Paul Krugman: Racism, Not Economic Anxiety, Drives Trump Voters

[bambino]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

ftfy

I think Asswipe's health is on par with Hillarys. He only makes brief appearances now. He has no energy. He shits his diapers. He scoots around on a hoveround to suck cock at the glory holes.Pathetic.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Sistine Chapel

Paul Krugman on Tuesday brushed off the argument that voters are drawn to Donald Trump because his bombastic, anti-trade rhetoric offers them hope for the job market.


Rather, the Nobel Prize-winning economist said the Republican nominee plays to racial tensions among white, low-income voters who blame immigrants and people of color for their financial hardship.

Hilarious! Krugman was the Democrats' intellectual godfather for free trade and globalization. He's also their chief cheerleader in academia for doing something about income inequality. This creates a dilemma, because globalization and technology are the chief culprits behind increasing inequality and declining middle class wages.

No one except an idiot would argue against technology. And Krugman can't really argue against free trade/globalization either. Hell, that's why they awarded the fucker the Nobel prize, for his theories showing that free trade is good between countries that have no comparative advantage.

So what's the solution? Blame the Republicans, racist sons of bitches, of course.

Personally I don't believe the solution for our economic ills like underemployment and declining wages is clamping down on free trade. Yes, we haven't been tough enough negotiators. But better education is more important. And business and investment friendly policies, that would boost economic growth, and increase demand for labor and thus wages. But then those solutions would piss off the teachers' unions. And they would encourage people to work and receive good wages instead of sitting on their asses and living off the dole. And there's no way the Democrat Party is going to antagonize two of its chief constituencies, the teachers unions and the ass-sitters. Calling Republicans racists is a better strategy for staying in power than actually trying to improve economic growth.

[dilbert firestorm]

you all forgot that paul Krugman is aa big time advocate of Keynes deficit spending. his mantra... more is good for the country.

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Hilarious! Krugman was the Democrats' intellectual godfather for free trade and globalization. He's also their chief cheerleader in academia for doing something about income inequality. This creates a dilemma, because globalization and technology are the chief culprits behind increasing inequality and declining middle class wages.

No one except an idiot would argue against technology. And Krugman can't really argue against free trade/globalization either. Hell, that's why they awarded the fucker the Nobel prize, for his theories showing that free trade is good between countries that have no comparative advantage.

So what's the solution? Blame the Republicans, racist sons of bitches, of course.

Personally I don't believe the solution for our economic ills like underemployment and declining wages is clamping down on free trade. Yes, we haven't been tough enough negotiators. But better education is more important. And business and investment friendly policies, that would boost economic growth, and increase demand for labor and thus wages. But then those solutions would piss off the teachers' unions. And they would encourage people to work and receive good wages instead of sitting on their asses and living off the dole. And there's no way the Democrat Party is going to antagonize two of its chief constituencies, the teachers unions and the ass-sitters. Calling Republicans racists is a better strategy for staying in power than actually trying to improve economic growth.

Good post.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Hilarious! Krugman was the Democrats' intellectual godfather for free trade and globalization. He's also their chief cheerleader in academia for doing something about income inequality. This creates a dilemma, because globalization and technology are the chief culprits behind increasing inequality and declining middle class wages.

No one except an idiot would argue against technology. And Krugman can't really argue against free trade/globalization either. Hell, that's why they awarded the fucker the Nobel prize, for his theories showing that free trade is good between countries that have no comparative advantage.

So what's the solution? Blame the Republicans, racist sons of bitches, of course.

Personally I don't believe the solution for our economic ills like underemployment and declining wages is clamping down on free trade. Yes, we haven't been tough enough negotiators. But better education is more important. And business and investment friendly policies, that would boost economic growth, and increase demand for labor and thus wages. But then those solutions would piss off the teachers' unions. And they would encourage people to work and receive good wages instead of sitting on their asses and living off the dole. And there's no way the Democrat Party is going to antagonize two of its chief constituencies, the teachers unions and the ass-sitters. Calling Republicans racists is a better strategy for staying in power than actually trying to improve economic growth.

Tiny is one of the few eccie posters who GETS it! Thanks for playing BASH THE KRUGTRON!

Quick question - do you have any good source summarizing Paul Krugman's "contribution" to our understanding of international trade theory (a heavily researched topic) and why it was considered Nobel-worthy or ground-breaking in any way?

It is discouraging to see the candidates of BOTH major political parties seeking to out-vie each other in embracing protectionism and spurning free trade. Most of the jobs we have "lost" in the past two decades were not the result of free trade agreements, but rather were due to technological innovation. They're not coming back, nor should we want them back. And we picked up thousands of new jobs at companies such as Caterpillar and Boeing due to their expanded access to new export markets - but nobody talks about that. Broadly speaking, free trade has served us well since the end of WWII. Trade volume has expanded much faster than global GDP growth, which means it has been a major driver of our growth. Below is a pretty good analysis for anyone interested in sweeping away the demagoguery and examining the facts. Of course, you won't hear Paul Krugman waxing eloquently on the blessings of free trade these days. He adjusts his economic views (e.g. on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement) according to the latest political weather-vane, notwithstanding what he once claimed to believe when he received a Nobel.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/artic...th-about-trade

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Tiny is one of the few eccie posters who GETS it! Thanks for playing BASH THE KRUGTRON!

Quick question - do you have any good source summarizing Paul Krugman's "contribution" to our understanding of international trade theory (a heavily researched topic) and why it was considered Nobel-worthy or ground-breaking in any way?

It is discouraging to see the candidates of BOTH major political parties seeking to out-vie each other in embracing protectionism and spurning free trade. Most of the jobs we have "lost" in the past two decades were not the result of free trade agreements, but rather were due to technological innovation. They're not coming back, nor should we want them back. And we picked up thousands of new jobs at companies such as Caterpillar and Boeing due to their expanded access to new export markets - but nobody talks about that. Broadly speaking, free trade has served us well since the end of WWII. Trade volume has expanded much faster than global GDP growth, which means it has been a major driver of our growth. Below is a pretty good analysis for anyone interested in sweeping away the demagoguery and examining the facts. Of course, you won't hear Paul Krugman waxing eloquently on the blessings of free trade these days. He adjusts his economic views (e.g. on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement) according to the latest political weather-vane, notwithstanding what he once claimed to believe when he received a Nobel.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/artic...th-about-trade

Free trade a good thing? some would disagree with that

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Hey, are we having a Paul Krugman bash? Ok, I'll play!

OK, I'm a little late to the party -- but I'll play, too!

In fact, I've played that game a time or two in the past. For instance (from 2012):

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...4&postcount=21

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...7&postcount=34

(Be sure to check out the amusing short video clip linked in that last post!)

The Great and Powerful Krugtron was getting even more exercised than usual during the run-up to the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (a misnomer if there ever was one). Was that because it was ill-designed and mostly wasted? Well, no. It was because he thought it wasn't big enough! (Yes, seriously.) Krugman's back-of-the-envelope estimate of the "output gap" was something like $2 trillion, and he opined that we needed to fill it in completely with a new surge of federal government spending. On top of that, he suggested in an interview (in 2010 or 2011, as I recall) that we also needed to do QE in the amount of $8-10 trillion(!)

Krugman's prescribed response to almost any economic ill involves massive government intervention and a big surge of spending. He seems to feel that the economy might collapse into a black hole if not medicated in that manner.

Yet more over 100 years prior to the Great Depression, the economy rebounded sharply from all sorts of crises -- deflation, rapid inflation, bank panics, burst speculative bubbles, etc.

Many people forget that the first year of the severe deflationary recession of 1920-21 was considered by many economic historians to be more severe than the first year of the Great Depression. It followed a period of speculative excesses and inflationary pressures that built up during and shortly following World War I.

What did the government do to combat that severe recession? Well, not much. In fact, Harding called for, and congress passed, cuts in both taxes and spending. Before long, the economy started cooking again.

Jim Grant is the founder of Grant's Interest Rate Observer, which many of us read regularly in the 1980s and '90s. Here is his take on the issue:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.57c5d04b04be

So, Professor Krugman, could you please explain why the economy didn't simply collapse into a black hole in the early 1920s?

Inquiring minds would like to know!
.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Quick question - do you have any good source summarizing Paul Krugman's "contribution" to our understanding of international trade theory (a heavily researched topic) and why it was considered Nobel-worthy or ground-breaking in any way?

Sorry Lustylad, I haven't been following this thread -- just checked in to read Captain Midnight's excellent post.

I don't have a good source. I've read several times through the years in the popular press about Krugman's research and his advocacy of globalization and free trade. Wikipedia though does have a good, short summary of his work.

There's a blog an economist writes, debunking Krugman's bs,

http://krugman-in-wonderland.blogspot.com/

It's been years since I took a look at it. And it looks like it's been years since he posted something new.

Midnight, The guy scares the crap out of me. Keynes said you pay back debt when times are good. Krugman on the other hand apparently believes you can spend and spend and spend until finally, I guess, the country goes bankrupt. Maybe you could call it the Greek or Zimbabwe model.

[southtown4488]

Funny thing is, free trade has been a staple of mainstream Republicanism until the past few years. It seems the two parties are in the middle of switching positions on this issue.

Trump is clearly against free trade. . . Hillary seems to want to support it, except Sanders and his supporters pushed her to backtrack on it, specifically TPP.

[Texas Contrarian]

Scattershooting while wondering what happened to the legacy of J. M. Keynes:

(With apologies to the late Blackie Sherrod)

Originally Posted by Tiny

Midnight, The guy scares the crap out of me. Me, too! Keynes said you pay back debt when times are good. Indeed! (See below.) Krugman on the other hand apparently believes you can spend and spend and spend until finally, I guess, the country goes bankrupt. Maybe you could call it the Greek or Zimbabwe model. That, or maybe the "Japanese model," since Japan is another advanced industrial state that for many years has seemed hell-bent on running up public debt like there's no tomorrow, with nothing to show for it in the way of sustainable economic growth.

Back in Keynes's day, it had been a long-held practice for governments to run surpluses (or at least keep budgets in balance) during normal, non-war times. The essential idea was that deficit spending was appropriate only as a countercyclical measure during downturns. Many students today feel that Keynes would have been aghast at some of the practices now invoked in his name.

Another thing people often forget is that Keynes's early followers urged, as World War II was ending, that postwar spending levels be maintained at very high (near wartime) levels, lest we remain in an endless depression. Keynes (who died in 1946) said that was nonsense, and of course his view was correct.

Left-wing economists like Krugman love to ingratiate themselves to the political elite, who in turn invoke their doctrine to undergird arguments supporting all manner of bloated, pork-laden "infrastructure" projects (irrespective of whether said "infrastructure" is useful or needed, or indeed whether it ought to be considered the domain of the federal government).

After all, what's more fun for an ambitious politician than buying votes with other people's money?
.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by southtown4488

Funny thing is, free trade has been a staple of mainstream Republicanism until the past few years. It seems the two parties are in the middle of switching positions on this issue.

Trump is clearly against free trade. . . Hillary seems to want to support it, except Sanders and his supporters pushed her to backtrack on it, specifically TPP.

No dumb cunt, Trump is against trade deals that fuck American workers and benefits Multi National corporations and corrupt politicians like Clinton you stupid cunt.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Is this Krugman approved?

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...-voting-today/

Almost a decade has passed without a federal budget. The 2009 ARRA (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act), otherwise known as “The $1,000,000,000,000 ’09 Stimulus Bill”, has been spent every year for the past 7 fiscal years.

I would like to hear from Lusy, tiny and CM on this. NOT the article but the statement... Thanks in advance guys.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Is this Krugman approved?

I would like to hear from Lusty, tiny and CM on this. NOT the article but the statement... Thanks in advance guys.

The Obama stimulus plan (known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act or ARRA) was passed in Feb. 2009. Total stimulus amount was a little over $800 billion, of which 1/3 consisted of tax cuts and 2/3 was in the form of extra federal spending. Most of this total kicked in over a three-year period 2009-2011. Here is a rough chart showing stimulus amount by year:



The cumulative ARRA stimulus came in under $1 trillion and was spread over multiple years. So the statement that we spent an extra $1 trillion each year for 7 straight years is nonsense. What is true is that the normal federal budget process has been broken since 2008. In lieu of a budget, Congress has limped along by passing one CR (Continuing Resolution) after another.

The above bar chart is from a 2011 NYT article by an economist (Casey Mulligan) who regarded the Keynesian multiplier-based claims about the benefits/effectiveness of the stimulus with great skepticism (see link below).

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...-the-stimulus/

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by bambino

I think Asswipe's health is on par with Hillarys. He only makes brief appearances now. He has no energy. He shits his diapers. He scoots around on a hoveround to suck cock at the glory holes.Pathetic.

He has a business. And its booming in President Obama's economy.

As far as my health goes, it's never been better, not that it's any of your business. In fact, speculating about my health is a bannable offense, isn't it, Limpdick.

Do you have a skill? A job? Or are you, like several other of our membership, a permanent disability shithead taker, Lardass?

Keep this up and let's see where it goes...

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by bambino

No dumb cunt, Trump is against trade deals that fuck American workers and benefits Multi National corporations and corrupt politicians like Clinton you stupid cunt.

You're the dumb cunt. If you can say what Drumpf is for or against than you obviously have been bamboozled, Baboono!