Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: A breakthrough speech on monetary policy

Posted 1 year ago on Feb. 12, 2013, 1:13 p.m. EST by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

If you're going to debase a currency (which i don't agree with)...at least let the people spend it first instead of the banksters.....

http://blogs.reuters.com/anatole-kaletsky/2013/02/07/a-breakthrough-speech-on-monetary-policy/

265 Comments

265 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by TheRoot (305) from New York, NY 1 year ago

If you were to tease away the mounds of propaganda of the Bankers and boil all of it down to their fundamental viewpoint, you’d be staring at the their two basic ideas. Here’s one. “I want to have something in my life but not go through the effort of producing or earning it myself”. Here’s the second of their ideas. “If I can force other people to produce and deliver what I want without their noticing or if they do notice, then without their getting too pissed at me, then I’ll work very hard for that to happen.” Although light years more evolved than this worm, the Banker is a leech just the same.

The reformer has to reject these ideas but the advocates of Modern Monetary Theory do not. They simply want to force the machinery already innovated by the Banker over to themselves for their own uses and have been well under way in creating their own mounds of propaganda to justify doing it. Don't be fooled by them either. There is a better way. Freedom from the force of the Banker and from this type of reformer is the only way to peace and prosperity.

[-] -2 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

I agree.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

I am not a fan of making banksters richer
BUT
SPECIFICALLY - what in-place legal method exists to pump money to the people?

Obviously, nothing that requires legislation or higher taxes will get past the republiclan obstructionists

[-] -3 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

What in place legal method exists to pump money to the banks?

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago
[+] -5 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

No...that would be a disaster.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Why is that?

Is it the pro keynesian, pro progressive approach you object to?.

What specifically would be disasterous?

[-] -1 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

"Just remove the billions in direct subsidies for fossil fuel, then add the true cost (military actions to protect oil reserves/trade routes) which istrillions, as well as the costs related to cleaning the exhaust from fossil fuel (hundreds of billions) and oil/fossil fuel is much more expensive. .

Glad I could explain these simple issues to you."

I'm down with that....lets do it. But don't come crying for government help when gas prices go through the roof like they should anyway, but would most definitely if you implemented your suggestions.

But i agree, I say let prices rise.......this will push economic activity into alternatives. But then everyone sitting around whining about oil companies will start crying about higher gas prices. It's like people don't have a f'n brain sometimes. If you cut money out of a business, costs will be recouped through prices....duh.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

The goal is to eliminate internal combustion engine and provide drivers the cheaper alternative of electric cars.

[-] -2 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

another Krugman forecast:

"In 1988, Paul Krugman stepped up to the plate and told us:

"The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in "Metcalfe's law"--which states that the number of potential connections in a network is proportional to the square of the number of participants--becomes apparent: most people have nothing to say to each other! By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's. As the rate of technological change in computing slows, the number of jobs for IT specialists will decelerate, then actually turn down; ten years from now, the phrase information economy will sound silly.""

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

A quarter century ago?

You'll say anything to avoid going on the record with specifics of your right wing wacko corp 1% benefiting Austrian garbage.

[-] -1 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

Isn't that how you accurately judge someone....by looking at their historical record?

The guy is a fraud. How anyone can honestly listen to this guy after how wrong he was about the whole housing crisis is beyond me.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

That's how to distract from the economic theory you've been requested to comment on.

Specify the "disaster" you claim Keynesian would be, and explain why Austrian job killing austerity is appropriate during this employment crises.

[-] -3 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

Wtf do you keep talking about Austrian job killing austerity??? The Austrian theory of the business cycle has nothing to do with austerity.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

So you're gonna pretend Austrian economic theory doesn't support cutting government spending by distracting with another unrelated element of Austrian theory.?

Amateur.

I didn't say the Austrian theory of business cycle has anything to do with austerity, that's you making things up to knock down (strawman much?)

I say again Austrian economics is a libertarian approach and calls for cutting government spending to the bone.

You're continued avoidance reflects your inability to address these realities.

Your refusal to respond with specifics on why keynesian approach woulde a disaster, and specifics on why Austrian approach is good indicates you do not know anything about these theories or you do and don't want to outed as an anti 99%'r.

[-] -2 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

I'll just copy and paste the exact same thing I said to you below:

"The Austrian theory of the business cycle has nothing to do with austerity.

The disaster of the Keynesian approach is the creation of boom and bust cycles that royally f'k over the 99%, cause massive unemployment, and steal money from them through the inflation that's created because of Keynesian policies that suck the middle and lower classes standard of living out from underneath their feet."

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Refer to my destruction of this nonsense in my previous response.

NEXT!!!!

[+] -4 points by Krugmanfool (-95) from Jefferson, NJ 1 year ago

We've been pro-keynesianism for 75+ years and look what it's gotten us; a national debt of $53,000 for every person in the Untied States thru idiot spending. We're printing the dollar right into oblivion.

No thanks. No more Keynes.

[-] 3 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

Shut the front door! One of the most important foundational principles of Keynes is that the government should spend money in economic downturns and pay it down during growth periods. When did this happen? Oh that's right. When Clinton left Bush Jr. 10 years of budget surplus. Which Bush Jr. blew all to hell.

Blew to hell 10 years of surplus. On top of that - spent trillions of dollars on waging wars. On top of that - cut taxes. Nobody goes to war and cuts taxes. That's triple fucked up. Blew 10 years of budget surplus, went to war, cut taxes. That's the trifecta of right wing fuckshitup-onomics.

You don't know the first fucking thing about Keynes. Printing money is not Keynesian you fucking moron. Try reading. Start with what Keynes had to say about the liquidity trap. Because you truly don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Suppose you tell me with fact based certainty where we are at on the Laffer Curve. Oh that's right. You can't. Nobody can. Yet you idiot believers of right wing fuckshitup-onomic delusions always and forever think we are on the downside of the curve. Which is absolutely and completely impossible. You don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about and you're fucked up in the head.

[+] -4 points by Krugmanfool (-95) from Jefferson, NJ 1 year ago

Clinton left Bush with schit. He raided the social security trust fund to make the numbers look good, and even then, they weren't. In case you forgot, Gingrich had to drag him kicking and screaming just to be somewhat reasonable on the spending side and again, he still wasn't.

All the ugly budgetary numbers right here:

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

The wars Iraq and Afghanistan were paid for. The social welfare wasn't. PERIOD.

Oh yes, and by the way, in case you didn't get the memo, Obama ain't no Clinton.

For the coup de grace, fuckupbuttercup, MOST of the budget today goes towards ENTITLEMENTS, aka your bleeding heart leftist BS feelgood programs. Now FOAD in triplicate, you gubment mule.

[-] 3 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

Oh my gosh. This is even worse than I thought. Now you're even dumber than you sounded the first time. Social security surplus must be invested in US Treasuries by law. That increased the debt. Yet, despite those increases, Clinton still slowed the debt increase. He was reducing the tripling of the debt that happened under Reagan.

Clinton left Bush Jr. 10 years of CBO projected surpluses worth about $5T. Suck on it.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-clinton-surplus-became-a-6t-deficit-2013-1

You're full of crap. Nobody on this earth believes that the Bush wars were paid for. Revenue as a % of GDP declined from 19% under Clinton to 17% under Bush thanks to the Bush tax cuts. How the hell does less revenue pay for trillions of dollars of new spend?! You're fucked up in the head. Get help.

Social welfare wasn't paid for?? The SS trust is running surplus by your own admission dumbass! Which is why the Treasury owes money to the SS Trust. Dumbfuck.

Oh I see. You're one of those. Don't like social programs? Yes. There are places that have very small governments. There's a name for those places. They're called Third World countries. Try Rwanda or Somalia. Real live Libertarian paradises. Little to no government. Some people call it anarchy. Anarchy. Libertarianism. Same thing. A distinction without a difference. But hey hell! They have very low taxes. Nevermind that it's uncivilized and mostly uninhabitable. Just a minor technical difficulty associated with small governments and economic libertarianism/anarchy.

That's ok. You keep pushing your right wing anarchy/tea party/libertarian crazy shit Loverboy. Because the more people know about right wing anarchy, the less they like it. It repels people. It's intellectually juvenile and repulsive.

[-] 3 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

Ain't it funny how people use their extra money to corrupt the political process and you want to give them more money?

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Responding here:

Thanks I don't usually cut and paste like that Austrian definition but John refuses to express what he specifically has against Keynesian approach.

I see Austrian Eco as Libertarian approach that benefits the wealthiest people.

He won't respond because he can't defend his position without people seeing him for what he is.

[-] -3 points by Krugmanfool (-95) from Jefferson, NJ 1 year ago

Ain't it funny how half the people in this place hate big oil, but love green energy. They love to stimulate and throw tax dollars as long as "green" is in front of it.

The reality is BIG OIL = GREEN ENERGY

They're the same people, different named shareholder boards, sister companies and subsidiaries all going after the almighty $$$. You think BP Solar and BP Oil are radically different entities? Wake up. All those green startups have the Exxon, Chevron, Shell, Entergy, and dozens of other oil puppets behind them!

You want to talk about corruption, stop adding to it through your naivete.

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

We need economic stimulus higher taxes on the rich,higher wages on the working class to create jobs,increase demand, grow the economy, broaden the tax base,

Not Cuts, not Austerity that will create more unemployment, reduce demand, slow the recovery, lower tax revenue.

Your not discussing the issues. You talkin about everything but specifics on the economic approaches at hand.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/no-cuts-to-the-safety-net-no-austerity/

[+] -5 points by Krugmanfool (-95) from Jefferson, NJ 1 year ago

We need no more stimulus. We've had the BIGGEST stimulus in history under ARRA and that's structurally built into the budget every year now since no budgets have been passed. It's NOT working. GET IT? It's not like we haven't been stimulating the shit outta ourselves for the past 5 years. It's not like Japan hasn't done the same with horrible results. Where have you been? Asleep?

I'm discussing everything YOU DON'T want to discuss. Too damn bad. Wake up. Just because people aren't parroting your company line doesn't mean you know all and everyone else knows nothing. It's just the opposite, skippy.

[-] 5 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

BS.... there was NO stimulus.... there was a BAILOUT.... which was supposed to.. in return ... stimulate the middle class business/economy ...

instead... the funds went to bonuses .... and now the greedy fucks in congress continue to block every attempt to stimulate jobs.....

we The People really should just simply stop using the green back... drop it's value to zero... and print new money... just to get even...

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Well said.

Thx for the support. They're comin outta the woodwork. Although it's probably one guy with several ids.

[-] 1 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

"They're comin outta the woodwork. Although it's probably one guy with several ids."

LOL!!! VQ, tell me that didn't just come out of your mouth. The king of multiple screen names.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I use one.

Whaddyathink? Ever been to Tampa?

[-] 2 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

Ok "inclusionman", or "VQkag2" or "repubsRtheprob" or "Imagine40 or the other 500 ones you have.

You're so full of shit.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Austrian economic theory: embraced by right wing wackos, must be wrong.

Support Keynesian stimulus, not job killing Austrian austerity.

[-] 1 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

Explain to me what Austrian economics is VQ

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I've already given you many facts related to both Austrian & Ketnesian. I've also asked you repeatededly to give any specific on either approach.

Instead you spent an entire day with immature, untrue personal attacks.

So if you wanna discuss this issue, then offer some specifics. Don't expect me to submit to your requests after your dishonest childish attacks.

Austrian economics will benefit the corp 1%, Conservatives love it.

[-] 0 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

What is Austrian economics?

[-] -1 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

Explain to me what it is. Or is it as i suspect...that you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

We're not really arguing. I am stating with facts and specific evidence that Austrian economics is libertarian tripe that benefits the corp 1%. And you are simple avoiding making a counter argument and pathetically distracting by attacking me with unfounded immature personal attacks because you are ignorant about the different economic approaches at issue.

LOL. Anything else you need explained?

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

As you can see your Austrian economics sucks. It serves the corp 1% at the expense of the rest of us.

Stop advocating for the corp 1% against your own class & family. It reflects dishonor and makes you look like a useful idiot.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Part 2

This NBER data goes back to 1857, but there was nothing new about the business cycle then (Marx, for example, had been writing about it for a decade or more). The US experienced serious “panics”, as they were then called in 1796-97, 1819 and 1837 [1] as well as milder fluctuations associated with the British crises of the 1820s and 1840s.

The typical crisis of the 19th century, like the current crisis, began with bank failures caused by the sudden burst of a speculative boom and then spread to the real economy, with the contraction phase typically lasting from one to five years. By contrast, recessions since 1945 have generally lasted less than a year, and have mostly been produced by real shocks or by contractionary monetary and fiscal policy.

According to the theory, the business cycle unfolds in the following way. The money supply expands either because of an inflow of gold, printing of fiat money or financial innovations that increase the ratio of the effective money supply to the monetary base. The result is lower interest rates. Low interest rates tend to stimulate borrowing from the banking system. This in turn leads to an unsustainable boom during which the artificially stimulated borrowing seeks out diminishing investment opportunities. This boom results in widespread malinvestments, causing capital resources to be misallocated into areas that would not attract investment if price signals were not distorted. A correction or credit crunch occurs when credit creation cannot be sustained. Markets finally clear, causing resources to be reallocated back towards more efficient uses.

At the time it was put forward, the Mises-Hayek business cycle theory was actually a pretty big theoretical advance. The main competitors were the orthodox defenders of Says Law, who denied that a business cycle was possible (unemployment being attributed to unions or government-imposed minumum wages), and the Marxists who offered a model of catastrophic crisis driven by the declining rate of profit.

Both Marxism and classical economics were characterized by the assumption that money is neutral, a ‘veil’ over real transactions. On the classical theory, if the quantity of money suddenly doubled, with no change in the real productive capacity of the economy, prices and wages would rise rapidly. Once the price level had doubled the previous equilibrium would be restored. Says Law (every offer to supply a good service implies a demand to buy some other good or service) which is obviously true in a barter economy, was assumed to hold also for a money economy, and therefore to ensure that equilibrium involved full employment

The Austrians were the first to offer a good reason for the non-neutrality of money. Expansion of the money supply will lower (short-term) interest rates and therefore make investments more attractive.

There’s an obvious implication about the (sub)optimality of market outcomes here, though more obvious to a generation of economists for whom arguments about rational expectations are second nature than it was 100 years ago. If investors correctly anticipate that a decline in interest rates will be temporary, they won’t evaluate long-term investments on the basis of current rates. So, the Austrian story requires either a failure of rational expectations, or a capital market failure that means that individuals rationally choose to make ‘bad’ investments on the assumption that someone else will bear the cost. And if either of these conditions apply, there’s no reason to think that market outcomes will be optimal in general.

A closely related point is that, unless Say’s Law is violated, the Austrian model implies that consumption should be negatively correlated with investment over the business cycle, whereas in fact the opposite is true. To the extent that booms are driven by mistaken beliefs that investments have become more profitable, they are typically characterized by high, not low, consumption.

Finally, the Austrian theory didn’t say much about labour markets, but for most people, unemployment is what makes the business cycle such a problem. It was left to Keynes to produce a theory of how the non-neutrality of money could produce sustained unemployment.

The credit cycle idea can easily be combined with a Keynesian account of under-employment equilibrium, and even more easily with the Keynesian idea of ‘animal spirits’. This was done most prominently by Minsky, and the animsal spirits idea has recently revived by Akerlof and Shiller. I suspect that the macroeconomic model that emerges from the current crisis will have a recognisably Austrian flavour..

Unfortunately, having put taken the first steps in the direction of a serious theory of the business cycle, Hayek and Mises spent the rest of their lives running hard in the opposite direction. As Laidler observes, they took a nihilistic ‘liquidationist’ view in the Great Depression, a position that is not entailed by the theory, but reflects an a priori commitment to laissez-faire. The result was that Hayek lost support even from initial sympathisers like Dennis Robertson. And this mistake has hardened into dogma in the hands of their successors.

The modern Austrian school has tried to argue that the business cycle they describe is caused in some way by government policy, though the choice of policy varies from Austrian to Austrian – some blame paper money and want a gold standard, others blame central banks, some want a strict prohibition on fractional reserve banking while others favour a laissez-faire policy of free banking, where anyone who wants can print money and others still (Hayek for example) a system of competing currencies.

Rothbard (who seems to be the most popular exponent these days) blames central banking for the existence of the business cycle, which is somewhat problematic, since the business cycle predates central banking. In fact, central banking in its modern form was introduced in an attempt to stabilise the business cycle. The US Federal Reserve was only established in 1913, after Mises had published his analysis.

Rothbard gets around this by defining central banking to cover almost any kind of bank that has some sort of government endorsement, such as the (private) Bank of England in the 19th century, and arguing for a system of free banking that would avoid, he asserts, these problems. But, on any plausible definition of the term, the US had free banking from the Jackson Administration to the Civil War and that didn’t stop the business cycle (Rothbard offers some historical revisionism to argue that the Panic of 1837 didn’t really happen, but that wasn’t what US voters thought when they threw the Jacksonians out in 1840). And free banking in late 19th century Australia (our first quasi-central bank was the Commonwealth Bank established in 1915) didn’t prevent a huge boom and subsequent long depression around 1890. Overall, the US was much closer to free banking throughout the 19th century than in the period from 1945 until the development of the largely unregulated ‘shadow banking’ system in the 1990s, but the business cycle was worse then (how much worse is a matter of some controversy, but no serious economist claims it was better).

To sum up, the version of the Austrian Business Cycle Theory originally developed by Hayek and Mises gives strong reasons to think that an unregulated financial system will be prone to booms and busts and that this will be true for a wide range of monetary systems, particularly including gold standard systems. But that is only part of what is needed for a complete account of the business cycle, and the theory can only be made coherent with a broadly Keynesian model of equilibrium unemployment. Trying to tie Austrian Business Cycle Theory to Austrian prejudices against government intervention has been a recipe for intellectual and policy disaster and theoretical stagnation.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

Great post. I hope the person you are responding to comes back with a well thought out response to your post. As of now all he has is character assassination attempts.

The closest I have been to the concept of Austrian Economics was when I read a lot of Milton Friedman. Though I'm not sure if he used The term Austrian and came off more like a laissez-faire advocate, his monetary policy ideas sound a lot like your post. Why any thinking human can't see his Ideas as nothing more than self enriching platitudes written to impress the money changers, is beyond me. Even Allen Greenspan has come to his senses.

I some times believe that people latch on to these sorts of economic theories because they are so mesmerized by the social theories that are usually advocated by the proponents. They promise them greater civil liberties but all they have to do is sell their economic freedom to which ever monopolies arise from their economic policies being realized.

Though i strongly believe this, I'd still love to read a criticism of your post. WHO knows, I could be wrong, even misinformed.

[-] 0 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

I'd say whoever you dug this up from has made a half ass'd attempt at trying to understand Austrian economics (although i must say it's better than your own).

These claims against Austrian economics are covered in the very first link i sent you.

About the only point against Austrian economics I found was:

  1. "Rothbard (who seems to be the most popular exponent these days) blames central banking for the existence of the business cycle, which is somewhat problematic, since the business cycle predates central banking."

This is just downright inaccurate. Rothbard wrote extensively about the booms and busts prior to the central banking system we have today....whoever wrote this just didn't read it apparently. The booms and busts prior to the central bank were built up much like they were after the central bank was enacted...artificial credit expansion. How did that occur prior to the central bank? Fractional reserves....which expands the money supply and benefits the bankers. Rothbard has written an entire book on Fractional Reserves and how they caused the Great Depression (the "roaring twenties" were created through a massive influx of credit via fractional reserves which caused the inevitable bust).

The panics prior to the central bank occur much the same way as today....banks expand the money supply through fractional reserves creating massive credit expansion which comes tumbling down.....which is described in every Austrian economics textbook i've ever looked at. Quote right from Rothbard:

"“But fractional reserve bank credit expansion is always shaky, for the more extensive its inflationary creation of new money, the more likely it will be to suffer contraction and subsequent deflation. We already see here the outlines of the basic model of the famous and seemingly mysterious business cycle, which has plagued the Western world since the middle or late eighteenth century. For every business cycle is marked, and even ignited, by inflationary expansions of bank credit. The basic model of the business cycle then becomes evident: bank credit expansion raises prices and causes a boom situation, but a boom based on a hidden fraudulent tax on the late receivers of the money.”

Notice how he says "18th century"??? Like waaaaaaaaaaaaay before our central bank.

Put fractional reserves aside though when talking about panics prior to our current central bank. There were times where we did have a central bank prior to the current central bank (around the Civil war time which your article talks about) where the government did indeed massively inflate the currency which led to panics and a flocking back to the gold standard.

Then he (the guy from your article) goes on to talk about "free banking" and how panics were precipitated in countries like Australia with free banking. Again, just like stated above, fractional reserves can exist in free banking and create the very booms and busts that Rothbard talked about....just like his quote states above.

Nothing in your article touches the legitimacy of Austrian economics. If i cut part of one sentence out I actually found something in there i really liked....it was:

"rying to tie Austrian Business Cycle Theory to Austrian prejudices against government intervention"

this is where people (especially in occupy) get deterred from looking more in depth into Austrian economics....they think because right wing people are into Austrian economics that it must somehow incorporate right wing policies. Believing in Austrian economics does not mean you have to believe in republican policies.

[-] 0 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

I'll respond to this one..there's actually substance. Where the hell is part 1 though?

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

It’s the kind advocated by the ultra right-wingers who want to give the 1% and the huge corporations enormous tax cuts, giving them even more tyrannical control over our lives. The libertarian solution:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-libertarian-solution/

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

i used your mini definition. Thanks in advance.

[-] 0 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

No it's actually not...it doesn't have anything to do with tax cuts.

I fee like it is demonized because it's believed it stems from republicans and so it is assumed that it must involve the policies they advocate.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Booms & busts existed long before keynes was even born. Proof that your ridiculous ignorant contention that keynes theories "create" booms & busts is unfounded bullshit. LOL

What Austrians said before the last conservative created world economic crash is not important.

The tenets of the 2 economic theories IS important.

During the inevitable bust, it is better to stimulate jobs/economy (Keynes), bad to to cut govt spending (Austrian)

Not trying to piss you off. Are you pissed off? Why because the one specific you came up with against Keynes I showed to be patently nonsensical.

Don't e upset. Just learn from the truth. Give up the libertarian Austrian rich mans desires. Embrace the pro 99% Keynesian approach.

It IS clearly better. And we NEED you.

[-] 0 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

"Booms & busts existed long before keynes was even born. Proof that your ridiculous ignorant contention that keynes theories "create" booms & busts is unfounded bullshit. LOL"

Didn't I just f'n cover this in depth for you in a post I made like 15 minutes ago discussing how Rothbard covers in depth the booms and busts before Keynes was born? Are you like mentally challenged? Can you not read or retain the stuff I say to you?

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Inflation is not unique to, nor is it because of Keynesian economic theory.

Booms and busts are also not because of Keynes theory, but busts are milder if we employ keynesian stimulus instead of Austrian austerity.

That is why Austrian libertarian austerity is a disaster. During busts Austrians would kill jobs in order to balance the budget and implement greedy selfish libertarian govt cuts

[-] 0 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

You don't know what Austrian theory of the business cycle is...STILL.

"Booms and busts are also not because of Keynes theory, but busts are milder if we employ keynesian stimulus instead of Austrian austerity."

Ok, should I just take your word for it? Because VQ says something I should believe it? Back up your argument. I can say shit too....."superman saved the world last week". Does that make it true? No.

Keynes does cause booms and busts. All the Austrians warned of an impending housing collapse...and they started warning about the bubble building in 2001. IF you had listened to Austrians the 99% would be 100 times better off right now. What were all the Keynes saying? I provided you with all of that jackass Krugmans quotes above.....the king of Keynes.....and showed you how he was dead f'n wrong. Then you reply back with stuff you can't even back up like " booms and busts are not because of Keynes theory"......like seriously? Back up what you say.....provide shreds of evidence to your claims. You never provide shit...and when you do it's so easy to just completely rip it apart.

I think what you enjoy is sitting around and pissing people off....it's not your intention to go anywhere with you arguments....it's your intention to make them circular. You have some sick f'k up desire to piss people off and keep arguments going. That's all I see you on here doing.

And when you piss people off enough you just changed screen names.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Nice response but attacking the writer is meaningless, and you haven't stated what specifically you think is "a disaster" about the Keynesian approach.

So while you work on that let me ask:

Don't you think Austrian job killing austerity is the worst thing we can do during this employment crises?

[-] -1 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

The Austrian theory of the business cycle has nothing to do with austerity.

The disaster of the Keynesian approach is the creation of boom and bust cycles that royally f'k over the 99%, cause massive unemployment, and steal money from them through the inflation that's created because of Keynesian policies that suck the middle and lower classes standard of living out from underneath their feet.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Part 1

Austrian Economics is a fringe academic view which is greatly preferred by many libertarians on ideological grounds. However, it has even less predictive power than mainstream economics, and has many commonsense problems.

I’ve long promised a post on Austrian Business Cycle Theory, and here it is. For those who would rather get straight to the conclusion, it’s one I share in broad terms with most of the mainstream economists who’ve looked at the theory, from Tyler Cowen , Bryan Caplan

and Gordon Tullock at the libertarian/Chicago end of the spectrum to Keynesians like Paul Krugman and Brad DeLong.

To sum up, although the Austrian School was at the forefront of business cycle theory in the 1920s, it hasn’t developed in any positive way since then. The central idea of the credit cycle is an important one, particularly as it applies to the business cycle in the presence of a largely unregulated financial system. But the Austrians balked at the interventionist implications of their own position, and failed to engage seriously with Keynesian ideas.

The result (like orthodox Marxism) is a research program that was active and progressive a century or so ago but has now become an ossified dogma. Like all such dogmatic orthodoxies, it provides believers with the illusion of a complete explanation but cease to respond in a progressive way to empirical violations of its predictions or to theoretical objections. To the extent that anything positive remains, it is likely to be developed by non-Austrians such as the post-Keynesian followers of Hyman Minsky.

Update There’s a fascinating discussion linking to this post here. In French, but clear and simply written. Anyone with high school French and a familiarity with the issues should be able to follow the main points.

First, some history and data. Austrian Business Cycle Theory was developed in the first quarter of the 20th century, mostly by Mises and Hayek, with some later contributions by Schumpeter. The data Mises and Hayek had to work on was that of that of the business cycle that emerged with industrial capitalism at the beginning of the 19th century and continued with varying amplitude throughout that century. In particular, it’s important to note that the business cycle they tried to explain predated both central banking in the modern sense of the term and the 20th century growth of the state. The case of the US is of particular interest since the business cycle coincided with a wide range of monetary and banking systems: from national bank to free banking, and including a gold standard, bimetallism and non-convertible paper money.

continued

[-] 1 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

Nothing in that huge paragraph explains what it is though VQ. What separates Keynes from Austrians? What are the differences?

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Why haven't you provided the specifics I've been requesting since you said Keynesian would be a disaster.

I agree with SFF80 below:

It’s the kind advocated by the ultra right-wingers who want to give the 1% and the huge corporations enormous tax cuts, giving them even more tyrannical control over our lives. The libertarian solution:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-libertarian-solution/

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

In response your tiresome repeated boom & bust contention.

boom & busts have existed throughout history. Keynesian economic theory therefore did not create them and is not responsible for them.

However, when the inevitable bust comes Keynes will help blunt the pain to the 99% by stimulating jobs/economic growth.

Austrian libertarian austerity will make the inevitable busts worse by cutting govt spending and destroying more jobs/economic growth just when we need it.

SLAP!!!!

LOL. NEXT!!!!

[-] -1 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

"boom & busts have existed throughout history. Keynesian economic theory therefore did not create them and is not responsible for them."

Keynes economic theory suggests doing exactly what caused the booms and busts prior to Keynes.

SLAP

The crazy thing is that Keynes is causing horrible conditions for the 99% and you're too f'n stupid to understand why.

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Nope. You didn't cover the fact that booms and busts were created by Keynes. They have existed throughout all of history.

And attacking me personally only shows you are unable to discuss these important issues civilly.

I guess you are confused and frustrated because I have decimated your ignorant amateurish contentions.

Just stop responding. I'll understand. I think I have destroyed your ridiculous Austrian economic bullshit enough anyway.

LOL

[-] -1 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

copied and pasted from my comment:

"This is just downright inaccurate. Rothbard wrote extensively about the booms and busts prior to the central banking system we have today....whoever wrote this just didn't read it apparently. The booms and busts prior to the central bank were built up much like they were after the central bank was enacted...artificial credit expansion. How did that occur prior to the central bank? Fractional reserves....which expands the money supply and benefits the bankers. Rothbard has written an entire book on Fractional Reserves and how they caused the Great Depression (the "roaring twenties" were created through a massive influx of credit via fractional reserves which caused the inevitable bust).

The panics prior to the central bank occur much the same way as today....banks expand the money supply through fractional reserves creating massive credit expansion which comes tumbling down.....which is described in every Austrian economics textbook i've ever looked at. Quote right from Rothbard:

"“But fractional reserve bank credit expansion is always shaky, for the more extensive its inflationary creation of new money, the more likely it will be to suffer contraction and subsequent deflation. We already see here the outlines of the basic model of the famous and seemingly mysterious business cycle, which has plagued the Western world since the middle or late eighteenth century. For every business cycle is marked, and even ignited, by inflationary expansions of bank credit. The basic model of the business cycle then becomes evident: bank credit expansion raises prices and causes a boom situation, but a boom based on a hidden fraudulent tax on the late receivers of the money.”"

Notice middle to late 18th century.....unless Keynes is superhuman that was before his time.

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I've answered you questions, provided details ofthe principles of both Austrian & Keynesian, I included a detailed definition.

Now why don't you offer one fact, or specific on why you think one is good or the other bad.

Because you have no knowledge on these issues?

[-] 0 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

Why are we arguing if you don't even know the differences? Do you want me to educate you on what they are? You don't seem to know.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

We had very little stimulus, One party watered it down, and obstruct every jobs bill we've seen proposed. At the same time they have cut pgms and state aid (cutting more pgms) that create jobs.

We need about 2 trillion in stimulus..

It's the only way.

[-] -3 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Wow, you are dumber than I thought.

Take your trickle down bullshit somewhere else.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I am proposing the opposite of trickle down you fuckin idiot.

I recommend stimulus for working class jobs, I recommend raising the taxes of the wealthy.

If you can't keep up then STFU.

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

"STimulus" is just code for more handouts to the rich.

You arent fooling anyone.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Bullshit. Raise taxes on the corp 1% greedy fucks. use that money to create infrastructure/green jobs for the working class, expand Pell grants, fund public option,

Try to keep up.

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Raising taxes doesnt do anything until the 75k pages of loopholes are delt with.

Giving more pell grants doesnt do anything until the racket that is college is addressed.

Public option wont be here anytime soon because you dumb fucks sold us out to the insurance companies and big pharma.

Try to keep up. Im getting tired of constantly having to take your posts to a deeper level. And its embarrassing to the site. This is suppose to be more than cheap talking points.

Now wave your pom poms.

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Raise taxes on the rich, AND cut the loopholes, shelters, deductions. Easy.

Expand Pell grant AND force colleges to cut costs/tuition. Easy/peezy.

Public option is one law away. WE most agitate all pols to support the efforts of house democrats.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/15/public-option_n_2483499.html

Suck on those deeper pom poms! you defeatist nattering nabob of negativism.

LMFAO

[+] -6 points by Krugmanfool (-95) from Jefferson, NJ 1 year ago

Hey moron, we've had over 1 trillion in stimulus every year, most of which is printed or porrowed from Asia.

Currently, the Fed is printing $85 billion A MONTH in stimulus out of thin air and giving it to the treasury. Have you been asleep?

[-] 5 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

Currently, the Fed is printing $85 billion A MONTH in stimulus out of thin air and giving it to the treasury. ....

WRONG ... they are giving it to Big Corporations.... and charging it to the middle class .....that IS the problem

[+] -5 points by Krugmanfool (-95) from Jefferson, NJ 1 year ago

They are buying up BAD ASSETS thanks to the "fairness in housing" leftist crowd. Them's the facts.

What CORPORATIONS? Fannie Mae? Freddie Mac? HUD? May I remind you those are GSE's? They are GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTITIES. Get the key word? "Government"???

[-] 6 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

FU....>>>> "fairness in housing" leftist crowd .... caused the problem ?

FU.... ass hole ...

U guy's have been on the FREE RIDE for 50 yrs ...and now you scream & cry... when we simply try to help out a few of the poor.... FU greedy Bastards

[+] -6 points by Krugmanfool (-95) from Jefferson, NJ 1 year ago

Truth hurts, huh pal. Back you your leftist diabtribe.

[-] 5 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

TRUTH... is what is going to win... dumb ass

[+] -5 points by Krugmanfool (-95) from Jefferson, NJ 1 year ago

Whatever are you talking about frovikleka? The problem was EASY MONEY for anyone who wanted to go to college. Now the market is awash in degrees in psychology, sociology, public policy, Womens and Afro-centric studies, journalism, visual & performing arts, communications and all sorts of other useless degrees.

I know. I have to try to hire qualified people for my company and have to turn most of them away for lack of useful skills. Bright young people? Who the hell goes to school for a recreational degree and then wonders why they can't find a good paying job? It's ridiculous. Suggest you do some research on your own. I dunno what you mean by "revolution". All I see is a lot of starving students. B.A.'s suck. They're virtually useless. I have no problem placing those with mathematics, physics, the sciences, IT, engineering and tech centered jobs (those with B.S.'s).

Don't get pissed with me. I'm just telling you the way the world is today. You're view of what's going on and where we went wrong is way out in left field.

[-] 3 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

ok.... kFool .... what's your answer ?... got any ?

[-] 0 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

The main problem with student loan debt which now exceeds one trillion dollars is that neoliberalism has exported our jobs overseas

And these kids graduating our universities cannot find jobs anywhere near commensurate to their education

It is here where you have made your biggest mistake as the energy and the determination that these bright, young people have who are leading this rev is incredible. I know.

~Odin~

[-] 3 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

I would take being branded as a "leftist" as a compliment coming from someone who is trying to defend the right wing nuttery.... that caused untold human misery throughout the world

Just as you have succeeded in promoting your self-enriching agenda at our expense by demonizing the words liberal....leftist, and socialist

We will do the same in pounding away.... day in and day out ....in tying the bow neatly around the right wing duopol[ic] agenda and the corruption that continues to hurt so many people

And the one thing that you can take back to the banksters is my guarantee that sooner or later, this corrupt system is going down

~Odin~

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

You're A little flummoxed I see. Stuttering and not really forming sentences.

LOL

[+] -4 points by Krugmanfool (-95) from Jefferson, NJ 1 year ago

Who? You? Certainly true.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

No you! Have you recovered? Back for more whuppings?

[+] -6 points by greysone (-264) 1 year ago

the "useful idiots" have an agenda and they're sticking to it. truth will / is not allowed to enter their small minds.

[-] 7 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

And in your mind, what is the difference between an income group and a class?

The fact that you call your political opponents useful idiots, who will never be able to believe as you do, shows that you are a political fundamentalist who becomes enraged when others cannot see the logic you believe you hold. Only an ideolog would brand other people Useful idiots. Who are you to tell me where my interests lie?

Besides, how can someone have an agenda and be a "useful idiot". You are either one or the other. To have an agenda entails an understanding of the political process and playing your part to see your self interests enhanced, while being a useful idiot means you are acting in someone else's best interests. At this point in time anyone who is fighting for austerity and not also fighting for minimum wage increases is acting in some one else's interests and not acting in the interests of my income group.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by Krugmanfool (-95) from Jefferson, NJ 1 year ago

Don't you ever wonder why the more Washington DC does, the worse things get???

And the densest part of this equation is you keep asking it to do more!

Wake the hell up.

[-] -3 points by greysone (-264) 1 year ago

an income group is bound by financial parameters. low class people can be of any income group,...............same with people that are high class. "useful idiots" are the people that are bing used to promote an agenda. they are not capable of critical thinking

[-] 4 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Flat tax is regressive. no fed income tax on income under 30K. 10% up to 50k. maybe 20% upto 75k. but over 500k gotta start payin through the nose. and anything over 1million gotta be 90%.

Like the 1950's when the economy was great.

Progressive tax rates, not regressive flat tax.

[-] -3 points by greysone (-264) 1 year ago

ten % of all income, no dedecutions. you make 50, 000 you pay 5 ,000, you make 250,000 you pay 25,000.. etc. EVERYONE pays taxes, even those under $30,000 , $25,000 tax would be 2,500.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Your list is irrelevant. What matters is that the greedy, selfish, do nothing, wealthy corp 1% have bought our govt, rigged the tax/regulatory system against us, outsourced our jobs stagnated our wages, cut our benefits, raided our pensions, defrauded us with bad mtgs, created a housing bubble, crashed the world economy, created an unemployment crises we are still strugling with, took taxpayer bailouts, and continue to receive obscene compensation without paying their fair share of taxes or being prosecuted.

So it's time to correct that injustice. Many 1%'rs agree and are willing to pay their fair share and want banksters to be jailed.

Don't you.?

[-] -1 points by greysone (-264) 1 year ago

the wealthy people that i listed are " irrelevant"? why? they employ hundreds of thousands of people.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Individual names are irrelevant. The corp 1% oligarchs rigged the tax system, regulatory system, employment/outsourcing/labor system, against the decent hard working American people.

Our wages have stagnated because of this. Our costs have risen. That injustice must be corrected y the peoples govt.

[-] -1 points by greysone (-264) 1 year ago

you blame righ people for your problems but the wealthy people i listed have nothing to do with your phoney claims.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

It is our money. Where do you think they got it from. The system has been rigged so they suck up our money, keep our wages low and trapus in predatory loans.

Shits gotta change.

Stop advocating for the rich against your own class & family.

[-] -2 points by greysone (-264) 1 year ago

It isnt " your money". if you freely spent your money to see a lucas or spielberg movie, that money isnt yours anymore. YOU SPENT IT. none of the people i listed have anything to do with banking or hedge funds or finance.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Your 'allusion' is an illusion.

Stop distracting with useless word games.

We are fighting for tax fairness, wage/income equity, and getting our wealth back from the 1% oligachs.

Stop advocating for the 1% against your own family.

[-] -2 points by greysone (-264) 1 year ago

then let everyone pay 10% flat tax. EVERYONE

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I never said caste system asshole. You are so desperate to avoid the issue you engage in this pathetic, childish, pedantic distraction of word games.

Stop advocating for the1% against your own family.

[-] -3 points by greysone (-264) 1 year ago

you are incapable of getting the allusion.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

you wanna nitpick about terminology? Please go fuck yourself. Support the the middle CLASS!!! ever heard that term moron?

And stop advocating for the corp 1% oligarchs, against your own CLASS (the middle class)

have some integrity.

[+] -4 points by greysone (-264) 1 year ago

this isnt india , we do not have a caste system. p.s. you have no idea of my income level.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

You are the useful idiot for the corp 1% banksters. I standing with the decent hard working American people.

You're a traitor to your class.

[+] -6 points by greysone (-264) 1 year ago

My" class"? which "class" is that? the usa does not have classes.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

The corp 1% rigged the system against us. That injustice must be corrected.

Don't make me say it again.

Stop advocating for the people who have robbed you and you family!

You have no honor

[-] -2 points by greysone (-264) 1 year ago

you have not addressed any of the people i listed. they are all billionaires, many times over. none of them made their money from banking, finance , hedge funds, gas or energy. none of them " robbed" you or anyone else. you are not capable of critical thinking, all you have is your script.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

The peoples govt should protect the people.

"the rich have whatever they have"? What if they got it unjustly after rigging the system against the rest of us.

Time to get our money back.

Stop advocating for the 1% against your own class & family. It is without honor.

[-] -2 points by greysone (-264) 1 year ago

its not " your " money" did oprah rig the system? how about jim davis,, lucas, spielberg,jannard, wynn, dejoria, knight, leprino, jack taylor, ilitch, zuckerberg,ergen, lauder,arison, newhouse, wexner, cathy, lauren???????????????

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

My proposal would correct the redistriution of middle class wealth to the wealthiest overthe last 30+ years.

Your plan asumes the problem to be corrected is that the wealthy don't have enough money.

Stop advocating for the 1% against your own class & family, it lacks honor.

[-] -2 points by greysone (-264) 1 year ago

rich people have whatever they have. in our country it is not the job of govt to regulate ( and take away) personal wealth.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Lowest income should pay maybe 1%.

Gotta transfer more taxes from working class to the rich.

That would be fair after the last 3 decades of sweet free ride the rich got while the rest of us were squeezed and struggling.

[-] -1 points by greysone (-264) 1 year ago

a flat tax is a fair tax. you are wealth redistributionist.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

We have a middle class, a working class, an impoverished class, andthe corp 1% rich class.

Whichclass do you think you are in?

Stop advocating forthe1% against your own family.

[+] -4 points by greysone (-264) 1 year ago

we have lower income, middle income and upper income groups. they are not classes, but income groups.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

What matters is that the greedy, selfish, do nothing, wealthy corp 1% have bought our govt, rigged the tax/regulatory system against us, outsourced our jobs stagnated our wages, cut our benefits, raided our pensions, defrauded us with bad mtgs, created a housing bubble, crashed the world economy, created an unemployment crises we are still strugling with, took taxpayer bailouts, and continue to receive obscene compensation without paying their fair share of taxes or being prosecuted.

So it's time to correct that injustice. Many 1%'rs agree and are willing to pay their fair share and want banksters to be jailed.

Don't you.?

[-] -3 points by greysone (-264) 1 year ago

nothing prevents anyone sending the irs more money than their taxes actually are. how many hollywood obama donors do that? how about ge? immelt, ( former head of ge) close friend of obama and was on his council of economic advisors, ge paid nothing in taxes.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Have you heard of the GINI Coefficient? It compares countries around the world in terms of the Gap between rich incomes and poor incomes, as I remember. But also you can go back and see the changes in the USA over time. Not sure how far back it goes or ...

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/inequality-america-worse-egypt-tunisia-or-yemen

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gini-index.asp

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-10-21/markets/30305293_1_inequality-gini-coefficient-wealth (China vs. USA)

[Removed]

[+] -4 points by Krugmanfool (-95) from Jefferson, NJ 1 year ago

I know one thing. They're conveniently turning off "reply" to all their posts. Cuz they can't debate.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

You're a fuckin moron. We can't control the 'reply' button.

[+] -5 points by greysone (-264) 1 year ago

they are certainly entitled to their own ( agenda driven ) opinions, BUT they are not entitled to their own facts. by the way, love your screen name

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Here ya go stupid:

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040809-9.html

It was easy money that created that bubble. The rest is window dressing.

Try to get out of your MSM partisan box once in a while.

[-] -3 points by Krugmanfool (-95) from Jefferson, NJ 1 year ago

“I think that the responsibility that the Democrats had may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress, or by me when I was President, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” – Former President Bill Clinton (D-AR), September 25, 2008

“Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong.” – Congressman Artur Davis (D-AL) , September 30, 2008

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/10/20081009-10.html

[-] 4 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago
  • no one argues that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did not incorporate corrupt activities... and no-one defends it....
  • but do not use that to excuse AIG & the rest of the criminals either.... you are letting MSM smoke & mirror you... to keep the people fighting among ourselevs
[-] -3 points by Krugmanfool (-95) from Jefferson, NJ 1 year ago

You are denying what historically happened because it's inconvenient to your outlook.

That's your problem, not mine.

[-] 4 points by flip (7101) 1 year ago

alan watts on money makes it obvious to anyone who can think outside the propaganda system, that we are not going bankrupt - Stephanie kelton does the rest - or did I miss something in your argument? ..."on the fundamental confusion between money and wealth: Remember the Great Depression of the Thirties? One day there was a flourishing consumer economy, with everyone on the up-and-up; and the next, unemployment, poverty, and bread lines. What happened? The physical resources of the country -- the brain, brawn, and raw materials -- were in no way depleted, but there was a sudden absence of money, a so-called financial slump. Complex reasons for this kind of disaster can be elaborated at length by experts on banking and high finance who cannot see the forest for the trees. But it was just as if someone had come to work on building a house and, on the morning of the Depression, the boss had said, "Sorry, baby, but we can't build today. No inches." "Whaddya mean, no inches? We got wood. We got metal. We even got tape measures." "Yeah, but you don't understand business. We been using too many inches and there's just no more to go around." A few years later, people were saying that Germany couldn't possibly equip a vast army and wage a war, because it didn't have enough gold. What wasn't understood then, and still isn't really understood today, is that the reality of money is of the same type as the reality of centimeters, grams, hours, or lines of longitude. Money is a way of measuring wealth but is not wealth in itself. A chest of gold coins or a fat wallet of bills is of no use whatsoever to a wrecked sailor alone on a raft. He needs real wealth, in the form of a fishing rod, a compass, an outboard moter with gas, and a female companion........ and here is Stephanie - “So, let’s begin with the first lesson. What is money? All money exists as an IOU. It’s a debt. When we say, ‘I owe you,’ we mean two people are involved in every monetary relationship. The ‘I’ is the debtor. The ‘U’ is the creditor. I Owe You. IOUs are recorded in what we call the money of account. The money of account in Australia is the Australian dollar. The money of account in the U.S., the U.S. dollar. The money of account in Japan, the Japanese Yen. In Britain, the British pound. In Italy, the Euro. Do you see a difference? You will by the end of this talk.

(c. 6:21) “The money of account is something abstract, like a metre, a kilogram, a hectare. It’s not something you can touch or feel. It’s representational, something only a human could imagine. In any modern nation the money of account is chosen by the national government. MMT emphasises the state’s power over money. This is not something new. It dates back as far as Aristotle. You can find it in Adam Smith and in the work of John Maynard Keynes. I will read a brief quote from Keynes who said:

“‘The age of chartalist, or state money, was reached when the State claimed the right to declare what thing should answer as money of account. Today, all civilised money is, beyond the possibility of dispute, chartalist’—state money.

“A sovereign government defines the money of account. A sovereign government imposes taxes, fees, and other obligations to be paid to be paid to the state. A sovereign government decides what it will accept in payment to itself. And sovereign government chooses how it will make its own payments to others. Most governments in the world today choose their own unique money of account. And they issue their own unique currency. One nation, one money, is the rule in almost every corner of the world today. U.S. dollars, bills and coins. Mexican pesos, bills and coins. British pounds, notes and coins. Most governments also require that taxes be paid in a currency that the state has the exclusive power to issue. These currencies are sovereign money.

(c. 8:50) “As long as the state has the power to enforce its tax laws, the people will need the government’s money. The currency will have value. People will work to sell things—goods and services—to the government in order to get government money. Whatever the government accepts in payment to itself becomes the ultimate, ‘definitive,’ money in the economy. It is the only way to settle a debt. You must use government money. We can imagine in any economy a hierarchy of money. But not all money is created equal. The most acceptable money sits at the top of the pyramid. Those are the IOUs that everyone accepts and everyone must accept. Those are the IOUs that are ultimately needed to pay our debts. Those are the government’s IOUs. The rest of us can go in debt, issue IOUs, but our debt is not as good as government debt. It’s not as acceptable. It can’t be used to pay for things.

(c. 10:25) “In the U.S., the hierarchy looks like this: The government’s IOU—the United States dollar—sits at the top of the pyramid. It is a fiat currency. The United States government is the monopoly issuer of the U.S. dollar—the only entity on the planet that can legally create the currency. The U.S. government taxes in dollars. It spends in dollars. And it controls its own currency. Why is this important? What are the benefits of issuing your own currency? They are extraordinary.

(c. 11:19) “The government, when it issues its own currency, and goes into debt in that currency can always pay its debt, can never go broke, can never run out of money. It can afford anything that is for sale in that currency. It doesn’t need to borrow its own currency. And it can set its own interest rate. It does not have to pay what markets want. It does not become a victim to speculation, to bond vigilantes. It has additional policy space. It can do things for its economy and for its people that a government that does not have a sovereign currency cannot do.

(c. 12:18) “Think about what the hierarchy would look like under a gold standard. Many governments operated under gold or silver or both for some period of time in our world history. Under a gold standard, the government promises to convert its currency into gold. In that situation, what sits at the top of the pyramid is not the state’s currency, but the gold reserves. This means that the government must be careful about how much it spends. If it spends too much of its own currency, it can jeopardise the entire system because it may not be able to convert currency into gold as promised. You have to limit your spending and limit what you do with your policies. Governments operating under a gold standard do not have sovereign currency.

(c. 13:24) “In a similar way, a country that fixes its exchange rate to another country’s currency the way Argentina and Russia and others have done do not issue a sovereign currency. They must be careful about how much they spend. They must defend the reserves. If you promise to convert your currency into another country’s currency, you might go broke. You can run out. How do you get the other country’s currency? It requires trade surpluses to earn the other country’s currency. You become dependent on the rest of the world and their economic wellbeing to sustain your own wellbeing. The hierarchy in a country that operates fixed exchange rates places someone else’s currency at the top. You also lose control of your interest rate—something that’s crucial to retain control of—if a country is going to have a sustainable debt and full employment.”

[-] -2 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Admitting something is wrong doesnt mean it was the core cause. What school did you go to that taught you to think like that?

Cheap, easy money. Why do you think interest rates are still at 0?

[+] -4 points by Krugmanfool (-95) from Jefferson, NJ 1 year ago

Cheap easy money. Yes! A bad thing. Who do you think wants it? Have you been reading this thread?

Have you been taking note of the people who want stimulus? Hello? Suggest you reread the posts and who wants what and who is against austerity. I think you may be surprised what you find.

[-] -2 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Cheap money is a seperate thing from these idiot takes on stimulus and whatnot. The financial sector doesnt care what the stupid letter at the end of some dumb politicians name is.

And neither do I.

[-] 5 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

That's lending/giving money to bankster criminals fucks you idiot.

You don't know the1st thing about stimulus/austerity if you think FED actions have anything to do with this.

Stimulus to create jobs.!! Stop bankster bailouts, break up the banks, end the Fed.

[+] -4 points by Krugmanfool (-95) from Jefferson, NJ 1 year ago

That's lending to you, the moronic "fairness in housing" crowd that insisted on loans for people who should never of had them to begin with... another Keynsian POS idea. And look where it got us. Record foreclosures. There used to be a time when people had to put down 20% to buy a house until YOUR ILK came around, insisting everyone have ownership regardless of MEANS.

You bleeding heart morons destroy everything you touch.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

The borrowers were the victims. They didn't create the bubble and subsequent burst.

It was the selfish, greedy, dishonest, criminal, corp 1% oligarch bankster fucks!

Come back after you've read this. moron!

http://occupywallst.org/forum/wall-st-criminal-bastards-dont-let-anyone-claim-th/

[+] -7 points by Krugmanfool (-95) from Jefferson, NJ 1 year ago

BS. The borrowers were signing up for things they had no right in having. Time for a little personal responsibility instead of foisting it on everyone else.

[-] 4 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

It has been proven that sub prime loans were pushed on the most unsophisticated borrowers

And even for those not so unsohisticated, but young people who were desparate to buy a home before they were completely priced out of the housing market due to the rising prices

The conversation would go like this.... Seller: You should buy now before the prices go up, Buyer - I don't know if I will be able to afford the rising mortgage payments in the subsequent years, Seller - I f you cannot afford it, don't worry about it because you will always be able to remortgage, or sell your home for a lot more because as we all know real estate never goes down. That was a very very typical conversation.

And the seller did not give a shit if that person defaulted on his loan or not because he just passed it along, and eventually people like retirees lost tons of money on those Triple A rating securities that emanated from bullshit

That is exactly how it went down and you damn well know it

~Odin~

[-] -1 points by Krugmanfool (-95) from Jefferson, NJ 1 year ago

Jesse (from below)... You mean poverty prevention as in a plasma hanging on every wall and an iPhone in everyone's pocket? Just what kind of poverty are you talking about? The defintion of poverty has been really overblown lately and that's a fact.

My parents didn't own a house a house until they were 35. Why is that so unacceptable today? Why does someone "deserve" more? Why can't they WORK for it and earn it?

The federal government is corrupt quite simply because it can be.

[-] 4 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

I'll tell you why. Fairness in housing, Credit cards and other nifty financial debt obligations were the only type of poverty prevention measures Congress could pass. and the reason why? Middle America and the wealthy would not allow increases in wages. Keep telling one side of the story and be lost in ignorance your whole life.

I'll tell you why I believe the federal Government is where wealth inadequacy gets dealt with.

So you say get rid of federal corruption by getting rid of federal programs? So what do you suggest to replace it? You would rather us just stick to the "good ol' U.S of A garden variety type of tyranny, tyranny of the market.

Have you ever thought that Maybe the federal government is corrupt because the private sector, the sector which is rich enough to effect government, is corrupt. Why would I want to untie their hands?

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

Sorry not every American fits that mode, At least not the America I know. Poverty is when you work forty hours a week and need government programs to subsidize your family.

Besides, smart phones are more economical than a phone and an internet bill so you can stuff that silly argument. Because smart phones are subsidized by the data carrier, they are cheaper than a phone and a computer.

Also, because of The Fairness in housing Act, buying a home made more economic sense than renting one. Every penny counts when you are scraping them.

[-] 1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

One more thing before I leave

Just as this older dude (me!) gets so many hugs from the people in Occupy that are the salt of the earth, in wanting this to be a better world

Here's a cyber-hug for you ((((((((CORRUPTION/NEOLIBERAL AGENDA))))))))!!....lol...

I realize it is not as good, but that is what you are deserving of, and we will keep pounding away at it just as you did in promoting your self-serving agenda

~Odin~

[-] 1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

Your twisted defense of the corruption perpetrated by the criminal bankers in complicity with bought off politicians is amusing

But i will have to get back to you later as i am going out to enjoy my day with a smile

~*Odin

[-] 0 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

The federal government has been corrupted by banking and corporate interests

That is a FACT

It is also a FACT that the programs set up to help put low income people in homes was the not the cause of the near melt-down in 2008

You are at least a year late in defending the banker scum bags here

We've already figured that out. We're just trying to figure out what the square footage of their cells should be now...lol

~Odin~

[+] -4 points by greysone (-264) 1 year ago

the obama administration are doing their best to create " class ( income) warfare.

[-] 3 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

More divisions brought to you by the supporters of the corrupt elite

I get it...It's those dang poor people who are the problem

They're just not like us, are they?...lol

~Odin~

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

We've had the same classes since the beginning of time.

How would Pres Obama be responsible for that.?

Partisan shill!!

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

The banksters are supposed to verify if a borrower is able to pay. So if the borrowers weren't able to pay, isn't it the banks irresponsibility that ignored the problems.

If you read the links in this post you will see the numerous settlements banks have agreed to regarding mortgage fraud, and illegal foreclosure.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/wall-st-criminal-bastards-dont-let-anyone-claim-th/

Or you can continue pretending the banksters who got away with the loot are innocent.

LMFAO

[-] 0 points by greysone (-264) 1 year ago

they pay more money in taxes than anyone else.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

the top 1% take more than 93% of the wealth created every year. They don't pay that much tax.

That is OUR wealth! We created it. We want it back.

[-] -2 points by greysone (-264) 1 year ago

obama keeps spouting " the rich dont pay their fair share". he wants civil unrest.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I want the rich to pay their fair share.

You obviously advocate for the rich even though you ain't rich. Isn't that the definition of a 'useful idiot'.

You said I don't know your income level, but YOU know. And you know I'm right.

[-] -3 points by Krugmanfool (-95) from Jefferson, NJ 1 year ago

Ability to pay? If you lie on a form about your income or produce bogus documentation, isn't that fraud by the borrower?

Get real.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

so 60 people lied on the mortgages and banks failed to find it.?

So then the banks were careless & irresponsible.

Understand?

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

No evidence of that you lying piece of shit.

The banksters ignored the problem to book more mortgages, Lotsa evidence of that!

http://occupywallst.org/forum/wall-st-criminal-bastards-dont-let-anyone-claim-th/

Read it asshole! And stop blaming the decent hard working Americans who have been defrauded by greedy banksters and had their life savings stolen.

You betray your class, and show your dishonor when you advocate for the criminals who crashed the world economy.

[-] -2 points by Krugmanfool (-95) from Jefferson, NJ 1 year ago

For you dipschit below :

"In August 2006, Steven Krystofiak, president of the Mortgage Brokers Association for Responsible Lending, in a statement at a Federal Reserve hearing on mortgage regulation, reported that his organization had compared a sample of 100 stated income mortgage applications to IRS records, and found almost 60% of the sampled loans had overstated their income by more than 50 percent."

[+] -4 points by greysone (-264) 1 year ago

the banks were forced to give NON INCOME VERIFICATION loans.

[-] 4 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

The lobbyists who the banks hired worked hard to have the Glass Steagall Act repealed, and they succeeded on the twelth try and then implemented the Financial Modernization Act

Afterall, who wants to be responisble, and old fashioned where you cannot gain enormous PERSONAL financial wealth at the expense of nearly everyone else?

The big banksters are F...ING CROOKS and you know it!

~Odin~

[-] 3 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

Thank You for being here on this Easter Sunday as it shows us how worried the corrupt status quo that you are defending is

I can tell you that you're 'concerns' are well-founded as all over the country peple are networking on bringing down this corrupt neoliberal system

And your attempts at creating divisions will go nowhere as we now realize that, that is how you have been able to carry out your nefarious self-intere$t agenda

Keep trying tho as it is amusing to me...lol

~Odin~

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

The banksters defrauded decent americans, They weren't forced to give subprime loans to people who qualified for better loans.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/wall-st-criminal-bastards-dont-let-anyone-claim-th/#comment-904798

Stop advocating against your own family!!

[+] -5 points by greysone (-264) 1 year ago

the ows people have no use for the facts. the banks were forced by the govt.to give non income verification loans.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Please, the poor banks forced to steal the life savings of millions of decent hard working Americans.

Read this before you make ignorant comments.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/wall-st-criminal-bastards-dont-let-anyone-claim-th/

[+] -6 points by greysone (-264) 1 year ago

yes , they were forced by clinton via reno. make unsecured loans or the govt will go after you.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Oh so in 2003/4 Clinton & Reno (out of office halfa decade) forced banks to steal decent Americans life savings by defrauding them.? LOL

You continue to spew partisan cover for the corp 1% oligarchs against your own class. You have no honor.

[+] -4 points by Krugmanfool (-95) from Jefferson, NJ 1 year ago

Why don't you stop responding to my posts if you're going to shutoff replies to yours, mkay "inclusionman"? vvvvv

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

We do not control the reply button idiot.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

But the banks did settle many cases of racism in mortages so Maybe you are just brainwashed.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/wall-st-criminal-bastards-dont-let-anyone-claim-th/#comment-904798

[+] -5 points by greysone (-264) 1 year ago

you're correct. ( my reply is to krugmanfool and NOT inclusionman).

[-] -1 points by conservatroll (172) 1 year ago

greysone says:"the ows people have no use for the facts,"
Not sure you should paint them with the same dnc troll brush that delusionman, shoes and bensdad deserve

[-] -2 points by greysone (-264) 1 year ago

Well,..........if the shoes fit,.............

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Haha, thats grand. JP Morgan bailed out the gov in 1895. The banks run the show, why do you think we are always involved in other people's nonsense.

Im sure the most powerful people on the planet were really scared by Barnie Frank.

Barnei is nothing more than a political fall guy. They know EXACTLY what they are doing, and you are proving the plan is still working.

[+] -5 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

"Is it the pro keynesian"

very much so....they've proven wrong over and over again. Anyone buying into that BS needs to study history.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I've studied economic history, I'm a Keynesian, and I KNOW it is the best approach to correct the catastrophe that supply side, trickle down, voodoo economics has created since we've been using it for the last 30+ years.

Do you think that hyperinflation is imminent?

[-] -2 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

"Do you think that hyperinflation is imminent?"

No, i don't. Possible in the future? Yes. Imminent? No.

VQ you sit and talk about Keyns but you don't even understand the basic concepts of Austrian economics. I've talked to you about this.

How many times does your boy Krugman have to be completely wrong before you start to question his logic?

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Krugman has NOT Been wrong. What are you suggesting he is wrong about.?

I'll ask you again. What specifically would be disastrous? What is wrong with the Keynesian approach.?

Specifically please.

[-] -2 points by Krugmanfool (-95) from Jefferson, NJ 1 year ago

Krugman is nutz. From 2011, since dates seem to matter for inclusionman's constant stupid rationalization:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/15/paul-krugman-fake-alien-invasion_n_926995.html

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Childishness. I KNOW that job killing austerity is the wrong approach during this employment crises.

I KNOW we don't have a deficit/det problem, nor a spending problem!

We have a jobs problem, a middle/working class wage stagnation problem. And we have a wealthy low tax rate, and therefor revenue shortfall problem.

Your discussion of aliens is unrelated. Meaningless, Immature distraction from the issues.

Grow up boss, stop .attacking the approach that WILL serve the 99%

[-] -3 points by Krugmanfool (-95) from Jefferson, NJ 1 year ago

You know nothing. www.usdebtclock.org

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

And you continue to avoid the facts. because your position can't stand up to the facts.

The debt is meaningless! Just a tactic by austrian economic conservatives to argue for the destruction of Social Security, and Medicare.

I don't buy your "starve the beast" plan.

Stimulus works! Austerity will destroy jobs!

[-] -3 points by Krugmanfool (-95) from Jefferson, NJ 1 year ago

Yea, yea, stimulus works all right.

The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:

Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*

SpectraWatt ($500,000)*

Solyndra ($535 million)*

Beacon Power ($43 million)*

Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)

SunPower ($1.2 billion)

First Solar ($1.46 billion)

Babcock and Brown ($178 million)

EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*

Amonix ($5.9 million)

Fisker Automotive ($529 million)

Abound Solar ($400 million)*

A123 Systems ($279 million)*

Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*

Johnson Controls ($299 million)

Brightsource ($1.6 billion)

ECOtality ($126.2 million)

Raser Technologies ($33 million)*

Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*

Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*

Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*

Range Fuels ($80 million)*

Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*

Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*

Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*

GreenVolts ($500,000)

Vestas ($50 million)

LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)

Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*

Navistar ($39 million)

Satcon ($3 million)*

Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*

Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.

The 2009 stimulus set aside $80 billion to subsidize politically preferred energy projects. Since that time, 1,900 investigations have been opened to look into stimulus waste, fraud, and abuse (although not all are linked to the green-energy funds), and nearly 600 convictions have been made. Of that $80 billion in clean energy loans, grants, and tax credits, at least 10 percent has gone to companies that have since either gone bankrupt or are circling the drain.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/18/president-obamas-taxpayer-backed-green-energy-failures/

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

The heritage foundation? LOL.

We need at least a trillion in renewable energy investments. Just disregard the right wing wacko talking points. The stimulus investments in green tech has done much better than average investing. I think it is less than 5% loss.

And the industry difficulty has more to do with obstruction of right wing oil puppet politicians who have delayed, limited, threatened all tax subsidies for green tech implementation.

End fossil fuel corp welfare.

Initiate long term trillion dollar green tech stimulus!!

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Well, there you go. The moment you see the Heritage Foundation........it's over.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

For me it is. I support stimulus the heritage, and these 3 (one?) I'm fighting with support austerity.

I'm in the midst of a running firefight with Heritage Foundation shills.

Exciting

[-] -3 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

"We need at least a trillion in renewable energy investments."

Bulllshit....would be completely wasted money. As long as energy costs more with alternatives, oil will rule the world...unless you continue to subsidize alternatives for the rest of time. People will not buy alternatives if they are more expensive...period. Even the majority of people who are pro-environment.

If you want to spend money to go in that direction the only logical thing that makes sense is put a reward from government out on the market. Say 100 million.....whoever comes up with an alternative energy source that can outcompete oil per unit of energy based on cost gets the reward. That way it isn't a never-ending subsidized bullshit bureaucracy...and it actually produces something in the end.

I'm not sure I even agree with government doing that...but the consensus is people want government to do something....so if that's the case...create the demand and actually produce something worthwhile while not wasting any of the taxpayers money. You're guaranteed results while limiting cost.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Just remove the billions in direct subsidies for fossil fuel, then add the true cost (military actions to protect oil reserves/trade routes) which istrillions, as well as the costs related to cleaning the exhaust from fossil fuel (hundreds of billions) and oil/fossil fuel is much more expensive. .

Glad I could explain these simple issues to you.

[-] -3 points by Krugmanfool (-95) from Jefferson, NJ 1 year ago

Yes, I've figured out you're not much of a numbers and facts person. Just a sloganeering OWS'er.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I am proudly an OWS'r. You gotta problem with that motherfucker?

I like the number of 2 trillion for stimulus. I like the number 15 dollar minimum wage. I like the number 90% for people who make a million dollars a year.

You only like numbers that help corp 1% oligarchs. You've betrayed your own class. And you have NO honor!

[-] -1 points by greysone (-264) 1 year ago

money to obama and his friends to line their pockets at taxpayer expense.

[+] -4 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

"Krugman has NOT Been wrong."

Krugman is wrong every other day...he's a hack.

Example of Krugman being the snake that he is:

Krugman's policy recommendations leading up to the crash in 2008:

2001 "“During phases of weak growth there are always those who say that lower interest rates will not help. They overlook the fact that low interest rates act through several channels. For instance, more housing is built, which expands the building sector. You must ask the opposite question: why in the world shouldn’t you lower interest rates?”

2001 "That is, I’ve always believed that a speculative bubble need not lead to a recession, as long as interest rates are cut quickly enough to stimulate alternative investments. But I had to face the fact that speculative bubbles usually are followed by recessions. My excuse has been that this was because the policy makers moved too slowly — that central banks were typically too slow to cut interest rates in the face of a burst bubble, giving the downturn time to build up a lot of momentum. That was why I, like many others, was frustrated at the smallish cut at the last Federal Open Market Committee meeting"

2001 "Well, as far as the arithmetic goes, yes, it is possible. Will the Fed cut interest rates enough? Will long-term rates fall enough to get the consumer, get the housing sector there in time? We don’t know”

2001 "“Consumers, who already have low savings and high debt, probably can’t contribute much. But housing, which is highly sensitive to interest rates, could help lead a recovery"

2002 "Low interest rates, which promote spending on housing and other durable goods, are the main answer.”

How about on the verge of the collapse...now that he'd built up the famous housing bubble while all the Austrians were screaming since 2001 "if you lower interest rates like this you'll create a housing bubble". What did Krugman claim right before the eve of the housing collapse? Yeah...watch your honest Krugman try to snake his way out of everything he'd been preaching for the previous 7 years:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qo4ExWEAl_k&list=PLDDnD1v54oE3dINLmVY7Fe4tTWcqkAoqo&index=4

Your boy is wrong all the time. I like to listen to people who are right.

Another example of Krugman being wrong:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100558455

I could go on all day.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

i'm not interested in your inaccurate attacks on Krugman.

Austrian economics is what created the crash and 30 years of stagnating middle class.

Keynesian economics is the right approach to correct the catastrophe Austrian economics created.

I guess you avoided the specific "disaster" you claimed keynesian policy would create because you can't specify it.

[+] -4 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

"Puta side the unfounded personal attacks and fear of downvoting. The Karma points are meaningless.Don't be so vain."

So why do you jump on here with 50 different screen names and upvote yourself? Dude you're a f'n used car salesmen. Just spewing bullshit all over this site all day long.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I don't! Why do you avoid the fact that your Austrian Austerity will destroy jobs, and Keynesian stimulus will create jobs.

You discuss everything but the specific facts of the issues.

[+] -4 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

"i'm not interested in your inaccurate attacks on Krugman."

I just posted everything for you word for word....quotes straight from Krugman....it's not inaccurate. Sorry to lay out very nicely for you the snake like behavior of your famed economist....truth hurts sometimes. Worst thing you could do is choose to ignore it.

Perhaps you should keep studying up on your economic history....i don't think you've covered it well enough yet.

"Austrian economics is what created the crash and 30 years of stagnating middle class."

SEE. You have no f'n idea what Austrian economics is...because this country hasn't been run under Austrian economics....at all. You can thank your great system of Keynsian economics for the past 30 years.

Seeing as how you think it's been run under Austrian economics....you also have no f'n idea what Keynesian economics is either apparently.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

13 year old quotes out of context from one economist is not economic history.

You said Keynesian approach would be a disaster.

How? I ask a 3rd time. How specifically?

I expect you will not provide specifics, because it is evident you do not understand the basic tenets of keynesian or Austrian economics.

Stop attacking one guy with unprovable accusations and discuss the policies.

[-] -2 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

F'k you VQ...i'm not going around in your f'n stupid circular arguments anymore...I've posted this stuff 100 times for you. If you want to understand the horribleness of Keynes go read this:

http://hmscoop.com/index.php/10-whole-website/politics-economy/4-understanding-banking-and-the-fed-part-1

If not...i really don't give a shit. Stop talking to me. You're a nutcase that gets on here with 50 screen names talking to yourself and upvoting your own comments. Like seriously, you need mental help. Quit spamming my posts and quit talking to me.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

And your bullshit blog link does not mention keynesian, or Austrian. I've read it before and remain unimpressed since it does not shed any new light on the problems we face.

Just another meaningless distraction from the dishonest ignorant conservative shill.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

More distractions so you don't have to back up your ignorant suggestion that Keynesian approach would "be a disaster".

Ok what specifically about your Austrian economics do you suggest will benefit our economy.?

Oh, and fuck you too, you dishonest piece of shit. backup your claims or keep them to your ignorant self.

[-] -3 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

"But how long Keynes has been used, and when is just more of your pathetic attempts to distract from the question."

You don't even know what Keynes economics is....why are we talking? If you don't think its been used for the last 100 years you are clueless for what you're arguing.

I think you think that Austrian economics is republican or something and Keynes is democrat. Some economic history studying you've done.

I really don't want to explain things to you again...especially so you can jump on all your screen names and just down vote me....so go annoy someone else. Quit talking to me.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Just stick to the issues, and stay away from the personal attacks.

Don't speak for me on what you think I think. That's grade school nonesense.

Puta side the unfounded personal attacks and fear of downvoting. The Karma points are meaningless.Don't be so vain.

I can discuss the issue without bringing party into it if you must make rules.

Are you afraid I will show your Austrian approach to be pro corp 1% and anti 99%.? Is that why you refuse to discuss any details.?

[+] -4 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

We've been under the Keynesian approach for the last 100 years you dumbass. Perhaps you should understand what the f'k your system is before opening your mouth and supporting it.

"Oh, and fuck you too, you dishonest piece of shit."

Thats you..the dishonest piece of shit..the guy with 50 f'n screen names who upvotes himself and gets online and talks to himself to try to throw people off his new screen name. Yeah, you're a shining beacon of honesty that all of us should strive for.

Or the guy who will sit there when i've spoon fed him direct quotes from a jackass like Krugman and claim that i've distorted the truth somehow. Real honest VQ.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Quotes out of context is not the same as discussing specific elements of an economic philosophy! More of a distraction.

You unfounded personal attack on me IS your dishonesty and yet another weak transparent attempt to distract.

Keynes for 100 years? Hardly. We got out of the the great depression when FDR used it successfully, and Obama is using it (with limited effect because of obstruction in congress).

But how long Keynes has been used, and when is just more of your pathetic attempts to distract from the question.

SPECIFIC elements of Keynesian approach that would "be a disaster", or SPECIFIC elements of Austrian approach that would be successful.

I offer this bit of logic for you to ponder and comment on (without the usual personal attacks, & distractions) If you have the nerve, and intelligence.

"Here’s how: start with a 100% payroll tax cut for both workers and employers – one that will only expire (if it does at all) when we have achieved full employment. This will not de-fund Social Security. And yes, we’ll come back to this point and cover it in great detail in due course. But first, stop and think back on the effect which federal revenue-sharing had on the economy in 2009 and 2010. If you’re thinking there were fewer teachers, nurses, policemen and fire-fighters getting laid off, you are correct. If you’re thinking that more roads, dams, bridges and sewer systems were getting repaired, you’re right again. But if you think that adding 800 million dollars to the deficit over two years is a guaranteed way to generate hyper-inflation, double-digit interest rates and bond-auction failures, leading ultimately to a frenzied worldwide rush to dump dollar-denominated financial assets, well, now would be a good time to ask yourself why you believe this."

[-] -3 points by Krugmanfool (-95) from Jefferson, NJ 1 year ago

Yes, yes, "animal spirits" right?

LAUGHABLE. You know nothing.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

But you SAY nothing. I know enough to actually discuss the issues.

You SAY nothing because you know your austerity approach is wrong.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

This will help you understand the fundamentals of monetary policy!

http://www.nationofchange.org/use-and-abuse-monetary-history-1365692723

Glad I could help.

[-] -1 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

Comment on other peoples posts VQ...finished with your lying partisan hackery. Go talk to someone else and upvote yourself with your 100 screen names.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

You have no authority to tell me where to comment. If you don't want me to respond to your comments all you can do is not comment.

This post is ideal to add as many anti libertarian (austrian, pro austerity), pro keynesian (pro stimulus) comments as I can find.

In terms of economics it is critical that any suggestion of your extremist anti people libertarian philosophy be challenged thoroughly and effectively.

Because I am committed to that goal, you must dishonestly, childishly attack me personally. You can't utilize on topic facts to respond. You must distract, & deflect with lies (upvote myself, 100Id's? NOT!) because your position can't stand up to honest debate.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

are you saying the the fed pumping money into the banks is ILLEGAL ?

[-] 2 points by Shule (2239) 1 year ago

Great article, (and also the one below by inclusion man.)

To me it exposes the joke which money really is. The real problem is people take it too seriously. They hold it up for worship, make their lives depend on it, and do anything to get it. When people start taking money for what it really is, (regular ass wipes are softer, and work better) the faster we all can get back onto the road to prosperity.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

This details a key difference between failed Austerity & necessary Stimulus

http://www.nationofchange.org/debt-doesn-t-ruin-economies-1366213354

This post should always be high on the forum so people see the differences between the 2 approaches.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

While I favor a free market too, ours is increasingly benefiting the wealthy. Measures like GDP per capita or average salary are meaningless if the bulk of that wealth is going to a tiny minority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gini_since_WWII.svg

http://stateofworkingamerica.org/who-gains/#/?start=1968&end=2008

[-] -3 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

I do agree with you about GDP per capita. GDP is a stupid economic indicator that every economist in the world still somehow claims to be useful. How about unemployment though? How about income inequality though? How about increases in length of life?

Every economic indicator there shows an increase when the economy is more free (free market). People rip me apart here because they think i'm inhumane for believing in free markets....I argue the opposite....i'm humane because I believe in free markets. I realize it is counter-intuitive....but I really believe if you dig into it, it will open your eyes.

I agree with your links....they show the middle and lower class are getting screwed. My argument is they're getting screwed because we're deviating from the free market and sound money.

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

This right-wing libertarian solution you’re advocating – “free” market capitalism – is pure tyranny. It’s a society in which the corporations and the financial elite have the overwhelming power. It’s a society in which a non-elected minority control the economy and our workplaces – private tyranny.

You advocate the libertarian solution: giving huge tax cuts to the wealthy and the corporations, and welfare cuts to the 99%. That’s why you’re being “ripped apart”

[-] 0 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

Struggle....you say that over and over to me. But what i'm saying to you is that if you really dig into the data, you've got it wrong. People say all kinds of things...but to measure the validity of what they're saying there should be stats stats to back that up.

I agree it is intuitive to think like you do....but if you look a the statistics and begin to understand why free markets work...I think you could be persuaded.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

The people are getting screwed because they're hooked on the drugs of consumerism and patriotism which have blinded them to economic reality. They can't see that our economic system has been hijacked by the wealthy to benefit the wealthy.

When the people refuse to demand their fair share of the wealth they help generate, no economic system, not socialism, not communism, not even the free market, can deliver them from that weakness.

[-] -1 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

"They can't see that our economic system has been hijacked by the wealthy to benefit the wealthy."

I agree.

[-] -1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Thanks. Should be interesting.

But wasn't that schooling hilarious. That college kid put that right wing fuck in his place.

Don't you think we need to tell these libertarian, greedy, selfish, corp stooges to go fuck themselves and implement economic policy that will benefit the 99% and finally have the 1% pay their fair share.?

Whaddyathink?

[-] -1 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

I think you need to study my link and then send me a comment.

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I did. very interesting.

Don't you think we need to tell these libertarian, greedy, selfish, corp stooges to go fuck themselves and implement economic policy that will benefit the 99% and finally have the 1% pay their fair share.?

Agree?

[-] 1 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

I get it...you're taking the "close your eyes and don't look at data" path.....and if you do happen to look at it...don't dare talk about it.

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I don't know what you mean. I looked, and I commented. In facct YOU have not commented on my comment.

I'll repeat.

Don't you think we need to tell these libertarian, greedy, selfish, corp stooges to go fuck themselves and implement economic policy that will benefit the 99% and finally have the 1% pay their fair share.?

Agree?

[-] 1 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

"Sounds your suggesting greed is good? "So the object of the game is to create a society where a persons greed actually produces prosperity for others. The more greed they have...the more they benefit others."

I'm not saying greed is good or bad...what I am saying is that greed is something that drives people whether you like it or not. Greed to further their personal gain. It always has and it always will. So it makes sense to set up a society in which the more one pursues greed, the more it benefits others. You figure that out and you've figured out all the worlds problems.

"I'm well aware ofthegreed of people and recognize that peoples greed is what creates corp greed."

So why do you always localize it to corporations? Greed is everywhere, including government.

[-] -1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

The greed of corp 1% oligarchs has destroyed the middle class. And you wanna nurture it.?

Sounds like giving up to the base instincts of human nature. Greed is only one part of human nature. We also have innate desire to help our families and those in need.

We should nurture helping and saring, not greed. Greed should be denounced and ostracized.

And we should all learn from the lesson of the last 30 years when we worshiped greed and ended with crashing the world economy.

So we disagree on setting up society based on greed. Sorry.

Can you think of anything that make go wrong with a society based on greed.

[-] -1 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

"Can you think of anything that make go wrong with a society based on greed."

What i'm saying to you is that greed is inherent...it's a given....it will always be there because we're human and that's our nature. Not every human being is greedy, but as a whole the population largely acts on greed....it always has and it always will. If society was designed in such a way that the more greed you pursued it involuntarily produced prosperity for others...you'd have a society where when people acted on their natural instinct of greed, you'd be improving everyone elses lives. That's like the holy grail of societies...by furthering oneself you're also furthering everyone else.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Greed is bad. Most people are NOT bad. Greed must be denounced, renounced and replaced with generosity.

That is the better basis to build a society.

I can't agree that "whole population.....acts on greed" I do not resign myself to that depressing proposition, and I will not give up fighting greed and the accompanying "survival of the fittest" mentality.

Can you think of anything bad that might come from a society based and built on greed.? Or, as you consider this plan do you say "what could go wrong"?

[-] -2 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

"Greed must be denounced, renounced and replaced with generosity."

Good luck....that's been attempted for thousands of years without a hint of success.

"Can you think of anything bad that might come from a society based and built on greed.? "

If the society is built in a way where greed involuntarily benefitted others...no.....I see a society where the more greed there is the more prosperity there is.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Do you think we have any greed in our society now?

[-] 0 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

Absolutely

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Where? How is that working out for us?

[-] -1 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

What economic policy would benefit the 99%?

[-] -2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Investing in infrastructure & green jobs, increase wages, reward insouircing in order to increase demand, spur economic growth, and expand revenue of course.

And of course raise taxes on the wealthy (& cut deductions), cut the defense budget, & corp welfare

I'll repeat:

Don't you think we need to tell these libertarian, greedy, selfish, corp stooges to go fuck themselves and implement economic policy that will benefit the 99% and finally have the 1% pay their fair share.?

Agree?

[-] 1 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

Everything you just mentioned goes against the stats that you said you looked at.

I don't get people like you. You see it...but refuse to let it register.

[-] -1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

So you are against my suggestions, and you think we should listen to the greedy, selfish, libertarian, corp stooges.?

[-] 1 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

I think you should listen to statistics which show you where people have the best shot at a prosperous life.

Economics is like the only thing in the world people will sit down and think about for 5 minutes and think they understand it. You can't do that to be a mathematician....a doctor....an engineer...anything. You can't do it with economics either.....people just don't know that...what seems to be obvious about it...isn't so obvious. It is counter-intuitive.

[-] -1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Oh! Thanks. You are so generous with your wisdom & advice.

But getting back to the topic.

Are you suggesting that the infrastructure work we NEED to do will not improve the unemployment crises? Or are you saying we will lose jobs if we implement an infrastructure jobs program?

And can I ask you forthe 6th time: Are you against my suggestions, and you think we should listen to the greedy, selfish, libertarian, corp stooges.?

[-] 1 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

"Are you suggesting that the infrastructure work we NEED to do will not improve the unemployment crises? Or are you saying we will lose jobs if we implement an infrastructure jobs program?"

No, it won't help employment. It will temporarily force jobs into a less productive area of the economy, while throwing a burden on other more efficient parts of the economy.

Look at the graphs i posted for you....with every increasing step away from economic freedom, the worse off the people are.

"and you think we should listen to the greedy, selfish, libertarian, corp stooges.?"

No i don't think we should listen to the corps....the corps are the ones lobbying for more regulations and more government handouts....they're the ones in bed with the government turning this system into their little playground. The difference between you and me is that you think corps are the greedy ones....I disagree....people are greedy in general...whether they are in government or in a corporation...you fail to realize this. So the object of the game is to create a society where a persons greed actually produces prosperity for others. The more greed they have...the more they benefit others.

[-] -1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Lets be clear about one thing motherfucker. You do not speak for me!!!

I'm well aware ofthegreed of people and recognize that peoples greed is what creates corp greed.

I disagree that infrastructure jobs would "force jobs into a less productive area of the economy, while throwing a burden on other more efficient parts of the economy." Nonsense.

Sounds your suggesting greed is good? "So the object of the game is to create a society where a persons greed actually produces prosperity for others. The more greed they have...the more they benefit others."

Is that right? We must direct/control the greed.?

[-] -2 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

"Where? How is that working out for us?"

I don't think you understand what i'm saying. In todays world greed is bad because of the way society is set up. It hurts people. I'm saying that if you could design a society that would function in a way where pursuing your own greed actually forced you to benefit others it would be the holy grail of societies.....greed is inherent....people have been trying to get rid of it since biblical times.....and yet it still flourishes. I say stop fighting it and design a system where the more greed one pursues the more it benefits others.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I say continue the time proven fight to denounce, renounce greed, It has been wildly resounding success.

And continue the struggle for a society based on generosity, and shared sacrifice. We are stronger when we work together. We are in this together man.

Greed is evil you cannot "design a society that would function in a way where pursuing your own greed actually forced you to benefit others"

You ain't figured it out cause it don't exist. Only extremist Ayn Randians entertain that fantasy.

However a society based on generosity obviously can work. We don't have to figure that out. We will just continue improving this one until we have a more perfect union.

[-] -2 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

"I say continue the time proven fight to denounce, renounce greed, It has been wildly resounding success."

Lol...a wildly resounding success? Says who? Bullshit mountain?

Greed is not evil if you lived in a society that created prosperity from greed. How can you even argue that? If i told you the more greedy people are the more prosperity that is created for everyone....how is greed bad in that scenario?

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Greed has destroyed the middle class. There is no way to have greed that benefits everyone. the definition of greed is taking more than you deserve from others.

It is a fantasy, or more likely just a dishonest suggestion to distract/deflect from the reality that libertarian selfishness has bred greed and destroyed the middle class.

[-] -1 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

"It is a fantasy, or more likely just a dishonest suggestion to distract/deflect from the reality that libertarian selfishness has bred greed and destroyed the middle class."

Look at the fucking stats i posted for you!!! The only thing that has destroyed the middle and lower class is the f'n nanny state and monetary system that noone understands. I don't usually talk like this but people like you f'n baffle me. You have the stats right in front of your freaking face and still refuse to let it register.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

You are pushing greed as societal foundation!!!!

Do you really think I would consider anything you present as anything other than the rantings of a madman?

C'mon, try to step outside your bubble, greed is bad, if that's what you're pushing you will be denounced, and disregarded by decent people.

Do you get many people who say, yeah let's base society on greed!! that's the ticket.

What a moron. Time to up the meds johnie.

[-] -3 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

That article has so many mistakes in it i can't take anything it says seriously.

[-] 0 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Thanks

[-] -1 points by Krugmanfool (-95) from Jefferson, NJ 1 year ago

Absolute lie after lie after lie on camera by democrats...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=636AQAvw0lU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyqYY72PeRM

A little history goes a long way.

[-] -2 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

Good links.

Similar links can be provided for republicans though.....they did the same shit...followed the artificially low interest rate BS policies....bailed out the banks...furthered programs to induce overinvestment in housing just like the dems.

Like OTP posted:

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040809-9.html

[-] -1 points by Krugmanfool (-95) from Jefferson, NJ 1 year ago

Yes, and Bush was a Neocon. And what is a Neocon? A Neocon is a democrat who became hawkish on defense. But at the end of the day, it's still a bleeding heart liberal democrat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocon

[-] -1 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

I agree....Bush is a neocon....like a bunch of others in office on the republican side.

Don't fall in line with the other jackasses on this post and fight for right/left. There are a bunch of republicans that were neocons that ruled government...and they f'n dropped the ball. But they were republicans....saying a neocon is a democrat who became hawkish is a cop out. They were elected as repubs.

I think they're all cut from the same cloth...repubs and dems all do pretty much the same shit to screw the country over these days.

[-] -2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

The result of this policy would be increased inflation, the root cause behind wealth inequality. When people don't know the value of money because it's continuously decreasing, they charge to little for their labor and pay too much for the labor of the already wealthy. This is a policy that seems to redistribute the wealth, but what it gives with one hand by check, it takes from the other by increased prices and lower wages.

Inflation is the engine that drives wealth inequality. Those that understand it take advantage of those who don't.

[-] -2 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

well said.

[-] -2 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

That would require Dems and Reps not whoring out to the Fed.

[-] -3 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

Not likely to happen any time soon...especially because the Fed bails out their buddies in the corporate world.

[-] 4 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago
[-] -2 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

awesome....good to see stuff like this

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Not a word in the MSM. Of course. In fact not even the alt Ind news have picked it up yet. Far as I can see.

You're the 1st to see it Johnny!

[-] -2 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

lol...i sure as heck haven't seen it in the news.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Every news outlet s/b emailed from thousands of occupiers to encourage them to get off their fat lazy asses and run the story.

[-] -2 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

VQ...lets do a count...how many of your screen names have you made posts on this topic with?

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Doesn't seem like an effort that would benefit the 99%.

More like another useless, immature distraction from the issues because your position can't stand up to discussion.

Why don't you waste your time counting your own many ids.

[-] -3 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

Or a useful tool to bring to light the ridiculousness that is you.

I think the 99% are very interested in scam artists.....or less than truthful individuals.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

The 99% don't give a shit about me. But they most definitely agree with the positions I advocate, because I honestly fight for change that benefits the 99%.

You care about ME (or at least discrediting me) for the same reason. I support stimulus for jobs creation, and I oppose your Austerity scheme

So rather than arguing the issue you must distract with desperate, pathetic, dishonest personal attacks.

LOL. Transparent, & sad.

[-] -2 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

"I honestly fight for change that benefits the 99%."

You're anything but honest....you make shit up to push your pro-dem agenda...even if it means you have to be untruthful.

You make up screen names because people started to revolt against you here because you pissed so many of them off with your car salesman, manipulative slimey bullshit.

You're partisan hack....and you hide behind screen names to continue to stay on this forum without getting downvoted to oblivion.

"dishonest personal attacks"

I'm being dishonest? Answer this VQ....do you have a ton of different screen names on this forum? Have you used those screen names to upvote yourself? Who's really being dishonest? It's not me.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

You are out of touch with reality. None of your claims are true. None!

I honestly contribute current info, and encourage action regarding the issues that Occupy has taken a stand on.

You simply attack me, because your position is so anti 99% and pro 1% oligarch, you can't risk actually discussing the specifics of the issues.

Whaddyathink? Ever been to Tampa?

[-] -3 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

lol....i hope to hell you're getting paid to be on this forum....cause if you're not...you're seriously f'n nuts. That's what i think.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

You have not given one specific of Austrian or Keynesian economics. during thisentire thread.

You've tried attacking me with lies, using socks, changing the subject, more dishonest personal attacks. ut no substance. None!!

Pathetic, transparent, austerity lover!!!

Whaddyathink? Ever been to Tampa.?