What does a communist do In the midst of the disastrous obamacare rollout?
- Thread starter Max E.
- Start date
1. when demand for the dollar is booming... the dollars value goes up but inflating is the wrong word.
as the demand for the dollars goes up it has the opposite effect of inflation. That is why is is thoroughly disgusting that we have had 700 percent inflation since the 50s. We had systematic inflation despite the fact we had enormous worldwide demand for the dollar. The dollar should be so strong we should be buying things for pennies on todays dollar.
2. there is no reason to sell assets ever.
just print... without borrowing.
The fear is that the bankers will get the polticians to surrender our assets as they have gotten the politicians to tax us to pay the debt.
A completely unnecessary act... but for population enslavement purposes.
3. When you have trillion dollar deficits there is no reason to have an income tax... just print more.
as the demand for the dollars goes up it has the opposite effect of inflation. That is why is is thoroughly disgusting that we have had 700 percent inflation since the 50s. We had systematic inflation despite the fact we had enormous worldwide demand for the dollar. The dollar should be so strong we should be buying things for pennies on todays dollar.
2. there is no reason to sell assets ever.
just print... without borrowing.
The fear is that the bankers will get the polticians to surrender our assets as they have gotten the politicians to tax us to pay the debt.
A completely unnecessary act... but for population enslavement purposes.
3. When you have trillion dollar deficits there is no reason to have an income tax... just print more.
I would debate his record of economic calls with him anywhere any time.
I would debate the underpinning of his belief anywhere anytime.
He is smart enough to be dangerous but he is a propagandist with no fidelity to the truth. Creating a big lie and then saying it over and over may get you in the new york times... and awards but it does not make you a good economist.
I would debate the underpinning of his belief anywhere anytime.
He is smart enough to be dangerous but he is a propagandist with no fidelity to the truth. Creating a big lie and then saying it over and over may get you in the new york times... and awards but it does not make you a good economist.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/weekinreview/22okrent.html?_r=0
from his retiring editor --
2. Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults. Maureen Dowd was still writing that Alberto R. Gonzales "called the Geneva Conventions 'quaint' " nearly two months after a correction in the news pages noted that Gonzales had specifically applied the term to Geneva provisions about commissary privileges, athletic uniforms and scientific instruments. Before his retirement in January, William Safire vexed me with his chronic assertion of clear links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, based on evidence only he seemed to possess.
No one deserves the personal vituperation that regularly comes Dowd's way, and some of Krugman's enemies are every bit as ideological (and consequently unfair) as he is. But that doesn't mean that their boss, publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., shouldn't hold his columnists to higher standards.
I didn't give Krugman, Dowd or Safire the chance to respond before writing the last two paragraphs. I decided to impersonate an opinion columnist.
from his retiring editor --
2. Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults. Maureen Dowd was still writing that Alberto R. Gonzales "called the Geneva Conventions 'quaint' " nearly two months after a correction in the news pages noted that Gonzales had specifically applied the term to Geneva provisions about commissary privileges, athletic uniforms and scientific instruments. Before his retirement in January, William Safire vexed me with his chronic assertion of clear links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, based on evidence only he seemed to possess.
No one deserves the personal vituperation that regularly comes Dowd's way, and some of Krugman's enemies are every bit as ideological (and consequently unfair) as he is. But that doesn't mean that their boss, publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., shouldn't hold his columnists to higher standards.
I didn't give Krugman, Dowd or Safire the chance to respond before writing the last two paragraphs. I decided to impersonate an opinion columnist.
'The Choom Gang': 9 juiciest details from Barack Obama's days as a pothead
http://theweek.com/article/index/228490/
I've had a theory for some time now that the world is going to do to us what we did to the Soviet Union. The cold war bankrupted the soviet union and by default ended communism there. I think the world sees us as a greedy obese child with blood sugar levels through the roof. And debt is our sugar. They will continue to lend and lend and lend (feed and feed and feed) until we have a diabetic meltdown. I think the world wants to see us implode. They can't take the US down militarily, but they can entice us to destroy ourselves. They provide the sugar and we simply ask for more. It's absolutely genius. And I think it will work. And the left in this country who hates everything the US stands for is quietly playing along and cheering against the home team. Just a theory...
Here are some choice words from Nassim Taleb about our leftie's fav economist:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business...leb-dont-listen-to-geithner-or-krugman/63871/
"Paul Krugman is a danger to society!"
"He uses the wrong mathematics, that's how I knew he was a fluke."
Why? It's because Krugman is pushing to create a society that is less robust. Taleb, who characterizes himself as a libertarian, even goes one step further: "The definition of a robust society: where Paul Krugman could exist without harming others."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/interview-with-nassim-taleb-2010-4#ixzz2lVxOuGRo
http://www.theatlantic.com/business...leb-dont-listen-to-geithner-or-krugman/63871/
"Paul Krugman is a danger to society!"
"He uses the wrong mathematics, that's how I knew he was a fluke."
Why? It's because Krugman is pushing to create a society that is less robust. Taleb, who characterizes himself as a libertarian, even goes one step further: "The definition of a robust society: where Paul Krugman could exist without harming others."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/interview-with-nassim-taleb-2010-4#ixzz2lVxOuGRo