investment, it focused on consumption too much.

Because consumption is needed for investment to be useful.

Consumption is short term; investment is long term.

What kind of investment would you suggest, if gov't were to give another round of stimulus?

If I had to implement a stimulus (I wouldn't), I would focus it heavily on manufacturing jobs as those are the jobs that generate real productivity. Also, I would cut out all the renewable energy stuff.

What about clean energy manufacturing jobs?

Do you support the use of tax credits, or do you also view that they are too complicated and are only used basically by the rich?
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 10:06:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 10:03:55 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/19/2012 9:59:00 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/19/2012 9:57:24 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/19/2012 9:54:52 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/19/2012 9:48:11 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/19/2012 9:31:04 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/19/2012 8:26:17 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/19/2012 2:51:32 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/19/2012 1:29:04 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 7/19/2012 1:20:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/19/2012 1:18:45 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Seven people...

That's not necessarily the point. Krugman has been wrong in virtually every single thing that he preached. He was in favour of the stimulus, which got us absolutely nowhere, he is in favour of deficit spending that crowds out private investments, and so forth.

It's not at all a foregone conclusion that the stimulus had no effect.

Two years after the stimulus, it's pretty clear that its effect was either completely minimal or non-existent.

You cannot fill a hole that is over $3 trillion large with a stimulus package of about $600 billion (tax cuts are less effective than spending increases, in general).

Stimuluses aren't meant to fill holes; they are meant to jumpstart creation of filling the hole- which it obviously didn't do.

Still though, you cannot jumpstart growth when the net change in the economy is negative 2.6 trillion or so. You can reduce the impact, which the stimulus did do, but you cannot return to pre recession levels by this alone.

Nobody said you could. However, the recovery done by the stimulus was absolutely non-existent, and the minimality could be accounted for by natural business cycle recovery.

The problem wasn't the stimulus, per se, it was what the stimulus spent money on. Instead of focusing on investment, it focused on consumption too much.

Because consumption is needed for investment to be useful.

Consumption is short term; investment is long term.

What kind of investment would you suggest, if gov't were to give another round of stimulus?

If I had to implement a stimulus (I wouldn't), I would focus it heavily on manufacturing jobs as those are the jobs that generate real productivity. Also, I would cut out all the renewable energy stuff.

What about clean energy manufacturing jobs?

I seriously doubt that with current technology, a firm can run that at a substantial profit.

Do you support the use of tax credits, or do you also view that they are too complicated and are only used basically by the rich?

Tax credits incentivize, but don't directly create- which I like. So yeah, I would support them.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 10:12:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Did you support Obama's "insourcing" bill which just received 56 votes in the Senate today?
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 10:14:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 10:12:27 PM, Contra wrote:
Did you support Obama's "insourcing" bill which just received 56 votes in the Senate today?

No, because I understand comparative advantage.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 10:17:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 10:14:28 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/19/2012 10:12:27 PM, Contra wrote:
Did you support Obama's "insourcing" bill which just received 56 votes in the Senate today?

No, because I understand comparative advantage.

So, you think we should help companies with tax breaks who take jobs out of this country, and oppose using those tax breaks instead for companies that decide to come to the US?
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 10:22:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 10:14:28 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/19/2012 10:12:27 PM, Contra wrote:
Did you support Obama's "insourcing" bill which just received 56 votes in the Senate today?

No, because I understand comparative advantage.

what was the bill? Outsourcing can be bad for US citizens if capital goods are exported to other nations.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 10:23:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 10:17:38 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/19/2012 10:14:28 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/19/2012 10:12:27 PM, Contra wrote:
Did you support Obama's "insourcing" bill which just received 56 votes in the Senate today?

No, because I understand comparative advantage.

So, you think we should help companies with tax breaks who take jobs out of this country, and oppose using those tax breaks instead for companies that decide to come to the US?

Lol. I find this really funny because Obama is teamed up with GE, who employ more than half of their workforce overseas and are getting loans, tax breaks, and grants from the Obama Administration.

On topic, all the tax breaks should be eliminated and let market forces run for all existing and developed sector markets. That way, the principles of comparative advantage can work without government interference.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 10:25:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 10:22:24 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/19/2012 10:14:28 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/19/2012 10:12:27 PM, Contra wrote:
Did you support Obama's "insourcing" bill which just received 56 votes in the Senate today?

No, because I understand comparative advantage.

what was the bill? Outsourcing can be bad for US citizens if capital goods are exported to other nations.

Basically, businesses that decide to "insource" any of their production in to America get a tax credit from the fed gov't that covers 20% of the costs of "insourcing", and the business once in the US must prove that it created net new jobs.

Businesses that decide to outsource do not get any tax breaks in order to facilitate this process.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 10:27:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 10:22:24 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/19/2012 10:14:28 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/19/2012 10:12:27 PM, Contra wrote:
Did you support Obama's "insourcing" bill which just received 56 votes in the Senate today?

No, because I understand comparative advantage.

what was the bill? Outsourcing can be bad for US citizens if capital goods are exported to other nations.

I don't see how that would be bad since we are investing less capital overseas for the same jobs to therefore make cheaper goods for us back home. If the capital was invested domestically, it would take a lot more to produce the same result.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 10:30:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 10:27:01 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/19/2012 10:22:24 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/19/2012 10:14:28 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/19/2012 10:12:27 PM, Contra wrote:
Did you support Obama's "insourcing" bill which just received 56 votes in the Senate today?

No, because I understand comparative advantage.

what was the bill? Outsourcing can be bad for US citizens if capital goods are exported to other nations.

I don't see how that would be bad since we are investing less capital overseas for the same jobs to therefore make cheaper goods for us back home. If the capital was invested domestically, it would take a lot more to produce the same result.

It increase overall production, yes. However, US workers don't get to see their salaries increase due to the increase in productivity. Instead their salary might decrease if capital stocks are shipped oversea.

It's the same reason why it would be bad for US workers if there was an open borders policy.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 10:31:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/19/2012 2:51:32 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/19/2012 1:29:04 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 7/19/2012 1:20:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/19/2012 1:18:45 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Seven people...

That's not necessarily the point. Krugman has been wrong in virtually every single thing that he preached. He was in favour of the stimulus, which got us absolutely nowhere, he is in favour of deficit spending that crowds out private investments, and so forth.

It's not at all a foregone conclusion that the stimulus had no effect.

Two years after the stimulus, it's pretty clear that its effect was either completely minimal or non-existent.
Under Krugman's assumptions this would be correct. In reality economics has too many uncontrolled variables to know any such things by such empirical means as you suggest.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.