What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

[4est_4est_Gump]

I read the Krugman piece you fucking moron.



Back on ignore you go.

 

[richard_daily]

I read the Krugman piece you fucking moron.



Back on ignore you go.

Perhaps you did, but if you did, you didn't understand it, that much is clear.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Perhaps you did, but if you did, you didn't understand it, that much is clear.

Because I do not agree with his conclusions, not an altogether unheard of event in the economic world, then I did not understand him?

Is that the Left's basic answer to everything? that everyone else in the world is too stupid to get Centralized Government and how it creates economic health by continual expansion?

I provided, what? four links discussing everything from his deceptive use of the term "austerity" to similar governments with success in fiscal restraint in times of crises.

But not one of you will read them.

You just "know."

 

[RobDownSouth]

I read the Krugman piece you fucking moron.



Back on ignore you go.

If you read the piece, why did you respond with a Mises article addressing a completely different issue (i.e. spinning Krugman's debate with Ron Paul last month?)

Face it, AJ, you saw I'd posted a link to Krugman so you typed in "Krugman" over at Menses.org and linked to the first result that popped up.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Let Krugman compare Texas to California and explain how Walker put Wisconsin back on track before he spins European fairy tails...


Estonia too

http://www.businessinsider.com/austerity-done-right-part-1-2012-6

Cherry picked data and goal post moving, together in the same post!

 

[Beco]

Americans saw wealth plummet 40 percent from 2007 to 2010, Federal Reserve says

The recent recession wiped out nearly two decades of Americans’ wealth, according to government data released Monday, with *middle-class families bearing the brunt of the decline.

The Federal Reserve said the median net worth of families plunged by 39 percent in just three years, from $126,400 in 2007 to $77,300 in 2010. That puts Americans roughly on par with where they were in 1992.

10 industries that are dying: According to an April report from IBISWorld, these industries are losing ground as outsourcing, global competition and technological innovation render them less useful or necessary.
Gallery

On Recession Road: Photocasting across America with Michael S. Williamson: A Washington Post photojournalist has spent the year traveling around the country, meeting people whose lives have been altered by the flattened economy.

The data represent one of the most detailed looks at how the economic downturn altered the landscape of family finance. Over a span of three years, Americans watched progress that took almost a generation to accumulate evaporate. The promise of retirement built on the inevitable rise of the stock market proved illusory for most. Homeownership, once heralded as a pathway to wealth, became an albatross.

The findings underscore the depth of the wounds of the financial crisis and how far many families remain from healing. If the recession set Americans back 20 years, economists say, the road forward is sure to be a long one. And so far, the country has seen only a halting recovery.

“It’s hard to overstate how serious the collapse in the economy was,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody’s Analytics. “We were in free fall.”

 

[unregistered]

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Team Obama is still reeling after its principal casually noted that the private sector is "doing fine" in a press conference last Friday. David Axelrod won't answer direct questions about it, and Jay Carney is scolding reporters for puncturing the central premise of Obama's post-gaffe spin. The Washington Post's Marc Thiessen writes that both Obama and Harry Reid have recently asserted that erosion of the government sector, not the "fine" private sector, is what is driving our persistent downturn. One small problem:

Jared Bernstein, a former Obama economic adviser, said the president’s gaffe won’t do lasting damage “because that’s not the way he sees it.” But as Reid’s comment demonstrates, that is precisely how Obama and Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill see it. They’ve been saying for months that the private sector is doing fine and that the solution to our unemployment problems is to spend even more taxpayer money to hire more government workers. Obama and Reid have it precisely backward: It’s the public sector that’s doing fine. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate for government workers last month was just 4.2 percent (up slightly from 3.9 percent a year ago). Compare that to private-sector industries such as construction (14.2 percent unemployment), leisure and hospitality services (9.7 percent), agriculture (9.5 percent), professional and business services (8.5 percent) and wholesale and retail trade (8.1 percent). As Andrew Biggs of the American Enterprise Institute points out, the public-sector unemployment rate “is the lowest of any industry or class of worker, even including the growing energy industry.” If the rest of Americans enjoyed the same unemployment rate as government workers, Obama would be cruising to reelection.

With that data point in mind, here's Carney snarking at Fox News' Ed Henry for asking inconvenient questions:

Step one: Accuse reporter of cherry-picking...official BLS stats that directly contradict your story.

Step two: Blame high private sector unemployment on Republicans. This second point is particularly rich, considering that Democrats already had their bite at the "shovel ready jobs" apple, and failed spectacularly. The president was even reduced to chuckling at his multibillion dollar miscalculation. Oops! Democrats didn't need any Republican support to pass the stimulus. They could have fashioned whatever bloated monstrosity they wanted, and they did. When voters elected Republicans in a landslide in 2010 to rein in the spending carnival, the GOP slammed the breaks on Obama's unpaid-for son-of-stimulus known as the "American Jobs Act." The White House would have us believe that this "obstructionism" is what has prevented a guns-blazing recovery. Does Carney not recall that this legislative panacea was also repeatedly blocked and stalled by Senate Democrats? And is he unaware that the GOP has passed a decent chunk of The One's jobs agenda? Of course not, but he's got nothing else to say. It's that simple. I'll leave you with this bulletin from our "fine" economy:

The net worth of the American family has fallen to its lowest level in two decades, according to government data released Monday, driven by a more than 40 percent drop in their stakes in their homes. The Federal Reserve’s detailed survey of consumer finances showed families’ median wealth plunged from $126,400 in 2007 to $77,300 in 2010 — a 39 percent decline. That put them on par with median wealth in 1992.

Obama promised that his $825 Billion boondoggle would increase household incomes by $3,000 on average. Median income has since dropped to 15-year lows, and American families' net wealth has plunged even further. But blame Bush. Yes, the downward trend started under Bush (the cause of the 2008 meltdown is a subject for another day), but Obama promised to fix things. He has not.

And unemployment would be 5% by election time...

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/06/11/paul_krugman_yeah_were_in_a_depression

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Most folks outside the liberal tent and the NYTs understand him to be a clueless maverick.

He says what they want to hear, "Spend, Baby Spend!"

Then you HAVE to raise taxes.

Or print money...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The answer is that the Estonians did austerity right. Instead of jacking up government spending, in the hopes of stimulating their economies or in the name of bailing out failing institutions or politically-connected businesses, the Estonian government kept their spending under control. They acted to keep their spending in line with their actual tax collections, which in turn, has kept the nation on a sound financial footing as they succeeded in avoiding huge increases in their national debt.

http://www.businessinsider.com/austerity-done-right-part-2-2012-6

 

[RobDownSouth]

http://www.businessinsider.com/austerity-done-right-part-2-2012-6

^^^AJ's love affair with Estonia continues. He sure as hell can't trash the American economy anymore...even the conservatives were laughing at him!

Hey AJ, are you totally invested in the stock market this week or totally invested in gold?

Or both, perhaps?

(The question AJ will never answer!!)

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Krugman?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

As he often does, Barack Obama made a Freudian slip on Friday that once again revealed his Marxist approach to political economy. This is unsurprising, now that we have confirmation that he ran as the candidate of a socialist party in the nineties, despite denials by his campaign four years ago. In saying that “the private sector is doing just fine,” many, even some of his allies, have accused him of simply being out of touch with economic reality — a charge for which there is an abundance of other evidence. Some, including the Romney campaign, have implied that it was Obama’s own McCain moment, recalling when the Republican nominee said that the “fundamentals of the economy were sound” amidst the imploding credit markets in the fall of 2008.

But that’s not the real nature of the gaffe. A better analogy would be to compare it to a Romney gaffe from earlier this year, when the phrase “I don’t care about the poor” was taken out of context to indicate his supposed heartlessness. Of course, when one reads the entire paragraph from which it was gleefully extracted, it is clear that he is saying that the poor are being taken care of by existing government programs, whereas the objects of his concern are being punished by government policies (let’s leave aside for now the issue of how “compassionate” it is to cruelly keep the poor dependent on government programs).

But while Mitt Romney is not actually indifferent to the plight of the poor, in almost all of his actions (if not always his words) Barack Obama has made it abundantly clear that he does not care about the private sector, or worse, is hostile to it, even though its vitality is essential to provide the “other people’s money” that the president needs to fund his continuing socialist schemes. From his willingness to increase taxes on small business owners through higher rates on the wealthy to cramming new carbon restrictions on the economy with no statutory basis in the guise of saving the environment, he has indicated his preference for government jobs and workers over private jobs and private property.

This weekend, on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, admitted former communist Van Jones said that the president was a lifeguard throwing a life preserver to the drowning swimmers. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee appropriately retorted that when it came to private swimmers he was tossing concrete blocks. As a result of all this, America reportedly has 129,000 fewer millionaires than it did a year ago (it lost over a quarter of them), and that probably suits Barack Obama “just fine” as long as the remaining ones continue to fill his campaign coffers.

But as Marc Thiessen points out, in Barack Obama’s America it’s public-sector jobs that are “doing just fine.” When the president complains that the public sector is shrinking, he is being both disingenuous and revealing of the real problem. Yes, state and local government workers are losing their jobs, but there has been no shrinkage at the federal level. The jobs that are disappearing are in locales where the local government has run out of money. What the president and the Democrats are actually advocating is for the federal government to bail out profligate states like California, so that they can maintain their “police, teachers and firemen” at the expense of the private economy — an economy that while growing all too slowly in absolute terms to create enough jobs to employ those who want them can’t shrink fast enough with regard to the government sector to please Van Jones and Barack Obama.

http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-wrong-campaign-gaffe-comparison/?singlepage=true

Of course the Public sector must include all the food stamps and 99 weekers...

 

[richard_daily]

^^^AJ's love affair with Estonia continues. He sure as hell can't trash the American economy anymore...even the conservatives were laughing at him!

Hey AJ, are you totally invested in the stock market this week or totally invested in gold?

Or both, perhaps?

(The question AJ will never answer!!)

He's heavily invested in dreams, rainbows, and unicorns.

 

[bra_man69]

^^^AJ's love affair with Estonia continues. He sure as hell can't trash the American economy anymore...even the conservatives were laughing at him!

Hey AJ, are you totally invested in the stock market this week or totally invested in gold?

Or both, perhaps?

(The question AJ will never answer!!)

To funny you know all about not answering questions bitch.

 

[koalabear]

Stocks rise on stimulus hopes

Why not, they worked so well the last time.

 

[Ham Murabi]

A succinct version of something posted earlier.

Forward!


“39 percent”

-- Decline in the median net worth of American families since 2009 – from $126,400 to $77,300 – according to a new report from the Federal Reserve. The drop set the nation back two decades in wealth accumulation.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...or-neglecting-fellow-democrats/#ixzz1xbGX1rye

 

[richard_daily]

A succinct version of something posted earlier.

Forward!


“39 percent”

-- Decline in the median net worth of American families since 2009 – from $126,400 to $77,300 – according to a new report from the Federal Reserve. The drop set the nation back two decades in wealth accumulation.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...or-neglecting-fellow-democrats/#ixzz1xbGX1rye

Are you attempting to blame Obama for the housing crisis? If so, how are you attempting to do that?

Please be specific.

 

[busybody..]

Are you attempting to blame Obama for the housing crisis? If so, how are you attempting to do that?

Please be specific.

you arent that DUMB...are you?

Decline in the median net worth of American families since 2009 – from $126,400 to $77,300 – according to a new report from the Federal Reserve. The drop set the nation back two decades in wealth accumulation.


See teh date?

figure it out

ASSHOLE

Protect DA NIGGER

 

[busybody..]

Oh...and NIGGERPOONZANDI, teh DAFFY SHIT doubled the past month

 

[richard_daily]

you arent that DUMB...are you?

Decline in the median net worth of American families since 2009 – from $126,400 to $77,300 – according to a new report from the Federal Reserve. The drop set the nation back two decades in wealth accumulation.


See teh date?

figure it out

ASSHOLE

Protect DA NIGGER

Where do most of the families in this country have the vast majority of their equity?

You're too stupid to figure it out for yourself.

I won't wait.

 

[busybody..]

Where do most of the families in this country have the vast majority of their equity?

You're too stupid to figure it out for yourself.

I won't wait.

Decline in the median net worth of American families since 2009

 

[busybody..]

2009!

 

[richard_daily]

Yup... too stupid.

 

[bra_man69]

Yup... too stupid.

Yes for once you told the truth about yourself