My God, you are an idiot.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This comment:

"In sum, on the benefits side of the equation: more jobs now, $500 billion of additional consumption of goods and services over the next two years, and then a $40 billion a year flow of higher incomes and production each year thereafter."

Sounds intentionally vague to me. Once the infrastructure is built, the gains from it will fade. It is a one shot deal - not unlike our original stimulus. We're not going to see that $40bil year in year out indefinitely, which is why Summers avoids offering any projection on its sunset (NPI).

Sounds like he's advocating paying $200 billion over thirty years to knock a point off the unemployment rate. That's not a bad idea. But it's not a game changer, or anywhere near the fix we need, either.

If his logic holds, why not a borrow a trillion and knock the rate back to 5%? Oh, that's right... We did that once already, and the positive effects were, predictably, temporary.

You realize Summers accidentally points out the problem with stimulus with this idea. It admits that artificially-created consumption can only provide a temporary solution because, by its necessarily temporary nature, the multiplier effects left in its wake tend to also be temporary.

...Which brings us back to Cowen, and the crux of the issue at hand: Where's the new private sector advance to bring us out of this mess for real? That's the only question that matters.

Two things:

1. That was not Summers, it was Brad Delong, as Ty said.

2. I still do not think you know what "multiplier" means, or how to measure/observe it.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

a lot of us are afraid to criticize obama here, what with his new policy of blowing up US citizens just because he feels they encourage dissent

You might want to read Glenn Greenwald for how to do this the right way.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

a lot of us are afraid to criticize obama here, what with his new policy of blowing up US citizens just because he feels they encourage dissent

Not me. I've criticized him for that before and I will do it again.

Some of us seem to be afraid to talk about the economy, even though it is highly troubled and driving all sorts of other problems. Odd, that.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Not me. I've criticized him for that before and I will do it again.

Speaking of which, whatever Obama might have done or not done to change the Bush-era signing statement practices, he has a long way to go to catch up with Governor Brown.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

You might want to read Glenn Greenwald for how to do this the right way.

1- you worry me that you would read such a fuzzy brained ass.

2- it worries me that someone I take as an ass today wrote, "What amazes me most whenever I write about this topic is recalling how terribly upset so many Democrats pretended to be when Bush claimed the power merely to detain or even just eavesdrop on American citizens without due process. Remember all that? Yet now, here's Obama claiming the power not to detain or eavesdrop on citizens without due process, but to kill them; marvel at how the hardest-core White House loyalists now celebrate this and uncritically accept the same justifying rationale used by Bush/Cheney (this is war! the President says he was a Terrorist!) without even a moment of acknowledgment of the profound inconsistency or the deeply troubling implications of having a President -- even Barack Obama -- vested with the power to target U.S. citizens for murder with no due process.

Also, during the Bush years, civil libertarians who tried to convince conservatives to oppose that administration's radical excesses would often ask things like this: would you be comfortable having Hillary Clinton wield the power to spy on your calls or imprison you with no judicial reivew or oversight? So for you good progressives out there justifying this, I would ask this: how would the power to assassinate U.S. citizens without due process look to you in the hands of, say, Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann?"

when he basically copies shite I've been writing the past months.

Pick a side adder are you for rights or against? ActUp!!!!

when they kick out your front door how you gonna come, with your hands in the air or on the trigger of your gun? when the law breaks in how you gonna go, shot down on the pavement or waiting on death row?"

seriously, what change did we get?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

1- you worry me that you would read such a fuzzy brained ass.

He's mostly entertaining for the vitriol, especially on this sort of thing. I read him sometimes, but this time I just followed an Andrew Sullivan link.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Not me. I've criticized him for that before and I will do it again.

Some of us seem to be afraid to talk about the economy, even though it is highly troubled and driving all sorts of other problems. Odd, that.

no. Ty "criticizing" means 4 posts a day accusing the president of shit that should put him in jail.not a sentence seemingly agreeing with one point in my 10 paragraph expose.

You must take a stand.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Two things:

1. That was not Summers, it was Brad Delong, as Ty said.

2. I still do not think you know what "multiplier" means, or how to measure/observe it.

1. Okay.

2. Wrong. You can't read. Here's a tip: Do not try to hang me, or anyone else on this board, with improper use of vocabulary. First, we're lawyers, and this being the default retort we see everyday from those who have no substance to add to a discussion, or who are unable to grasp what's being said, and feel insecure about it, it achieves the opposite of the desired result. Second, it reinforces the perception you are a narrow thinker who can almost never grasp the big picture, or how any of the pieces work in concert, and is only capable of focusing on finite issues, and criticizing small points. Third, it reinforces the perception much of what you post derives from some bizarre compulsion to reply to everything, even if you've nothing to add.

Don't reply to this. Let it soak in. Walk away from the keyboard and think, because I am not the first person to flag you for this. But I'd like to be the last, because it's really fucking annoying to have to do it.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

1. Okay.

2. Wrong. You can't read. Here's a tip: Do not try to hang me, or anyone else on this board, with improper use of vocabulary. First, we're lawyers, and this being the default retort we see everyday from those who have no substance to add to a discussion, or who are unable to grasp what's being said, and feel insecure about it, it achieves the opposite of the desired result. Second, it reinforces the perception you are a narrow thinker who can almost never grasp the big picture, or how any of the pieces work in concert, and is only capable of focusing on finite issues, and criticizing small points. Third, it reinforces the perception much of what you post derives from some bizarre compulsion to reply to everything, even if you've nothing to add.

Don't reply to this. Let it soak in. Walk away from the keyboard and think, because I am not the first person to flag you for this. But I'd like to be the last, because it's really fucking annoying to have to do it.

I also am only able to focus on finite issues.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

I also am only able to focus on finite issues.

I want to be a male stripper at bachelorette parties with feis control at the door.

[LessinSF]

I thought the story = http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-1...ran-sales.html was medicore and often poorly written, until the punch line:

"We were caught unprepared by the rapid increase in regulation,” he [one of the Koch's wrote in his book in 2007] “While business was becoming increasingly regulated, we kept thinking and acting as if we lived in a pure market economy.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

no. Ty "criticizing" means 4 posts a day accusing the president of shit that should put him in jail.not a sentence seemingly agreeing with one point in my 10 paragraph expose.

You must take a stand.

I pretty much agreed with you before your most recent 10-paragraph expose, and nothing in it persuaded me to change my mind. Though I confess I didn't read it closely.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

I also am only able to focus on finite issues.

That's a Minnesota thing. It's why your most famous architecture is a shopping mall.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

That's a Minnesota thing. It's why your most famous architecture is a shopping mall.

If the intellectual ability to consistently focus on the infinite has as a consequence Detroit, then I will continue to keep my focus on finite matters.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

If the intellectual ability to consistently focus on the infinite has as a consequence Detroit, then I will continue to keep my focus on finite matters.

Maybe you didn't get the memo, but on this board we keep on topic for issues; personal attacks are frowned upon as counterproductive to answering the political challenges of the day.

It's a big picture thing.