info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Krugman - He Who Could Never Hold A Real Private Sector Job, Crash-Test Dummies as Republican Candidates for President
49 views
Skip to first unread message
Noise Abatement
Aug 29, 2015, 6:25:05 PM8/29/15
to
When the media is looking for an idiot, they always find Krugman
for a quote.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/28/opinion/paul-krugman-rash-test-
dummies-as-republican-candidates-for-president.html
Will China’s stock crash trigger another global financial
crisis? Probably not. Still, the big market swings of the past
week have been a reminder that the next president may well have
to deal with some of the same problems that faced George W. Bush
and Barack Obama. Financial instability abides.
So this is a test: How would the men and women who would be
president respond if crisis struck on their watch?
And the answer, on the Republican side at least, seems to be:
with bluster and China-bashing. Nowhere is there a hint that any
of the G.O.P. candidates understand the problem, or the steps
that might be needed if the world economy hits another pothole.
Take, for example, Scott Walker, the governor of Wisconsin. Mr.
Walker was supposed to be a formidable contender, part of his
party’s “deep bench” of current or former governors who know how
to get things done. So what was his suggestion to President
Obama?
Deer Krugman, Scott Walker balanced the state budget. Something
you have never ever demonstrated that you can do. All you did
was document some procedures and your pals gave you a medal.
Do something worth while, shoot yourself.
for a quote.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/28/opinion/paul-krugman-rash-test-
dummies-as-republican-candidates-for-president.html
Will China’s stock crash trigger another global financial
crisis? Probably not. Still, the big market swings of the past
week have been a reminder that the next president may well have
to deal with some of the same problems that faced George W. Bush
and Barack Obama. Financial instability abides.
So this is a test: How would the men and women who would be
president respond if crisis struck on their watch?
And the answer, on the Republican side at least, seems to be:
with bluster and China-bashing. Nowhere is there a hint that any
of the G.O.P. candidates understand the problem, or the steps
that might be needed if the world economy hits another pothole.
Take, for example, Scott Walker, the governor of Wisconsin. Mr.
Walker was supposed to be a formidable contender, part of his
party’s “deep bench” of current or former governors who know how
to get things done. So what was his suggestion to President
Obama?
Deer Krugman, Scott Walker balanced the state budget. Something
you have never ever demonstrated that you can do. All you did
was document some procedures and your pals gave you a medal.
Do something worth while, shoot yourself.
Ed Huntress
Aug 29, 2015, 6:57:20 PM8/29/15
to
On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 00:22:12 +0200 (CEST), "Noise Abatement"
<l...@krugman.org> wrote:
>When the media is looking for an idiot, they always find Krugman
>for a quote.
He's worked for private universities, not public ones, you ignoramus.
<l...@krugman.org> wrote:
>When the media is looking for an idiot, they always find Krugman
>for a quote.
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/28/opinion/paul-krugman-rash-test-
>dummies-as-republican-candidates-for-president.html
>
>Will China’s stock crash trigger another global financial
>crisis? Probably not. Still, the big market swings of the past
>week have been a reminder that the next president may well have
>to deal with some of the same problems that faced George W. Bush
>and Barack Obama. Financial instability abides.
>
>So this is a test: How would the men and women who would be
>president respond if crisis struck on their watch?
>
>And the answer, on the Republican side at least, seems to be:
>with bluster and China-bashing.
scapegoat, but if you've read Milton Friedman's "Capitalism and
Freedom," you know that we're doing exactly what the conservative
prescription has been for more than a half-century.
Friedman said that it doesn't matter if they manipulate their currency
or anything else. They're only hurting themselves.
Friedman was not right. But then, no conservative economist is right
about much of anything.
(Where's that raging inflation? Why is every major country still
buying Treasury bonds? Every conservative economist said that neither
one is possible with deficit spending.)
>
>Deer Krugman, Scott Walker balanced the state budget. Something
>you have never ever demonstrated that you can do. All you did
>was document some procedures and your pals gave you a medal.
Capitalist's Tool," ranks Wisconsin #32 in its "Best States for
Business" list. Here are some of Forbes' other rankings for the state:
#34 in Business Costs
#37 in Labor Supply
#29 in Regulatory Environment
#27 in Economic Climate
The state is in the bottom half of the country in every category.
>
>Do something worth while, shoot yourself.
yourself.
--
Ed Huntress
jim
Aug 29, 2015, 8:11:15 PM8/29/15
to
Ed Huntress wrote:
> #34 in Business Costs
> #37 in Labor Supply
> #29 in Regulatory Environment
> #27 in Economic Climate
>
> The state is in the bottom half of the country in every category.
Walker brought $30 million in out-of-state campaign
> #34 in Business Costs
> #37 in Labor Supply
> #29 in Regulatory Environment
> #27 in Economic Climate
>
> The state is in the bottom half of the country in every category.
donations into Wisconsin during his recall election.
That was his major contribution to the economy.
dca...@krl.org
Aug 29, 2015, 10:25:09 PM8/29/15
to
On Saturday, August 29, 2015 at 6:57:20 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
> Friedman was not right. But then, no conservative economist is right
> about much of anything.
That may be true, but the same thing can be said about liberal economists.
> Friedman was not right. But then, no conservative economist is right
> about much of anything.
>
> (Where's that raging inflation? Why is every major country still
> buying Treasury bonds? Every conservative economist said that neither
> one is possible with deficit spending.)
>
> >
> Walker has screwed Wisconsin left and right. Forbes Magazine, "The
> Capitalist's Tool," ranks Wisconsin #32 in its "Best States for
> Business" list. Here are some of Forbes' other rankings for the state:
>
> #34 in Business Costs
> #37 in Labor Supply
> #29 in Regulatory Environment
> #27 in Economic Climate
>
> The state is in the bottom half of the country in every category.
>
Dan
Rudy Canoza
Aug 30, 2015, 12:50:10 PM8/30/15
to
On 8/29/2015 3:57 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>
> Friedman was not right.
He was.
>
> Friedman was not right.
> But then, no conservative economist is right
> about much of anything.
> Walker has screwed Wisconsin left and right. Forbes Magazine, "The
> Capitalist's Tool," ranks Wisconsin #32 in its "Best States for
> Business" list. Here are some of Forbes' other rankings for the state:
>
> #34 in Business Costs
> #37 in Labor Supply
> #29 in Regulatory Environment
> #27 in Economic Climate
>
> The state is in the bottom half of the country in every category.
fuckwit. In fact, Wisconsin has *risen* eight places in Forbes' ranking
since Walker has been governor, from 40 to 32:
http://www.forbes.com/special-report/2011/best-states-11_rank.html
The previous two term big-spending execessive-regulating Democrat - who
else? - is responsible for Wisconsin's woes.
Ed Huntress
Aug 31, 2015, 12:22:39 PM8/31/15
to
On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 19:25:05 -0700 (PDT), "dca...@krl.org"
<dca...@krl.org> wrote:
>On Saturday, August 29, 2015 at 6:57:20 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
>
>> Friedman was not right. But then, no conservative economist is right
>> about much of anything.
>
>That may be true, but the same thing can be said about liberal economists.
Not really. Much of the economy has moved in a direction opposite to
<dca...@krl.org> wrote:
>On Saturday, August 29, 2015 at 6:57:20 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
>
>> Friedman was not right. But then, no conservative economist is right
>> about much of anything.
>
>That may be true, but the same thing can be said about liberal economists.
what conservative theorists have claimed.
>
>>
>> (Where's that raging inflation? Why is every major country still
>> buying Treasury bonds? Every conservative economist said that neither
>> one is possible with deficit spending.)
>>
>> >
>
>Just because we are doing fair right now does not mean things are good.
>China is trying to be accepted as the currency of commerce. If that happens , Katy bar the door.
an alternative to the dollar), then they just blew it in a very big
way.
Nobody is going to trust the renmimbi for a very long time.
>
>
>> Walker has screwed Wisconsin left and right. Forbes Magazine, "The
>> Capitalist's Tool," ranks Wisconsin #32 in its "Best States for
>> Business" list. Here are some of Forbes' other rankings for the state:
>>
>> #34 in Business Costs
>> #37 in Labor Supply
>> #29 in Regulatory Environment
>> #27 in Economic Climate
>>
>> The state is in the bottom half of the country in every category.
>>
>
>But how much of that is Walker? If a state ranked say 45 in Busines Costs before Walker and 34 now. Well that is a big improvement. In other words your statement that Wisconsin is at the bottom in every category is meaningless.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-02-24/scott-walker-s-lagging-indicators
>
> Dan
--
Ed Huntress
dca...@krl.org
Aug 31, 2015, 1:01:14 PM8/31/15
to
On Monday, August 31, 2015 at 12:22:39 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
>
> >
> >But how much of that is Walker? If a state ranked say 45 in Busines Costs before Walker and 34 now. Well that is a big improvement. In other words your statement that Wisconsin is at the bottom in every category is meaningless.
>
> Why don't you look it up and find out? This will give you a start:
>
> http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-02-24/scott-walker-s-lagging-indicators
>
> >
> > Dan
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
I am not interested. I was just pointing out that your logic is not logical.
>
> >
> >But how much of that is Walker? If a state ranked say 45 in Busines Costs before Walker and 34 now. Well that is a big improvement. In other words your statement that Wisconsin is at the bottom in every category is meaningless.
>
> Why don't you look it up and find out? This will give you a start:
>
> http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-02-24/scott-walker-s-lagging-indicators
>
> >
> > Dan
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
Dan
Rudy Canoza
Aug 31, 2015, 1:06:00 PM8/31/15
to
On 8/31/2015 9:22 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 19:25:05 -0700 (PDT), "dca...@krl.org"
> <dca...@krl.org> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, August 29, 2015 at 6:57:20 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>
>>> Friedman was not right. But then, no conservative economist is right
>>> about much of anything.
>>
>> That may be true, but the same thing can be said about liberal economists.
>
> Not really. Much of the economy has moved in a direction opposite to
> what conservative theorists have claimed.
Bullshit.
> On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 19:25:05 -0700 (PDT), "dca...@krl.org"
> <dca...@krl.org> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, August 29, 2015 at 6:57:20 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>
>>> Friedman was not right. But then, no conservative economist is right
>>> about much of anything.
>>
>> That may be true, but the same thing can be said about liberal economists.
>
> Not really. Much of the economy has moved in a direction opposite to
> what conservative theorists have claimed.
Ed Huntress
Aug 31, 2015, 3:10:36 PM8/31/15
to
the background to the conversation, which is that Walker promised all
kinds of improvements in Wisconsin's economy, and wound up overseeing
its decline.
You should know the numbers if you're going to comment.
--
Ed Huntress
dca...@krl.org
Aug 31, 2015, 3:46:34 PM8/31/15
to
On Monday, August 31, 2015 at 3:10:36 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
> No, what you pointed out is that you're ready to judge without knowing
> the background to the conversation, which is that Walker promised all
> kinds of improvements in Wisconsin's economy, and wound up overseeing
> its decline.
>
> You should know the numbers if you're going to comment.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
No, what I pointed out was that saying a governor did a bad job because the current ratings are mediocre is not a logical argument. Your post is worthless unless the reader knows what the ratings were before the current governor took office. I do not have to know the numbers to recagvize a fallacious argument.
> No, what you pointed out is that you're ready to judge without knowing
> the background to the conversation, which is that Walker promised all
> kinds of improvements in Wisconsin's economy, and wound up overseeing
> its decline.
>
> You should know the numbers if you're going to comment.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
And your second post just reinforces your lack of understanding.
Dan
Ed Huntress
Aug 31, 2015, 4:26:53 PM8/31/15
to
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 12:46:32 -0700 (PDT), "dca...@krl.org"
<dca...@krl.org> wrote:
>On Monday, August 31, 2015 at 3:10:36 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
>
>> No, what you pointed out is that you're ready to judge without knowing
>> the background to the conversation, which is that Walker promised all
>> kinds of improvements in Wisconsin's economy, and wound up overseeing
>> its decline.
>>
>> You should know the numbers if you're going to comment.
>>
>> --
>> Ed Huntress
>
>No, what I pointed out was that saying a governor did a bad job because the current ratings are mediocre is not a logical argument.
I didn't say "because." I said he screwed their economy, as an
<dca...@krl.org> wrote:
>On Monday, August 31, 2015 at 3:10:36 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
>
>> No, what you pointed out is that you're ready to judge without knowing
>> the background to the conversation, which is that Walker promised all
>> kinds of improvements in Wisconsin's economy, and wound up overseeing
>> its decline.
>>
>> You should know the numbers if you're going to comment.
>>
>> --
>> Ed Huntress
>
>No, what I pointed out was that saying a governor did a bad job because the current ratings are mediocre is not a logical argument.
independent statement. His claim to make Wisconsin If you disagree,
the facts are easy to check. If you don't know whether to agree or to
disagree, you can ask what the facts are.
>Your post is worthless unless the reader knows what the ratings were before the current governor took office.
the performance of Wisconsin's economy is below the country's average,
is simply not in the conversation. If that's your situation, you
should be asking questions, not casting judgments.
>I do not have to know the numbers to recagvize a fallacious argument.
the current ratings, which are sub-par. If you want to compare them to
the past, it's easy enough to do.
>
>And your second post just reinforces your lack of understanding.
>
> Dan
--
Ed Huntress
F. George McDuffee
Aug 31, 2015, 7:05:03 PM8/31/15
to
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 16:26:46 -0400, Ed Huntress
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
<big snip>
A major part of the problem appears to be that Governors
Walker, Brownback (Kansas) and Jindal (Louisiana) are all
operating under a paradigm or view of reality that was
reasonably congruent to the actual socioeconomic conditions
of the 1950s, 60s, and most of the 70s. While it is
impossible to prove, it is plausible, even likely, that if
the current socioeconomic environment was substantially the
same as that time frame, their policies would have indeed
had positive results.
Unfortunately however, we are now some 40 years, or almost
two generations beyond that time frame, and for better or
for worse, we are now in a new and rapidly mutating
socioeconomic environment and culture, with drastic
ethnographic, demographic, cultural and geopolitical
changes, most of which are highly unfavorable for the
majority.
The traditional liberal/progressive policies in the blue
states where these are being applied do not appear to be
producing any better results, with the slightly better
economic performance (concentrated in a few economic
sectors, geographic areas and income strata, e. g. San
Francisco) more likely to be due to new pragmatic policies
and "lucky" economic conditions.
Many of us, on both the right and left, are reprising Don
Quixote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Quixote by tilting
at socioeconomic windmills and attempting to reimpose
Hanna-McKinley capitalism or FDR liberalism on a new epoch
where these have no more relevance than did "chivalry" in
Don Quixote's time.
--
Unka' George
"Gold is the money of kings,
silver is the money of gentlemen,
barter is the money of peasants,
but debt is the money of slaves"
-Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium"
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
<big snip>
>>I do not have to know the numbers to recagvize a fallacious argument.
>
>Your premise is incorrect. I did not say "because." I said those are
>the current ratings, which are sub-par. If you want to compare them to
>the past, it's easy enough to do.
</snip>
>
>Your premise is incorrect. I did not say "because." I said those are
>the current ratings, which are sub-par. If you want to compare them to
>the past, it's easy enough to do.
A major part of the problem appears to be that Governors
Walker, Brownback (Kansas) and Jindal (Louisiana) are all
operating under a paradigm or view of reality that was
reasonably congruent to the actual socioeconomic conditions
of the 1950s, 60s, and most of the 70s. While it is
impossible to prove, it is plausible, even likely, that if
the current socioeconomic environment was substantially the
same as that time frame, their policies would have indeed
had positive results.
Unfortunately however, we are now some 40 years, or almost
two generations beyond that time frame, and for better or
for worse, we are now in a new and rapidly mutating
socioeconomic environment and culture, with drastic
ethnographic, demographic, cultural and geopolitical
changes, most of which are highly unfavorable for the
majority.
The traditional liberal/progressive policies in the blue
states where these are being applied do not appear to be
producing any better results, with the slightly better
economic performance (concentrated in a few economic
sectors, geographic areas and income strata, e. g. San
Francisco) more likely to be due to new pragmatic policies
and "lucky" economic conditions.
Many of us, on both the right and left, are reprising Don
Quixote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Quixote by tilting
at socioeconomic windmills and attempting to reimpose
Hanna-McKinley capitalism or FDR liberalism on a new epoch
where these have no more relevance than did "chivalry" in
Don Quixote's time.
--
Unka' George
"Gold is the money of kings,
silver is the money of gentlemen,
barter is the money of peasants,
but debt is the money of slaves"
-Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium"
Jim Wilkins
Aug 31, 2015, 8:08:00 PM8/31/15
to
"F. George McDuffee" <gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote in
message news:9gl9ual9unldtl4dp...@4ax.com...
In one of Hillary's current NH ads she wishes she could return to that
era too.
message news:9gl9ual9unldtl4dp...@4ax.com...
era too.
Larry Jaques
Aug 31, 2015, 11:35:59 PM8/31/15
to
--
The mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work until it's opened.
--Frank Zappa
Jim Wilkins
Sep 1, 2015, 6:55:53 AM9/1/15
to
"Jim Wilkins" <murat...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ms2q5h$u6p$1...@dont-email.me...
"I want to see it back where it was when I came of age."
news:ms2q5h$u6p$1...@dont-email.me...
dca...@krl.org
Sep 1, 2015, 7:58:18 AM9/1/15
to
On Monday, August 31, 2015 at 4:26:53 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
> >
> >And your second post just reinforces your lack of understanding.
>
> I understand the issue quite well.
>
> --
> >
> >And your second post just reinforces your lack of understanding.
>
> I understand the issue quite well.
>
> Ed Huntress
You may understand the situation, but your posts do not reflect it.
Dan
Ed Huntress
Sep 1, 2015, 8:32:45 AM9/1/15
to
seems to be your objection.
--
Ed Huntress
dca...@krl.org
Sep 1, 2015, 1:41:59 PM9/1/15
to
On Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 8:32:45 AM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
> >
> >> --
> >> Ed Huntress
> I don't speak in syllogisms and I'm not given to pedantry, Dan. That
> seems to be your objection.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
You usually post things that are logical, but sometimes you post things that are illogical. You can claim my objoctions are pedantry, but they really are not. And it has nothing to do with syllogisms.
You tried to put down Walker based on how the state is, But you should have used whether the state improved or not while he was in office.
Dan
> >
> >> --
> >> Ed Huntress
> I don't speak in syllogisms and I'm not given to pedantry, Dan. That
> seems to be your objection.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
You tried to put down Walker based on how the state is, But you should have used whether the state improved or not while he was in office.
Dan
Ed Huntress
Sep 1, 2015, 1:57:54 PM9/1/15
to
proof, look it up. My statement was accurate. I'm not here to assess
the state of your knowledge. That's your responsiblity.
And if you disagree, back it up. If you don't know, ask. That's how
normal conversation is conducted.
--
Ed Huntress
F. George McDuffee
Sep 1, 2015, 2:31:01 PM9/1/15
to
I don't know your age, but most likely you came of age while
the U. S. was p*****g off their assets [money, smarts, and
blood] like a drunken sailor on shore leave.
After WW2, the U.S. was in a unique and unsustainable
position, controlling most of the world's manufacturing
capacity, financial reserves, and research facilities. The
other nations had lost not only their manufacturing
capacity, infrastructure, capital reserves, and research
facilities, but perhaps most importantly, their self
confidence.
While this hegemony/monopoly could not have been maintained
indefinitely, much more could/should have been done such as
reinvesting in and continually updating our manufacturing
capabilities (including education/training), infrastructure
and products. Instead our "leadership" chose to run-down
our assets (including intellectual property, e.g. CNC,
personal computers), extracting as much value as they could,
largely for themselves. e. g. machine tools, steel,
automobiles, consumer electronics, shoes and
textiles/clothing.
Can the current situation be corrected? Yes and No.
"No" in the sense we can never return to the anomalous and
unique socioeconomic and geopolitical position the U. S. was
in immediately after WW2.
"Yes" in the sense that we can (but won't) roll back and
control/limit "financialization," and re-industralize to
domestically produce real "high value added" goods and
services, utilizing our domestic resources, rather than
exporting these as raw low-value commodities and then
re-importing these as "high value added" end products. For
example *NOT* exporting shale gas, but using it to
domestically produce polyethylene, which is then
domestically molded into consumer goods for domestic
consumption and export.
F. George McDuffee
Sep 1, 2015, 3:12:32 PM9/1/15
to
FYI some hard data
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-surging-ranks-of-americas-ultrapoor/
<snip>
The surging ranks of America's ultrapoor
By one dismal measure, America is joining the likes of Third
World countries.
The number of U.S. residents who are struggling to survive
on just $2 a day has more than doubled since 1996, placing
1.5 million households and 3 million children in this
desperate economic situation. That's according to "$2.00 a
Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America," a book from
publisher Houghton Mifflin Harcourt that will be released on
Sept. 1.
The measure of poverty isn't arbitrary -- it's the threshold
the World Bank uses to measure global poverty in the
developed world. While it may be the norm to see families in
developing countries such as Bangladesh and Ethiopia
struggle to survive on such meager income, the growing ranks
of America's ultrapoor may be shocking, given that the U.S.
is considered one of the most developed capitalist countries
in the world.
</snip>
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-surging-ranks-of-americas-ultrapoor/
<snip>
The surging ranks of America's ultrapoor
By one dismal measure, America is joining the likes of Third
World countries.
The number of U.S. residents who are struggling to survive
on just $2 a day has more than doubled since 1996, placing
1.5 million households and 3 million children in this
desperate economic situation. That's according to "$2.00 a
Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America," a book from
publisher Houghton Mifflin Harcourt that will be released on
Sept. 1.
The measure of poverty isn't arbitrary -- it's the threshold
the World Bank uses to measure global poverty in the
developed world. While it may be the norm to see families in
developing countries such as Bangladesh and Ethiopia
struggle to survive on such meager income, the growing ranks
of America's ultrapoor may be shocking, given that the U.S.
is considered one of the most developed capitalist countries
in the world.
</snip>
Scout
Sep 1, 2015, 7:04:28 PM9/1/15
to
news:mvtbuahpj0kp76pe0...@4ax.com...
Dudu has assured us that Obama has turned things around and EVERYTHING is
getting better.
So it's quite impossible for there to be surging in the ranks of America's
ultra poor.
> FYI some hard data
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-surging-ranks-of-americas-ultrapoor/
> <snip>
> The surging ranks of America's ultrapoor
IM....POSS....IBLE
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-surging-ranks-of-americas-ultrapoor/
> <snip>
> The surging ranks of America's ultrapoor
Dudu has assured us that Obama has turned things around and EVERYTHING is
getting better.
So it's quite impossible for there to be surging in the ranks of America's
ultra poor.
Byker
Sep 2, 2015, 2:42:51 PM9/2/15
to
"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
news:mvtbuahpj0kp76pe0...@4ax.com...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-surging-ranks-of-americas-ultrapoor/
<snip>
"Living Well on Practically Nothing" by Edward H. Romney
http://www.amazon.com/Living-Well-Practically-Nothing-Revised/dp/1581602820
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/living-well-on-practically-nothing-edward-h-romney/1100418523
It's been continuously in print since its first publication in 2001...
news:mvtbuahpj0kp76pe0...@4ax.com...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-surging-ranks-of-americas-ultrapoor/
<snip>
>
> The number of U.S. residents who are struggling to survive on just $2 a
> day has more than doubled since 1996, placing 1.5 million households and 3
> million children in this desperate economic situation. That's according to
> "$2.00 a Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America," a book from publisher
> Houghton Mifflin Harcourt that will be released on Sept. 1.
Uh, some people have been doing just that of their own free will:
> The number of U.S. residents who are struggling to survive on just $2 a
> day has more than doubled since 1996, placing 1.5 million households and 3
> million children in this desperate economic situation. That's according to
> "$2.00 a Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America," a book from publisher
> Houghton Mifflin Harcourt that will be released on Sept. 1.
"Living Well on Practically Nothing" by Edward H. Romney
http://www.amazon.com/Living-Well-Practically-Nothing-Revised/dp/1581602820
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/living-well-on-practically-nothing-edward-h-romney/1100418523
It's been continuously in print since its first publication in 2001...
dca...@krl.org
Sep 2, 2015, 4:21:33 PM9/2/15
to
On Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 1:57:54 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
> >You tried to put down Walker based on how the state is, But you should have used whether the state improved or not while he was in office.
>
> Not. That was clear to all but the most hidebound pedant. If you need
> proof, look it up. My statement was accurate. I'm not here to assess
> the state of your knowledge. That's your responsiblity.
>
> And if you disagree, back it up. If you don't know, ask. That's how
> normal conversation is conducted.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
Your statement was accurate as far as I know. But your post said that
> >You tried to put down Walker based on how the state is, But you should have used whether the state improved or not while he was in office.
>
> Not. That was clear to all but the most hidebound pedant. If you need
> proof, look it up. My statement was accurate. I'm not here to assess
> the state of your knowledge. That's your responsiblity.
>
> And if you disagree, back it up. If you don't know, ask. That's how
> normal conversation is conducted.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
>
>Deer Krugman, Scott Walker balanced the state budget. Something
>you have never ever demonstrated that you can do. All you did
>was document some procedures and your pals gave you a medal.
Walker has screwed Wisconsin left and right. Forbes Magazine, "The
Capitalist's Tool," ranks Wisconsin #32 in its "Best States for
Business" list. Here are some of Forbes' other rankings for the state:
#34 in Business Costs
#37 in Labor Supply
#29 in Regulatory Environment
#27 in Economic Climate
The state is in the bottom half of the country in every category.
which certainly implies that the state was doing fine and then Walker screwed it up and the ratings sunk. So while your statements were fact, the post implied that Walker screwed up the state. And you presented no facts to corroborate that.
Capitalist's Tool," ranks Wisconsin #32 in its "Best States for
Business" list. Here are some of Forbes' other rankings for the state:
#34 in Business Costs
#37 in Labor Supply
#29 in Regulatory Environment
#27 in Economic Climate
The state is in the bottom half of the country in every category.
Dan
Ed Huntress
Sep 2, 2015, 5:17:36 PM9/2/15
to
promised twice as many jobs as the state actually produced. He said
he'd use the more-honest GAAP accounting procedures and produce a
balanced budget under it. Under GAAP procedures, his current deficit
would be $2.9 Billion. So he didn't use GAAP. He used the same fudge
factors and down-the-road can-kicking that his predecessor used. There
is much more to the story.
I made the statement that he screwed up the state's economy. I don't
go research facts and figures with every post, unless someone asks.
--
Ed Huntress
Rudy Canoza
Sep 2, 2015, 5:56:19 PM9/2/15
to
On 9/2/2015 2:17 PM, nsf eddy crybabied:
>> On Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 1:57:54 PM UTC-4, nsf eddy crybabied:
>> Walker has screwed Wisconsin left and right. Forbes Magazine, "The
>> Capitalist's Tool," ranks Wisconsin #32 in its "Best States for
>> Business" list. Here are some of Forbes' other rankings for the state:
>>
>> #34 in Business Costs
>> #37 in Labor Supply
>> #29 in Regulatory Environment
>> #27 in Economic Climate
>>
>> The state is in the bottom half of the country in every category.
>>
>>
>> which certainly implies that the state was doing fine and then Walker screwed it up and the ratings sunk. So while your statements were fact, the post implied that Walker screwed up the state. And you presented no facts to corroborate that.
>>
>> Dan
>
> The big facts are
The big fact, you fucking liar, is that as I already showed and you -
chickenshit - failed to respond, the state was ranked 40th in Forbes's
same survey for 2010, and has risen *EIGHT* positions to #32 under
Walker's governance.
2011 rank (2010 data): 40
http://www.forbes.com/special-report/2011/best-states-11_rank.html
Current rank: 32
http://www.forbes.com/best-states-for-business/list/
You can always count on that chickenshit nsf eddy to lie by omission, as
well as lie by commission.
>> On Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 1:57:54 PM UTC-4, nsf eddy crybabied:
>> Walker has screwed Wisconsin left and right. Forbes Magazine, "The
>> Capitalist's Tool," ranks Wisconsin #32 in its "Best States for
>> Business" list. Here are some of Forbes' other rankings for the state:
>>
>> #34 in Business Costs
>> #37 in Labor Supply
>> #29 in Regulatory Environment
>> #27 in Economic Climate
>>
>> The state is in the bottom half of the country in every category.
>>
>>
>> which certainly implies that the state was doing fine and then Walker screwed it up and the ratings sunk. So while your statements were fact, the post implied that Walker screwed up the state. And you presented no facts to corroborate that.
>>
>> Dan
>
> The big facts are
chickenshit - failed to respond, the state was ranked 40th in Forbes's
same survey for 2010, and has risen *EIGHT* positions to #32 under
Walker's governance.
2011 rank (2010 data): 40
http://www.forbes.com/special-report/2011/best-states-11_rank.html
Current rank: 32
http://www.forbes.com/best-states-for-business/list/
You can always count on that chickenshit nsf eddy to lie by omission, as
well as lie by commission.
David R. Birch
Sep 2, 2015, 10:32:38 PM9/2/15
to
Dem or Rep. Mainly because of too many old tech companies not waking up
in time. Milwaukee used to be wall to wall machine shops, not much left
of that now.
Walker served his only useful function when he signed a CCW bill.
David
David R. Birch
Sep 2, 2015, 10:34:38 PM9/2/15
to
Does anyone believe campaign promises?
David
F. George McDuffee
Sep 3, 2015, 1:42:20 PM9/3/15
to
On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 13:42:54 -0500, "Byker"
<byker@do~rag.net> wrote:
<snip>
Indeed, but most aren't. Contracting median income is a
disaster for a debt based consumer socioeconomy like ours.
It is also worthwhile to remember that the increasing
numbers/proportion of the "poor" means the social safety net
and/or other costs resulting from the extralegal [drugs,
prostitution, human trafficking] or underground economy,
will also increase, which will throw significant additional
costs onto the remaining general taxpayers [which as a rule
will *NOT* include the transnational corporations].
While I share the feelings of the Tea Party in general, it
is clear that the implementation of their general neo
liberal [neo con in the U. S.] socioeconomic policies are
*NOT* having the intended effect as demonstrated by
Wisconsin, Kansas and Louisiana. In fact, none of the
countries where these neo liberal policies [and shock
economic therapy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_therapy_%28economics%29
] have been imposed, show the touted effects, but rather
steep reductions in the quality of life metrics such as
infant mortality, crime rates and average/median age at time
of death, e. g. Russia, Argentina, and Greece.
Continuing to implement policies ==>applicable to the older
phases of socioeconomic development such as agriculture and
mass production<== in this epoch, where these have been
overlain by a new layer of "Globalization," characterized by
grossly excessive financialization / "financial engineering"
and quasi sovereign transnational corporations, is futile.
What the solution is no one knows, and few, if any, are
attempting to discover/develop rational alternatives, but as
noted in one of John Wayne's movies "We can't go back, we
can't stay here, so the only thing to do is go through."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/03/business/low-income-workers-see-biggest-drop-in-paychecks.html?_r=0
<snip>
One explanation may lie in the findings of another study
released on Wednesday by the Economic Policy Institute, also
a liberal research group. Its report showed that even as
labor productivity has improved steadily since 2000, the
benefits from improved efficiency have nearly all gone to
companies, shareholders and top executives, rather than
rank-and-file employees.
</snip>
FWIW: The available data and anecdotes indicates most of
the benefits of globalization have also been "skimmed" by
the 1%, while the majority/middle class have absorbed the
costs.
<byker@do~rag.net> wrote:
<snip>
>Uh, some people have been doing just that of their own free will:
</snip>
Indeed, but most aren't. Contracting median income is a
disaster for a debt based consumer socioeconomy like ours.
It is also worthwhile to remember that the increasing
numbers/proportion of the "poor" means the social safety net
and/or other costs resulting from the extralegal [drugs,
prostitution, human trafficking] or underground economy,
will also increase, which will throw significant additional
costs onto the remaining general taxpayers [which as a rule
will *NOT* include the transnational corporations].
While I share the feelings of the Tea Party in general, it
is clear that the implementation of their general neo
liberal [neo con in the U. S.] socioeconomic policies are
*NOT* having the intended effect as demonstrated by
Wisconsin, Kansas and Louisiana. In fact, none of the
countries where these neo liberal policies [and shock
economic therapy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_therapy_%28economics%29
] have been imposed, show the touted effects, but rather
steep reductions in the quality of life metrics such as
infant mortality, crime rates and average/median age at time
of death, e. g. Russia, Argentina, and Greece.
Continuing to implement policies ==>applicable to the older
phases of socioeconomic development such as agriculture and
mass production<== in this epoch, where these have been
overlain by a new layer of "Globalization," characterized by
grossly excessive financialization / "financial engineering"
and quasi sovereign transnational corporations, is futile.
What the solution is no one knows, and few, if any, are
attempting to discover/develop rational alternatives, but as
noted in one of John Wayne's movies "We can't go back, we
can't stay here, so the only thing to do is go through."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/03/business/low-income-workers-see-biggest-drop-in-paychecks.html?_r=0
<snip>
One explanation may lie in the findings of another study
released on Wednesday by the Economic Policy Institute, also
a liberal research group. Its report showed that even as
labor productivity has improved steadily since 2000, the
benefits from improved efficiency have nearly all gone to
companies, shareholders and top executives, rather than
rank-and-file employees.
</snip>
FWIW: The available data and anecdotes indicates most of
the benefits of globalization have also been "skimmed" by
the 1%, while the majority/middle class have absorbed the
costs.
Jim Wilkins
Sep 3, 2015, 2:40:54 PM9/3/15
to
"F. George McDuffee" <gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote in
message news:unugua5d93badrv3m...@4ax.com...
mog...@hotmail.com
Sep 3, 2015, 5:28:14 PM9/3/15
to
On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 1:42:20 PM UTC-4, F. George McDuffee wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 13:42:54 -0500, "Byker"
> <byker@do~rag.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >Uh, some people have been doing just that of their own free will:
> </snip>
>
> Indeed, but most aren't. Contracting median income is
> a disaster for a debt based consumer socioeconomy like ours.
On one of the podcasts, I remember hearing someone say that if an economy grows 7%, then its incomes are expected to double (I don't know about median or not).
> On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 13:42:54 -0500, "Byker"
> <byker@do~rag.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >Uh, some people have been doing just that of their own free will:
> </snip>
>
> Indeed, but most aren't. Contracting median income is
> a disaster for a debt based consumer socioeconomy like ours.
F. George McDuffee
Sep 3, 2015, 8:19:41 PM9/3/15
to
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 14:28:08 -0700 (PDT), mog...@hotmail.com
wrote:
While economic growth is good, much depends on the
distribution of the additional income/wealth. The
distribution is commonly indicated by the GINI coefficient
or index. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
Although I have not kept the graph updated, the U. S. GINI
trend-line is still accurate.
http://mcduffee-associates.us/PE/gini1.pdf
http://www.oecd.org/social/income-distribution-database.htm
http://www.businessinsider.com/gini-index-income-inequality-world-map-2014-11
Because of the marginal utility of money, when increases in
GDP are "skimmed" by the 1%, where the marginal utility of
additional income is minimal, there may be no perception of
economic improvement, even with large increases in the GDP.
wrote:
distribution of the additional income/wealth. The
distribution is commonly indicated by the GINI coefficient
or index. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
Although I have not kept the graph updated, the U. S. GINI
trend-line is still accurate.
http://mcduffee-associates.us/PE/gini1.pdf
http://www.oecd.org/social/income-distribution-database.htm
http://www.businessinsider.com/gini-index-income-inequality-world-map-2014-11
Because of the marginal utility of money, when increases in
GDP are "skimmed" by the 1%, where the marginal utility of
additional income is minimal, there may be no perception of
economic improvement, even with large increases in the GDP.
0 new messages