Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:22
No.7499013

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:22 No.7499013

Replies: >>7499094 >>7499171 >>7499446

>>7498941 (OP)
he has a fucking phd, what are you some fucking trailer trash WN that thinks he knows more than krugman? go fuck yourself

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:23
No.7499046

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:23 No.7499046

Replies: >>7499191

[citation needed]

The AMT was passed because the 91% top marginal rate didn't work. I know Krugster is a hack, but if he's that much of a hack my quality of life is going to markedly diminish when I laugh uncontrollably every time his name is brought up.

Liberty_Wolf !!E/HsWxTYl6i
11/19/12(Mon)19:23
No.7499064

Liberty_Wolf !!E/HsWxTYl6i 11/19/12(Mon)19:23 No.7499064

Replies: >>7499249

>Keynesians
>wanting to raise taxes during a bust

Lel

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:23
No.7499065

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:23 No.7499065

Replies: >>7499881 >>7500116

File: 1353371018131.jpg-(22 KB, 500x375, ronpaul-paulkrugman-housi(...).jpg)

he never steered us wrong before.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:24
No.7499094

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:24 No.7499094

Replies: >>7499317 >>7499635

>>7499013
the man literally does not believe in government debt , the same way hardcore conservatives dont believe in evolution. He was awarded the nobel prize a year before the the financial collapse lol

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:26
No.7499171

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:26 No.7499171

Replies: >>7499246 >>7499248 >>7499330 >>7499635

>>7499013
He's also a Nobel prize winner... something which I'm sure
>>7498941 (OP)
... would know nothing about.


Besides of which -- the taxes for the rich would only rise to where Clinton had them (you know, during the largest period of 'job creators' creating) and that would also be the period where we had a balanced budget (before a Republican decided to put two very expensive wars OFF the budget)...

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:27
No.7499191

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:27 No.7499191

Replies: >>7499302

>>7499046
check his latest opinion piece

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:28
No.7499231

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:28 No.7499231

Krugman Bernanke Geithner

Leading the US into oblivion.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:29
No.7499246

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:29 No.7499246

>>7499171
thinking higher taxes on the rich has a positive effect on employment is like saying dumping water on a fire will help because water contains oxygen.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:29
No.7499248

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:29 No.7499248

Replies: >>7499635

>>7499171

>thinks the Nobel prize is a reputable award

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:29
No.7499249

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:29 No.7499249

>>7499064
READ MY LIPS -- NO NEW TAXES.
lol

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:29
No.7499258

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:29 No.7499258

Replies: >>7499308 >>7499353 >>7499396

>>7498941 (OP)
/pol/: Wanting to lynch a man trying to fix the economy for making decisions that don't even apply to them

Republicans are fucking hilarious. Why do they vote against their own self interest? Do they honestly think they will be rich one day?

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:31
No.7499302

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:31 No.7499302

>>7499191
>A Public Service Reminder: Paul Ryan is a Con Man
>November 19, 2012, 6:48 PM
?

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:31
No.7499308

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:31 No.7499308

>>7499258
>destroy a capitalist economy with communist economic policy

>destroy a capitalist economy with a communist economic policy

krugman already picked one.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:31
No.7499317

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:31 No.7499317

Replies: >>7499406

>>7499094
can you explain in 5 sentences or less why and how you have been heavily affected by the current debt?

deficit is what matters, and even then not as much as people think it does...

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:32
No.7499330

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:32 No.7499330

Replies: >>7499635

>>7499171

>implying the nobel prize in economics is a real nobel prize

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:33
No.7499353

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:33 No.7499353

Replies: >>7504353

>>7499258
Democrats wanted to lynch Clarence Thomas, so lets not try to give Republicans a monopoly on senseless violence or racism.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:33
No.7499363

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:33 No.7499363

worked for france

oh wait...

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:34
No.7499393

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:34 No.7499393

>state fact
>get lynched
what a wonderful idea.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:34
No.7499396

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:34 No.7499396

Replies: >>7499460

>>7499258
It's a self hate thing. They want everyone to be as miserable as they are.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:34
No.7499406

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:34 No.7499406

Replies: >>7499529 >>7501778

>>7499317
ya sure money that was saved for me when i was born is worth quite a bit less now. Endlessly printing money instead of fixing debt causes inflation. But im sure you have been convinced that the inflation "has remained low"

even though for some magical reason things cost 3-4x what they cost in 1980.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:35
No.7499429

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:35 No.7499429

Confirmed for delusional librul

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:35
No.7499438

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:35 No.7499438

>>7498941 (OP)

He hasn't been lynched because he knows what he's talking about, whereas you're a dumb fuck.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:35
No.7499446

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:35 No.7499446

Replies: >>7499497

>>7499013
Argumentum ad verecundiam, no? Try a better Nobel laureate then, Milton Friedman.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:36
No.7499460

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:36 No.7499460

Replies: >>7499518

>>7499396
Confirmed for educated librul

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:36
No.7499473

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:36 No.7499473

Replies: >>7502428

france only has a 75% tax rate and all the rich there left to tax havens while the country was left in shambles and he wants to do the same thing here

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:36
No.7499481

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:36 No.7499481

Replies: >>7499562

File: 1353371816921.png-(35 KB, 465x376, Picture2_052[1].png)

More quantitative easing please, my money isn't worthless enough yet.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:36
No.7499483

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:36 No.7499483

Replies: >>7499515 >>7499572 >>7499578

Krugman knows more about economic policy than every libertarian fuck wit on the planet.

I would take a million kikes like him over even a dozen of you.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:37
No.7499497

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:37 No.7499497

Replies: >>7499554 >>7499573 >>7500044

>>7499446

Milton and his 'chicago boys' have been debunked already.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:38
No.7499515

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:38 No.7499515

Replies: >>7499617

>>7499483
>please please , my saved money needs to be worth alot less help me krugman

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:38
No.7499518

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:38 No.7499518

>>7499460
How foolish of me to get an accounting degree. The liberals have poisoned mah brane.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:38
No.7499529

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:38 No.7499529

Replies: >>7499593 >>7499662 >>7500216

>>7499406
>Endlessly printing money instead of fixing debt causes inflation
oh god my sides
look at our inflation right now
look at it 10 years ago
wait a moment
look at it right now
yup

>even though for some magical reason things cost 3-4x what they cost in 1980.
first of all sauce
second of all who the hell cares, unless you put your matress under a bed for 32 years instead of using money like a normal human being

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:39
No.7499554

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:39 No.7499554

Replies: >>7499667

>>7499497
>debunked
>snarkily regected by marxist economic "Experts"

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:39
No.7499562

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:39 No.7499562

Replies: >>7499616 >>7499654

>>7499481
>implying inflation

People keep say it's happening and it never does.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:39
No.7499572

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:39 No.7499572

Replies: >>7499603

>>7499483
Then why isn't it working?

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:39
No.7499573

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:39 No.7499573

Replies: >>7499699 >>7499841 >>7500044

>>7499497
I sure hope you can back up this claim.

Liberty_Wolf !!E/HsWxTYl6i
11/19/12(Mon)19:39
No.7499578

Liberty_Wolf !!E/HsWxTYl6i 11/19/12(Mon)19:39 No.7499578

>>7499483
0/10 see me after class

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:40
No.7499593

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:40 No.7499593

>>7499529
> unless you put your matress under a bed for 32 years
u wot

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:40
No.7499603

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:40 No.7499603

Replies: >>7499684

>>7499572
because we're not listening to them, we're letting lawyer politicians deal with our financial problems as if they knew what they were doing.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:40
No.7499612

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:40 No.7499612

>>7498941 (OP)
Krugman is a communist.
His daddy never plated catch with him.

Liberty_Wolf !!E/HsWxTYl6i
11/19/12(Mon)19:40
No.7499616

Liberty_Wolf !!E/HsWxTYl6i 11/19/12(Mon)19:40 No.7499616

>>7499562
>gas prices

Keep going down
I mean..

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:40
No.7499617

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:40 No.7499617

>>7499515
>implying I'm dumb enough to save currency in a low interest bank account.
>Peter Schiff said there would be hyperinflation, its just around the corner guise, any day now.

Libertards are the cultists of economics. Just smart enough to sound like they have an argument, just dumb enough to never consider how wrong their myopic talking points really are.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:41
No.7499635

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:41 No.7499635

>>7499094
>>7499171
>>7499248
>>7499330
http://exiledonline.com/the-nobel-prize-in-economics-there-is-no-nobel-prize-in-economics/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Economic_Sciences

and if someone is feeling froggy they can fix the main nobel prize article -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_prize -- to which most people probably go to first :/

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:41
No.7499646

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:41 No.7499646

If Krugman is so smart, why isn't he investing money instead of writing blogs

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:41
No.7499654

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:41 No.7499654

Replies: >>7499769 >>7501415

File: 1353372111551.gif-(32 KB, 450x371, CPIandIBondInflationCompo(...).gif)

>>7499562
inflation isn't happening?

prove it

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:42
No.7499662

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:42 No.7499662

Replies: >>7500187 >>7500262

>>7499529
oh see i called it already

"look at our inflation right now"

yes its convenient when that definition changes from administration to administration isnt it?

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505144_162-57387655/inflation-not-as-low-as-you-think/

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:42
No.7499667

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:42 No.7499667

>>7499554
More like rejected by reality. They tried the chicago way, surprise, it didn't work. It was just a smoke screen for finance guys to steal more money and get away with it.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:42
No.7499684

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:42 No.7499684

Replies: >>7499724

>>7499603
So QE infinity: electric boogaloo isn't listening to Paul "You just need to spend more" Krugman?

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:43
No.7499699

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:43 No.7499699

Replies: >>7499873 >>7500044

>>7499573
>I sure hope you can back up this claim.

Sure can!

During the financial crisis of 2007–2010, several Keynesian economists such as James Galbraith and Joseph Stiglitz blamed the free market philosophy of Friedman and the Chicago school for the economic turmoil.[69]

After Friedman's death in 2006, Keynesian Nobel laureate Paul Krugman praised Friedman as a "great economist and a great man," but criticized him by writing that "he slipped all too easily into claiming both that markets always work and that only markets work. It's extremely hard to find cases in which Friedman acknowledged the possibility that markets could go wrong, or that government intervention could serve a useful purpose."[70]

THIS is why Krugman can hold the econ Nobel prize .... and maybe why Milton died right before the disaster he created.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:43
No.7499704

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:43 No.7499704

Replies: >>7499776 >>7499843

Krugman is advocating 91% so Obama seems moderate when he lets the bush tax cuts expire. Classic move.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:44
No.7499724

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:44 No.7499724

Replies: >>7499809

>>7499684
you cant take one step out of an extremely complicated economic system and then complain that the entire system doesnt work

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:45
No.7499769

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:45 No.7499769

Replies: >>7499914

>>7499654

OK

Inflation is currently at 2.2%, this is pretty low.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/inflation-cpi

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:45
No.7499776

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:45 No.7499776

>>7499704
indeed. something the republican party turned into artwork.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:45
No.7499788

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:45 No.7499788

No one knows what's going to happen. There are both inflationary and deflationary forces at work. Own equities, bonds, cash, and gold. You should be diversified.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:45
No.7499794

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:45 No.7499794

Replies: >>7499848

>>7498941 (OP)

No, he didn't. He noted in today's column that progressive taxation has successful precedent. Moreover, and Krugman was careful to note this, it was the MARGINAL tax burden ratio that was 91%. The "rich" did not lose 91% of their income to the federal government during the Eisenhower era; they lost 91% of every dollar over a particular threshold, usually around 500K depending on itemizations/deductions. The EFFECTIVE tax burden ratio on the "rich" was around 65%.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:46
No.7499809

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:46 No.7499809

Replies: >>7499837 >>7499880

>>7499724
Except that Krugman's recommendations pretty much all boil down to 'spend more, lol.'

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:47
No.7499837

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:47 No.7499837

Replies: >>7500057

>>7499809
not really but thats ok. we dont expect people to actually understand reality.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:47
No.7499841

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:47 No.7499841

Replies: >>7499873 >>7500044

>>7499573
You just "debunked" Friedman by citing opinions from Keynesians? Are you serious bro? If you really want to wag a finger at any particular entity for the recent crisis (though multiple factors were involved), why not start with the Fed?

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:47
No.7499843

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:47 No.7499843

Replies: >>7499878

>>7499704
Implying that 95% of Americans have any idea who Paul Krugman is.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:47
No.7499848

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:47 No.7499848

Replies: >>7500302

>>7499794
> government still takes more than half of your money

liberals cannot into freedom and capitalism

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:48
No.7499873

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:48 No.7499873

Replies: >>7500044

>>7499699
Meant to post this >>7499841

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:48
No.7499878

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:48 No.7499878

>>7499843
You're right, they don't. The top 1% know exactly who he is though.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:48
No.7499880

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:48 No.7499880

>>7499809

Wasn't that the same philosophy used before ww2 in Germany?

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:48
No.7499881

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:48 No.7499881

>>7499065
b-b-b-but we can control the markets!

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:49
No.7499914

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:49 No.7499914

>>7499769
I sure hope you're taking multiple measurements of inflation into account.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:51
No.7499964

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:51 No.7499964

File: 1353372682974.gif-(1.92 MB, 230x431, 1331508148009.gif)

Because we live in the civilized country of America.

/thread

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:53
No.7500014

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:53 No.7500014

Replies: >>7500408

File: 1353372787637.jpg-(8 KB, 194x260, 1297637720333.jpg)

Krugman is not the "head economic adviser" of anything, he has never had anything to do with policy making anywhere around the world, and Keynesian economics are still considered heterodox and out of the mainstream, just as Austrian ones.

Just because he's popular doesn't mean he's actually important, idiot.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:54
No.7500044

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:54 No.7500044

Replies: >>7500370

>>7499873
The Fed had nothing to do with the original topic by OP, my responses or any of your comments until now. Your changing the subject will not work. Please revert back to how I debunked Milton, and cease from changing the subject to something else.

...unless you're too weak.
>>7498941 (OP)
OP
>>7499497
Me
>>7499573
You
>>7499699
Me
>>7499841
You -- OOPS
>>7499873
You again (learn to quote better)

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:54
No.7500057

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:54 No.7500057

>>7499837
>http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/03/the-level-of-government-spending/
>And here’s the thing: government’s role should have increased, at least for now.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/paul-krugman-on-how-to-fix-the-economy-a
nd-why-its-easier-than-you-think-20120502
>Krugman's solution: The federal government needs to step in and spend. A lot.

I understand plain English. Krugman says that government should increase spending. There is nothing subtle about this.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:56
No.7500116

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:56 No.7500116

Replies: >>7500168 >>7500176 >>7500234

>>7499065

But there was no housing asset inflation in 2003. Ron Paul is like a stopped clock: right two times a day. He repeats economically unfounded inanities until he finally strikes coincidence. Watch him attempt to "debate" Ben Bernanke on YouTube. Paul has no concept of Quantity Theory of Money. It's hilarious.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:57
No.7500168

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:57 No.7500168

File: 1353373074581.jpg-(76 KB, 455x365, saupload_home_prices_cs_2(...).jpg)

>>7500116
>no housing asset inflation in 2003
Oh?

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:58
No.7500176

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:58 No.7500176

>>7500116
ron paul is right all the time

krugman wrong all the time.

both are coincidences i promise.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:58
No.7500187

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:58 No.7500187

Replies: >>7500271

>>7499662
http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/CurrentInflation.asp
yeah well this calculates inflation with the same formula for the past 12 years

austrians, successfully predicting 749 of the last 0 instances of hyperinflation

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:59
No.7500216

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:59 No.7500216

>>7499529

It wouldn't matter anyway. Money is neutral in the long run. Put quotes around that phrase and Google it. You have no idea how mentally fucking retarded Ron Paul actually is. It's hilarious.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)19:59
No.7500234

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)19:59 No.7500234

Replies: >>7500711 >>7500736

File: 1353373191503.jpg-(11 KB, 229x261, 1285344156221.jpg)

>>7500116
Ron Paul saw government intervention in the market, which was like watching the tree and missing the forest. Or more like seeing a branch of the tree.

He never understood the true causes of the 2004-2006 housing bubble, because he believes in pseudoscience and Austrian school bullshit, just as the Austrian school always failed to explain the Great Depression.

The bubble began following the Fed's monetary expansion in the months after 9/11, by lowering interest rates.

The bubble itself wasn't the cause of the crisis, it was the trigger. The 2008 crisis was about derivatives, not houses.

Ron Paul pretty much failed to predict any of that.
The only man in the world who accurately and in great detail predicted what would happen (in 2005) and also accurately predicted what would happen in Europe (2006), was Nouriel Roubini.
He's a New-Keynesian.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:00
No.7500262

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:00 No.7500262

>>7499662
>inflation due to monetary policy
>prices
oh god my sides

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:01
No.7500271

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:01 No.7500271

Replies: >>7500342

>>7500187
hyperinflation cannot happen if you deny it exists officially.

fact is you used to be able to buy a corvette for like 3000 dollars brand new. A coke cost 20 cents.

you are just fucking dumb and dont understand that statistics dont work if your models are completely fucking retarded.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:02
No.7500302

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:02 No.7500302

Replies: >>7500351 >>7500359

>>7499848

>thinks it's "his" money
>look where it came from
>it's a legal instrument with no intrinsic value
>established by government
>which is in fact from where its value is derived

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:03
No.7500342

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:03 No.7500342

>>7500271
>hyperinflation cannot happen if you deny it exists officially.

stop posting bro... you're drunk... weimar denied it every day until it overtook them.

Sorry

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:03
No.7500351

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:03 No.7500351

Replies: >>7500543

>>7500302
>thinks because it says federal on currency it belongs to the government

>cuntrag

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:03
No.7500359

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:03 No.7500359

Replies: >>7500543

>>7500302
actually it's value is derived from the faith the people who use it place in it

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:04
No.7500370

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:04 No.7500370

Replies: >>7500605

>>7500044
If you had actually read that first bit, you would see the problem with your own argument. You just cited opinions from Keynesians...if you're trying to use their opinions as facts...well that won't fly. I could use the opinions of neoclassical economists to argue against Krugman, but such opinions could hardly be considered facts without actual evidence.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:04
No.7500373

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:04 No.7500373

>>7498941 (OP)
Because there aren't enough rich for a proper lynching. Not an argument against the rich, just a matter of facts.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:05
No.7500408

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:05 No.7500408

Replies: >>7500443 >>7500605 >>7500707

>>7500014

>Keynesian
>heterodox

NOPE. Just... NOPE. Um, NOPE.

>Krugman doesn't formulate policy

HOLY SHIT THIS NIGGER IS EVEN MORE RETARDED THAN I THOUGHT HE DOESN'T KNOW KRUGMAN WAS ON CLINTON'S COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISORS AND TEACHES AT PRINCETON CHURNING OUT THE ECONOMISTS WHO WORK AT THE IMF, WORLD BANK AND FED THIS IS TO SAY NOTHING OF HIS LECTURES AT DAVOS

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:05
No.7500443

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:05 No.7500443

Replies: >>7500605

>>7500408
lol raped

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:08
No.7500543

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:08 No.7500543

Replies: >>7500583

>>7500351
>>7500359

NOPE PLEASE RESEARCH "CHARTALISM" AND "MODERN MONETARY THEORY"

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:08
No.7500547

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:08 No.7500547

bumping to ensure the rape of the keynesians continues

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:09
No.7500582

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:09 No.7500582

File: 1353373795056.jpg-(39 KB, 600x760, Hazlitt-2[1].jpg)

>2012
>Still believing the broken window fallacy

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/meltdown-macroeconomics/

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:09
No.7500583

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:09 No.7500583

>>7500543
>"modern" monetary theory

money

money never changes

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:10
No.7500605

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:10 No.7500605

Replies: >>7500838

>>7500408
>>7500443

Guys.. guys... Ignorant republican ideologues are everywhere! Don't be surprised!

Look!
>>7500370
>You just cited opinions from Keynesians...if you're trying to use their opinions as facts...well that won't fly.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:13
No.7500707

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:13 No.7500707

Replies: >>7500766 >>7500828 >>7500869 >>7500893

File: 1353374031760.jpg-(21 KB, 218x265, 1313417726532.jpg)

>>7500408
>Keynesian
>Mainstream

Oh boy that one retard who thinks the Chicago school and monetarism are Keynesian simply because they use math.

Take your sociology pseudoscience out of here

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:13
No.7500711

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:13 No.7500711

>>7500234

You're missing quite a few. Steve Keen, Fred Harrison and Dean Baker all did before Nouriel.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:14
No.7500736

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:14 No.7500736

Replies: >>7500862

>>7500234
>The bubble began following the Fed's monetary expansion in the months after 9/11, by lowering interest rates.
That's what Ron Paul said.
>The 2008 crisis was about derivatives, not houses.
The derivatives involved in the 2008 recession were based on housing (e.g. Mortgage backed securities, CDOs), which became a problem when a large number of subprime mortgages were defaulted on.

>Ron Paul pretty much failed to predict any of that.
Thus, this is not true.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:15
No.7500766

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:15 No.7500766

Replies: >>7500890

>>7500707
if you think keynsianism isnt the main form of economic thought in the united states you have fucking cerebral paulsy

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:16
No.7500779

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:16 No.7500779

>>7498941 (OP)
>>the head economic adviser/ opinion maker of our country
lulwat

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:17
No.7500828

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:17 No.7500828

>>7500707

How can you possibly claim Keynesianism isn't mainstream? Are you retarded?

Are you one of the chimps who believe Romney won the election?

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:17
No.7500838

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:17 No.7500838

>>7500605
I sure hope the point of that post didn't fly over your head mate. You can't cite any individual's opinions as facts, regardless of political affiliation or, in this case, economic views.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:18
No.7500862

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:18 No.7500862

Replies: >>7501078 >>7501465

File: 1353374333192.jpg-(54 KB, 450x450, 1321910502055.jpg)

>>7500736
Ron Paul was referring to government intervention in providing loans, which has been shown time and time again to have been negligible.

He never actually figured out that the bubble wasn't happening because of NIGGERS, but actual monetary failures.

Then again the school of economic thought he believes in, claims math is a pseudoscience.

On the other hand claiming that the problem were the mortgages and not the massive systemic risk of derivatives behind them is silly, as it implies that had this bubble not happened, no other bubbles or failures would have ever happened to trigger the derivatives meltdown at any point in history.

I can understand why an Austrian would claim that - they always claim the most unintelligent shit, just look at the Austrian business cycle theory that was heavily trashed and made fun of throughout the decades, but we're not Austrians, we're normal people.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:19
No.7500869

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:19 No.7500869

File: 1353374348769.jpg-(13 KB, 298x399, paul-davidson-04.jpg)

>>7500707

you're a post-keynesian?

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:19
No.7500890

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:19 No.7500890

Replies: >>7500981 >>7500996 >>7501075

>>7500766
Keynesianism in America ended in the late '70s.

There has been no policy between 1982 and 2008 that can be classified as Keynesian.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:19
No.7500893

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:19 No.7500893

>>7500707
>Chicago school/Monetarism != Keynesian

Fixed that for you... don't know why you decided to combine them because Friedman didn't..

"Friedman's challenges to what he later called "naive Keynesian" (as opposed to New Keynesian) theory[4] began with his 1950s reinterpretation of the consumption function, and he became the main advocate opposing activist Keynesian government policies"

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:22
No.7500981

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:22 No.7500981

>>7500890
im sorry but what the fuck do you define the stimulus as?

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:22
No.7500996

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:22 No.7500996

>>7500890
This. The US has been 100% Chicago since the 80s. Jews have been calling the shots on government financial policy since Reagan.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:25
No.7501068

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:25 No.7501068

Replies: >>7501353 >>7501387

For the record, anyone who claims Keynesianism isn't entrenched in the global, yet alone American, economy, is a troll. It's bad economic policy, but apparently the world hasn't learned yet, despite the '70s scenario.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:25
No.7501075

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:25 No.7501075

Replies: >>7501184

>>7500890

Reagan engaged in a form of Keynesianism. He pulled the economy out of recession with massive military spending which he paid for with borrowed money.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:25
No.7501078

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:25 No.7501078

Replies: >>7501290

>>7500862
>thinks math is a psuedoscience

no , there is a difference between thinking math isnt real and claiming that statistics cant be applied to something as organic as the economy , especially when economists favorite thing to do is leave out important variables that effect drastically the direction of the economy.

there is also the issue of human beings being unpredictable , thus the economy is unpredictable.

its not hard

A priori nigga

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:28
No.7501184

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:28 No.7501184

Replies: >>7501324 >>7501573

>>7501075
>war spending creates better economy

holy shit these retards really dont understand why world war 2 is different from the cold war?

in world war 2 it saved the economy because suddenly 10 million people were employed to go die for the government and everyone left at home was designated personal slave of the state and worked in factories or gathered materials for the war effort.

when you go full collectivist war effort you dont really improve the economy , you just employ everyone and they are all working towards a goal.

no such fucking thing happened during the cold war. you are a moron.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:30
No.7501229

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:30 No.7501229

Replies: >>7501337

amberlamps

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:32
No.7501264

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:32 No.7501264

>>7498941 (OP)

Why? I bet you don't fall into that category so why do you suck their anuses?

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:33
No.7501290

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:33 No.7501290

>>7501078
>there is also the issue of human beings being unpredictable , thus the economy is unpredictable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:34
No.7501316

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:34 No.7501316

Replies: >>7501362

so do you think your job is secure if your boss is taxed at 91%

Do you think your boss will be happy being taxed at 91%?

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:34
No.7501324

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:34 No.7501324

>>7501184
don't forget those people who died just lowered the eventual unemployment rate (they didn't take someone else's job)

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:35
No.7501337

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:35 No.7501337

File: 1353375321559.jpg-(151 KB, 650x1902, amber-lamps-grin-Wd9JpR[1].jpg)

>>7501229

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:35
No.7501353

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:35 No.7501353

>>7501068

Lel, please read up on history of economic thought. Now go away.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:36
No.7501362

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:36 No.7501362

>>7501316
I work for the government finding luxury apartments for asylum seekers.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:36
No.7501387

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:36 No.7501387

Replies: >>7501442

>>7501068
This is absolutely false, Keynesianism in America stopped being in use in 1974.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:37
No.7501415

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:37 No.7501415

>>7499654
>dat upward red line

inflation doesn't exist guys!

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:39
No.7501442

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:39 No.7501442

Replies: >>7501497

>>7501387
and started being used again in 2008 stfu

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:40
No.7501465

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:40 No.7501465

Replies: >>7501541

>>7500862
>Ron Paul was referring to government intervention in providing loans, which has been shown time and time again to have been negligible.
I would love to see your source for this and how it is negligible considering how Fannie and Freddie Mac held over 5 trillion in MBS.
He has also commented on how Greenspan kept interest rates low after 9/11 and how this lead to increased speculation in the markets, and hence, the bubble. Do you deny this?
>He never actually figured out that the bubble wasn't happening because of NIGGERS, but actual monetary failures.
WTF? He never said it was because of "NIGGERS". I'm pretty sure he is the most consistent critic of America's monetary policy.
>Then again the school of economic thought he believes in, claims math is a pseudoscience.
I don't think this is true.
>On the other hand claiming that the problem were the mortgages and not the massive systemic risk of derivatives behind them is silly, as it implies that had this bubble not happened, no other bubbles or failures would have ever happened to trigger the derivatives meltdown at any point in history.

I get the feeling from this passage that you don't know how derivatives work or bubbles happen. Derivatives are usually based on an asset and "derive" their value from this underlying asset, hence the term derivatives. In this case, the problematic asset is subprime mortgages. Derivatives themselves are created to manage risk. They can and do create systemic risk if misunderstood or misused, but all the risk is created from not properly valuing and understanding the underlying asset.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:41
No.7501497

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:41 No.7501497

Replies: >>7501586

>>7501442
Only until 2010, specific Keynesian measures were implemented.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:42
No.7501541

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:42 No.7501541

Replies: >>7501741

>>7501465
>Derivatives themselves are created to manage risk. They can and do create systemic risk if misunderstood or misused, but all the risk is created from not properly valuing and understanding the underlying asset.

This is absolutely false.
For 70 years we've had a clear separation between retail banking and investment banking.

As soon as Republicans removed that barrier in 1999, less than a decade later we had another Great Depression.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:43
No.7501573

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:43 No.7501573

>>7501184

>doesn't understand the concept of investment.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:44
No.7501583

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:44 No.7501583

Jesus fucking Christ, the amount of retardation in this thread is astounding.

There are TWO main aspects of Keynesian policy

1) Spend money on federal programs during recession
2) Save money to build up treasury (usually through NOT spending on social programs) during expansion

Guess which one of these we didn't do?

You can't implement 50% of a policy prescription and then deride the entire ideology as "failed."

Democratic governments have immense difficulties cutting social programs because of peoples' short-term memories and constant demands for the government to "do something" about whatever problem is most often featured in the news that year - "doing something" always costs money

So is Keynesian policy flawed? On its own, not really. Combined with particular political systems, fatally

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:44
No.7501586

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:44 No.7501586

Replies: >>7501621

>>7501497
qe3
and then the new
qe infinity
try again shitkicker

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:45
No.7501621

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:45 No.7501621

Replies: >>7501793

File: 1353375946540.jpg-(7 KB, 252x240, 1343318023283.jpg)

>>7501586
>monetary expansion is Keynesian

If you want to point at some examples of Keynesian policies, try the Californian high speed rail, or Romney's promised Keynesian military spending.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:49
No.7501741

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:49 No.7501741

Replies: >>7501826

>>7501541
>This is absolutely false.
>For 70 years we've had a clear separation between retail banking and investment banking.

>As soon as Republicans removed that barrier in 1999, less than a decade later we had another Great Depression.

Are you the same anon I was responding to before? Because not only is your reply completely irrelevant to what I said, but also your knowledge on this matter seems to consist of entirely regurgitated talking points.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:50
No.7501778

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:50 No.7501778

Replies: >>7502023

>>7499406
Walmart is selling 42" plasmas for $75 on Black Friday. Your argument is moot.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:50
No.7501793

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:50 No.7501793

>>7501621

"Armed keynesian" was possibly the best phrase of the campaign.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2011/11/30/armed_keynesianism_assessed.html

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:51
No.7501826

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:51 No.7501826

Replies: >>7502687

>>7501741

Democrat here - but yeah that's not quite right. Clinton's team (Rubin, et al) played a huge part in that stuff as well - it was not just Republicans.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:53
No.7501876

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:53 No.7501876

Replies: >>7501983

Anyone who supports krugman is a fascist piece of shit.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:54
No.7501920

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:54 No.7501920

Replies: >>7502088

File: 1353376477044.jpg-(36 KB, 784x375, fact.jpg)

YES, taxing the rich will fix EVERYTHING, that's the problem, let's continue to deindustrialize.

HEIL KRUGMAN

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:56
No.7501968

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:56 No.7501968

File: 1353376564634.jpg-(10 KB, 225x225, images (20).jpg)

>not using Drudge's hilarious photo accompaniment for OP picture
So disappointed that kitty didn't make it there.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:56
No.7501983

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:56 No.7501983

Replies: >>7502780

>>7501876

Unfortunately, neoliberalism has failed. It was an interesting experiment, but somewhat costly. A Keynesian consensus is emerging, which is a good thing.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:57
No.7502018

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:57 No.7502018

Replies: >>7502153 >>7502162

>>7498941 (OP)
lol, he said that?

The effective tax rate was closer to 60%, and loopholes brought that down to 35%

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:58
No.7502023

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:58 No.7502023

File: 1353376682611.gif-(15 KB, 550x510, 1326166997943.gif)

>>7501778

Protip, china producing cheap shit and modern factory agriculture is the only reason we feel that the dollar is worth anything at all.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:58
No.7502059

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:58 No.7502059

Because it's what we need to do

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)20:59
No.7502088

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)20:59 No.7502088

Replies: >>7502157 >>7502194 >>7502203 >>7502261

>>7501920

Tax rates for the rich has no negative effect on the economy. In fact, the economy does better when the rich are induced to invest in the economy with higher tax rates.

>A study from the Congressional Research Service -- the non-partisan research office for Congress -- shows that "there is little evidence over the past 65 years that tax cuts for the highest earners are associated with savings, investment or productivity growth."

>In fact, the study found that higher tax rates for the wealthy are statistically associated with higher levels of growth.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tax-cuts-rich-dont-spur-151649273.html

Just sayin'.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:00
No.7502113

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:00 No.7502113

Replies: >>7502237

JIDF was in here in the very first reply lol why are Americans apparently so afraid of the rich being taxed?

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:00
No.7502122

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:00 No.7502122

>implying rich people do the lynching.

>implying rich people would know how to use a rope if they were handed one.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:01
No.7502153

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:01 No.7502153

>>7502018
so? excellent, let's do that.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:01
No.7502157

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:01 No.7502157

>>7502088
>when the rich are induced to invest in the economy with higher tax rates
brilliant

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:01
No.7502158

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:01 No.7502158

that guy's just a cunt saying raising taxes on the rich isn't the end of the world, possibly part of the solution.

No way he actually thinks taxing the rich at 91% would actually fix any of our problems.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:01
No.7502162

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:01 No.7502162

Replies: >>7502322 >>7502374

>>7502018
>>7502018

>The effective tax rate was closer to 60%, and loopholes brought that down to 35%

Nope. The marginal rate was 90%, loopholes brought it down to around 60%. That's far, far higher than today.

>the top effective tax rate was probably somewhere between 50-60% because of a tax code full of loopholes. Now, that’s still higher than today’s top effective tax rate of around 30%.

Pasted from <http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/04/why-we-cant-go-back-to-sky-high-1950s-tax-rates/>

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:02
No.7502194

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:02 No.7502194

Replies: >>7502278 >>7502279 >>7502316

>>7502088
>Tax rates for the rich has no negative effect on the economy.
This is a lie, fascist.

> In fact, the economy does better when the rich are induced to invest in the economy with higher tax rates.
No it doesn't, pushing all money into wall street does nothing to build actual resources, it just helps YOUR banker friends.

>>In fact, the study found that higher tax rates for the wealthy are statistically associated with higher levels of growth.
Then why when we cut taxes and spending after ww2 we had the most productive year in human history while keynesians said it would be a disaster? Why did the free market period before the income tax have a lot more growth then the post income tax period. You're wrong, fascist.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:03
No.7502203

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:03 No.7502203

>>7502088
It's non-partisan to enjoy increasing the size of government. Both Dems and GOP are responsible for it so I wouldn't trust Congress for shit as an objective source.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:03
No.7502214

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:03 No.7502214

even the most out there estimates of the Laffer's curve place make revenue at 70%.

Lol what is this guy doing

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:03
No.7502237

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:03 No.7502237

Replies: >>7502344

>>7502113
>JIDF was in here in the very first reply lol why are Americans apparently so afraid of the rich being taxed?

JIDF obviously detected.

"That's it goyim, tax production, you don't need all that industry, use your tax money for israel."

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:04
No.7502261

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:04 No.7502261

Replies: >>7502347

>>7502088
>In fact, the economy does better when the rich are induced to invest in the economy with higher tax rates.
Broken window fallacy, they invest in the stock market anyway and you taxing them gives them less money to invest. Retard.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:05
No.7502278

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:05 No.7502278

File: 1353377115445.jpg-(15 KB, 440x247, 1 1 bb sara_440x247.jpg)

>>7502194

>This is a lie, fascist.

No, it's an economic fact that high tax rates on the rich have no negative effect on economic performance. Studies suggest high taxes for the rich improve the economy.

>Today's income tax rates are strikingly low relative to the rates of the past century, especially for rich people. For most of the century, including some boom times, top-bracket income tax rates were much higher than they are today.

>Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed.

>Super-low tax rates on rich people also appear to be correlated with unsustainable sugar highs in the economy--brief, enjoyable booms followed by protracted busts. They also appear to be correlated with very high inequality. (For example, see the 1920s and now).

http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates?op=1
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html


Just sayin'.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:05
No.7502279

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:05 No.7502279

>>7502194
>call facts a lie
>expect to get taken seriously

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:06
No.7502316

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:06 No.7502316

>>7502194
>thinking investment on wallstreet is bad


HUSDHUFHADFUHAUDFHDSFFDAS

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:06
No.7502322

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:06 No.7502322

Replies: >>7502434 >>7502775

File: 1353377216077.png-(118 KB, 1186x713, real taxes.png)

>>7502162
>Nope. The marginal rate was 90%, loopholes brought it down to around 60%. That's far, far higher than today.
Wrong lefttard faggot.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:07
No.7502344

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:07 No.7502344

>>7502237
If your tax dollars are going to Israel then that's not a problem with the taxation system.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:07
No.7502347

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:07 No.7502347

Replies: >>7502429

>>7502261

I don't think you understand "broken window fallacy". Anyway, broken window fallacy is itself a fallacy. It does not distinguish between investment and malinvestment.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:07
No.7502351

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:07 No.7502351

THE ONLY WAY TO FIX EVERYTHING IS TO ENSLAVE EVERYONE AND DESTROY INDUSTRY

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:08
No.7502374

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:08 No.7502374

Replies: >>7502412 >>7502467

>>7502162
no idiot, the effective tax rate was 60%, loopholes brought it down below 40% for most people

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:09
No.7502407

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:09 No.7502407

We need good ol fashioned reagonomics to get this country back together lol.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:09
No.7502412

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:09 No.7502412

Replies: >>7502437 >>7502514

>>7502374
>no idiot, the effective tax rate was 60%, loopholes brought it down below 40% for most people

It was much less than 40 for the majority of people.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:10
No.7502428

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:10 No.7502428

Replies: >>7502453 >>7502454

>>7499473
Except we don't allow the rich to leave. Problem solved.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:10
No.7502429

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:10 No.7502429

Replies: >>7502469 >>7502604

>>7502347
>Anyway, broken window fallacy is itself a fallacy. It does not distinguish between investment and malinvestment.
Yes it does, that's it's point.
Are broken windows a good investment?

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:10
No.7502434

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:10 No.7502434

Replies: >>7502659

>>7502322
>>7502322

>Wrong lefttard faggot.

Nope, check my source:

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/04/why-we-cant-go-back-to-sky-high-1950s-tax-rates/

The article is arguing against a return to 1950s tax rates for the rich. So, if you take issue with my figures you are arguing against yourself.

Chuckle.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:10
No.7502436

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:10 No.7502436

Replies: >>7502486 >>7502599 >>7502660

File: 1353377442408.png-(425 KB, 550x1139, 4midd.png)

Keynesianism is a start, but there will be no real solution until communism is achieved.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:10
No.7502437

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:10 No.7502437

>>7502412
I'm referring to the top income bracket

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:11
No.7502453

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:11 No.7502453

>>7502428
that is enslavement

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:11
No.7502454

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:11 No.7502454

Replies: >>7502540 >>7503476

>>7502428
>Except we don't allow the rich to leave.
Then your industry suffers and investment is destroyed idiot.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:11
No.7502467

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:11 No.7502467

Replies: >>7502566

>>7502374
good sir. may i humbly point out that loopholes are what drop a tax rate from marginal to effective.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:11
No.7502469

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:11 No.7502469

>>7502429
No but investing in window factories when there's an epidemic of window breaking is.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:12
No.7502486

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:12 No.7502486

>>7502436
>but there will be no real solution until communism is achieved.

Economic illiterate child detected. Enjoy your debunked ideology.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:13
No.7502509

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:13 No.7502509

Because he's right. The man is brilliant.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:13
No.7502514

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:13 No.7502514

>>7502412

The marginal tax rate was over 90%, the effective tax rate was between 50% and 60%, this is with loopholes taken into account.

Taxes for the rich were far, far higher even with loopholes in the tax code.

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/04/why-we-cant-go-back-to-sky-high-1950s-tax-rates/

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:14
No.7502540

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:14 No.7502540

>>7502454
better solution: kill the rich, give their stolen money back to the people who produced it (the workers), and democratize the workplace

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:14
No.7502566

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:14 No.7502566

Replies: >>7502663 >>7502726

>>7502467
have you never payed an income tax before?

holy fuck liberals are this juvenile.

http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2009/03/11/how-marginal-tax-rates-work/

Our tax rate uses tax brackets to make a progressive tax. Marginal tax rate is that of your highest bracket, yet you still pay portions of your income at lower rates, bringing it down to the effective rte. That is when loopholes drop it down further.


Retard

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:15
No.7502599

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:15 No.7502599

File: 1353377735064.jpg-(255 KB, 651x1335, 1353374765231.jpg)

>>7502436
>communism
lel

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:15
No.7502604

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:15 No.7502604

>>7502429

Government investment of tax payers money in a project that advances technology and spawns an industry is not "malinvestment". It is investment. The nuclear power industry is a case in point.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:16
No.7502653

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:16 No.7502653

A lot of rich people wouldn't leave anyways if they were heavily invested into the country

It's kind of hard to just sell off your factory or utility, pack up, go to another country and try to start all over again, finding contacts, building a network, adjusting to the tax laws, getting bank loans, etc.

If they were to sell their shit and go, who the fuck would buy it, knowing the tax rate just went way up?

Only those with liquid capital - ie, investors and financial companies - might choose to shift their capital.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:17
No.7502659

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:17 No.7502659

Replies: >>7502708

>>7502434
Doesn't mean your source isn't wrong and simplistic.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:17
No.7502660

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:17 No.7502660

>>7502436
So dumb. The reason Russia lost the cold war is because you can't gain money in a communist state. There is no growth just the same stagnate way of living.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:17
No.7502663

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:17 No.7502663

Replies: >>7502775 >>7502853

>>7502566
>>7502566

90% marginal rate

60% effective (with loopholes taken into account)

>the top effective tax rate was probably somewhere between 50-60% because of a tax code full of loopholes. Now, that’s still higher than today’s top effective tax rate of around 30%.

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/04/why-we-cant-go-back-to-sky-high-1950s-tax-rates/

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:17
No.7502668

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:17 No.7502668

>liberals start asking for more taxes
>don't know what marginal and effective rates are

durrrrrrrr

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:17
No.7502687

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:17 No.7502687

>>7501826
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act

All (R)s

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:18
No.7502708

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:18 No.7502708

Replies: >>7502775

>>7502659

My source is a "reputable" conservative commentator.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:19
No.7502726

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:19 No.7502726

>>7502566
no shit. no one is disputing that. what was under dispute is that loopholes were not taken into account under the effective rate. they were.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:20
No.7502772

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:20 No.7502772

Replies: >>7502862 >>7503142

Hey, trickle down is a lie. I say fuck taxes, let's just take all the rich's assets, and let them dig potatoes out of the ground until they die. They're always going Randian and saying, " the economy would collapse without us." I say, let's give it a try. Put the 1% in concentrations camps and let the rest run the companies. I bet it would work better without those lazy gamblers fucking things up.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:20
No.7502775

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:20 No.7502775

>>7502663
Look at the graph of the personal income tax which is what we're fucking arguing about.
>>7502322

>>7502708
Nobody here is a conservative, statist.>>7502322

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:20
No.7502780

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:20 No.7502780

Replies: >>7502885 >>7502958

>>7501983
>neoliberalism

Neoconservatism?

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:21
No.7502833

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:21 No.7502833

Replies: >>7502897 >>7502915

High taxes for the rich doesn't hurt the economy. This is an economic fact:

>Cutting capital gains taxes will not turbocharge the economy and raising them would not usher in a depression.

This is from a Forbes article, they are a reputable source:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/leonardburman/2012/03/15/capital-gains-tax-rates-and-economic-growth-or-
not/

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:21
No.7502853

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:21 No.7502853

Replies: >>7503022

>>7502663
you were claiming that loopholes were the sole cause of the effective rate. I was claiming that the effective tax rate was lower, and loop holes brought down the tax rate for many down to below 40%, meaning that a final average between 50-60% is consistent with my notes.

Also, you just linked an article that is arguing against you.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:22
No.7502862

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:22 No.7502862

Replies: >>7503126

>>7502772
>muh trickle down

>I bet it would work better without those lazy gamblers fucking things up.
>give bankers trillions because "it helps the working class"
>complain when the gamble with it
Enjoy your federal reserve faggot.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:22
No.7502885

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:22 No.7502885

Replies: >>7502949

>>7502780
Neoliberalism. Look it up.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:23
No.7502897

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:23 No.7502897

>>7502833
capital gains taxes have probably one of the most left leaning laffer curves, because of how easy it is for an investment firm to move overseas

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:23
No.7502915

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:23 No.7502915

Replies: >>7503090 >>7503184

File: 1353378228968.jpg-(67 KB, 901x830, 1350848332108.jpg)

>>7502833
>High taxes for the rich doesn't hurt the economy. This is an economic fact:

Then why when we cut taxes and spending after ww2 we had the most productive year in human history while keynesians said it would be a disaster? Why did the free market period before the income tax have a lot more growth then the post income tax period. You're wrong.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:24
No.7502936

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:24 No.7502936

Replies: >>7503019

File: 1353378250508.jpg-(30 KB, 600x416, 98774676869706.jpg)

More broadly, the attitude that discounts any amount of evidence — and boy, do we have lots of evidence on the age of the planet! — if it conflicts with prejudices is not an attitude consistent with effective policy. If you’re going to ignore what geologists say if you don’t like its implications, what are the chances that you’ll take sensible advice on monetary and fiscal policy? After all, we’ve just seen how Republicans deal with research reports that undermine their faith in the magic of tax cuts: they try to suppress the reports.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:24
No.7502949

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:24 No.7502949

>>7502885
Neoliberalism is a stupid word socialists made up. "neoliberals" don't exist.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:24
No.7502958

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:24 No.7502958

Replies: >>7503041

>>7502780

Liberal means free pro-free market, anti-Government intervention and anti-regulation in economics. Only in America does liberal mean left wing.

Also, only in America are Libertarians a "right wing" movement. In the rest of the world they are Communists.

Seriously.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:25
No.7502976

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:25 No.7502976

>what are tax free muni bonds

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:26
No.7503019

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:26 No.7503019

Replies: >>7503092 >>7503098

File: 1353378372832.jpg-(493 KB, 597x928, 1353254962082.jpg)

>>7502936
I’m belatedly reading Chris Mooney’s The Republican Brain; if truth be told, I was afraid that the book would be too much red meat for my own predispositions, and wanted to keep my cool. But Mooney actually makes a very good point: the personality traits we associate with modern conservatism, above all a lack of openness, make the modern GOP fundamentally hostile to the very idea of objective inquiry. If they want your opinion, they’ll tell you what it is; doubters of orthodoxy need not apply, and will in fact be persecuted.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:26
No.7503022

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:26 No.7503022

Replies: >>7503184

>>7502853

I'm not arguing for a 90% tax rate. I'm simply pointing out the fact that ultra high taxes for the rich doesn't hurt the economy.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:26
No.7503041

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:26 No.7503041

Replies: >>7503436

>>7502958
>Also, only in America are Libertarians a "right wing" movement. In the rest of the world they are Communists.
This isn't true, socialists maybe but communists no.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:27
No.7503079

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:27 No.7503079

Replies: >>7503145

The whole tax thing is ok and all but democrats don't seem to get that taxing the rich means taxing the people who bring in under 1 million a year and these people are your largest job creators.

I'll call these people the "poor" rich

See you can tax the rich rich at a high level because it doesn't really matter to them seeing as they make soooooo much but. Taxing these poor rich is a bad idea.

Tl;dr

Democrats need to rethink their definition of "rich" when talking about who to tax.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:28
No.7503090

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:28 No.7503090

Replies: >>7503162

>>7502915

Learn2 pent up demand. Also, the US economy crashed in 1947, so you're talking shit.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:28
No.7503092

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:28 No.7503092

>>7503019

I suggest going and reading "the righteous mind" by Jonathon Haidt. It's more comprehensive by describing the psychology between left and right wingers.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:28
No.7503098

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:28 No.7503098

File: 1353378497133.jpg-(112 KB, 600x325, pic07.jpg)

>>7503019
>being lobotomized enough to post that retarded picture
You must absolutely despise reality and facts.

Enjoy your poverty.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:29
No.7503126

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:29 No.7503126

Replies: >>7503297

>>7502862
Fuck the Fed asswipe. I say make banks illegal. Coops only. Then shareholders would decide what companies to invest in. And real investment, not this lie they call a stockmarket which is just a casino. Ask yourself, genius, where does the mony go whin you invest in a stock? To the company? To the people who make the company? To the people who continue to innovate, make the place better? No, motherfucker. It goes to the people who have money, who do NOTHING for it. Fucking kill the parasites.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:29
No.7503142

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:29 No.7503142

Replies: >>7503235

>>7502772

...haven't we tried that before?

If you stole everything, literally very asset the top 10% of America had and liquidated it, you could afford to run the government for about 11 months

And the new business leaders are a bunch of random people with no experience, knowledge, or ambition, and who also don't have anything to work with since we sold it all to pay for less than 1 year of our current government

Great plan

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:29
No.7503145

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:29 No.7503145

Replies: >>7503215 >>7503226 >>7503393

>>7503079

>these people are your largest job creators.

What jobs?

We currently have some of the lowest taxes in US history and the job creator aren't creating jobs. They are offshoring all the money, they are not reinvesting it.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:30
No.7503162

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:30 No.7503162

>>7503090
>Learn2 pent up demand.
HAHAHA
Oh man the excuses keynesians made up after they were proven wrong in a giant fucking way.

>Also, the US economy crashed in 1947
I KNOW and it was rebuilt on solid footing, they had to turn a war economy into a consumer economy. If it was up to you guys we STILL would be producing weapons and shit instead of goods for people. You're retarded.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:30
No.7503184

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:30 No.7503184

Replies: >>7503477

>>7503022
>I'm simply pointing out the fact that ultra high taxes for the rich doesn't hurt the economy.
But this poster clearly proved you wrong.

>>7502915

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:31
No.7503215

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:31 No.7503215

Replies: >>7503508

>>7503145
>We currently have some of the lowest taxes in US history and the job creator aren't creating jobs
Because interest rates are at record lows thanks to idiots like you and the structure of production is really really fucked up. If people invest what are they going to get a real return on?

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:32
No.7503226

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:32 No.7503226

Replies: >>7503393

>>7503145
Right. This "muh job creators" talking point has been thoroughly debunked because of the level of globalization that wasn't prevalent in the market 30 years ago.
Conservatives have had the same talking points since Reagan.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:32
No.7503235

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:32 No.7503235

File: 1353378726478.jpg-(77 KB, 400x526, 103309355.ISFmqGUE.mario_(...).jpg)

>>7503142

>If you stole everything, literally very asset the top 10% of America had and liquidated it, you could afford to run the government for about 11 months

That's not actually true. If we simply collected the tax the rich have avoided paying we could clear our $17 Trillion over night and have $4 Trillion to spare:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jul/21/global-elite-tax-offshore-economy

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:33
No.7503297

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:33 No.7503297

Replies: >>7503534

>>7503126
>I say make banks illegal. Coops only.
I saw make you illegal.
We had free banking before with no regulations and banks were extremely small

>Ask yourself, genius, where does the mony go whin you invest in a stock?
You're the one who forced them to invest in the stock. You and other liberals gave the fed and goldman sachs all this power instead of going towards production. Wake up.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:36
No.7503393

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:36 No.7503393

Replies: >>7503525 >>7503609

>>7503145
>>7503226
Still misconstruing the rich rich with the "poor" rich.

Also what is a recession.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:37
No.7503436

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:37 No.7503436

Replies: >>7503467

>>7503041

>This isn't true, socialists maybe but communists no.

I'm sorry to break it to you, Libertarians were Communists.

>Anarchist communist philosopher Joseph Déjacque was the first person to describe himself as "libertarian".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#History

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:39
No.7503467

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:39 No.7503467

Replies: >>7503521

>>7503436
No they weren't. They were "libertarian socialists". People used to call themselves a bunch of crazy things it doesn't mean they're right.

Liberal used to mean libertarian and this was long before any of that socialism came to be.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:39
No.7503476

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:39 No.7503476

Replies: >>7503699 >>7503709

File: 1353379159780.jpg-(12 KB, 320x230, us-drone_5.jpg)

>>7502454
If they leave to tax havens our investment is destroyed anyway.

Maybe some accidents could happen to some of the men who flee offshore.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:39
No.7503477

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:39 No.7503477

>>7503184

>But this poster clearly proved you wrong.
>proved.

I don't see any proof?

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:40
No.7503508

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:40 No.7503508

Replies: >>7503614

>>7503215
>Because interest rates are at record lows thanks to the baby boomers saving for retirement. People are investing as never before so you can't complain about a lack of investment capital.
FTFY

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:40
No.7503521

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:40 No.7503521

Replies: >>7503672

>>7503467

>Socialists...

No, they were Communists.

>Le Libertaire was the first anarcho-communist journal published in America. This was the first anarchist journal to use the term "libertarian" According to anarchist historian Max Nettlau, the first use of the term libertarian communism was in November 1880

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:40
No.7503525

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:40 No.7503525

Replies: >>7503823

>>7503393
>implying the "rich rich" don't amass fortunes using the global market instead of the domestic market
Come on, just admit it. Its been disproven time and again.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:41
No.7503534

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:41 No.7503534

Replies: >>7503712

>>7503297
That won't work in the modern world

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:43
No.7503609

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:43 No.7503609

Replies: >>7503662 >>7503745 >>7503800 >>7503823

>>7503393

>recession

We came out of recession over three years ago. The economy is currently growing at 2%:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:43
No.7503614

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:43 No.7503614

>>7503508
>>thanks to the baby boomers saving for retirement
What fucking retirement? Their savings for retirement has been destroyed thanks to people like you and now they think "social security" is going to be there but it's not. Enjoy grandma dying on the street.

>People are investing as never before so you can't complain about a lack of investment capital.
I'm complaining about massive massive malinvestments, like the housing market for instance.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:44
No.7503662

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:44 No.7503662

Replies: >>7503731 >>7503792

>>7503609
> growing
> 25 million unemployed

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:44
No.7503672

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:44 No.7503672

>>7503521
Libertarian in europe means libertarian socialist, not communist(like ussr communist)

People used to call themselves a bunch of crazy things it doesn't mean they're right.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:45
No.7503699

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:45 No.7503699

>>7503476
>Maybe some accidents could happen to some of the men who flee offshore.
Okay enjoy your poverty and working harder than you have to because your envy drove you to eat someone else.

Anonymous
11/19/12(Mon)21:45
No.7503709

Anonymous 11/19/12(Mon)21:45 No.7503709

>>7503476

There have always been tax havens, the rich have always used them. The threat the rich use to move to Richistan always makes me smile.