Nielsio:
It gets a lot worse.
Also, that comic strip website is amazing.
Reasons not to vote for Ron Paul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQTDxo4F6bc&feature=channel_video_title
He had me going there. I was like… what?
“People on twitter might be joking, but in all seriousness, we would see a bigger boost in spending and hence economic growth if the earthquake had done more damage.” -Paul Krugman
https://plus.google.com/100094747939867300298/posts/QJUXU19sPws
Is that an allegory for digging a whole and then filling it back in? 
Making Money Is Controversial? Peter Schiff responds to article berating Ron Paul’s Profitable Portfolio
This is just disgusting.
Excessive Criminal Laws Trap Honest American Businessman
Talk about unconstitutional.
How do you +1 a comment?
Kevin Castiglia - Krugman doesn’t believe what he preaches. He’s too smart to believe that Keynesianism is viable. I’m trying to educate the rest of you. Bastiat was right. I would love for Krugman to debate a real economist. See the link at the bottom. I have literally paid with the hopes that I might see it.
+Edward Townes Krugman advocates the systematic devaluation of the dollar, which hurts the poorest (least skilled) workers the most. He is not a decent and nice guy. Do decent & nice people prevent tens of thousands of dollars from going to charity by not participating in an event [1]?
The LSE Hayek -v- Keynes Debate…
- So Hayek was a partial Keynesian, in love with tinkering with money supply.
And the problem with a boom is spending is too quick.
- Really, the more I hear Keynesians, the more insane it sounds.
Hayek wasn’t even close to a libertarian.
Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman & Capitalism?
That guy did a horrible job of representing Hayek.
Hayek was a classical liberal, but what does that have to do with anything? This debate is more of an economics debate than political.
What in the debate do you think Selgin did a ‘horrible’ job at? I think his performace was quite the opposite, it was awesome.
[quote=“Isaac “Izzy” Marmolejo”]
Hayek was a classical liberal
[/quote]
More like an ordoliberal. Block does a superb job illustrating this. (PDF)
Isaac,
If you don’t understand why I post something, you can ask me. You don’t have to rhetorically posit that it is irrelevant.
Hammertime: The Real ATM
(Obama’s ATM statement spoof)
I dont know JJ, I do not see Hayek as one of those… There is still some debate whether the book was only to be a book representing transitional policies and/or whether these were Hayek’s actual views… I lean towards the side which claims that Hayek meant this book as a transitional book. The reason I think so is because his targeted audience, at the time the book was published, were the Socialists, hence, the book is dedicated to all the socialists… Also, clearly, if one watches Hayek’s interviews, one does not get that view that Hayek was an ordo. All throughout Hayek’s career, he was seen as a greedy capitalist that hates the poor… Or as an interviewer once stated to Hayek:
“…Im sure you are well aware that people in Britain, particularly on the left, see you as a kind of Boogeyman. You are believed to want to throw people out of work, send children down the coal mines, and grind faces of the poor, in general…”
Paul Krugman Kind of Pissed That People Keep Impersonating Him Online
also
Krugman(?): If only the earthquake had done more damage, the economy would have gotten a boost;
Update: Not Krugman
I post them both because they both do a good job following the story…as well as reminding everyone why it’s perfectly reasonable to believe Krugman would have said that.
[quote=“Isaac “Izzy” Marmolejo”]
clearly, if one watches Hayek’s interviews, one does not get that view that Hayek was an ordo.
[/quote]
“[T]here are two basic and alternative methods of relying
upon competition, which, if it is to be made effective, requires
a good deal of government activity directed toward making it
effective and toward supplementing it where it cannot be
made effective.”
“. . . so far as the government plans for
competition or steps in where competition cannot possibly do the
job, there is no objection.”
-Friedrich Hayek, radio broadcast, April 22, 1945
Alex Leijonhufvud: “But the essential point is whether
competition is provided or not, not whether the government
is in this line of activities.”
Hayek: “Exactly.”
-interview, published in Hayek on Hayek, p. 149.
Mr. Krueger: “What about limitation of working hours—a
maximum-hours act? Is that compatible with your notions of
proper planning?”
Mr. Hayek: “Yes, if it is not carried too far. […]"
Mr. Merriam: “Would any limitation on the hours of labor
be objectionable in your judgment?”
Mr. Hayek: “Not ‘any,’ but they can be. There you have one
of the instances where my objection is not one of principle but
one of degree. It is one of the things which cannot be made to
fit the question of the cost involved in that particular
measure.”
Mr. Krueger: “Is a minimum wage law permissible?”
Mr. Hayek: “A general, flat minimum wage law for all
industry is permissible, but I do not think that it is a
particularly wise method of achieving the end. I know much
better methods of providing a minimum for everybody. […]"
…It goes on and on. You obviously didn’t read a single page of Block’s paper that I so kindly provided a direct link to. Please educate yourself a little more before you purport to give opinions and claim basically the exact opposite of what someone has shown to be essentially false.