- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Prove he is not credible.
Wow, now it's my job to prove a negative? You're a hoot!
I got a better idea: you prove that he is.
And, winning the Nobel prize isn't proof. Hell, PBO and Al Gore won that and we all know how credible they are.
Yup, perfectly predictable. Some one who is the first to say "prove it" is the first to run and hide when asked to prove it, claiming he cannot.
I can't prove a negative. You should be smart enough to know that. Should be...anyway.
You certainly can prove that he is not considered a credible source. You need to understand what "proving a negative" actually means.
I still do not understand why you insist being left of center makes him any less credible? In regards to economics, your comparison to Rush and Bill is less laughable than down right ignorant.
However you slice it, Krugman is a hands down brilliant economist while the others are media figures. It's like comparing a custom Mustang to a Ferrari.
I still do not understand why you insist being left of center makes him any less credible? In regards to economics, your comparison to Rush and Bill is less laughable than down right ignorant.
However you slice it, Krugman is a hands down brilliant economist while the others are media figures. It's like comparing a custom Mustang to a Ferrari.
Well, for the record, I never said that. I said, you believe he's credible because he's left of center.
The difference between Krugman, Rush, Bill, and Sean is quite apparent. One is of the most renowned economists on this planet, and the other three are media personalities. One is a tenured economics professor at one of the most prestigious universities on the planet, the other three.... Well you get the idea.
What you have to do is find a right of center economist with the credentials equal to Krugman to offer a quality counter point. This can be done rather easily, but do not expect me to do your research for you. Besides, you really do not want to know what a right of center economist would say. :2wave:
That will not happen with Obama putting us deeper in debt. No comment on the dow losing again
Hello, were you alive the last 8 years? We are where we are because of the corporatists. The capitalists are all running small businesses.No I have a money market and thats it. When the capitalist of this country bring back the economy I will see what I want to do. Right now the market and money is not dependable with Obama doing nothing.
Oh look the Dow is up again... no comment. :roll:
don't count on it.
The Messiah wants to raise taxes.
Again.
The most stupid thing in the world to do in a recession, and the Messiah can't think of anything else, except "balloon the deficit".
Prove he is not credible.
Oh look the Dow is up again... no comment. :roll:
Hello, were you alive the last 8 years? We are where we are because of the corporatists. The capitalists are all running small businesses.
Yeah, I do remember he did nothing to prevent 9/11. I do remember how he had to send out checks to stimulate his failing economy. I do remember how he and his congress did nothing to prevent or stop the housing bubble which was the only thing keeping his economic illusion from crashing down around his feet until his last year in office. I do remember a rapidly inflating deficit. I do remember stagnant wages. I do remember a shrinking middle class. I do remember 2 unnecessary wars being started without a tax increase to fund them for the first time in American history. I do remember people increasing productivity while getting less compensation... I remember a lot of things about the Bush years and none of them are good memories.The market hit record levels under Bush, but we were all suffering, then. Remember that?
Either your 401k is not invested in the stock market or you're a liar because the Dow and the Nasdaq hit it's lowest numbers on march 6th 2009.I have had 401k many years and the last quarter was the worst I ever had. I gained just over a dollar.
From post 25 and 109
The number of Americans filing for initial unemployment insurance rose last week, the government said Thursday.
There were 480,000 initial jobless claims filed in the week ended Jan. 30, the Labor Department said in a weekly report. This is the highest level since Dec. 12 and up 8,000 from an upwardly revised 472,000 the previous week.
Economists were expecting claims to drop to 455,000, according to a consensus estimate from Briefing.com.
The 4-week moving average of initial claims was 468,750, up 11,750 from the previous week's revised average of 457,000.
The drop in percent unemployed is due to those who have given up looking for a Job.
Either your 401k is not invested in the stock market or you're a liar because the Dow and the Nasdaq hit it's lowest numbers on march 6th 2009.
This proves nothing. You should read. The unemployment survey and the employment survey are two different ones. Therefore they are not always the same, though they usually do correlate. The employment survey is much larger so it is probobly more accurate. The drop in the percent of unemployment has nothing to do with people giving up looking for work, it has to do with a divergence between the surveys. The surveys are an estimate of what is happening in the general population, becuase they do not survey everyone in america (duh).
Your right there were more unemployment claims this week (actually for the past three weeks), no economist is disputing that (including krugman). Here is another piece of the puzzle.
"The Employment-Population ratio ticked up slightly to 58.4% in January, after plunging since the start of the recession. This is about the same level as in 1983." -Calculated Risk
There are a bunch of statistics that we can use to try to get an idea of what the job market looks like. Thats why we have all of these differnet surveys, to try and get the best etimate of the entire U.S. population.
So more unemployment checks equal the percentage going down?
No, I didn't say that and neither did krugman. I simply told you why the numbers seem to contradict each other. Like I said, you should read!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?