Leave a comment

bispo March 23 2009, 22:55:16 UTC
paul krugman is too emotional to be an economist. i can't imagine him actually working in politics. it just wouldn't work. the man needs a chill pill.

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

bispo March 23 2009, 23:10:33 UTC
He can sit on the sidelines, ignore politics as a whole, and scream at the top of his lungs.

Reply

piepiracy314 March 23 2009, 23:20:40 UTC
MSNBC? What?

Reply

sweetynyc March 23 2009, 23:12:19 UTC
THIS

Reply

schmiss March 23 2009, 23:17:02 UTC
yeah he's emotional, doesn't mean he's wrong though.

Reply

bispo March 23 2009, 23:18:06 UTC
it means he doesn't think through things. he doesn't provide any context. he lives in his ny times bubble and is perfectly happy there.

Reply

schmiss March 23 2009, 23:27:47 UTC
sry2say idawtc. He provides plenty of context. He travels the world and observes the global economy and fears that we are going to stumble into the sort of crisis that tied down Japan and Mexico. And he's been saying that for years... if he's hysterical or shrill or whatever it's because nobody's been listening.

Reply

bispo March 23 2009, 23:33:04 UTC
The situation in the U.S has never been seen before. So everything that everyone is saying is connecting them to partial relationships to each of the previous economic disasters. These are all theories that aren't directly connected to real world events. We think this. We think that... We don't know any of it. Krugman is the loudest end of the worlder, with very little connection to political reality. So even if Obama wants to do everything Krugman says, he couldn't get have of them through at the speed or in the order Krugman wants them.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up