This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Gonzalo Lira Highlights The Contradictions In The Life Of A Keynesian Fluffer
From Gonzalo Lira
The Contradictions In The Life Of A Fluffer
A “fluffer” is the person on a pornographic film shoot who makes sure that the male lead has an erection, and can thus “perform” at the appropriate moments. Remember Boogie Nights? Remember the fat little tub-o’-lard brilliantly played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman? The one who had a secret homosexual crush on Mark Wahlberg’s porn-star character? That’s a fluffer.
Brad DeLong is Paul Krugman’s fluffer.
DeLong is an economist at UC Berkeley, a Neo-Keynesian like his charge. (I’m sure I’ll get an earful for that characterization). Basically, Krugman and DeLong and their followers think that fiscal spending via deficits is the only way to turn around the economy. Fiscal spending, according to this macro-economic worldview, is the determining factor in the growth of a modern economy.
DeLong has worked with Krugman on quite a few different projects—but DeLong’s real job is making sure Krugman stays hard, and stays aimed at the appropriate hole, as it were. I mean, after all, he’s Krugman’s fluffer—that’s his job: To keep the talent erect and ready to perform, while dispatching any and all distractions.
Full disclosure: I was one of those distractions that got Krugman all soft. I wrote a piece where I pointed out that Krugman was clearly opening the inference for readers to think that a war might be the only solution for America’s fiscal problems.
DeLong called me “batshit insane”—which I sort of liked, actually. Sort of like the name of the super-villain in a cheesy James Bond rip-off: “My name is Insane—Batshit Insane.” I was thinking of having business cards made up.
Anyway: Recently, DeLong called for either the resignation of David Broder of the Washington Post, or the resignation in protest of the Washington Post staff, or a combination thereof. Why? Because according to DeLong, Broder’s most recent editorial was calling for a war with Iran, in order to save the U.S. economy.
Hmmm . . .
See, the reason DeLong had given me my cool super-villain name was because I had pointed out that Paul Krugman was not so subtly advocating war as a solution to America’s economic problems. DeLong threw a hissy fit—at me, for pointing out the full implications of Krugman’s writings.
But now, DeLong was throwing another hissy fit—only at David Broder, for saying essentially what Krugman had said.
Apart from these two episodes showing that Brad DeLong is big on hissy fits, they do seem to point to some glaring contradictions in Mr. DeLong’s worldview.
But don’t take my word for it: Take Mr. Krugman’s and Mr. Broder’s and Mr. DeLong’s word for it.
First, what Broder wrote:
In fairly mild, fairly pro-Obama editorial, Broder dismisses any real challenges to the president in the 2012 re-election, and finds that the only real thorn in Obama’s side is the economy—Broder correctly points out that the president really doesn’t have any control over it.
The Broder editorial ends with this:
What else might affect the economy? The answer is obvious, but its implications are frightening. War and peace influence the economy.
Look back at FDR and the Great Depression. What finally resolved that economic crisis? World War II.
Here is where Obama is likely to prevail. With strong Republican support in Congress for challenging Iran's ambition to become a nuclear power, he can spend much of 2011 and 2012 orchestrating a showdown with the mullahs. This will help him politically because the opposition party will be urging him on. And as tensions rise and we accelerate preparations for war, the economy will improve.
I am not suggesting, of course, that the president incite a war to get reelected. But the nation will rally around Obama because Iran is the greatest threat to the world in the young century. If he can confront this threat and contain Iran's nuclear ambitions, he will have made the world safer and may be regarded as one of the most successful presidents in history.
Broder might have put up a mealy-mouthed disclaimer—“I am not suggesting, of course, that the president incite a war to get re-elected”—but that’s exactly what he’s saying. There’s really no other way to read it.
DeLong pointed this out—actually, DeLong had a hissy fit, as is his wont, and called for the resignation-as-punishment of Broder, and the resignation-as-protest of the rest of the staff of the Washington Post. DeLong concluded with the following:
Broder is the worst. He is monstruous.
Poor Brad did not call for the resignation of anyone at the New York Times, when Krugman essentially argued for the same thing, in the op-ed pages and the blog that he has on the NY Times site.
From Krugman’s “1938 is 2010” editorial from this past Labor Day Weekend:
From an economic point of view World War II was, above all, a burst of deficit-financed government spending, on a scale that would never have been approved otherwise. [. . .]
Had anyone proposed spending even a fraction that much [$30 trillion] before the war, people would have said the same things they’re saying today. They would have warned about crushing debt and runaway inflation. They would also have said, rightly, that the Depression was in large part caused by excess debt — and then have declared that it was impossible to fix this problem by issuing even more debt.
But guess what? Deficit spending created an economic boom — and the boom laid the foundation for long-run prosperity.
By “boom”, Krugman is of course referring to the Post-War Boom.
From Krugman’s “Arsenal of Recovery” blog post this past September 25:
A very nice new paper by Gordon and Krenn on the end of the Great Depression.
Although they don’t quite say so explicitly, the paper is to an important extent an answer to Robert Barro’s claim that the World War II experience shows that multipliers are low, because private spending actually fell during the war; as I and others have tried to point out, this was because it was, you know, wartime, with rationing of consumer goods and sharp restrictions on private investment.
What Gordon and Krenn point out is that we actually have more information than a simple comparison between the depressed peacetime economy and the war economy after Pearl Harbor: there was a period of more than two years when the United States was gearing up for war but not yet engaged in combat — the Arsenal of Democracy era. Rationing was not yet in effect, and for at least part of this period the economy still had excess capacity despite a very large rise in government spending.
What they find is that when there was still excess capacity, there was a quite large multiplier on government spending; that is, fiscal policy worked.
Though I despise Krugman, and consider him a nihilistic liar, I do admire his slipperiness as a writer.
Krugman is a much better writer than Broder—so he doesn’t fall for the trap of saying outright, “War would be good for the American economy”.
He’s actually much more clever and pernicious about it: Krugman sets up the inference, but never takes the final step to the inevitable conclusion—instead, he invites his readers to take that final step.
That way, he can claim in a superficially accurate sense that he had nothing to do with promulgating the idea of war as a fiscal stimulus package—while in fact being the godfather of the conceit.
It’s a bit like a defense lawyer, questioning a rape victim on the stand: “How many sexual partners have you had in the last year, aside from my client?—wait, sorry, the judge won’t allow me to ask you about your past sexual escapades: I withdraw the question.” The lawyer isn’t saying the victim’s a slut—he’s inviting the jury to make the inference, while sliding in the notion that the rape wasn’t a rape, merely consensual sex.
Or for another example of Krugman’s rhetorical strategy: Go back to the top of this very post, and please re-read the first paragraph that I wrote. I’ll wait.
Notice the Boogie Nights reference? Notice how I mention the totally irrelevant issue of the Hoffman’s character’s homosexual crush on Wahlberg’s character? Totally irrelevant—but it instantly sets up the reader to make the inference that DeLong has a homosexual crush on Krugman.
In fact, it’s practically the only inference the reader can make—yet I can skate away, and quite accurately claim that I never said DeLong had an unnatural attraction to Krugman. I never even had the intention of making such a claim! How dare you say that I intended to say such a thing! However, if readers infer such a thing on their own, well, that’s their business . . .
See what I mean by “slippery”?
That’s the kind of pernicious, despicable bullshit Krugman pulls on his readers on a regular basis: He throws a rock, then hides his hand. He says the fiscal deficit necessary to finance the Second World War was the best thing that ever happened to the American economy—then has his fluffer, Brad DeLong, get all mock-outraged when someone points out that Krugman seems to be suggesting that a big-ass war would be good for the American economy.
Now, I called Krugman out on his lies about World War II fiscal indebtedness in my post, “Why Paul Krugman Is An Imbecile—or a Fraud” I took apart his “1938 is 2010” post quoted above, showing how Krugman had played fast-and-loose with the data, twisting it very subtly in order to support a conclusion that could not be supported by any other means except deception.
But then, in my later post, “Why I Despise Krugman”, when I pointed out that Krugman is consistently arguing for war as a means to salvage the U.S. economy, I got an earful from Brad DeLong. (Krugman himself wrote a post in response to me, called “Economics Is Not A Morality Play”—a post of a truly shocking level of arrogance and conceit, not to mention moral torpitude.)
DeLong wrote me an e-mail with the lines (I am here quoting verbatim), “Have you no decency, sir? Have you no decency?”
Actually, I do: That’s why I’m pointing out the contradiction in DeLong’s various hissy fits. He threw a hissy fit at me, for correctly inferring that Krugman is calling for war to solve America’s fiscal problems. Then he threw another hissy fit at David Broder, whose sin was that he said explicitly what Krugman is too cowardly to say flat out.
Poor Brad DeLong: The lonely life of a fluffer is filled with such curious contradictions. He has to defend Krugman for advocating war as an economic solution—while castigating Broder for advocating war as an economic solution.
Poor Brad DeLong: Such is the fate of a man who deliberately decides to be the submissive sidekick to a stronger yet immoral star like Krugman. There’s nothing wrong with being the sidekick—so long as you maintain your integrity. But you can’t maintain your integrity by being the sidekick of a nihilistic liar like Krugman. And the thing is, poor Brad can’t break from Krugman at this point: His entire reputation depends on the K-ster Monster of Princeton Junction. Poor Brad is locked into his fate.
Poor Brad DeLong: It’s actually not much fun for me to mess around with him—because I know that no one will defend him. Krugman certainly won’t. Guys like Krugman use their fluffers to get them hard—but then pretend they can’t help them when they run into trouble, like poor Brad DeLong has now.
Poor Brad DeLong: Sad, sad, sad little fluffer. Pump, pump, pumping away.
- 11519 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -


Sorry to interupt your post Tyler, but the Grimsvötn volcano in Iceland is ready to pop. And if that one disrupts international trade during the christmas period... and that volcano is one mean ass volcano. and with the Anak krakatau we could get a summer without sun next year. It happend before, but not when those 2 erupted at the same time.
Well, well, well if it isn't the Belgian guy who has a dysfunctional sock for an avatar.
How are things in Frankreich 2?
Johnny!!! You're back! Thank the heavens, we may be delivered yet... /sarc off/
I am Johnny's cousin. Johnny moved into my place when gold crossed $1300. He has nightmares about his long tungsten futures positions and can't sleep without his teddy bear by his side.
We'll get Goldman to print up some more carbon credits and have Gore fly em over & dump em in...it'll all balance out economically...so I've been told ;-)
someone posted this article on that muppet's website
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/11/ooeee-ooeee-ooeee.html#comment-6a00e551f0800388340133f5830cde970b
i wonder how long it will be before the comment is removed
ooeee-ooeee-ooeeee...looks like he's right on top of it.
Makes ya want to spam it...just cuz he's all about free speech and all...LOL.
He's a very small dick in search of a skanky fluffer...hardly worth the effort to see the result ;-)
Holy Jesus H Fucking Christ on a Crutch.
Shit's unintelligible. Absolutely amazing Krugman makes no public apology for this relationship.
Whatever that might be. That's embarrassing.
OK, where do we start deconstructing here?
Grasping Reality with Both Hands (The reality - it's too small to grab with one) The Semi-Daily Journal of Economist J. Bradford DeLong: Fair, Balanced, Reality-Based, and Even-Handed Masturbatory Strokage"I will not fall for the trap of inferring that Krugman is arguing in favor of total world war, in order to save the U.S. economy—I think some commentators who are making that inference are driven by mean-spiritedness towards Mr. Krugman. "
G. Lira
Pump up the jam!
Pump it up!
While your feet are stompin'
And the jam is pumpin'
Look and hear the crowd is jumpin!
Look for the sand in the crack remix on youtube. I think that is how Bernanke was conceived.
Try this:
http://www.ministryofsound.com/MediaPlayer/Player/mp/Player.aspx?s=0&id=66
Heh heh. I take it all back, Gonzo is the shit!
I enjoy his articles (agree with most of them), plus kudos to anyone who calls someone a Keynesian Fluffer. The coming FED expansion will need a lot of fluffing.
LOL, Paul Krugman and his fuzzy pussy.......cat.
why make billions...when we can make.......millions?
all i wanted was sharks with frickin laser beams attached to their heads
zip it..
Please, if you're going to do that, just be safe.
Think of the children, and post signs.
Keynes - "In the long run, we are all dead.....so emphasize the short run". So what happens when his 'long run' falls in my 'short run' and I'm left holding his bag of debt and he is dead?
Then you come to realize that in fact he was saying:
"In the long run, we are all dead... and I give a f**k about my or anybody else's children."
Sudden Debt, you are being rude. Mr. Lira wrote a marvelous piece, and should be applauded before shouting VOLCANO in a crowded blog.
What is a fluffer? I am sorry I am way too naive. You see, my mother is Iranian and my father is an Orthodox Jew.
A fluffer is technically a bad bedroom anal oriented joke.
For example, passing enormous, smelly, noisy wind scaring the dog, waking the wife, pulling the bedclothes up over her head whilst fluffing them up and down screaming “Burglars!”
That sounds like a lot of fun. What time does your wife get home? lol
Lol, you guys couldnt be more wrong. A fluffer is the girl on a porn set who gets the male actor ready for the session. She fluffs him or in other words, gets him worked up. ~ lol, after writing this i read the beginning of the article which describes what a fluffer does.
No shit!Thanks dude
So that's what my fiancee does! Whenever she said she was a fluffer I always thought she was on Goldman's dole pitching trading ideas to retail idiots and keeping them from defecting to other banks. Phew, I am happy it's not as dirty as I thought.
Washington D.C. is full of fluffers and jizz moppers, many work at the Federal Reserve.
Wow, so you're the result of an immaculate deception !.
Double down, all in.
Who's gonna lead you into the Brave New World?
You must choose one or the other and a short justification.
Maureen Dowd or Paul Krugman
Re: Maureen Dowd--do you think the carpet matches the drapes?
Does Maureen Dowd's kitty have hair?
Krugman. He's got a pussy in his lap AND on his face.
It's all coming full circle.
Keynesianism is fascism.
No. Keynesianism is NOT fascism. Keynesianism morphs into fascism when you have a political system that is corrupt to the core - like ours. But that's less about Keynesianism and more about the charlatans whom we elect to manage the political circus that we allow.
Fascism was the political ideology popularized by former President Bush and carried on by Obama. By the end of Bush's presidency, the keys to the Treasury had been given to the masters of the universe on Wall Street - that's fascism.
Bashing Keynesianism has become the fad du jour, with no real regard for the entire picture of Keynesian economics. To call it fascism is a total distortion of what Keynesianism is - much like pundits on Faux News equating Obama to Hitler.
Personally, I hate government intervention, for moral reasons and ROI reasons. However, if a country is about to crash face-first into a ditch, then it is reasonable that our government would take steps to prevent that from happening. Unfortunately, our politicians hide behind the smokescreen of stimulating our economy, while the inevitable outcome is a thorough looting of the Treasury.
There must be a spend/save balance with frugality and austerity during times of prosperity and proper stimulus when the economy is suffering - that's Keynesianism. Without that balance, the arguments for (or against) Keynesianism are moot.
By the way, make sure you vote Republican tomorrow - the game of musical chairs needs a new DJ.
But.... the PAIN of austerity is too much. We... must.... jump-start... the... economy.... /Keynesianism
By the way, there is no such thing is "jump-starting" the economy. When an economy goes into a slump it's for a very good reason - and any "jump starting" it is like pouring sugar into one's fuel tank - sure you get a sugar rush, but soon enough the engine freezes.
Keynesianism is as beautiful and delightful as heroine.
Keynesian formula is flawed by the "G" (government spending) part of the GDP. Government spending does NOT increase REAL GDP - it only increases it relative to the fiat currency based on nothing tangible.
Keynesianism is as beautiful and delightful as heroine
No. Again, that's just an erroneous distortion of it.
If you're going to equate Keynesian economics to a drug, the better analogy would be Klonopin - something that levels the mood. That's Keynesian economics.
Heroine for the politicians, and their pals. Klono for the proles
Not a bad analogy. Of course the problem with Klonopin is that you treat symptoms instead of the underlying pathology:
"Benzodiazepines such as clonazepam have a fast onset of action and high effectiveness rate and low toxicity in overdose but have drawbacks due to adverse reactions including paradoxical effects, drowsiness, and cognitive impairment. Cognitive impairments can persist for at least 6 months after withdrawal of clonazepam; it is unclear whether full recovery of memory functions occurs (...)
Benzodiazepines such as clonazepam can be very effective in controlling status epilepticus, but, when used for longer periods of time, some potentially serious side-effects may develop, such as interference with cognitive functions and behavior.[53] Many individuals treated on a long-term basis develop a form of dependence known as "low-dose dependence."
(From Wikipedia.)
Conclusions: Keynesian policy; like benzos, are wildly addictive and ill suited for long term treatment. Ask your doctor.
"There must be a spend/save balance with frugality and austerity during times of prosperity and proper stimulus when the economy is suffering - that's Keynesianism. Without that balance, the arguments for (or against) Keynesianism are moot."
You should read up on Keynes historical adoration of fascism and try again. He was a socialist just like Krugman. While your at it plug in Papa Kennedy and see what happens...just sayin.
Asking a socialist in times of plenty to be austere is like asking Paris Hilton to be chaste.
The "theory" is bunk because it relies on something outside of it's mathematical control model...that is, politicians with the proverbial treats for the kiddies it's trying to lure in to a criminal relationship...a vote.
Math & emotion/greed/desire (whatever) are oil and water...they will separate...and they have...haven't they?
Bingo! It's not that politicians/government "leaders" are especially corrupted in one system versus another. They are all corrupt. JMK, just gave them "free" money with which to buy support. He failed to consider that they might not give it back. In this case it is heroine.
“In the preface to the German edition [of his General Theory], Keynes boasted that his theory was particularly well suited for totalitarian regimes and lamented that it was less fit for the conditions prevailing in freer societies.”
luckily, America adjusted its political system to suite its economic system
best GL post ever
yes, i agree. fuck them. they are the scum of the earth.
And you know that because...?
Because he watches popular movies.
I know what a fluffer is because I saw Orgazmo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgazmo), a hilarious film about a Mormon pornstar/superhero.
Hey, I know what a Dirty Sanchez is too, but not because I learned it through experiencing the act.
Really? Does it really fucking matter how/why? Attack the messenger much?
Here's two posts we'll never get back.
Be Free Gonzalo Liar and take your PRIVATE Federal Reserve Notes (FRN) to any Federal Reserve bank and ask for PUBLIC United States Notes (USN) (see below: "shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand") which are still valid currency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Note
"Whereas issuance of United States Notes ended in January 1971, existing United States Notes are still valid currency in the United States, though extremely rarely seen in circulation, given that paper money currently consists almost exclusively of Federal Reserve Notes."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode12/usc_sec_12_00000411----000-.html
"Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank. "
Lawful.
There's a bit of irony.
Tell me...what is "lawful" about devaluing a persons savings?
Specificlly outlawed by the Coinage Act of 1792; penalty, death.
Prosecuter; Your honor may we approach the bench?...(a nod with a come hither wave of the hand).
Hushed whispers ensue...then a shout from the judge...That is all! I will hear no more!
Judge; I find for the defendant. Under instruction from duly elected officials who are in fact representatives of the people of this great nation the defendant is not the one who is guilty of any crime here. The mandate was clear to him, print like there is no tomorrow, for there may not be if he did not print. No one is entitled to their accrued savings in green backs, their labor as it were, it clearly says Federal Reserve Note on the slip of paper, thus making it the Federal Reserves property. Their property, to do with as it wishes. We have property rights in this nation you know!
Defense counsel!...a word with you in my chambers if you please...and bring that fat envelope on your desk with you.
Case is dismissed! Court is adjourned! (loud banging noise)
Bailiff; All rise, Judge Fluffer's court is now in recess.
;-)
Which is why the FED makes the notes and not the treasury. One other note: You don't have to force people to accept good money. Legal tender laws are only necessary when people won't accept your paper.
I had DeLong as a professor at Cal. Actually, I had both him and Romer. It's really too bad I saw so many of my fellow undergrads being syncophants around both of them, just mopping up the drivel that spews from their mouths. Too bad Cals a state school so the kids in econ are dumb as rocks anyway and can't think for themselves.
War won't work this time...last time we had all the factories. This time the other guys do.
EXACTLY
"War won't work this time...last time we had all the factories. This time the other guys do."
We have a winner!
Dear Ganzolo, Thanks for the fun! If you were better looking and a girl, I'd be your fluffer.
Truly most entertaining, obscene, and hilarious not to say enlightening post from the ubiquitous Gonzalo. This ongoing and merciless dismantling of Krugman is sure to cause some severe synapse disruption in our nobel laureate. Such vicious biting satire is worthy of Swift or Rabelais. Bravo Gonzalo!.
We aim to please. Thank you for the kind compliments.
GL
The Bigger Dickus Production company is now hiring. We just need two bbws with hallways for anuses to play the role of the American taxpayer and a few donkeys with 20in penises to play the federal reserve part. Presto change-o!
I must say, a few of the comments here are bordering on bad taste.
What? That's not sarcasm?
Get used to it. It's not going to change.
ha, ha. thats great. good call, Erkel.
So he worked under Summers and is kissing Krugmans ass. So he is part of the brotherhood.
I wanted to work for the Fed when I was a child but my parents thought it might lead me to get in contact with some pretty classless people. So I became a porn actor instea
Thanks for pointing out that the Zionist-controlled media, having failed to present Iran as a legitimate nuclear threat, is now laying conceptual groundwork that U.S. military aggression against another of Israel's targets will be good for the economy.
Warmongers in any country are dangerous sociopaths.
Who is this Gonzo Lira ?
I'm the guy your pal David Kotok plagiarized from.
http://gonzalolira.blogspot.com/2010/10/statement-on-kotok-plagiarism.html
GL
Tsk, tsk! You said you wouldn't mention that again.
(Not my junk...)
Isn't Larry Kudlow some sleazebag shill junky from that lying shill propaganda network?
Why would anyone want to be identified with him?
Banks supplied the money to fund the Nobel prize in economics, NOT Mr. Nobel. The bankstas, for their own benefit, have glommed onto this prestigious scientific award and make sure their lackey-shills win, in order to support their political machinations. So now we have to contend with ivy-league twits, like Paul Krugman, who want a lot more government spending, thus massively running up the deficit, in order to keep the financial elite in power, for just a little longer.
+1
Ping ;-)
I think I'll get to be a millionaire if Krugman wins, so, Krugman.. right... right?
deleted
You only need to see this man interviewed once and for 20-30 seconds before you start to see the wheels spinning and smell the rubber burning and watch the vehicle go nowhere with a great deal of energy.
Like Romer, it doesn't take long before you realize he is telling lies that he believes himself.
It's that delusional zeal mixed with baseless positivity unrelated to facts, fluffed and sweet yet unsubstantial, like a light airy intellectual meringue on a bad pie.
these assholes should be executed for treason for suggesting war is a solution to a slow economy. Is this where a few Harvard and Yale boys send some country folk to die in a foreign land?
...really fucking sick shit.
whatever happened to defending our borders and living peacefully?
impossible with the fucking keynesian welfare state coffers in dire need of new dollars to pillage by corporate and labor cronies and their lapdog politicians. If only there actually were a hell for all of these assholes who treat human lives as pawns in chess.
i'm growing evermore supportive of a military coup de'tat so we can restore some dignity to higher office.
Oh. My. God.
I say Krugman and his fluffer volunteer first for the front lines that they are advocating for the rest of us. Or send their children.
it is good to make war on the keynesians because they are a putrid stench on the economics discipline, but it is also good to make war on the monetarists for it is their filth which is destroying the currency.
the usa is being devastated by a double envelopment of keynesians and monetarists the latter embodied by the stench bernankrupt.
it is also good to call out krugman, broder, and fluffie for their monstrous blood thirsty lust. those men are the heirs of hitler. iran is not a threat to america. america is a threat to itself for its arrogant lust for land, oil, and power.
fuck the banksters and their toadies....
these are some seriously sick fucks.
I long for the days that we can simply defend our borders with an Air Force, Navy, and State Militias, and not have bad men march good men off to die.
if Islam is such a threat, why are they not terrorizing the shite out of Catholic South America?
"they hate us for our freedom". give me a break. they hate us because we support an illegal land grab(s) in Palestine (Afghanistan, Iraq?).
p.s. we are not free.
As I said before: Krugman is trying to become the Keynes of our times, this Fourth Turning.
Thanks for hanging on to his neck, Gonzola!
From an economic point of view World War II was, above all, a burst of deficit-financed government spending, on a scale that would never have been approved otherwise.
You know how to read, right? How is this not interpretable as asking for another stimulus?
Now, it's true we've had a burst of deficit-financed government spending, on a scale that would never have been approved otherwise. for 7 years now and it hasn't worked yet. First on the Endless War, now on TBTF damage control. One can argue that the money went to the wrong end of the social pyramid; poor people spend all their money and rich people spend, proportionately, almost none. (Many are amazing skinflints.)
You've been in the fluffer-chamber too long, GL. You had something worthwhile to say but now you're just dipping your wick into the fluff-zone that is Zero Hedge.
yep,, that delong dude looks like a gay... passive seems..
alx
I think that Krugman might be confusing the reasons for post-war prosperity. Post war US prosperity was more likely fueled by export manufacturing as the industrial bases of Europe and Asia had been decimated. Prosperity was broad based after the war, not narrow based military spending, as during the war.
To say that prosperity was caused by spending on the war is ludicrous... and so another seemingly incorrect ASSumption by the Keynsians.
BTW, evidence would indicate that the US is the greatest threat to world peace, not Iran. The US has started war after war and toppled one government after another ... spreading its military bases like a pox all over the world. The US, along with its allies are already armed with nuclear weapons and have used them on population centers. Iran has done none of that. How is Iran the biggest threat?
Is it me, or do spats between economists seem shriller and more teenage, than between real scientists ? Nevertheless, good work from GL. The cat picture is genius.
GL rocks!
Glad that you so eloquently, with sophomoric jabs, went after that financial hack. That picture of his cat, gut, and camo for a weak chin is perfect. A pussilanimous academic that has no idea he has been consumed by luck and zip for genius.
I enjoyed your interview on Financial Sense immensely. I would like to hear more about Chile and the dynamics of its economy, politics, and policy.
Although surviving the currency hurricane (hmmm....curricane?) will not be pleasant, it is warming to know that these nonproductive academics, like Krugman and DeLong will get destroyed as they will have hung their entire present and future on theories which will expose them completely to the wrath. I'd love to see Krugman on a streetcorner begging and gladly give him some worthless currency and suggest maybe he call DeLong and exchange it for a good time.
It wasn't because we entered WW2, but because we kicked ass in WW2 that we boomed. I do not think the same stage is set this time. At all.
stimulate this
The most effective weapon, when being confronted by economic/financial hack journalism, is humor. If we laugh at them, they lose all power they think they supposedly have over us. Mr. Lira simply brilliant. Thanks for the ammo! I will think of this article every time I see Krugman's name!
why are you wasting your time on this? he must have really stung you for you to be so defensive.
We have all cheap uggs for sale in our website http://www.salesuggs.org ! You can meet all your needs for UGG hot sale here and will certainly be satisfied with the top quality at low price. All UGGs on sale are made with the 100% genuine sheepskin from Australia and are hand-made in our own factory completely. So you need no to worry about the quality and the cheap UGGs for sale are all to be delivered in free shipping. Enjoy the large discount!
1.
UGG Amberlee
|UGG Kensington
|UGG Elsey
|UGG Langley
|UGG Roxy Short
|UGG Roseberry
|UGG Oliviya
|UGG Raya
UGG Brookfield Short
Welcome to our website-- http://www.ugghots.com , we are making the promotion for many uggs now.Here is a chance for you that you want to buy good ugg classic boots by cheap price.At present our hot sale snow boots has :
| UGG Delaine Boots
| UGG Gaviota Boots
| UGG Gissella Boots
| UGG Evera Shoes
| UGG Upside Boots
Not too bad. Well done and keep it up on those two homo sapiens.