1 Year Later: Top Liberal Economist Explains Why Hillary Lost The Election

[WorldofWarcraft]

Hillary didn't lose. Trump won. People forget that Trump kicked 17 other motherfuckers' asses to win the GOP nomination against all odds. The GOP hated him. The media hated him. He only won because people voted him in place.

 

[Craigslist]

Rational people understand that Hillary lost because of Hillary.The many controversies she’s been involved with over the last several decades. The email fiasco. Her Wall Street ties. The Clinton Foundation bombshells. Her awful personality. Her poor health. The list of reasons voters didn’t trust her goes on and on.

 

[computer fogie]

He's a liberal piece of shit.

But isn't that redundant?

 

[Fawlty]

I disagree about her use of the server being legal, but it's true that the media went completely batshit over it, and turned it into a giant scandal that amounted to nothing but a damaged reputation. That's not even a question to honest people.

 

[HockeyBjj]

Lol. Legitimately sounds like Jack V Savage. He still argues that the media's coverage of Trump was favorable

 

[uppercutbus]

Liberal revisionist history will eventually have this as the default version of events in Wikipedia.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Krugman is a power excusing bullshit artist for the Democratic party.

Any other description of him that doesn't include that would be a lie.

You could fill a phone book with all of the people his horrible advice has bankrupted.

If someone thinks Krugman has anything to offer (other than comic relief and an example of what not to do), that person is either of sub-par intelligence, or an extreme Democrat partisan (but i repeat myself).

 

[Throttlehead]

Krugman is a power excusing bullshit artist for the Democratic party.

Any other description of him that doesn't include that would be a lie.

You could fill a phone book with all of the people his horrible advice has bankrupted.

If someone thinks Krugman has anything to offer (other than comic relief and an example of what not to do), that person is either of sub-par intelligence, or an extreme Democrat partisan (but i repeat myself).

So what do you think of the new GOP tax plan?

 

[Deleted member 196663]

Everyone seems to have their own pet theory on why Trump won. I don't know if it's ego, or just ignorance, but the answer doesn't require your deep insight. In a two party system, eight years of one party almost always leads to the other. The end.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

So what do you think of the new GOP tax plan?

It's good for the American farmer. I support it.

It's not perfect, but no bill will ever fit some platonic idea of perfection. The perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Sales tax reduction, international trade tax reductions, income tax breaks for the middle and lower classes.

Sales taxes are state taxes, so it's easy to be indifferent on them on the federal level.

Kinda confused why he's be for lowering the international trade tax. How would that not be a tax decrease on the rich?

And here's the dirty secret about taxes on the rich - they lower and rise prices of their products and services based on the average middle class wage within the area they live. Rich don't get a tax but the middle class and poor do? That's 100% fine with the rich.

Single payer healthcare and the Iraq War seem like two huge expenditures he's on the record opposing.

Yeah, because he's a Democrat who was on Hillary team.

No shit.

Got any other examples that aren't obvious?

Krugman has spoken highly of Eisenhower's conservative economics, as have most economists. But that was back when their was a note of economic competency and political/distributional integrity in the conservative platform.

I will restate my earlier point: NO economists favor what currently passes for "conservative economic plans" because they are completely without practical merit at the federal level.

Has he praised any Republican tax plan of the last half century? Reagan's? How does he explain the practical recession of Carter's years and then the economic explosion of the Reagan administration?

I ask, because although I'm sure its one of his favorite topics, I haven't seen him speak about them in any of the youtube lectures he's done.

 

[peytonlucy]

Comrade Krugman is always predictable and often wrong.

 

[ineverpost]

No one cared about Hillary's emails. She lost because:

1. She and her co conspirators screwed over Bernie Sanders, alienating a large portion of the left base.
2. She insulted blue collar workers by calling them "deplorables", alienating a large portion of the right base.
3. Assumed that she would win because her opponent was Trump

She was great at alienating people and excited no one, other than feminists, who are a small portion of voters.

 

[fartJokes]

lol @ "top liberal economist"
Within the American dichotomy, every notable economist is categorically "liberal" by virtue of the ....

Bullshit. Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, and every "Austrian School" economist support "classic liberal values" which ironically, are directly opposite of those claimingto the political label of "Liberal". It is intellectually dishonest to pretend they are.

The honest breakdown of economic schools of thought can be best delineated between Keynes and Hayek, with Krugman solidly in the Keynes camp and Austrian/Chicago schools of economic thought
aligned with Hayek. Similarly, Austrian/Chicago economists align with free-markets & conservatism while Keynesians & Progressives/Liberals favor more government control.

Holding classical liberal values does not make one a political "Liberal" if that's what you are suggesting.

 

[Trotsky]

Bullshit. Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, and every "Austrian School" economist support "classic liberal values" which ironically, are directly opposite of those claimingto the political label of "Liberal". It is intellectually dishonest to pretend they are.

The honest breakdown of economic schools of thought can be best delineated between Keynes and Hayek, with Krugman solidly in the Keynes camp and Austrian/Chicago schools of economic thought
aligned with Hayek. Similarly, Austrian/Chicago economists align with free-markets & conservatism while Keynesians & Progressives/Liberals favor more government control.

Holding classical liberal values does not make one a political "Liberal" if that's what you are suggesting.

That is not what I am suggesting, although I would agree that most all American economists are definitionally "liberal" in the sense that they do not advocate fully centralized planning.

I am saying that, within the American dichotomy whereby Democrats and everything left of Democrats = "liberal," and Republicans and everything right of Republicans = "conservatives," just about every economist sides with the liberals. This was certainly not the case, even into the 1990s, but since then the Republicans have abandoned all market logic and their shameless supply side trickle down nonsense has been completely abandoned within the discipline even absent their radicalization of the philsophy.

 

[SomebodyElse]

Krugman's recognition was in the arena of international trade theory. As an Economic academic, he is as legitimate as they come.

BUT, the man clearly has a political agenda that colors his editorials to the point of ... well, inaccuracy. I'm not calling him an outright liar, in the best case scenario his passions distort his views and presentations when there is conflict between what he believes and what he sees happening.

He should be trusted when making apolitical discussion, but on domestic policy he is clearly suffering enormous bias.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It's interesting to see how deeply embedded the kooky "liberal media" CT is among a lot of the right today. Not only do they seem to genuinely believe it, but they seem to be enraged that anyone else doesn't.

 

[Pickle Rick]

Is he actually pretending that the media was on Trump’s side?

Twitter was all over it!




The night of the 2016 Presidential Election, the Nobel Prize recipient Paul Krugman made the following prediction when asked about the stock market.


http://canadafreepress.com/article/...ps-election-has-the-markets-plunging-and-they

Given Paul Krugman's dismal track record, Is he:
1.) Right this time
2.) Wrong!
3.) Wrong! and his Nobel Prize of Economics should be taken away.

It's interesting to see how deeply embedded the kooky "liberal media" CT is among a lot of the right today. Not only do they seem to genuinely believe it, but they seem to be enraged that anyone else doesn't.

Also this is coming from the people who believed (many of them) that a child sex ring was being run in a pizza place basement

 

[floivanus]

Also this is coming from the people who believed (many of them) that a child sex ring was being run in a pizza place basement

It might've been a secret fantasy for some of them...

Amirite

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I wonder if anyone has ever done a study comparing the predictive ability of economists with meteorologists. I'd put money on the latter.