Korean Job Discussion Forums

[bucheon bum]

[Unposter]

Okay, I sense a lot of criticism of Obama. So, I was just curious as to your opinion why the stock market is up and unemployment is down. Any thoughts?

[visitorq]

[Privateer]

Holy crap. What a collection.

[Unposter]

You don't really answer the unemployment question. All you did was change the statistical analysis to make it seem worse than it is. (And, the alternative statistic also shows that unemployment is down).

We all know the economy imploded in 2008 and unemployment sunk shortly after. Since then, unemplpoyment is down. Is that because of what the U.S. government is doing or not? If you wish to answer the question, you certainly don't have to, answer it more directly.

[comm]

[Kuros]

[ontheway]

[Kuros]

[jaykimf]

[ontheway]

Yes, Krugman is a fool and his disciples are bigger fools for following him.

Governments in Europe, the US etc. have run up massive debt - in good times and bad - debt that can never be repaid.

The resulting bubbles caused malinvestment that led to recessions and the 1st and 2nd Great Depressions.

Krugman wants the governments of the world to blow more massive bubbles and begin another cycle that will result in even worse economic conditions down the road and a bigger collapse.

The "austerity" he complains of is not austerity at all. Europe has not insituted massive cuts that will result in: significantly smaller governments, tax cuts, balanced budgets and either paying down or abdicating the debt - that would be austerity. Instead what Krugman calls austerity is the Europeans running continuing deficits that are smaller than what he would like with no tax cuts and a growing debt that they hope will be manageable.

In short, Krugman is complaining that the Europeans are not blowing a big enough bubble.

The difference is akin to a heroin addict choosing whether to take a smaller or bigger dose for his next binge to get over his current withdrawl symptoms.



What the Europeans and the US need to do is cut their total government spending to approximately 10% of GDP - or the amount they can raise with a 10% tax on consumption - repealing all other taxes: abolish nearly all programs, abolish entitlements, shrink the military, end the wars, end the wars on personal liberties, repeal victimless crime laws, pardon and free those convicted, slash government payrolls and pay levels, stop paying elected officials altogether and get their economies producing and moving again. They need to dump the failed fascist-socialism of Krugman et al and end the welfare state. This should be done at once. Cold turkey.


No more heroin for Krugman.

[visitorq]

[Kuros]

[Unposter]

First of all, thanks to all of you tried to answer my question.

Second of all, Kuros, I never said Obama "controlls" the stock market. I have come to expect more from you than that. But, do you disagree that he has a "strong influence" on it. Isn't the stock market an indicator of the economy? There were a number of people who said that Obama has "wrecked" the economy but am I still missing something? It doesn't seem like he has - at least not anymore than anyone else if you are a strict "Austrian."

There does does seem to be some concensus that the Obama administration has at least temporarilly boosted the U.S. economy through stimulous. (BTW: not all of the stimulous is directly from Obama - I've read that supposedly Bernake (sp?) has used the Fed to pump up banks without notifying Obama - scary stuff that).

I understand the question about inflation, and thanks for that info, though it is yet to be seen how bad the inflation really will be.

Anyway, can you give me some ideas about what the economy would look like under a Ron Paul administration?

[comm]