The Krugtron, the ever-charming economist/lib-retarded political hack at the New York Times, has been seriously freaking out and having an extended nervous breakdown ever since the election. A few weeks ago, he warned us Trump will sell out the Baltic States to Putin in return for a few nice bribes. Seriously, I can't make this stuff up.
Now he says Trump wants the US to suffer another 9/11-type attack. The guy is beneath contempt. Trump called him "demented" but that's too mild an adjective. How does this hysterical fucktard keep his job at the New York Times?
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump...rugman-2016-12
- lustylad
- 12-19-2016, 10:25 PM
- CuteOldGuy
- 12-20-2016, 02:14 AM
Krugman is a demented, dangerous man.
- LexusLover
- 12-20-2016, 05:12 AM
There will be an attempt .... while the current wimp is struggling to keep the ENTIRE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY focused on drumming up an excuse for the defeat of his HEIR APPARENT, who just shot herself in both feet AFTER SHE LOST THE ELECTION along with her MOUTH PIECE the LIBERAL MEDIA!
Obaminable is concerned about salvaging his "LEGACY" not the country.
Obaminable is concerned about salvaging his "LEGACY" not the country.
- Rey Lengua
- 12-20-2016, 10:56 AM
The Krugtron, the ever-charming economist/lib-retarded political hack at the New York Times, has been seriously freaking out and having an extended nervous breakdown ever since the election. A few weeks ago, he warned us Trump will sell out the Baltic States to Putin in return for a few nice bribes. Seriously, I can't make this stuff up.The New Yack Times is notorious for having liars on their staff. Jason Blair, anyone ?
Now he says Trump wants the US to suffer another 9/11-type attack. The guy is beneath contempt. Trump called him "demented" but that's too mild an adjective. How does this hysterical fucktard keep his job at the New York Times?
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump...rugman-2016-12 Originally Posted by lustylad
- LexusLover
- 12-20-2016, 03:47 PM
The current events emphasize the importance of greater diligence.
Trump is smart to keep his loyal security man close.
Trump is smart to keep his loyal security man close.
- bambino
- 12-20-2016, 07:36 PM
Krugman was born with a vagina.
- Texas Contrarian
- 12-31-2016, 02:19 PM
Ol' Paul can be relied upon to simultaneously amuse and offend. Not intentionally, of course.
His talents are legendary!
Do you remember when, just a few days after the 9/11 attacks, he said they might actually offer some economic benefits? (Yes, seriously!)
See @ http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/14/op...he-horror.html
Reckonings; After The Horror
By PAUL KRUGMAN SEPT. 14, 2001
It seems almost in bad taste to talk about dollars and cents after an act of mass murder. Nonetheless, we must ask about the economic aftershocks from Tuesday's horror.
These aftershocks need not be major. Ghastly as it may seem to say this, the terror attack -- like the original day of infamy, which brought an end to the Great Depression -- could even do some economic good. But there are already ominous indications that some will see this tragedy not as an occasion for true national unity, but as an opportunity for political profiteering.
About the direct economic impact: The nation's productive base has not been seriously damaged. Our economy is so huge that the scenes of destruction, awesome as they are, are only a pinprick. The World Trade Center contained 12 million square feet of office space; that's out of 375 million square feet in Manhattan alone, and 3.5 billion in the United States as a whole. Nobody has a dollar figure for the damage yet, but I would be surprised if the loss is more than 0.1 percent of U.S. wealth -- comparable to the material effects of a major earthquake or hurricane.
The wild card here is confidence. But the confidence that matters in this case has little to do with general peace of mind. If people rush out to buy bottled water and canned goods, that will actually boost the economy. For a few weeks horrified Americans may be in no mood to buy anything but necessities. But once the shock has passed it's hard to believe that consumer spending will be much affected.
Will investors flee stocks and corporate bonds for safer assets? Such a reaction wouldn't make much sense -- after all, terrorists are not going to blow up the S.&P. 500. True, markets do sometimes react irrationally, and some foreign markets plunged after the attack. Since then, however, they have stabilized. On the whole it's just as well that our own markets have stayed closed for a few days, giving investors time to calm down; the administration was wrong to put pressure on stock markets to reopen right away. By the time the markets do reopen, the worst panic will probably be behind us.
So the direct economic impact of the attacks will probably not be that bad. And there will, potentially, be two favorable effects.
First, the driving force behind the economic slowdown has been a plunge in business investment. Now, all of a sudden, we need some new office buildings. As I've already indicated, the destruction isn't big compared with the economy, but rebuilding will generate at least some increase in business spending.
Second, the attack opens the door to some sensible recession-fighting measures. For the last few weeks there has been a heated debate among liberals over whether to advocate the classic Keynesian response to economic slowdown, a temporary burst of public spending. There were plausible economic arguments in favor of such a move, but it was questionable whether Congress could agree on how to spend the money in time to be of any use -- and there was also the certainty that conservatives would refuse to accept any such move unless it were tied to another round of irresponsible long-term tax cuts. Now it seems that we will indeed get a quick burst of public spending, however tragic the reasons.
Now for the bad news. After the attacks, I found myself wondering whether some politicians would try to exploit the horror to push their usual partisan agendas. Then I chided myself for such an uncharitable thought. But it seems you can't be too cynical; sure enough, the push is already on to sell tax breaks for corporations and a cut in the capital gains tax as a response to terrorism.
One hopes that the White House will distance itself from this disgraceful opportunism, that it will deliver the bipartisanship it originally promised. But initial indications are not good: the administration developed its request for emergency funding in consultation with Congressional Republicans -- full stop. A Democratic contact says that his party received ''no consultation, no collaboration, virtually no information.''
I didn't want to mention this, but now is the time to draw the line. This tragedy will only be magnified if it is exploited for political gain. Politicians who wrap themselves in the flag while relentlessly pursuing their usual partisan agenda are not true patriots, and history will not forgive them.
(End of article.)
Wow. Following that line of reasoning, why limit the efforts to small-ball? Why not go all-in? Evacuate downtown office buildings all over the nation and let the Air Force use them for target practice. After all, if destroying and rebuilding just one pair of twin skyscrapers would give a little boost to the economy, imagine how much stimulus you could place into effect if you obliterated $100 billion worth of stuff!
It seems that the Great and Powerful Krugtron is an unabashed supporter of Bastiat's "Broken window parable."
.
His talents are legendary!
Do you remember when, just a few days after the 9/11 attacks, he said they might actually offer some economic benefits? (Yes, seriously!)
See @ http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/14/op...he-horror.html
Reckonings; After The Horror
By PAUL KRUGMAN SEPT. 14, 2001
It seems almost in bad taste to talk about dollars and cents after an act of mass murder. Nonetheless, we must ask about the economic aftershocks from Tuesday's horror.
These aftershocks need not be major. Ghastly as it may seem to say this, the terror attack -- like the original day of infamy, which brought an end to the Great Depression -- could even do some economic good. But there are already ominous indications that some will see this tragedy not as an occasion for true national unity, but as an opportunity for political profiteering.
About the direct economic impact: The nation's productive base has not been seriously damaged. Our economy is so huge that the scenes of destruction, awesome as they are, are only a pinprick. The World Trade Center contained 12 million square feet of office space; that's out of 375 million square feet in Manhattan alone, and 3.5 billion in the United States as a whole. Nobody has a dollar figure for the damage yet, but I would be surprised if the loss is more than 0.1 percent of U.S. wealth -- comparable to the material effects of a major earthquake or hurricane.
The wild card here is confidence. But the confidence that matters in this case has little to do with general peace of mind. If people rush out to buy bottled water and canned goods, that will actually boost the economy. For a few weeks horrified Americans may be in no mood to buy anything but necessities. But once the shock has passed it's hard to believe that consumer spending will be much affected.
Will investors flee stocks and corporate bonds for safer assets? Such a reaction wouldn't make much sense -- after all, terrorists are not going to blow up the S.&P. 500. True, markets do sometimes react irrationally, and some foreign markets plunged after the attack. Since then, however, they have stabilized. On the whole it's just as well that our own markets have stayed closed for a few days, giving investors time to calm down; the administration was wrong to put pressure on stock markets to reopen right away. By the time the markets do reopen, the worst panic will probably be behind us.
So the direct economic impact of the attacks will probably not be that bad. And there will, potentially, be two favorable effects.
First, the driving force behind the economic slowdown has been a plunge in business investment. Now, all of a sudden, we need some new office buildings. As I've already indicated, the destruction isn't big compared with the economy, but rebuilding will generate at least some increase in business spending.
Second, the attack opens the door to some sensible recession-fighting measures. For the last few weeks there has been a heated debate among liberals over whether to advocate the classic Keynesian response to economic slowdown, a temporary burst of public spending. There were plausible economic arguments in favor of such a move, but it was questionable whether Congress could agree on how to spend the money in time to be of any use -- and there was also the certainty that conservatives would refuse to accept any such move unless it were tied to another round of irresponsible long-term tax cuts. Now it seems that we will indeed get a quick burst of public spending, however tragic the reasons.
Now for the bad news. After the attacks, I found myself wondering whether some politicians would try to exploit the horror to push their usual partisan agendas. Then I chided myself for such an uncharitable thought. But it seems you can't be too cynical; sure enough, the push is already on to sell tax breaks for corporations and a cut in the capital gains tax as a response to terrorism.
One hopes that the White House will distance itself from this disgraceful opportunism, that it will deliver the bipartisanship it originally promised. But initial indications are not good: the administration developed its request for emergency funding in consultation with Congressional Republicans -- full stop. A Democratic contact says that his party received ''no consultation, no collaboration, virtually no information.''
I didn't want to mention this, but now is the time to draw the line. This tragedy will only be magnified if it is exploited for political gain. Politicians who wrap themselves in the flag while relentlessly pursuing their usual partisan agenda are not true patriots, and history will not forgive them.
(End of article.)
Wow. Following that line of reasoning, why limit the efforts to small-ball? Why not go all-in? Evacuate downtown office buildings all over the nation and let the Air Force use them for target practice. After all, if destroying and rebuilding just one pair of twin skyscrapers would give a little boost to the economy, imagine how much stimulus you could place into effect if you obliterated $100 billion worth of stuff!
It seems that the Great and Powerful Krugtron is an unabashed supporter of Bastiat's "Broken window parable."
.
- lustylad
- 12-31-2016, 05:14 PM
Do you remember when, just a few days after the 9/11 attacks, he said they might actually offer some economic benefits? (Yes, seriously!)
....
Wow. Following that line of reasoning, why limit the efforts to small-ball? Why not go all-in? Evacuate downtown office buildings all over the nation and let the Air Force use them for target practice. After all, if destroying and rebuilding just one pair of twin skyscrapers would give a little boost to the economy, imagine how much stimulus you could place into effect if you obliterated $100 billion worth of stuff!
It seems that the Great and Powerful Krugtron is an unabashed supporter of Bastiat's "Broken window parable." Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight
Lol... good post, Cap'n!
The Krugtron has written some pretty flaky nonsense over the years. Besides his cringe-worthy reference to the demise of the World Trade Center ("rebuilding will generate at least some increase in business spending") I also liked this line from his 9/11 analysis:
“If people rush out to buy bottled water and canned goods, that will actually boost the economy....”
Brilliant! Thank you, Paul! Did you rush out to buy stock in Evian Water and Dole Foods?
This guy deserves a Nobel Prize about as much as Obama did!
- lustylad
- 12-31-2016, 05:19 PM
It seems that the Great and Powerful Krugtron is an unabashed supporter of Bastiat's "Broken window parable." Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight+1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabl..._broken_window
Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James Goodfellow, when his careless son has happened to break a pane of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation – "It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?"
Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.
Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade – that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs – I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.
But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen."
It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.
- Frederic Bastiat, 1850
- Sistine Chapel
- 12-31-2016, 06:56 PM
of course he would. Let's not forget in 2007 he openly rooted for the housing market to crash so he could cash in.
Trump in 2007: 'I'm Excited' for Housing Market Crash
Trump in 2007: 'I'm Excited' for Housing Market Crash
"People have been talking about the end of the cycle for 12 years, and I'm excited if it is,' he told the Globe and Mail in March of 2007. "I've always made more money in bad markets than in good markets."
At that time, the housing market was already beginning to decline, and just over a year later the subprime mortgage crisis hit, part of a chain reaction of events that led to the stock market crash of 2008 and cemented the Great Recession.
- Sistine Chapel
- 12-31-2016, 06:58 PM
this benedict arnold in chief has always been anti-American that's why it's so hilarious seeing you idiots pawn over him. 
He's pimping you folks in a major way. You're all his whores. lol
He's pimping you folks in a major way. You're all his whores. lol
- lustylad
- 12-31-2016, 07:28 PM
of course he would. Let's not forget in 2007 he openly rooted for the housing market to crash so he could cash in.Ah, yes.... we can always count on Sissy-Bitch to show up here and try to fuck up an intelligent conversation.
Trump in 2007: 'I'm Excited' for Housing Market Crash Originally Posted by Sistine Chapel
Hey Sissy, do you really want me to explain to everyone how stupid and disingenuous you are this time? (Most of them can probably figure it out without my help.)
Your linked article is from March 2007 - when the subprime mortgage crisis was just bubbling up, well before any "housing crash" occurred. Trump was talking about a real-estate "softening", not a crash. Far from welcoming or "rooting for" a crash, Trump is quoted as downplaying the possibility:
Donald Trump almost lost his shirt 15 years ago when the North American real estate bubble burst. The 2007 version of that disaster will be much more benign...For your information, Sissy-Bitch, real estate is highly cyclical. Trump was talking about the “end of the (upward) cycle”. He totally missed the impending crash. If you want to criticize him for anything, you should complain about his lousy forecasting!
"We're talking very minor [problems] compared with the depression of the early 1990s," Mr. Trump said yesterday...
I don't know why I waste my time explaining all this to you, Sissy-Bitch. Either you're too stupid to get it, or you already know what a deceitful lie it was for you to take the “I'm excited” comment out of its original context and insert it in boldface into your false headline “Trump in 2007: 'I'm Excited' for Housing Market Crash”.
Do you get paid to produce fake news, Sissy-Bitch?
- lustylad
- 12-31-2016, 07:41 PM
this benedict arnold in chief has always been anti-American that's why it's so hilarious seeing you idiots pawn over him.I agree that Paul Krugman is a Benedict Arnold and anti-American. But what do you mean by "pawn over him"?
He's pimping you folks in a major way. You're all his whores. lol Originally Posted by Sistine Chapel
And how is the Krugtron pimping us out?
Heck, we're just here to bash the fucker!
- Texas Contrarian
- 12-31-2016, 07:47 PM
...But what do you mean by "pawn over him"?... Originally Posted by lustyladPresumably he has something like this in mind:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1261710
- lustylad
- 12-31-2016, 07:58 PM
Lol! So the Sissy-Bitch is a chess player? Who knew?
I'll let my friend take over for me... she knows all the right moves...
I'll let my friend take over for me... she knows all the right moves...