| Submit your comments on this article |
| Economy |
| Marc Faber: "Paul Krugman Should Go And Live In North Korea" |
| 2012-12-14 |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #11 the best solution is to get him alone with starving villagers. Krugman soup. Once you get by the bitter asshole stupid taste, it might be emaciatingly nutricious |
| Posted by: Frank G 2012-12-14 21:27 |
| #10 If Krugman went to North Korea, he would go as a guest of the NK government. He would live in a government supplied house in a Potemkin village. He would live luxuriously, then come back to report how wonderful it was. |
| Posted by: Rambler in Virginia 2012-12-14 18:45 |
| #9 You saps don't understand the need to arm against Alien Invasion, Krugman do, and by arm I mean give money to the right people to save us from 8-armed cheep labour from Alpha Mongo, you know the ones, the crazy looking ones with the mattress strapped to the outside of their saucer, ready to do any kind of menial labor at a good price. Scabs From Beyond the Galaxy busting scale in Michigan. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2012-12-14 16:18 |
| #8 As suppposed 'elites' go, Krugman is as dangerous as they come. |
| Posted by: eltoroverde 2012-12-14 14:27 |
| #7 As long as Kruggie gets to keep the big house, the seven figure salary, and the limo ride to work, I think he'd be fine with it. Weather in Cuba is nicer though... |
| Posted by: tu3031 2012-12-14 12:37 |
| #6 I noticed the Nork leader is a bit chubby whereas most of the people are not. Some don't do so badly. The problems with liberals (including Krugman) is that they are firmly convinced that they would fit in the 'not so badly' category like Kim Pugsly there. Fools. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2012-12-14 11:35 |
| #5 Krugman could go to Cuba. It's much closer. However, North Korea would give the full effect of totalitarianism in a cold environment. I noticed the Nork leader is a bit chubby whereas most of the people are not. Some don't do so badly. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2012-12-14 11:32 |
| #4 But maybe they didn't wish to attack government interference per se because they never intended to forswear interference and diminish the power of the political class. Precisely, GOP is mostly Socialist Right. |
| Posted by: Phaith Grique4599 2012-12-14 10:14 |
| #3 Arguments like this fall flat on their face from the beginning They don't pass the giggle test.. You're spot on gromky. Maybe I should have spotted his tongue in cheek in his June 2008 newsletter which had the following mock quote: "The federal government is sending each of us a $600 rebate. If we spend that money at Wal-Mart, the money goes to China. If we spend it on gasoline it goes to the Arabs. If we buy a computer it will go to India. If we purchase fruit and vegetables it will go to Mexico, Honduras and Guatemala. If we purchase a good car it will go to Germany. If we purchase useless crap it will go to Taiwan and none of it will help the American economy. The only way to keep that money here at home is to spend it on prostitutes and beer, since these are the only products still produced in US. I've been doing my part." |
| Posted by: tipper 2012-12-14 07:39 |
| #2 Arguments like this fall flat on their face from the beginning. They don't pass the giggle test. More zerohedge nonsense. |
| Posted by: gromky 2012-12-14 05:58 |
| #1 "One of the problems of the crisis is that it was caused by government intervention with fiscal and monetary measures." The Romney campaign never challenged Obama's narrative that vaguely defined 'greed' was the cause for the crisis. An oversight, perhaps just incompetence. But maybe they didn't wish to attack government interference per se because they never intended to forswear interference and diminish the power of the political class. |
| Posted by: Elmerert Hupens2660 2012-12-14 05:28 |