|
Krugman: Why I haven't felt the Bern
|
|
Topic Started: Apr 17 2016, 11:09 AM (1,151 Views)
|
|
Two a.m.
|
Apr 17 2016, 11:09 AM
Post #1
|
|
- Posts:
- 4,133
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/15/why-i-havent-felt-the-bern/?_r=1
But the all-purpose response to anyone who raises questions is that she or he is a member of the establishment, personally corrupt, etc.. Ad hominem attacks aren’t a final line of defense, they’re argument #1.
I know some people think that I’m obsessing over trivial policy details, but they’re missing the point. It’s about an attitude, the sense that righteousness excuses you from the need for hard thinking and that any questioning of the righteous is treason to the cause. When you see Sanders supporters going over the top about “corporate whores” and such, you’re not seeing a mysterious intrusion of bad behavior into an idealistic movement; you’re seeing the intolerance that was always just under the surface of the movement, right from the start.
|
|
"The stars can be near or distant, according as we need them." - George Orwell, 1984
|
| |
|
Opinionated
|
Apr 17 2016, 11:23 AM
Post #2
|
|
- Posts:
- 11,395
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #10
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
Krugman is entitled to his personal opinion. But just because he believes something to be true, does not make it true.
|
|
|
| |
|
estonianman
|
Apr 17 2016, 12:03 PM
Post #3
|
|
- Posts:
- 19,738
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #44
- Joined:
- Mar 19, 2016
|
HAHA Krugman just threw all his followers to the wolves.
|
|
MEEK AND MILD
|
| |
|
Two a.m.
|
Apr 17 2016, 04:16 PM
Post #4
|
|
- Posts:
- 4,133
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
On the left, Krugman is among the most respected economists there is. One would think that his calling Bernie's policies into question - not to mention his supporters - might provoke some doubt about how much substance really lies behind Sanders' campaign.
|
|
"The stars can be near or distant, according as we need them." - George Orwell, 1984
|
| |
|
Opinionated
|
Apr 17 2016, 04:19 PM
Post #5
|
|
- Posts:
- 11,395
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #10
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- Two a.m.
- Apr 17 2016, 04:16 PM
On the left, Krugman is among the most respected economists there is. One would think that his calling Bernie's policies into question - not to mention his supporters - might provoke some doubt about how much substance really lies behind Sanders' campaign. Or, plausibly, he is just as vested in maintaining the status quo as is much of the ruling elites. He much prefers incrementalism because incrementalism is less likely to cost him anything personally.
|
|
|
| |
|
Two a.m.
|
Apr 17 2016, 04:31 PM
Post #6
|
|
- Posts:
- 4,133
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- Opinionated
- Apr 17 2016, 04:19 PM
- Two a.m.
- Apr 17 2016, 04:16 PM
On the left, Krugman is among the most respected economists there is. One would think that his calling Bernie's policies into question - not to mention his supporters - might provoke some doubt about how much substance really lies behind Sanders' campaign.
Or, plausibly, he is just as vested in maintaining the status quo as is much of the ruling elites. He much prefers incrementalism because incrementalism is less likely to cost him anything personally.
The hallmark of all conspiracy theorism.
Anyone who raises questions about the conspiracy theory is immediately deemed part of the conspiracy.
Edited by Two a.m., Apr 17 2016, 04:32 PM.
|
|
"The stars can be near or distant, according as we need them." - George Orwell, 1984
|
| |
|
Opinionated
|
Apr 17 2016, 06:44 PM
Post #7
|
|
- Posts:
- 11,395
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #10
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- Two a.m.
- Apr 17 2016, 04:31 PM
- Opinionated
- Apr 17 2016, 04:19 PM
- Two a.m.
- Apr 17 2016, 04:16 PM
On the left, Krugman is among the most respected economists there is. One would think that his calling Bernie's policies into question - not to mention his supporters - might provoke some doubt about how much substance really lies behind Sanders' campaign.
Or, plausibly, he is just as vested in maintaining the status quo as is much of the ruling elites. He much prefers incrementalism because incrementalism is less likely to cost him anything personally.
The hallmark of all conspiracy theorism. Anyone who raises questions about the conspiracy theory is immediately deemed part of the conspiracy. Not part of a conspiracy, no. It's just that he, like you, is unable to see past his personal paradigm to grasp that incrementalism won't get the job done because as soon as you take an incremental step in the desired direction, all the forces that oppose movement in that direction immediately being to work to negate it. And those forces are almost always able to muster more money, which equates to more influence. Which means that they're able to effectively negate incremental steps faster than we can take them.
A perception failure does not equate to participation in a conspiracy.
|
|
|
| |
|
Gizmolove
|
Apr 17 2016, 10:42 PM
Post #8
|
|
Gizmolove
- Posts:
- 1,592
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #28
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
170 Economists Endorse Bernie Sanders’ Plan To Reform Wall St. And Rein In Greed
"170 of the nation’s top economists have released a letter endorsing Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’s plan to reform Wall Street.
A letter signed by 170 economists including former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, University of Texas Professor James K. Galbraith, Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC., Brad Miller, former U.S. Congressman from North Carolina, and William K. Black, University of Missouri-Kansas City endorsed the Sanders plan to reform Wall Street.
The economists wrote:
In our view, Sanders’ plan for comprehensive financial reform is critical for avoiding another ‘too-big-to-fail’ financial crisis. The Senator is correct that the biggest banks must be broken up and that a new 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act, separating investment from commercial banking, must be enacted.
Wall Street’s largest banks are now far bigger than they were before the crisis, and they still have every incentive to take excessive risks. No major Wall Street executive has been indicted for the fraudulent behavior that led up to the 2008 crash, and fines imposed on the banks have been only a fraction of the banks’ potential gains. In addition, the banks and their lobbyists have succeeded in watering down the Dodd-Frank reform legislation, and the financial institutions that pose the greatest risk to our economy have still not devised sufficient “living wills” for winding down their operations in the event of another crisis.
Secretary Hillary Clinton’s more modest proposals do not go far enough. They call for a bit more oversight and a few new charges on shadow banking activity, but they leave intact the titanic financial conglomerates that practice most shadow banking. As a result, her plan does not adequately reduce the serious risks our financial system poses to the American economy and to individual Americans. Given the size and political power of Wall Street, her proposals would only invite more dilution and finagle.
The only way to contain Wall Street’s excesses is with reforms sufficiently bold and public they can’t be watered down. That’s why we support Senator Sanders’s plans for busting up the biggest banks and resurrecting a modernized version of Glass-Steagall...."
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/01/14/170-economists-bernie-sanders-plan-reform-wall-st-rein-greed.html
|
|
When it comes to lying, cheating, or stealing, consult your DNC or GOP handbook.
|
| |
|
Two a.m.
|
Apr 17 2016, 10:42 PM
Post #9
|
|
- Posts:
- 4,133
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- Opinionated
- Apr 17 2016, 06:44 PM
- Two a.m.
- Apr 17 2016, 04:31 PM
- Opinionated
- Apr 17 2016, 04:19 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
The hallmark of all conspiracy theorism. Anyone who raises questions about the conspiracy theory is immediately deemed part of the conspiracy.
Not part of a conspiracy, no. It's just that he, like you, is unable to see past his personal paradigm to grasp that incrementalism won't get the job done because as soon as you take an incremental step in the desired direction, all the forces that oppose movement in that direction immediately being to work to negate it. And those forces are almost always able to muster more money, which equates to more influence. Which means that they're able to effectively negate incremental steps faster than we can take them. A perception failure does not equate to participation in a conspiracy. You said he was "vested in maintaining the status quo as is much of the ruling elites" and implied that radical change would "cost" him something personally.
Your second post paints a very different picture of his motives. You act as though he is just naive and myopic unable to understand that incrementalism doesn't work.
In one formulation he is an active part of the dark, evil forces arrayed against the people. In the other, he's simply and ineffective dupe. Which is it?
|
|
"The stars can be near or distant, according as we need them." - George Orwell, 1984
|
| |
|
Two a.m.
|
Apr 17 2016, 10:52 PM
Post #10
|
|
- Posts:
- 4,133
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- Gizmolove
- Apr 17 2016, 10:42 PM
170 Economists Endorse Bernie Sanders’ Plan To Reform Wall St. And Rein In Greed"170 of the nation’s top economists have released a letter endorsing Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’s plan to reform Wall Street. A letter signed by 170 economists including former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, University of Texas Professor James K. Galbraith, Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC., Brad Miller, former U.S. Congressman from North Carolina, and William K. Black, University of Missouri-Kansas City endorsed the Sanders plan to reform Wall Street. The economists wrote: In our view, Sanders’ plan for comprehensive financial reform is critical for avoiding another ‘too-big-to-fail’ financial crisis. The Senator is correct that the biggest banks must be broken up and that a new 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act, separating investment from commercial banking, must be enacted. Wall Street’s largest banks are now far bigger than they were before the crisis, and they still have every incentive to take excessive risks. No major Wall Street executive has been indicted for the fraudulent behavior that led up to the 2008 crash, and fines imposed on the banks have been only a fraction of the banks’potential gains. In addition, the banks and their lobbyists have succeeded in watering down the Dodd-Frank reform legislation, and the financial institutions that pose the greatest risk to our economy have still not devised sufficient “living wills” for winding down their operations in the event of another crisis. Secretary Hillary Clinton’s more modest proposals do not go far enough. They call for a bit more oversight and a few new charges on shadow banking activity, but they leave intact thetitanic financial conglomerates that practice most shadow banking. As a result, her plan does not adequately reduce the serious risks our financial system poses to the American economy and to individual Americans. Given the size and political power of Wall Street, her proposals would only invite more dilution and finagle. The only way to contain Wall Street’s excesses is with reforms sufficiently bold and public theycan’t be watered down. That’s why we support Senator Sanders’s plans for busting up the biggestbanks and resurrecting a modernized version of Glass-Steagall...." http://www.politicususa.com/2016/01/14/170-economists-bernie-sanders-plan-reform-wall-st-rein-greed.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/18/the-economist-who-validated-bernie-sanders-big-liberal-plans-is-voting-for-hillary-clinton/
But Goolsbee isn’t swayed by Friedman’s arguments, which he has said risk pushing Democrats into the fantastical high-growth projections that conservative economists – such as Arthur Laffer, who famously sketched a version of this idea on a xxxxtail napkin – say will follow large cuts in top income tax rates.
Krueger said in an email that Friedman had, among other issues, dramatically overestimated productivity growth in the future, ignored ways in which Sanders' programs would discourage some Americans from working and failed to account for the likelihood that the Federal Reserve would intervene to slow growth in a time of low unemployment in order to head off inflation.
“To be clear, our letter wasn't a critique of his study,” Goolsbee wrote. “It was a plea that we not invent a Vermont version of voodoo economics. If he wants to start using real economic data to analyze Sanders' policies, that's great.”
|
|
"The stars can be near or distant, according as we need them." - George Orwell, 1984
|
| |
|
Gizmolove
|
Apr 17 2016, 10:52 PM
Post #11
|
|
Gizmolove
- Posts:
- 1,592
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #28
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- Two a.m.
- Apr 17 2016, 10:42 PM
- Opinionated
- Apr 17 2016, 06:44 PM
- Two a.m.
- Apr 17 2016, 04:31 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Not part of a conspiracy, no. It's just that he, like you, is unable to see past his personal paradigm to grasp that incrementalism won't get the job done because as soon as you take an incremental step in the desired direction, all the forces that oppose movement in that direction immediately being to work to negate it. And those forces are almost always able to muster more money, which equates to more influence. Which means that they're able to effectively negate incremental steps faster than we can take them. A perception failure does not equate to participation in a conspiracy.
You said he was "vested in maintaining the status quo as is much of the ruling elites" and implied that radical change would "cost" him something personally. Your second post paints a very different picture of his motives. You act as though he is just naive and myopic unable to understand that incrementalism doesn't work. In one formulation he is an active part of the dark, evil forces arrayed against the people. In the other, he's simply and ineffective dupe. Which is it? Multiple Choice
Krugman is:
A) Wrong B) Ill informed C) Not very good at economics D) Has an alterior motive for his opinions E) All of the above
|
|
When it comes to lying, cheating, or stealing, consult your DNC or GOP handbook.
|
| |
|
Two a.m.
|
Apr 17 2016, 11:04 PM
Post #12
|
|
- Posts:
- 4,133
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- Gizmolove
- Apr 17 2016, 10:52 PM
- Two a.m.
- Apr 17 2016, 10:42 PM
- Opinionated
- Apr 17 2016, 06:44 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
You said he was "vested in maintaining the status quo as is much of the ruling elites" and implied that radical change would "cost" him something personally. Your second post paints a very different picture of his motives. You act as though he is just naive and myopic unable to understand that incrementalism doesn't work. In one formulation he is an active part of the dark, evil forces arrayed against the people. In the other, he's simply and ineffective dupe. Which is it? Multiple ChoiceKrugman is: A) Wrong B) Ill informed C) Not very good at economics D) Has an alterior motive for his opinions E) All of the above Krugman would appear to be none of these things.
He has questions about the numbers and practicalities. From what I've read, so do I. So do a lot of economists far brighter and more well-versed than me.
|
|
"The stars can be near or distant, according as we need them." - George Orwell, 1984
|
| |
|
Gizmolove
|
Apr 17 2016, 11:11 PM
Post #13
|
|
Gizmolove
- Posts:
- 1,592
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #28
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- Two a.m.
- Apr 17 2016, 10:52 PM
- Gizmolove
- Apr 17 2016, 10:42 PM
170 Economists Endorse Bernie Sanders’ Plan To Reform Wall St. And Rein In Greed"170 of the nation’s top economists have released a letter endorsing Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’s plan to reform Wall Street. A letter signed by 170 economists including former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, University of Texas Professor James K. Galbraith, Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC., Brad Miller, former U.S. Congressman from North Carolina, and William K. Black, University of Missouri-Kansas City endorsed the Sanders plan to reform Wall Street. The economists wrote: In our view, Sanders’ plan for comprehensive financial reform is critical for avoiding another ‘too-big-to-fail’ financial crisis. The Senator is correct that the biggest banks must be broken up and that a new 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act, separating investment from commercial banking, must be enacted. Wall Street’s largest banks are now far bigger than they were before the crisis, and they still have every incentive to take excessive risks. No major Wall Street executive has been indicted for the fraudulent behavior that led up to the 2008 crash, and fines imposed on the banks have been only a fraction of the banks’potential gains. In addition, the banks and their lobbyists have succeeded in watering down the Dodd-Frank reform legislation, and the financial institutions that pose the greatest risk to our economy have still not devised sufficient “living wills” for winding down their operations in the event of another crisis. Secretary Hillary Clinton’s more modest proposals do not go far enough. They call for a bit more oversight and a few new charges on shadow banking activity, but they leave intact thetitanic financial conglomerates that practice most shadow banking. As a result, her plan does not adequately reduce the serious risks our financial system poses to the American economy and to individual Americans. Given the size and political power of Wall Street, her proposals would only invite more dilution and finagle. The only way to contain Wall Street’s excesses is with reforms sufficiently bold and public theycan’t be watered down. That’s why we support Senator Sanders’s plans for busting up the biggestbanks and resurrecting a modernized version of Glass-Steagall...." http://www.politicususa.com/2016/01/14/170-economists-bernie-sanders-plan-reform-wall-st-rein-greed.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/18/the-economist-who-validated-bernie-sanders-big-liberal-plans-is-voting-for-hillary-clinton/But Goolsbee isn’t swayed by Friedman’s arguments, which he has said risk pushing Democrats into the fantastical high-growth projections that conservative economists – such as Arthur Laffer, who famously sketched a version of this idea on a xxxxtail napkin – say will follow large cuts in top income tax rates.
Krueger said in an email that Friedman had, among other issues, dramatically overestimated productivity growth in the future, ignored ways in which Sanders' programs would discourage some Americans from working and failed to account for the likelihood that the Federal Reserve would intervene to slow growth in a time of low unemployment in order to head off inflation.
“To be clear, our letter wasn't a critique of his study,” Goolsbee wrote. “It was a plea that we not invent a Vermont version of voodoo economics. If he wants to start using real economic data to analyze Sanders' policies, that's great.” So, your source of one, trumps Bernie's economic sponsors of 170?
I see, it's because he supports Hillary, and not real economic realities.
Take one of the biggest fallacies out of your supposed equation (like unemployment being "low"), and your whole argument falls on it's 
Unemployment is low, because time for most people to be on unemployment has run out. It also does not address people who have jobs being subsidized by welfare and food stamps, in order to actually "live". (You know...like Walmart employees).
2 am, I think you should keep your day job, and try not be involved with "economics", especially Keynesian Economics.
|
|
When it comes to lying, cheating, or stealing, consult your DNC or GOP handbook.
|
| |
|
estonianman
|
Apr 17 2016, 11:17 PM
Post #14
|
|
- Posts:
- 19,738
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #44
- Joined:
- Mar 19, 2016
|
- Gizmolove
- Apr 17 2016, 11:11 PM
- Two a.m.
- Apr 17 2016, 10:52 PM
- Gizmolove
- Apr 17 2016, 10:42 PM
170 Economists Endorse Bernie Sanders’ Plan To Reform Wall St. And Rein In Greed"170 of the nation’s top economists have released a letter endorsing Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’s plan to reform Wall Street. A letter signed by 170 economists including former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, University of Texas Professor James K. Galbraith, Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC., Brad Miller, former U.S. Congressman from North Carolina, and William K. Black, University of Missouri-Kansas City endorsed the Sanders plan to reform Wall Street. The economists wrote: In our view, Sanders’ plan for comprehensive financial reform is critical for avoiding another ‘too-big-to-fail’ financial crisis. The Senator is correct that the biggest banks must be broken up and that a new 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act, separating investment from commercial banking, must be enacted. Wall Street’s largest banks are now far bigger than they were before the crisis, and they still have every incentive to take excessive risks. No major Wall Street executive has been indicted for the fraudulent behavior that led up to the 2008 crash, and fines imposed on the banks have been only a fraction of the banks’potential gains. In addition, the banks and their lobbyists have succeeded in watering down the Dodd-Frank reform legislation, and the financial institutions that pose the greatest risk to our economy have still not devised sufficient “living wills” for winding down their operations in the event of another crisis. Secretary Hillary Clinton’s more modest proposals do not go far enough. They call for a bit more oversight and a few new charges on shadow banking activity, but they leave intact thetitanic financial conglomerates that practice most shadow banking. As a result, her plan does not adequately reduce the serious risks our financial system poses to the American economy and to individual Americans. Given the size and political power of Wall Street, her proposals would only invite more dilution and finagle. The only way to contain Wall Street’s excesses is with reforms sufficiently bold and public theycan’t be watered down. That’s why we support Senator Sanders’s plans for busting up the biggestbanks and resurrecting a modernized version of Glass-Steagall...." http://www.politicususa.com/2016/01/14/170-economists-bernie-sanders-plan-reform-wall-st-rein-greed.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/18/the-economist-who-validated-bernie-sanders-big-liberal-plans-is-voting-for-hillary-clinton/But Goolsbee isn’t swayed by Friedman’s arguments, which he has said risk pushing Democrats into the fantastical high-growth projections that conservative economists – such as Arthur Laffer, who famously sketched a version of this idea on a xxxxtail napkin – say will follow large cuts in top income tax rates.
Krueger said in an email that Friedman had, among other issues, dramatically overestimated productivity growth in the future, ignored ways in which Sanders' programs would discourage some Americans from working and failed to account for the likelihood that the Federal Reserve would intervene to slow growth in a time of low unemployment in order to head off inflation.
“To be clear, our letter wasn't a critique of his study,” Goolsbee wrote. “It was a plea that we not invent a Vermont version of voodoo economics. If he wants to start using real economic data to analyze Sanders' policies, that's great.”
So, your source of one, trumps Bernie's economic sponsors of 170? I see, it's because he supports Hillary, and not real economic realities. Take one of the biggest fallacies out of your supposed equation (like unemployment being "low"), and your whole argument falls on it's  Unemployment is low, because time for most people to be on unemployment has run out. It also does not address people who have jobs being subsidized by welfare and food stamps, in order to actually "live". (You know...like Walmart employees). 2 am, I think you should keep your day job, and try not be involved with "economics", especially Keynesian Economics. Remember when Bernie confused the risk and collateralization of college loans vs home loans?
Do you think 170 "economists" also agree with that?
|
|
MEEK AND MILD
|
| |
|
Right-Wing
|
Apr 17 2016, 11:32 PM
Post #15
|
|
- Posts:
- 5,647
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #118
- Joined:
- Mar 22, 2016
|
- Gizmolove
- Apr 17 2016, 10:52 PM
- Two a.m.
- Apr 17 2016, 10:42 PM
- Opinionated
- Apr 17 2016, 06:44 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
You said he was "vested in maintaining the status quo as is much of the ruling elites" and implied that radical change would "cost" him something personally. Your second post paints a very different picture of his motives. You act as though he is just naive and myopic unable to understand that incrementalism doesn't work. In one formulation he is an active part of the dark, evil forces arrayed against the people. In the other, he's simply and ineffective dupe. Which is it? Multiple ChoiceKrugman is: A) Wrong B) Ill informed C) Not very good at economics D) Has an alterior motive for his opinions E) All of the above
|
|
Donald Trump is Barack Obama's President!
|
| |
|
Right-Wing
|
Apr 17 2016, 11:36 PM
Post #16
|
|
- Posts:
- 5,647
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #118
- Joined:
- Mar 22, 2016
|

|
|
Donald Trump is Barack Obama's President!
|
| |
|
Two a.m.
|
Apr 17 2016, 11:46 PM
Post #17
|
|
- Posts:
- 4,133
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- Gizmolove
- Apr 17 2016, 11:11 PM
- Two a.m.
- Apr 17 2016, 10:52 PM
- Gizmolove
- Apr 17 2016, 10:42 PM
170 Economists Endorse Bernie Sanders’ Plan To Reform Wall St. And Rein In Greed"170 of the nation’s top economists have released a letter endorsing Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’s plan to reform Wall Street. A letter signed by 170 economists including former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, University of Texas Professor James K. Galbraith, Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC., Brad Miller, former U.S. Congressman from North Carolina, and William K. Black, University of Missouri-Kansas City endorsed the Sanders plan to reform Wall Street. The economists wrote: In our view, Sanders’ plan for comprehensive financial reform is critical for avoiding another ‘too-big-to-fail’ financial crisis. The Senator is correct that the biggest banks must be broken up and that a new 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act, separating investment from commercial banking, must be enacted. Wall Street’s largest banks are now far bigger than they were before the crisis, and they still have every incentive to take excessive risks. No major Wall Street executive has been indicted for the fraudulent behavior that led up to the 2008 crash, and fines imposed on the banks have been only a fraction of the banks’potential gains. In addition, the banks and their lobbyists have succeeded in watering down the Dodd-Frank reform legislation, and the financial institutions that pose the greatest risk to our economy have still not devised sufficient “living wills” for winding down their operations in the event of another crisis. Secretary Hillary Clinton’s more modest proposals do not go far enough. They call for a bit more oversight and a few new charges on shadow banking activity, but they leave intact thetitanic financial conglomerates that practice most shadow banking. As a result, her plan does not adequately reduce the serious risks our financial system poses to the American economy and to individual Americans. Given the size and political power of Wall Street, her proposals would only invite more dilution and finagle. The only way to contain Wall Street’s excesses is with reforms sufficiently bold and public theycan’t be watered down. That’s why we support Senator Sanders’s plans for busting up the biggestbanks and resurrecting a modernized version of Glass-Steagall...." http://www.politicususa.com/2016/01/14/170-economists-bernie-sanders-plan-reform-wall-st-rein-greed.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/18/the-economist-who-validated-bernie-sanders-big-liberal-plans-is-voting-for-hillary-clinton/But Goolsbee isn’t swayed by Friedman’s arguments, which he has said risk pushing Democrats into the fantastical high-growth projections that conservative economists – such as Arthur Laffer, who famously sketched a version of this idea on a xxxxtail napkin – say will follow large cuts in top income tax rates.
Krueger said in an email that Friedman had, among other issues, dramatically overestimated productivity growth in the future, ignored ways in which Sanders' programs would discourage some Americans from working and failed to account for the likelihood that the Federal Reserve would intervene to slow growth in a time of low unemployment in order to head off inflation.
“To be clear, our letter wasn't a critique of his study,” Goolsbee wrote. “It was a plea that we not invent a Vermont version of voodoo economics. If he wants to start using real economic data to analyze Sanders' policies, that's great.”
So, your source of one, trumps Bernie's economic sponsors of 170? I see, it's because he supports Hillary, and not real economic realities. Take one of the biggest fallacies out of your supposed equation (like unemployment being "low"), and your whole argument falls on it's  Unemployment is low, because time for most people to be on unemployment has run out. It also does not address people who have jobs being subsidized by welfare and food stamps, in order to actually "live". (You know...like Walmart employees). 2 am, I think you should keep your day job, and try not be involved with "economics", especially Keynesian Economics. Four economists are cited in the article, not just one. A fifth is also quoted who agrees with Sanders and even he's voting for Hillary. Plenty of economists agree with both candidates. I've read Bernie-supporter Robert Reich's arguments on his behalf. I like Reich but I found them speculative and unpersuasive. He said Sanders' numbers - which will never get through Congress anyway - can add up but he has to assume extremely strong growth rates as well as an unemployment rates that haven't existed since the 1960s.
As I say, unpersuasive.
As Goolsbee points out, what's essentially happening is that Bernie is producing a liberal version of the Laffer Curve - economics predicated not on real data but rather on highly speculative ideological theorism which patches together wishful thinking and invents unprecedented levels of growth to make the math add up.
We've had enough of that from the Republicans, thank you.
Edited by Two a.m., Apr 17 2016, 11:48 PM.
|
|
"The stars can be near or distant, according as we need them." - George Orwell, 1984
|
| |
|
estonianman
|
Apr 18 2016, 12:12 AM
Post #18
|
|
- Posts:
- 19,738
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #44
- Joined:
- Mar 19, 2016
|
|
|
MEEK AND MILD
|
| |
|
Gizmolove
|
Apr 18 2016, 03:17 AM
Post #19
|
|
Gizmolove
- Posts:
- 1,592
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #28
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- estonianman
- Apr 17 2016, 11:17 PM
- Gizmolove
- Apr 17 2016, 11:11 PM
- Two a.m.
- Apr 17 2016, 10:52 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep 170 Economists Endorse Bernie Sanders’ Plan To Reform Wall St. And Rein In Greed"170 of the nation’s top economists have released a letter endorsing Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’s plan to reform Wall Street. A letter signed by 170 economists including former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, University of Texas Professor James K. Galbraith, Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC., Brad Miller, former U.S. Congressman from North Carolina, and William K. Black, University of Missouri-Kansas City endorsed the Sanders plan to reform Wall Street. The economists wrote: In our view, Sanders’ plan for comprehensive financial reform is critical for avoiding another ‘too-big-to-fail’ financial crisis. The Senator is correct that the biggest banks must be broken up and that a new 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act, separating investment from commercial banking, must be enacted. Wall Street’s largest banks are now far bigger than they were before the crisis, and they still have every incentive to take excessive risks. No major Wall Street executive has been indicted for the fraudulent behavior that led up to the 2008 crash, and fines imposed on the banks have been only a fraction of the banks’potential gains. In addition, the banks and their lobbyists have succeeded in watering down the Dodd-Frank reform legislation, and the financial institutions that pose the greatest risk to our economy have still not devised sufficient “living wills” for winding down their operations in the event of another crisis. Secretary Hillary Clinton’s more modest proposals do not go far enough. They call for a bit more oversight and a few new charges on shadow banking activity, but they leave intact thetitanic financial conglomerates that practice most shadow banking. As a result, her plan does not adequately reduce the serious risks our financial system poses to the American economy and to individual Americans. Given the size and political power of Wall Street, her proposals would only invite more dilution and finagle. The only way to contain Wall Street’s excesses is with reforms sufficiently bold and public theycan’t be watered down. That’s why we support Senator Sanders’s plans for busting up the biggestbanks and resurrecting a modernized version of Glass-Steagall...." http://www.politicususa.com/2016/01/14/170-economists-bernie-sanders-plan-reform-wall-st-rein-greed.htmlhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/18/the-economist-who-validated-bernie-sanders-big-liberal-plans-is-voting-for-hillary-clinton/But Goolsbee isn’t swayed by Friedman’s arguments, which he has said risk pushing Democrats into the fantastical high-growth projections that conservative economists – such as Arthur Laffer, who famously sketched a version of this idea on a xxxxtail napkin – say will follow large cuts in top income tax rates.
Krueger said in an email that Friedman had, among other issues, dramatically overestimated productivity growth in the future, ignored ways in which Sanders' programs would discourage some Americans from working and failed to account for the likelihood that the Federal Reserve would intervene to slow growth in a time of low unemployment in order to head off inflation.
“To be clear, our letter wasn't a critique of his study,” Goolsbee wrote. “It was a plea that we not invent a Vermont version of voodoo economics. If he wants to start using real economic data to analyze Sanders' policies, that's great.”
So, your source of one, trumps Bernie's economic sponsors of 170? I see, it's because he supports Hillary, and not real economic realities. Take one of the biggest fallacies out of your supposed equation (like unemployment being "low"), and your whole argument falls on it's  Unemployment is low, because time for most people to be on unemployment has run out. It also does not address people who have jobs being subsidized by welfare and food stamps, in order to actually "live". (You know...like Walmart employees). 2 am, I think you should keep your day job, and try not be involved with "economics", especially Keynesian Economics.
Remember when Bernie confused the risk and collateralization of college loans vs home loans? Do you think 170 "economists" also agree with that? No matter what they agreed with, they support Bernie Sanders plan to reinvigorate the economy and deal with Wall Street, and the mess that the big banks have left this economy in. Hillary, and/or no other candidate can top that!
|
|
When it comes to lying, cheating, or stealing, consult your DNC or GOP handbook.
|
| |
|
Gizmolove
|
Apr 18 2016, 03:23 AM
Post #20
|
|
Gizmolove
- Posts:
- 1,592
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #28
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- Two a.m.
- Apr 17 2016, 11:46 PM
- Gizmolove
- Apr 17 2016, 11:11 PM
- Two a.m.
- Apr 17 2016, 10:52 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep 170 Economists Endorse Bernie Sanders’ Plan To Reform Wall St. And Rein In Greed"170 of the nation’s top economists have released a letter endorsing Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’s plan to reform Wall Street. A letter signed by 170 economists including former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, University of Texas Professor James K. Galbraith, Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC., Brad Miller, former U.S. Congressman from North Carolina, and William K. Black, University of Missouri-Kansas City endorsed the Sanders plan to reform Wall Street. The economists wrote: In our view, Sanders’ plan for comprehensive financial reform is critical for avoiding another ‘too-big-to-fail’ financial crisis. The Senator is correct that the biggest banks must be broken up and that a new 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act, separating investment from commercial banking, must be enacted. Wall Street’s largest banks are now far bigger than they were before the crisis, and they still have every incentive to take excessive risks. No major Wall Street executive has been indicted for the fraudulent behavior that led up to the 2008 crash, and fines imposed on the banks have been only a fraction of the banks’potential gains. In addition, the banks and their lobbyists have succeeded in watering down the Dodd-Frank reform legislation, and the financial institutions that pose the greatest risk to our economy have still not devised sufficient “living wills” for winding down their operations in the event of another crisis. Secretary Hillary Clinton’s more modest proposals do not go far enough. They call for a bit more oversight and a few new charges on shadow banking activity, but they leave intact thetitanic financial conglomerates that practice most shadow banking. As a result, her plan does not adequately reduce the serious risks our financial system poses to the American economy and to individual Americans. Given the size and political power of Wall Street, her proposals would only invite more dilution and finagle. The only way to contain Wall Street’s excesses is with reforms sufficiently bold and public theycan’t be watered down. That’s why we support Senator Sanders’s plans for busting up the biggestbanks and resurrecting a modernized version of Glass-Steagall...." http://www.politicususa.com/2016/01/14/170-economists-bernie-sanders-plan-reform-wall-st-rein-greed.htmlhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/18/the-economist-who-validated-bernie-sanders-big-liberal-plans-is-voting-for-hillary-clinton/But Goolsbee isn’t swayed by Friedman’s arguments, which he has said risk pushing Democrats into the fantastical high-growth projections that conservative economists – such as Arthur Laffer, who famously sketched a version of this idea on a xxxxtail napkin – say will follow large cuts in top income tax rates.
Krueger said in an email that Friedman had, among other issues, dramatically overestimated productivity growth in the future, ignored ways in which Sanders' programs would discourage some Americans from working and failed to account for the likelihood that the Federal Reserve would intervene to slow growth in a time of low unemployment in order to head off inflation.
“To be clear, our letter wasn't a critique of his study,” Goolsbee wrote. “It was a plea that we not invent a Vermont version of voodoo economics. If he wants to start using real economic data to analyze Sanders' policies, that's great.”
So, your source of one, trumps Bernie's economic sponsors of 170? I see, it's because he supports Hillary, and not real economic realities. Take one of the biggest fallacies out of your supposed equation (like unemployment being "low"), and your whole argument falls on it's  Unemployment is low, because time for most people to be on unemployment has run out. It also does not address people who have jobs being subsidized by welfare and food stamps, in order to actually "live". (You know...like Walmart employees). 2 am, I think you should keep your day job, and try not be involved with "economics", especially Keynesian Economics.
Four economists are cited in the article, not just one. A fifth is also quoted who agrees with Sanders and even he's voting for Hillary. Plenty of economists agree with both candidates. I've read Bernie-supporter Robert Reich's arguments on his behalf. I like Reich but I found them speculative and unpersuasive. He said Sanders' numbers - which will never get through Congress anyway - can add up but he has to assume extremely strong growth rates as well as an unemployment rates that haven't existed since the 1960s. As I say, unpersuasive. As Goolsbee points out, what's essentially happening is that Bernie is producing a liberal version of the Laffer Curve - economics predicated not on real data but rather on highly speculative ideological theorism which patches together wishful thinking and invents unprecedented levels of growth to make the math add up. We've had enough of that from the Republicans, thank you. We haven't had any of Bernie's ideas from the Republicans, thank you. But, Clinton mouths republican plans for the economy by the minute!!!! Dodd Frank is the most republican friendly proposition since Reagan Economics, and his disingenuous "trickle down" theory!!!
|
|
When it comes to lying, cheating, or stealing, consult your DNC or GOP handbook.
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|