Americans Win Nobel in Economics

'Common-pool resources may be owned by national, regional or local governments as public goods, by communal groups as common property resources, or by private individuals or corporations as private goods. When they are owned by no one, they are used as open access resources. Having observed a number of common pool resources throughout the world, Elinor Ostrom noticed that a number of them are governed by common property regimes - arrangements different from private property or state administration - based on self-management by a local community. Her observations are in contradiction with claims that common-pool resources should be privatized as they necessarily will face destruction in the long run due to collective action problems leading to the overuse of the core resource (see: Tragedy of the commons).'

She seems to be a logical choice this year.

eh, what do economists know?

One visit to the Soviet Union immediately after it collapsed would refute the public part of their thesis.

Coming on the heals of the Gore and Obama Peace Prizes, the Nobel committee has moved to the far left.

Here is a link that better describes the economic positions of the recipients.

The CBS story was a wash when it came to details.

"Coming on the heals(sic) ..."

#3 | Posted by Ray at 2009-10-12 12:46 PM | Reply | Flag: illiterate moron

Coming on the heals of the Gore and Obama Peace Prizes, the Nobel committee has moved to the far left. #3 | Posted by Ray

C'mon amateur, did you forget Yasir Arafat? If you are going to be a rightard, be a good one at least...

3 rtards on this thread, Ray, Nanc, and Zulu, none of whom know jack shit about economics.

#5 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2009-10-12 12:49 PM | Reply | Flag: Obsessive-compulsive spelling cop

Coming on the heals of the Gore and Obama Peace Prizes, the Nobel committee has moved to the far left.

True, at least in the case of Elinor Ostrom. Looks as though the Nobel committee is trying to breath life in the idea that public ownership does a better job of managing resources than private ownership.

This was hashed out in the late 60's, everything old is new again.

And twice as predictable.

Null seems to be in a bitter mood. Why the long face null?

It is not surprising to me that Adam Smith's notion of an "invisible hand" should sound as comical to us today as "spontaneous generation" before Pasteur.

Or John Mandeville's explanation of cotton from 1350: "There grew there India a wonderful tree which bore tiny lambs on the endes of its branches. These branches were so pliable that they bent down to allow the lambs to feed when they are hungrie."

While it's true I'm picking on Adam Smith, my point is that our understanding and implementation of economics evolves and improves.

"It is not surprising to me that Adam Smith's notion of an "invisible hand" should sound as comical to us today as "spontaneous generation" before Pasteur."

The idea that people pursuing their own selfish interests would result in the greatest good for the greatest number never did seem particularly logical.

"The idea that people pursuing their own selfish interests would result in the greatest good for the greatest number never did seem particularly logical."

#12 | Posted by nullifidian

This is the lesson of history. The Capitalist system based on selfish greed has done a better job of delivering goods to the masses than any other system to date.

Perhaps the logic involved is that once you have taken care of your own selfish desires you are then in a better position to help others?

FINALLY, maybe someone here is the US that actually deserves an award like this.

my point is that our understanding and implementation of economics evolves and improves.

Ostrom's conclusions are a step backwards. if a parallel is to be drawn it would be to say the Nobel committee is now backing the Aristotle camp and saying the question of Spontaneous Generation is in question.

Leeuwenhoek and Pasteur were correct in their insight, as was Smith.

The idea that people pursuing their own selfish interests would result in the greatest good for the greatest number never did seem particularly logical.

Really? Is there an example of a nation whose economy didn't embrace the selfish interests of the individual that was successful? Think standard of living and get back with me.

Well, at first blush, one would say, that's pretty funny right there, Americans winning a prize for economics.....

however:

"Her observations are in contradiction with claims that common-pool resources should be privatized as they necessarily will face destruction in the long run due to collective action problems leading to the overuse of the core resource"

When one considers that Paul Krugman, who predicted the failure of the economy because of rampant, runaway neocon policies, also won a Nobel Prize, AND that the new winner is perhaps reversing the neocon policy course of privatize everything in sight aand let the free market reign unregulated, it may well be deserved. Especially any economist who has the guts to stand up to the bluster of the failed neocon rw media that still blows stong, despite the abject failures.

"This is the lesson of history. The Capitalist system based on selfish greed has done a better job of delivering goods to the masses than any other system to date."

No it's not. Capitalism is just a blip in human economic history. Science and technology is far more important than any particular economic system.

"Is there an example of a nation whose economy didn't embrace the selfish interests of the individual that was successful?"

Virtually all of Western Europe. Canada. Most of the modern industrialized world.

Now can we think of a country that pursued much more extreme laissez faire capitalism which nearly went bankrupt due to the selfish greed of supply side economics???

The Capitalist system based on selfish greed has done a better job of delivering goods to the masses than any other system to date.

No it hasn't. Those other systems simply weren't as good at war.

Heck, the Capitalist system is responsible for the creation of the very masses it claims to save.

Rationalization about "delivering goods to the masses" is equal parts mythology, liberal clap-trap, and ex post facto ends justifying the means.

But don't take my word for it. Today we celebrate Christopher Columbus, the great pre-American hero who brought slavery to the New World.

"Coming on the heals(sic) ..."
#3 | Posted by Ray at 2009-10-12 12:46 PM | Reply | Flag: illiterate moron
#5 | Posted by Zatoichi

"Coming on the heals" is a figure of speech, dopy. It means to follow after.

Something is fucked up with people who have to be that petty.

Ray,
The figure of speech is "Coming on the Heels," not on the HEALS.

The idea that people pursuing their own selfish interests would result in the greatest good for the greatest number never did seem particularly logical.
#12 | Posted by nullifidian

Sure. We'll just have to ignore the past 300 years of capitalism and industrialization. Before that time, standards of living changed little.

"The figure of speech is "Coming on the Heels," not on the HEALS."

Still petty, though.

#21 | Posted by kanrei

Thanks. Now watch the Spelling Nazi stamp his feat and pound the table.

If you only heard it spoken, then it is possible to have it wrong. I thought it was a "mute point," not a "moot point" for years as in it had no point, stood mute, but I was wrong.

Danni, you apparently don't know this but all of Western Europe, Canada and 'most of the modern industrialized world' have heavily capitalistic economies.

It would be more accurate to say that the United States, Canada, Western Europe and 'most of the modern industrialized world' have what are known as mixed economies where business is privatized and the government runs social programs.

What happened in the United States was the mix got out of kilter and the US government decided to get involved in the home loan industry and havoc ensued.

Though I would bet you would rather lose an arm than admit the economic downturn we are suffering through is in any way the byproduct of the federal government meddling in the housing market.

"Spelling Nazi"

#24 | Posted by Ray at 2009-10-12 01:53 PM

It's spelled correctly.
But alas, it's the wrong fucking word, idiot.

"We'll just have to ignore the past 300 years of capitalism and industrialization. Before that time, standards of living changed little."

Of course human standards of living grew slowly at first. Just like population size. It was technology that fueled industrialization, the explosion in population, etc. Capitalism had little to do with it.

"Danni, you apparently don't know this but all of Western Europe, Canada and 'most of the modern industrialized world' have heavily capitalistic economies"

You should argue with Ray, not Danni. Those are socialist economies according to him.

It was technology that fueled industrialization,

I'm not trying to assign you a position but are you willfully ignoring capitalism in how technology fueled industrialization and the advances we have experienced since then?

When one considers that Paul Krugman, who predicted the failure of the economy because of rampant, runaway neocon policies, also won a Nobel Prize,

Begging for the failure of the economy is not the same thing as predicting it.

Now can we think of a country that pursued much more extreme laissez faire capitalism which nearly went bankrupt due to the selfish greed of supply side economics???

Nope...there was never "extreme laissez faire capitalism" in this country.

Science and technology is far more important than any particular economic system.

Maybe, but it's important to embrace the economic system that will best allow science and technology to thrive. They are not entirely independent of one another.

"I'm not trying to assign you a position but are you willfully ignoring capitalism in how technology fueled industrialization and the advances we have experienced since then?"

The industrial revolution and population explosion was the culmination of technology developed that started when humans left caves. They developed domesticated agriculture, tools, language, mathematics, etc. A tipping point was reached. Capitalism is just part of it. It's very good at producing commodities. In fact, it attempts to turn everything into a commodity. Even Marx marveled at it's proficiency in doing that.

"Danni, you apparently don't know this but all of Western Europe, Canada and 'most of the modern industrialized world' have heavily capitalistic economies."

I'm very aware of that, I'm surprised you are willing to admit it, so now that will eliminate one of the talking points against health care reform, apparently, even you, agree we can have national health care through a public option and still retain America's capitalistic nature.

#31

Assumes facts not in evidence.

How do you assert that a Nobel Prize winning economist, who stands up the the neocon/msm powers and speaks his mind INFORMING us about how the continual deregulation, short term profit taking, tax breaks for the rich, energy speculation and allowing corporations to set policy will cause a problem, is wishing for it.

A better analogy to that is how before the neocon foreign policies failed, people pointed out the fallacies in pre emptive war and AFTER those failures, pointed out the failures. Now, before Obama has completed 9 months in office, and his policies have yet to take full effect, there are those like rushaddict calling for him, and thereby America, to fail.

I just don't see the same correlation there.

Pointing out failure is not the same as wishing/wanting it to occur.

THINK for yourself

"Nope...there was never "extreme laissez faire capitalism" in this country."

Perhaps not, but our country definitely was much closer to that than were most of the other majore industrialized countries and we seem to have huge debts, stagnant wages, job losses, etc. Therefore, it just doesn't follow that lower business regulation, less socialization of health care, etc. is necessarily a recipe for any more prosperity than countries that provide a social safety net for their citizens.

Of course human standards of living grew slowly at first. Just like population size. It was technology that fueled industrialization, the explosion in population, etc. Capitalism had little to do with it.

#28 | Posted by nullifidian

Capital in the form of savings funded the technology.
Population and living standards were fairly static until the industrial revolution. Then they exploded.

An economy cannot create wealth without savings. It's physically impossible. The Keynesian prescription of substituting savings for debt results in the destruction of wealth. Piling debt on debt creates an illusion of wealth until you run out of credit.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

How do you assert that a Nobel Prize winning economist, who stands up the the neocon/msm powers and speaks his mind INFORMING us about how the continual deregulation, short term profit taking, tax breaks for the rich, energy speculation and allowing corporations to set policy will cause a problem, is wishing for it.

Krugman called for extremely low interest rates. Krugman called for a housing bubble.

NYT Editorial, August 2nd, 2002

"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."

www.nytimes.com

Nope...there was never "extreme laissez faire capitalism" in this country.

How about slavery?

are you willfully ignoring capitalism in how technology fueled industrialization and the advances we have experienced since then

This is a good question and one I want to think about. My first thought is that those advances yielded greater good due to governmental assertion of authority.

It's hinted at or perhaps foreseen in the Constitution, that bit about "promote the general welfare," the language about patents, and probably elsewhere.

Moreover, strong central government is a remediation of an unforseen by-product (or perhaps waste product) of capitalism: a shit-ton more mouths to feed.

"Capital in the form of savings funded the technology."

The enormous wealth of landed barons and feudal aristocracies extracted from peasants certainly was a big source of investment, but you would have to credit feudalism with that. And forcibly driving off all the peasants in the enclosure movements happily created an unemployed army of workers, so I suppose you can say all the nasty prerequisites for industrial capitalism were done by feudalism.

Krugman did call for low interest rates to create a bubble but he didn't believe it would last as long as it did and he hoped that we would find something to replace the bubble in the economy.

"I've never fully accepted that view. But looking at the housing market, I'm starting to reconsider."

www.nytimes.com

Krugman did call for low interest rates to create a bubble but he didn't believe it would last as long as it did and he hoped that we would find something to replace the bubble in the economy.

Yeah...the next bubble.

I can't wait for his article in ten years, excusing his cheerleading for a rampant stimulus bubbles with the exact same reason above.

Paul Krugman, champion hind sighter and professional prognosticator.

I suppose you can say all the nasty prerequisites for industrial capitalism were done by feudalism.

Feudalism began near the end of the Roman Empire. They were close to communistic and very poor at producing savings. Hence they were static.

It was the Bank of England in 1694 where the idea of creating money out of nothing began. It provided the funding for industrialization, but it also has the side effect of business cycles. English law played an important role in that it protected property rights.

"English law played an important role in that it protected property rights."

Yeah, by stealing the property of peasants through the Enclosure acts. Capitalism was born of theft, Ray. Whether it's the last word in economic systems is irrelevant to that fact which you can't stand to admit.

"I can't wait for his article in ten years, excusing his cheerleading for a rampant stimulus bubbles with the exact same reason above."

Many people thought we needed to lower interest rates following 9-11 but that didn't mean keep them that low all the way into 2005. It should have been a short term thing not a replacement for the jobs being lost to outsourcing, etc. It wasn't an accident that the interest rates were not raised until after Bush had secured his second term, if they would have pulled the plug on the bubble sooner it wouldn't have been nearly as bad because it wouldn't have inflated as much but Bush would not hve been reelected. I believe Greenspan purposely played along to make sure Bush got his second term even though he must have known the country was going to have a bad recession when he finally later raised rates and popped the bubble.

iraqbukkake

Did it occur to you that perhaps economic help on the housing scene with some oversight, and policies meant to assist homeowners and not just the bankers/speculators, could have forestallen the amount of foreclosure?

I mean, the bankers are hurting, cause TARP bailed them out, eh?

Who bailed out the homeowners?

Obama, that's who. So far, half a million of them.

www.npr.org

Nevermind, just keep listening to those same FAILED neocon economic policies.

I'll honor those recently chosen, especially the first woman to win.

>>>>>>
Ostrom is the first woman to win the prize since it was created in 1969.

With the selection, the prize committee passed over researchers whose work comes to bear on the current financial crisis and global recession. Instead of honoring scholars who had done ground-breaking work in finance or macroeconomics, built around abstract mathematical models, they gave the award to researchers whose work is solidly grounded in the real world.

Her research has implications for a wide range of public policy challenges, especially involving environmental policy. It suggests that policy governing shared resources should can be based on collaboration between parties involved, rather than simply an all-powerful government setting rules.

www.washingtonpost.com

Paul Krugman, champion hind sighter and professional prognosticator.

#43 | POSTED BY IRAQIBUKKAKE AT 2009-10-12 02:59 PM

How does Krugman WARNING us a year or so IN ADVANCE of the collapse make him a hindsighter?

That's as absurd as saying his warning was a wish for failure.

Hello?

Spin much.

"English law played an important role in that it protected property rights."

How nice.

"Different liberal authors attacked the "right to livelihood." The poor could only be spurred to factory work through hunger. Removing hunger through poor laws was an evil. These laws were the real cause for the existence of poverty and hindered the mobility of workers. In 1813/14 in England the Artisan law and in1834 the Poor law were repealed. In the discourses of Townsend, Hobbes and Malthus, the development of wealth and poverty was declared a natural law."

www.indybay.org

I guess I don't read Krugman's piece as "wanting" a bubble. More like a bubble gets Greenspan off the hook for the previous NASDAQ bubble and justifies the Bush tax cuts.

I think Krugman sees that bubbles define the economy, and can be both good and bad.

The piece was also written eight months before we invaded Iraq, which changed the calculus a bit...

Did it occur to you that perhaps economic help on the housing scene with some oversight, and policies meant to assist homeowners and not just the bankers/speculators, could have forestallen the amount of foreclosure?

I mean, the bankers are hurting, cause TARP bailed them out, eh?

Who bailed out the homeowners?

Obama, that's who. So far, half a million of them.

business.theatlantic.com

www.occ.treas.gov

Bailing out homeowners who have foreclosed is a failure. As the charts above demonstrate, within 8 months, just under 60% of modified mortgages redefault. That is, the borrowers default under the modified agreement. If we look only at Subprime mortgages, just over 65% of modified mortgages redefault within 8 months.

Nevermind, just keep listening to those same FAILED neocon economic policies.

You keep using that word...I do not think the word means what you think it means.

No comments on Krugman? I see you dropped that topic like a hot potato.

How does Krugman WARNING us a year or so IN ADVANCE of the collapse make him a hindsighter?

Unfortunately you can't use crayon on the internet, so I can't draw this out for you.

Krugman want bubble.

Krugman ask for bubble repeatedly.

Bubble comes.

Krugman say oops, bubble last too long.

Krugman now a predictor of the problem he asked for in first place.

Nobel Prize.

German Interview, undated

www.pkarchive.org

"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?"

May 2, 2001

www.pkarchive.org

I've always favored the let-bygones-be-bygones view over the crime-and-punishment view. That is, I've always believed that a speculative bubble need not lead to a recession, as long as interest rates are cut quickly enough to stimulate alternative investments. But I had to face the fact that speculative bubbles usually are followed by recessions. My excuse has been that this was because the policy makers moved too slowly -- that central banks were typically too slow to cut interest rates in the face of a burst bubble, giving the downturn time to build up a lot of momentum. That was why I, like many others, was frustrated at the smallish cut at the last Federal Open Market Committee meeting: I was pretty sure that Alan Greenspan had the tools to prevent a disastrous recession, but worried that he might be getting behind the curve.

However, let's give credit where credit is due: Mr. Greenspan has cut rates since then. And while some of us may have been urging him to move even faster, the Fed's four interest-rate cuts since the slowdown became apparent represent an unusually aggressive response by historical standards. It's still not clear that Mr. Greenspan has caught up with the curve -- let's have at least one more rate cut, please -- but the interest-rate cuts do, cross your fingers, seem to be having an effect.

If we succeed in avoiding recession, this will mark a big win for let- bygones-be-bygones, and a big loss for crime-and-punishment. And that will be very good news not just for this business cycle, but for business cycles to come.

July 18, 2001

www.pkarchive.org

"KRUGMAN: I think frankly it's got to be -- business investment is not going to be the driving force in this recovery. It has to come from things like housing, things that have not been (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

DOBBS: We see, Paul, housing at near record levels, we see automobile purchases near record levels. The consumer is still very much in this economy. Can he or she -- or I should say he and she, can they bring back this economy?

KRUGMAN: Well, as far as the arithmetic goes, yes, it is possible. Will the Fed cut interest rates enough? Will long-term rates fall enough to get the consumer, get the housing sector there in time? We don't know"

August 8^th 2001

www.pkarchive.org

"KRUGMAN: I'm a little depressed. You know, inventories, probably that's over, the inventory slump. But you look at the things that could drive a recovery, business investment, nothing happening. Housing, long-term rates haven't fallen enough to produce a boom there. The trade balance is going to get worst before it gets better because the dollar is still very strong. It's not a happy picture."

August 14, 2001

www.pkarchive.org

"Consumers, who already have low savings and high debt, probably can't contribute much. But housing, which is highly sensitive to interest rates, could help lead a recovery.... But there has been a peculiar disconnect between Fed policy and the financial variables that affect housing and trade. Housing demand depends on long-term rather than short-term interest rates -- and though the Fed has cut short rates from 6.5 to 3.75 percent since the beginning of the year, the 10-year rate is slightly higher than it was on Jan. 1.... Sooner or later, of course, investors will realize that 2001 isn't 1998. When they do, mortgage rates and the dollar will come way down, and the conditions for a recovery led by housing and exports will be in place.

October 7, 2001

www.pkarchive.org

"Post-terror nerves aside, what mainly ails the U.S. economy is too much of a good thing. During the bubble years businesses overspent on capital equipment; the resulting overhang of excess capacity is a drag on investment, and hence a drag on the economy as a whole.

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"

Dec 28, 2001

www.pkarchive.org

"The good news about the U.S. economy is that it fell into recession, but it didn't fall off a cliff. Most of the credit probably goes to the dogged optimism of American consumers, but the Fed's dramatic interest rate cuts helped keep housing strong even as business investment plunged."

The poor could only be spurred to factory work through hunger.
#49 | Posted by nullifidian

They flocked to the cities for work because staying on the farm meant starvation.

In the discourses of Townsend, Hobbes and Malthus, the development of wealth and poverty was declared a natural law."

Preposterous! Without property rights, there are no incentives to take risks then have your property confiscated. It's just plain human nature.

You make to much about the flaws during the early development of capitalism.

Krugman is not one dimensional, or partisan imo, he has criticized and given advice (some of it unheeded) to Obama.

But, he did, in fact, predict the crisis that following the last regime's policies (actually over 30 yrs of neocon rule in the usa, beginning with the criminal nixon, thru reagan-i don't recall and bush41-readmylips, and clinton/contractONAmericans)

So, I give him some credit for that and read what he has to say.

Considering he was right, I give him little more weight than some guy with bukkake in his screename on a so called "liberal" blog that is overrun with rw troll droppings....

LOL

Considering he was right, I give him little more weight than some guy with bukkake in his screename on a so called "liberal" blog that is overrun with rw troll droppings....

Thank god, an appeal to authority fallacy.

I thought for a minute there you might come back with something substantial...for a minute.

Substantial?

You mean like your screename or quoting LOU FKN DOBBS?

What's that on your shoes son?

LMFAO

What's that on your shoes son?

It looks like a squished woke to me.

"Before Ostrom, the previously accepted view was that common property was poorly managed and should be either regulated centrally or privatized."

This should provoke a firestorm.

I don't have trouble seeing how people involved could make better decisions on their common property than bureaucrats of companies. However, I'm not sure how this can be applied other than on small scale issues.

Oliver Williamson's work seems more tangable. The human factor is an integral part of any economy. It very much needs to be factored into any understanding of that economy.

Regardless, I congratulate them both.

Good old GOAT MAN

Thinks it's all a big joke.

Votes the neocons into power, then stands back and laughs and the death and destruction, while taking no responsibility for it.

And doesn't even have the good sense to recognize the FAILURES enough to stop his little gameplaying bullshit long enough to realize that maybe he had something to do with it, as he continues to spew his rw troll diversionary, juvenile insults at people attempting to have an honest debate. Thinks those are victories in his pathetic, obviously powerless world.

That's ok. The rw trolls like you who infest this site have made me keenly aware this is not the place for intellectual debate, but just a joke in the blogging world. And the lack of moderation confirms it.

I'll make sure I reference that when i let other's know what a WOT this blog is...

WOT=waste of time not war on terror....despite what you might delusionally believe...eh?

have a nice time boys

Thinks it's all a big joke.

Better a jokester than a liar, which you've proven yourself to be.

You mean like your screename or quoting LOU FKN DOBBS?

See...it works like this:

Sometimes people want to talk about something...but they don't have a medium to discuss it. So they go on these things called "television shows" and do things called "interviews". There are people who ask questions and there are people who give answers. Lou Dobbs asks questions and Krugman gives answers. The important stuff is the answers, not the questions...unless you're trying to duck the substance of the answers. That's the "substantial" part.

And doesn't even have the good sense to recognize the FAILURES enough to stop his little gameplaying bullshit long enough to realize that maybe he had something to do with it,

right on cue. come here to blame it on others who disagree with him.

classic

That's ok. The rw trolls like you who infest this site have made me keenly aware this is not the place for intellectual debate, but just a joke in the blogging world. And the lack of moderation confirms it.

That's rich coming from you. You never have a link to back up your talking points. You don't even know what a neocon is.

I'll make sure I reference that when i let other's know what a WOT this blog is...

WOT=waste of time not war on terror....despite what you might delusionally believe...eh?

have a nice time boys

So why the fuck are you here, blogging champion? Take a hike. Your six weeks of contributions will surely be missed.

THIS just in:

By MarketWatch

LONDON (MarketWatch) -- In a decision as shocking as Friday's surprise peace prize win, President Obama failed to win the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences Monday.

danniDribble....
"Is there an example of a nation whose economy didn't embrace the selfish interests of the individual that was successful?"

Virtually all of Western Europe. Canada. Most of the modern industrialized world.

Now can we think of a country that pursued much more extreme laissez faire capitalism which nearly went bankrupt due to the selfish greed of supply side economics???

#18 | Posted by danni

Soooooo danni tell us which of those 10 top For Profit companies you actually respect???????

Royal Bank Of Canada RY 6.2% Financials
Toronto-dominion Bank TD 4.8% Financials
Encana Corp ECA 4.7% Energy
Research IN Motion RIM 4.6% Information Technology
Potash Corp Of Saskatchewan POT 4.0% Materials
Bank Of Nova Scotia BNS 4.0% Financials
Barrick Gold Corp ABX 3.8% Materials
Suncor Energy Inc SU 3.8% Energy
Canadian Natural Resources CNQ 3.7% Energy
Manulife Financial Corp MFC 3.7% Financials
Goldcorp Inc

same with Europe. Which For Profit companies do YOU admire????????

BANCO SANTANDER CHI
BP PLC N/A 2.45
GlaxoSmithKline PLC
HSBC HOLDINGS PLC
NESTLE N ORD
Novartis
Roche Holding AG
TELEFONICA SA
TOTAL SA
Vodafone Group PLC

See danni won't answer cause she doesn't admire for profit companies!!!!

Like many of the dr left, HYPOCRITES!!!!!

You never have a link to back up your talking points.
#65 | POSTED BY IRAQIBUKKAKE AT 2009-10-12 04:26 PM

www.npr.org
www.washingtonpost.com

#47 | POSTED BY WOKE AT 2009-10-12 03:18 PM

Whooops, another bullshit statement by kkkake outed eh?

In fact that post #47 was my first to you....

let's see the reasoned debate with links you posted that got those #47 and 48 responses from me

Paul Krugman, champion hind sighter and professional prognosticator.
#43 | POSTED BY IRAQIBUKKAKE AT 2009-10-12 02:59 PM

dontcha just love blogs and how the text is saved...???

Enjoy your right wing circle jerk boys.....don't get any on ya.....

Eberly, I think bukkake needs a hand right over here.....

Oh, nevermind, you got it.....#64....

Nice!

Whooops, another bullshit statement by kkkake outed eh?

kkkake? nice... Sorry I didn't give your NPR link its proper recognition. You link me NPR and I link you the treasury department.

In fact that post #47 was my first to you....

let's see the reasoned debate with links you posted that got those #47 and 48 responses from me

Are you serious? What exactly did you miss?

There was no banking "reform". Whether or not I agree with said reform is another thing...but there has been no banking reform.

You pimped mortgage refinancing as though it did something. My link, which you ignored, clearly shows that this "helping the homeowner" nonsense was exactly that...nonsense. Fortunately for them, those who were responsible and didn't get in over their heads will be paying for these refis and it still will be an epic fail.

As for Krugman, you're the one who vomited up that his previous winning of the prize somehow lent credibility to the new winner. I was making it clear to you that Krugman is a clown. Seeing your teeth kicked out of your mouth, you proceeded to talk about Lou Dobbs. Yeah, I don't know...but it made sense to you.

I love it when noobs like you call me a right winger. If you had been here longer than six weeks, you'd know that I was a commie worshiping liberal a mere 12 months ago.

As I said, I give more credence to a Nobel Prize winning economist, who called the economic disaster before it occurred and who has offered non partisan suggestions to our president,...AND is read by hundreds of thousands, maybe millions each op-ed.

You, not so much.

You have serious delusions of grandeur, my friend and let me clue you in on something.....calling Krugman a clown based on some so called research you've done and misrepresenting what I post and calling it "pimping" doesn't make you seem credible, only juvenile.

I din't make this thread about Krugman, you did by ignoring what was posted about the current winners, and atttempting to smear the messenger.

You're another DR genius, who is never wrong, eh?

Only, it was Krugman that called the disaster and warned us. Know what the result was? Same goofballs as you calling him names and smearing the messenger.....pretending he was wishing for disaster instead of warning us.

Now, I believe he deserves some credit.

Well, not with you, but big fkn deal eh?

Who are you?
Who? Who?
Ah, WTF are you?

mr. bukkkake

LMFAO

IQB, you quote a bunch of unconvincing Krugman from right around 9/11. Do you have anything more recent? Say, maybe after the Bush tax cuts passed and we invaded Iraq, and were well on the road to "recovery?" Maybe something saying "hey, this is like totally sustainable, bubbles = win!"

Your selective quoting is about as convincing as "proof" Sen. Byrd is a racist because he was in the KKK back in ancient days.

More fundamentally do you deny that bubbles are inherent in the economy, and thus the important thing is not whether they're "good" or "bad" but to manage them? 1990s: Pharma. Late 1990s: Tech. 2000s: Housing. Late 2000s: Energy. 1630s: Tulips. 1710s: South Sea Company.

Capitalism is just a blip in human economic history. Science and technology is far more important than any particular economic system.

#17 | Posted by nullifidian at 2009-10-12 01:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

1. Capitalism is the natural economic order of things. Even in very primitive cultures people will work harder and produce more, if they get a better return.

2. Science and technology are byproducts of capitalism. Without the excess capital to train scientists for years and set them up in research facilities, hoping they will develop something new within their lifetimes -- requires a profit motive. (See above)

"Only, it was Krugman that called the disaster and warned us. Know what the result was? Same goofballs as you calling him names and smearing the messenger.....pretending he was wishing for disaster instead of warning us.

#72 | Posted by woke"

Klugman warned numerous that the main problem was going to be the Bush deficits.

Now he thinks deficits are wonderful. He is a political hack through and through.

As I said, I give more credence to a Nobel Prize winning economist, who called the economic disaster before it occurred and who has offered non partisan suggestions to our president,...AND is read by hundreds of thousands, maybe millions each op-ed.

You, not so much.

Wonderful. You have stars in your eyes. No wonder you eat up Obama's bullshit so readily.

You have serious delusions of grandeur, my friend and let me clue you in on something.....calling Krugman a clown based on some so called research you've done and misrepresenting what I post and calling it "pimping" doesn't make you seem credible, only juvenile.

Krugman is a clown.

You're the one who was trying to be credible, with your "Obama is helping homeowners" bullshit...along with a NPR link. So I blew you up with the treasury department's own information. Not that it was going to stop you, of course.

Only, it was Krugman that called the disaster and warned us. Know what the result was? Same goofballs as you calling him names and smearing the messenger.....pretending he was wishing for disaster instead of warning us.

Now, I believe he deserves some credit.

You can't ask for something to happen, and when it does happen and goes tits up, act as though you were some great prognosticator. Wait, bankers will exploit to the extreme what Krugman proposed as prudent behavior in 2001-02? Holy shit, what a newsflash! If anything, he should be taken to task for encouraging behavior that took us down this road. Instead, he's lauded as Krugmadamous.

IQB, you quote a bunch of unconvincing Krugman from right around 9/11. Do you have anything more recent? Say, maybe after the Bush tax cuts passed and we invaded Iraq, and were well on the road to "recovery?" Maybe something saying "hey, this is like totally sustainable, bubbles = win!"

He's a keynesian...bubbles are always win.

More fundamentally do you deny that bubbles are inherent in the economy, and thus the important thing is not whether they're "good" or "bad" but to manage them? 1990s: Pharma. Late 1990s: Tech. 2000s: Housing. Late 2000s: Energy. 1630s: Tulips. 1710s: South Sea Company.

Bubbles are inherent in an economy where banks can create money out of this air...thus, they are bad.

thin air...not this air

Maybe something saying "hey, this is like totally sustainable, bubbles = win!"

He's a keynesian...bubbles are always win.

*citation needed.

What, these two geniuses figure out when you spend more than you make, it equals debt?

LM

#80
Unless what you do with that money makes you more productive in the long term.