New CBO numbers: Obamacare will cost the US 2.5 million jobs

Maybe part of the issue is y'all weighing so heavily the opinion of economists. Economists don't stitch wounds, feed people, build shelter, or create anything of value. They only create self-serving hypotheses. Economists sit in their own feces masturbating. Fuck economists. Originally Posted by JohnnyCap

Your characterization is not entirely inaccurate. But then you wake up one day and discover we have runaway inflation, or a collapsing dollar, or soaring layoffs, or unsustainable public debts, or (gulp) all of the above - and suddenly you yell at the economists to stop masturbating and tell us how can we fix this mess.

Surprised you didn't mention Chile and their Death Squads...
http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ile-earthquake




Personally I agree with this assessment

http://myweb.liu.edu/~uroy/eco54/his...dKeynes-SP.htm Originally Posted by WTF

First link is wildly inaccurate libtard historical revisionism... second link is better.

"... Friedman improved the quality of thinking in every debate he entered."

Very true. Sometimes in smackdown rather than debate mode:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

where does,it say 2.3 million jobs,would be lost.

It doesn't.

so you're making up more shit for a change.

Big fucking whoop

where does,it say 2.3 million jobs,would be lost.

It doesn't.

so you're making up more shit for a change.

Big fucking whoop Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

You're the one who is "making up more shit". You already asked this moronic question 144 posts ago. Are you blind, stupid, lazy or all three? Here is the link, read it for yourself and stop wasting everyone's time:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.document...bor-report.pdf

"CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the total number of hours worked, on net, by about 1.5 percent to 2.0 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024, almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor... The reduction in CBO’s projections of hours worked represents a decline in the number of full-time-equivalent workers of about 2.0 million in 2017, rising to about 2.5 million in 2024."

Sheesh.

Your characterization is not entirely inaccurate. But then you wake up one day and discover we have runaway inflation, or a collapsing dollar, or soaring layoffs, or unsustainable public debts, or (gulp) all of the above - and suddenly you yell at the economists to stop masturbating and tell us how can we fix this mess. Originally Posted by lustylad

That would be like asking the rapist to restore my daughter's virginity.

I was being kind before. The start of the solution would be a firing squad for all economists. Maybe they could be allowed to live if they promised not to speak or write.

But the idea of thinking those who fucked the monkey can un-fuck it is ludicrous.

First link is wildly inaccurate libtard historical revisionism... second link is better.
Originally Posted by lustylad

What part is inaccurate Dickhead?

second link is better.

"... Friedman improved the quality of thinking in every debate he entered."

Very true. Sometimes in smackdown rather than debate mode:
Originally Posted by lustylad

You do understand the point of the second link? No you don't. A shame really. Let me explain it to you, Friedman's policies are no longer good for this era.....just as JMK were no longer good at some point in history. In a ever changing eco system , what was once good policy may be out of date. The article was not a slam to Keynes but a salute to both Keynes and Friedman....I think he threw in Galbreth (sp) too.

Personally I agree with this assessment

http://myweb.liu.edu/~uroy/eco54/his...dKeynes-SP.htm

The dirty little secret is that there are few scientific truths in economics analogous to the laws of thermodynamics or genetics. Economics is a social science, not a physical one, in which people and systems are constantly adapting to changing conditions. The policies that may be good for one era may not be right for the next. And it is the truly great economists who spot the changing dynamics, acknowledge the inadequacy of the old prescriptions and are clever enough to come up with something better.

Originally Posted by WTF

What part is inaccurate Dickhead?


You do understand the point of the second link? No you don't. A shame really. Let me explain it to you, Friedman's policies are no longer good for this era.....just as JMK were no longer good at some point in history. In a ever changing eco system , what was once good policy may be out of date. The article was not a slam to Keynes but a salute to both Keynes and Friedman....I think he threw in Galbreth (sp) too. Originally Posted by WTF

leave these old derelicts to their own design ... the 60's suits them well ..

I was being kind before. The start of the solution would be a firing squad for all economists. Maybe they could be allowed to live if they promised not to speak or write.

But the idea of thinking those who fucked the monkey can un-fuck it is ludicrous. Originally Posted by JohnnyCap

Economists can recommend policies but can't implement them. Implementation is up to our elected representatives and professional politicians. Most of them are lawyers with little or no background in economics. They're the ones who fucked the monkey and deserve the firing squad.

What part is inaccurate Dickhead?

Pinochet's economic record is completely distorted. You are way off topic here. Start another thread if you want to discuss Chile.


You do understand the point of the second link? No you don't. A shame really. Let me explain it to you, Friedman's policies are no longer good for this era.....just as JMK were no longer good at some point in history. In a ever changing eco system , what was once good policy may be out of date. The article was not a slam to Keynes but a salute to both Keynes and Friedman....I think he threw in Galbreth (sp) too.


You make too many blanket statements. However, I agree with you (who woulda thunk it, fagboy?) that "what was once good policy may be out of date". Friedman's biggest contributions were in analyzing the effects of monetary policy. Wish he was around today to opine on QE. Right now inflation is subdued. If/when it comes roaring back, Friedman's analyses will be back in fashion.
Originally Posted by WTF

xx

Pinochet's economic record is completely distorted. You are way off topic here. Start another thread if you want to discuss Chile.
Originally Posted by lustylad

Is it a distortion that he had Death Squads?

You make too many blanket statements. However, I agree with you (who woulda thunk it, fagboy?) that "what was once good policy may be out of date". Friedman's biggest contributions were in analyzing the effects of monetary policy. Wish he was around today to opine on QE. Right now inflation is subdued. If/when it comes roaring back, Friedman's analyses will be back in fashion. Originally Posted by lustylad

Just like Keynes was back in fashion after the '08 meltdown.

Just like Keynes was back in fashion after the '08 meltdown.

Originally Posted by WTF

Keynes was an advocate of higher government spending during recessions. Libtards like you have distorted his teachings to justify perpetual spending on your pet programs in good years and bad. You gleefully invoke Keynes as giving you a license to run spending deficits throughout the entire business cycle. You are heretics who have given Keynes a bad name.

Why is the economy in recession 10% of the time yet the federal budget is in deficit 90% of the time?

Chew on that one, fagboy.

Keynes was an advocate of higher government spending during recessions. Libtards like you have distorted his teachings to justify perpetual spending on your pet programs in good years and bad. You gleefully invoke Keynes as giving you a license to run spending deficits throughout the entire business cycle. You are heretics who have given Keynes a bad name.

Why is the economy in recession 10% of the time yet the federal budget is in deficit 90% of the time?

. Originally Posted by lustylad

No you dumb fuck...I understood we should not have lowered taxes in the mid decade. Taxes were to high when Reagan lowered them...but not so when GWB did so. And Reagan even raised them back! Not that you God Damn Tea Turkeys understand simple math. Start a War and lower taxes....who knew that would lead to a huge deficit!

I wasn't the one falling for this Trickle down Laffer Curve BS.

Economists can recommend policies but can't implement them. Implementation is up to our elected representatives and professional politicians. Most of them are lawyers with little or no background in economics. They're the ones who fucked the monkey and deserve the firing squad. Originally Posted by lustylad

Another trip to Jackson Hole, please?



I have to pay taxes, too?



Piss on these fuckin' turds.

No you dumb fuck...I understood we should not have lowered taxes in the mid decade. Taxes were to high when Reagan lowered them...but not so when GWB did so. And Reagan even raised them back! Not that you God Damn Tea Turkeys understand simple math. Start a War and lower taxes....who knew that would lead to a huge deficit!

I wasn't the one falling for this Trickle down Laffer Curve BS. Originally Posted by WTF

The Laffer Curve earned its name from a 1978 article by the late Jude Wanniski (then-associate editor of the Wall Street Journal) appearing in The Public Interest entitled, “Taxes, Revenues, and the ‘Laffer Curve.’” Wanniski recounted a 1974 dinner he attended with Arthur Laffer (the professor at The University of Chicago), Donald Rumsfeld (chief of staff to President Gerald Ford), and Dick Cheney (Rumsfeld’s deputy and a former classmate of Laffer’s). When the foursome’s dinner discussion turned to President Ford’s “WIN” (Whip Inflation Now) proposal for tax increases, Dr. Laffer is said to have grabbed his napkin to sketch the curve as an illustration of the tradeoff between tax rates and tax revenues. Wanniski dubbed the tradeoff described as the “Laffer Curve.”


a fukin NAPKIN ... !!

small wonder shit like that makes sense to IDIOTS ..

Taxes were to (sic) high when Reagan lowered them...but not so when GWB did so. Originally Posted by WTF

Let's see... When Reagan came in (1981) federal taxes were running at 19.6% of GDP... when GWB came in (2001) they were running at 19.5% of GDP... yeah right, fagboy, great point there! I see the difference.

No you dumb fuck... I understood we should not have lowered taxes in the mid decade... Start a War and lower taxes....who knew that would lead to a huge deficit! Originally Posted by WTF

You misdiagnosed the problem. Bushieboy's biggest failure was not controlling spending. He was indistinguishable from you libtards in that respect. There was no revenue problem. In fact, federal revenues swelled by 44% between 2003 (when taxes were cut) and 2007, jumping from $1,783 bn to $2,568 bn. Sorta counter-intuitive, huh? Chew on that, fagboy.

Only a retard would blame budget deficits a decade later on the Bushie tax cuts. To put it in perspective - what if Gerald Ford back in 1974 said the JFK tax cuts (enacted in 1964) were responsible for ballooning the deficit under his watch? He would have been laughed at and ridiculed by every economist alive.