Paul Krugman: Sanders over the edge

Paper Boi

Paper Boi

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
May 15, 2013
Messages
70,612
Reputation
24,003
Daps
463,967
Reppin
NULL
MrSinnister said:
And I thought HE would be the sell out.:yeshrug: This ship's weird as duck right now. Everyone's trying to get on the gravy train, and it seems the people who ate the most are actually getting full and want others to actually get some.:ohhh: I will admit I don't get it.
Click to expand...
krugman is probably looking for a job in the administration.

i kind of thought reich might either be silent/support the clintons based on loyalty, but if you've seen his little movie/doc on inequality you'd know he would definitely be a bernie supporter. glad the guy has personal integrity.

had the wrong link. here's the doc for those who haven't seen it:
 
Last edited:
M

MrSinnister

Delete account when possible.
Joined
Aug 1, 2015
Messages
5,323
Reputation
330
Daps
6,832
Robbie3000 said:
Do you have any links? I'm very disappointed in Paul Krugman. Can't believe this is the same guy who was railing so much against the new Gilded age in his works. Sad.
Click to expand...
It was just the Upton Sinclair quote: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

He's gone now but wrote during the rise of Germany, and is a bad motherfukker. Anyone on the left should check out his shyt.

"The American People will take Socialism, but they won't take the label. I certainly proved it in the case of EPIC. Running on the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and running on the slogan to "End Poverty in California" I got 879,000. I think we simply have to recognize the fact that our enemies have succeeded in spreading the Big Lie. There is no use attacking it by a front attack, it is much better to out-flank them."
 
tru_m.a.c

tru_m.a.c

IC veteran
Staff member
Supporter
Hall of Fame
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
31,090
Reputation
6,790
Daps
90,279
Reppin
Gaithersburg, MD via Queens/LI
FAH1223 said:
The easy slogan here is “Break up the big banks.” It’s obvious why this slogan is appealing from a political point of view: Wall Street supplies an excellent cast of villains. But were big banks really at the heart of the financial crisis, and would breaking them up protect us from future crises?

Many analysts concluded years ago that the answers to both questions were no. Predatory lending was largely carried out by smaller, non-Wall Street institutions like Countrywide Financial; the crisis itself was centered not on big banks but on “shadow banks” like Lehman Brothers that weren’t necessarily that big. And the financial reform that President Obama signed in 2010 made a real effort to address these problems. It could and should be made stronger, but pounding the table about big banks misses the point.

Yet going on about big banks is pretty much all Mr. Sanders has done. On the rare occasions on which he was asked for more detail, he didn’t seem to have anything more to offer. And this absence of substance beyond the slogans seems to be true of his positions across the board.
Click to expand...

Mr. Krugman in 2012:

This system gave us half a century of relative financial stability. Eventually, however, the lessons of history were forgotten. New forms of banking without government guarantees proliferated, while both conventional and newfangled banks were allowed to take on ever-greater risks. Sure enough, we eventually suffered the 21st-century version of a Gilded Age banking panic, with terrible consequences.

It’s clear, then, that we need to restore the sorts of safeguards that gave us a couple of generations without major banking panics. It’s clear, that is, to everyone except bankers and the politicians they bankroll — for now that they have been bailed out, the bankers would of course like to go back to business as usual. Did I mention that Wall Street is giving vast sums to Mitt Romney, who has promised to repeal recent financial reforms?

Enter Mr. Dimon. JPMorgan, to its — and his — credit, managed to avoid many of the bad investments that brought other banks to their knees. This apparent demonstration of prudence has made Mr. Dimon the point man in Wall Street’s fight to delay, water down and/or repeal financial reform.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/14/opinion/krugman-why-we-regulate.html?_r=0
 
tru_m.a.c

tru_m.a.c

IC veteran
Staff member
Supporter
Hall of Fame
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
31,090
Reputation
6,790
Daps
90,279
Reppin
Gaithersburg, MD via Queens/LI
Krugman in 2012 again:

PAUL KRUGMAN: So, the Volcker Rule says that if you are a bank that has guaranteed deposits, if you’re an ordinary bank, which JPMorgan Chase is, that you cannot be doing—essentially, you can’t be doing speculating. You can’t be doing proprietary trading. You can’t be speculating in the markets. You can act as a middleman for your customers, but you should not be taking, in effect, those guaranteed deposits, that money, and using it to make speculative bets.

Jamie Dimon, because JPMorgan Chase, whether through smartness or whatever, because they managed to avoid getting caught up in the subprime losses, they’ve said, "We are the" — you know, they’ve become the good bank, the bankers who know, whether that’s true or not. And so, he was leading the charge against these regulations, against—in general, against stronger regulations on banks. And now it turns out that—what do you know? They were doing speculative investments with depositors’ money, and they lost a bunch of it through something we still don’t understand but looks to have been incredibly risky—not enough to bring them down, but enough to show—

AMY GOODMAN: How do you know? I mean, one—another billion in the last week. We’re up to three.

PAUL KRUGMAN: Well, they’re a very big bank, so they—yes, that’s right. If it turns out if it’s—if it doubles and triples again, who knows? It’s certainly taken a big bite of their stock, so it’s not trivial. But the main point is, they have just demonstrated that, no, it’s not—we cannot trust the bankers to play—to use this money safely. We cannot trust them to do these things.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you think Jamie Dimon should resign?

PAUL KRUGMAN: I think—I think, probably, yes. I mean, he’s become—he’s gone in just an instant from being—let’s put it this way. Precisely because he’s been using his supposed wisdom as a way to campaign against reform, and now it’s turned out that he wasn’t that wise after all—in fact, his bank was doing seriously bad stuff—I think it would be better for everybody if he went. It’s not going to happen, but I’d like to see that happen.
 
Aufheben

Aufheben

All Star
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
1,753
Reputation
1,040
Daps
10,775
Reppin
Nowhere
yeah dude really jumped the shark with this one :mjlol: it wasn't even well thought out. seems like he whipped it up in 10 minutes on his way to work :russ: he wasn't even attempting to be partial

and i like how he tries to say black voters are supporting hillary because of her "pragmatism" :dead:
 
N

No1

Retired.
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
28,923
Reputation
4,589
Daps
63,503
Mephistopheles said:
Krugman is now the white Cornel West. Dude is talking about the big banks aren't to blame when 7 years ago he was talking about how they needed to be broken up. :dead:
Click to expand...
All these dudes are showing their ass breh. Everyone in their 20s right now sees this shyt. Nobody is going to be watching the news from this point forward. Watch the switch up in 20 years when these old nikkas die and they need millennials for ratings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top