Do you agree with Time Magazine's choice for person of the year?

Favorite Answer

II stopped reading Time long ago. I would've had more respect if they'd put the cop crapper picture on the cover....Show more

Kate Middleton, Steve Jobs, or William McRaven could all were available Time 'individual' of the twelve months in my opinion. yet, no human being has had extra of a perfect away impression this twelve months than the lone protester. I agree....Show more

How can they compare people in the middle east fighting for justice and freedom and sacrificing their lives for their freedom with the occupiers it's apples and oranges? This is just a political crap from the left trying to have people accept the insanity of a group who have not a smidgen of an organized thought. . This is typical left behavior and the Times is well known on controlling the left and how they think since they have no clue as to how the world works ! Steve Jobs should have gotten it but he insulted Obama from his grave in his biography. I refuse to read the Times because they stink of Marxism!...Show more

That's a terrible picture, but yes, I agree with the sentiment.

2011 started with Tea Party elected candidates joining Congress in January. Then, the Arab Spring toppled multiple dictators. Then the Occupy protests began in the US along with similar protests against the inequality of income and power around the world. I would say that protests have been the biggest newsmaker of the year, which is the criteria that Time uses for it's choice.

EDIT: Time Magazine is about newsworthiness, not goodness. It is awarded to the most impactful newsmaker of the year. Hitler won man of the year in 1938, for example. They very nearly awarded it to bin Laden in 2001, but gave it to Guiliani out of fear of being seen as acknowledging bin Laden's success in his horrible goals....Show more

Here’s an economics lesson that they don’t teach in home-school:

Wealth is created with material, productive capacity, people, energy, and time. Money is only a measuring tool. Bond holders are begging us to keep their money safe for a zero inflation-adjusted interest rate. We can also buy the bonds ourselves as we did during WW II. And/or we can also print the money just as the Fed does for European banks.

With borrowed or printed money, we can purchase all the material we need and 20% of our productive capacities, now sitting idle. And we can hire 20 million benefit-drawing, jobless people to build a green economy and become energy independent.

We have plenty of time to hear deficit hawks complaining about debt. Today, our debt ratio (National Debt / GDP) is half of its value at the close of WW II (120%). During the following 35 post-war years, with high tax rates and annual budget deficits, we spent another fortune paying college tuition for 16 million veterans and financing their homes, rebuilding Europe with the Marshall Plan, creating nuclear energy, paving the Interstate Highway, sending men to the moon, arming for the Cold-War, fighting hot wars in Korea and Vietnam, financing a dozen proxy wars, and much more.

And what was the result of 35 years of stimulus with high tax rates and annual budget deficits? GDP growth was so strong that the debt ratio dropped to 25% of its wartime peak.

That's when Reagan doubled the debt ratio back up to 50% of its wartime peak. He cut taxes and giant Sequoia redwood trees, ripped Carter's solar panels off the White House roof, and shut down an experimental nuclear plant based upon thorium, much safer than uranium. Brilliant!

Stimulus worked for Hitler before WW II. Stimulus worked for us during and after WW II. Stimulus is working for China today. If we dump the deficit hawks, stimulus can work for us tomorrow morning.

Every time we printed money to put people to work on infrastructure, we created wealth.
Every time we cut taxes and stopped investing in infrastructure, we created poverty.
http://www.KeynesForum.com...Show more