Someone just emailed this op-ed to me and it made me think about the recent discussion here of Paul Krugman…
So whadda ya think…Krugman’s right…or totally wrong?
I agree
right and wrong.
instead stop government funded pensions, stop providing cash assistance, stop subsidizing farms for usels freakin ethanol and let them make food again. get rid of public schools. in fact get rid of most government jobs and spending.
If people want things let them pay for it. don’t tax those making money and decide what to do with that money, which doesn’t even get used for these things he is complaining about to begin with.
If the very foundations of the country are based, as he claims, on the contributions of the wealthiest 2% we are doomed no matter what. No system can be supported by so narrow a base.
Somewhere along the way Krugman forgot economic theory and substituted political ideology. He is to economists what the guys who draw the cartoons are to artists.
[quote]JoeGood wrote:
Somewhere along the way Krugman forgot economic theory (& common sense) and substituted political ideology. He is to economists what the guys who draw the cartoons are to artists. [/quote]
'zactly. Although I couldn’t help adding a phrase…
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
right and wrong.
instead stop government funded pensions, stop providing cash assistance, stop subsidizing farms for usels freakin ethanol and let them make food again. get rid of public schools. in fact get rid of most government jobs and spending.
If people want things let them pay for it. don’t tax those making money and decide what to do with that money, which doesn’t even get used for these things he is complaining about to begin with. [/quote]
With your idea of a perfect society , you should move to Afghanistan , you should be very happy with their hands off approach If you don’t like Afghanistan may I suggest Somalia
[quote]JoeGood wrote:
If the very foundations of the country are based, as he claims, on the contributions of the wealthiest 2% we are doomed no matter what. No system can be supported by so narrow a base.
Somewhere along the way Krugman forgot economic theory and substituted political ideology. He is to economists what the guys who draw the cartoons are to artists. [/quote]
I should take a college course on economics , from what I pick up on THIS board that colleges teach the supply side as the whole theory . I listen to all the Free market crowd and they forget that you need people with money to buy these cheap goods . And to do that you need jobs that can afford a little disposable cash
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]JoeGood wrote:
If the very foundations of the country are based, as he claims, on the contributions of the wealthiest 2% we are doomed no matter what. No system can be supported by so narrow a base.
Somewhere along the way Krugman forgot economic theory and substituted political ideology. He is to economists what the guys who draw the cartoons are to artists. [/quote]
I should take a college course on economics , from what I pick up on THIS board that colleges teach the supply side as the whole theory . I listen to all the Free market crowd and they forget that you need people with money to buy these cheap goods . And to do that you need jobs that can afford a little disposable cash[/quote]
Forget “supply side” and verbiage like that.
Look, in order to “collectively” fund things like roads (which are obviously important - which is why Krugman is playing this little game; you might ask yourself why the previous “stimulus” didn’t heavily invest in infrastructure, and instead went to maintain salaries, etc.), we need to create jobs and generate wealth. Krugman doesn’t seem to understand this; where else does he think the taxes will come from?
Nor does he seem to understand how jobs and wealth are created in the first place. Which is odd, considering that he’s supposed to be an expert in this area.
Once again, he’s merely a shill for progressive ideology - which seeks to grow, inexorably, the power of the State; at the expense of growth, jobs, and liberty. And, our country.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
right and wrong.
instead stop government funded pensions, stop providing cash assistance, stop subsidizing farms for usels freakin ethanol and let them make food again. get rid of public schools. in fact get rid of most government jobs and spending.
If people want things let them pay for it. don’t tax those making money and decide what to do with that money, which doesn’t even get used for these things he is complaining about to begin with. [/quote]
With your idea of a perfect society , you should move to Afghanistan , you should be very happy with their hands off approach If you don’t like Afghanistan may I suggest Somalia
[/quote]
Great idea. Two countries that were ravaged by wars are clearly excellent examples of laissez-faire at work.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Forget “supply side” and verbiage like that.
Look, in order to “collectively” fund things like roads (which are obviously important - which is why Krugman is playing this little game; you might ask yourself why the previous “stimulus” didn’t heavily invest in infrastructure, and instead went to maintain salaries, etc.), we need to create jobs and generate wealth. Krugman doesn’t seem to understand this; where else does he think the taxes will come from?
Nor does he seem to understand how jobs and wealth are created in the first place. Which is odd, considering that he’s supposed to be an expert in this area.
Once again, he’s merely a shill for progressive ideology - which seeks to grow, inexorably, the power of the State; at the expense of growth, jobs, and liberty. And, our country.
[/quote]
I agree with this post.
And I think Krugman’s a hack and not nearly as smart as people make him out to be. I think he, and most people that take him seriously, need remedial education in basic economics. Plus, he looks like a pedo.
[quote]JPCleary wrote:
Someone just emailed this op-ed to me and it made me think about the recent discussion here of Paul Krugman…
So whadda ya think…Krugman’s right…or totally wrong?[/quote]
Atlas is shrugging.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
right and wrong.
instead stop government funded pensions, stop providing cash assistance, stop subsidizing farms for usels freakin ethanol and let them make food again. get rid of public schools. in fact get rid of most government jobs and spending.
If people want things let them pay for it. don’t tax those making money and decide what to do with that money, which doesn’t even get used for these things he is complaining about to begin with. [/quote]
Totally and completely agree! One of the best posts ever!
I’d sell the roads and the schools to the highest bidder. It’ll never happen but those things would be far better if someone owned them, instead of everyone and no one.
Economics isn’t an exact science: it’s a soft science.
That said, there are still things we know to be generally true, and things we know to be generally false.
Krugman cares not, and just like the supply-side ideologues on the right, Krugman’s unyielding love of Keynesian economic theory, means he’s pretty useless for anything but telling us what a Keynesian believes… which is pretty much irrelevant.
The writer is part of the mainstream liberal media. I read the entire piece, but all one has to do is scoot to the bottom of the article:
How he can blame runaway spending on those anti big government voices? That is simply wrong minded and can only come from a liberal like Krugman. Does he fail to see that it was in fact runaway spending by the liberals that has practically destroyed our country?
Gigantic federal agencies that we don’t need and can’t afford, NYS budgets that are out of control, the powerful labor unions that demanded huge pay and benefits packages or they would strike. The liberals have just about destroyed this country. I shouldn’t be surprised that on the why out instead of turning off the light they blame conservatives for actually causing the power shortage.
Well, at least we have a President in office who wants change 
I find it funny that he mentions private roads and schools, both which are cheaper and better quality then the public alternatives…
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
right and wrong.
instead stop government funded pensions, stop providing cash assistance, stop subsidizing farms for usels freakin ethanol and let them make food again. get rid of public schools. in fact get rid of most government jobs and spending.
If people want things let them pay for it. don’t tax those making money and decide what to do with that money, which doesn’t even get used for these things he is complaining about to begin with. [/quote]
With your idea of a perfect society , you should move to Afghanistan , you should be very happy with their hands off approach If you don’t like Afghanistan may I suggest Somalia
[/quote]
Um that’s a theocracy, and it’s the wrong kind of theocracy for me.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]JoeGood wrote:
If the very foundations of the country are based, as he claims, on the contributions of the wealthiest 2% we are doomed no matter what. No system can be supported by so narrow a base.
Somewhere along the way Krugman forgot economic theory and substituted political ideology. He is to economists what the guys who draw the cartoons are to artists. [/quote]
I should take a college course on economics , from what I pick up on THIS board that colleges teach the supply side as the whole theory . I listen to all the Free market crowd and they forget that you need people with money to buy these cheap goods . And to do that you need jobs that can afford a little disposable cash[/quote]
Actually they teach Keynesian Economics.
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
Economics isn’t an exact science: it’s a soft science.
[/quote]
WTF? Economics will kick your science’s ass. I’m not sure what you mean by “soft” that there is not hard and fast rules? Well, you’d be wrong. That there is immeasurable results, false again. That we cannot predict exactly what the economy will do, straw-man that is not what economics is about, and anybody that tells you otherwise doesn’t know economics.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
Economics isn’t an exact science: it’s a soft science.
[/quote]
WTF? Economics will kick your science’s ass. I’m not sure what you mean by “soft” that there is not hard and fast rules? Well, you’d be wrong. That there is immeasurable results, false again. That we cannot predict exactly what the economy will do, straw-man that is not what economics is about, and anybody that tells you otherwise doesn’t know economics. [/quote]
Economics lacks predictive power. If I let go of an apple, it’ll fall. It’ll do that on the moon, mars, Mali, wherever.
If I give every family in America $1k, I have only the most approximate idea of how much of that will be spent, and less on what. Economics is not psychohistory.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]JoeGood wrote:
If the very foundations of the country are based, as he claims, on the contributions of the wealthiest 2% we are doomed no matter what. No system can be supported by so narrow a base.
Somewhere along the way Krugman forgot economic theory and substituted political ideology. He is to economists what the guys who draw the cartoons are to artists. [/quote]
I should take a college course on economics , from what I pick up on THIS board that colleges teach the supply side as the whole theory . I listen to all the Free market crowd and they forget that you need people with money to buy these cheap goods . And to do that you need jobs that can afford a little disposable cash[/quote]
Actually they teach Keynesian Economics.[/quote]
Seems very much in line with what I believe, are you one of the people that think that all would do best if the market was unfettered ? I believe the market would do best , but not necessarily would the customers