http://www.reddit.com/r/Q&A/comments/t1ygb/iama_n… Some of you may enjoy trolling or seeing his answers to questions (its a ridiculous circlejerk on there right now)
Trending Content
| +81 | GF doesn’t care about her looks | 49 | 10h | |
| +52 | Affair with my Associate… In Desperate Need for Advice | 23 | 1h | |
| +39 | How to sound more eloquent? | 16 | 3s | |
| +39 | Insurance as High Finance? | 10 | 1d | |
| +38 | 400k/year in HVAC sales? | 26 | 20h | |
| +33 | Would you rather live alone in an outer borough or with roommates in Manhattan? | 23 | 1d | |
| +27 | Why do people listen to Jim Cramer Investing Advice? | 10 | 4h | |
| +26 | Is my boss gaslighting me? | 3 | 4h | |
| +25 | Carnivore Diet | 9 | 5h | |
| +25 | WSO Ranking On Resume??? | 6 | 1h |
Career Resources
Reddit has gotten more and more disgusting everyday, especially r/politics. The amount of liberal ignorance/arrogance on that site is appalling. I posted a couple of questions in Krugman's IAMA, I doubt he responds to them though.
Yes, Reddit really, really, really frightens me. Most of the people on there are in the 18-25 year old range and US citizens. The amount of stupidity, yet vicious and blind passion, that goes on on that website leads me to believe that we will see a very different USA in 20-30 years.
I think it's a little bit skewed because all the non socialists who actually work for a living and contribute to society don't have the time to waste away on reddit all day.
This is what I hope, but going through R/Politics just makes you worn out and hopeless for the future.
Told him to respond to this
http://soshable.com/behind-the-numbers-reddit/
Mostly male, 18-24. Only 30% with a college education.
Half employed full time. 20% making less than 20K.
In essence, losers. Krugman (aka pussy mouth) fits in perfectly with their rescue me, nanny state narrative.
What is so funny is the inflation fucks them the most. Nothing but sheep to the slaughter. LOL
Do we have to list our credentials for our opinions to be valid now? I don't fit your profile; I'm 30, Ivy-educated, not a socialist, employed full time (and then some). I enjoy both Reddit and Paul Krugman. I agree with his opinions. I am very much a capitalist and believe in meritocracy.
Just because I don't believe in a new gilded age of generations of entrenched aristocrats does not make me (or others like me) socialists, bleeding hearts, or welfare proponents. I don't think you have a correct understanding of intellectual liberals. The liberals you (and Limbaugh) fear believe in equal results -- the liberals that actually exist believe in equal opportunity. There is a difference, you know.
That was a breath of fresh air...
Could you do us a favor and retitle this thread:
"Waaaahhhh my pussy hurts. Waaaaaahhhh! It hurts!"
Oh come on. Have a sense of humor, guys.
Krugman and Reddit are perfect. An educated man with an academic focus in something outside of what he is discussing, telling them all about income inequality and how big government can solve everyone. Wow, I cannot believe there would be such a receptive argument /s.
Maybe we are all wrong. I mean if it is so easy to gain power and money through increasing the government why don't we all go that way?
Frankly, I am getting tired of even arguing about big government since government only benefits those with money and an education. Considering that odds are more in my favor of being on that side of the coin than the people who support it so much, I might as well cheer them on. I mean inflation hurts the poor more than the rich, yet the liberals want more government spending, facilitated by the Fed keeping rates low and inflating the currency.
Why are we not on board with Pussy Face, PhD.? Why are we so angry about a policy that only punishes people we are diametrically opposed to?
[quote=master2000]Found this thread after lurking through that thread for a while. Jeesus was I fucking disgusted. Glad the people here have some sense. It's ironic isn't it though. How the financial experts who would most likely benefit from quantitative easing see through the bull shit while the plebs who would most likely suffer from it don't.
If you REALLY want to rage look through this thread. http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/t0fb7/economic_showdown_ron_p…]
"It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere"
-Voltaire
The neocon and/or libertarian circle jerk that bombards WSO is about equivalent to the socialist circle jerk of reddit.
Didn't realize liberty was a circle jerk.
1.) There are plenty of libertarians on Reddit also. Plenty of them dove into that thread. There's en entire Libertarian sub-reddit.
2.) Krugman isn't some raving lunatic socialist. The only criticisms I hear in here are platitudes. I'd be curious to hear some specific arguments against him. Note: I'm not saying that they don't exist, but I'm saying that "we just love libery, bro" isn't an argument, it's an empty platitude.
3.) Yes, there is a giant neo-con / hyper-libertarian / "let's all live in a text book called freedom" circle jerk in the Monkey Around sub-forum on here
"To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble."
"“During phases of weak growth there are always those who say that lower interest rates will not help. They overlook the fact that low interest rates act through several channels. For instance, more housing is built, which expands the building sector. You must ask the opposite question: why in the world shouldn’t you lower interest rates?”
"In time this overhang will be worked off. Meanwhile, economic policy should encourage other spending to offset the temporary slump in business investment. Low interest rates, which promote spending on housing and other durable goods, are the main answer. But it seems inevitable that there will also be a fiscal stimulus package”
JeffSkilling, please stop urinating on posters with your poignant rebuttals.
lol
91% tax huh. Yeah, Krug face is just the bright shinning light of freedom.
Sad state when there is only a "faction" of libertarians. Seems to me that everyone in this country should be one.
Libertarians on Reddit are like Conservatives on WSO. The bullied and attacked minority.
Like I said, I didn't say he's beyond reproach or right about everything. I could pull out examples where Peter Schiff got a bunch of shit wrong (there's a youtube channel dedicated to it, I believe.)
Both of them being wrong and right on various issues does not mean that any one ideology is the absolute right one. This is my biggest issue in general with the libertarian / neo-con hybrids on this board. Anything outside of their belief system is "wrong" or "socialist," dealing in such absolutes is not the way to fix things.
Dude, there is being wrong and there is advocating socialist policies and expansive government. If a libertarian is wrong, guess what, no big deal, your rights are preserved. If Big Government Krugman is wrong my money is gone, rights are violated and turning back the clock is impossible.
Bigggg difference.
I don't know that Krugman is advocating making government huge and taking your money. As I understand it, he's for short-term stimulus and infrastructure spending (to get people to work) and medium-term / long-term solutions on the debt / deficit. Again, I'm not saying this is the right or wrong thing to do, but immediately denouncing any view outside of yours as "socialism" is ridiculous and makes it impossible to have a discussion on realistic solutions.
What rights does he want to violate? I don't understand.
Well for one he wants 4-5% inflation which I would argue is theft. Inflation at just 2% cuts the value of the dollar in half in about 17 years, 4-5% is cancerous.
All Krugman is proposing is more of the same Keynesian remedies that got us in this mess to begin with. You cannot solve a debt problem by just taking out a little more debt, and government spending is not stimulative, the Keynesian multiplier has been discredited more times than I can count.
So let me understand something. Krugman, calling for more government spending and more stimulus, thereby creating more debt (while also being a proponent of increased taxation to partially fund this in conjunction with more cheap dollars) isn't going to harm me, you or anyone else?
Increased taxes will hurt me
Increased debt will hurt me
His populace, income inequality shit would result in increased government, increased taxation and increased redistribution, all things that would hurt myself and all of us, now and in the future.
Also, he self identifies as a liberal, advocates for larger government and income redistribution along with punitive taxation. Connotes socalism IMO. Regardless, he isn't far off.
That is the demographics of the site. Sorry I didn't scroll through every single member to find the outliers. Fact s Reddit tends to be visited by young males, unemployed, with less than a college degree. I'd imagine the political section is skewed even more towards this. I also did not mention what type of school someone went to, but thanks for throwing in your Ivy league education as if that is relevant.
Equality of opportunity huh? Define this and tell me how you are going to go about creating this equality?
Considering you've stated numerous times that you are pro-bank bailout and were pro-TARP, I don't see how you can call anyone a socialist.
"but, but we had to save the financial system." Even if you believe that, there were ways to do it other than no strings attached tax payer bailouts and constant zero-percent interest loans from the Fed giving the banks a permanent arbitrage opportunity.
I am for all or nothing. Yes, I supported the bail out. Why? Because it has been a LONG time since the government actually left things alone. I am also perfectly fine with the banks failing.
I'm also not a massive libertarian. The majority of people in this country don't want liberty and I don't want to force them. I basically just want to maximize benefit while minimizing contributions. I wish more people believed in liberty, but if they want to be slaves I am cool with it. As long as I can avoid paying for them and still benefit.
I see more taxation and more government as a threat to ME. Frankly, I think I have been pretty consistent with my political ideology aka whatever benefits ME.
The gov't did leave the banks alone, reduced capital requirements, deregulated massively, and then when shit hit the fan, got involved via no strings attached bail outs. We had massive deregulation followed by a total bail out. A complete disgrace.
I think that's a bigger threat to "liberty" than the abstract concepts you talk about.
This is pure nonsense. "No strings attached bail outs", really?
Also, the gov't did not "leave the banks alone". It's easy to argue that the government's meddling and fickleness in 2008 contributed TREMENDOUSLY to the collapse in financials. JPM received a sweetheart deal from the Fed to rescue BSC, then months later when LEH -- much larger with $0.6 trillion in assets -- was in trouble, they did nothing. BSC was TBTF, but LEH went Chapter 11. LOL. Guess when the markets really panicked?
I'm talking prior to the bubble bursting. i.e.) 2000 (post repeal of Glass Steagall and passing of commodities - futures modernization act) through 2007. The gov't got involved after shit hit the fan and it was clear that banks were going down.
And no, the "no strings attached" bailouts is far from non-sense. If you disagree, please explain the strings associated with TARP (and TALF, and all the other programs) that I seemingly don't know about.
The liberal circlejerk on Reddit is downright nauseating. I consider myself at the center politically and the discussions there make me want to be a neocon.
We both know there is a little more too it and you and I have discussed this before and I have agreed with you that I support GS being put back in place.
Yeah, I know. I think that would solve a lot of issues, generally and promote a sense of "fairness," for lack of a better word.
End of the day the government used our money to gain more power and help the banks so everyone but government and the banks won.
I just don't understand why some people see the government as a helper, but in the same breath complain about government. The people who want more fairness, implemented by the govt are the same ones who have SOPA, CIPA, bailouts, TSA, etc. They are all the same.
Government wants power, all it wants.
Ant, your inability to admit that the government does some good is laughable.
I didn't realize this was a confessional where I needed to caveat everything with government did XYZ right.
Yes, government does a lot of good things. It also does a shit load of bad things. I think a much smaller government would be much more effective and thereby increase the percentage of good to bad.
Did the government do good in Katrina? Or how about Iraq/Afghanistan? How about the TSA or maybe Homeland Security? Maybe the government does good with Social Security that is bankrupt? Or Defense that is nearly $1 Trillion per year? What about the popular bailout? Or Gitmo?
I mean lets face it. Government is about power and control, not about doing good. It if happens it is most likely a mistake or a side effect.
derp derp le derp IamMaMa lolz look at my cat and dead relative i need karma to survive thxx derp
JSkillz with the poignant post!
No one is saying Krugman is infallible
The issue with pure libertarians is that if I show an example of a guy like Peter Schiff being wrong, they'll simply say "he isn't wrong, he's just not right yet. He'll be proven right in time."
Schiff is one of my heroes but clearly he has been wrong in the past (Hyperinflation call in 2010). Also, his main thesis of a dollar collapse has not yet happened. I still value Schiff's commentary over 90% of other analysts and he is certainly right on the money in terms of the problems associated with big government and central planning. Not really fair to say all libertarians are completely closed minded though.
So you're saying you realize all those models are complete bullshit and that you can't possibly model collective human behavior, yet Austrians don't do enough of it? Seems to me like you haven't actually researched the Austrian perspective all that thoroughly and are just throwing out Keynesian talking points.
http://blog.mises.org/6069/mises-and-hayek-refused-to-do-empirical-work/
http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae9_2_4.pdf
Aspernatur officia et voluptate ut eos. Voluptas praesentium ratione necessitatibus et. Magnam asperiores qui ut maxime quam totam quibusdam. Accusantium libero quae sed quia commodi voluptatem. Voluptatibus earum necessitatibus qui. Voluptatibus nostrum unde est quisquam id.
Sapiente perspiciatis modi dolore dolores. Veniam aut et nihil dolorem facilis eveniet incidunt. Explicabo deserunt tempora nostrum ipsum.
Et eum sit ut recusandae incidunt. Nisi facilis commodi quo et consequatur neque. Debitis animi ad aliquid in. Expedita commodi quod repudiandae nam et.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Accusamus aut a vel consectetur. Eaque vel neque doloribus possimus. In sed consequatur in nemo omnis magnam recusandae dolor. Dolores qui minus quas sit et. Nisi aut consequuntur odit asperiores. Vel iusto nostrum atque et sit voluptatem laborum.
Doloribus libero doloribus eligendi facere quia quis quasi. Harum qui aut non ipsam rem. Accusantium sint aut enim velit.
Maiores et autem excepturi doloremque qui. Laboriosam consectetur qui porro sunt. Quo vero repudiandae porro odit.
Qui occaecati suscipit fugit. Occaecati ipsum et eos eum. Molestias quaerat iure voluptatem dolorum distinctio quisquam quam. Molestias aliquam non ut quia.
Officiis sapiente quod sit ducimus sint dolore. Dolor veritatis animi maiores est et doloribus.