drop the [ img ] tagsGantz said:
I'm not at work and even I was looking over my shoulder to see if my manager was near
drop the [ img ] tagsGantz said:
Tamanon said:
I love it. Krugman's Nobel today had me smiling all day because of stuff like that. And stuff like this:Cloudy said:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUOFTPbxuWA&eurl=http://crooksandliars.com/
Haha, Krugman is a prophet. O'Reilly is such a clown :lol
Delicious.So back in the day, August 8, 2005, one of the wankers at Powerline wrote this gem:
It must be depressing to be Paul Krugman. No matter how well the economy performs, Krugmans bitter vendetta against the Bush administration requires him to hunt for the black lining in a sky full of silvery clouds. With the economy now booming, what can Krugman possibly have to complain about? In todays column, titled That Hissing Sound, Krugman says there is a housing bubble, and its about to burst...
There are, of course, obvious differences between houses and stocks. Most people own only one house at a time, and transaction costs make it impractical to buy and sell houses the way you buy and sell stocks. Krugman thinks the fact that James Glassman doesnt buy the bubble theory is evidence in its favor, but if you read Glassmans article on the subject, youll see that he actually makes some of the same points that Krugman does. But he argues, persuasively in my view, that there is little reason to fear a catastrophic collapse in home prices.
Krugman will have to come up with something much better, I think, to cause many others to share his pessimism.
The "depressed" Krugman can cry himself to sleep with his Nobel Prize, as well as the realization that yes, he was right and the wingnutosphere was once again proven tragically wrong.
Macam said:What is this exactly? I don't have a Facebook account and I'm not entirely clear what's the purpose of the get together. I imagine it's something political, obviously. For what it's worth, Scholz Garden is playing the debate on Wed. and Rabbit Bar is playing the final Senate debate between Cornyn and Noreiga.
Macam said:What is this exactly? I don't have a Facebook account and I'm not entirely clear what's the purpose of the get together. I imagine it's something political, obviously. For what it's worth, Scholz Garden is playing the debate on Wed. and Rabbit Bar is playing the final Senate debate between Cornyn and Noreiga.
that's amazingCloudy said:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUOFTPbxuWA&eurl=http://crooksandliars.com/
Haha, Krugman is a prophet. O'Reilly is such a clown :lol
Cloudy said:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUOFTPbxuWA&eurl=http://crooksandliars.com/
Haha, Krugman is a prophet. O'Reilly is such a clown :lol
GhaleonEB said:I love it. Krugman's Nobel today had me smiling all day because of stuff like that. And stuff like this:
Delicious.
Gattsu25 said:drop the [ img ] tags
I'm not at work and even I was looking over my shoulder to see if my manager was near
As I argue in Part I, the Great Depression was the consequence of a massive shift of income shares to profits, away from wages and thus consumption, at the very moment--the 1920s--that expanded production of consumer durables became the crucial condition of economic growth as such. This shift produced a tidal wave of surplus capital that, in the absence of any need for increased investment in productive capacity (net investment declined steadily through the 1920s even as industrial productivity and output increased spectacularly), flowed inevitably into speculative channels, particularly the stock market bubble of the late 20s; when the bubble burst--that is, when non-financial firms pulled out of the call loan market in October--demand for securities listed on the stock exchange evaporated, and the banks were left holding billions of dollars in "distressed assets." The credit freeze and the extraordinary deflation of the 1930s followed; not even the Reconstruction Finance Corporation could restore investor confidence and reflate the larger economy.
So recovery between 1933 and 1937 was not the result of renewed confidence and increased net investment determined by newly enlightened monetary policy (the percentage of replacement and maintenance expenditures in the total of private investment grew in the 1930s). It was instead the result of net contributions to consumer expenditures out of federal budget deficits. In other words, fiscal policy validated the new growth pattern that first appeared in the 1920s--the consumer-led pattern that was eventually disrupted by the shift of income shares to profits, away from wages and consumption.
That consumer-led pattern of economic growth was the hallmark of the postwar boom--the heyday of "consumer culture." It lasted until 1973, when steady gains in median family income and nonfarm real wages slowed, and even ended. Since then, this stagnation has persisted, although increases in labor productivity should have allowed commensurable gains in wages. Thus a familiar shift of income shares away from wages and consumption, toward profits, has characterized the pattern of economic growth and development over the last twenty-five years.
...
The responsible fiscal policy for the foreseeable future is, then, to raise taxes on the wealthy and to make net contributions to consumer expenditures out of federal deficits if necessary. When asked why he wants to make these moves, Barack Obama doesn't have to retreat to the "fairness" line of defense Joe Biden used when pressed by Sarah Palin in debate--and not just by the lunatic fringe where hockey Moms and supply-siders congregate. The leader of the liberal media, the New York Times itself, has also admonished the Democratic candidate on his proposed fiscal policy: "Mr. Obama has said that he would raise taxes on the wealthy, starting next year, to help restore fairness to the tax code and to pay for his spending plans. With the economy tanking, however, it's hard to imagine how he could prudently do that." (NYT 10/7/08)
In fact, if our current crisis is comparable to the early stages of the Great Depression, it's hard to imagine a more prudent and more productive program.
I can confirm that the Obama campaign has paid for in-game advertising in Burnout, Holly Rockwood, director of corporate communications at Electronic Arts,
She was totally adorable.Cloudy said:I dunno what it is but I find this economy chick on TDS strangely hawt
I really like smart women I think
=) GObama!kkaabboomm said:
Ditto. She was really cute in a milf-next-door/professory sort of way.Cloudy said:I dunno what it is but I find this economy chick on TDS strangely hawt
I really like smart women I think
kkaabboomm said:
Show some love.Cloudy said:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUOFTPbxuWA&eurl=http://crooksandliars.com/
Haha, Krugman is a prophet. O'Reilly is such a clown :lol
I wonder how a democratic administration will change the 24hr news networks. I know that Fox is probably foaming at the mouth to be able to blame everything on the democrats and not have to deflect problems the republicans caused. MSNBC is a different animal though. Before 2000, MSNBC was a different network. At one point they had Coulter and Ingrahm on shows. They also had a lot fewer political opinion shows than Fox and MSNBC do now. I remember Olberman leaving SportsCenter and then whining about the coverage MSNBC gave the impeachment before he quit his new job.maximum360 said:Krugman was awesome. O'Reilly deserves all the bashing he gets from Keith O. daily.
"My pussy's so hot"quadriplegicjon said::lol what the hell was she actually saying?
Watch Biden. The smirk he gives her is priceless. Oh, and I have no idea.quadriplegicjon said::lol what the hell was she actually saying?
quadriplegicjon said::lol what the hell was she actually saying?
Amir0x said:Proof that Obama has so much money he doesn't have any idea what to do with it anymore. :lol
"Which voters haven't we reached yet?"
Uhm... what about the Burnout demographic?"
"BRILLIANT! Buy ad space in this highly competitive market!"
quadriplegicjon said::lol what the hell was she actually saying?
Pick one:quadriplegicjon said::lol what the hell was she actually saying?
Like Joe Scarborough? Stop with this MSNBC=FoxNews false equivalency bullshit.devilhawk said:I wonder how a democratic administration will change the 24hr news networks. I know that Fox is probably foaming at the mouth to be able to blame everything on the democrats and not have to deflect problems the republicans caused. MSNBC is a different animal though. Before 2000, MSNBC was a different network. At one point they had Coulter and Ingrahm on shows. They also had a lot fewer political opinion shows than Fox and MSNBC do now. I remember Olberman leaving SportsCenter and then whining about the coverage MSNBC gave the impeachment before he quit his new job.
What I am trying to say is this is the first time MSNBC will have all their opinion shows with a democratic administration. Interesting to see what happens since they will have the opportunity to criticize any possible mistakes of Obama and the democrats. They will have the choice of whether to drift off to the 'dark side' that is Fox but in reverse or keep more journalistic.
What I am trying to say is this is the first time MSNBC will have all their opinion shows with a democratic administration. Interesting to see what happens since they will have the opportunity to criticize any possible mistakes of Obama and the democrats. They will have the choice of whether to drift off to the 'dark side' that is Fox but in reverse or keep more journalistic.
quadriplegicjon said::lol what the hell was she actually saying?
!!! Do you think it's too late to go get tickets?soul creator said:
omg rite said:Oh my God.
My friend just linked me to the most offensive anti-Palin picture ever.
I probably wouldn't be able to post it, as it makes fun of her kid.
But holy shit. :lol :lol :lol :lol
soul creator said:
omg rite said:Oh my God.
My friend just linked me to the most offensive anti-Palin picture ever.
I probably wouldn't be able to post it, as it makes fun of her kid.
But holy shit. :lol :lol :lol :lol
Fuck that, I don't care to see it.omg rite said:Oh my God.
My friend just linked me to the most offensive anti-Palin picture ever.
I probably wouldn't be able to post it, as it makes fun of her kid.
But holy shit. :lol :lol :lol :lol
omg rite said:Oh my God.
My friend just linked me to the most offensive anti-Palin picture ever.
I probably wouldn't be able to post it, as it makes fun of her kid.
But holy shit. :lol :lol :lol :lol
That's a bit eerie.typhonsentra said:
LizardKing said:post. now.
HylianTom said:If you can't post, PM it!
edit: wait.. which kid?
omg rite said:If a mod gives the OK, I'll post it.
There's no nudity, just very offensive.