Krugman: GOP Hates The Poor

You dont have to apologize for the 1%, to hate liars cheats and thieves.

Anyone can hate em, and I encourage em to do so.

Why do you apologize for liars cheats and thieves?

- - - Updated - - -

So do your excuses for liars cheats and thieves.

- - - Updated - - -

Theyre faking Global Warming by altering temperature data, so whats the difference?

 

Do you want to quote my specific post where I apologized for liars cheats and thieves? Or are you just baselessly ranting again?

I got my answer.

 

If you make excuses for paul krugmann, then the shoe fits.

 

Krugman doesnt need excuses, he has laid out his case, sold a ton of books and won just about every debate with right wing knuckleheads going.

And youve embarrassed yourself again with your blatant ignorance by thinking that Krugman argued that Government should feign an alien invasion.

Ill wager right here and now that you cant actually tell us what his argument is in clear determinable language because essentially its gone right over your head. We all know you well enough by now Besty....

 

Krugman must be sweating bullets now that Japan's economy is nose diving.

 

I agree with Krugman, the GOP does hate poverty.

That is why they fight to unshackle people from the govt and dependency and want to empower people to improve their lives and leave poverty.

On the flip side, the Democrats need poverty

 

You need to re-read the Krugman's article.

 

And how have Krugman and the progressive policies worked out the last 8 years to alleviate poverty and get people off government subsistence and into good paying jobs?

 

Why are you asking me?

But to my understanding, we have not adopted Krugman's policies over the last 8 years.

Maybe you can provide us a summary of Krugman's policies and when they were enacted or adopted.

 

I don't know whether they feel the emotion of "hate" when they think about the poor. Certainly they say a lot of vicious things about the poor. But what really matters is how the economy does, especially for the poor, when Republicans are in power. Consider two statistics:

Change in unemployment rate by party of president

Change in personal income by party of president

 

Where did you get your extreme left-wing views from....MSNBC?....Rachel Madcow?.....CNN?....

 

Krugman also seems to believe that we're only prosperous when the economy is experiencing a bubble...

Someone phone Yellen and tell her to purchase 10 million shares of Apple Stock. I think the Federal Reserve is running out of things to buy...

 

Actually, Krugman lost a debate a couple of years ago against Spanish economist Pedro Schwartz and resorted to nothing but ad hominem attacks.

It was rather sad...

 

This pretty much sums it up, but the entire article is the worth a read.

 

Interestingly enough, Paul Krugman (2010) admits in a textbook Essentials of Economics, if unemployment becomes more attractive because of the unemployment benefit, some unemployed workers may no longer try to find a job.

So... There's that...

 

There are exceptions to every rule, but the GOP is using the talking points for the very reason that I cited in my previous post.

Study: Unemployment Benefits Don’t Discourage People from Finding Work
http://billmoyers.com/2013/12/04/st...its-dont-discourage-people-from-finding-work/

 

That explains it. There was no Great Recession. It's just that about 8 million Americans all decided to get lazy and live off those luxurious government benefits at about the same time.

That's why unemployment went up so high.

 

They're using that talking point because it is a basic fundamental point in economics to make. Even Krugman understands that much, however, to disown this point to vilify your opponents (as Krugman as done) is hypocritical, and makes Krugman a joke.

You might have to find a new study, because it doesn't seem to reflect the current job market. Average long term unemployed is still higher than 27 weeks. Also, long term beveridge curve shows more labour market inefficiencies. There are more job vacancies and no one can fill them.

We've had unemployment benefits for more than 5 years. If unemployment benefits doesn't incentivize unemployment, then job vacancies should shrink as unemployment shrinks, but this isn't happening, now is it.

 

We've been very generous with unemployment benefits. I sure as well would take advantage of that, and many others apparently thought the same.

 

Are you assuming that long term unemployment is high because of unemployment benefits? There are still far fewer job vacancies that there are people who are seeking a job.

Job vacancies is also a function of employers seeking employees, a sign that the economy is improving, albiet slowly.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure. I'm sure the fact that the economy tanked had little to do with millions more people becoming unemployed. What a coincidence that so many Americans all decided to get lazy and live off all those generous benefits at the same time.

 

Of course there's Money in it. No sane person would link to a website so often unless they're being paid. I never click links here.

 

2 unemployed persons for every 1 available job. That is a milestone compared to the initial 9 unemployed for every 1 job since the beginning of the crisis.

Which is why we have a beveridge curve to tell use whether or not more job vacancies are the result of employers hiring or more people seeking less work.

According to it, it shows more market inefficiencies (upward shift), which indicates jobs are being unfilled.

Finding another job is hard (at least, it's only hard if it is a job you really want). You don't believe unemployment benefits increased an incentive to avoid doing work that you wouldn't enjoy or support your lifestyle?

 

Thing have improved, no doubt about it.

Which is what we'd expect in an improving economy.

Finding another job is really hard when there are none available. I think that was the main reason people weren't going back to work.

If living off the Govt was so wonderful, we would have seen improvement in employment over the past 4 years.

 

Then what do you account for the amount of unemployed persons and job vacancies?

It sounds like what we could expect from structural unemployment.

Also, net hires is lagging behind payroll prints. It's not really an indication that firms are expanding.

There are jobs available. No one really wants these jobs.

Why would it improve employment?

 

This one?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/ultimate-krugman-take-down

Im going to look at this with a keen interest.