The "As-a-Jews" of the New York Times

(EOZ)Criticizing a tiny state surrounded by enemies hell-bent on its long-term destruction might not play in Peoria, but it plays very well in the salons of the Upper East Side. It is a false bravado, one where the people pushing their agendas know quite well that they have a large support group from the most influential ivory tower newspaper in the United States. Seriously, how have any of these critics been hurt by what they have written? They have been criticized to be sure, but they have also been praised. They are getting huge amounts of publicity and selling lots of books, giving lectures across the nation and having their faces plastered all over every Jewish periodical. Is that what NYT liberals consider "bravery" nowadays?(MORE)

Disgusted with how brainwashed people are

Krugman Thinks China will CRASH

you were waiting for me to post something by the ass hat Krugman... well he wrote something interesting. not sure I agree with him (obviously he is like usual threatened by Capitalism, but this time that market is not in the West). Krugman is predicting that China will fall. I'm starting to believe that China is not something America should fear... if anything if China falls then we are in a lot of trouble. Same goes for Europe. The fact is that loans to poor people (even if they are blackmarket loans) are a really bad idea. The real solutions to America's problems are energy related. China depends on us to buy their goods. They need us to survive.

(NYTIMES) Consider the following picture: Recent growth has relied on a huge construction boom fueled by surging real estate prices, and exhibiting all the classic signs of a bubble. There was rapid growth in credit — with much of that growth taking place not through traditional banking but rather through unregulated “shadow banking” neither subject to government supervision nor backed by government guarantees. Now the bubble is bursting — and there are real reasons to fear financial and economic crisis.

Am I describing Japan at the end of the 1980s? Or am I describing America in 2007? I could be. But right now I’m talking about China, which is emerging as another danger spot in a world economy that really, really doesn’t need this right now.
I’ve been reluctant to weigh in on the Chinese situation, in part because it’s so hard to know what’s really happening. All economic statistics are best seen as a peculiarly boring form of science fiction, but China’s numbers are more fictional than most. I’d turn to real China experts for guidance, but no two experts seem to be telling the same story.
Still, even the official data are troubling — and recent news is sufficiently dramatic to ring alarm bells.
The most striking thing about the Chinese economy over the past decade was the way household consumption, although rising, lagged behind overall growth. At this point consumer spending is only about 35 percent of G.D.P., about half the level in the United States.
So who’s buying the goods and services China produces? Part of the answer is, well, we are: as the consumer share of the economy declined, China increasingly relied on trade surpluses to keep manufacturing afloat. But the bigger story from China’s point of view is investment spending, which has soared to almost half of G.D.P.
The obvious question is, with consumer demand relatively weak, what motivated all that investment? And the answer, to an important extent, is that it depended on an ever-inflating real estate bubble. Real estate investment has roughly doubled as a share of G.D.P. since 2000, accounting directly for more than half of the overall rise in investment. And surely much of the rest of the increase was from firms expanding to sell to the burgeoning construction industry.
Do we actually know that real estate was a bubble? It exhibited all the signs: not just rising prices, but also the kind of speculative fever all too familiar from our own experiences just a few years back — think coastal Florida.
And there was another parallel with U.S. experience: as credit boomed, much of it came not from banks but from an unsupervised, unprotected shadow banking system. There were huge differences in detail: shadow banking American style tended to involve prestigious Wall Street firms and complex financial instruments, while the Chinese version tends to run through underground banks and even pawnshops. Yet the consequences were similar: in China as in America a few years ago, the financial system may be much more vulnerable than data on conventional banking reveal.
Now the bubble is visibly bursting. How much damage will it do to the Chinese economy — and the world?
Some commentators say not to worry, that China has strong, smart leaders who will do whatever is necessary to cope with a downturn. Implied though not often stated is the thought that China can do what it takes because it doesn’t have to worry about democratic niceties.
To me, however, these sound like famous last words. After all, I remember very well getting similar assurances about Japan in the 1980s, where the brilliant bureaucrats at the Ministry of Finance supposedly had everything under control. And later, there were assurances that America would never, ever, repeat the mistakes that led to Japan’s lost decade — when we are, in reality, doing even worse than Japan did.
For what it’s worth, statements about economic policy from Chinese officials don’t strike me as being especially clear-headed. In particular, the way China has been lashing out at foreigners — among other things, imposing a punitive tariff on imports of U.S.-made autos that will do nothing to help its economy but will help poison trade relations — does not sound like a mature government that knows what it’s doing.
And anecdotal evidence suggests that while China’s government may not be constrained by rule of law, it is constrained by pervasive corruption, which means that what actually happens at the local level may bear little resemblance to what is ordered in Beijing.
I hope that I’m being needlessly alarmist here. But it’s impossible not to be worried: China’s story just sounds too much like the crack-ups we’ve already seen elsewhere. And a world economy already suffering from the mess in Europe really, really doesn’t need a new epicenter of crisis.

Krugman: Obama Should Just Lie to Americans to Get Another Stimulus

Paul Krugman, the New York Times’ liberal with no conscience, posted an opinion piece in which he offered a solution to the current economic situation: lie to Americans to get them to buy into another round of massive stimulus spending.

Suppose that Obama announces that we face a clear and present danger from Ruritania, and that to meet that threat we need immediate investment in roads and rail (to move troops, of course). The economy surges on the emergency spending — and newly employed men and women at last get to move out of their relatives’ basements. Home construction surges. Then Obama apologizes, says that his advisers have learned that there is no such country as Ruritania, and cancels the program. But we still have the new roads and rail links; plus, the surge in housing demand is now self-sustaining, and the economy remains strong.

If I were Obama I would put a muzzle on Krugman. He obviously isn't on the inside... if he were he would not be so candid. btw... Krugman... the armed forces do employ a lot of youth already. Building bridges to nowhere is not going to help. but the idea Krugman is proposing sounds like ancient Egypt where modern scholars make conjectures that the Pyramids were massive public works designed to keep a disenchanted public busy. This is LIBERAL now?

of Boobies And Death Panels. oh noes... they were real?

The first battle in the death panel wars is underway and the winner will be declared on December 17.  On that day, the Food and Drug Administration will determine whether insurance and Medicare should provide breast cancer patients and their doctors the option of using Avastin -- a late-stage cancer drug that has been proven to extend life.  Should the FDA deny coverage for the drug because of its cost, it will be apparent that Krugman and his ilk are winning to battle to ration care in America.  Rest assured we are watching the outcome.

boobies via midgetquest.blogspot.com
via americanthinker.

Crazy Liberal Economist Paul Krugman Calls 4 28% Inflation

What am I talking about? Something like a commitment to achieve 5 percent annual inflation over the next 5 years — or, perhaps better, to hit a price level 28 percent higher at the end of 2015 than the level today. (Compounding) Crucially, this target would have to be non-contingent — not something you’ll call off if the economy recovers. Why? Because the point is to move expectations, and that means locking in the price rise whatever happens.

via krugman.blogs.nytimes.com
h/t:
@CooperRepublic
@CFHeather 
@redostoneage

This guy wants the abuse without any of the benefit. The point is to make jobs. There are some very cheap creative ways to do that, but borrowing money endlessly is not one of them. The idea is if you are good for a loan to take the money with the intent to grow the economy... not collapse a system that you don't believe in. For a very long time the Conservative were labeled as sarcastic. This guy Krugman is like a guy who is now being ignored and is going over the top with his ideas to get attention.

noahdavidsimon's posterous

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and chief economic adviser Lawrence Summers were complaining to them that they had almost no say in policy decisions

“Obama,” these two were said to have lamented, “is acting as if he has a blank check to do what he wants, while ignoring the longterm costs of his policies.”

In that post, I predicted that Geithner, a young man whose time had come, would suffer, at least for a while, in silence, and I suggested that self-respect would cause Summers to bolt. “Within the world of economics,” I wrote, “his is a name to be conjured with; and, unlike Paul Krugman, he has not in public prostituted himself for partisan advantage. It must be excruciating to watch while Obama’s wrecking crew destroys the foundations for American prosperity.”

via biggovernment.com

Summers never had any power to begin with. strange that the Obama administration had that Summers in there when they obviously had so much contempt for Larry.

noahdavidsimon's posterous

Paul Krugman Laughingstock: Wrong on Israel. Wrong on Finance

Wolfgang Franz, who heads the German government’s economic advisory panel known as the Wise Men, tore into Krugman — and the US — in an op-ed in the German business daily Wednesday, titled “How about some facts, Mr. Krugman?”
“Where did the financial crisis begin? Which central bank conducted monetary policy that was too loose? Which country went down the wrong path of social policy by encouraging low income households to take on mortgage loans that they can never pay back? Who in the year 2000 weakened regulations limiting investment bank leverage ratios, let Lehman Brothers collapse in 2008 and thereby tipped world financial markets into chaos?” he wrote.

via intermexfreemarket.blogspot.com

During the Israeli war in Lebanon Krugman made the argument that though Israel was in the moral right to defend itself that it was in fact making it's position worse.

bombing Lebanon isn’t making Israel more secure.

via select.nytimes.com

Since 2006 the Northern front of Israel has been relatively quiet.
Apparently Krugman thinks Obama isn't spending enough money?
That has got to be a strong brew he is drinking.

Quoted by email using noahdavidsimon's posterous

burden on small and medium sized business = NO JOBS

Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act is a burden on small and medium-sized businesses that could grow and create jobs.

In lamenting the lack of economic growth in the decade that just passed, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman had pointed the finger at a typical culprit: the supposed deregulation that occurred in the Bush administration. “As for the Republicans, now that their policies of tax cuts and deregulation have led us into an economic quagmire, their prescription for recovery is - tax cuts and deregulation.” Krugman called the 2000s “the decade in which we achieved nothing and learned nothing.”

the very same Paul Krugman who sees "humanity" in climategate... not liars.

Yet a glance at what really happened in the first decade of the new millennium shows that Krugman and others of his ilk are the ones who have really learned nothing. They continue to insist that the financial crisis was caused by deregulation even though so much government intervention in housing -- from the subsidies to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the reckless lending encouraged by Community Reinvestment Act - contributed to the mortgage meltdown.

And, as Rep. Ron Paul recently pointed out, “As for a lack of regulation, the last decade saw the enactment of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the largest piece of financial regulatory legislation” in decades.
Rushed through Congress and signed by President Bush in the wake of the Enron and WorldCom scandals in 2002, the law has quadrupled the costs of the audit process for public companies and achieved little tangible results in preventing fraud. Because of all the high-paying work it creates for auditors in helping firms comply with the law, Sarbox has been called “a boon for bean counters” (in Business Week) and the “Accountants Full Employment Act.”
Sarbox is a significant cost factor holding back job growth and a stronger recovery. If it is repealed or scaled back, the second decade of the new millennium could see real prosperity as American entrepreneurial energies are once again unleashed through the next Microsoft and Googles going public.
On top of this, Sarbanes-Oxley has achieved very little in preventing fraud. In 2007 Countrywide Financial Corp. was praised for its Sarbanes-Oxley controls by the Institute of Internal Auditors. Two years and many scandals later, its former executives have been charged with securities fraud. And certainly, overall transparency doesn’t increase when companies go private or delay going public, as many have chosen to do because of the law’s costs.

via hudsonny.org

So how do you keep companies like Enron from abuse? My opinion... more competition. If there is a near monopoly in energy for example then the government should break up the private company or make it easier for other "Enrons" to get out there. One private energy company going against the government is a system that is ripe for abuse. The same could be said about the healthcare industry that we are presently creating. A government industry with only one private alternative will always have people cheating and even cronyism between the government and it's private competitor.

#ClimateGate Paul Krugman thinks Fudging of data shows humanity?

Paul Krugman of the New York Times considers intentionally fabricated data to be signs of "humanity", If one were to steal money (as these claims of "Global Warming" will do to people) would it prove humanity or would it prove fraud and immorality? What is humane about poor ethics? Paul Krugman considers Jerusalem occupied territory when there is photographic evidence showing ethnic cleansing of Jews from Jerusalem in 1948 when the city was two thirds Jewish. Changing the data to fit the results is not humanity. Lying to bilk people of their property is criminal.

"Of course, if things go well in Copenhagen, the usual suspects will go wild. We’ll hear cries that the whole notion of global warming is a hoax perpetrated by a vast scientific conspiracy, as demonstrated by stolen e-mail messages that show — well, actually all they show is that scientists are human, but never mind. We’ll also, however, hear cries that climate-change policies will destroy jobs and growth."

via nytimes.com