“That's an absurd argument that bears no logical validity, simply because it is repeated again and again does not change that overwhelming fact. If you'd like to hire a personal security team then by all means do so, but to insinuate that no individual being protected by an armed security force has the right to propose stricter gun regulations is foolish. You have access to armed protection who exist to protect you and the great degree of philistinism you project every instance you express your opinion, and no you are not important enough to warrant a tax-payer funded personal security team.”
“You know what you're right; the US should have just let some of the largest banks in the world carrying billions in currency and foreign investments become completely insolvent, that sure would've boosted jobs.”
“So right...those poor oil companies and multinational financial institutions, corporations are people and we need to be careful we don't hurt their feelings anymore. Will someone please just build a library in every US city these comments are truly disheartening.”
“US interest rates are low right now, they were sky high in 2008. But right now the Fed is keeping rates low to encourage consumer spending, some agree some disagree, Krugman disagrees wholeheartedly and has been trying to get the word out that in his opinion if the fed doesn't increase interrest rates the US will not experience sustainable growth.
Markets evolve to quickly to get caught up in keynesian, or austrian, or friedmann, or laissez-faire policies. There's no one right economic principle, Austrian economics takes into account human behavior but its very difficult to quantify or even psychologically predict human behaviour. ”
“Well thank you for that incredibly condescending and ignorant portrayal of what it is you think that I do. Mark I'll explain it as simply as possible there is almost nothing in this world that is a certainty, economics is not excluded. I'm not here to debate the particularities of Krugman's hypothesis, because quite frankly it's beyond the grasp of most commenting in here I am here merely to dispell ignorance.
Krugman began commenting on the mortgage crisis in 2000, Keynesian policies helped stabilize American markets after the crash, since then the US has strayed from those principles opting to keep interest rates low. You see Mark if you knew what you were talking about you'd know that on the subject of increasing American interest rates Austrian and Keynesian economic principles are in agreement. Austrian economics tends to skip over statistics and mathematical data, something you held so dearly a couple of hours ago. I think you've been watching too many Peter Schiff YouTube videos”
Mark In LA on Jun 30, 2012 at 11:20:06
“I didn't intend to demean what you do. Maybe you took it that way since I do have a condescending attitude towards economics and economists. I know you guys do more than what I said, I just wanted to highlight a few things in this post with the few sentences one has that show that an MBA is very useful for stock analysis. I am sorry you were offended,
Actually, what makes economics so worthless is it's modern practitioner's use of statistics and their models. They think they can look at the past and determine the future with enough certainty to call it a science. Today is no more 1929 than it is 1829 so all the statistical analysis in the world cannot predict what will be the outcome of any policy to the certainty necessary to make policy affecting the whole country.
The question is why did we need to "stabilize" markets after the dot com crash. I don't think Austrians were in favor of that. As for keeping rates too low, when was that? The low rates started the bubble that's true, but soon the bubble took on a life of its own and continued because banks created exotic loans that kept it going. Interest rates in general were not low. The APRs were high but with tricks like 2% for the first 5 years and a reset to 11% unqualified people could pile in and drive prices to unsustainable levels.”
“I'm an analyst not an economist, Krugman isn't from Harvard and he shares that similar distaste for their business program. But duly noted that Mark from LA thinks my MBA was a waste of time.”
Mark In LA on Jun 30, 2012 at 00:21:37
“Now, Now, Now, I never said your and MBA was a waste of time. If you are an analyst (for stocks I presume) your training is useful for reviewing company filings requires by the SEC, balance sheets, and cash flow statements. I am sure it helps you ferret out the typical BS put forth during conference calls.
However, we got in this mess by Keynesian economics leading to the stagflation of the 70s. Then we went Chicago school which lead to bubbles that where we tried to ameliorate the damage by printing money (more Keynes). Why should we go back to Keynesian policy? If Krugman's stopped clock act makes him so prescient, why not follow the Austrians? They have been right about this mess far longer than Krugman. My point, nobody has any answer that is anything other than a guess.”
“Because Krugman has developed a theory supported by some of the most influential economic minds of our generation he's not pretending anything. It's just easier to say "he's wrong" then "I don't understand what he's talking about".”
Mark In LA on Jun 29, 2012 at 19:33:18
“Economics is pure 100% crap - at best a pseudo-science. You must be one to even think it has any predictive value - sorry you wasted you time in college, should have worked harder and got a real math degree.”
“Right how could I forget every time in human history when intellectuals make decisions…communism. That's why we should have the dumbest ppl in society setting all the policies! We'll start with you Mark what is your solution to the global economic crisis?”
Mark In LA on Jun 29, 2012 at 19:20:46
“Well one of the most intelligent things William F Buckley ever said was that he would rather be governed by the first 100 names in the Boston phone book than by the Harvard faculty.”
Mark In LA on Jun 29, 2012 at 19:01:50
“You nor I nor Krugman have the answer, why pretend somebody does? ”
“No I have an MBA in Finance and that was quite obviously implied I was not referring to ppl that spend $5,000 on coca cola. If you want to keep arguing semantics it won't make you any more right. You probably read a couple economics books and figured you knew more then ppl that not have only have degrees, but also masters, and phd's in economics. You're out of your depth and a nuisance, but what does statistics advise you to do with nuisance variables? You can probably guess it…”
“You're comparing loans and outstanding debt with consumerism, consuming does lead to prosperity. Govts want you to spend not save when interest rates are low. If you don't agree with it don't sign it and move along, let the intellectuals of society make the decisions. Unless you have a doctorate in economics?”
Mark In LA on Jun 29, 2012 at 18:34:42
“The greatest ideas of our time have come from the "intellectuals" such as communism and "critical race theory". Yeah, we should always look to them first.”
DanInLA on Jun 29, 2012 at 17:23:17
“Oh please....Spending does not create prosperity. It actually matters what you spend your money on. The key word is investing, not spending...and investing wisely because not all investments lead to prosperity either.......Please tell me you don't have a doctorate in economics, Mr. intellectual....LOL.”
“I understand you're frustration and the American corporate and political system is certainly an absolute catastrophe, but the risks were clear. The information was presented, arguably not ALL of it, but certainly enough to make an informed decision. For example mobile internet usage has now reached 65% of total internet usage and is going to keep increasing, Facebook earns $0 in revenue from mobile usage also they have no immediate plans on how to monetize this market. All of this information was made available weeks before the IPO. People were hoping for a LinkedIn type of instant inflation and Jim Cramer was screaming at everyone to buy, buy, buy. This article is misleading what occurred was a large example of inexperienced investors, simply put if you don't know what you're doing or look at investing as gambling you're quite likely going to lose.”
Nov 27, 2012 at 23:04:41
“Their opinion violates the rights of others by discriminating on the basis of gender and sexual orientation. Although they may not be violent or unconstitutional they are entirely unacceptable, we are forced to grant them the right to speak. However, if any party is going to claim they support equal rights they cannot lend legitimacy to Watts' absurdities.”
grantmac18 on Nov 28, 2012 at 00:28:05
“Well we can all rejoice that policies aren't adopted based on your opinion, intolerance is not in restraint of reapraisal.”
colpy on Nov 27, 2012 at 23:37:21
“Not at all.
I do not think the majority of women in this country.....in fact the vast majority of women want men, or at least those with male genitals, wandering into womens' washrooms. What about their rights??
As well, I don't care if you want to undergo gender reassignment, although I think it is insane.........but I see no reason society should have to bear the brunt of the costs and inconvenience.”
Nov 27, 2012 at 21:33:15
“They're horribly offensive and reside in the area of jargon and rhetoric as opposed to logic and facts. By providing a platform to their intolerant opinions, the government is suggesting that this level of reasoning is acceptable. This is Canada we do not welcome Tea Party social policies.”
colpy on Nov 27, 2012 at 22:34:37
“In other words, they don't agree with you.
What is "intolerant" is your inability to understand that there is a spectrum of opinion on this, and many other issues.
To say an opinion that does not promote violence is "unacceptable" and should neither be expressed nor considered is a very dangerous viewpoint, and the antithesis of a free society.”
“Yes you lack the knowledge to properly critique any macro financial policies, the amount of evidence to contradict the effectiveness of trickle down economics is staggering and yet republicans still carry on as if its some new theory. I can understand if you prefer to have taxes lowered to benefit yourself if you earn a significantly high income, but to try and state that it's in the best interest of the country is simply false. Even Austrian's school of economics- which free market supporters love to misquote- has the same view as Keynesian economists about taxation on the wealthy. 8.3% amid a global recession is an acceptable level, quite obviously lower would be better. My argument has always been that increasing interest rates would yield better results this however, is something Bernanke is not likely to consider.”
midenham on Aug 3, 2012 at 21:43:14
“The only thing that puts a strangle hold on the economy is entitlement spending and deficit spending to the tune of 1.3 TRILLION per year. Reagan was guilty of excessive spending (by a Dem controlled Congress) and W's excessive spending, being overshadowed by the EXTREME over spending of BO.
Borrowing $0.42 on every dollar spent to buy entitlement votes does not give confidence to wealthy investors that otherwise would be eager to invest in a growing economy.”
“Settle down fox news, I think, well I hope the greatest discovery you make is that in reality you don't know anything at all. Only then will you actually be able to apply logic, reason, and newly gained knowledge to formulate your own opinion. I didn't address your "numbers" because you don't possess the intellectual knowledge of how economies function beyond the elementary supply and demand rhetoric. Best of luck in your very objective approach to your country's leader.”
“Right well thank you for proving that republicans don't make factless assumptions…I'm not American but I'm tired of the ignorance and misinformation being spoon fed to you by the mainstream media all in the effort to have you vote against your best interests. I'd love to copy and paste a previous reply about economic recovery but I'm unable to. So scroll up and maybe take a trip to the library. America has one of the most brilliant economists and he gets torn apart because he's not republican. Progression is halted by American arrogance”