Paul Krugman is a complete R'tard..(California)

[Drazen]

the real problem in California is the politicians are super corrupt and are taking kickbacks everywhere. tax the hell out of everyone, let everything fall to hell and then steal the money and run. eventually it'll all come crashing down in an absolutely spectacular fashion.

there's basically no avoiding it, it'll go to hell. everyone's just here for the free ride in a nice climate until the apocalypse comes.

 

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

Heres Paul Krugman vs Estonian president
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...an-on-twitter/2012/06/07/gJQApU0zLV_blog.html

The fact that the president of Estonia was outraged doesn't change the truth. It's like a feminist going into a frenzy upon hearing that she wasted her best child-bearing years.

 

[A War You Cannot Win]

After reading the links in this thread, I'm moving out of CA as soon as possible.

 

[Lemmo]

Heres Paul Krugman vs Estonian president
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...an-on-twitter/2012/06/07/gJQApU0zLV_blog.html

The fact that the president of Estonia was outraged doesn't change the truth. It's like a feminist going into a frenzy upon hearing that she wasted her best child-bearing years.

What's the truth in this case? Estonia has one of the highest GDP growth rates in Europe and achieved it without crippling debt or excessive reliance on artificial stimulus. To continue your analogy, Krugman is like the the feminist arguing that middle-aged and fat women are sexy. Observed reality has to be bent to philosophy.

 

[Drazen]

After reading the links in this thread, I'm moving out of CA as soon as possible.

nah, just wait until it totally collapses, then move. just have your interest diversified.

 

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

Heres Paul Krugman vs Estonian president
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...an-on-twitter/2012/06/07/gJQApU0zLV_blog.html

The fact that the president of Estonia was outraged doesn't change the truth. It's like a feminist going into a frenzy upon hearing that she wasted her best child-bearing years.

What's the truth in this case? Estonia has one of the highest GDP growth rates in Europe and achieved it without crippling debt or excessive reliance on artificial stimulus. To continue your analogy, Krugman is like the the feminist arguing that middle-aged and fat women are sexy. Observed reality has to be bent to philosophy.

Are we talking about the same Estonia here?

High GDP growth is a convenient smokescreen for obscuring that unfashionable chasm between 2007 and 2009.

Compare with the "heavily-hit by crisis" USA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_GDP_per_capita.PNG

Any country can have rapid GDP growth after taking a gigantic plunge, because you are starting from a very low base. Just take a look at most countries devastated by wars. When you have lost everything, of course you are going to be growing back quickly. This is the case with Estonia. Would you call India a role model because it has fast growth no matter how much is manages to fuck up?

 

[Lemmo]

Any country can have rapid GDP growth after taking a gigantic plunge, because you are starting from a very low base. Just take a look at most countries devastated by wars. When you have lost everything, of course you are going to be growing back quickly. This is the case with Estonia. Would you call India a role model because it has fast growth no matter how much is manages to fuck up?

I don't understand the argument since every economy tanked during this period (the US graph you linked to had the same shape). The whole argument between Krugman and Estonia centers around how countries went about creating and maintaining the upswing. The steep fall during this period wasn't unique to Estonia at all.

 

[Hyperion]

If California is so wonderful, why is everyone stampeding to get the hell out?

California's been hemorrhaging people---particularly the middle class---since the late 90's. Coincidentally, that was when the state was finally taken over by idiots like Gray Davis who couldn't balance a checkbook if you walked them through it step-by-step.

Spare me the crap about GDP. California's GDP is artificially sustained by Silicon Valley and Hollywood, neither of which have any relevance to average, middle-class guys.

Well lookie here, you're wrong about the skew in California income--- we're 10th of 50 in median income, which you of course know from your stats class helps to reduce the skewing factor from extremes of Zuckerbergs and Bloods who are serving stones off the books.

Yes housing is more expensive, so if your tastes run to McMansions you are in trouble. But I paid $600 for a studio while making 100k+ so you can save a lot if you want.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income#States_ranked_by_median_household_income

I think 8 or 9 of the states ABOVE our income in the land of fruits and nuts are f'ing BLUE STATES.

Dammit, will someone get reality to conform to what I would like it to be!!???

WELFARE KILLS ECONOMIES OK? MILTON FRIEDMAN SAID SO FROM HIS HOME IN CONNECTICUT. Well, except those top 10 states income. "It's complicated."

Maybe you have a point in that if you are average, you will not stand out here. This place is much more favorable if you are exceptional.

The fairly bright guy who stands out a bit in Oklahoma might seem mediocre here.

If Gray Davis was an idiot as you say, I'm sure you're judging from your superior intellectual qualifications, right?

Gray Davis wasn't an idiot from what I could glean--from Wikipedia

Davis holds a B.A. in history from Stanford University and a J.D. from Columbia Law School. He was awarded a Bronze Star for his service as a Captain in the Vietnam War.

There's definitely some crap here in Cali. But which is more important, how many people on welfare, or how many patents?

Half full or empty? The cuckoo clock or the renaissance?

And we have grapes here. Lots of them. Care for some sour ones?

Waiting to hear your qualifications for judging Davis's (and the rest of us fruitcakes') intellect. Shall we expect resounding silence?

Do you just feeeeeeel you're right?

" He has a Nobel prize for some silly complicated math stuff but I just feeeeeeel I'm right..."

opcorn3:

The power of the dollar varies quite greatly based on cost of living. That's why per capita income is a terrible statistic. Based on purchasing power Texas is wealthier than California.

California has basically dug their own grave by making it to where only the very wealthy can afford to live there and the rest will be poor or government workers. It's not a good model and people are voting with their feet.

 

[Hencredible Casanova]

It's hard to understand when you've never lived here. But it's almost like there are multiple states in this state. It is seriously more segregated than the 50's south.

Krugman, as usual, views things from a paradigm I am diametrically opposed to. And I personally think he doesn't have a damn clue about the political and economic situation in California because he doesn't even understand its people.

I know what you mean about California being multiple states within one.

As for segregation, it depends where in the state you're talking about. If Socal, then for sure. But the Bay Area is probably the most integrated and racially harmonious area of the country that I've ever been to.

 

[Hencredible Casanova]

If California is so wonderful, why is everyone stampeding to get the hell out?

California's been hemorrhaging people---particularly the middle class---since the late 90's. Coincidentally, that was when the state was finally taken over by idiots like Gray Davis who couldn't balance a checkbook if you walked them through it step-by-step.

Spare me the crap about GDP. California's GDP is artificially sustained by Silicon Valley and Hollywood, neither of which have any relevance to average, middle-class guys. If Mark Zuckerberg were to relocate to Ethiopia, its GDP would soar meaninglessly. The most relevant economic statistics for average people are a) unemployment and b) taxes. And on those metrics, California is eternally duking it out with my native New York for worst in the nation. North Dakota is the state with the lowest unemployment and the lowest overall tax burden.

I particularly love the liberal argument that the high taxes in blue states correlate to any kind of improved quality of life:

• Better police protection? Williston, North Dakota has a lower per capita crime rate than any city in New York or California.
• Higher wages? No job in Williston pays less than $12/hour, and the average is more like $15-16.
• Better roads? I-94 and the CanAm have fewer potholes than the Thruway or I-81, and they don't even need any tolls to maintain them. (Speaking of which, that's another way blue states screw over the average working guy: road tolls. Decades ago, Albany said that the Thruway would only be tolled as long as necessary to pay off the cost of building it. When that date passed, they went "Psych!" and jacked the tolls up even higher. It must be nice, being a politician in a state with an electorate incapable of doing basic math.)
• More freedom? To do what? Get gay married and fake your way into a medical marijuana script? What if I want to own an AR-15? Oh whoops, can't do that in New York anymore, 'cause guns are bad, mmmmkay?
• Superior culture? I suppose they have a point there, but who cares about microbreweries and music shows when you can't even afford to enjoy them (because you either don't have a job or half your paycheck is being confiscated)?

Bottom line: California isn't going to be the new Brazil. Brazil has hotter women and no open container laws. California's going to be the new Haiti.

As for myself, I'm planning on GTFOing out of the U.S., but I'm moving my assets to South Dakota (tax burden roughly equal to North Dakota, but has nicer scenery) before I do. I'll be damned if the crooks in Albany get another dime out of me.

Spot-on analysis. When it comes to the numbers, CA doesn't make sense. But still, it's a special place and blows all other US states out the water in terms of culture, vibe and overall nice shit. For the average person though, living there is not the move.

 

[Starbuck]

Paul Krugman is a useless fuck, and his nobel(which technically ist even real) is a disgrace to science.


By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's.
-Krugman, 1998

 

[thegmanifesto]

Go to 45 second mark to skip comments by the unbearable rachel maddow when liberal comedian bill maher talks about leaving california.

Good find.

I mentioned that clip on here a while back.

 

[Quintus Flaminius]

Paul Krugman is a useless fuck, and his nobel(which technically ist even real) is a disgrace to science.


By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's.
-Krugman, 1998

Time after time, he's been challenged to debate by the neoclassical school of economics, and he keeps chickening out.

 

[durangotang]

All Krugman has to do is accept a debate with Robert Murphy and a food bank in NYC will get over $100,000. Of course for two years now Krugman has chickened out and hid behind his pulpit at the NYT. Why on earth would a nobel prize winner in economics be afraid of a little debate? You can learn more and pledge a donation here:

http://www.krugmandebate.com/

 

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

I don't see why he would lend credence to these people by engaging them on that level. That would be like Buzz Aldrin accepting a debate with fake moon landing people.

 

[Quintus Flaminius]

I don't see why he would lend credence to these people by engaging them on that level. That would be like Buzz Aldrin accepting a debate with fake moon landing people.

Hmm, who do you think predicted the crash in 2008?

 

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

Hmm, who do you think predicted the crash in 2008?

Sorry dude, beat you to it.



What's next? Carl Sagan being discredited by not wanting to debate evolution with Rick Perry?

 

[Quintus Flaminius]

Hmm, who do you think predicted the crash in 2008?

Sorry dude, beat you to it.



What's next? Carl Sagan being discredited by not wanting to debate evolution with Rick Perry?

Who do you think wanted the bubble in the first place?
Alan Greenspan should create a housing bubble

 

[Atilla]

I don't see why he would lend credence to these people by engaging them on that level. That would be like Buzz Aldrin accepting a debate with fake moon landing people.

Hmm, who do you think predicted the crash in 2008?

Many economists called the housing bubble/crash. Krugman was one of them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qo4ExWEAl_k

Even Bill Maher called it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-d1h5q2GAIM

Schiff just brags about it more frequently because that was his claim to fame. We're still waiting on that real crash he's always talking about. Until then, those who have blindly followed his investment advice will continue either losing money or seriously underperforming the market.

 

[Quintus Flaminius]

I don't see why he would lend credence to these people by engaging them on that level. That would be like Buzz Aldrin accepting a debate with fake moon landing people.

Hmm, who do you think predicted the crash in 2008?

Many economists called the housing bubble/crash. Krugman was one of them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qo4ExWEAl_k

Even Bill Maher called it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-d1h5q2GAIM

Schiff just brags about it more frequently because that was his claim to fame. We're still waiting on that real crash he's always talking about. Until then, those who have blindly followed his investment advice will continue either losing money or seriously underperforming the market.

The US IS deep in debt, we'll have a very difficult time convincing people to buy US govt bonds, once the boomers retire.
So, unless there's a revolution in automation technology to make up for the shortage of workers, the only way out would be an inflation tax.