This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Krugman To Colbert: "Ireland Is America's Future If Romney Is President"
Forget turning Japanese, an anxious-looking Paul Krugman appeared on Stephen Colbert last night to hawk his book and suggested that "Ireland is Romney economics in practice". Noting that Obama "inherited a Depression" but has unfortunately not taken us out of it due to a "whole lot of opposition from 'the other guys'". The Kaped Keynesian Krusader went on to note that "a recession is when things are going down but a depression is when things are down" and suggests an Obama campaign slogan "It's Not As Bad As The Great Depression" to which Colbert retorts that electing Romney would seem to be the path to 'ending this depression now'. While Krugman opines that if we would just re-hire all the government workers who have been laid off over the past few years then all would be well in the world, we suspect Colbert is closer to the truth when he comedically adds that "obviously the way to end the real depression is a war in Europe" and while USA is not Greece (or Uganda), it appears we will be Ireland if Romney gets elected.
The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive
»
- 21154 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Get this liberal fucking fool off the news.
Nobel Prize in Economics - such a sham...about equal to that infamous Nobel Peace Prize....
Krugman on COMEDY Central....
yeah, sounds about right, except I'm not amused somehow.
Paul Krugman is an economist, I tend to think he might know a thing or two about what might happen if Mormon Bush gets elected. I think Ron Paul would have brought change to our stagnant country. Given the choice between Mitt and Barack, neither one is going to bring anything meaningful. I like Barack Oboma's ideas but he has been ineffective at selling them to congress. His first four years were pretty unsucessful. think this next term Barack would take more chances and actually lead our country. Bill Clinton successful his first term either.
"I like Barack Oboma's ideas but he has been ineffective at selling them to congress."
Which ones would those be?
Signing off on Dodd-Frank, the NDAA, "shovel ready jobs" for statists, Solyndra or forced contracts with health insurance corporations (commonly called ObamaCare)?
It's nothing or " BOOM" for Isreal nmewn. Your thoughts are post facto.
You'd think if he liked him so much he'd be able to spell his fucking name. I hate these 'lesser of two evil' types but I get where they're coming from to a degree. I'd rather take Carlin's stance on voting and say that I didn't vote for either one of the pricks and can complain non-stop about them while working at the State level to keep their bullshit agendas in DC and out of my backyard...
Which one of these guys is the comedian again?
Neither, Both or All of thee Above? Is this a multiplte choice???
I'm thinkin Colbert played the straight man to the clown.
I would concur with that statement, watching that was very surreal in more ways then one.
I must go wash my eyes and ears out now that I have seen that.............
I think MDB is too busy giving krugman a bj to comment... Boring!
Isn't Krugman one of those Y=C+I+G+NX Kenesian voodoo economists? That formula is useless because there are no terms to calculate for bankster fraud, politicial graft, bridges to nowhere and the black hole Fed Reserve.
They'll be a stampede of bounty hunters after Krugman during the revolution.
What will be the bounty of his head??? Just curious
colbert...too awesome for words.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oy39Uocw8LU
dedication to colbert.
the early-mornin stone-cold pimp is here,
janus
I was going to vote for Obamney but Krugman changed my mind; now I'm voting for Rombama!
That sounds... tribal. I like it. Chief Rombama, perpetuator of war.
I wonder who is more retarted here, Krugman or Colbert. I tend to think Colbert is.
Sorry, I don't understand his Satire.
There is nothing wrong with your [idiot box]. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission. If we wish to make it louder, we will bring up the volume. If we wish to make it softer, we will tune it to a whisper. We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical. We can roll the image, make it flutter. We can change the focus to a soft blur or sharpen it to crystal clarity. For the [rest of your life], sit quietly and we will control all that you see and hear. We repeat: there is nothing wrong with your [idiot box]. You are about to participate in a great adventure. You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from the inner mind to… The [New World Order].
Krugman has syphillis, he is slowly experiencing brain rot
Stephen Colbert would be a decent president.
Stephen Colbert would be a "Great" ( indoctrinator)?
I assume you know that his show is entirely satire? Many rednecks think he is one of them due to ignorance of this fact.
Many communist believe Stewart is a journalist.
it's all joo news
"Many rednecks think he is one of them due to ignorance"
He would have printed 7 trillion in spring 2008 and today we would have $9,000 gas.
Trade crosses. Divide 8K xau/ into Brent prices> WW 00?
No chart available/ Q infinity!
PLEASE, someone use his f-ing head to break some windows.
Does Colbert make $41,000 per day like Stewart and his wife do?
Totalitarianism followed by catabolic collapse and civil war is America's future, no matter which Demopublican puppet is elected by the sheeple.
so ~ do I do a STRANGLE on totalitarianism with an IRON CONDOR hedge on the catabolic collapse/civil war?
we just havent done enough yet. Mote stimulous, higher ebt amounts, 99 more weeks of unemployment, accelerate the savings from Obama-care forward, more money to the states, re-hire all the government employees and give them all a great big raise, hire more teachers and administrators, start more wars, give everyone a big check, extend the Bush tax cuts - that's what we need - deficits dont matter!!!!
Why would anyone in their right mind listen to this little troll! I happened to catch this, my wife had to leave the room because of my tirade!
END THE FED BITCHEZ!
Paul Krugman... ender of marriages...
Krugman is wrong about so many things, but just like all the other talking heads he is not wrong about everything, even Larry Kudlow occasionally says something that is true. I think he is wrong that the USA under Romney is Ireland, and he should apologize to Ireland at once. Ireland has had a run of really bad luck with their leaders campaigning as willing to stand up to the EMU but then turning into bootlicking toads the minute they get into office, but America under Romney is not going to be like anything the planet has ever seen. It will make Greece look sensible. And as much as I would hope for a better candidate from the democrats Obama did inherit a clusterfucked depressed mess from BushCo. The only thing he could have done is what you all want Paul to do, tear it all down and start over from scratch, with plenty of prison space alloted to career criminal banksters. He did not have the political capital for that. Of course in a second term he has no reelection concerns so political capital is not at stake. I only know I am not voting for that magical thinking cultist neocon.
When scouting for a man who would trumpet the agenda, a delusional man who firmly believes what he spouts, they happened to find Krugman.
They gave him a pedestal, a megaphone, and he is doing well by all involved.
And of course, it reeks like behavior of falling empires before us.
Comedy Central... who coulda guessed...
Guys, it's obvious, he is just another sychophant to TPTB. Like Brzezinski or Kissinger. Only this guy's human-hating lust for war and financial ruin is even more transparent. His logic isn't logic, his arguments aren't arguments. He would be laughed out of a proper University class except that he suits somebody's need for another shill for stupidity. (War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength, et cetera.)
The essence of this tripe: spending and war brings...prosperity!
Ugh. Without central planning he would be selling used cars.
Minor correction... WITHOUT central planning, he would not be able to keep his job selling used cars & be requiring EBT cards for his daily bag of Frito Lay's...
I'll bet you dollars to donuts that weasel Krugman has gold in the Perth Mint. He'll be the first one outta here when the shit starts going down for real.
yeah Paul more teachers and cops will end this depression.......fucking lying jew
<(dancing a jig)
<(4morejig)
Interesting, in Krugman's world all you need is teachers and firefighters to manufacture all the goods that when they are cheap make society prosperous.
And, if people in Wisconsin would just pay for teachers in Califormia, Wisconsin with it's 6.8% unemployment rate would be so much better off.
If you built your own business through 14 hour says, taking risk and doing whatever it takes to survive and eventually prosper, you were just lucky.
For two years Obama had both houses of and the presidency to pass any agenda he wanted, and did so without Republican support, but it was opposition to his agenda that caused this crisis. So apparently the crisis has only existed since, what, 2010 when Obama finally had opposition?
I can't remember how many times I've said. You know, the US should be a lot more like Ireland. If you're going to draw comparisons it really helps to draw the big ones that are on the top of everyone's minds, like Ireland and the US being so similar.
The freest economies in the world are clearly the worst off, so we must blame freedom. Without it technocrats could make our lives so much better.
How is Krugman's response materially different from the response to the great depression that took 10 years to get out of, and how is the response to the depression (i.e. creation of the great society) different from what Obama has done. How is it different from what Japan has done.
We followed Krugman's advice when Obama took office. Now he wants us to pretend we didn't have massive bailouts and stimulus spending on shovel ready jobs. He wants us to believe we never did any of that, that we aren't trillions more in debt because of it, and that the results are not his fault, but the other guys.
Krugman said the stimulus was too small before it was implemented and he also said its failure would politically prevent it from being tried again. Correct on both counts.
FDR's expansionary policies led to growth in the Great Depression but he cut back in 1937 and we had a double dip. It wasn't until even more massive government spending for WWII that the Great Depression ended.
Finally, on California - it is California that is paying for teachers in poor red states. California gets back 86 cents for every dollar paid into the federal government. Enough to balance its budget and then some.
Sorry for the intrusion of reality.
Krugmans Keynsian policies have been followed for years globally. That's why we're in the mess to begin with. I'm talking decades of stupidity. That's the beauty of his policy is that he can always fall back on the "stimulus was not big enough" montra. He will be held accountable when the whole system goes to reset. You can count on that.
There is nothing Keynesian about deficit spending during years of economic growth (especially bubble years). That is why Krugman opposed the deficits in the 2000s.
You are mistaking Reaganomics for Keynesian.
"Krugman said the stimulus was too small before it was implemented and he also said its failure would politically prevent it from being tried again. Correct on both counts."
Yeah, but those billions and billions of dollars were still well spent. Had they not spent it we'd probably all be eating dry dog food now and dumpster diving for clothes. Thank you Nancy, Harry, and Obama - you saved us from the misguided Republicans.
So why did the depression of 1921 end so quickly when government simply stayed out of the way? Please keep your answer within the realm of actual reality.
The 1921 Depression was an inflation fighting depression. It was caused by contraction of the money supply to fight inflation that had resulted from WWI. When inflation was stopped, the money supply was loosened and the economy picked up. Similar to 1982.
Private sector balance sheet depressions like the current one are completely different.
"Private sector balance sheet depression..."
Jeezus H....Is there any other type of depression? The government doesn't make money, doesn't have money of its own. It only has the money it takes from private entities.
Yes, the 1921 and 1981-82 recessions were inflation fighting recessions. Economic activity was temporarily choked off to wipe out inflation. It is very different from a recession that requires years of private sector deleveraging.
Intrusion of reality?
You are either a purposeful liar or a stupid ignoramus parroting poorly done "studies". California doesnt get back .86 for every dollar paid- it gets $1.22. It also gets more outright grant money than any other state by a wide margin, even beating New York by a fair margin.
Consolidated Funds report from 2010 showing which states get how much for what, look at Table 13.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/cffr-10.pdf
IRS tables showing how much each state paid in 2010
http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=206488,00.html
Do the math, idiot.
Reality is that you have no idea what you are talking about at all, and are too dumb and lazy to research on your own so you just repeat whatever retarded crap you picked up in DKos and HuffPuff.
Thanks for the information. My 86 cents stat is admittedly out of date, coming from a pre-crisis study. I'll stop using it.
I will add that your data shows that California is 44th in per capita federal expenditures by state so I think it's still clear that other states are getting more bang for their buck than California. I think my point is still valid. It would be interesting to see what states are above and below $1.22 in our new high deficit era, but I don't think I have the time to put that together.
Heh, OK you were gracious about an purposely rude and insulting response and took it like a man so I will try to legitimately help and discuss. :-)
I have run the numbers on this and broken them down a few different ways with Excel, so here is some data you may find interesting and/or helpful. This can all be corrorborated with the source data posted above.
There are some caveats to looking at these numbers however. Realize that all federal payments are rolled into this- if a northerner retires to the South, that state gets counted for the retirement money that person receives if they want the person or not. Everything paid to military people gets rolled into it (and military recruitment is very far from uniform by state, its heavily slanted to the South and non coastal West), as does money spent buying from businesses in various states. This is overall and isnt breaking out who is just getting outright gimmes, and the "other" category on the funds report is vague.
Anyhow, there are only a few true donor states (in order of gross donations to Uncle Sugar)-
1) New Jersey- .68 received per dollar, sent $37,952,547,000 more than it received
2) Minnesota- .65, sent 23,634,129,000 more than received
3) Delaware- .53, sent 7,251,877,000 more than received
4) Nebraska- .94, sent 1,109,943,000 more than received
5) Illinois- .99, sent 1,071,760,000 more than received
6) Ohio- 1.00, 34,026,000 more than received
What is important here I think is to note the very low surplus numbers, all of this "excess" is wiped out and then some by the largest net receiver states on the other side-
1) Virginia- 78,128,254,000 (goodbye "surplus")!
2) Florida- 75,339,258,000
3) California- 60,495,894,000
4) Maryland- 48,588,785,000
5) Pennsylvania- 44,075,246,000
I am uncertain of the real value in using procurement and some of the other categories in determining who is really feeding off of whom, but top 5 sent vs. received net gainers are-
1) New Mexico- 3.67
2) West Virginia- 3.58
3) Mississippi- 3.48
4) Washington DC- 3.37
5) Hawaii- 3.32
In terms of who is really getting flat out gravy, I think the grants section in tables 10 and 14 of the Consolidated Funds report may be the best indicator. Ranking in order of grant money per capita-
1) DC- 18,068.09 (quelle suprise)
2) Alaska- 4878.99
3) Wyoming- 3999.34
4) Vermont- 3803.34
5) Massachusetts- 3413.73
You brought up California, which is lower than many on overall received money but what I found most interesting about their per capita breakdown in Table 14 is the very low number on retirement/disability, it seems not many want to retire there (48 of 50).
To me the biggest takeaway is that almost all states are receivers, fueled by endless debt sales and putting the bills on the tab of kids not yet in the work force. However, the oft repeated line that somehow the northern and left coast blue states pay for Southern red states is not reality, most of South is pretty low in the grants category per capita- 5 of the bottom 10 are former Confederate states and only 1 in the top 10 (Louisiana).
i do wish they gave a better definition of "other". Hope you find this data and the sources useful as understanding reality is a good thing, but it is rarely what we are told it is.
Citaton please. I was there. The numbers used by the whitehouse were in the range he was advocating at the time. It was only after the fact he claimed it was too small and the failure would prevent it from being tried again. Nice try at history revision, Or perhaps you're just buying Krugman's history revision.
Not to be accused of making things up. In his Nove 10, 2008 NYT article "Stimulous math" Krugmans walked through the math, stating that:
The American Recovery and Reinvestment act of 2009 was 787 billion. Today he lies by pointing to the 2008 stimulous of 178 billion saying it was smaller than he said it should be. He knows full well the 2009 stimulous was well over what he said was needed and combined they were nearing a trillion. They did not have the effect he predicted.
Krugman was admittedly inarticulate in that article but it was 4% of GDP over 2 years, or $600B x 2 = $1.2B of actual spending. We got $0.5B of actual spending.
In any case, if you don't want to believe that specific explanation, there are plenty of examples of him saying the stimulus was too small BEFORE the stimulus was signed into law, which you will have to ignore to believe what you want to believe.
"How's that Kool-aid?"
---Rev. Jim Jones
This article is from January 2009, a month before the stimulus was signed into law.
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2009-01-09/wall_street/30076496_1_stimulus-plan-paul-krugman-economic-plan
What rarely is mentioned by any of these clowns, as they deride the free market, is that we precisely do NOT have a free market - it is rife with governmental interference. Crony and otherwise including the 'road to hell' do-gooders in all the senates and houses across the oountry, including DC, who feel they know better than free exchange.
We precisely do NOT and haven't had a free market. F off Krugman, and all your supporters and sychophants.
Krugman, you wasted almost 7 minutes of my time when I could have watch My EBT one more time. How much paper was wasted on your more than 20 books? STFU
You folks wouldn't have so much hatred of Krugman if there wasn't something there
What anyone sensible hates is the undue influence he has.
Influence is what you get when you keep saying things that come true. Starting with his bold partisan prognostications from a decade ago that the Bushies were nothing more than habitual liars. Now everybody knows that to be true but at the time it was crazy talk.
I always said that the Bushes were liars but I believe that Krugman is a liar too. What does that do for your round-about sense of logic?
That's the pot calling the kettle black. Krugman is a master of lieing with statistics. His chart showing how austerity does not work shows something like 7 or 8 nations out of hundreds. The only basis for choosing those particular ones is the data fits his message. You know what it is when you use statistics to convince people of something contrary to the facts. It's called a lie. He does it all the time.
Right. All vilified persons are actually saints. Just ask Hitler.
Hitler actually had power. Something Krugman doesn't have.
Why does anyone listen to this kook any more? He's an embarrassment to his school and now an international embarrassment.
He does have a cult following of millions of readers who little of economics, but like his politics and mistake him for a deep thinker. In fact, he's just a phony guru. That's why he spends so little time with his fellow economists any more, or with anyone who can quickly show what a raving moron he is.
"He does have a cult following of millions of readers.." That many people still read the Times? Whooooo----we are in some real trouble.
If you think Krugman has been wrong these last few years then you obviously haven't been paying attention. Even his opponents such as Niall Ferguson have been fessing up that Krugman has been right on his economic predictions.
Furthermore, if you think we have been following Krugman's advice these last few years then you are pretty much out of it in the head.
It's not a prediction to assume that govt will f&ck it up. It's a statement of the obvious.
OK. I'll play.
After the stimulous on CNBC he said:
It peaked at 10.1% and exceeded 9% for almost 2 years. When oponents criticized Obama's growth projections from the stimulous as "overly optimisitic" Krugman questions their honesty. His opponents were right and Krugman could not have been more wrong.
In late 2010 Krugman said: “It’s also worth pointing out that everything the right said about why Obamanomics would fail was wrong.” Huh? It seems like conservatives were saying it won't bring down unemployment and it won't stimulate growth. They were right, Krugman was wrong.
June 2010 Krugman called German budget cuts a “huge mistake,” and said: “budget cuts will hurt your economy and reduce revenues.” A year later Germany’s unemployment rate has fallen significantly, dropping by 0.7 percentage points between June 2010 and August 2011. As of June 2011, German GDP during 2011 grew at 3 percent, almost twice as fast as our own GDP growth.
Or how about this prediction from 1997:
or this one:
The only people who find Krugman's predictions accurate are baised economics research at educational institutions and liberal think tanks. Which, of course, progressives, who love proof by authroity (as opposed to actual evidence) cite as proof positive that Krugman's predictions are accurate.
Krugman writes for the New York Times.
"All the news that fits"
Nuff said...
Stimulati,
+1 for stealth sarcasm
Krugman was amazing. Let's elect him.
He can replace the existing dog catcher.
The fact that this was on this show should say something about him. He's your typical limousine liberal, who's gotten a taste of the media high who wants to continue propelling his name and purported book writing. His bancrupt ideology is on a collision course with reality.
Folks... this mess is not going to end well. Not well at all. We're spiraling down and the slope is getting steeper. We're soon to be at the event horizon and beyond that, it's crash time.
Krugman has to go on a comedy show to be seen. A comedy show. Very apropos.
Romney policies = Ireland
Krugman / Bernanke / Obama policies = Zimbabwe
Choose your poison - I think I'll write in Ron Paul
And if Romney keeps making ads with Hatch (who I'll be voting against soon), I'll write in Ron Paul several times. Good for the dead democrats, good for me!
Me too.
So - then, you choose Zimbabwe. I'd rather be forced to eat corned beef and cabbage and drink Harps - than be forced to pick peanuts out of the local dung pile to survive.
WAKE UP.
WAKE UP.
Catastroka goes for all of us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Koa1SWGHhnM&feature=share
selling sweden as the coup de grace?
Funny, I ran into video of Krugman + Rogoff where we get the infamous Aliens solution.
Shifty eyed weasely Krugman. He has balls calling himself an economist. His total lack of understanding of how the economy really works is frightening. The fact that people listen to his drivel is disturbing. I suppose that is how we end up with our politicians.
I have pulled the plug on my cable TV, stopped getting the newspaper, except Barrons,, and soon, like an ostrich hiding in the sand, may quit the Internet, at least filter out http.
Maybe it will all go away, especially Krugman.
My broker, 20 years ago, told me he bought Barrons so he would know that he could do the exact opposite of wha tthey said, and make money.
The only financial expert I trust these days in Cramer. Tee hee
Mnn pass the Corned Beef and cabbage please! I'm for any new holidays that involve corned beef!
I look forward to the day when Krugman and Bernanke are hanged together.
I think it would be great to see Krugman, Romney,Bernanke, Obama and Timmy banished to the Artic , if they are to be spared an execution
The world does not need such assholes
We tried that.
The penguins sent them back...
Sit back and watch the flash.
Krugman, when do aliens come?
http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lplmctwhpx1qjqdh8o4_250.jpg
http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/
I also spent an eye-opening year working at the White House (Council of Economic Advisers) in 1982-3. In 1991 I received my major professional gong, the John Bates Clark Medal, given by the American Economic Association every two years to an economist under 40.
Then Sir you should know better.
"I like Barack Oboma's ideas but he has been ineffective at selling them to congress. His first four years were pretty unsucessful. think this next term Barack would take more chances and actually lead our country"
This poster is he she it the biggest idiot on ZH???
or is this the OBUMA hisself??? gotta laugh at this hack Idiot. or is it sarc maybe I am Idiot 1.
Erin Go Bragh!
(I need a drink)
Fuck Krugman, Fuck Colbert. Go away both of you. Boring shit like most of TV.
He's just plain wrong. Krugman is wrong, wrong, wrong all the time. Why do people take this guy seriously anymore?