4.11.2011

DemWit's words made plainer

I don’t have a Nobel Prize in economics, but this guy does. If I haven’t made myself clear over the last few days, along comes Paul Krugman in The New York Times to reiterate exactly what I’ve been saying in both my posts and my comments on the posts.

Only plainer.

Few political gambits have made me angrier than that pulled off by Republicans Friday night, so I wasn’t too receptive to President Obama’s words of praise for bipartisan accomplishment. And frankly, with so much at stake for so many Americans, all that BS about the Washington Monument turned me off.

As "Frodo" said in his last comment here, it’s better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you’re stupid than to open it and remove all doubt. So, let me shut up. Let a Nobel laureate say it:

“The President Is Missing,” Paul Krugman, The New York Times, 10 April 2011: LINK
Posted by at

5 comments:

a poet.... said...

speakin of economics:

C + I + G + (Ex-Im) = GDP

so if i got this right:

C = consumer spending
& I = investment spending
& G = government spending
& then plus the last number which is exports minus imports

insert strange factoid here:

i am then told that C = 2/3 of the whole number

which leads me to ask:

if theres 4 parts to this number and one part is 2/3s of the whole why is our current policy to always focus on the “I” part?

after all if i am doing my math right investment spending is 1/3 of 1/3 of the whole

seems to me if you look at GDP like an engine the fuel is consumer spending which is nothing other than wages and if your job pool and most peoples pay rates are shrinking then overall wages are shrinking and that means the 2/3s number is shrinking so what the heck do people think is gonna run the engine?

while shrinking consumer spending is a problem enough in its own right shrinking both wages and & government spending seems even stupider from a simple math standpoint or am i missing something?

so near as i can tell anyway the math aint the problem either because the solution i am given dont have much to do with making the numbers work right near as i can tell

so that leads me to suspect that another view might be required and when viewed from the “i wanta be rich as midas and there aint nothing else” standpoint?

well heck

now it all makes total sense

4/11/2011 2:45 PM
Leslie Parsley said...

Since I'm a total idiot when it comes to ecnomics, I always depend on Krugman's clarity. Had he been my teacher in college, I might not have flunked economics.

4/11/2011 8:36 PM
B.J. said...

As I’ve said many times, economics is not my long suit, either. It was the only class in college I ever fell asleep in. (I am dizzy from reading “poet’s” comment.) I do remember that the Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns means something like: if you eat too many hamburgers you’ll throw up. I am observant enough that through the years I’ve noticed the political conversation go from millions to billions to trillions.

When it comes to spending “chorices,” Republicans are hypocritical, fear-mongering and predicatable. It’s been their formula.

So, like Krugman, I’m disappointed.

BJ

4/11/2011 9:05 PM
Leslie Parsley said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
4/12/2011 9:12 AM
Leslie Parsley said...

I think I'm asleep at the switch this morning.

Conservative economists are criticizing Ryan's plan:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/conservative-economists-criticize-off-the-deep-end-republican-budget.php

a poet lost me with that very first formula - and then my eyes shut. No offense. I just don't get it.

4/12/2011 10:24 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)