Economics for liberals. What Obama should have done.

[boneyard bill]

I don't agree with everything this guy has to say, but then again, I'm not a liberal. Woody Brock is a Keynesian economist and a big supporter of big government. But if you have to be liberal, he's the kind of guy who at least makes economic sense.

It's a half-hour long interview but well worth the time. Every liberal should listen to it. Brock points out what you should expect from liberal policies and the kind of thing we've gotten from Obama isn't it. And although he's a liberal, he actually likes Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher because they at least knew what they wanted to do and got it done.

http://www.financialsense.com/finan...ody-brock-phd/collapse-macroeconomics-reprise

 

[lpetrich]

So you'd like it if Obama and his colleagues in Congress took a ruthless, take-no-prisoners approach to the Republicans? Like kicking Republicans off of important Congressional committees, directing lots of pork to pro-Democratic areas and pro-Democratic constituencies and not to any pro-Republican ones, making states gerrymander their districts to shut out Republicans, etc.

 

[fromderinside]

I don't agree with everything this guy has to say, but then again, I'm not a liberal. Woody Brock is a Keynesian economist and a big supporter of big government. But if you have to be liberal, he's the kind of guy who at least makes economic sense.

It's a half-hour long interview but well worth the time. Every liberal should listen to it. Brock points out what you should expect from liberal policies and the kind of thing we've gotten from Obama isn't it. And although he's a liberal, he actually likes Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher because they at least knew what they wanted to do and got it done.

http://www.financialsense.com/finan...ody-brock-phd/collapse-macroeconomics-reprise

Yeah. That's the ticket.

This thing is about as main stream liberal politics is it is as central as main lining.

Take two Krugman and call me in the morning.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/17/opinion/paul-krugman-what-markets-will.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/06/opinion/paul-krugman-voodoo-economics-the-next-generation.html

 

[laughing dog]

Does anyone else see the internal contradiction in the OP of "Brock points out what you should expect from liberal policies and the kind of thing we've gotten from Obama isn't it. And although he's a liberal,..."

 

[boneyard bill]

I don't agree with everything this guy has to say, but then again, I'm not a liberal. Woody Brock is a Keynesian economist and a big supporter of big government. But if you have to be liberal, he's the kind of guy who at least makes economic sense.

It's a half-hour long interview but well worth the time. Every liberal should listen to it. Brock points out what you should expect from liberal policies and the kind of thing we've gotten from Obama isn't it. And although he's a liberal, he actually likes Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher because they at least knew what they wanted to do and got it done.

http://www.financialsense.com/finan...ody-brock-phd/collapse-macroeconomics-reprise

Yeah. That's the ticket.

This thing is about as main stream liberal politics is it is as central as main lining.

Take two Krugman and call me in the morning.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/17/opinion/paul-krugman-what-markets-will.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/06/opinion/paul-krugman-voodoo-economics-the-next-generation.html

You're actually going to cite Paul Krugman as an alternative to Brock? Krugman is a political shill. He writes what the powers that be want to hear. The NY Times is about as independent of the White House as the District of Columbia is. It's the equivalent of me citing Rush Limbaugh on the latest Republican economic plan. If you want to cite a serious economist, we might be able to have a decent discussion, but Krugman just spouts establishment propaganda with a slight left-wing critique to hold Obama's feet to the fire.

- - - Updated - - -

So you'd like it if Obama and his colleagues in Congress took a ruthless, take-no-prisoners approach to the Republicans? Like kicking Republicans off of important Congressional committees, directing lots of pork to pro-Democratic areas and pro-Democratic constituencies and not to any pro-Republican ones, making states gerrymander their districts to shut out Republicans, etc.

What's your point?

 

[laughing dog]

Yeah. That's the ticket.

This thing is about as main stream liberal politics is it is as central as main lining.

Take two Krugman and call me in the morning.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/17/opinion/paul-krugman-what-markets-will.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/06/opinion/paul-krugman-voodoo-economics-the-next-generation.html

You're actually going to cite Paul Krugman as an alternative to Brock? Krugman is a political shill. He writes what the powers that be want to hear. The NY Times is about as independent of the White House as the District of Columbia is. It's the equivalent of me citing Rush Limbaugh on the latest Republican economic plan. If you want to cite a serious economist, we might be able to have a decent discussion, but Krugman just spouts establishment propaganda with a slight left-wing critique to hold Obama's feet to the fire.

Being a Nobel Laureate in economics is about as serious an economist can be.

 

[boneyard bill]

You're actually going to cite Paul Krugman as an alternative to Brock? Krugman is a political shill. He writes what the powers that be want to hear. The NY Times is about as independent of the White House as the District of Columbia is. It's the equivalent of me citing Rush Limbaugh on the latest Republican economic plan. If you want to cite a serious economist, we might be able to have a decent discussion, but Krugman just spouts establishment propaganda with a slight left-wing critique to hold Obama's feet to the fire.

Being a Nobel Laureate in economics is about as serious an economist can be.

Really? And what about President Obama's "peace" prize? He's now bombed seven countries which is certainly an all-time record for any president not fighting a declared war. The Nobel prize is as political as Krugman's columns in the NY Times.

 

[laughing dog]

Being a Nobel Laureate in economics is about as serious an economist can be.

Really? And what about President Obama's "peace" prize? He's now bombed seven countries which is certainly an all-time record for any president not fighting a declared war. The Nobel prize is as political as Krugman's columns in the NY Times.

Go ahead and cling to the ridiculous assertion that a Nobel laureate in economics is not a serious economist because you disagree with his political opinions. One does not get nominated nor win the Nobel Prize in economics without making serious contributions to economics.

 

[lpetrich]

You're actually going to cite Paul Krugman as an alternative to Brock? ...

Do you have any better argument than what can be summarized as "I hate Paul Krugman"?

So you'd like it if Obama and his colleagues in Congress took a ruthless, take-no-prisoners approach to the Republicans? Like kicking Republicans off of important Congressional committees, directing lots of pork to pro-Democratic areas and pro-Democratic constituencies and not to any pro-Republican ones, making states gerrymander their districts to shut out Republicans, etc.

What's your point?

This was in reference to your OP's statement

And although he's a liberal, he actually likes Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher because they at least knew what they wanted to do and got it done.

 

[Valjean]

Being a Nobel Laureate in economics is about as serious an economist can be.

Really? And what about President Obama's "peace" prize? He's now bombed seven countries which is certainly an all-time record for any president not fighting a declared war. The Nobel prize is as political as Krugman's columns in the NY Times.

Not to mention Friedrich Hayek's economics prize.

 

[boneyard bill]

Really? And what about President Obama's "peace" prize? He's now bombed seven countries which is certainly an all-time record for any president not fighting a declared war. The Nobel prize is as political as Krugman's columns in the NY Times.

Go ahead and cling to the ridiculous assertion that a Nobel laureate in economics is not a serious economist because you disagree with his political opinions. One does not get nominated nor win the Nobel Prize in economics without making serious contributions to economics.

I stand by my previous claim. The Nobel Prize is the result of politically correct favoritism even if it is for economics.

 

[boneyard bill]

Do you have any better argument than what can be summarized as "I hate Paul Krugman"?

So you'd like it if Obama and his colleagues in Congress took a ruthless, take-no-prisoners approach to the Republicans? Like kicking Republicans off of important Congressional committees, directing lots of pork to pro-Democratic areas and pro-Democratic constituencies and not to any pro-Republican ones, making states gerrymander their districts to shut out Republicans, etc.

What's your point?

This was in reference to your OP's statement

And although he's a liberal, he actually likes Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher because they at least knew what they wanted to do and got it done.

Quite a stretch in your thinking I'd say. Reagan had to work with a Democrat House for his entire administration and with a Democrat Senate for the last two years. What "prisoners" did he not take? He got what he wanted by rallying the public behind his programs.

 

[boneyard bill]

Really? And what about President Obama's "peace" prize? He's now bombed seven countries which is certainly an all-time record for any president not fighting a declared war. The Nobel prize is as political as Krugman's columns in the NY Times.

Not to mention Friedrich Hayek's economics prize.

The inflation problem was so huge when Hayek won the prize that they couldn't ignore his Theory of the Trade Cycle which was the work for which he won the prize and which was coming true before their eyse. But they still insisted on making him share it with Gunner Myrdal, a socialist.

 

[boneyard bill]

As I have said, I do not agree with Brock, but I find that his approach at least makes sense from a liberal point of view whereas I can't see where the Obama Administration's policies are even consistent with stated liberal goals.

It isn't like Brock's policies come from out of the blue. They are basically the policies that China has followed in the post-Mao era. When the Chinese decided to introduce markets to China, they didn't read Von Mises. They read Keynes. Despite some very significant blunders, the policy has been an overwhelming success even given the penchant of Chinese officials for overstating their progress.

So far, however, no one here had dared to critique Brock's claims or even to agree with him. The petty points raised here don't speak well for the willingness, or is it the ability, of the people on this boards to criticize Obama.

 

[laughing dog]

Go ahead and cling to the ridiculous assertion that a Nobel laureate in economics is not a serious economist because you disagree with his political opinions. One does not get nominated nor win the Nobel Prize in economics without making serious contributions to economics.

I stand by my previous claim. The Nobel Prize is the result of politically correct favoritism even if it is for economics.

That certainly cannot explain how people such Paul Samuelson, Robert Solow, Douglas North, Milton Friedman, Robert Lucas and Edmund Phelps won it.

As I have said, I do not agree with Brock, but I find that his approach at least makes sense from a liberal point of view whereas I can't see where the Obama Administration's policies are even consistent with stated liberal goals.

The fact you think Obama is a liberal makes it pretty clear that you do not understand the liberal point of view.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Do you have any better argument than what can be summarized as "I hate Paul Krugman"?

So you'd like it if Obama and his colleagues in Congress took a ruthless, take-no-prisoners approach to the Republicans? Like kicking Republicans off of important Congressional committees, directing lots of pork to pro-Democratic areas and pro-Democratic constituencies and not to any pro-Republican ones, making states gerrymander their districts to shut out Republicans, etc.

What's your point?

This was in reference to your OP's statement

And although he's a liberal, he actually likes Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher because they at least knew what they wanted to do and got it done.

Quite a stretch in your thinking I'd say. Reagan had to work with a Democrat House for his entire administration and with a Democrat Senate for the last two years. What "prisoners" did he not take? He got what he wanted by rallying the public behind his programs.

You must have slept through the Reagan Era. I bet you believe he cut taxes on the average American and shrunk the size of government.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

"Commonsense 101 Solutions to the Economic Crises": Anyone who claims Economics 101 for any policy should be shot.

 

[ksen]

I don't agree with everything this guy has to say, but then again, I'm not a liberal. Woody Brock is a Keynesian economist and a big supporter of big government. But if you have to be liberal, he's the kind of guy who at least makes economic sense.

It's a half-hour long interview but well worth the time. Every liberal should listen to it. Brock points out what you should expect from liberal policies and the kind of thing we've gotten from Obama isn't it. And although he's a liberal, he actually likes Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher because they at least knew what they wanted to do and got it done.

http://www.financialsense.com/finan...ody-brock-phd/collapse-macroeconomics-reprise

guess who else likes Ronald Reagan

 

[boneyard bill]

Do you have any better argument than what can be summarized as "I hate Paul Krugman"?

So you'd like it if Obama and his colleagues in Congress took a ruthless, take-no-prisoners approach to the Republicans? Like kicking Republicans off of important Congressional committees, directing lots of pork to pro-Democratic areas and pro-Democratic constituencies and not to any pro-Republican ones, making states gerrymander their districts to shut out Republicans, etc.

What's your point?

This was in reference to your OP's statement

And although he's a liberal, he actually likes Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher because they at least knew what they wanted to do and got it done.

Quite a stretch in your thinking I'd say. Reagan had to work with a Democrat House for his entire administration and with a Democrat Senate for the last two years. What "prisoners" did he not take? He got what he wanted by rallying the public behind his programs.

You must have slept through the Reagan Era. I bet you believe he cut taxes on the average American and shrunk the size of government.

I didn't make any of those claims did I? So what's your point?

 

[Roller]

I see that the title for that interview is "U.S. Needs to Invest in Infrastructure Projects With Positive Rates of Return". Isn't that what Krugman has been saying all along?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk