Krugman Op-Ed

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[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 [/quote]

Actually, Pittbull I think you’d enjoy economics courses. It would “clean up” (for lack of a better word) a lot of your arguments. Plus it’s just fun.

22

[quote]Headhunter 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]

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.
[/quote]

Isn’t that the way it worked when the country started out, local farmers took care of their lands, kept up their roads.

Man we went downhill fast at that point. Straight to ruins.

Oh that’s right, we didn’t start falling to shambles til all these politicians, repub and dem alike, decided they should take our income and do what they think is best with it. One of those things being using our military as some god forsaken social outreach group instead of building and keeping it as the finest most well tuned military in the world ready to defend ans assist ITS COUNTRIES CITIZENS at a moments notice.

It is a shame these men are dying in another country while the evil they are supposedly fighting against destroys this country from the inside.

23

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[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 [/quote]

Keynesian economics has some quite severe flaws. The real issue with economic theories is that politicians try to take an economic theory that works in the abstract and make it apply to every single situation that occurs.

For example:

There is some evidence to suggest that a stable government with low debt levels and a budget close to balanced could borrow from the capital markets and “stimulate” an economy out of a mild recession with capital projects. Then cover the borrowing as tax reciepts grow.

However a Keynesian, such as Krugman, would apply that to the situation we are now in even though we have far from low debt levels, operate at a yearly deficit, and were in strong recession created by a financial crises not by the normal business cycle.

The medicine that cures the cold in example 1 kills the patient in example 2 but guys like Krugman can’t see it because they are blinded by ideology.

24

[quote]John S. wrote:
I find it funny that he mentions private roads and schools, both which are cheaper and better quality then the public alternatives…[/quote]

Is this theoretical, or is there a successful model somewhere for 100% private roads and schools working really well?

25

[quote]JoeGood wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[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 [/quote]

Keynesian economics has some quite severe flaws. The real issue with economic theories is that politicians try to take an economic theory that works in the abstract and make it apply to every single situation that occurs.

For example:

There is some evidence to suggest that a stable government with low debt levels and a budget close to balanced could borrow from the capital markets and “stimulate” an economy out of a mild recession with capital projects. Then cover the borrowing as tax reciepts grow.

However a Keynesian, such as Krugman, would apply that to the situation we are now in even though we have far from low debt levels, operate at a yearly deficit, and were in strong recession created by a financial crises not by the normal business cycle.

The medicine that cures the cold in example 1 kills the patient in example 2 but guys like Krugman can’t see it because they are blinded by ideology.[/quote]

It would be unthinkable to me to think any Theory is not riddled with flaws

26

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[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 [/quote]

Actually, Pittbull I think you’d enjoy economics courses. It would “clean up” (for lack of a better word) a lot of your arguments. Plus it’s just fun.

[/quote]

You are probably right

27

[quote]Otep wrote:

[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]

Oh my.

I think I understood the reference.

Nerdy me.

28

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
I find it funny that he mentions private roads and schools, both which are cheaper and better quality then the public alternatives…[/quote]

Is this theoretical, or is there a successful model somewhere for 100% private roads and schools working really well?[/quote]

Well, private schools are cheaper and better run then public schools, the private school in my town is about 2/3 the cost of public school.

I think the closest something like this has been implemented was in Hong Kong. and it worked out pretty well for them.