I lost track of the attributions. If you weren't the original poster of the thing saying nice things about Cheney, then second part about Google Groups is beside the point and I am sorry to have brought it up. Either way, the thing about Krugman contradicting himself is STILL irrelevant to my point. If you were the original poster saying nice things about Cheney, probably for the first and only time, I stand by the entire post. These things get SO confusing after awhile (g).
While it obviously has nothing to do with your attempt to change the subject, it has equally obviously has *everything* to do with your
*original* point.
It's not irrelevant at all: it clearly shows that Krugman's article is politically motivated, and not based in economics at all.
The obfuscation is entirely on your part.
Bye now.
>
Which I had moved on from to the Cheney thing. Do try to keep up.
Which I agreed with. Krugman has done as much for the credibility of the Econ Prize as Arafat and Kissinger did for the Peace.
Oh that we should be so lucky
Been a while since I saw two guys that are apparently on the same side of things arguing with each other so much.....
Krugman is a total left wing loon. As Doug pointed out, he was harping big time on deficits during the Bush years that were an order of magnitude smaller than those today. Yet now deficits don't matter because we owe the money to ourselves? Besides the fact that a lot of US debt is not owned by US citizens, it's just crazy that anyone, let alone an economist, would say that it's OK to spend recklessly today and rack up debt as long as you just borrow it domestically. Ultimately those debts become a serious drag on the economy as they are paid back, or else they are not paid back, either through default or inflation.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.