Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Paul Ryan is a Joke

ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 7:35:36 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
There are a lot of reasons that Paul Ryan is a complete and utter joke, and an embarrassment both to his party and to the body for whom he serves. There are so many things I could plausibly point to--his budget replete with "magic asterisks," the median's incessant willingness to brand this guy a "numbers guy" or a "serious policy wonk" when he's anything but, his support for redefining rape, his insistence that QE would lead to hyperinflation, his "takers and makers" voodoo, and the list goes on and on--but here's one.

Here's Paul Krugman: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com...

who links to Steven Benen: http://www.msnbc.com...

There's a lot to digest in these articles, but there's one thing I want to laser in on: Paul Ryan's cognitive dissonance.

It's unquestionable that the economy has improved immensely since 2009--I don't know a single economist (notice that I didn't say "single credible economist" because I don't look at economics through a political lens, and thus that doesn't color my view of "credible") who would deny that, and as we know, economists trump dipsh1t politicians on the issue of economics.

The best metric for this, though perhaps a somewhat imperfect one for various reasons (though far less imperfect than many people think, and if you'd like, I can link you to a myriad of academic work on this), is the civilian unemployment rate: it was 10 percent in October 2009, and now it's 5 percent. We just added about 292,000 jobs in December and a little over 300,000 in November, averaging a little over 200,000 jobs for the year of 2015 after the best year of job growth (2014) since 1999.

Now, people are quick to attribute this to Obama. It wasn't: the stimulus was incredibly small and watered down--far smaller than it needed to be to close a massive output gap and offset the immense headwinds of the financial crisis. This was unquestionably expansionary monetary policy at a time when fiscal policy was largely asleep at the wheel and far too contractionary--at a federal, state, and local level, it actually declined in real terms. The so-called "unprecedented fiscal expansion" was anything but.

Now, this assertion by me is nothing new: I've never had much faith in Congress or in fiscal policy generally speaking, but I vigorously and aggressively defend expansionary monetary policy. Paul Ryan, on the other hand, has a different track record: he excoriated Ben Bernanke for his "inflationary" policies that would lead to economic ruin and do positively nothing to mollify the substantial downturn of the financial crisis.

Then they work, and there's plenty of academic work--Engen and others from the Board, Blinder and Zandi, and others--evidencing that.

What does Paul Ryan do when asked if Obama deserves any of the credit?

He backpedals! Suddenly, expansionary monetary policy, the same policy he supposedly abhors and prognosticated would be cataclysmic, doesn't sound all that destructive, if in endorsing it he's able to avoid having to credit an even greater enemy than Bernanke or Yellen, Barack Obama, with any of the recovery--though, ironically, Krugman is very right in noting that EVEN IF we were to argue that the Fed was responsible, Obama's willingness to keep d1pshits in Congress, like Paul Ryan, off Bernanke's back (through meaningless audits, the FRAT Act, the FORM Act, and so much other deceptively named sh1t that would impinge on its independence) itself deserves credit.

Paul Ryan is a disgrace, and it's a disgrace to this country to have such an intellectually dishonest d1psht third in line to the presidency.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 7:47:44 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
That doesn't even get to the heart of his own ignorance, which is his branding of expansionary monetary policy as "trickle-down economics." Let's get to the quote:

"I think the Federal Reserve has done more. And by the way, I think the Federal Reserve has given us, in combination with Obama policies, more regulations, higher taxes, more uncertainty; has given us trickle-down economics."

Ignore that trickle-down economics involves less regs and lower taxes for just a moment and that Ryan's framing is deceptive--e.g., he's trying to assert, but failing in doing so, that monetary policy exacerbates wealth inequality, which is a big crock of sh1t.

Let me (sort of) agree with a few points: more uncertainty? Yes: financial markets absolutely fcking tank at the mere thought of a change in Fed policy--though, thankfully, liftoff was well telegraphed. I've been screaming for months that the Fed's communication policy was horribly ineffective.

Now, more uncertainty relative to the uncertainty of 2007-2009, which Bloom (2014) estimated reduced real GDP by 3 percent and Leduc and Liu (2012) found raised the unemployment rate by 1 percentage point?

Bullsh1t. Of course, Paul Ryan wasn't referring to the Fed's "communication policy."

More regulation? Yes, absolutely. That was Dodd-Frank, and it was a very, very good thing once these morons crashed the economy in the early 2000s. The Fed didn't "create" to Dodd-Frank, so in that sense Ryan is full of it, but they do enforce it.

So let's give him a pass on this one.

More taxes? Not even close: the Fed doesn't levy taxes. Fiscal and monetary policy are distinct, and the Fed is independent of the Congress (at least in terms of what we call "instrument independent"). In fact, the Fed turns over all of its operating profits to the Treasury--and for the matter it just turned over a record remittance of almost $98 billion. These dipsh1ts wanted to rewire its dividends for infrastructure projects or something--Ben Bernanke wrote a great op-ed on why that's a sleight of hand.

Now, let's go back to my first remark on this: the real irony is that Paul Ryan attributed the recovery to Fed policy--to what he called "trickle down economics"--when in reality what he's claiming that he did (higher taxes, more regs) is contrary to what he himself believes and advocates for.

So Paul Ryan has literally just discredited his party's entire economic ideology. If monetary policy reduced the unemployment rate, and thus impacted a real variable, wages and prices are sticky downward, and that was the cause of the crisis of 2007-2009. It wasn't "structural" issues that could be dealt with by more tax cuts.

Paul Ryan, you are as ignorant as you are deceptive. Step down.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 3:29:03 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/14/2016 7:35:36 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
There are a lot of reasons that Paul Ryan is a complete and utter joke, and an embarrassment both to his party and to the body for whom he serves. There are so many things I could plausibly point to--his budget replete with "magic asterisks," the median's incessant willingness to brand this guy a "numbers guy" or a "serious policy wonk" when he's anything but, his support for redefining rape, his insistence that QE would lead to hyperinflation, his "takers and makers" voodoo, and the list goes on and on--but here's one.

Here's Paul Krugman: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com...

who links to Steven Benen: http://www.msnbc.com...

There's a lot to digest in these articles, but there's one thing I want to laser in on: Paul Ryan's cognitive dissonance.

It's unquestionable that the economy has improved immensely since 2009--I don't know a single economist (notice that I didn't say "single credible economist" because I don't look at economics through a political lens, and thus that doesn't color my view of "credible") who would deny that, and as we know, economists trump dipsh1t politicians on the issue of economics.

The best metric for this, though perhaps a somewhat imperfect one for various reasons (though far less imperfect than many people think, and if you'd like, I can link you to a myriad of academic work on this), is the civilian unemployment rate: it was 10 percent in October 2009, and now it's 5 percent. We just added about 292,000 jobs in December and a little over 300,000 in November, averaging a little over 200,000 jobs for the year of 2015 after the best year of job growth (2014) since 1999.

Now, people are quick to attribute this to Obama. It wasn't: the stimulus was incredibly small and watered down--far smaller than it needed to be to close a massive output gap and offset the immense headwinds of the financial crisis. This was unquestionably expansionary monetary policy at a time when fiscal policy was largely asleep at the wheel and far too contractionary--at a federal, state, and local level, it actually declined in real terms. The so-called "unprecedented fiscal expansion" was anything but.

Now, this assertion by me is nothing new: I've never had much faith in Congress or in fiscal policy generally speaking, but I vigorously and aggressively defend expansionary monetary policy. Paul Ryan, on the other hand, has a different track record: he excoriated Ben Bernanke for his "inflationary" policies that would lead to economic ruin and do positively nothing to mollify the substantial downturn of the financial crisis.

Then they work, and there's plenty of academic work--Engen and others from the Board, Blinder and Zandi, and others--evidencing that.

What does Paul Ryan do when asked if Obama deserves any of the credit?

He backpedals! Suddenly, expansionary monetary policy, the same policy he supposedly abhors and prognosticated would be cataclysmic, doesn't sound all that destructive, if in endorsing it he's able to avoid having to credit an even greater enemy than Bernanke or Yellen, Barack Obama, with any of the recovery--though, ironically, Krugman is very right in noting that EVEN IF we were to argue that the Fed was responsible, Obama's willingness to keep d1pshits in Congress, like Paul Ryan, off Bernanke's back (through meaningless audits, the FRAT Act, the FORM Act, and so much other deceptively named sh1t that would impinge on its independence) itself deserves credit.

Paul Ryan is a disgrace, and it's a disgrace to this country to have such an intellectually dishonest d1psht third in line to the presidency.

His credentials as a "wonk" seem to come from him saying "I am a wonk".
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 4:10:39 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/14/2016 7:35:36 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:

The best metric for this, though perhaps a somewhat imperfect one for various reasons (though far less imperfect than many people think, and if you'd like, I can link you to a myriad of academic work on this), is the civilian unemployment rate: it was 10 percent in October 2009, and now it's 5 percent. We just added about 292,000 jobs in December and a little over 300,000 in November, averaging a little over 200,000 jobs for the year of 2015 after the best year of job growth (2014) since 1999.

There's considerable debate on using the employment metric over average household income statistics. Simply having "any" job doesn't make you personally prosperous.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 4:17:26 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/14/2016 4:10:39 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 1/14/2016 7:35:36 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:

The best metric for this, though perhaps a somewhat imperfect one for various reasons (though far less imperfect than many people think, and if you'd like, I can link you to a myriad of academic work on this), is the civilian unemployment rate: it was 10 percent in October 2009, and now it's 5 percent. We just added about 292,000 jobs in December and a little over 300,000 in November, averaging a little over 200,000 jobs for the year of 2015 after the best year of job growth (2014) since 1999.

There's considerable debate on using the employment metric over average household income statistics. Simply having "any" job doesn't make you personally prosperous.

I don't know of any such debate. To the contrary, average wage series are positively horrid due to (a) outliers in the income distribution, (b) wage rigidities (which undermine Paul Ryan's argument), (c) household composition, and (d) productivity shocks.

In other words, if there's a marked, secular slowdown in productivity, real wages slow--but employment rises. Technically labor markets are tightening--that's largely the case in the U.S. and in Japan. You can pin some of that on Obama, though he can't exactly lean against demographics.

But, no, employment is an objectively superior metric than average household income, lol. I could rant for days about the problems with measurement, which makes this "middle class stagnation" narrative far less tenable than people even on my side of the aisle would like you to think.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 4:17:54 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/14/2016 3:29:03 PM, TBR wrote:
His credentials as a "wonk" seem to come from him saying "I am a wonk".

That, and the media for some God forsaken reason branding him one.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 4:36:10 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
In other news...
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 4:46:36 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/14/2016 4:36:10 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
In other news...

Lol.

This certainly isn't news to most people (though perhaps the particular criticism is). I always cut Paul Ryan some slack because even though he's far from a "numbers guy," he had two things that I thought set him apart from the average teabagging dipsh1t: (a) a reasonably intelligent head on his shoulders, even if his policy ideas are bunk (sort of the default line I resort to on a lot of nutjobs, which is "they don't really mean that!") and (b) enough of a connection to Wall Street that he wouldn't do something stupid like refuse to lift the debt limit.

Thankfully, upon being elected speaker, he did pass a clean debt-limit increase. I think (b) therefore passes the smell test, but (a) not so much.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 4:51:02 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/14/2016 4:46:36 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 1/14/2016 4:36:10 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
In other news...

Lol.

This certainly isn't news to most people (though perhaps the particular criticism is). I always cut Paul Ryan some slack because even though he's far from a "numbers guy," he had two things that I thought set him apart from the average teabagging dipsh1t: (a) a reasonably intelligent head on his shoulders, even if his policy ideas are bunk (sort of the default line I resort to on a lot of nutjobs, which is "they don't really mean that!") and (b) enough of a connection to Wall Street that he wouldn't do something stupid like refuse to lift the debt limit.

Thankfully, upon being elected speaker, he did pass a clean debt-limit increase. I think (b) therefore passes the smell test, but (a) not so much.

Thoughts on this video? https://www.youtube.com...
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 4:57:09 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/14/2016 4:51:02 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/14/2016 4:46:36 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 1/14/2016 4:36:10 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
In other news...

Lol.

This certainly isn't news to most people (though perhaps the particular criticism is). I always cut Paul Ryan some slack because even though he's far from a "numbers guy," he had two things that I thought set him apart from the average teabagging dipsh1t: (a) a reasonably intelligent head on his shoulders, even if his policy ideas are bunk (sort of the default line I resort to on a lot of nutjobs, which is "they don't really mean that!") and (b) enough of a connection to Wall Street that he wouldn't do something stupid like refuse to lift the debt limit.

Thankfully, upon being elected speaker, he did pass a clean debt-limit increase. I think (b) therefore passes the smell test, but (a) not so much.

Thoughts on this video? https://www.youtube.com...

Easily the best, most memorable moment of that debate, and not only because Biden invoked his inner Lloyd Bentsen. This is perhaps the best example where Paul Ryan was directly put on blast for grandiose math claims. Naturally, he couldn't answer.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 5:21:08 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/14/2016 7:35:36 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
There are a lot of reasons that Paul Ryan is a complete and utter joke, and an embarrassment both to his party and to the body for whom he serves. There are so many things I could plausibly point to--his budget replete with "magic asterisks," the median's incessant willingness to brand this guy a "numbers guy" or a "serious policy wonk" when he's anything but, his support for redefining rape, his insistence that QE would lead to hyperinflation, his "takers and makers" voodoo, and the list goes on and on--but here's one.

Here's Paul Krugman: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com...

who links to Steven Benen: http://www.msnbc.com...

There's a lot to digest in these articles, but there's one thing I want to laser in on: Paul Ryan's cognitive dissonance.

It's unquestionable that the economy has improved immensely since 2009--I don't know a single economist (notice that I didn't say "single credible economist" because I don't look at economics through a political lens, and thus that doesn't color my view of "credible") who would deny that, and as we know, economists trump dipsh1t politicians on the issue of economics.

The best metric for this, though perhaps a somewhat imperfect one for various reasons (though far less imperfect than many people think, and if you'd like, I can link you to a myriad of academic work on this), is the civilian unemployment rate: it was 10 percent in October 2009, and now it's 5 percent. We just added about 292,000 jobs in December and a little over 300,000 in November, averaging a little over 200,000 jobs for the year of 2015 after the best year of job growth (2014) since 1999.

Now, people are quick to attribute this to Obama. It wasn't: the stimulus was incredibly small and watered down--far smaller than it needed to be to close a massive output gap and offset the immense headwinds of the financial crisis. This was unquestionably expansionary monetary policy at a time when fiscal policy was largely asleep at the wheel and far too contractionary--at a federal, state, and local level, it actually declined in real terms. The so-called "unprecedented fiscal expansion" was anything but.

Now, this assertion by me is nothing new: I've never had much faith in Congress or in fiscal policy generally speaking, but I vigorously and aggressively defend expansionary monetary policy. Paul Ryan, on the other hand, has a different track record: he excoriated Ben Bernanke for his "inflationary" policies that would lead to economic ruin and do positively nothing to mollify the substantial downturn of the financial crisis.

Then they work, and there's plenty of academic work--Engen and others from the Board, Blinder and Zandi, and others--evidencing that.

What does Paul Ryan do when asked if Obama deserves any of the credit?

He backpedals! Suddenly, expansionary monetary policy, the same policy he supposedly abhors and prognosticated would be cataclysmic, doesn't sound all that destructive, if in endorsing it he's able to avoid having to credit an even greater enemy than Bernanke or Yellen, Barack Obama, with any of the recovery--though, ironically, Krugman is very right in noting that EVEN IF we were to argue that the Fed was responsible, Obama's willingness to keep d1pshits in Congress, like Paul Ryan, off Bernanke's back (through meaningless audits, the FRAT Act, the FORM Act, and so much other deceptively named sh1t that would impinge on its independence) itself deserves credit.

Paul Ryan is a disgrace, and it's a disgrace to this country to have such an intellectually dishonest d1psht third in line to the presidency.

Paul Krugman, lmao! This is the same guy who said we should prepare for a war with aliens to stimulate the economy. Very credible source
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 5:36:09 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/14/2016 5:21:08 PM, Objectivity wrote:
Paul Krugman, lmao! This is the same guy who said we should prepare for a war with aliens to stimulate the economy. Very credible source

He's a Nobel-Prize winning economist who's taught at MIT, Stanford, Princeton, LSE and now at CUNY. Yes, he is an extremely credible source.

But you don't even need to trust Paul Krugman or resort to ad hominem: You can look at the transcript and see the words right out of Paul Ryan's mouth. In attacking Krugs, you totally missed the entire point of this post. You also, in the process, completely misrepresented the "alien invasion" remark, which was obviously facetious.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 6:20:53 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Still better than Boehnor
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 9:51:32 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/14/2016 6:20:53 PM, imabench wrote:
Still better than Boehnor

That's splitting hairs no matter how you cut it. The problem is that no one ever set such lofty expectations for John Boehner. That's not the case for Paul Ryan. Boehner had a lot less to fall short of. No one thought of him as some sort of intellectual.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 10:12:51 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/14/2016 5:21:08 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 1/14/2016 7:35:36 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:

Paul Ryan is a disgrace, and it's a disgrace to this country to have such an intellectually dishonest d1psht third in line to the presidency.

Paul Krugman, lmao! This is the same guy who said we should prepare for a war with aliens to stimulate the economy. Very credible source

That wouldn't be his first choice of policy. He'd much rather use stimulus spending on improving infrastructure and putting people back to work. The alien example was just to drive home the point that government spending in times of economic crisis goes a long way toward achieving economic recovery. In economic booms Krugman is actually in favor of paying off the national debt and slashing government spending when necessary.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 10:15:55 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/14/2016 10:12:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/14/2016 5:21:08 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 1/14/2016 7:35:36 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:

Paul Ryan is a disgrace, and it's a disgrace to this country to have such an intellectually dishonest d1psht third in line to the presidency.

Paul Krugman, lmao! This is the same guy who said we should prepare for a war with aliens to stimulate the economy. Very credible source

That wouldn't be his first choice of policy. He'd much rather use stimulus spending on improving infrastructure and putting people back to work. The alien example was just to drive home the point that government spending in times of economic crisis goes a long way toward achieving economic recovery. In economic booms Krugman is actually in favor of paying off the national debt and slashing government spending when necessary.

This, and the alien invasion was a facetious way of mocking the fact that the federal government is only willing to spend money--and there's only strong public opinion in favor of it--when there's a perceived urgency, e.g., a war. Ironically, the proposal was for high-speed rail or other meaningful investments that were reasonable ends in themselves.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 10:23:24 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/14/2016 10:15:55 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 1/14/2016 10:12:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/14/2016 5:21:08 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 1/14/2016 7:35:36 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:

Paul Ryan is a disgrace, and it's a disgrace to this country to have such an intellectually dishonest d1psht third in line to the presidency.

Paul Krugman, lmao! This is the same guy who said we should prepare for a war with aliens to stimulate the economy. Very credible source

That wouldn't be his first choice of policy. He'd much rather use stimulus spending on improving infrastructure and putting people back to work. The alien example was just to drive home the point that government spending in times of economic crisis goes a long way toward achieving economic recovery. In economic booms Krugman is actually in favor of paying off the national debt and slashing government spending when necessary.

This, and the alien invasion was a facetious way of mocking the fact that the federal government is only willing to spend money--and there's only strong public opinion in favor of it--when there's a perceived urgency, e.g., a war. Ironically, the proposal was for high-speed rail or other meaningful investments that were reasonable ends in themselves.

Oh, maybe that was part of it. This video explains his position for those who are unfamiliar: https://www.youtube.com...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 10:44:03 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/14/2016 7:35:36 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:

He backpedals! Suddenly, expansionary monetary policy, the same policy he supposedly abhors and prognosticated would be cataclysmic, doesn't sound all that destructive, if in endorsing it he's able to avoid having to credit an even greater enemy than Bernanke or Yellen, Barack Obama, with any of the recovery--though, ironically, Krugman is very right in noting that EVEN IF we were to argue that the Fed was responsible, Obama's willingness to keep d1pshits in Congress, like Paul Ryan, off Bernanke's back (through meaningless audits, the FRAT Act, the FORM Act, and so much other deceptively named sh1t that would impinge on its independence) itself deserves credit.

So just to clarify, Paul Ryan is attributing the recovery to the actions taken by the Fed, which he had previously condemned, since in doing so he doesn't have to give any credit to Obama, who is responsible only for fiscal policy and not monetary policy?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 10:52:37 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Why wouldn't he just argue that the economy recovered in spite of all efforts taken by the federal government? Like, just say that the economy would gradually improve no matter what. That way, he could blame Obama while still maintaining that expansionary monetary policy is destructive.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 11:01:13 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/14/2016 10:44:03 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/14/2016 7:35:36 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:

He backpedals! Suddenly, expansionary monetary policy, the same policy he supposedly abhors and prognosticated would be cataclysmic, doesn't sound all that destructive, if in endorsing it he's able to avoid having to credit an even greater enemy than Bernanke or Yellen, Barack Obama, with any of the recovery--though, ironically, Krugman is very right in noting that EVEN IF we were to argue that the Fed was responsible, Obama's willingness to keep d1pshits in Congress, like Paul Ryan, off Bernanke's back (through meaningless audits, the FRAT Act, the FORM Act, and so much other deceptively named sh1t that would impinge on its independence) itself deserves credit.

So just to clarify, Paul Ryan is attributing the recovery to the actions taken by the Fed, which he had previously condemned, since in doing so he doesn't have to give any credit to Obama, who is responsible only for fiscal policy and not monetary policy?

Exactly--neither Janet Yellen nor Ben Bernanke (who's a "Republican".... sort of....) are running for office, so I guess he'd rather credit them than Obama. What's perhaps most funny is that he also said the Fed is engaged in "trickle down economics," but defined that in terms that contradict his own ideology at the same time that he praised it for the recovery!
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 11:02:39 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/14/2016 10:52:37 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Why wouldn't he just argue that the economy recovered in spite of all efforts taken by the federal government? Like, just say that the economy would gradually improve no matter what. That way, he could blame Obama while still maintaining that expansionary monetary policy is destructive.

Yeah, this is very true--pin it on price adjustment or something, and argue that in the absence of Obama/the Fed and perhaps with more tax cuts or whatever, the economy would've recovered a lot faster.

I mean, it's a bullsh1t argument, but it's the best of both worlds for Paul Ryan, lol.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah