I wouldn't say that healthcare costs HAVEN'T soared, but that started years ago.
5
Mr Krugman, I have a simple answer to your inquiry "So what does it say about the current state of the G.O.P. that discussion of economic policy is now monopolized by people who have been wrong about everything, have learned nothing from the experience, and can’t even get their numbers straight?"
Follow the money and who does it serve "to be wrong about everything"?
The GOP is not in the business of serving the broad American populace but rather a small group of elite Special Interests.
Maybe you should start writing about this "democracy" and it's two party system fallacies?
Follow the money and who does it serve "to be wrong about everything"?
The GOP is not in the business of serving the broad American populace but rather a small group of elite Special Interests.
Maybe you should start writing about this "democracy" and it's two party system fallacies?
45
Ignoring objective reality and repeating over and over again a false reality-- like Kudlow's assertions without evidence-- is a winning political formula. That's how Bush "won" in in 2000 and 2004 -- remember how they Swift boated John Kerry's war record? The Republicans have decided to make their own reality-- we used to call this propaganda-- and it works. A credulous media coupled with the Fox News megaphone gets the message across. Skeptical media that tries to report objectively is tarred and feathered as the "mainstream" -- read, liberal -- media. False statements asserted strongly and repeatedly are a winning political formula for the Republicans and they will continue with it as long as the Democrats and journalism lets them.
24
The republican party is so successful because there are no firm principles-only temporary expediencies that pass for policy because they poll well with most Americans. One proof are the morphs we have seen in recent years where lines in the sand were drawn and then abandoned when opinion (which they never lead but slavishly follow no matter how wrong) changes (women's issues, gay rights, possibly immigration and climate change). Another is their nuanced racism that evolves to be just clear enough to ensure the ongoing success of the 'southern strategy'.
How does their economic policy stem from this characteristic? Well to be sure you could argue that if there is a firm principle it is that the rich will always be taken care of and that is as bedrock as their belief system goes but in this case the real issue Krugman is talking about is not so much 'supply side' and its benefit to the 1% but inflation fear, government spending and government involvement. The average American viscerally hates the idea of 'deficit' regardless of what Keynesians preach and the average American hates government (federal) involvement in literally anything (unless it directly benefits him or her), especially if it costs money- no matter how well spent or necessary. These are poll winners that the republican intelligentsia reliably refer to in deciding what 'facts' to trot out to make their economic 'policy' arguments.
How does their economic policy stem from this characteristic? Well to be sure you could argue that if there is a firm principle it is that the rich will always be taken care of and that is as bedrock as their belief system goes but in this case the real issue Krugman is talking about is not so much 'supply side' and its benefit to the 1% but inflation fear, government spending and government involvement. The average American viscerally hates the idea of 'deficit' regardless of what Keynesians preach and the average American hates government (federal) involvement in literally anything (unless it directly benefits him or her), especially if it costs money- no matter how well spent or necessary. These are poll winners that the republican intelligentsia reliably refer to in deciding what 'facts' to trot out to make their economic 'policy' arguments.
6
"Facts? Pfft. Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." - Homer Simpson
Homer Simpson is the caricature of the average republican. I don't know whether to laugh or cry that the irony is lost on the average republican who loves the Simpsons.
Homer Simpson is the caricature of the average republican. I don't know whether to laugh or cry that the irony is lost on the average republican who loves the Simpsons.
25
Though I've not read all or even the majority of comments in the queue, what is clear is that underlying each is a subtle, and sometimes not so subtle 'jab' at the 'other' party - which ever that may be.
What no one can deny is that neither party is doing even as much as a mediocre job of 'by the people for the people'; they have all insulated themselves at what they perceive as the top of the heap, fighting with each other for the sake of the fight, not for the sake of the country. Lofty ideals do not a world power make; execution, as always, is IT. As an independent, it is never of concern to me which party my top candidate comes from, only that (s)he is smart, competent, experienced, realistic, persuasive, honest, transparent, respected (in the world, not only at home), solution oriented, has the ability and desire to take others' learned counsel during the decision-making process, genuinely understands that public service is about serving the public, and has a love of this country and it's people so fierce as to put all else aside in the pursuit and attainment of the best outcomes for ALL. The saddest and most disturbing canary in the coal mine is how many Americans have no real interest or awareness of what any potential candidate really stands for - and how we as a voting nation can and should rally to elect the ones, party affiliation be damned, that will lift this country up again. A most interesting 2016 it is looking to be.
What no one can deny is that neither party is doing even as much as a mediocre job of 'by the people for the people'; they have all insulated themselves at what they perceive as the top of the heap, fighting with each other for the sake of the fight, not for the sake of the country. Lofty ideals do not a world power make; execution, as always, is IT. As an independent, it is never of concern to me which party my top candidate comes from, only that (s)he is smart, competent, experienced, realistic, persuasive, honest, transparent, respected (in the world, not only at home), solution oriented, has the ability and desire to take others' learned counsel during the decision-making process, genuinely understands that public service is about serving the public, and has a love of this country and it's people so fierce as to put all else aside in the pursuit and attainment of the best outcomes for ALL. The saddest and most disturbing canary in the coal mine is how many Americans have no real interest or awareness of what any potential candidate really stands for - and how we as a voting nation can and should rally to elect the ones, party affiliation be damned, that will lift this country up again. A most interesting 2016 it is looking to be.
8
America's "War on Science" or "War on Reason" is a meme that getting traction: see National Geographic Magazine on the same subject: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/science-doubters/achenbach-text
13
Re: Laffer
When a candidate promises tax cuts, no matter what tax bracket you're in, most people will not even think about it, and vote for that candidate.
It would be the death knell for a candidate who says we may have to raise taxes. Most people will not even think about it, etc.
When a candidate promises tax cuts, no matter what tax bracket you're in, most people will not even think about it, and vote for that candidate.
It would be the death knell for a candidate who says we may have to raise taxes. Most people will not even think about it, etc.
12
Why is it like this? Why this era of one feeling entitled to one's own opinions and facts? I suppose the charlatans will act like charlatans, but why do the rest of (some of) us accept them, in fact, welcome and cheer them on!?
23
Paul Krugman is wrong about Stephen Moore. He's not an economist, although he passes himself off as one. He hasn't gone through the rigors of a Ph.D. program. He's never published anything that's gone through double blind peer review.
37
But Paul, you keep talking about facts! You can't expect the intellectually dishonest in the first place, to agree with you when they are proved wrong? All this economic gibberish was proved wrong by events in the 80's. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
11
Supply side economics certainly isn't going to help as it always was directionless mantra. The GOP learned a long time ago it would not help with the deficit, but would help with curtailing spending on programs they do not approve of. The GOP and their pawns aren't going to change those spots despite the evidence.
Inflation is unlikely to return due to forces beyond supply side or Keynesian economics. During past inflation periods, infrastructure was being added along with high energy growth and use. The economy was based less on services and more on manufacturing—which are energy intensive industries. Energy costs can cripple the economy as the oil embargos of the past have proved. Increased energy efficiency has improved productivity without requiring increased energy investment.
http://wilcoxen.maxwell.insightworks.com/pages/804.html
In the US, we now have an economy that manufactures significantly less, but sells more imported goods with lower paid service employees. Since companies do not have pricing power--while needing to show constantly increasing profits--and employees have little bargaining power, inflation is not probable.
Inflation is unlikely to return due to forces beyond supply side or Keynesian economics. During past inflation periods, infrastructure was being added along with high energy growth and use. The economy was based less on services and more on manufacturing—which are energy intensive industries. Energy costs can cripple the economy as the oil embargos of the past have proved. Increased energy efficiency has improved productivity without requiring increased energy investment.
http://wilcoxen.maxwell.insightworks.com/pages/804.html
In the US, we now have an economy that manufactures significantly less, but sells more imported goods with lower paid service employees. Since companies do not have pricing power--while needing to show constantly increasing profits--and employees have little bargaining power, inflation is not probable.
Far be it for me to say a Nobel Laureate is wrong, but supply siders do not believe tax cuts will make deficits go down. Supply siders believe lower taxes will increase revenue to the treasury.
It is Reaganomics that claims supply side economics will lower deficits.
It is Reaganomics that claims supply side economics will lower deficits.
4
Conservatives follow a predictable pattern: once they form an opinion, they will not change it regardless of how many facts they are shown disproving that opinion. Liberals are very imperfect, but willing to change their minds. do you doubt this? Consider the histories of evolution and climate change. Liberals have changed their opinions several times as new facts have been learned; conservatives hold the same primitive beliefs they had generations ago.
12
Professor Krugman:
fair warning, indeed.
however, ye are mostly positioned to preach to the enlightened.
the requisite story that must reach the masses still needs to be found.
at present, the gop's listeners are voting, and the 64% who chose not to vote in November are clearly unconvinced to do so.
the road ahead is perilously devoid of reason, knowledge and understanding.
a much larger podium is required.
fair warning, indeed.
however, ye are mostly positioned to preach to the enlightened.
the requisite story that must reach the masses still needs to be found.
at present, the gop's listeners are voting, and the 64% who chose not to vote in November are clearly unconvinced to do so.
the road ahead is perilously devoid of reason, knowledge and understanding.
a much larger podium is required.
10
It is the 2017 Congress and Presidency being managed by the democratic party that should be on people's minds.
The financial system (banks, etc.) will need to act in prudent fashion and lend to support the real economy more. A rational fiscal posture.
Capital managers will have it reinforced even more that the distance between what they 'manage' in their paychecks should be more like the ratios of the generation before - not X00% more than the shop floor.
We will stop cutting taxes for the already wealthy forcing us to give them Treasury bonds (an asset) instead of tax bills to get the cash to finance the execution of the public's laws.
Retirees will see a stable and growing economy with increased employment-to-population ratios that fund social security even while earnings calculations for them reflect the productivity gains earned by them but captured by the wealthy instead.
When you crank up to think about the elections, at all levels of govt, indeed think about what would happen if we showed that we really can govern ourselves. It is time to show that in Nov 2016.
The financial system (banks, etc.) will need to act in prudent fashion and lend to support the real economy more. A rational fiscal posture.
Capital managers will have it reinforced even more that the distance between what they 'manage' in their paychecks should be more like the ratios of the generation before - not X00% more than the shop floor.
We will stop cutting taxes for the already wealthy forcing us to give them Treasury bonds (an asset) instead of tax bills to get the cash to finance the execution of the public's laws.
Retirees will see a stable and growing economy with increased employment-to-population ratios that fund social security even while earnings calculations for them reflect the productivity gains earned by them but captured by the wealthy instead.
When you crank up to think about the elections, at all levels of govt, indeed think about what would happen if we showed that we really can govern ourselves. It is time to show that in Nov 2016.
6
I object to the honourable word "conservative" being applied to the reactionary anti-government troglodytes of the Republican Party today.
Harold MacMillan and other true conservatives were disdainful of the politics of greed by the wealthy, and even more contemptuous of those callous to the poor.
I grew up in a Tory family and I see not a single conservative in the dog's breakfast of the current GOP.
They are all lickspittle toadies to malefactors of great wealth who extoll policy sadism to the poor. In the dog-whistling populist right, there is the stench of neofascism: racism, militarism, supremacism, nihilism, and, above all, an anti-intellectual nasty idiocy that proclaims the superiority of the lie to truth.
Could we not misuse the word "conservative" to describe these abominations?
Harold MacMillan and other true conservatives were disdainful of the politics of greed by the wealthy, and even more contemptuous of those callous to the poor.
I grew up in a Tory family and I see not a single conservative in the dog's breakfast of the current GOP.
They are all lickspittle toadies to malefactors of great wealth who extoll policy sadism to the poor. In the dog-whistling populist right, there is the stench of neofascism: racism, militarism, supremacism, nihilism, and, above all, an anti-intellectual nasty idiocy that proclaims the superiority of the lie to truth.
Could we not misuse the word "conservative" to describe these abominations?
49
They have made as bad a hash of the word "conservative" as what they did to "liberal".
21
The real disaster for the US, however, is that these forces of denial and ignorance have discovered that they can impose dysfunction on the American political and policy process at the national level and, rather than be punished for it, are rewarded (at least in midterm elections) by voters.
The GOP, incapable as it is of governing in a way that actually benefits the nation, has nevertheless given the nation a stark choice between them or total dysfunction which they can inflict, if a Democrat occupies the White House, by their perpetual control of the House and Senate rules that require a super majority to get anything passed.
The media and most Americans seem blind to the danger this poses not only to our democracy but to any forward progress by our country.
The GOP, incapable as it is of governing in a way that actually benefits the nation, has nevertheless given the nation a stark choice between them or total dysfunction which they can inflict, if a Democrat occupies the White House, by their perpetual control of the House and Senate rules that require a super majority to get anything passed.
The media and most Americans seem blind to the danger this poses not only to our democracy but to any forward progress by our country.
22
Looking ahead, if the Republicans gain the White House and retain the House and Senate, then these unfounded supply-side theories will become the order of the day--with predictable failure. Yet when the economy does fail, the GOP propaganda machine and its acolyte, Fox News, will likely blame the failure on the past policies of the Democrats and President Obama. So, they'll never be wrong, they'll always be right, and a good chunk of the electorate will believe them. Be very afraid indeed!!
25
I read both the NYT and the National Review. I watch both MSNBC and Fox (sorry CNN). When I watch the SOTU, I want both Maddow's and Krauthammer's opinion, so somewhere in between I get the truth.
With all I have read and seen, I truly believe that Krugman is naive when it comes to actual policy implementation & political drivers. Of course it makes sense for the government to spend heavily during recessions, because as he articulated, your spending is my income, and vice versa. The problem comes in the good times. The Bush tax cuts were implemented in part because of the Clinton surpluses. It wasn't politically smart to save that money for the inevitable economic downturn. We Americans aren't incentivized to think long term; we want our solutions now! This is why, unless we get a culture change, his policies will end in endless debt & deficits. Politicians will not have the courage to ask for a tax increase, to save up for the next recession.
With all I have read and seen, I truly believe that Krugman is naive when it comes to actual policy implementation & political drivers. Of course it makes sense for the government to spend heavily during recessions, because as he articulated, your spending is my income, and vice versa. The problem comes in the good times. The Bush tax cuts were implemented in part because of the Clinton surpluses. It wasn't politically smart to save that money for the inevitable economic downturn. We Americans aren't incentivized to think long term; we want our solutions now! This is why, unless we get a culture change, his policies will end in endless debt & deficits. Politicians will not have the courage to ask for a tax increase, to save up for the next recession.
4
Americans rejoice about the fact that to have platforms like the the NYT and columnists such as Paul Krugman. Here in Germany all the major media, all influential economists and all politicians in power are thinking supply-sidish. Not even a analysis, no discussions about alternatives. The world is divided in good and bad guys. Bad guys= not only keynesians of all kinds but any person questioning supply-side economics. Good guys=supply-siders mostly called "stability oriented thinkers and politicians".
10
These "experts" are carrying on a Republican tradition. I seem to recall an article in The New York Times Magazine which quoted Dick Cheney as saying that they (referring to the Bush adminstration) make their own reality. It must be a Republican trait-- if you don't like the facts and reality, make your own and just ignore the world as it really is.
11
If allowed, I want to replace my first comment, with this more expanded one, from my blog.
Paul Krugman: : “For those unfamiliar with the phrase, “charlatans and cranks” is associated with N. Gregory Mankiw, a professor at Harvard who served for a time as George W. Bush’s chief economic adviser. In the first edition of his best-selling economics textbook, Mr. Mankiw used those words to ridicule “supply-siders” who promised that tax cuts would have such magic effects on the economy that deficits would go down, not up.”
And of course, the opposite is what happened.
I’m sorry that Dr. Krugman didn’t have a hyperlink to the related subject of climate change. He should help us find his thoughts on that subject, or review them in a dedicated new piece. The relation to charlatan economics is clear. Republicans who deny that climate change exists or is caused by humans are using charlatan science created by a few gas and oil company studies back in the 1980’s and 90’s. 97 or 98% of climatologist and scientist insist that climate change is a huge threat to our way of life, and is directly related to human behavior. They should also be mentioning that it is directly related to over population growth. The two graphs in Al Gore’s famous book and movie, Inconvenient Truth, of Carbon dioxide emissions and world population growth, are essentially the same graph, the shape of a backward capital L.
As posted to InconvenientNews.wordpress.com
Paul Krugman: : “For those unfamiliar with the phrase, “charlatans and cranks” is associated with N. Gregory Mankiw, a professor at Harvard who served for a time as George W. Bush’s chief economic adviser. In the first edition of his best-selling economics textbook, Mr. Mankiw used those words to ridicule “supply-siders” who promised that tax cuts would have such magic effects on the economy that deficits would go down, not up.”
And of course, the opposite is what happened.
I’m sorry that Dr. Krugman didn’t have a hyperlink to the related subject of climate change. He should help us find his thoughts on that subject, or review them in a dedicated new piece. The relation to charlatan economics is clear. Republicans who deny that climate change exists or is caused by humans are using charlatan science created by a few gas and oil company studies back in the 1980’s and 90’s. 97 or 98% of climatologist and scientist insist that climate change is a huge threat to our way of life, and is directly related to human behavior. They should also be mentioning that it is directly related to over population growth. The two graphs in Al Gore’s famous book and movie, Inconvenient Truth, of Carbon dioxide emissions and world population growth, are essentially the same graph, the shape of a backward capital L.
As posted to InconvenientNews.wordpress.com
4
Let's not forget the Bush administration official who told a reporter - you are in the reality-based community, we make our own reality.
13
In my view, your suggested allegations against Mr. Moore that he purposely uses wrong, self-serving "facts" to support his positions is particularly serious. How does he respond to these charges--if he does?
1
Paul Krugman: : "For those unfamiliar with the phrase, “charlatans and cranks” is associated with N. Gregory Mankiw, a professor at Harvard who served for a time as George W. Bush’s chief economic adviser. In the first edition of his best-selling economics textbook, Mr. Mankiw used those words to ridicule “supply-siders” who promised that tax cuts would have such magic effects on the economy that deficits would go down, not up."
And of course, the opposite is what happened.
I'm sorry that Dr. Krugman didn't have a hyperlink to the related subject of climate change. He should help us find his thoughts on that subject, or review them in a dedicated new piece. The relation to charlatan economics is clear, charlatan science created by a few gas and oil company studies back in the 1980's and 90's.
And of course, the opposite is what happened.
I'm sorry that Dr. Krugman didn't have a hyperlink to the related subject of climate change. He should help us find his thoughts on that subject, or review them in a dedicated new piece. The relation to charlatan economics is clear, charlatan science created by a few gas and oil company studies back in the 1980's and 90's.
1
so, why hasn't mainstream media consistently reported on the continuing, extremly damaging errors made by republicans on economic policy, health care policy, education policy, foreign policy? paul, do you have "conversations" with n.y. times' editors regarding the content of the times' news reporting?
one of my long-time requests is that the times news stories involving federal judicial holdings report on the "party" of the judge(s) making particular rulings. republican judges have been just as destructive as republican economists--but apparently it's not politically correct for the media to inform the public of that fact.
one of my long-time requests is that the times news stories involving federal judicial holdings report on the "party" of the judge(s) making particular rulings. republican judges have been just as destructive as republican economists--but apparently it's not politically correct for the media to inform the public of that fact.
6
It's pretty clear from reading the comments here about the Laffer Curve that the Democrats simply consider taxpayers to be nothing more than beasts of burden and their output should be maximized without regard to their quality of life.
4
What a choice in 2016 - either Jeb Bush and the same lineup again of usual suspects who took us in to Iraq...or Hillary Clinton and the same lineup again of usual suspects who crashed Wall Street.
We really need a third choice. (And not the Koch Bros. Party®.)
We really need a third choice. (And not the Koch Bros. Party®.)
Isn't it sad to see democracy evaporate before your eyes?
9
The internet, 24 hour opinion channels disguised as news, and talk radio make it ever easier to implement Lewis Carroll's truth formula: "What I tell you three times is true".
8
After the thrice-failed theory of tickle-down economic produced recession after recession, one would think Arthur Laffer would have been tossed under the proverbial bus a long time ago. The master of voodoo economics, as described by George H.W. Bush, also received a cold and negative analysis by Reagan's first budget director, David Stockman, who warned Reagan within weeks of his first term victory that trickle-down economics would cause a severe recession by the end of that decade. And right he was.
That didn't stop then-Fed chairman, Alan Greenspan, from deregulating the financial industry while, years later, convincing Bill Clinton and the Dems, as well as GOPs, to dismantle Glass-Steagal, the act that kept said industry from causing another Great Depression.
The lobbyists took over the media to convince the American middle class to cheer on Wall Street and to vote against Middle Class values. There was the tech meltdown as Bush 43 took office followed by wars-on-a-credit-card and the mortgage scams of Wall Street and Big Real Estate which brought us The Great Recession. It was really a depression by any reasonable analysis.
In Greenspan's book tours last year, he mentioned to Charlie Rose that, as a libertarian economist, he so fully believed that the financial industry could police itself, he told banking subcommittees he was surprised with Wall Street's behavior. He never saw the recession coming. Philosophy over reality-based analysis is the GOP mantra, again.
That didn't stop then-Fed chairman, Alan Greenspan, from deregulating the financial industry while, years later, convincing Bill Clinton and the Dems, as well as GOPs, to dismantle Glass-Steagal, the act that kept said industry from causing another Great Depression.
The lobbyists took over the media to convince the American middle class to cheer on Wall Street and to vote against Middle Class values. There was the tech meltdown as Bush 43 took office followed by wars-on-a-credit-card and the mortgage scams of Wall Street and Big Real Estate which brought us The Great Recession. It was really a depression by any reasonable analysis.
In Greenspan's book tours last year, he mentioned to Charlie Rose that, as a libertarian economist, he so fully believed that the financial industry could police itself, he told banking subcommittees he was surprised with Wall Street's behavior. He never saw the recession coming. Philosophy over reality-based analysis is the GOP mantra, again.
10
I partly blame Alan Greenspan for Wall Street and the demise of Glass-Steagall
1
While Krugman points out the real danger in Walker's rite-of-passage dinner, the press is obsessed by the Giuliani sideshow. Once again, image obscures reality; one might almost imagine that it was planned this way.
5
People consume lots of junk food spectating spectacles like Giuliani's latest profession of narcissism.
3
As stated: "Along with the denial of reality comes an absence of personal accountability." An unmentioned area of denial of reality can be found in educational testing which is used as a proxy for teaching effectiveness. With poorer than expected national test results for K-12 students, there has been a stampede toward the exits from such tests. "Exeunt right!," seems to be the staged direction, from these intrusive STEM tests. But, given that education can lead to a more competitive workforce in the face of more uncontrollable, ever-advancing IT automation techniques and more available, IT-internet empowered international labor supplies, this vital controllable factor merits measurement. And, with the aging US population, with older taxpayers untethered from the educational system, measureable results become even more critical. Also, fewer kids per household increases this disconnect from the educational system for many households. As income and wealth become more concentrated at the tops of their respective distributions, more wealthy taxpayers will demand the same metrics used to monitor the private school progress of their own kids; in order to continue funding what many of them view as underperforming educational investments. STEM results in science and math for 2012 show US students ranking 24th out of the 33 OECD countries; revealing an alarming negative rate of change over recent decades, from US top 10 performances. [{JJL}; 02/20/2015, Fri, 12:09 p.m.; Greenville NCc
2
But yet you fail to note the apples to oranges comparisons that are made by this testing and some of the very obvious inherent biases in the way US students are tested. You do - rightly - point out that there has been a flight by middle and upper middle class mostly white people from public schools largely due to the disruptive issues that come with impoverished children - but it does matter that we are comparing 6 year olds in the US to 9 year olds in Sweden as if math skills have no developmental basis.
Don't expect any of this factual information to appear on the front page, that would violate the Times policy. No clear cut informational reporting.
3
"[W]hat does it say about the current state of the G.O.P. that discussion of economic policy is now monopolized by people who have been wrong about everything, have learned nothing from the experience, and can’t even get their numbers straight?"
It says the G.O.P. economic discussion is pretty typical of the G.O.P. policy discussion about everything.
It says the G.O.P. economic discussion is pretty typical of the G.O.P. policy discussion about everything.
9
"Cranking" up for 2016. Nice.
5
The economic saboteurs are at it again. Be vigilant, very vigilant.
Confront the ignorant politicians who will defraud you at each available opportunity - all in the name of freedom, liberty and the American way. These mercenary politicians elected and funded by the Fraudsters for Poverty (AKA -Americans for Prosperity).
Confront the ignorant politicians who will defraud you at each available opportunity - all in the name of freedom, liberty and the American way. These mercenary politicians elected and funded by the Fraudsters for Poverty (AKA -Americans for Prosperity).
3
"..the much-hated Keynesians, who have gotten most things right even as the supply-siders were getting everything wrong.."
Say again Doc? How, exactly, could the supply-siders hold any practical or moral responsibility for the state of the U.S. economy circa 2015 when it has been the Keynesians, in their arrogant splendor, who have held all of the economic policy reins for the last 8 years? From the Recovery and Investment Act to pillar-to-post bailouts to more taxation on the wretched wealthy to an activist Federal Reserve 'quantitatively easing' almost $5 Trillion onto its balance sheet, the economic 'remedies' to which Americans have been treated to combat the Great Recession have ALL been products of demand-side orthodoxy.
And they have all failed.
No meaningful growth. No robust recovery. And a DOUBLED national debt.
So now comes the entirely reasonable national pushback from the malaise-ridden FAIL of Bush-Obama-Geithner-Lew-Bernanke-Yellen (and Krugman) economics and the Nobel Committee's favorite son is in a name-calling panic. Of course it can't be the economic philosophy! But they're 'the charlatan caucus'! And.. wait for it.. But the supply-siders really did it!
But they didn't.
One has to have the levers of policy authority in order to implement one's policies. Those levers have resided squarely, firmly and unambiguously for the last 8 years with the Keynesians, and no amount of soft-shoe by Paul Krugman or the New York Times Editorial Board can change that.
Say again Doc? How, exactly, could the supply-siders hold any practical or moral responsibility for the state of the U.S. economy circa 2015 when it has been the Keynesians, in their arrogant splendor, who have held all of the economic policy reins for the last 8 years? From the Recovery and Investment Act to pillar-to-post bailouts to more taxation on the wretched wealthy to an activist Federal Reserve 'quantitatively easing' almost $5 Trillion onto its balance sheet, the economic 'remedies' to which Americans have been treated to combat the Great Recession have ALL been products of demand-side orthodoxy.
And they have all failed.
No meaningful growth. No robust recovery. And a DOUBLED national debt.
So now comes the entirely reasonable national pushback from the malaise-ridden FAIL of Bush-Obama-Geithner-Lew-Bernanke-Yellen (and Krugman) economics and the Nobel Committee's favorite son is in a name-calling panic. Of course it can't be the economic philosophy! But they're 'the charlatan caucus'! And.. wait for it.. But the supply-siders really did it!
But they didn't.
One has to have the levers of policy authority in order to implement one's policies. Those levers have resided squarely, firmly and unambiguously for the last 8 years with the Keynesians, and no amount of soft-shoe by Paul Krugman or the New York Times Editorial Board can change that.
7
This is unequivocally false. The policy levers on the one part of policy that matters right no due to the Zero Lower Bound is fiscal policy - and that has been dominated by supply-siders and those who embrace the discredited (actually, the obviously made up to support giving public fund to rich people) concept of "expansionary austerity." I don't mind you have problems with Keynes or new Keynesians - but you don't get to make up your own facts. Your post is without a doubt a series of fantastical, but patently untrue, statements - and frankly, you should be as ashamed of posting this as Moore should be of consistently making stuff up out of whole cloth.
12
Are there probs? Sure.
And:
1. Where's the DJIA?
2. Is the deficit up or down?
3. What's the unemployment rate?
4. is the labor participation rate up or down?
5. is the GDP up or down?
6. Are corporate profits up or down?
7. is the housing market up or down?
8. is Medicare more or less viable than it was five years ago?
9. Are we producing more or less oil and gas?
10. On which planet or alternate dimension do you currently reside?
And:
1. Where's the DJIA?
2. Is the deficit up or down?
3. What's the unemployment rate?
4. is the labor participation rate up or down?
5. is the GDP up or down?
6. Are corporate profits up or down?
7. is the housing market up or down?
8. is Medicare more or less viable than it was five years ago?
9. Are we producing more or less oil and gas?
10. On which planet or alternate dimension do you currently reside?
10
You, sir, are a fine example of only seeing the reality that you want to see.
By any reasonable measure, the economy is doing well. Even Mitch McConnell saw that and tried to take credit for it just after Republicans took over the Senate.
By any reasonable measure, the economy is doing well. Even Mitch McConnell saw that and tried to take credit for it just after Republicans took over the Senate.
11
Supply Side economics benefits only one group of Americans; the top 1%. The GOP is drunk on their 2014 mid-term success and they are just going to keep spreading the lies. They will try to convince the poor middle Americans that they too can be millionaires if they just worked a little harder. Scott Walker has the billionaire Koch brothers backing him so money is not a problem. The real message? Greed is good and being poor is bad.
12
I used to think that the supply siders truly believed what they professed, but now I'm convinced that it's all a charade and an excuse to siphon up as much cash from the unwitting public as possible. They aren't stupid. They're greedy. And evil.
12
Why would people who have made careers of magical thinking stop now?
5
Prof. Krugman does not mince words or try to be gentle. These charlatans and cranks, which they certainly are, don't deserve kid gloves - they need to be ferociously slapped down every time they spout their nonsense. Politicians, whether they truly believe these cranks or are simply pandering, need to be held accountable. Thanks, Prof. Krugman.
8
As stated: "Along with the denial of reality comes an absence of personal accountability." An unmentioned area of denial of reality can be found in educational testing which is used as a proxy for teaching effectiveness. With poorer than expected national test results for K-12 students, there has been a stampede toward the exits from such tests. "Exeunt right!," seems to be the staged direction, from these intrusive STEM tests. But, given that education can lead to a more competitive workforce in the face of more uncontrollable, ever-advancing IT automation techniques and more available, IT-internet empowered international labor supplies, this vital controllable factor merits measurement. And, with the aging US population, with older taxpayers untethered from the educational system, measureable results become even more critical. Also, fewer kids per household increases this disconnect from the educational system for many households. As income and wealth become more concentrated at the tops of their respective distributions, more wealthy taxpayers will demand the same metrics used to monitor the private school progress of their own kids; in order to continue funding what many of them view as underperforming educational investments. STEM results in science and math for 2012 show US students ranking 24th out of the 33 OECD countries; revealing an alarming negative rate of change over recent decades, from US top 10 performances. [{JJL}; 02/20/2015, Fri, 12:09 p.m.; Greenville NC]
1
The fact that their espoused theories have been proven wrong, or that they have turned out to be economic disaster for almost everyone is irrelevant. The modern Republican party is all about benefiting the wealthy and powerful, while trying to spin the "universal benefit" of their policies with an army of think tanks and corporate media outlets. When you're going to lie this big you have to stay on message, no matter how hard reality strikes you in the face.
6
Krugman: "The answer, I’d suggest, runs deeper than economic doctrine. Across the board, the modern American right seems to have abandoned the idea that there is an objective reality out there..."
The late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan alerted us to politicians and other so-called experts evaluating the realities of our world with his: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."
Yet, that is what we have with modern right-wingers in the Republican Party/Tea Party -- opinion or doctrine trumping the facts and evidence. Voters are being assured that faith trumps facts.
They have also mediated a visit by Alice in Wonderland: "Thing are what I say they are."
The late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan alerted us to politicians and other so-called experts evaluating the realities of our world with his: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."
Yet, that is what we have with modern right-wingers in the Republican Party/Tea Party -- opinion or doctrine trumping the facts and evidence. Voters are being assured that faith trumps facts.
They have also mediated a visit by Alice in Wonderland: "Thing are what I say they are."
105
Professor Krugman keeps harping away at the errors of right wing ideologues, and of course he's perfectly correct in his indictments. Problem is he's preaching to the choir. Most Times readers are convinced of what he says, and those who aren't never will be.
What Prof. Krugman and other advocates of sound and honest policies, economic and other, need to do is work at reaching those swing voters who haven't gotten the message. The failure of advocates of progressive causes to do this is why we have a Republican Congress and may end up with a Republican President as well and a more firmly Republican Supreme Court.
Please, please, Professor Krugman, devote some of your brilliance to figuring out ways of reaching those voters who aren't already convinced.
What Prof. Krugman and other advocates of sound and honest policies, economic and other, need to do is work at reaching those swing voters who haven't gotten the message. The failure of advocates of progressive causes to do this is why we have a Republican Congress and may end up with a Republican President as well and a more firmly Republican Supreme Court.
Please, please, Professor Krugman, devote some of your brilliance to figuring out ways of reaching those voters who aren't already convinced.
8
Are you suggesting that the Democrats reorganize into a real political party?
7
I believe the answer to Krugman's quandary about how the supply-sided economics (and their right-wing true believers) continue to propagandize about a philosophy so clearly divorced from reality is found in Upton Sinclair's aphorism: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on him not understanding it."
5
What do we expect from Scott Walker? He must be courting the hard right, since he's also denying evolution exists...
6
Perhaps the most frightening aspect of the current political/economic climate is that Republicans are winning elections on an historic scale. The "charlatans and cranks" are carrying the day. Why the American people in large numbers remain so enraptured by the party of ignorance is a horror to behold. Until all voters learn that elections occur more frequently than at four year intervals, we will continue to suffer the malign influence of a Republican party entranced by its own delusions. The ballot box is our only route to political reason or delusion. EVERYBODY needs to vote in EVERY election.
9
Have you looked at the stats on elections? Hardly anyone bothers to vote anymore. It's only the single issue folks who regularly go to the polls including me. My single issue is to vote Democrat if only to blunt the Republican hegemony. There's plenty of single issue voters from guns, to abortion, to gay marriage, to taxes and they all worship at the alter of the Republican money changers. These voters don't care what else happens to the country (or themselves apparently) as long as their pet issue is stroked.
6
It's just The Big Lie. Say it often enough, loud enough, and people will believe you're serious. Make them afraid or angry at an outside source that is, supposedly, the cause of all their troubles, and they'll follow you.
It's worked for 35 years or so. Almost a record.
It's worked for 35 years or so. Almost a record.
7
The Republican party writ large seems to believe in a reality of pixie dust and unicorns. Of course, being Republicans, they would likely shoot any unicorns they saw.
85
The fruit of the 2008 financial crisis grew from the trees planted in the 90s when Glass-Stegall was repealed and permitted banks to mix banking and gambling with impunity. The 90s White House ordered credit requirements reduced or eliminated for mortgages giving rise to unsustainable junk mortgages. Add weak or non-existent oversight from the Fed agencies charted to guard against such abuse and Presto! A Crash! The crash of 2008 that almost none of the "experts" saw coming and now feel especially equipped to affix blame. Quoting the Church Lady - "Isn't that special"
1
Why would any of these clowns "reconsider their views?" Their bread and butter is spouting these discredited economic theories that have decimated the middle class to the benefit of monied interests.
How do you think they afford private school tuition and those nice houses in Potomac? The only way they will reconsider their view is if the opposing view pays them more. None of these guys believe an ounce of this claptrap. They do, however, believe in the money that goes into their bank accounts when they do their economic masters' bidding.
How do you think they afford private school tuition and those nice houses in Potomac? The only way they will reconsider their view is if the opposing view pays them more. None of these guys believe an ounce of this claptrap. They do, however, believe in the money that goes into their bank accounts when they do their economic masters' bidding.
6
I think I've come to finally understand Republicans…they are in love. There is no one more difficult to reason with than someone in love. The object of their attention is always perfect , and they are the most intelligent and beautiful person in the world and they harbor no faults !
Love can trump reason any time and usually does, but why?
The science points to a surge of neuro transmitters that make the brain feel pleasant and even euphoric , and who doesn't care to feel euphoric! Who doesn't mind feeling euphoric in expectation of tax cuts or a promise of economic expansion ? Reality is a dampener on the illusions of love which is why those in love avoid the nay sayers any cynics and otherwise lucid people.
Am I against love ? … not at all, in fact I highly recommend it , however to be in love with one's self interests is also to be blinded by those same self interests and the result is usually disastrous particularly when reality is sacrificed to the illusions. I can only hope for republicans that they have good friends that can talk reason with them !
Love can trump reason any time and usually does, but why?
The science points to a surge of neuro transmitters that make the brain feel pleasant and even euphoric , and who doesn't care to feel euphoric! Who doesn't mind feeling euphoric in expectation of tax cuts or a promise of economic expansion ? Reality is a dampener on the illusions of love which is why those in love avoid the nay sayers any cynics and otherwise lucid people.
Am I against love ? … not at all, in fact I highly recommend it , however to be in love with one's self interests is also to be blinded by those same self interests and the result is usually disastrous particularly when reality is sacrificed to the illusions. I can only hope for republicans that they have good friends that can talk reason with them !
4
By George I think you've got it! Why else would Karl Rove have run off the stage during a national broadcast when it was clear the President Obama had won a second term? Probably to hide the tears over his beloved party being scorned by the populace.
3
These supply siders are traitors.
5
This kind of behavior is expected of republican hopefuls at this stage. I think the reason is simple - at this time they are only focused at winning republican nominations. Come July 2016, i wont be surprised if he (or the whoever wins nomination) performs some etch-a-sketch for a broader appeal.
3
Republican rule #1: When the 's' hits the fan, lie and make up stories about what's going to happen in the future. No one will remember the last false prophecy. They'll be too busy trying to survive the underlying transfer of wealth to us, our relatives, and our pay-to-play buddies.
4
The problem for all of us is that reality is what it is, regardless of whether or not politicians acknowledge that. We voters have a responsibility to the country and to ourselves to learn the facts and determine which candidate is telling us the truth, and will make policy based on reality. We live in a comfortable fantasy world at our own peril.
5
I still think the supply siders have their view for a sole purpose, to allow the rich to continue to pay low taxes as long as possible. To have a vibrant economy you need to educate, give opportunities and government needs to provide a strong structure for the society to allow ideas to have the best chance to be examined and expanded on. You do that or become Mexico and that's what the supply siders are pushing. And the rich are giving the wackos the pulpit to preach this nonsense of their own self interest. I think they believe you really can't hurt the society. I suggest people think of 50 Kansas/Mississippi/South Carolina/Oklahoma/Texas model states and see what kind of society we have. Or look at the other side with 50 California/Hawaii/Colorado/Minnesota/Massachusetts/New York type states society. One final note: one of the Koch's moved from Wichita to New York City, so what's that about.
4
The Republican party will keep right on getting votes no matter how long they stay on the wrong side of economic issues and other issues that are important to the country in general, as long as they keep emphasizing social issues such as abortion and gay marriage. Additionally they will always win among a large segment of the unthinking crowd with promises of liberating people from any form of gun control, a promise of getting rid of big government and a promise that the big bad government will keep their hands off their Medicare.
6
Republicans and Democrats alike have failed for over four decades to address the effects of the ongoing technology revolution which is enabling the reduction in labor costs through automation and outsourcing. Today $1.5 trillion a year is being diverted from workers to stockholders and our economy continues to suffer from the squeeze on wage-based demand for goods and services.
Any candidate that proposes a rational method of addressing this will gain great advantage in becoming our next president.
Until we address this, we will see continuing polarization, tribalism and irrationality of our citizens along with the rise of demagogues.
Any candidate that proposes a rational method of addressing this will gain great advantage in becoming our next president.
Until we address this, we will see continuing polarization, tribalism and irrationality of our citizens along with the rise of demagogues.
5
Larry Kudlow is a buffoon and like many of these so call “experts” they seem to know very little of what they sepal about. That is so Republican Party although I can’t help tipping my hat to these charlatans since they have convinced a large part of white working class America (who have no connection these elitists) that they hold the keys to the economic kingdom.
White Americans are the biggest impediment to progress at this moment in our history. After cocooning themselves in the burbs for so long they have become the most unenlightened group of people to populate politics in a long time.
White Americans are the biggest impediment to progress at this moment in our history. After cocooning themselves in the burbs for so long they have become the most unenlightened group of people to populate politics in a long time.
7
Keep in mind Walker wants to remove "the search for the truth" from the University of Wisconsin's mission statement. The truth has never been of much importance to he and his ilk.
13
Does anyone remember "Streetcar Named Desire," to wit the scene when Blanche DuBois tells Stanley Kowalski, "I don't want reality, I want magic!"
In case any reader is not familiar with this classic of stage and screen, it tells the story of a woman in the midst of a nervous breakdown. At the end of the film, Blanche (Vivien Leigh) is taken away to a mental institution.
This seems to exemplify what passes as thinking to today's GOP/Tea Party. Unfortunately neither they nor the country is being treated for insanity.
In case any reader is not familiar with this classic of stage and screen, it tells the story of a woman in the midst of a nervous breakdown. At the end of the film, Blanche (Vivien Leigh) is taken away to a mental institution.
This seems to exemplify what passes as thinking to today's GOP/Tea Party. Unfortunately neither they nor the country is being treated for insanity.
8
Art Laffer, Larry Kudlow, and Stephen Moore, three, reportedly, very smart people. Not being a genius by any degree I have managed to come up with a personal definition of a smart person. A smart person is one who when proven wrong admit it and move on. It is apparent, to me at least, that Not only the three persons listed but multiple THOUSANDS of republicans are not so smart. They keep watching the John Wayne movie waiting for the Indians to win the war!
5
Even a broken clock has confidence that it will give the right time twice a day.
2
Art Laffer and Stephen Moore ARE Republican economists. I don't know about the other guy, since he is on TV I assume he is some sort of entertainer, at least for Republicans.
1
Those of us who watched Laffer on Al Jazeera being grilled at Oxford Union know he at least is coming to the realization that his dogma is not supported by fact.
How ironic that Qatar brings us Al Jazeera and the scientific inquiry of the Oxford Union.
How ironic that Qatar brings us Al Jazeera and the scientific inquiry of the Oxford Union.
6
If they were really grown-ups, they would discuss optimizing distribution of the economy between public and private sectors to maximize total output.
4
Oh please: Objective reality? Krugman is the guy who wailed that the sequester would be a disaster for economic growth and instead hyped another big "Keynesian" government "stimulus" spending package. Instead, growth has accelerated as spending has fallen from 25% of GDP to 22%. People in glass houses.....
4
If you actually read anything PK writes you'd note that he has written extensively about people who point out amazing economic turnaround after taking their foots off the breaks, ie Britain. He also notes, if you'd been paying attention, that we're about 5 years behind where we should be in this recovery.
4
Please get your facts straight Terry, or is it Kudlow? Krugman said the size of the stimulus was too small and that the sequester would hamper growth and he has been correct on both counts. By many measures, this has been the slowest recovery from such a deep recession.
5
If the sequester has been so great for the economy why were the 1%ers blaming it on Obama? Oh right, everything is Obama's fault if you spin it the right way.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2013/03/03/white-house-a...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2013/03/03/white-house-a...
4
Bill Maher had the best line about trickle-down economics: "It is like having three dogs and giving a wiener to one of them and thinking, ‘He will share it with the others.’ ”
8
Well, if anyone knows about being a charlatan or a crank it's Krugman.
6
Yes, Krugman does know. He's just demonstrated his knowledge in his article and it's spot on.
4
The irony with Jeb Bush is that he proclaims he is his own man by surrounding himself with the very same zealots his brother used, so detrimentally, to demonstrate he was his own man. In truth, anyone these days who is "his own man" could never run for President and wouldn't want to.
5
The Laffer Curve claims nothing more sophisticated than the obvious: that somewhere between taxation at a 0% rate and a 100% rate there is an optimal rate that will maximize government revenue. The curve itself provides no guidance for determining what that rate might be. It’s simply a handy contrivance for supply siders to pursue ever lower rates.
In the early 1980’s, Martin Gardner, a general debunker of woo and a mathematics and science columnist for Scientific American, published his “Neo-Laffer Curve” - a tangle of noodles anchored at zero and 100%.
In the early 1980’s, Martin Gardner, a general debunker of woo and a mathematics and science columnist for Scientific American, published his “Neo-Laffer Curve” - a tangle of noodles anchored at zero and 100%.
4
Republican insanity, as Prof. Krugman describes it, supra, terrifies me, but what is worst is that the Democrats offer no sanctuary, because, for as the late Gore Vidal said: "There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party ... and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt—until recently ... and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties."
One might think that Democrats being the opposite of Republicans on the issues of economic policy, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), etc., as Prof. Krugman describes, supra, is a matter of principle and wisdom, but it isn't. It is simply the Democratic version of Republican identity-group politics, where certain ideas become the totems of the Republican's identity and, thus, the opposite ideas, the anti-totems, become the totems for the Democrats. The ACA, which the Heritage Foundation created and was a Republican totem, until President Obama tactically embraced it; after which, it was hated by Republicans and loved by Democrats.
One might think that Democrats being the opposite of Republicans on the issues of economic policy, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), etc., as Prof. Krugman describes, supra, is a matter of principle and wisdom, but it isn't. It is simply the Democratic version of Republican identity-group politics, where certain ideas become the totems of the Republican's identity and, thus, the opposite ideas, the anti-totems, become the totems for the Democrats. The ACA, which the Heritage Foundation created and was a Republican totem, until President Obama tactically embraced it; after which, it was hated by Republicans and loved by Democrats.
2
Now, it is true that Republican ideas on crucial areas of policy are disastrously wrong, which means that the opposite ideas, the Democratic anti-totems, are likely to be and are on this occasion correct, but they both serve the same masters, the one percent and are wings of the same Party of Property, so that whether Republican or Democrat, their policies will ultimately benefit the one percent to the prejudice of the poor and middle class. It just that Democrats are marginally better than Republicans for the poor and middle class.
So I guess that is reason enough to vote for Democrats over Republicans. But it is a poor choice, and the American people deserve better.
So I guess that is reason enough to vote for Democrats over Republicans. But it is a poor choice, and the American people deserve better.
Chanson, you of the fabulous screen name, have hit the nail squarely on the head.
The charlatans are the people that vote for the cranks.People sometimes deserve and get what they vote for
3
Here in the USA we have recently elected the very best congressmen, congresswomen, senators, governors, presidents and other government administrations that money can buy
These elected and appointed officials do, however, offer their services, no-bid contracts funded from the public treasuries, and their legislative votes for sale to US citizens and foreigners at very reasonable prices
These elected and appointed officials do, however, offer their services, no-bid contracts funded from the public treasuries, and their legislative votes for sale to US citizens and foreigners at very reasonable prices
4
"Along with this denial of reality comes an absence of personal accountability. If anything, alleged experts seem to get points by showing that they’re willing to keep saying the same things no matter how embarrassingly wrong they’ve been in the past."
Denial of reality is a feature, not a bug. The base of the American right want their people to lie to them. It says to these proud, outsized Know Nothings that the liar is one of them.
Richard Perlstein said it well: http://www.thebaffler.com/salvos/the-long-con
On Mitt Romney: "... It’s time, in other words, to consider whether Romney’s fluidity with the truth is, in fact, a feature and not a bug: a constituent part of his appeal to conservatives. The point here is not just that he lies when he says conservative things, even if he believes something different in his heart of hearts—but that lying is what makes you sound the way a conservative is supposed to sound, in pretty much the same way that curlicuing all around the note makes you sound like a contestant on American Idol is supposed to sound. ..."
On the right's response to Richard Nixon: "M. Stanton Evans, a legendary movement godfather, stood up. He said my invocation of Richard Nixon was inappropriate because Richard Nixon had never been a conservative. He proceeded, though, to make a striking admission: “I didn’t like Nixon until Watergate”—at which point, apparently, Nixon finally convinced conservatives he could be one of them."
Read the whole thing.
Denial of reality is a feature, not a bug. The base of the American right want their people to lie to them. It says to these proud, outsized Know Nothings that the liar is one of them.
Richard Perlstein said it well: http://www.thebaffler.com/salvos/the-long-con
On Mitt Romney: "... It’s time, in other words, to consider whether Romney’s fluidity with the truth is, in fact, a feature and not a bug: a constituent part of his appeal to conservatives. The point here is not just that he lies when he says conservative things, even if he believes something different in his heart of hearts—but that lying is what makes you sound the way a conservative is supposed to sound, in pretty much the same way that curlicuing all around the note makes you sound like a contestant on American Idol is supposed to sound. ..."
On the right's response to Richard Nixon: "M. Stanton Evans, a legendary movement godfather, stood up. He said my invocation of Richard Nixon was inappropriate because Richard Nixon had never been a conservative. He proceeded, though, to make a striking admission: “I didn’t like Nixon until Watergate”—at which point, apparently, Nixon finally convinced conservatives he could be one of them."
Read the whole thing.
5
Shouldn't you start referring to Stephen Moore as the chief "economist" at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative "think" tank?
1
Or, "Conservative Think Crank".
2
Tragically, Hillary is just as much a creature of the Israel Lobby as Jeb is. Once Obama's gone, war for Israel with Iran is guaranteed.
1
Yes, and Yes Yes Yes again. As in ancient Greece, the Oligarchs, their Tea Party dupes and their paid intellectuals all believe that they are at war with the Democrats led by Obama, determined to complete their Liberal take over of the US, and distribute "their well earned wealth" to the mostly dark skinned and foreign born undeserving poor. Lies, especially big lies, are part of warfare and the bad guys know this. Meanwhile the vast majority of progressives all seem to feel that must prove their objectivity (and sagacity) by throwing in criticism of Obama and Clinton et al with every utterance. Krugman seems to be the only Liberal on the Times staff to realize that we are in an uncivil civil war, that has already cost thousands of Americans their lives (eg states refusal to accept federal money to expand Medicaid ) and destroyed the lives of millions by needlessly prolonging the recession.
5
On this same page, David Brooks, noted intellect and narrative spinner constructed a yarn that concludes with nationalism being the cure for religious extremism, demonstrating that the factual, evidentiary, historical deceptions of the economists cited here, are the foundation of right wing extremist political science too. Who would have imagined that such ginned up reasoning would permeate all right wing narratives. Makes one wonder if there really is a vast right wing conspiracy?
Meantime, Jeb has reassured us that he is his own man especially in the realm of foreign policy by rolling out some notable new thinkers as his advisers. Strangely, the names Jim Baker, and Paul Wolfowitz et al share the future of what America can anticipate: more war, lists of war, and fear too! How refreshing to learn something new from the right.
Meantime, Jeb has reassured us that he is his own man especially in the realm of foreign policy by rolling out some notable new thinkers as his advisers. Strangely, the names Jim Baker, and Paul Wolfowitz et al share the future of what America can anticipate: more war, lists of war, and fear too! How refreshing to learn something new from the right.
3
They know they lie. They lie about everything. Their lies are deliberate. They are aimed at the very people who support the Party - the working class bloke who swallows those lies hook, line and sinker, who cannot think critically for himself and realize he is being cruelly manipulated. They will stop at nothing and that is chilling.
6
Ergo: the stupidity of the largest part of the American electorate makes this all happen and drags everybody else down with them.
3
Now, if only America's only other political option could serve up something stronger than "me too, but maybe a little less unhinged" we might be getting somewhere.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
www.endthemadnessnow.org
2
I am fascinated by Scott Walker.
Does anyone know of anything about his world views? Did he ever travel outside of US? Does he have a passport?
I am serious. I think it would be extremely crazy for the leader of the world to be someone who had no interest in history, in the world at large, and no grasp of foreign policy...but then maybe we need a person so clueless to just reach a critical point in our stance in the world. Whether that might be irreversible catastrophe or a whole new way of living...we should find out.
Does anyone know of anything about his world views? Did he ever travel outside of US? Does he have a passport?
I am serious. I think it would be extremely crazy for the leader of the world to be someone who had no interest in history, in the world at large, and no grasp of foreign policy...but then maybe we need a person so clueless to just reach a critical point in our stance in the world. Whether that might be irreversible catastrophe or a whole new way of living...we should find out.
5
Walker's role in office would be to reflect the foreign policy beliefs of some of the world's richest people. So, don't worry. Everything will be fine.
3
Been "very, very afraid" for a long time, and it just gets worse.
8
But we Americans are creatures of the advertising industry. Regardless of the lack of truth in what a public figure says on T.V., if it is said enough times, even if evidence proves "it" to be false, enough people will believe it.
7
Okay, that's it, I've had it. Out with democracy, and let's start the search for a philosopher-sovereign.
3
Aha!
Gov. Walker has surged recently so he must be destroyed.
I'm encouraged though that PK never mentions Walker's successes in the deep blue state of Wisconsin.
He won't go there because Republicans are NEVER right.
Gov. Walker has surged recently so he must be destroyed.
I'm encouraged though that PK never mentions Walker's successes in the deep blue state of Wisconsin.
He won't go there because Republicans are NEVER right.
2
And here we have another 'faith-based' account. Walker has been successful in Wisconsin because Walker and his Greek chorus says that Walker has been successful in Wisconsin. Wisconsin's economy has grown 60% as quickly as the rest of the US in the last four years, despite having quite a good economic record before the Great Recession started. Employment growth is worse than average in the US and he STILL hasn't fulfilled his campaign promise on jobs... even though he's now had more than two extra years.
His 'success' consists of the number of people he's managed to hurt, and the number of cronies he's managed to enrich. I know why Republicans believe that is good enough, but the assertion that Krugman should celebrate it is, if not puzzling, at least hilarious, being as it is a perfect example of what Krugman is talking about to begin with.
His 'success' consists of the number of people he's managed to hurt, and the number of cronies he's managed to enrich. I know why Republicans believe that is good enough, but the assertion that Krugman should celebrate it is, if not puzzling, at least hilarious, being as it is a perfect example of what Krugman is talking about to begin with.
4
I wonder if part of the reason that the Republicans keep denying reality is that they have been taken over by an old faith based reality, similar to what governed western thought before the enlightenment.
Here is how I think the psychology works: a virtuous person is someone with "strong faith". Faith is believing in something that is unprovable, perhaps even unlikely. Believing that the sun will rise each morning in the east does not demonstrate strong faith. But believing that the world will come to an end and the virtuous believers will be transported into heaven? Believe the Laffer curve? Now that is strong faith!
So now this "faith based" logic has taken hold of the belief system of the Republican party. Thus, they believe that cutting taxes for the wealthy will unleash prosperity for all, Obamacare has actually failed, and somehow the known laws of physics will not dictate what happens to the climate. This demonstrates the "strong faith" that they exalt above a belief in evidence.
The Right has reverted back to the 15th century when the earth was flat, the sun revolved around it, and those that thought otherwise could be fixed with some kindling and a cord of fire wood. Its a bizarre reversal of the last 600 years of western thought.
Here is how I think the psychology works: a virtuous person is someone with "strong faith". Faith is believing in something that is unprovable, perhaps even unlikely. Believing that the sun will rise each morning in the east does not demonstrate strong faith. But believing that the world will come to an end and the virtuous believers will be transported into heaven? Believe the Laffer curve? Now that is strong faith!
So now this "faith based" logic has taken hold of the belief system of the Republican party. Thus, they believe that cutting taxes for the wealthy will unleash prosperity for all, Obamacare has actually failed, and somehow the known laws of physics will not dictate what happens to the climate. This demonstrates the "strong faith" that they exalt above a belief in evidence.
The Right has reverted back to the 15th century when the earth was flat, the sun revolved around it, and those that thought otherwise could be fixed with some kindling and a cord of fire wood. Its a bizarre reversal of the last 600 years of western thought.
20
I truly don't mean to sound like a snot, but maybe if books like "Wealth and Democracy", ( written by a former Republican) Kevin Phillips or "What's the Matter with Kansas", by Thomas Franks had been required reading back when they first came out, maybe things might be a little different today? I don't know. But, maybe?
9
What's really, really sad is the fact that out of 300 million people, the best we can come up with is Hillary or Jeb? Good gosh - we're toast.
9
Been very, very afraid for fifteen years... and now Jon Stewart has gone. Where will we find ironic relief from the relentless oppressive right? And where is the press? Where they were before the Iraq war, when they had to shut down NYC because of world wide demonstrations, and the press gave it one day of coverage as if it was a water main break. The press hasn't been the 4th estate for many years, present columnist excepted. Thank you for keeping on Paul.
10
Dear Mr. Krugman,
I must admit that I am surprised that you think the GOP/TP/KOCH AFFILIATE really cares about economics, governing or the 99%.
The Koch's alone have shown us what it's all about and it's all about money. The Koch's have pledged 900 million bucks or so of legal, non influence buying cash to realize the "dream"/nightmare" that would be a government controlled completely by the GOP/TP/K.A.
Though I don't think Mr. Walker will be the recipient of this largess. Even the Koch brothers realize that, like the Scarecrow in the "Wizard of Oz", the candidate must really "have a brain" (As far as the Tin Man goes and his "heart", off he goes into the re-cycle bin; no "hearts" here!); not TOO large a brain but a brain that can deal with the messy 99% that may/may not/don't have time to vote.
With fewer of the electorate not voting, their "dream/nightmare" may just become reality in 2016.
For, as far as the GOP/TP/K.A. is concerned, the "economics" of the 1% is just fine and they plan on keeping it that way.
Basically, the rest of us will be "trickled down upon" but it won't be money flowing in our direction (Use your imagination here, folks).
I must admit that I am surprised that you think the GOP/TP/KOCH AFFILIATE really cares about economics, governing or the 99%.
The Koch's alone have shown us what it's all about and it's all about money. The Koch's have pledged 900 million bucks or so of legal, non influence buying cash to realize the "dream"/nightmare" that would be a government controlled completely by the GOP/TP/K.A.
Though I don't think Mr. Walker will be the recipient of this largess. Even the Koch brothers realize that, like the Scarecrow in the "Wizard of Oz", the candidate must really "have a brain" (As far as the Tin Man goes and his "heart", off he goes into the re-cycle bin; no "hearts" here!); not TOO large a brain but a brain that can deal with the messy 99% that may/may not/don't have time to vote.
With fewer of the electorate not voting, their "dream/nightmare" may just become reality in 2016.
For, as far as the GOP/TP/K.A. is concerned, the "economics" of the 1% is just fine and they plan on keeping it that way.
Basically, the rest of us will be "trickled down upon" but it won't be money flowing in our direction (Use your imagination here, folks).
6
"... and the lowest interest rates in history." So the Keynesians are taking credit for low interest rates? Didn't I read that Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen had something to do with that also?
1
Today's Republican Party does not care about being able to govern, it cares only about winning elections. To that end it has pushed policies believed in by only the uninformed or willfully ignorant, it has disenfranchised likely Democratic voters, and used its five loyalist SCOTUS justices to make some truly remarkable decisions.
That the Republicans have majorities in both Houses of Congress is clear proof that the United States population is no longer up to the rigors of democracy. Oligarchs now rule!
That the Republicans have majorities in both Houses of Congress is clear proof that the United States population is no longer up to the rigors of democracy. Oligarchs now rule!
10
It all comes down to low information voters who are amnesiac (don't remember who started the Iraq fiasco and our economic meltdown) and allow themselves to be distracted by bread and circuses. Their views are leavened with a dollop of racism (our President does not love our country) and a rabid distrust of anything that smacks of informed reasoning, such as might be gained through a university education. While these people say God Bless America, I would say God Help Us All.
11
Without a doubt, the "Stupid Party" (coined, as I recollect, by former GOP Congressman turned TV political jockey, Joe Scarborough) has morphed into the "Crazy Party."
It is one thing to be on the wrong side of history, on social issues ranging from marriage to health care. To be on the wrong side of facts, embracing the rant and wrath of what was once considered the lunatic fringe (now mainstream GOP), is quite another.
Cue Scott, Sarah, and Rudy, and let the party begin!
It is one thing to be on the wrong side of history, on social issues ranging from marriage to health care. To be on the wrong side of facts, embracing the rant and wrath of what was once considered the lunatic fringe (now mainstream GOP), is quite another.
Cue Scott, Sarah, and Rudy, and let the party begin!
12
One of the main reasons Republicans have succeeded spectacularly in convincing millions of Americans to eagerly and consistently vote against their own interests is by creating their own reality. In that reality, corporations and the wealthy are job-creating altruists who need to be freed from job-killing regulation and crushing tax burden so they can trickle down tax cuts into prosperity for all. The national debt is the most serious problem, and the poor and unemployed are that way because of their own laziness and moral weakness. Thus, eliminating social programs is the answer to poverty, as it provides the right incentive to go out and get a job instead of mooching. Obama care is a socialist takeover of health care that will bankrupt America, and all the problems of our health care can be solved by removing all regulations and enacting tort reform.
That's the reality incessantly repeated on Fox News and numerous lesser-known Web and social media sites. It's too often uncritically echoed by "mainstream" media, and representatives of true reality lack the shrillness and concision to counter it effectively. The result is that millions of chickens eagerly vote for Colonel Sanders.
That's the reality incessantly repeated on Fox News and numerous lesser-known Web and social media sites. It's too often uncritically echoed by "mainstream" media, and representatives of true reality lack the shrillness and concision to counter it effectively. The result is that millions of chickens eagerly vote for Colonel Sanders.
13
Sadly, your diagnosis is correct. Even worse, as many NYT posters have noted, is that main-stream media (sic) refuse to confront Republicans with their own folly. Just look at the media coverage Rudy Giuliani gets every time he utters one of his catty jibes.
1
None of this "theory" matters.
Most Americans who vote, can see that China, with low taxes and building lots of coal-fired power plants has been growing four to 10 times higher than the high-tax, heavily regulated West.
Most Americans who vote, want lower taxes.
Most Americans who vote, want less regulations in the businesses they own or manage or work for.
Yes, it is true that both the right and the left believe that we could use more infrastructure investment. But the left wants to do it by taxation or debt, which is a non starter. The right wants to trade out-of-control public employee benefits and entitlements for it - and most Americans who vote are on their side.
It is quite simple. No need for name calling, desperation. Individuals who vote, contribute to campaigns, etc, by and large, want the government out of the way, except for basic rules and security and a bit of infrastructure.
Most Americans who vote, can see that China, with low taxes and building lots of coal-fired power plants has been growing four to 10 times higher than the high-tax, heavily regulated West.
Most Americans who vote, want lower taxes.
Most Americans who vote, want less regulations in the businesses they own or manage or work for.
Yes, it is true that both the right and the left believe that we could use more infrastructure investment. But the left wants to do it by taxation or debt, which is a non starter. The right wants to trade out-of-control public employee benefits and entitlements for it - and most Americans who vote are on their side.
It is quite simple. No need for name calling, desperation. Individuals who vote, contribute to campaigns, etc, by and large, want the government out of the way, except for basic rules and security and a bit of infrastructure.
1
Where is your source that 'most americans' want less regulations? I want the government to regulate chemicals in food, water, land and air. I want government regulations that mean safer highways. I want regulations that mean restaurant workers wash their hands. I want regulations that mean workers are going to work in safe environments. I want regulations so that the economy doesn't fall again like in 2008. Show me your source. Free markets can't and won't force a civilized safe society I want.
12
Remember Leon Festinger's famous _When Prophecy Fails_ that kicked off the theory of cognitive dissonance. Failure of predictions is motivation to push even harder and to recruit converts. So much for the rational man.
What is interesting with Republicans is that they have been running on scams so long that the objective observer has no idea of whether they believe anything they are saying. Sadly, the people to whom they appeal do believe and that is why the bad ideas play. We still have older folks looking under rocks for Communists.
I find it fun to ask if people can possibly believe what they are saying. With many economists, I assume that at least some do. The field has been using models disconnected from reality for a long time. Remember those rational men that Festinger debunked; some economists still believe in them. Of course, you would think that clear failures of predictions would cause people claiming the mantel of science to question their theories, and the consistent failure to do so leads to the charlatan hypothesis. What's the right term for people who continue to say things that they know to be untrue because they are being paid to do so?
What is interesting with Republicans is that they have been running on scams so long that the objective observer has no idea of whether they believe anything they are saying. Sadly, the people to whom they appeal do believe and that is why the bad ideas play. We still have older folks looking under rocks for Communists.
I find it fun to ask if people can possibly believe what they are saying. With many economists, I assume that at least some do. The field has been using models disconnected from reality for a long time. Remember those rational men that Festinger debunked; some economists still believe in them. Of course, you would think that clear failures of predictions would cause people claiming the mantel of science to question their theories, and the consistent failure to do so leads to the charlatan hypothesis. What's the right term for people who continue to say things that they know to be untrue because they are being paid to do so?
8
Brownback economics will lead to crumbling roads, higher tuitions, and government cut backs on programs that benefit the middle class. As the NYTs reported the unemployed poor have already been cut loose to wander the country like tramps back in the 1870s.
11
Mr. Krugman, I don't think it is fair to call these charlatans and cranks failures. For the last 35 years (since Ronald was elected) they have been spectacularly successful. It is the definition of success itself that is a sticking point. Success in their minds is funneling capital into the control of their benefactors. They have accomplished this goal. Lies, bribes, propaganda, gaming the vote, collusion, legal wrangling, brutality, death, war, these are merely techniques they use to accomplish their goals.
18
It's all about reestablishing the 15 percent tax rate on capital gains and dividends. There's trillions in wealth out there to be concentrated.
And there's trillions in private fortunes that have to be passed down to succeeding generations through more gift tax holidays, expanded rules for discounting, the entrenchment of family financial power in charitable trusts, and such.
And then there is the necklace: all those appointments as deputy undersecretaries of the treasury and assistant secretaryships, and deputy assistant secretaryships--the commanding heights of elite wealth preservation.
Putting forward million dollar political contributions is chickenfeed compared to the opportunities. And if peddling voodoo economics attracts the majority, well money talks.
And there's trillions in private fortunes that have to be passed down to succeeding generations through more gift tax holidays, expanded rules for discounting, the entrenchment of family financial power in charitable trusts, and such.
And then there is the necklace: all those appointments as deputy undersecretaries of the treasury and assistant secretaryships, and deputy assistant secretaryships--the commanding heights of elite wealth preservation.
Putting forward million dollar political contributions is chickenfeed compared to the opportunities. And if peddling voodoo economics attracts the majority, well money talks.
8
The supply siders were right. This is a fact that Mr. Krugman and his ilk consistently ignore. During the Reagan administration, tax revenue to the government doubled. Cutting taxes did, in fact increase revenue, just as Mr. Laffer and the other supply siders predicted. These are facts. Of course, Mr. Krugman knows this, but conveniently chooses to ignore it in his editorials. Deficits increased because government spending more than doubled. It seems that Republicans are no different from Democrats when it comes to controlling spending. It also appears that Democrats, like Mr. Krugman also prefer to believe doctrine rather than their own lying eyes.
1
ok, share the cite or data that shows tax receipts doubled and over what time period.
And please don't post anything stupid that shows whole dollars - the only measure that counts is as a percentage of GDP. And the data is clear that tax receipts fell sharply as a percentage of GDP from 1980 -1988.
And please don't post anything stupid that shows whole dollars - the only measure that counts is as a percentage of GDP. And the data is clear that tax receipts fell sharply as a percentage of GDP from 1980 -1988.
8
The supply siders created huge deficits that we still live with today. George Bush added to Reagan's deficits with the Iraq war, Medicare Part D and his tax cuts for the rich - all not paid for. Just add-ons to the deficit. The result being that the right wing spent all their time saying that the U.S. was "broke." They then starved the beast as their puppet master Grover Norquist dictated, resulting ultimately in a deregulated driven worldwide economic collapse on the watch of Bush.
Cutting spending under Reagan was never a consideration, as he knew the people wanted to live well and would not put up with a decrease in their standard of living. David Stockman told him so but Ronnie ignored his warnings. Today European nations have tried austerity to drive economic growth. The result has been disaster. It doesn't work there and it hasn't worked in Chris Christie's New Jersey with its embarrassingly bad economy that lags the nation.
The Republican's newest group of snake oil salesmen will continue to peddle this nonsense of creating prosperity from cutting spending and cutting taxes.
In the year of the sheep you never know how many people buy it.
Cutting spending under Reagan was never a consideration, as he knew the people wanted to live well and would not put up with a decrease in their standard of living. David Stockman told him so but Ronnie ignored his warnings. Today European nations have tried austerity to drive economic growth. The result has been disaster. It doesn't work there and it hasn't worked in Chris Christie's New Jersey with its embarrassingly bad economy that lags the nation.
The Republican's newest group of snake oil salesmen will continue to peddle this nonsense of creating prosperity from cutting spending and cutting taxes.
In the year of the sheep you never know how many people buy it.
6
I'm not a supply sider, but I think the theory is that it will grow the GDP, so even if taxation as a percentage of GDP drops, the total tax raised increases. If you then don't blow the spending side, the deficit shrinks. So theoretically at least, measuring taxation as a percentage of the GDP is not the only measure that counts. In practice it didn't work since the Republicans didn't control spending.
Talk about seeing black and saying white! To pat liberals on the back for this lousy recovery is insane. Inflation? I suggest you look at the developing countries and tell them your idea. Sure we have no inflation, but with no lending there is no recovery either!!! Thanks a lot. And with interest rates kept low, there is no retirement. Thanks a lot. And the ACA? I suggest you talk to the 95% who had insurance and ask how they are doing. Rates have increased and deductibles are out of control. Thanks a lot. And foreign policy? I suggest you reread your 20th century history and see how WWI and WWII started. Thanks a lot. Don't be such a smart guy.
1
I wouldn't even know where to begin disentangling this full spaghetti platter of nonsense, but you might want to try reading Tuchman's "Guns of August," so you at least know there was a rather large set of differences between WW1 and WW2.
really hard to follow your disjointed comment but 2 points - there were 50 million uninsured Americans before the ACA, meaning that 86% of Americans had health insurance, including Medicare, Medicaid and the VA, not 95%.
2nd point is did you read the article? Krugman is hardly patting liberals on the back. Rather, and very appropriately, he is pointing out that listening the charlatans and cranks is required for Republican candidates, and that he sees this as a problem.
2nd point is did you read the article? Krugman is hardly patting liberals on the back. Rather, and very appropriately, he is pointing out that listening the charlatans and cranks is required for Republican candidates, and that he sees this as a problem.
Do you have ANY shred of data to back up anything you just wrote? I doubt it.
To call the economic concepts embraced by Republicans "doctrine" gives too much credit for logic and reasoning. "Superstition" seems a more apt description. "Pretext" is even better.
8
Next up - Gov. Walker washes the feet of both Koch brothers.
12
"But let’s go back to those economic charlatans and cranks: Clearly, failure has only made them stronger, and now they are political kingmakers. Be very, very afraid."
I know I'm shaking in my boots, Professor. Glad I have you looking out for us.
I know I'm shaking in my boots, Professor. Glad I have you looking out for us.
2
The GOP. "Often wrong. Never in doubt"
18
You had me at Kudlow and Moore!
These two cheerleaders for Wall Street are at the heart of what is wrong with Republican economic policies. They keep digging up failed policies and expecting them to work the fourth or fifth time they are tried.
Kudlow in particular has never seen a Wall Street initiative he hasn't loved. At some point the press might recognize this man is a paid shill and makes most of his living not advisising but in commenting on CNBC and the other cable channels dedicated to hyping capitalism even if it might have already been overhyped.
Supply side is supposed to be a kinder gentler trickle down. It is not; just another "theory" for economic redistribution to the top. Scott Walker is behind this theory for the simplest of reasons; look who is behind Scott Walker and funding his campaign.
These two cheerleaders for Wall Street are at the heart of what is wrong with Republican economic policies. They keep digging up failed policies and expecting them to work the fourth or fifth time they are tried.
Kudlow in particular has never seen a Wall Street initiative he hasn't loved. At some point the press might recognize this man is a paid shill and makes most of his living not advisising but in commenting on CNBC and the other cable channels dedicated to hyping capitalism even if it might have already been overhyped.
Supply side is supposed to be a kinder gentler trickle down. It is not; just another "theory" for economic redistribution to the top. Scott Walker is behind this theory for the simplest of reasons; look who is behind Scott Walker and funding his campaign.
9
Are there any historic precedents for a political party doing what the Republicans seem to be doing? Not sure what to call it, "imagining themselves to irrelavance", "defining themselves out of existance"? By accepting an anti-science, anti-fact agenda and pretending that we all want to go back and live in the past, the party becomes more and more of a joke. Comedians don't need writers, they just play video of Sarah Palin pretending she's speaking in complete sentences, or recite the text of a plan to outlaw yoga pants.
Has this happened before? Is this the way opposition parties die? Surely a sane opposition will arise but in the mean time I am somewhat afraid but still laughing.
Has this happened before? Is this the way opposition parties die? Surely a sane opposition will arise but in the mean time I am somewhat afraid but still laughing.
6
Kansas and its benighted fool of a governor, Sam Brown, have been a laboratory for supply side stupidity for the past four years and the result is a disaster and proof final that if you cut taxes you cut spending by government and that if you cut government spending it means less money injected into the private sector from spending of public payrolls, pensions and benefit, less direct purchasing by government of everything from paper clips to massive construction road and highway contracts and the creation of more want and need that creates a demand for more subsistence spending by guess what? Yes, by government.
Kansas is proof that Mr. Lafer, who really after 40 years of preaching his stupid ideas, ought to crawl off somewhere dark and hidden and stop poisoning the American economy and the United States. Lafer would be laughable if his idiocy had not and did not continue to cause the economic, fiscal, financial and human damage it has caused across nearly two generations by now.
Kansas is proof that Mr. Lafer, who really after 40 years of preaching his stupid ideas, ought to crawl off somewhere dark and hidden and stop poisoning the American economy and the United States. Lafer would be laughable if his idiocy had not and did not continue to cause the economic, fiscal, financial and human damage it has caused across nearly two generations by now.
7
Krugman, a charlatan extraordinaire, needs to look in the mirror and explain why he pushed the ACA when we know from Prof. Grubner that it was a fraud and passed by depicts. Krugman needs to explain how massive borrowing that he pushes wrecked the economy in Greece. Krugman needs to explain how having health insurance doesn't mean one has health care. Krugman needs to explain why temperatures have not risen in 18 years yet CO2 levels have. Krugman needs to stop acting like Obama's foreign policy has been anything but an unmitigated disaster on all fronts. As I see it, Krugman is a college professor and that means he knows virtually nothing about the real world.
2
Here's a thought: you may not want to recite Hannity's claims word for word while yelling about how college profs don't know anything about the real world.
Come to think of it, you might even want to try just showing where Krugman's got his facts wrong.
Come to think of it, you might even want to try just showing where Krugman's got his facts wrong.
1
That is not what Gruber Said; he actually said that it was too complicated to explain to voters so it was dressed to pass opinion polls. And where do you see Krugman pushing for Greek style borrowing? Besides there is no comparison to Greece - we have our own currency, duh.
if you want to deny global warming fine, just don't come asking for taxpayer dollars when the next mega storm hits Houston.
if you want to deny global warming fine, just don't come asking for taxpayer dollars when the next mega storm hits Houston.
1
Ah, a member of the flat earth society, living in an alternate universe of myth, beholden to no facts but the facts he is certain he knows.
3
Alas, conservative America can't achieve true greatness without its own Berlusconi. It takes only talent to produce bad ideas. It takes genius to execute them with style.
5
If you didn't much care for that last recession, you better hope it doesn't come to pass.
Individual Capitalism probably started before recorded history when a successful cave hunter returned to his cave and traded parts of his dead animal to other members of his cave clan for some fruit the other member has in his/her possession, or maybe something else of value such as a weapon or sexual services.
Foreign Trade between clans probably started when a successful hunter passing the cave of another clan might have traded some of his dead animal parts for that other clan’s things of value such as a weapons, tools or sexual services.
Traders took chances by approaching foreigners because those foreigners might have just killed the hunter and taken his possessions if the hunter was not also a good warrior to defend himself.
The hunter’s tribe would also probably descend onto foreign hunters that wandered into their areas of control and then kill them for their possessions.
Pirates at sea also killed their hapless victims on the high seas when the victims were caught by the pirates on the high seas.
During the Westward trek of the pioneers to settle the West in the late 19th century, the Mormons stopped and killed the westward pioneers and settlers that encountered the Mormons, who then took all of the traveler’s possessions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre
Traders and other foreign travelers must be prepared to defend themselves from attack at all times with the best weapons that they can afford.
Foreign Trade between clans probably started when a successful hunter passing the cave of another clan might have traded some of his dead animal parts for that other clan’s things of value such as a weapons, tools or sexual services.
Traders took chances by approaching foreigners because those foreigners might have just killed the hunter and taken his possessions if the hunter was not also a good warrior to defend himself.
The hunter’s tribe would also probably descend onto foreign hunters that wandered into their areas of control and then kill them for their possessions.
Pirates at sea also killed their hapless victims on the high seas when the victims were caught by the pirates on the high seas.
During the Westward trek of the pioneers to settle the West in the late 19th century, the Mormons stopped and killed the westward pioneers and settlers that encountered the Mormons, who then took all of the traveler’s possessions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre
Traders and other foreign travelers must be prepared to defend themselves from attack at all times with the best weapons that they can afford.
2
Walker's supply side hasn't worked the way he hoped it would in Wisconsin… and now he faces a $283,000,000 deficit. But no worry, he'll close the gap by skipping payment on a $108,000,000 debt. For details read this:
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/02/19/3624622/walker-budget-debt-p...
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/02/19/3624622/walker-budget-debt-p...
7
I'll be more blunt than Professor Krugman can be:
These people are liars, sycophants, and sociopaths.
These "economists" and politicians say what they say because they're paid big bucks to say it.
The rich and corporations decide what policies they want enacted.
They buy sycophant politicians to push these policies and enact them.
The politicians buy economists who are willing to lie to give the politicians and rich/corporations cover.
In the end, these policies seriously harm millions of Americans. And none of these people care (hence, they are sociopathic). The more people the hurt, the more money they make.
Art Laffer was the chief architect of Kansas' ruinous policies enforced by governor Brownback. After getting EVERYTHING they wanted (using the other Republican charlatans), Kansas looks bleak. They underperform in EVERY economic metric one can imagine.
Art Laffer's response? (As of January 17, 2015):
Laffer said while he is “not surprised,” he didn’t know why the deficits have occurred. He still believes adamantly in his supply-side economic theory: If you reduce income taxes, you will raise more revenue, not less.
Just when the revenue starts to rise is another matter.
“You have to view this over 10 years,” Laffer said. “It will work in Kansas.”
(quotes from article by Steve Rose in the Kansas City Star, 1/17/15)
These people are liars, sycophants, and sociopaths.
These "economists" and politicians say what they say because they're paid big bucks to say it.
The rich and corporations decide what policies they want enacted.
They buy sycophant politicians to push these policies and enact them.
The politicians buy economists who are willing to lie to give the politicians and rich/corporations cover.
In the end, these policies seriously harm millions of Americans. And none of these people care (hence, they are sociopathic). The more people the hurt, the more money they make.
Art Laffer was the chief architect of Kansas' ruinous policies enforced by governor Brownback. After getting EVERYTHING they wanted (using the other Republican charlatans), Kansas looks bleak. They underperform in EVERY economic metric one can imagine.
Art Laffer's response? (As of January 17, 2015):
Laffer said while he is “not surprised,” he didn’t know why the deficits have occurred. He still believes adamantly in his supply-side economic theory: If you reduce income taxes, you will raise more revenue, not less.
Just when the revenue starts to rise is another matter.
“You have to view this over 10 years,” Laffer said. “It will work in Kansas.”
(quotes from article by Steve Rose in the Kansas City Star, 1/17/15)
7
Totally unfair attack on authentically genius Republican economists! Just as the current emergence from recession is due to the undeniable fact that Republicans control both houses of Congress, so the Great Recession itself was obviously due to White House control by Democrats. Had McCain or Romney been elected instead of Obama, a thousand flowers would have bloomed, everyone would have had a job and Iraq would have petitioned Congress to become the 51st state.
6
Paul, you, progressives, moderates and centrists are being out megaphoned. Listen to Kudlow on the radio. The supply side mantra amplified with guest after guest swearing its magic works. Hocus pocus just let people keep their own money. Dumb government only wants to regulate God fearing capitalists out of business. OK, I'm exaggerating but just a little.
Now, if it were only one Larry Kudlow preaching to the choir you and other competent economists would have an audience. Move up and down the radio dial and there's Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, Levin, and dozen of lesser lights. Turn on the cable stations business media and message reverberates with graphs, charts and unchallenged statements of fiction as fact.Why just look at the budget: no family could spend like this crazy government does. Didn't you know Obama is a Muslim, Marxist, Kenyan atheist who is destroying our way of life? Why he wants all people to have medical care. Told you he's a commie.
Seriously, for every Krugman and Stiglitz there are twenty, thirty commentators promoting an opposite view along with 'hosts' on the financial shows like CNBC , Fox business. The Kudlows,Moores have the megaphones.They repeat their opinion of the facts over and over and it becomes the reality.
Paul, you're just going to have to clone yourself to counter balance this pox Or maybe as the economy improves and we look overseas at the failure of austerity from Europe to Japan voters will realize who has their backs.
Now, if it were only one Larry Kudlow preaching to the choir you and other competent economists would have an audience. Move up and down the radio dial and there's Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, Levin, and dozen of lesser lights. Turn on the cable stations business media and message reverberates with graphs, charts and unchallenged statements of fiction as fact.Why just look at the budget: no family could spend like this crazy government does. Didn't you know Obama is a Muslim, Marxist, Kenyan atheist who is destroying our way of life? Why he wants all people to have medical care. Told you he's a commie.
Seriously, for every Krugman and Stiglitz there are twenty, thirty commentators promoting an opposite view along with 'hosts' on the financial shows like CNBC , Fox business. The Kudlows,Moores have the megaphones.They repeat their opinion of the facts over and over and it becomes the reality.
Paul, you're just going to have to clone yourself to counter balance this pox Or maybe as the economy improves and we look overseas at the failure of austerity from Europe to Japan voters will realize who has their backs.
8
It's hard to believe a guy like Kudlow has a position of responsibility at a serious business network. He's really much more akin to cheerleader and true believer than analyst. Frankly, it's embarrassing.
1
One only needs to be married to know that it is possible for one person to have a firm grip on reality and for another person to have "abandoned the idea that there is an objective reality out there." Why should politics be any different?
The people shilling for the Koch boys and their friends may have degrees in economics, but that is not the profession they are pursuing presently. They are now in advertising where it is perfectly permissable to lie through your teeth and let the buyer beware. Everything that comes from the right wing is pure propaganda. Truth is not only unnecessary, it is a hinderance.
As for accountability, how silly! Everyone knows that responibility and accountability are only for the "little people". The elite need not tell the truth, be held accounable for their actions, or pay taxes. Haven't you learned anything since 2008?
As for accountability, how silly! Everyone knows that responibility and accountability are only for the "little people". The elite need not tell the truth, be held accounable for their actions, or pay taxes. Haven't you learned anything since 2008?
14
Unfortunately, the Republicans have been successful in winning elections by peddling this kind of nonsense. It seems that a great many people who listen to hate radio and watch "fair and balanced" FOX news believe the bilge that they spew out. They've been effectively brainwashed into believing what they're told, regardless of the actual truth.
Part of the actual truth is that Gov. Walker, along with other presidential aspirants, has been heavily funded by Americans for Prosperity and other Koch brothers organizations. And he has bought into their goals and their brand of "disinformation" to get them. The goals are reducing government spending on the poor and the middle class, increasing spending on welfare programs for the corporate rich, and cutting taxes on the very wealthy. All the talk about supply-side economics, along with excuses for imposing "austerity" on the lower classes, are part of this game plan.
Thanks to Citizens United and other recent Supreme Court decisions, money now determines elections more than ever, and those billionaires like the Kochs who have lots of it are effectively buying our government to run for their special corporate interests. But they still need our votes, so they'll push any crackpot theory that they think gullible people will believe and vote accordingly.
Part of the actual truth is that Gov. Walker, along with other presidential aspirants, has been heavily funded by Americans for Prosperity and other Koch brothers organizations. And he has bought into their goals and their brand of "disinformation" to get them. The goals are reducing government spending on the poor and the middle class, increasing spending on welfare programs for the corporate rich, and cutting taxes on the very wealthy. All the talk about supply-side economics, along with excuses for imposing "austerity" on the lower classes, are part of this game plan.
Thanks to Citizens United and other recent Supreme Court decisions, money now determines elections more than ever, and those billionaires like the Kochs who have lots of it are effectively buying our government to run for their special corporate interests. But they still need our votes, so they'll push any crackpot theory that they think gullible people will believe and vote accordingly.
8
Charles Babbage on wrong inputs: "On two occasions I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
7
I spent a great deal of my working career as an application programmer And we had a simple maxim for the question asked of Mr. Babbage, 'garbage in, garbage out.'
Objective reality? Conservatism is the belief in a romantically pure past that never existed to which it wants to return us. It neither begins or ends with reality.
12
Hard to point to any GOP hates government and uses their power to tear things down. Cutting taxes and services is always their most salient theme, as well as increased defense spending, which profit their defense contractors. The GOP profits from war without sacrifice, so what does it matter to them, why not go to war, its hardly ever their children who are maimed or dismembered. Hopefully the Dems will win in 2016, were not ready for the GOP to tear down what has been built up yet, for they inevitable will when they occupy the White House.
1
Yes, there is no amount of wrongness that can get you banned from being a conservative leader. Indeed, angering people in the reality-based community is a badge of honor.
5
Laffer has been proven completely wrong on virtually everything, yet the GOP still follows his theories as if they were fact. Help me understand this.
3
Here's the secret: the theories don't matter. All that matters is the policy prescriptions. As long as the 1 percent don't have to pay more taxes, they'll happily subscribe to the theory that the moon is made of green cheese.
2
Supply side economics has always been the rationalization the Republican Party uses to sell tax-cuts for rich people to the 99%. It has always been baloney and they know it, so pointing it out isn’t going to do much good. This re-packaging of trickledown economics has been remarkable effective at fooling people who know nothing about economics into thinking they are getting something for nothing. The Rich get to keep their money and the rest of us are supposed to get a thriving economy, only the economy never thrives. All we have gotten is the worst inequality since before the Great Depression. The Republicans just declare victory, blame Democrats for everything and keep peddling nonsense, and the American people keep buying it. It’s bulletproof, no matter how many pundits point out that it is poppycock and mumbo jumbo the people can’t resist it, because the one thing the American People want more than their freedom is a free lunch.
12
Saint Ronald Wilson Reagan told us that we could cut taxes and increase spending forever because neither deficits nor debt matter in an exceptionally corrupt crony capitalist nation like America. And any one who disagrees is liberal socialist lazy ignorant immoral welfare king or queen who does not love America or Americans.
9
Scott Walker's night out at 21 is hardly his introduction to this crowd. Art Laffer is one of four scholars listed by ALEC as representing its board of scholars; ALEC blueprinted much of the state GOP legislation that made Scott Walker a media sensation. (Indeed, it was by pointing out not only Walker's McCarthyesque approach to politics but also his relation to ALEC in a NYT op-ed piece that U. of Wisconsin historian Bill Cronon invited the Wisconsin GOP's, well, McCarthyesque wrath--which Paul Krugman wrote about at the time.) Walker's hardly just some ambitious pol who now needs to court supply-side kingmakers; Walker himself is a movement ideologue committed to the same right-wing revolution as are Laffer and Kudlow.
11
One suspects that if Laffer and friends changed their minds, Walker would continue in lockstep to follow them. He is less of a true believed than a rank opportunist- the accent is on "rank".
This column reminds me of when I was teaching a social science evaluation of evidence class at UC Berkeley. The class taught the students how to critically evaluate empirical research, based upon the quality of the research and the extent to which the evidence supported the conclusions.
On hf the young men came up ot me incensed because I was teaching material that "Got in the way of his right ot have an opinion."
It is one thing when that opinion is held by an 18 years old ..........
On hf the young men came up ot me incensed because I was teaching material that "Got in the way of his right ot have an opinion."
It is one thing when that opinion is held by an 18 years old ..........
10
But soon, that type of teaching won't be around - at least in Wisconsin if Walker has his way because it isn't "training for jobs".
On the topic of political cranks in action, how absolutely delightful this morning on business cable, to see two of the Right's favorite snake oil peddlers literally screaming at each other as to whether its a good idea to claim Obama doesn't love America. The screaming coming from neo-con Iraq war promoter Dan Senor, and Tea Party Joe Kernan, who shills for the Wall Street hedgies.
4
The columnist, an economist, misunderstand the art of politics.
Politicians never pledged allegiance to any group.
To be elected they tell each group what it would like to hear, perfectly non specific, lest it could hold you accountable later.
Politicians never pledged allegiance to any group.
To be elected they tell each group what it would like to hear, perfectly non specific, lest it could hold you accountable later.
1
...and a pledge to never ever raise taxes to the little tax protester himslef, G.Norquist.
I believe part of the problem is that we - liberals and conservatives alike - often only surround ourselves with people who share our views, and very rarely do we turn a magnifying glass on our selves. If you are surrounded by people who think the way you do, and always reach the same conclusions, your views and positions are never refined and instead are treated as untested gospel. Facts should control, and we should hold ourselves to them. With all that said, I think Mr. Krugman is always right and on point.
53
Prof. Krugman does a great service to identify Laffer, Kudlow and Moore both as "charlatans and cranks" and as "the three most prominent supply-siders". Harvard Professor Mankiw (George W. Bush’s chief economic adviser) has long warned of “supply-siders” who falsely promise that tax cuts would cause deficits to go down, not up. Of course, a cut in the capital gains tax rate could spur a temporary tax revenue increase from those that have borrowed against appreciated assets that might be sold off.
In any event, it is a bit over the top to suggest that Governor Walker has "pledged allegiance" to these charlatans and more extreme to suggest that these three old dogs have created Republican, "party orthodoxy". Senators Rubio and Lee are proposing tax reform with a top income rate of 35% - a number much too high to be invited to the dinner at the "21 Club". Other conservatives like James Capretta, a Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, is pushing for a reduction in payroll taxes and researching improvements in health care. See https://www.aei.org/publication/cut-payroll-tax/
Of course there are spin doctors, like Bill O'Reilly, who present tax reforms issues like a "wealth tax" with a sociologist and this week spoke of a "flat tax" with ignorant fellow news anchors apparently to prepare the Fox audience for very low tax reform expectations in the 2016 race.
In any event, it is a bit over the top to suggest that Governor Walker has "pledged allegiance" to these charlatans and more extreme to suggest that these three old dogs have created Republican, "party orthodoxy". Senators Rubio and Lee are proposing tax reform with a top income rate of 35% - a number much too high to be invited to the dinner at the "21 Club". Other conservatives like James Capretta, a Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, is pushing for a reduction in payroll taxes and researching improvements in health care. See https://www.aei.org/publication/cut-payroll-tax/
Of course there are spin doctors, like Bill O'Reilly, who present tax reforms issues like a "wealth tax" with a sociologist and this week spoke of a "flat tax" with ignorant fellow news anchors apparently to prepare the Fox audience for very low tax reform expectations in the 2016 race.
2
This is what Charles P. Pierce warned us was happening in his book "Idiot America - How Stupidity Became A Virtue in the Land of the Free." The three Great Premises of Idiot America:
• Any theory is valid if it sells books, soaks up ratings, or otherwise moves units
• Anything can be true if someone says it loudly enough
• Fact is that which enough people believe. Truth is determined by how fervently they believe it
It's not a coincidence that wherever the Republicans have taken control at the state level, one of the big items on their agenda is dismantling public education, all the way up to the university level. Look at what is happening in Art Pope's North Carolina, Scott Walker's Wisconsin, Rick Scott's Florida, Rick Perry's Texas - they are all busy defunding schools, cutting programs that challenge GOP orthodoxy, and imposing ideological purity.
Partly it's the charter school crowd who want to profitize education for private gain. Partly it's Randian free market ideology on steroids - Fox News host Lisa Kennedy Montgomery recently said there really shouldn't be public schools anymore. Partly it's people like the Koch Brothers, funding think tanks and college programs for the sole purpose of spreading their view of the world - and suppressing alternatives.
Thank you Dr. Krugman for calling them out. Charlatans and cranks is exactly what they are. Now if only the rest of the media would wake up and say so...
• Any theory is valid if it sells books, soaks up ratings, or otherwise moves units
• Anything can be true if someone says it loudly enough
• Fact is that which enough people believe. Truth is determined by how fervently they believe it
It's not a coincidence that wherever the Republicans have taken control at the state level, one of the big items on their agenda is dismantling public education, all the way up to the university level. Look at what is happening in Art Pope's North Carolina, Scott Walker's Wisconsin, Rick Scott's Florida, Rick Perry's Texas - they are all busy defunding schools, cutting programs that challenge GOP orthodoxy, and imposing ideological purity.
Partly it's the charter school crowd who want to profitize education for private gain. Partly it's Randian free market ideology on steroids - Fox News host Lisa Kennedy Montgomery recently said there really shouldn't be public schools anymore. Partly it's people like the Koch Brothers, funding think tanks and college programs for the sole purpose of spreading their view of the world - and suppressing alternatives.
Thank you Dr. Krugman for calling them out. Charlatans and cranks is exactly what they are. Now if only the rest of the media would wake up and say so...
16
These folks are propagandists. They subscribe to the Howard Cosell school of broadcast journalism. Predict that the running back who just broke off a fifty yard gain will be a star someday in the NFL. Make that prediction dozens of times a game. No one remembers all the times you were wrong, but you can always remind the about the one you got right. That makes you an "expert." Who's to claim otherwise.
As the Leninist said: "Never become a victim of your own propaganda."
As the Leninist said: "Never become a victim of your own propaganda."
3
Mr. Krugman I gave up on objective truth with the Nixon presidency. The difference now, however, is the media and political class don't hide the truth, they advertise the lie, and tell it over and over again.
5
Everybody's entitled to their own facts. But you had better hold the correct opinions, or else.
5
professor krugman,
you are a national treasure. by calling out these 'cranks and charlatans' you do a great service. dont ever stop. it will make a difference someday.
you are a national treasure. by calling out these 'cranks and charlatans' you do a great service. dont ever stop. it will make a difference someday.
8
regarding analysis: Paul is correct about republican fidelity to a doctrine that trumps empirical reality that has demonstrated to be not correct for 30 years now.
I appreciate the ending point about the need to be "very afraid," but I would suggest that if you start to define the supply side doctrine as an ideology and begin to compare the politicians to Soviet leaders whose blind adherence to ideology led to their downfall and the rise of (a) Putin perhaps Paul's columns could help the people realize that the time for being afraid is over as a useful emotional position. Fear begets more fear, we are in a burning building and we need to save human lives. We need some heroics here.
I appreciate the ending point about the need to be "very afraid," but I would suggest that if you start to define the supply side doctrine as an ideology and begin to compare the politicians to Soviet leaders whose blind adherence to ideology led to their downfall and the rise of (a) Putin perhaps Paul's columns could help the people realize that the time for being afraid is over as a useful emotional position. Fear begets more fear, we are in a burning building and we need to save human lives. We need some heroics here.
I no longer am afraid, I am devoid of any hope for our collective futures.
4
Another eloquent treatment of conservative fantasy. And yet we all have friends and neighbors who spout nonsense as gospel everyday.
4
I can tell you that out here in the trenches, the GOP Machine has very successfully managed to skirt around the myriad complexities that brought about the Great Recession, re-writing history, spinning yarns, and focusing like a laser on the Dems, Barney Frank, Fannie Mae, Bill Clinton, and anything other than those GOP policies in which they were complicit that brought the economy to the point of collapse.
They have managed to morph the subsequent Obama recovery into a Tale of Two Takes - yes, there was a recovery, but no, it isn't good enough, yes, the statistics show growth, but no, those statistics are suspect, ok - maybe the intransigent GOP was instrumental in slowing down the recovery, but the Dems are just as bad - BOTH parties are to blame. And all the while they obsessively, relentlessly shred Obama, as they are loathe to give our black president any credit for saving America from ruin.
The GOP Machine is very, very good at pounding their message home, shamelessly, cynically, without hesitation despite the many inconsistencies and lack of logic, ignoring any facts, statistics, or research that dispute their propaganda. The fact that Scott Walker has ascended to the level of a serious presidential contender is the proof that the propaganda is working.
They have managed to morph the subsequent Obama recovery into a Tale of Two Takes - yes, there was a recovery, but no, it isn't good enough, yes, the statistics show growth, but no, those statistics are suspect, ok - maybe the intransigent GOP was instrumental in slowing down the recovery, but the Dems are just as bad - BOTH parties are to blame. And all the while they obsessively, relentlessly shred Obama, as they are loathe to give our black president any credit for saving America from ruin.
The GOP Machine is very, very good at pounding their message home, shamelessly, cynically, without hesitation despite the many inconsistencies and lack of logic, ignoring any facts, statistics, or research that dispute their propaganda. The fact that Scott Walker has ascended to the level of a serious presidential contender is the proof that the propaganda is working.
8
It seems that Republicans are ignorant of macroeconomics, but Democrats are ignorant of microeconomics. What a mess!
1
What are you talking about? Where are Democrats ignorant of micro? And why does that matter?
1
"...the modern American right seems to have abandoned the idea that there is an objective reality out there, even if it’s not what your prejudices say should be happening. "
This single sentence rather succinctly sums up the religious doctrine of today's G.O.TP. A writer could choose any issue of political, economic, or scientific interest, and write volumes about how the sentence above is revealed in that issue. The G.O.TP. is today the party of denial of reality, a right-wing, racist, Woodstock Of Ignorance.
And yes, I am very afraid.
This single sentence rather succinctly sums up the religious doctrine of today's G.O.TP. A writer could choose any issue of political, economic, or scientific interest, and write volumes about how the sentence above is revealed in that issue. The G.O.TP. is today the party of denial of reality, a right-wing, racist, Woodstock Of Ignorance.
And yes, I am very afraid.
2
Maybe,had the Obama people investigated "...the very people who insisted that the Iraqis would welcome us as liberators..." there would be no prospect of their return! Maybe,and it is maybe,justice would have been done!
8
The oligarchs who run the GOP know their wish list is forever unpalatable to the majority, so they have a program of "democracy management" they have pursued for generations:
MISINFORM -- A recent study of various news outlets tested which forums kept their viewers/listeners/readers best informed. People who watched Fox News exclusively were actually LESS informed than people who said they didn't watch, listen to or read any news at all. Fox News intentionally misinforms their viewers.
MAL-EDUCATE -- Red states are consistently at the bottom of the pack when it comes to education, both in public schools and public universities. Rule of thumb: the better the football team, the worse the education (UMich and Stanford are exceptions, among several). Why is that? Because the people who run these states -- frequently resource-based economies -- want laborers, not innovators, not analysts, not critics. They send their own kids north to get educated, generally.
LIE LIKE HELL -- They honestly feel they are doing God's work when they lie. They are wrong.
MISINFORM -- A recent study of various news outlets tested which forums kept their viewers/listeners/readers best informed. People who watched Fox News exclusively were actually LESS informed than people who said they didn't watch, listen to or read any news at all. Fox News intentionally misinforms their viewers.
MAL-EDUCATE -- Red states are consistently at the bottom of the pack when it comes to education, both in public schools and public universities. Rule of thumb: the better the football team, the worse the education (UMich and Stanford are exceptions, among several). Why is that? Because the people who run these states -- frequently resource-based economies -- want laborers, not innovators, not analysts, not critics. They send their own kids north to get educated, generally.
LIE LIKE HELL -- They honestly feel they are doing God's work when they lie. They are wrong.
12
Correction, and I say this as a proud UMich alumnus, Michigan no longer has a good football team ;(
I started typing rational, cogent responses to this article several times (you'll never know what you missed), but.. the heck with it.
Rationality and facts are clearly not getting the job done. We need to figure out some way to trick people into voting in their own best interests. I'm open to suggestions.
Rationality and facts are clearly not getting the job done. We need to figure out some way to trick people into voting in their own best interests. I'm open to suggestions.
14
Has to happen from the ground up. Credible organizations with wide appeal have to rise outside the party system. They either take over the political system from below, scare it into submission, or a little of both.
Seems like this would take a long time and is far off. But one massive systems fail -- the Great Depression was one -- and we're off and running. If the GOP had actually been able to cut Social Security seriously and revert Medicare to the voucher system and defund Medicaid, we'd be there now. Heck, one good plague would collapse the medical system, and then what?
Seems like this would take a long time and is far off. But one massive systems fail -- the Great Depression was one -- and we're off and running. If the GOP had actually been able to cut Social Security seriously and revert Medicare to the voucher system and defund Medicaid, we'd be there now. Heck, one good plague would collapse the medical system, and then what?
2
We debate issues. They appeal to fear and a cult of personality serendipitously coalesced around a conditioned response to hate this un-American President. We rely on research, calculations, and studies which put people to sleep. They rely on sound bites. They throw some phony numbers at the wall, we have to clean up after them. It's well known in the audiophile world that in comparing speakers, an inferior set of speakers can be made to sound better by playing them at a louder volume than the otherwise superior ones. We have to get louder. And dumber.
2
@Rich: try-
" If you want someone to accept information that contradicts what they already know, you have to find a story they can buy into. That requires bridging the narrative they’ve already constructed to a new one that is both true and allows them to remain the kind of person they believe themselves to be."
from:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/your-brain-is-primed-to-reach-false-...
by
Christie Aschwanden
" If you want someone to accept information that contradicts what they already know, you have to find a story they can buy into. That requires bridging the narrative they’ve already constructed to a new one that is both true and allows them to remain the kind of person they believe themselves to be."
from:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/your-brain-is-primed-to-reach-false-...
by
Christie Aschwanden
1
talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
When President Obama first talked about raising the minimum wage, Paul Krugman quickly published an article supporting such an increase. Yet, even a first-year student in economics knows price controls distort the resource allocation function of prices, thus benefiting one group or special interests at the expense of the rest of society. Although some will receive a higher minimum wage, many others will simply be thrown under the bus. A political pundit should not be masquerading as an economist.
When President Obama first talked about raising the minimum wage, Paul Krugman quickly published an article supporting such an increase. Yet, even a first-year student in economics knows price controls distort the resource allocation function of prices, thus benefiting one group or special interests at the expense of the rest of society. Although some will receive a higher minimum wage, many others will simply be thrown under the bus. A political pundit should not be masquerading as an economist.
Prof. Paul Krugman has a Nobel Prize in Economics. He's NOT a political pundit.
1
As do social safety nets, various forms of subsidies (e.g., farming), taxes, reporting requirements ... the list is nearly endless.
So, what exactly is your point ...
So, what exactly is your point ...
1
Changing the subject? I think Krugman has extremely good reasons for predicting the whole economy will improve if the minimum wage is raised. Because we're in a demand crisis.
1
The GOP's greatest fear is an educated electorate that dwelleth not in complete and prejudiced ignorance and self induced terror. The other party seems a bit adverse to personal accountability at times and solutions based on blowing out all the candles. For example; countering the Islamic fundamentalists with rec-centers, and Walmart work.
8
Well, the other party is killing them too, isn't that what you want? But that is not a long term solution even you would have to admit. Bringing them into the world economy eventually, which will raise their standard of living and improve their infrastructure will do more than the status quo. If they can work it will be an alternative to terrorizing. What's the republican plan btw besides criticizing 24/7/365?
Except no one in "the other party" ever actually said that. So another thing the right is good at is taking comments out of all meaningful context. The left doesn't need to do that because the right can be skewered with its own actual words. "You didn't build that." Taken out of context. "What difference does it make." Taken out of context. I could go on a while.
1
I like your comment about how the charlatans and cranks have evaded all personal responsibility. When California "deregulated" electricity in the 1990s to reduce rates and instead we got much higher rates, blackouts, and utility bankruptcies, the same sort of charlatans kept getting their high hourly fees.
This is ironic because conservative ideology calls for personal responsibility as the highest moral value. What happened to true conservative values?
This is ironic because conservative ideology calls for personal responsibility as the highest moral value. What happened to true conservative values?
13
I do recall Dick Cheney talking about power conservation during that time -- he said it was a "personal choice," and not something that was a charter of the government.
So there you have it. Personal responsibility is a personal choice; mandating it would be fascism.
So there you have it. Personal responsibility is a personal choice; mandating it would be fascism.
The members of any family, tribe, city, state, or nation can reflect the amount of their real taxable national wealth and financial security as a total of their net positive accumulation of privately owned taxable wealth including grain, gold, cattle, jewels, land, buildings, hotels, casinos, factories, commodities, and/or other marketable products that is available for government confiscation via taxes to pay for government activities.
These taxable assets are then also available to be used for economic security for reserve use in times of emergency, to raise the standard of living for the members of that family and also to pay for military defense, police, firemen, and teachers, to take care of those family members that cannot take care of themselves, to construct infrastructure, and etc.
This wealth is then also becomes available as collateral (products, commodities, and/or title to locally in-country located real estate assets) to redeem any printed paper currency that they might care to issue.
This privately owned wealth is then also available as “mortgage” collateral for any paper Treasury Bonds that they might care to print and sell or exchange, since if that government does not repay the bond, the bondholders can sell those bonds to a bank and buy US located National Wealth assets with that money.
That national wealth is then "as good as gold" for making that government's freshly printed paper currency have purchasing value.
These taxable assets are then also available to be used for economic security for reserve use in times of emergency, to raise the standard of living for the members of that family and also to pay for military defense, police, firemen, and teachers, to take care of those family members that cannot take care of themselves, to construct infrastructure, and etc.
This wealth is then also becomes available as collateral (products, commodities, and/or title to locally in-country located real estate assets) to redeem any printed paper currency that they might care to issue.
This privately owned wealth is then also available as “mortgage” collateral for any paper Treasury Bonds that they might care to print and sell or exchange, since if that government does not repay the bond, the bondholders can sell those bonds to a bank and buy US located National Wealth assets with that money.
That national wealth is then "as good as gold" for making that government's freshly printed paper currency have purchasing value.
2
Let's be honest about this GOP today. If you desire peace and prosperity, they are offering more neo-con foreign and national security policies and more trickle-down economic policies. They have nothing else. Dems aren't perfect, but indications are that they are considering ideas to improve upon the peace/prosperity achieved under Bill Clinton--a much better starting point.
79
Ironically, the aggregate supply side might now be more important than the aggregate demand side of the macroeconomy. What do I mean by this? The "supplysiders" have been wrong for so long as the demand side of the market was clearly the problem after the housing market asset bubble burst in 2008. But we are now in 2015, 6 years after the great recession ended, and headed into the later stages of the economic cycle (see my blog at http://patrickmcrowley.blogspot.com), and we do need the supply side issues to be addressed - but just not the issues that "supplysiders" want addressed! They want lower taxes, no rise in the minimum wage, smaller government - but what we know we need is higher taxes on the rich to pay for infrastructure improvement and more funding for our Universities, higher wages, and a government that is more focused on tidying up the tax code, the affordable healthcare act, and our environmental mess.
4
Economic charlatans abound, especially if and when trying to 'read' the future based on a false predicament, ignoring reality in favor of a rigid ideology, filled with faith-based nonsense. So deep is the ignorance, and the biases it entails, that these false prophets cannot recognize their schizophrenic-paranoid 'reasoning', given that the premises were born out of a false claim. Now, if an individual chooses to remain ignorant, even if choosing to mix facts with fiction is his 'calling', that is fine with me as long as it is kept private, and preferable secret. But spewing these lies publicly, one can't tell the damage caused on ill-informed souls, and perpetuating our political turmoil, dysfunctionality and harm to the public. Wouldn't it be nice if, for once, we could look at the big picture, choose what will be of benefit for most, and cause, by inference, the least damage and suffering? The ignoramus Scott Walker may do well consulting with any College graduate and see the light. And not the usual cranks' poorly digested brew.
4
Why cannot each and every US citizen get their income from some government agency payroll or government contract, at maybe double or triple the minimum wage scale to create income equality?
Where does all of that "Free Government Money" come from?
Only private businesses wealth creation activity creates new taxable wealth, and that new and existing privately owned taxable wealth is the primary source of funds to be confiscated by governments through taxes to pay for any and all government activities.
Government expenditures only consume a nation's wealth and do not create any new taxable wealth.
Government Contracts to private businesses to create infrastructure, weapons, social programs are also paid for by the taxpayers and do not create national wealth, but those activities just consume national wealth that was created by other citizens who created new national wealth that was confiscated by the government to pay for those government activities!
Labor receives paychecks create taxable wealth for their services when that employee works for a privately owned business to create taxable wealth for the business where he works, not if that business is a government contractor.
Yes, labor creates taxable wealth as long as that labor is not paid for by the taxpayers!
Where does all of that "Free Government Money" come from?
Only private businesses wealth creation activity creates new taxable wealth, and that new and existing privately owned taxable wealth is the primary source of funds to be confiscated by governments through taxes to pay for any and all government activities.
Government expenditures only consume a nation's wealth and do not create any new taxable wealth.
Government Contracts to private businesses to create infrastructure, weapons, social programs are also paid for by the taxpayers and do not create national wealth, but those activities just consume national wealth that was created by other citizens who created new national wealth that was confiscated by the government to pay for those government activities!
Labor receives paychecks create taxable wealth for their services when that employee works for a privately owned business to create taxable wealth for the business where he works, not if that business is a government contractor.
Yes, labor creates taxable wealth as long as that labor is not paid for by the taxpayers!
2
"Only private businesses wealth creation activity creates new taxable wealth, and that new and existing privately owned taxable wealth is the primary source of funds to be confiscated by governments through taxes to pay for any and all government activities."
the economy of the 2000's would seem to disprove your assertion
the economy of the 2000's would seem to disprove your assertion
7
Economic productivity is a result of the combined capabilities of society as a whole. Capitalism is simply the current, most effective way, to grow and distribute the wealth (plant and seed, if you will). Even the founding father's recognized that it was far from perfect and needed government oversight to maintain any semblance of humanity.
At it's heart, the flaw is that, capitalism is all about 'winner takes all'. Since that has traditionally resulted in Kingship, our forefathers decided to superimpose government in the management of capitalism in an attempt to allow both multiple Kings' and an enabled troop of wannabe Kings. That introduces the problem that the Kings don't see any reason why there should be other Kings, and certainly not wannabe Kings.
We need to share the wealth accumulated by multiple generations of American labor because we earned it! The threat that there might be a huge repercussions from the setting on a limit of 'how much is enough' is just blustering from a group who couldn't count their wealth if other Americans from previous generations hadn't invented calculators.
At it's heart, the flaw is that, capitalism is all about 'winner takes all'. Since that has traditionally resulted in Kingship, our forefathers decided to superimpose government in the management of capitalism in an attempt to allow both multiple Kings' and an enabled troop of wannabe Kings. That introduces the problem that the Kings don't see any reason why there should be other Kings, and certainly not wannabe Kings.
We need to share the wealth accumulated by multiple generations of American labor because we earned it! The threat that there might be a huge repercussions from the setting on a limit of 'how much is enough' is just blustering from a group who couldn't count their wealth if other Americans from previous generations hadn't invented calculators.
5
Before industrialization, there was not enough wealth available for the government to confiscate for the government to be able to pay to construct very much infrastructure, or to conduct very many wars.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? (industry or tax paid public infrastructure)
Industry came first because without the wealth created by industry there would not be any wealth available to be confiscated by the government to create public infrastructure!
Even the early "company towns" had company provided infrastructure to support their workers.
Public funded infrastructure WAS NOT an essential part of the foundation to the creation of national wealth through industrialization.
During the industrialization period of the USA, private companies created their own company towns with conditions for workers similar to the conditions for workers in Bangladesh without any tax funded infrastructure support.
The company towns had only as much of their own infrastructure systems as they needed to support their industrial business and their employees.
These companies also printed their own paper company currency, which was only redeemable for rent in the company houses and for products at the company store.
The workers probably also used this currency for business and trade between themselves for various items that the worker's families produced and sold to each other.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? (industry or tax paid public infrastructure)
Industry came first because without the wealth created by industry there would not be any wealth available to be confiscated by the government to create public infrastructure!
Even the early "company towns" had company provided infrastructure to support their workers.
Public funded infrastructure WAS NOT an essential part of the foundation to the creation of national wealth through industrialization.
During the industrialization period of the USA, private companies created their own company towns with conditions for workers similar to the conditions for workers in Bangladesh without any tax funded infrastructure support.
The company towns had only as much of their own infrastructure systems as they needed to support their industrial business and their employees.
These companies also printed their own paper company currency, which was only redeemable for rent in the company houses and for products at the company store.
The workers probably also used this currency for business and trade between themselves for various items that the worker's families produced and sold to each other.
1
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing," as Edmund Burke wisely observed.
And the major reason that economic charlatans have succeeded in falsely convincing the American public that disastrous inflation is right around the corner and that the Affordable Care Act is costing taxpayers billions in Federal debt, etc. etc., is that the Obama Administration has done nothing to aggressively get the facts out there. Instead, it has turned the White House into an ivory tower and conceded the public debate to the right wing.
Prof. Krugman is one of the few forceful and effective liberal voices speaking the truth today. And, yes, that is why I am very, very afraid.
And the major reason that economic charlatans have succeeded in falsely convincing the American public that disastrous inflation is right around the corner and that the Affordable Care Act is costing taxpayers billions in Federal debt, etc. etc., is that the Obama Administration has done nothing to aggressively get the facts out there. Instead, it has turned the White House into an ivory tower and conceded the public debate to the right wing.
Prof. Krugman is one of the few forceful and effective liberal voices speaking the truth today. And, yes, that is why I am very, very afraid.
170
The wealth of society should be used to provide both physical and economic security for the society that produced it. The big argument is over the fact that 1% of the contributors control 50% of the wealth, and 10% own 87% of the worlds wealth.
That leaves somewhere around 7 or 8 billion contributors with NADA!
It would seem that there is this is not only NOT in the interest of humanity, it is a clear sign of a 'rigged game'.
That leaves somewhere around 7 or 8 billion contributors with NADA!
It would seem that there is this is not only NOT in the interest of humanity, it is a clear sign of a 'rigged game'.
The White House has tried, and tried again. That message HAS indeed gotten out. But honestly, there is a wide swath of reactionary, racist and stupid people in this country, who willingly vote for fools and charlatans nad want to hear what these people say and think. This garbage comforts them.
Readers are anxious to hear Krugman's critique of the Democrat field for president in 2016. We already know that he will excoriate any Republican candidate. But what does he have to say about the opposition? Or will he simply trumpet the party line and unequivocally support whatever tired retread that the Democrats throw into the ring?
4
The bottom line is that we need leadership that can tackle the problem of the Information Age and it's impact on both "we, the people" and our economic systems.
This is not you grandfather's or even your father's world.
The Republican reliance on size of ones tusks, or fangs, or claws, or teeth as the definition of a "human" never was and never will be the definition of a human.
Evolution took care of that from the get go. It is intellect, learning, adaptation, and the ability to work together that has marked the ascendance of humans, not physical attributes or other 'animal' analogies (be they domesticated or not). We are neither lions, tigers, elephants or sheep. We are humans and proud of it!
This is not you grandfather's or even your father's world.
The Republican reliance on size of ones tusks, or fangs, or claws, or teeth as the definition of a "human" never was and never will be the definition of a human.
Evolution took care of that from the get go. It is intellect, learning, adaptation, and the ability to work together that has marked the ascendance of humans, not physical attributes or other 'animal' analogies (be they domesticated or not). We are neither lions, tigers, elephants or sheep. We are humans and proud of it!
@ Paul: Well, sometimes there really is one better candidate and one better party. Why should Prof Krugman excoriate the one party that is actually working for the people?
1
I'd like to see a Republican critic of Krugman attack his analysis effectively, rather than attacking him. Maybe that's because his analysis is sound. I think the real "retread" fear for the election should be that Republican theories for the economy make it back into the driver's seat of power.
Supply siders since St. Ronny have been hell-bent on a new American oligarchy run by and for a few robber barons like the loathsome Koch Bros. In turning back the clock about a century, they seem to think we serfs would be somehow better off by being forced to scramble for sustenance like our ancestors. The mere fact they have been proven irredeemably wrong so many times only seems to strengthen their resolve to worship at the feet of the uber-wealthy. Somehow, they have convinced a large majority of republican voters of their economic acuity. Such things as a gun in every pot, the superiority of the white Christian heterosexual male, and the right's "destiny" as the supreme authority on Americanism only serve to sweeten the pot for the stupid vote.
12
Conservatives are control freaks, partly to suppress competitors, and partly to provide them with the 'level of certainty' that they feel they need to execute their plan for personal survival.
The elimination of taxes, poor people, criminals, sick people, old people, and disadvantaged people all contribute to the certainty that those factors will not be a drag on the plan.
In their minds, the only critical factor is the availability of security forces sufficient to insure that all of those 'uncertainties' mentioned in the previous paragraph don't escape oppression and find a way to disrupt the plan.
The elimination of taxes, poor people, criminals, sick people, old people, and disadvantaged people all contribute to the certainty that those factors will not be a drag on the plan.
In their minds, the only critical factor is the availability of security forces sufficient to insure that all of those 'uncertainties' mentioned in the previous paragraph don't escape oppression and find a way to disrupt the plan.
1
The Republican Party does not waiver from these discredited theories because they have nothing better to serve their sole goal and purpose: increase the wealth and power of the .01%. This requires lying with a straight face in order to win votes from those they are harming. These right-wing experts are very well paid to conduct the flimflam. Those who are capable of feeling shame need not apply.
14
I don't understand why Mr. Krugman is so baffled. To me it's very simple. Laffer , Kudlow and the other guy are panderers. They have figured out that the way to gain favor with the right wing is to repeat the message over and over that cutting taxes will lead to the promised land of prosperity for all. This is what they want to hear, after all. Lack of factual evidence to back up their claims doesn't even enter into it. What right wing ignoramus could resist this message: cutting your taxes will lead to economic salvation for all?
20
Nice work, if you can get it.
You've got to throw Fox, Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, and a host of other preachers of hate, fear, greed, jealousy, bigotry, and malcontent into the equation. We also need to give some credit to the "legitimate media" for providing the laughably 'fair coverage' to Voodoo economics and the heretics who preach it. It makes you wonder why the Devil doesn't get 'fair coverage' by having some 'talking heads' present his position on the religious networks.
1
For history to prove you correct though, Professor, the Fed, eventually will have to stop printing money and stop offering free credit. And, for that, two things are essential.
First, the Fed governors will have to have the foresight to know when to turn off the spigots. And, second, those governors will also have to brave the wild backlash and vitriol likely to occur when the real estate, bond and stock markets react in a way likely to be pretty unfavorable.
And since those governors are also known as human beings, I'm not to optimistic on either count.
First, the Fed governors will have to have the foresight to know when to turn off the spigots. And, second, those governors will also have to brave the wild backlash and vitriol likely to occur when the real estate, bond and stock markets react in a way likely to be pretty unfavorable.
And since those governors are also known as human beings, I'm not to optimistic on either count.
Stop and start policy is chaotic. The Fed needs to concentrate on stabilizing the rate money earns money when deposited in banks and leave full employment to fiscal policy.
3
Well actually the Fed prints only 3% of the money supply. Deficit spending needs to accelerate or at least continue until we reach full employment.
4
"The Fed" is an evolutionary function of economic control that obviously demonstrated it's function during the last great Republican crisis. Europe is continuing to suffer due to the lack of an equivalent 'apolitical' entity that could deal with facts rather than rumors, lies, innuendo, and myths to manage the economy.
Republicans don't like it because the crisis was supposed to 'starve the windmill beast of their minds', and the dang beast had the nerve to foil their plot and survive.
The fact is that there never was a beast, just as there was never a hope for democratic outcome from the Arab spring.
In fact, the entire Republican platform is based on putting the worlds wealth in the hands of the few in order to insure that any other potential crooks don't get any.
The remaining 'good people' are promised 'trickle down' as the few wealth owning 'tricklers' toss pennies from their chariots when they happen to drive by and are having a 'feel generous' day'. Republican economics is truly based on a laughing curve that allows them, their relatives, and their pay-to-play friends to laugh all the way to the bank to deposit your money.
The most laughable part is that they've managed to use hate, fear, greed, jealousy, and bigotry to convince 'the confused and malcontent' that there will be a day when they get trickled on. The funniest news is that under Republicans, 'trickle on' happens every day, but 'trickle down' is just a myth.
Republicans don't like it because the crisis was supposed to 'starve the windmill beast of their minds', and the dang beast had the nerve to foil their plot and survive.
The fact is that there never was a beast, just as there was never a hope for democratic outcome from the Arab spring.
In fact, the entire Republican platform is based on putting the worlds wealth in the hands of the few in order to insure that any other potential crooks don't get any.
The remaining 'good people' are promised 'trickle down' as the few wealth owning 'tricklers' toss pennies from their chariots when they happen to drive by and are having a 'feel generous' day'. Republican economics is truly based on a laughing curve that allows them, their relatives, and their pay-to-play friends to laugh all the way to the bank to deposit your money.
The most laughable part is that they've managed to use hate, fear, greed, jealousy, and bigotry to convince 'the confused and malcontent' that there will be a day when they get trickled on. The funniest news is that under Republicans, 'trickle on' happens every day, but 'trickle down' is just a myth.
1
The problem with the supply siders is that it is more like a religion to these people. You just have to have faith. After all, there are still people who believe the world was made in seven days.. Faith in religion may be ok, but in economic policies there has to be room for facts. And the supply siders simply to not want to listen to facts..
12
This is all very true, and very frightening no doubt. But, what is the opposition (the democrats) offering? Where is their coherent plan? People are fooled by what they see. People hear "Harvard" and they think "infallible." Hence, Mr. Mankiw. People want an economic plan they can vote for, not just protection from failed policies. Am I the only one disappointed by Mr. Obama's decision to continue the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy? Where's the opposition?
49
When you've been trained since birth to believe in a 6000 year old earth and humans created on the spot without an evolutionary process, it's easy to ignore mere facts and the appearance of reality, and it's not an IQ test. Some very smart people have been programmed to see the world this way. Don't expect this column or melting ice caps or mass extinctions or any other "canary in the coal mine" warnings to change their minds. Christian fundamentalism is a very powerful and destructive meme.
9
Seems like this guy, who is worried about his ice caps, has a lot of snow. I guess it came all of a sudden. That global warming thing is a bit of a bummer, n'est-pas? JS
Mr. Krugman, Even when you are so accurately on target, those who are clearly wrong continue to preach their brand of wrong and their leagues of followers continue to vote for them at the expense of so many voters that we are all continuing to lose.
Where is or when will the turning point arise? That is the question.
Where is or when will the turning point arise? That is the question.
5
Republicans count on one thing: their money can buy enough propaganda to convince enough ignorant people to vote for them. They have no interest in making the world a better place. They'll just re-write history to say that they did.
Most surprising is that the remaining moderate Republicans have stayed in what has become a very radical, irrational party.
Most surprising is that the remaining moderate Republicans have stayed in what has become a very radical, irrational party.
12
We live in a very bizarre and absurd country when one of our two major political parties can base its platform on lies - for decades- and receive little in the way of fallout. Let alone a serious, sustained, and legitimate exposure of how damaging and utterly wrong this ideology has been for our nation.
It is pathetic to think that a nation which once valued scientific accomplishment, creativity, and engineering prowess now finds itself held hostage: to the greedy lie of trickle down, denial and disdain of legitimate scientific fact, and a corrupted and incurious media which dare not report facts and reality.
What will it take for our nation to find courage and empirical clarity? Is a thirty five year gutting of our middle class not enough? Is the oligarchic control of our government and media not enough? Is the squandered talent and vision of the American people not enough?
It is pathetic to think that a nation which once valued scientific accomplishment, creativity, and engineering prowess now finds itself held hostage: to the greedy lie of trickle down, denial and disdain of legitimate scientific fact, and a corrupted and incurious media which dare not report facts and reality.
What will it take for our nation to find courage and empirical clarity? Is a thirty five year gutting of our middle class not enough? Is the oligarchic control of our government and media not enough? Is the squandered talent and vision of the American people not enough?
12
Charlatans and cranks certainly: however I suspect that the intelligent Republicans know this and are aware they are peddling snake oil. They prey on the stupid prejudices of the common man, The dislike of government, the intrusion of the state, the up by the bootstraps myths that do occur but are rare. I am afraid it is self serving dishonesty from the elites of the Republican party and the easily duped in the middle and bottom that is the real issue.
12
Art Laffer should be noted as "he of the, as yet, un-described curve". Worse, the supply siders are bereft of real world seasoning in that traders or investors don't hesitate to book a hefty profit, if it is available, for fear of tax consequences. Just isn't how the game is played.
4
For those commenters who are reading this piece through the prism of personal belief as only a critique of Republican policies, try reading it again as a discussion of the effect that self-serving propaganda, posing as political rhetoric, has on the political life of the country.
4
Irony and constant repetition of Big Truth are the only ways to do battle against the Big Lies of the Republicans, which have little or no foundation in the real universe, as distinguished from the alternative one they have created in their social contract aversive brains.
Thank you, Paul Krugman, for continuing to do the heavy lifting on this.
By the way, someone should check Scott Walker's college diploma to see if he graduated with a B.S. in economics.
But wait.
Thank you, Paul Krugman, for continuing to do the heavy lifting on this.
By the way, someone should check Scott Walker's college diploma to see if he graduated with a B.S. in economics.
But wait.
11
Uncertainty is a reality of life that we all must deal with, especially about the future, as either Neils Bohr or Yogi Berra or both said about predictions. The Republican approach to dealing with this fact of life is to raise anxiety about the future while cranking out authoritative sounding drivel that will bend the future in the direction they want it to go. That, of course, is in the direction of less (federal) government, more private enterprise and the shortest path to that is to "starve the beast", except of course when it comes to expenditures for war machines and materials that must be purchased or suppled from the private sector, or the building and managing of prisons. Now that local police departments are taking delivery of military grade equipment for "population control", the "brilliance" of the scheme is apparent. Tax the general population to build their own prisons and arm their "guardians".
So, stick to the party line and be very confident in your presentation and you will engender the kind of trust that a confidence man inspires in his mark, just before the sting.
To anyone who has spent a good portion of their life aquiring even a modest estate the assurances of "lower taxes mean greater prosperity" must seem like a no brainer. The catch is that in our progressive tax schedule the bulk of the benefits flow to the highest incomes and the owners of the largest corporations. But, Scott Walker is such a self assured, well dressed man.
So, stick to the party line and be very confident in your presentation and you will engender the kind of trust that a confidence man inspires in his mark, just before the sting.
To anyone who has spent a good portion of their life aquiring even a modest estate the assurances of "lower taxes mean greater prosperity" must seem like a no brainer. The catch is that in our progressive tax schedule the bulk of the benefits flow to the highest incomes and the owners of the largest corporations. But, Scott Walker is such a self assured, well dressed man.
76
The part that concerns me most is why the American public continues to buy into this cycle of self-implosion. Is is a lack of education? An inability to understand they are voting against their own self-interest?
The decline of the importance of the public good, replaced with this ridiculous notion of welfare addiction defies reason. Who would vote to deny health care to the general population? Who would not want roads and bridges to be in tip-top shape? There is no foresight!
Eventually, We, the People, _will_ reap what we have sown, and I'm just afraid it will look less like the America we have come to know and more like a 4th-world country.
This is all so very sad.
http://wifelyperson.blogspot.com/
The decline of the importance of the public good, replaced with this ridiculous notion of welfare addiction defies reason. Who would vote to deny health care to the general population? Who would not want roads and bridges to be in tip-top shape? There is no foresight!
Eventually, We, the People, _will_ reap what we have sown, and I'm just afraid it will look less like the America we have come to know and more like a 4th-world country.
This is all so very sad.
http://wifelyperson.blogspot.com/
7
Our money does not go to infrastructure or health care - it goes to transfer payments; think obamaphones, headstart, etc. Gov't could cut a trillion overnight. Believe me, I've been there and spent that. JS
1
one can hardly blame the supply siders for holding fast to an economic theory that democrats did little to suspend when they had the chance. since Ronald Reagan, tax cuts have been the cri de guerre of our governments, right and left. the result is wage stagnation, the decimation of the middle class, increased poverty, corporate dominance, a slow jobless recovery and reactionary politics that led to bank failures, mortgage crises and the great recession.
as long as democrats prop up GOP budget priorities, Laffer will be the only one laughing.
as long as democrats prop up GOP budget priorities, Laffer will be the only one laughing.
2
laffer has produced a "study" for a right wing "think" tank in austin, texas showing how vouchers solve all problems in public education. Of course, the right wing nuts in the texas lege love it. And, of course, none of it is true.
2
Dr. K,
Thanks for the evidence-based truth telling. The media & public needs this refresher course in current history. Your column lights the way for the fence sitters who don't really understand the economic hand that they were dealt. In doctrine based policy rather than evidence based, it is scary that the elites that you called out with this essay are still working at it.
The voters don't really have a decent chance to exercise their only voice, the political system has been rigged to favor those who have the money to protect their interest & ignore the interests of the larger society.
Your policy examples were excellent. My only regret: space limitations constrained your discussion of climate change, which, based on hard evidence, poses a serious threat to civilization.
It is also disturbing to see our society miss the opportunity to lead the global market in a shift away from carbon combustion allowing the Earth's natural sinks to catch-up.
The free market is failing to direct capital to projects that can head off environmental catastrophe. Historically, the US answered the call: Erie Canal, Transcontinental RR, Interstates, California Water Project, etc. but we have ignored the American Maglev transport invention which can carry passengers & freight at 300 mph with broadly shared benefits, saving American's $1,000 per capita, annually, with no emissions. We do not need to import this system. It can be a new American industry, if we allow it to compete.
Thanks for the evidence-based truth telling. The media & public needs this refresher course in current history. Your column lights the way for the fence sitters who don't really understand the economic hand that they were dealt. In doctrine based policy rather than evidence based, it is scary that the elites that you called out with this essay are still working at it.
The voters don't really have a decent chance to exercise their only voice, the political system has been rigged to favor those who have the money to protect their interest & ignore the interests of the larger society.
Your policy examples were excellent. My only regret: space limitations constrained your discussion of climate change, which, based on hard evidence, poses a serious threat to civilization.
It is also disturbing to see our society miss the opportunity to lead the global market in a shift away from carbon combustion allowing the Earth's natural sinks to catch-up.
The free market is failing to direct capital to projects that can head off environmental catastrophe. Historically, the US answered the call: Erie Canal, Transcontinental RR, Interstates, California Water Project, etc. but we have ignored the American Maglev transport invention which can carry passengers & freight at 300 mph with broadly shared benefits, saving American's $1,000 per capita, annually, with no emissions. We do not need to import this system. It can be a new American industry, if we allow it to compete.
3
The supply side economics of the Republican right has succeeded in shifting wealth to 1% of the population.
It has had the side effect of making Americans who were not in unions or who did not have public pensions resentful of those who did.
It has meant a greater struggle for people to maintain what they had in what was left.
And this will not change as along as voters vote their resentments instead of their best interests.
It has had the side effect of making Americans who were not in unions or who did not have public pensions resentful of those who did.
It has meant a greater struggle for people to maintain what they had in what was left.
And this will not change as along as voters vote their resentments instead of their best interests.
10
The jewels in the supply-side crown have to be Kansas, New Jersey, and Wisconsin--all dealing with billion+ shortfalls in their budgets after cutting taxes to the bone (mainly for the wealthy). Minnesota, on the other hand, has been an experiment in Democratic principles raising taxes 2% on the wealthy and now enjoying a billion dollar surplus.
We learn 2+2=4 in first grade, but Republican economists seem to have forgotten the lesson, instead having us believe that 2-2 somehow equals 4.
We learn 2+2=4 in first grade, but Republican economists seem to have forgotten the lesson, instead having us believe that 2-2 somehow equals 4.
13
And, do you see the answer's on how to solve their problem? Cut services, Lower taxes on the rich and business, and in another four years all will be well. When ever Bugs Bunny would beat Elmer Fudd, Bugs would close with his final statement, " What a Maroon!" More than appropriate for those you mention.
"Celebrity economist Art Gaffer... was paid $75,000 to consult with Brownback and his staff before the tax-cut legislation passed in 2012." Kansas City Star.
As always the charlatans live well on their charlatanry.
Again these "21 Club" dinners at which the three amigos are the host have a billionaire sponsor so it is not like the hosts are putting any of their ill gotten gains back into the con.
As to the difference between their many predictions and actual history I'm sure all three of these men have studied the "Austrian" nonsense at great length. When history diverges from theory it is obviously history that is wrong.
In the case of Art Laffer and Kansas they just need to wait another decade. He is not sure why they now have deficits but is certain that prosperity is just around the corner.
What they all must be gearing up for now is to come up with a well worded rationale for why the good news in the American economy today is all the result of teabag obstructionism and not the underwhelming but obvious stimulating effects of President Obama's actual policies.
I'm awaiting with great anticipation the explanation of how the progressive nature of the ACA taxes as well as the partial reversal of the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy were still bad for the economy but the current growth and drop in unemployment without inflation is all to the Republicans credit.
Buy a bag of popcorn. This should be entertaining.
As always the charlatans live well on their charlatanry.
Again these "21 Club" dinners at which the three amigos are the host have a billionaire sponsor so it is not like the hosts are putting any of their ill gotten gains back into the con.
As to the difference between their many predictions and actual history I'm sure all three of these men have studied the "Austrian" nonsense at great length. When history diverges from theory it is obviously history that is wrong.
In the case of Art Laffer and Kansas they just need to wait another decade. He is not sure why they now have deficits but is certain that prosperity is just around the corner.
What they all must be gearing up for now is to come up with a well worded rationale for why the good news in the American economy today is all the result of teabag obstructionism and not the underwhelming but obvious stimulating effects of President Obama's actual policies.
I'm awaiting with great anticipation the explanation of how the progressive nature of the ACA taxes as well as the partial reversal of the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy were still bad for the economy but the current growth and drop in unemployment without inflation is all to the Republicans credit.
Buy a bag of popcorn. This should be entertaining.
16
L O L the only prosperity, just around the corner, is unfortunately ONLY for the charlatons who manage to get paid big bucks for being consistantly wrong!
1
We have a race to the bottom in retail sales, and sales in general. Amazon appears as a Wall Street investment scheme, with all the on line competitors trying to sell below cost to catch down to them. So why should there be a surprise that there is less inflation. 70% of GDP is based on a Wall Street investment scheme fed by zero percent interest money to the big banks. from the biggest bank. The Fed created the monster, and then claims to trying to create inflation to fight the same monster they created.
1
Starving the bottom of the economy limits the buying power of the ordinary citizen. He or she in turn starves local small businesses and service providers, who in turn must cut prices just to gain a progressively smaller margin and hold on to a few customers. With less income, they too withhold themselves from the market. They all earn less and pay less in income taxes starving jobs in government-- some of their own customers. And government in response taxes them in ways that are inescapable like sales taxes -regressive taxes. So their net tax cuts are meaningless.
While the greatest gains from tax cuts, wage gains and high end investments go to the few, whose big box and on-line retail undercut the local store prices with ever greater tax cuts generated by their purchasing power in politicians who willingly undermine employee wages. They're job creators if you want to work less than thirty hours a week at sub-poverty wages depending on government largess to feed your child.
Scott Walker cuts state taxes to feed his contributors, they prosper. Resulting in mindless cuts like to university budgets. Research at those institutions generates much of what makes prosperity possible. Those cuts leave the strapped middle class to pay ever higher tuition to educate their children in the resulting shrinking middle class economy. And the guys on the bottom, whose net taxes haven't really fallen demand more tax cuts and you get more of the same. That's the monster we have created
While the greatest gains from tax cuts, wage gains and high end investments go to the few, whose big box and on-line retail undercut the local store prices with ever greater tax cuts generated by their purchasing power in politicians who willingly undermine employee wages. They're job creators if you want to work less than thirty hours a week at sub-poverty wages depending on government largess to feed your child.
Scott Walker cuts state taxes to feed his contributors, they prosper. Resulting in mindless cuts like to university budgets. Research at those institutions generates much of what makes prosperity possible. Those cuts leave the strapped middle class to pay ever higher tuition to educate their children in the resulting shrinking middle class economy. And the guys on the bottom, whose net taxes haven't really fallen demand more tax cuts and you get more of the same. That's the monster we have created
1
Gee, based on what you say companies should be broke if they are selling below cost. Most of them keep reporting bigger profits, larger dividends, and HUGE bonus checks for executives. All those low sale prices proved to me that the stuff was OVERPRICED in the first place. My grandmother, who had a small costume jewlery shop on 79th St. used to tell us: " if you buy a $100.00 for $10.00 you more than likely have a watch worth LESS than $10.00. Or look at Joseph A. Banks, Buy one suit and get three for free. Yet Banks stays in business. Trust me they are NOT selling Eagle or Armani Suits.
its been a very, very long time since your grandmother sold retail. Trust me, I'm in retail, its a different world now, driven by Wall Street.
The conclusion that can be drawn from all this nonsense is that America, since the Reagan years, has undergone a permanent ideological and cultural metamorphosis.
I can't imagine the America we had in the 50s and 60s ever reappearing in any way, shape or form in my lifetime. Very discouraging.
I can't imagine the America we had in the 50s and 60s ever reappearing in any way, shape or form in my lifetime. Very discouraging.
9
The 50s and 60s were prosperous because of WWII and its aftermath. We cd only recreate those decades by winning another world war. Capitalism has gone global, and the US is no longer needed for its industrial might. All we're needed for now is our military, to police the world economy, with industry located in the low-wage Third World, and new customers popping up everywhere out there, to replace the newly impoverished consumers at home. And they're perfect consumers, because they need EVERYTHING.
1
For any nation (or family) to sustain a Republic, Democracy, Theocracy, Capitalism, Communism, Fascism, Dictatorship, Kingdom, Principality or any other form of government that they select and/or is imposed upon them, that nation still has to have their privately owned businesses continuously create sufficient new taxable national wealth (and jobs) in their nation so that there is enough wealth for the taxing authority to confiscate a portion of that new national wealth and/or profit that was created by their private sector businesses, plus an additional amount taken through income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, tariffs, etc., and other taxes by the government tax collectors to pay for their government activities.
This can only be accomplished by limiting government spending to less that the government collects in taxes!
Hopefully this can be done by each government without borrowing wealth from individuals in other nations to pay for their various wealth consuming government activities including any distribution of wealth confiscated from the wealth creators and then handed to other tax supported citizens.
President Obama seems to want to imitate Greece and just continue borrowing more and more money from individuals in the industrialized BRIC nations by printing and selling more and more US Treasury Bonds to spend on more and more wealth-consuming government jobs and other wealth consuming government activities just like the European "Nanny States" are doing.
This can only be accomplished by limiting government spending to less that the government collects in taxes!
Hopefully this can be done by each government without borrowing wealth from individuals in other nations to pay for their various wealth consuming government activities including any distribution of wealth confiscated from the wealth creators and then handed to other tax supported citizens.
President Obama seems to want to imitate Greece and just continue borrowing more and more money from individuals in the industrialized BRIC nations by printing and selling more and more US Treasury Bonds to spend on more and more wealth-consuming government jobs and other wealth consuming government activities just like the European "Nanny States" are doing.
1
Gerald
Everyone knows the story you love and that leads you to smug lecturing.
Problem is, you don't know the facts. Easily learned, read Krugman's blog to get many facts that you won't like.
But, you will do anything for your country but learn facts you don't like, huh? Diagnosis: self identified conservative, actual reactionary who would rather his country be destroyed than give up the story and the anti american reactionary beliefs that meet his emotional needs.
Everyone knows the story you love and that leads you to smug lecturing.
Problem is, you don't know the facts. Easily learned, read Krugman's blog to get many facts that you won't like.
But, you will do anything for your country but learn facts you don't like, huh? Diagnosis: self identified conservative, actual reactionary who would rather his country be destroyed than give up the story and the anti american reactionary beliefs that meet his emotional needs.
6
re: "limiting government spending to less that the government collects in taxes"
Think about how that would work, the government continuously removing money from the private sector and not returning it as spending would eventually remove all of it as a matter of accounting. How does an economy work without money?
Think about how that would work, the government continuously removing money from the private sector and not returning it as spending would eventually remove all of it as a matter of accounting. How does an economy work without money?
1
Gee...when my brother does a job for government and gets paid, he also pays employees, suppliers, and his capital fund for new equipment.
Your idea just isn't logical, Gerald.
Your idea just isn't logical, Gerald.
What I don't get about supply side economics is that it is logically inconsistent:
If a small tax cut generates lower deficits, then cutting taxes to zero should generate the biggest possible reduction.
If a small tax cut generates lower deficits, then cutting taxes to zero should generate the biggest possible reduction.
9
I expect a 100% tax rate would have a similar result.
I can see that the Laffer Curve principle may be valid, but the result of a change in tax policy depends on which side of the maximum the economy is currently operating. The tax cutting conservatives clearly believe we are operating past the peak, on the downward slope. The experience of the Bush years, along with the more recent results from Wisconsin, Kansas and New Jersey indicate that we are operating well before the peak.
I can see that the Laffer Curve principle may be valid, but the result of a change in tax policy depends on which side of the maximum the economy is currently operating. The tax cutting conservatives clearly believe we are operating past the peak, on the downward slope. The experience of the Bush years, along with the more recent results from Wisconsin, Kansas and New Jersey indicate that we are operating well before the peak.
1
The Laffer curve is somewhat accurate at the extremes. A -0- tax rate produces no revenues to the State and a 100% tax rate might ultimately produce no revenues either. OK. But where are all the intermediate points? Where does the curve turn down from its peak? Does it matter what kinds of taxes? (i.e. transaction, property, excise, income) Is the lead somewhere between 20-25% of GNP or around 50% depending on the tax mix? Well, nobody really knows. But the Republicans want to make policy using a figure below 20% because, well that just feels right. Enough already with their nonsense.
4
Doing the same thing repeatedly with expectation of differing results would be the definition of stupidity.
No more needs to be said of the Republican Economic proposals
No more needs to be said of the Republican Economic proposals
12
If all republicans loved their country as much as Rudy they would inform their beliefs with things like science, math, and history.
7
The GOP advocates the "rule of six". Or in other words, if you tell a lie often enough, people will begin to accept it as truth.
5
After reading Mr. Krugman's op-ed as well as the comments section, I now realize liberalism is truly a mental disorder. Keynesian economics has not worked, which should be apparent to all the sheep living in NY, CA, IL and all the Northeast. Funny, how all the Democratic led states are bankruot, but yet their economic model is one Mr. Krugman would like to follow. Facts don't lie, but liberals most certainly do.
No, the Republican states are going broke, particularly Kansas. Red states generally require a continual bailout every year, since they never have enough tax revenues. Thus the Blue States are forever sending their tax revenues to the poorer, republican controlled states. Look it up.
8
Financially, it's blue states that support red states, not vice versa. Further, California and Massachusetts will outscore Texas and Louisiana any day of the week, in any creative, cultural or fact based category anyone cares to name - including intelligent gun ownership - and it's Keynesian economics - not the Austrian, fresh water sort - that have provided the most accurate and useful analysis of The Great Recession. That the analysis has not been utilized, fully, is a comment on the American political system, not the quality of the analysis. Just saying....
8
How about that Kansas? Did the tax cuts work their magic there?
1
I am afraid, very, very afraid. If the next president is a Republican we are in for a very nasty ride indeed.
7
The Republican marketing schtick of being the voice for the clear-eyed Christian patriot exploits the cynical view that Americans believe that style is substance.
H. L. Mencken wrote that nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.
Sadly, I'm beginning to think that he was - and is - right.
H. L. Mencken wrote that nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.
Sadly, I'm beginning to think that he was - and is - right.
13
When are more of the news reporters going to track the record of these political and economic charlatans? If they were tracked like stock market investment funds, they would be out of business in no time, with only the bankrupt and idiots following them.
In the new America of ignorance fueled by Fox, with little to no tracking of the accuracy of anything and foolishness repeated enough becomes factual fodder for the fanatics, we are adrift on a ship of fools. Thank you Dr Krugman for some meaningful perspective and insight, and may we wake up soon enough to save this country.
In the new America of ignorance fueled by Fox, with little to no tracking of the accuracy of anything and foolishness repeated enough becomes factual fodder for the fanatics, we are adrift on a ship of fools. Thank you Dr Krugman for some meaningful perspective and insight, and may we wake up soon enough to save this country.
14
I believe most of these guys know full well they're running a line on us. In the end the goal is radically to shrink government, way beyond what most of us would tolerate. To do that they have to lie. So they do. TTH
5
Go read the seminal (in my view) book by Leon Festinger and Stanley Schachter called "When Prophecy Fails". It will help everyone understand the group dynamics of failed but passionate hopes and predictions.
2
I'm not sure we have reached the depths to which humanity is capable. The embrace of the propaganda of the National Socialist Party of the 1930's ended with the greatest destruction and genocide in history. Now, accepting the right-wing, the t-party, the 1%'ers and the racists is just good ol' boy lying, cheating and stealing. But it will get worse. Seeing Libertarians in the guise of freedom is another form of denial.
When we let the Big Lie become the headline of the day, when we don't stand up for the rights of the oppressed and exploited then we become a silent part of that propaganda machine and we seal our own fate.
When we let the Big Lie become the headline of the day, when we don't stand up for the rights of the oppressed and exploited then we become a silent part of that propaganda machine and we seal our own fate.
12
It is happening right here. Right now.
I grew up in a manufacturing community of 150,000 people that had a lot of corporate headquarters. The children of the owners went to school with the children of the workers. They didn't have separate churches for rich people.
With local business ownership and accountability through personal relationships, those businesses were more committed to their employees and reinvested in P&E. When business was slow they prepared for future demand by fixing up P&E. When the leveraged buyouts started and the owner / decision makers lived elsewhere, they sucked the capital out and the businesses shriveled up.
With local business ownership and accountability through personal relationships, those businesses were more committed to their employees and reinvested in P&E. When business was slow they prepared for future demand by fixing up P&E. When the leveraged buyouts started and the owner / decision makers lived elsewhere, they sucked the capital out and the businesses shriveled up.
6
The capacity for self delusion among us humans appears infinite. Intelligence is a subset of ignorance. Whether in the arena of politics, economics, culture..., we must be vigilant, or accept the consequences of irrationality. Preventing ourselves and our species from slipping into the abyss of superstition, delusion and ignorance is hard work. I appreciate Dr. Krugman's accounting of this fact. It is not easy to bear, but bear it we must, if we hope to continue our sustainable evolution upon this fair world we all share.
8
The question that interests me is do the Republican elites truly believe Supply-Side Economics (in which case I question their intellect) or are they simply paying lip service to it due to the large contributors that support it to their benefit (in which case I question their honesty). Either way it is deeply troubling.
10
Everyone, even charlatans and fools are entitled to their own opinions. The right wing, however, insists that they are entitled to their own facts. The right wing has a number of things that they take as undeniable givens, e.g., that increasing wages causes inflation and that if you enrich the already rich that will benefit everyone else, tax cuts for the rich need not be paid for and that government has no role in the economy and government services deprives people of their initiative and freedom.
So the right wing has agreed among itself that 2+2=5 and 5x5=50, etc. So a panel on women's health issues contains all men and refuses to hear from women. It is the “we know best” attitude. It is a matter of solipsism a philosophical idea that only own mind is sure to exist. This kind of thinking is the essence of narcissism.
Being proven wrong does not matter because the fundamental ideas are like religious ideas taken on faith alone and if science disagrees, science is wrong. These people do not believe in evolution and think the earth is 6000 years old and dinosaurs and men co-existed. All of their theories are simple enough. If it is good for the Koch brothers, etal, it is good for the nation. And they can prove it by a mathematical formula. If X stands for a corporatist oligarchy, >889,000,000 + 2016 = X.
So the right wing has agreed among itself that 2+2=5 and 5x5=50, etc. So a panel on women's health issues contains all men and refuses to hear from women. It is the “we know best” attitude. It is a matter of solipsism a philosophical idea that only own mind is sure to exist. This kind of thinking is the essence of narcissism.
Being proven wrong does not matter because the fundamental ideas are like religious ideas taken on faith alone and if science disagrees, science is wrong. These people do not believe in evolution and think the earth is 6000 years old and dinosaurs and men co-existed. All of their theories are simple enough. If it is good for the Koch brothers, etal, it is good for the nation. And they can prove it by a mathematical formula. If X stands for a corporatist oligarchy, >889,000,000 + 2016 = X.
8
It is a fascinating lesson for our times regarding the phenomenon of how powerful "credentialed" people, who almost certainly know they are spouting nonsense, continue to do so in order to protect their positions amongst their elite supporters. Krugman repeatedly talks truth to these folks, but of course they can never admit their fundamental wrongheadedness because it would cast them into the outer darkness. And so, as with the emperor and his clothes, the supply-side charade-parade must go on. The challenge for us is to make sure that these people never attain decision-making power.
7
I am afraid, Paul.
138
Your fears are very well-founded. There's nobody standing up to them.
2
The one thing you can do, is make sure you and all of your friends and family get out and vote. I know I'm urging al of my friends and family to vote in the upcoming federal election this year in Canada. Get out and vote, while you still have the right to do it.
1
Brilliant!!
3
The right wing in the US is increasingly allergic to intelligent debate and objective reality. FOX "News" and the rest of the reactionary noise machine heightens this condition. Policy disagreements between the left and right are progressively devolving into intelligence vs. anti-intelligence.
I am very afraid.
I am very afraid.
4
I'm surprised their henchman, Paul Ryan, wasn't there to chime in about entitlements and pulling yourself up by your bootstraps.
4
Krugman's HS Economic text books are in many schools. Beware of the Liberal distortions this man's work is having on young adults. Krugman believes in Western Democracies perpetual deficits to support Entitlement Based Society eventually devaluing the currency savings and earnings.
Liberalism has infested the class room and is poisioning the young generation.
Check with your school board who they are learning from.
Liberalism has infested the class room and is poisioning the young generation.
Check with your school board who they are learning from.
1
Yes "Liberty", local efforts are hounding school administrations to relieve 'standards' and to 'stop teaching the bad things about America'. You should consider moving to someplace like Oklahoma to receive the benefits of this local leadership.
This is called the republican type of conservative capitalism. Capitalism is a religion, as fundamentalist, reactionary and malign as the Taliban, Christian evangelism and the Communist dictatorships in China and North Korea. To be a capitalist one must have faith in opportunism, despotism, the survival of the fittest, bribery and corruption.
6
They are all what Faulkner called Snopeses, proudly ignorant and proudly small minded. Obama is an anti-Snopse, and that is why he is so despised, so murderously despised.
Modified in wording but not in spirit from:
Benjamin Taylor, Naples Declared, 2012, p.87
Modified in wording but not in spirit from:
Benjamin Taylor, Naples Declared, 2012, p.87
4
In reply to other commenters, yes, we should all get out and vote;
HOWEVER, the Rs have had their hands in the voting machines, and voting roles, changing the results of elections in states with R governors, so I'm afraid we're in for another Bush, whether "we the people" like it, or not.
We need a revolution of some kind, or we'll have Bush-types destroying the country from here to eternity.
HOWEVER, the Rs have had their hands in the voting machines, and voting roles, changing the results of elections in states with R governors, so I'm afraid we're in for another Bush, whether "we the people" like it, or not.
We need a revolution of some kind, or we'll have Bush-types destroying the country from here to eternity.
5
If we want to destroy the money machine politics, here's how.
An 80%+ voter turnout! Even if you leave your ballot blank. And party affiliation doesn't matter.
The pols expect to fly under our radar. Imagine their fear when they see our electoral missile lock on target!
An 80%+ voter turnout! Even if you leave your ballot blank. And party affiliation doesn't matter.
The pols expect to fly under our radar. Imagine their fear when they see our electoral missile lock on target!
1
Sometimes it's harder than at other times to toss a dart successfully at the Professor because, as a general matter, he's a pretty impressive guy. But, really, "charlatans"? This time it's quite easy.
Paul Krugman is not a quack, a crank or a charlatan: he's a serious thinker whose columns rarely contain more "economics" than the minimum he needs to tenably support his ideological views, which are the real point of his writing efforts here in the Times. Charlatans are deceivers who know themselves as such and set out to victimize a gullible public for personal gain. I'm not completely sure about Larry Kudlow, but to suggest that Art Laffer, Stephen Moore and even Scott Walker are such scoundrels is simply absurd and injudicious. The economists among that group simply disagree with the Professor, which seems to be enough to call them scoundrels.
I wouldn't worry overmuch about Scott Walker. He won't be our candidate in 2016 any more than Rick Perry will, or a Chris Christie I've been assuring readers here for some time will implode -- as he seems to be with Republican donors, and for precisely the reason I predicted: his MANNER. Walker doesn't possess the depth and gravitas to go up against Hillary and win. No, our nominee will be someone who acknowledges reality just as the Professor does, but may have very different ideas about how to confront it.
But this was an entertaining column. Here's to the unchained, potted liberati. For what good are darts without a dartboard?
Paul Krugman is not a quack, a crank or a charlatan: he's a serious thinker whose columns rarely contain more "economics" than the minimum he needs to tenably support his ideological views, which are the real point of his writing efforts here in the Times. Charlatans are deceivers who know themselves as such and set out to victimize a gullible public for personal gain. I'm not completely sure about Larry Kudlow, but to suggest that Art Laffer, Stephen Moore and even Scott Walker are such scoundrels is simply absurd and injudicious. The economists among that group simply disagree with the Professor, which seems to be enough to call them scoundrels.
I wouldn't worry overmuch about Scott Walker. He won't be our candidate in 2016 any more than Rick Perry will, or a Chris Christie I've been assuring readers here for some time will implode -- as he seems to be with Republican donors, and for precisely the reason I predicted: his MANNER. Walker doesn't possess the depth and gravitas to go up against Hillary and win. No, our nominee will be someone who acknowledges reality just as the Professor does, but may have very different ideas about how to confront it.
But this was an entertaining column. Here's to the unchained, potted liberati. For what good are darts without a dartboard?
1
It doesn't matter which GOP shill is designated as their window dressing in 2016. The GOP nominee for President, sold for $1B, is the Koch Bros. Now what was that you were saying about charlatans are deceivers who know themselves as such and set out to victimize a gullible public for personal gain?
1
Richard,
That was an awe-inspiring amount of diversion.
If you feel you can counter Krugman's points, please do so, though I don't expect it based on past history. Simply listing the same names he did and claiming that they "disagree" with the Professor is not a counterargument.
Paul Krugman has made perfectly clear, with countless examples, why these people are cranks who refuse to acknowledge reality. You clearly can't provide an argument against that analysis, so instead you've simply tried to dismiss his criticism away.
That was an awe-inspiring amount of diversion.
If you feel you can counter Krugman's points, please do so, though I don't expect it based on past history. Simply listing the same names he did and claiming that they "disagree" with the Professor is not a counterargument.
Paul Krugman has made perfectly clear, with countless examples, why these people are cranks who refuse to acknowledge reality. You clearly can't provide an argument against that analysis, so instead you've simply tried to dismiss his criticism away.
Many thanks,as always, Dr.Paul, for your wise counsel. OK,I'm very, very afraid. Staggering, the denial of reality by these "cranks and charlatans" who don't believe their"lying eyes"! If the Republicans actually win the Presidency (no matter their nominee at the NRC) - given the predictions of the losers of the last two Presidential elections, and even Barbara Bush who admitted to all that she was WRONG, that a THIRD Bush in the White House would be fine and dandy with her - we will be in deeper doodoo than Good Poppy Bush could have imagined. A Republican President in 2016 is all we need to toss us back into the La Brea Tar Pits from which President Obama rescued us during his past 6 years in the Oval Office. PS re dinner at "21" Club for Walker,the Wisconsin Pinwheel, for Perry, he of the seriously Conservative black-rimmed eyeglasses, as if glasses indicate intelligence in the man...do hope the GOP attendees had the original "21 Burger" - fleshed out with stewed celery, onions, bread crumbs, a veritable mild grilled medium raw salisbury steak on a bun. Jack Kriendler and Charlie Burns ran a GREAT "21" Club from 1922-1985 when they sold out to the folks who put duck fat into their burgers. Don't let the GOP/Tea Party rampagers put duck fat into our beef burgers!
3
Isn't it the final stage in the evolution of an authoritarian culture that its adherents deny reality and make up their own instead?
Like the court of a king or the inner circle of a dictator, who on the inside would pipe up and say the worldview of the regime is wrong? Didn't George W. Bush say - during his presidency - that if the US were a dictatorship "it would be a heck of a lot easier, as long as I'm the dictator."
Perhaps the closest correlation though is with a cult. It has its sacred icon in Saint Ronnie, whose actual record is morphed and airbrushed to hide the tax hikes, the deficits, and the foreign policy blunders. It has its billionaire high priests: the Kochs, Murdoch, Adelson, and the rest. It has its official propaganda outlets: Fox, Limbaugh and his talk radio parrots, Regenry publishing, and Drudge, RedState, the Corner and company online.
When communication and information flow stay within the bubble, as John Mayer says, "When they own the information, oh they can bend it all they want".
Like the court of a king or the inner circle of a dictator, who on the inside would pipe up and say the worldview of the regime is wrong? Didn't George W. Bush say - during his presidency - that if the US were a dictatorship "it would be a heck of a lot easier, as long as I'm the dictator."
Perhaps the closest correlation though is with a cult. It has its sacred icon in Saint Ronnie, whose actual record is morphed and airbrushed to hide the tax hikes, the deficits, and the foreign policy blunders. It has its billionaire high priests: the Kochs, Murdoch, Adelson, and the rest. It has its official propaganda outlets: Fox, Limbaugh and his talk radio parrots, Regenry publishing, and Drudge, RedState, the Corner and company online.
When communication and information flow stay within the bubble, as John Mayer says, "When they own the information, oh they can bend it all they want".
5
Oh yes the right has an objective reality for sure and it is to placate the powerful elite that want to keep there money. Keynesian economics will never prevail amongst those that want to hold on to their billions.
93
Krugman argues that Republicans hoping to be president are appealing to "charlatans and cranks" for support. The problem is that the same is true of Democrats. The sad fact is that the democratic process does not provide reasonable candidates of either flavor.
Part of the reason is that most Americans want oversimplified solutions and politicians pander to them. Thus Republicans offer "smaller government" and "lower taxes" as the solution to all problems economic. And denial of climate change.
On the other hand, Democrats like Krugman preach the magic of "inadequate aggregate demand." According to this view, America is still in the Great Recession of 2008 and needs more "deficit spending" to lift itself to "recovery" so that the economy can return to its natural state of "economic growth" (although Robert Gordon questions this in his excellent essay, "Is US economic growth over?"). Those who worry about the consequences of continued deficits are labeled as crackpots.
And Democrats deny the impact of population growth, which is the reason for climate change.
The denial of Democrats is even more fundamental than that of Republicans, because population growth must ultimately destroy the environment and drive down living standards, not just warm the planet.
What America needs is something more basic than better candidates. It needs an actual full discussion of the impact of population growth, one that is not censored by efforts to make it "politically correct."
Part of the reason is that most Americans want oversimplified solutions and politicians pander to them. Thus Republicans offer "smaller government" and "lower taxes" as the solution to all problems economic. And denial of climate change.
On the other hand, Democrats like Krugman preach the magic of "inadequate aggregate demand." According to this view, America is still in the Great Recession of 2008 and needs more "deficit spending" to lift itself to "recovery" so that the economy can return to its natural state of "economic growth" (although Robert Gordon questions this in his excellent essay, "Is US economic growth over?"). Those who worry about the consequences of continued deficits are labeled as crackpots.
And Democrats deny the impact of population growth, which is the reason for climate change.
The denial of Democrats is even more fundamental than that of Republicans, because population growth must ultimately destroy the environment and drive down living standards, not just warm the planet.
What America needs is something more basic than better candidates. It needs an actual full discussion of the impact of population growth, one that is not censored by efforts to make it "politically correct."
What Democrats are saying is that the minimum wage needs to be raised, that will spur demand. They are also suggesting investing in infrastructure using bonds to spread the cost out over the service life of the infrastructure purchased and because interest rates are at historic lows, along with profits in many economic sectors. To pay for public spending Democrats also have the novel idea that taxes, which are also at historic lows, can be raised.
Those messages are loud and clear, so why are so many not listening?
Those messages are loud and clear, so why are so many not listening?
3
And your proposed solution to the problem of population growth is?? Oh by the way, "inadequate aggregate demand" is not magic for PK, just an observable fact. What do do about it can be a matter for debate, but not the fact itself. Again, what do you propose?
If the GOP can keep the wool pulled over the eyes of enough voters they will have won the economic war between the classes. The rich will have all the money. They will be global investors and the rest of us will be their lowly compensated employees.
Over the past 35 years the rich have taken more and more of our income and wealth to reach the current level of income inequality not seen since just before the Great Depression. All the Charlatans and cranks had to do was to fool enough of the people enough of the time and they won.
Over the past 35 years the rich have taken more and more of our income and wealth to reach the current level of income inequality not seen since just before the Great Depression. All the Charlatans and cranks had to do was to fool enough of the people enough of the time and they won.
7
They haven't taken away our right to vote yet, though they keep trying. If 64% of us cannot be bothered to be show up and be counted on the one day of the year when our opinion actually counts, then we deserve whatever we get.
Amidst economic uncertainty and social instability our government fails to undertake actions to address the worst of our problems, the daily shootings, road rage, carjackings, home invasions and robberies. Our government ignores them while the news media, of big business, attempts to distract us with problems which even the United Nations have been able to address. We can, and we must, reduce the number of daily crimes in our nation, and big business will have to deal with the collateral damage from those government actions just as our neighbors have had to deal with the social collateral damage from unfair government actions favoring big business.
1
Supply side economics retains its appeal among Republican politicians despite its lengthy history of failure for one simple reason. It provides a veneer of academic respectability for what would otherwise be the nakedly destructive and unfair policies those same Republicans want to pursue for political, not economic, reasons. Tax cuts like those Scott Walker passed during his first term accomplish two things. They put more money in the pockets of the people and businesses who are inclined to support him, and, by creating utterly predictable deficits, provide a justification for cutting programs he doesn't like. Sure enough, the $2.2 billion deficit Walker created with his first term tax cuts is now held up as the reason Wisconsin must cut $300 million from the UW system budget, eviscerate the state Department of Natural Resources, cap public school spending (while expanding vouchers), and eliminate state oversight of for-profit "colleges." It's a win-win for him politically. The fact that it does nothing to improve the economy is beside the point.
32
No. They care not one whit for academic respectability. Not one whit.
Making predictions is easy. Anyone can do it. Making predictions that are right half the time is somewhat harder. Making predictions that come true almost all the time, as Newton did with his physics, is a rare and beautiful thing. It is science.
To restate, science is the method of first developing a theory (hypothesis), using it to make predictions, and then testing them by experiment or by observation of nature, man, and society. If the predictions are usually right, the theory becomes part of scientific understanding. If the predictions are wrong, the method requires (requires!) that the theory be revised and retested until it better fits outcomes, or that the 'theory' be abandoned altogether.
If economics is a science, albeit 'the dismal science', then the principles of the scientific method apply to economics. Yet the principles are today rarely applied by many economic experts, as Prof. Krugman keeps pointing out. Any theory that makes pretty curves tends to end up in textbooks and on cable channels, and in the halls of Congress and the White House. Especially if it fits the conceits of the donors. Perhaps that is the real reason economics is a dismal science.
To restate, science is the method of first developing a theory (hypothesis), using it to make predictions, and then testing them by experiment or by observation of nature, man, and society. If the predictions are usually right, the theory becomes part of scientific understanding. If the predictions are wrong, the method requires (requires!) that the theory be revised and retested until it better fits outcomes, or that the 'theory' be abandoned altogether.
If economics is a science, albeit 'the dismal science', then the principles of the scientific method apply to economics. Yet the principles are today rarely applied by many economic experts, as Prof. Krugman keeps pointing out. Any theory that makes pretty curves tends to end up in textbooks and on cable channels, and in the halls of Congress and the White House. Especially if it fits the conceits of the donors. Perhaps that is the real reason economics is a dismal science.
14
Common Sense,
Excellent statement! As an engineer I like your analysis of Economics'
I think that all US citizens should all learn and understand that economics, the US trade deficit, the federal government spending deficit, jobs for Americans, and the buying power or value of the US dollar are all interrelated, very simple, very easily understood, and directly affects each US citizen’s life.
Each of these principles generally affects each of the others, and each is very important.
These subjects need to be understood by the general public.
Economics is not that complicated.
These economic principals are interlocked with simple and easily understandable cause-and-effect principals of various economic action options that can be totally understood by almost any high school graduate, and/or most high school dropouts.
Only a very simple understanding of high school mathematics is needed to learn economics. No science is required either.
Most government activities only consume the wealth in the form of taxes that was previously confiscated from their working citizens and these government activities do not leave any (taxable) national wealth behind after the government spends that money on wars, police, firemen, infrastructure, environmental cleanups, etc.
Government activities do not ever generate or create any wealth, except under the socialist and communist forms of government, and those governments have not ever been successful for very long!
Excellent statement! As an engineer I like your analysis of Economics'
I think that all US citizens should all learn and understand that economics, the US trade deficit, the federal government spending deficit, jobs for Americans, and the buying power or value of the US dollar are all interrelated, very simple, very easily understood, and directly affects each US citizen’s life.
Each of these principles generally affects each of the others, and each is very important.
These subjects need to be understood by the general public.
Economics is not that complicated.
These economic principals are interlocked with simple and easily understandable cause-and-effect principals of various economic action options that can be totally understood by almost any high school graduate, and/or most high school dropouts.
Only a very simple understanding of high school mathematics is needed to learn economics. No science is required either.
Most government activities only consume the wealth in the form of taxes that was previously confiscated from their working citizens and these government activities do not leave any (taxable) national wealth behind after the government spends that money on wars, police, firemen, infrastructure, environmental cleanups, etc.
Government activities do not ever generate or create any wealth, except under the socialist and communist forms of government, and those governments have not ever been successful for very long!
1
Economics is not a science.
Economics is sociology and law and politics and history and accounting and finance and arithmetic.
There is no Nobel Prize for Economics. There was and is Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science funded by the Swedish National Bank and adopted by the Nobel Prize Committee.
There is no more science in economics than there is any social "science" like political science or a humanity like history or a profession like law.
Economics is sociology and law and politics and history and accounting and finance and arithmetic.
There is no Nobel Prize for Economics. There was and is Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science funded by the Swedish National Bank and adopted by the Nobel Prize Committee.
There is no more science in economics than there is any social "science" like political science or a humanity like history or a profession like law.
1
Gerald
I appreciate your kind reply to my post, but I must take issue with your proposition that
"Government activities do not ever generate or create any wealth, ..."
The entire, highly profitable nuclear power industry grew out of the Manhattan Project. Research funding since WWII has created millions of jobs in medicine, airlines and the space industry, materials engineering, and improving harvests both on land and by saving fisheries. My company made tens of millions licensing Dept. of Agriculture patents.
And then there is the internet. Created from DARPA to secure military communication and expanded by academics, it exploded into Cisco, Apple, and the website on which I am posting this comment.
Wealth creation from tax dollars? Ask Gates, Zuckerberg, GM, and anyone who uses the internet in their work. Taxes are not confiscation, reasonable taxes are a civic duty. The question is, are we getting our money's worth for the taxes we pay. I would agree that too often taxes are wasted on wars and earmarks, and that today we usually are not getting what we pay for.
"Be glad you are not getting all of the government you are paying for." - Will Rogers
I appreciate your kind reply to my post, but I must take issue with your proposition that
"Government activities do not ever generate or create any wealth, ..."
The entire, highly profitable nuclear power industry grew out of the Manhattan Project. Research funding since WWII has created millions of jobs in medicine, airlines and the space industry, materials engineering, and improving harvests both on land and by saving fisheries. My company made tens of millions licensing Dept. of Agriculture patents.
And then there is the internet. Created from DARPA to secure military communication and expanded by academics, it exploded into Cisco, Apple, and the website on which I am posting this comment.
Wealth creation from tax dollars? Ask Gates, Zuckerberg, GM, and anyone who uses the internet in their work. Taxes are not confiscation, reasonable taxes are a civic duty. The question is, are we getting our money's worth for the taxes we pay. I would agree that too often taxes are wasted on wars and earmarks, and that today we usually are not getting what we pay for.
"Be glad you are not getting all of the government you are paying for." - Will Rogers
2
We have an electorate who also believes in an unreal world. Witness how many so called educated people choose not to vaccinate their children. Once there was a universal belief that vaccination worked. The blame for the acceptance of Republican lies falls squarely on the Democrats. The Democrats came into power as the world was collapsing in 2008. It has taken 7 years to disengage from two wars and an economic collapse. Yet they fail to scream about their success. By 2016 the electorate will believe Obama caused income inequality, started two wars and created the economic melt down and housing debacle. Platitudes and being nice does not win elections.
12
Simply put, the left is right, and the right is wrong.
Somewhat disturbingly, the right seems to be quite deliberate in its insistence on being and staying wrong. This is because the right has a single overriding goal that is detrimental to the vast majority of American citizens: The right intends to concentrate America's wealth and income into ever fewer hands at the top of the economic pyramid. They therefore must constantly spout false dogma and attempt to have that accepted by the ignorant and gullible on faith. You don't win many elections when the public recognizes that your policies represent the interests of only 1/10th of one percent of the population, so the Republicans are quite obstinate in their efforts to prevent the public from seeing it.
Organizations like the Heritage Foundation are not there to look at facts and conditions and develop effective policies. They are there to concoct cleverly seductive semantic rationalizations for policies that serve the Republican goal of wealth concentration, and disseminate those rationalizations as widely as possible.
No good ever comes to the people from electing Republicans to office, not at any level of jurisdiction, not ever. This has been true since that Republican's name was Theodore Roosevelt.
Somewhat disturbingly, the right seems to be quite deliberate in its insistence on being and staying wrong. This is because the right has a single overriding goal that is detrimental to the vast majority of American citizens: The right intends to concentrate America's wealth and income into ever fewer hands at the top of the economic pyramid. They therefore must constantly spout false dogma and attempt to have that accepted by the ignorant and gullible on faith. You don't win many elections when the public recognizes that your policies represent the interests of only 1/10th of one percent of the population, so the Republicans are quite obstinate in their efforts to prevent the public from seeing it.
Organizations like the Heritage Foundation are not there to look at facts and conditions and develop effective policies. They are there to concoct cleverly seductive semantic rationalizations for policies that serve the Republican goal of wealth concentration, and disseminate those rationalizations as widely as possible.
No good ever comes to the people from electing Republicans to office, not at any level of jurisdiction, not ever. This has been true since that Republican's name was Theodore Roosevelt.
25
"Simply put, the left is right, and the right is wrong."
Too bad there is no left.
Too bad there is no left.
I noticed that Obama, at certain times such as when addressing business groups, will brag about how much deficit reduction has occurred during his presidency. Since most of this reduction is attributable to budget cuts such as those associated with "sequestration" (a "deal" he cut with the Republicans who everyone clearly knew would not bargain in good faith on his rather modest revenue proposals), doesn't this make Obama a "charlatan and crank" too?
The Democrats offer only a kinder, gentler version of the "charlatans and cranks" routine, often acting as if there is no choice but to go along with the Republican's undiluted version ("oh me, oh my, the Republicans have a gun to the head of the economy") and Democratic loyalists try to pawn this off as "liberalism".
The Democrats offer only a kinder, gentler version of the "charlatans and cranks" routine, often acting as if there is no choice but to go along with the Republican's undiluted version ("oh me, oh my, the Republicans have a gun to the head of the economy") and Democratic loyalists try to pawn this off as "liberalism".
4
Lawrence Kudlow, who worked at the Federal Reserve of New York, was an Associate Director of the OMB, and served on the Advisory committee of Freddie Mac correctly predicted the great recession and its cause.
Princeton Professor Paul Krugman, Noble Prize Winner for his analysis of trade between Nations did not.
No love lost since then.
Princeton Professor Paul Krugman, Noble Prize Winner for his analysis of trade between Nations did not.
No love lost since then.
Give references for kudlow. If you had been reading Krugman, you'd know he did predict it. I doubt Kudlow did.
"Lawrence Kudlow correctly predicted the great recession and its cause." What???? Absolutely and totally wrong. Here's what he actually said: Kudlow firmly denied that the United States would enter a recession in 2007, or that it was in the midst of a recession in early to mid 2008. In December 2007, he wrote: "The recession debate is over. It's not gonna happen. Time to move on. At a bare minimum, we are looking at Goldilocks 2.0. (And that's a minimum). The Bush boom is alive and well. It's finishing up its sixth splendid year with many more years to come". This is the typical crackpot believing and lying you get from regressives like this guy.
1
Obviously no one at Freddie Mac paid any attention to him
It is imperative to question Republican politicians motives on issues effecting voters including climate change, health care policies, position on military spending, policies to improve infrastructure, ideas on curbing crime and addressing mandatory sentencing and prison overpopulation. What most voters consider when voting for a candidate though is, unfortunately, how will the politician effect me. If he/she has no ideas for economic growth and income tax reform, as well as faulty economic advisers, they will be toast before 2016 unless their media campaigns involve hypnosis and mind control.
Let's keep in mind though that as of this date, the federal government has a $18,122,881,555,570.98 deficit. Granted, President Obama has attempted to chip away at this unfathomable figure, although we need politicians to figure out ways to balance the budget similar to how Clinton managed during his presidency. When the government owes mutual funds, pension funds, foreign governments, foreign investors, American investors, etc., the taxpayers become indebted to these powerful forces similar to how the slaves owed their brutal and selfish masters.
The U.S. owes China $1244.3 billion, Japan, $1230.9 billion dollars and the oil producing countries $285.9 billion. It seems similar to being a debtor behind on payment on my credit card, the bank is holding all the cards to my economic freedom. Just take a look at Greece and all the trouble they're in due to being behind on their bills.
Let's keep in mind though that as of this date, the federal government has a $18,122,881,555,570.98 deficit. Granted, President Obama has attempted to chip away at this unfathomable figure, although we need politicians to figure out ways to balance the budget similar to how Clinton managed during his presidency. When the government owes mutual funds, pension funds, foreign governments, foreign investors, American investors, etc., the taxpayers become indebted to these powerful forces similar to how the slaves owed their brutal and selfish masters.
The U.S. owes China $1244.3 billion, Japan, $1230.9 billion dollars and the oil producing countries $285.9 billion. It seems similar to being a debtor behind on payment on my credit card, the bank is holding all the cards to my economic freedom. Just take a look at Greece and all the trouble they're in due to being behind on their bills.
2
The US isn't behind on its bills - that would constitute default on Treasury bonds.
And who last threatened to default on our non-marketable bonds (i.e. Social Security Trust Fund bonds)? The GOP.
When a debtor gets behind on his debt payments, the logical response is to work more hours or additional jobs. The way the government does the equivalent is to tax more.
Who would starve if a 50% surcharge on financial instrument capital gains were dedicated to infrastructure and SS bond redemptions? The starving would happen to people whose promised benefits the GOP proposes to cut.
The point of US borrowing at very low interest rates during an economic crisis is to put a floor under the fall, replacing lost private sector GDP with public sector GDP.
Besides preventing a lot of displacement of workers' wealth, the floor keeps tax revenue higher at a time it's badly needed. But not if you cut taxes on the wealthiest, yet again, as 1/3 of your already-too-small-by-half stimulus.
Our debt is paid out of GDP! Repeat that 100 times.
Then read http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/11/the-waste/
And who last threatened to default on our non-marketable bonds (i.e. Social Security Trust Fund bonds)? The GOP.
When a debtor gets behind on his debt payments, the logical response is to work more hours or additional jobs. The way the government does the equivalent is to tax more.
Who would starve if a 50% surcharge on financial instrument capital gains were dedicated to infrastructure and SS bond redemptions? The starving would happen to people whose promised benefits the GOP proposes to cut.
The point of US borrowing at very low interest rates during an economic crisis is to put a floor under the fall, replacing lost private sector GDP with public sector GDP.
Besides preventing a lot of displacement of workers' wealth, the floor keeps tax revenue higher at a time it's badly needed. But not if you cut taxes on the wealthiest, yet again, as 1/3 of your already-too-small-by-half stimulus.
Our debt is paid out of GDP! Repeat that 100 times.
Then read http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/11/the-waste/
4
and here is an example of exactly what the good Doctor was talking about... straight out of the GOP database
1
You are making two mistakes.
1) You are conflating debt with deficit.
2) It is not the same as a personal card credit.
1) You are conflating debt with deficit.
2) It is not the same as a personal card credit.
1
Dr. Krugman as usual is spot on with his analysis, but doesn't quite go deep enough to explain conservative ideology and why they think the way they do. All of their traits and beliefs have a common denominator - paranoia. It explains virtually everything about them and is what differentiates them from everyone else on the political spectrum. From living in the suburbs and rural areas, to shutting anyone that isn't just like themselves including people of color, immigrants, the poor, gays, etc. They think government is out to get them, which can be seen in their desire to cut taxes, regulations, deny global warming, and shrink the size of government. It is all based on fear, not rational thought.
6
For Dr. Krugman to go 'deep enough to explain conservative ideology' one op-Ed gives him hardly enough space. He would have to fill all of the pages of the NYT for many days and weeks to come to explain where are their paranoia comes from.
1
Why are we talking about how wrong the Republicans are? They are wrong on purpose, because being wrong serves their purpose. Their purpose is privatization and freedom from all constraint to plunder, own, control, and marginalize the rest of humanity. Their delusions are but calculated messages designed to move their agenda of selfishness forward. It's not about being right at all.
50
It seems to me that Keynsians fail to state the US will repay the debt it will incur in order to achieve these economic objectives.
I've been told that it will be repaid with tax revenue created by the increased employment and expanded tax base created by government spending. But isn't that "trickle up" economics? And doesn't that also assume a responsible Congress, which will use the additional revenue to repay the debt created to extract us from this mess?
Prof. Krugman asks if we are going to believe our "lying eyes." My lying eyes tell me that my Congress, regardless of party, has never failed to avoid debt reduction.
So, then, what is the Keynesian end-game? Not the one described in textbooks and theses, but the one that acknowledges our Congressional reality.
I've been told that it will be repaid with tax revenue created by the increased employment and expanded tax base created by government spending. But isn't that "trickle up" economics? And doesn't that also assume a responsible Congress, which will use the additional revenue to repay the debt created to extract us from this mess?
Prof. Krugman asks if we are going to believe our "lying eyes." My lying eyes tell me that my Congress, regardless of party, has never failed to avoid debt reduction.
So, then, what is the Keynesian end-game? Not the one described in textbooks and theses, but the one that acknowledges our Congressional reality.
2
I guess you weren't around in the late 1990's when the US, under Bill Clinton, was running surpluses to the tune of $250b per year.
We had budget surpluses (Paid down debt) in the Clinton Years.
This is a timely op-ed from Dr. Krugman. The new governor of Illinois, Bruce Rauner , who dodged providing specifics during the campaign, finally was required by law to present his budget.
It is filled with all the biases of the Republican right. He will try to destroy unions and cut the programs that help the less fortunate. Since he was successful and business, but he has no experience in governmental, he expects to govern by fiat. It will be a bumpy ride.
It is filled with all the biases of the Republican right. He will try to destroy unions and cut the programs that help the less fortunate. Since he was successful and business, but he has no experience in governmental, he expects to govern by fiat. It will be a bumpy ride.
27
I apologize for my errors in the second paragraph above.
It should read "Since he was successful in business, but he has no experience in government, he expects to govern by fiat."
It should read "Since he was successful in business, but he has no experience in government, he expects to govern by fiat."
But it's worked so well in Kansas and Wisconsin.
1
The right continues to deploy their version of the economy, healthcare, immigration and yes, science despite clear evidence they are wrong. It's not an accident. They are well organized to repeat distortions because they know it works and they have FOX fake news and stooges like Kudrow who are all in on the process. On the left, despite having the facts and a more credible positive story- a massive failure to control the narrative. In terms of messaging strategy, the Dems operate more like the Marx brothers. The tragedy is the solutions to income inequality and environmental destruction and a host of other critical challenges eludes us.
20
The right used to deride the left for denying reality and objective facts during the post-modernist fad of the 1980s and 1990s. Funny how now they are in the same reality-denying business, even claiming that facts are a liberal plot spread through an illusory "liberal media." Thus climate change is a hoax, good job numbers are doctored, evolution never happened, deficits are rising, and the president is a Muslim atheist Stalinist Hitlerite communist fascist.
29
"Cranking up for 2016" - What an appropriate title for a column that foretells all the Republican cranks that will line up as Presidential hopefuls for 2016!
22
The measure by which Mr. Walker must be pegged is the "drafting error" with which he tried to sabotage the mission of the University of Wisconsin. Before that I thought he was just wrong headed, but the way in which he backtracked from trying to damage higher education in Wisconsin when the criticism got tough reveals him as another deluded pol who thinks he can fool all the people all the time.
20
Understanding the motivation of conservatives on economic policy is really quite simple. Doesn't matter whether they're politicians or economists. The sole desire and driving force of the movement is to reduce taxes. There is even a kind of morality to it. "Taxes are bad."
Everything else--supply-side economics, austerity programs, government inefficiency claims, free market bias--is just window dressing to prettify their base desire to reduce taxes.
Everything else--supply-side economics, austerity programs, government inefficiency claims, free market bias--is just window dressing to prettify their base desire to reduce taxes.
18
And countries that do not collect enough taxes look like the 3rd world, with poor infrastructure, millions in poverty, a population with little access to education and sanitation, and a handful of super rich sprinkled in.
6
The truly worrisome thing is that people continue to vote for the charlatans and cranks, and that is the only reality that matters to them.
18
"Charlatans and cranks" appeared, earlier than Gregory Mankiw's usage, in the opening paragraph of Douglas Vickers' "Studies in the theory of Money," (Chilton, 1959).
4
The republican party is now the party of faith-based governance. They have been poisoned by a combination of too-high levels of evangelical support, an authoritarian structure, and a propaganda machine that was intended to eviscerate liberal opposition but has created a witch hunt atmosphere within the republican party itself. We can only hope that the party self-destructs without taking the rest of us down with it.
29
Nice to be able to agree with Krugman 100% for a change. The ability of these Republican shills and politicians to claim, in spite of all the evidence, that water runs uphill never ceases to amaze. How and why the media allow them to get away with this is equally amazing.
17
Gov. Walker has been trying supply-side tax cuts for his entire 4+ year tenure in Wisconsin. Meanwhile moderate, sensible Gov. Dayton and the Dems here bit the bullet and raised taxes. The Minnesota economy is a bright spot in the region, our unemployment rate is significantly lower than Wisconsin's, and we are running a modest budget surplus while Walker faces another $2 billion shortfall.
Wisconsin is being offered the bleak need to simply gut funding for their leading public university -- I can't see how that will position their state for growth or success in the 21st century global economy. They have no money for infrastructure to support new business development. A general sense of crisis persists in Madison and statewide, years after the crash.
Of course, evidence is of no interest to Republicans and folks like the factually flippant Mr. Moore. But we have a very clear example of two neighboring states with pretty similar demographics. One is thriving, one is failing. And it is clear that the GOP-led state is the disaster, not the 'liberal' one.
Wisconsin is being offered the bleak need to simply gut funding for their leading public university -- I can't see how that will position their state for growth or success in the 21st century global economy. They have no money for infrastructure to support new business development. A general sense of crisis persists in Madison and statewide, years after the crash.
Of course, evidence is of no interest to Republicans and folks like the factually flippant Mr. Moore. But we have a very clear example of two neighboring states with pretty similar demographics. One is thriving, one is failing. And it is clear that the GOP-led state is the disaster, not the 'liberal' one.
119
Tale of two states...wish that major news organizations would pick this up and enlighten our electorate before they vote in another financial crisis creating team.
11
Th epeople in Wisconsin re elected him right? He must be doign something right. I hope they enjoy him for the next four years.
Raflw, everything you said makes sense. Since you are closer to the situation than most of us, can you explain how Gov. Walker made it through the recall petition and got elected to another term if he is doing such a lousy job? What are the people of Wisconsin thinking? What is the difference between them and the good folks in Minnesota? I want to understand this because I am worried that that there is a chance a majority of the rest of the country may think the same in 2016.
1
The Republicans want to redistribute the wealth to the rich and the democrats want more to write welfare checks. Both adjust the books to look good. There's nearly 50 million on food stamps and 10 percent unemployed. Petro chem workers get fired when they go out on strike because they can't take the grueling hours they have to put in. It doesn't make the news. Real inflation numbers that reflect the interest of the 5% not working people.
Even Rubio comes out and says people want jobs not welfare. The Dems want an increase of minimum wage for fast food workers. The question has to be asked where are the good jobs? Doesn't matter to the millionaires or soon to be in congress as long as they identify themselves as red or blue.
Even Rubio comes out and says people want jobs not welfare. The Dems want an increase of minimum wage for fast food workers. The question has to be asked where are the good jobs? Doesn't matter to the millionaires or soon to be in congress as long as they identify themselves as red or blue.
1
Everyone wants a job more than welfare....increasing minimum wage to where those workers no longer need welfare in addition to their job would help, increasing pay across the board so it's more financially viable to work than rely on benefits would be ideal. Dems don't want to write any more welfare checks than they absolutely have to...but they also don't want to see families starving and living on the streets if benefits are cut to serve the tax benefits of the 1-5%.
11
What people like yourself are missing is that Democrats would love to have things back to the 1960s, while Republicans want them back to the 1920s. Dems don't actually want people on welfare, they want them employed and voting. But they also want higher min wages, better work benefits for mothers and families, health care, etc., that will *cost* a lot of money and must be *paid* for by tax increases on the wealthy. But that's fine. The solution is to do the opposite of everything the Republicans want: raise the cap gains taxes, add some high-end tax brackets and increase the percentages on those, force corporations to pay their fair share and avoid overseas tax loopholes, etc. The facts are clear, and they have a well-known and objectively-liberal bias.
@ Mary
I found it to be true when I lived in New York, and even if it isn't the perception is there, especially with white males who turned far right or at least Republican.
@ sr
Politicians Red and Blue buy votes. Why assume I'm against those things and they all are liberal and the opposite of every thing Republicans want? More to the point what about jobs? How do get good wages and benefits if there is no jobs? Remember Whip Inflation Now?
Claiming the Democratic party/values is the same as the Liberal party/values wrong a error in strategy that loses elections. I guess you could call Humphries and McGovern's presidential bid's as part of the 60's to.
I found it to be true when I lived in New York, and even if it isn't the perception is there, especially with white males who turned far right or at least Republican.
@ sr
Politicians Red and Blue buy votes. Why assume I'm against those things and they all are liberal and the opposite of every thing Republicans want? More to the point what about jobs? How do get good wages and benefits if there is no jobs? Remember Whip Inflation Now?
Claiming the Democratic party/values is the same as the Liberal party/values wrong a error in strategy that loses elections. I guess you could call Humphries and McGovern's presidential bid's as part of the 60's to.
I was looking at Laffer's original 'curve' that he apparently drew on a napkin. In the curve, he argued that government revenues will be low with very high taxation rates but also with very low taxation rates. His curve shows the maximum revenue at about 50%.
Well, given that the top marginal Federal tax rate is 39.6%, we still have a ways to go to reach his optimal 50% level. I would be thrilled if Congress actually adopted such a rate. In short, don't just ridicule those conservative economists but take their 'theories' and interpret them differently. Two can play at this game. Yes, let's have a 50% top marginal tax rate!
Well, given that the top marginal Federal tax rate is 39.6%, we still have a ways to go to reach his optimal 50% level. I would be thrilled if Congress actually adopted such a rate. In short, don't just ridicule those conservative economists but take their 'theories' and interpret them differently. Two can play at this game. Yes, let's have a 50% top marginal tax rate!
3
"So a doctrine that even Republican economists consider dangerous nonsense has become party orthodoxy."
Has become? Supply side nonsense has been party orthodoxy for 30+ years. Despite it's epic failures, transparent for ALL to see, it has not cost them any electoral punishment. To understand that blatantly transparent fact is to wonder how that could possibly be. And when that is pondered, an honest person has to conclude that, since this has been going on so very, very long, the failure is NOT the right, it is NOT the Republican party. No. It is the universities who teach the awful economics courses. It is the high schools that never address economics. It is the media, not conservative media, but the MSM, that refuses to call out the Big Lies of the right. But the biggest fault lies with the right's supposed political opposition, the Democrats: cowardly, co-opted, acquiescing, assuming the right's planted axioms of Markets Solve All Problems and Government Bad.
The right has achieved exactly what they set out to do. They knew they couldn't tell the truth about the world they wanted. So they didn't. They lied. And nobody stopped them. Nobody. Not even though the right's world will destroy the planet for future generations. Nobody stopped them.
Capitalism is going to die a very, very , very ugly death with untold, unnecessary suffering because of the cowardice on display in confronting the American right.
Has become? Supply side nonsense has been party orthodoxy for 30+ years. Despite it's epic failures, transparent for ALL to see, it has not cost them any electoral punishment. To understand that blatantly transparent fact is to wonder how that could possibly be. And when that is pondered, an honest person has to conclude that, since this has been going on so very, very long, the failure is NOT the right, it is NOT the Republican party. No. It is the universities who teach the awful economics courses. It is the high schools that never address economics. It is the media, not conservative media, but the MSM, that refuses to call out the Big Lies of the right. But the biggest fault lies with the right's supposed political opposition, the Democrats: cowardly, co-opted, acquiescing, assuming the right's planted axioms of Markets Solve All Problems and Government Bad.
The right has achieved exactly what they set out to do. They knew they couldn't tell the truth about the world they wanted. So they didn't. They lied. And nobody stopped them. Nobody. Not even though the right's world will destroy the planet for future generations. Nobody stopped them.
Capitalism is going to die a very, very , very ugly death with untold, unnecessary suffering because of the cowardice on display in confronting the American right.
77
It is ironic that the Republican party is becoming very similar to the Russian Communist party of the Soviet era that it so despised and worked so long and hard to destroy. Like the Soviets, the US right is based on belief in an economic ideology that has now repeatedly, demonstrably failed. If wealth were going to trickle down, it would have by now. That the party belief system intersects less and less with an objective reality based in science and measurement is of no concern. The party brooks no disagreement about its ideology or its right to power. It relies on an elaborate propaganda machine to spread its message. Of course the ideology the Republicans espouse is cast in terms of individual freedom, rather than collectivism, but this is in effect a smokescreen to promote the concentration of wealth. In that sense the Right seems to be aiming for something more like the fascist states of the 1930s and 1940s who also had unsupportable economic ideologies, were rigidly intolerant of different viewpoints, and relied extensively on propaganda, to which they added military adventurism abroad.
49
You have no idea how Fascist the republican party has become. The more conservstive the more Fascist. See Marine Gen. Smedley Butler's true story on the attempted coup against FDR, which he soundly criticized and exposed the Fascist Industrialist and Bankers in the mid 1930s. The same game is afoot now but so far not quite as ambitious about using the Military. Gen. Butler was a hero to the country at the time and true to his legend, he remains one, if mostly unknown, today. We need some more real heros to call out the lying liar's in the Conservative, Fascist movement in today's America.
2
I agree with Alan's excellent comments... A great summation of where our country is right now. If not pushed back against there will be trouble ahead.
Ever since President Obama was elected the first time - to their shock -, the duty of a 'loyal' opposition co-governing for the betterment of the country has completely been abandoned, even on policies that came from the Republican's cherished think tank, the Heritage Foundation such as healthcare.
As a naturalized citizen from what Republicans so endearingly call 'socialist' Europe - because of its strong safety nets for all - I have with great horror seen overt racism proudly raising its very ugly head again in this country.
Without going into the details of Prof. Krugman's excellent analysis of Economics 101, one that he has written about frequently - the latest having been about Greece - their hate and constant opposition to everything our president suggests won't stop while he is still in office, thus hurting this country even more for the next two years.
And yes, I am very, very afraid of any Republican even getting within a mile of the White House come next election. Collectively they are all Charlatans and Cranks.
As a naturalized citizen from what Republicans so endearingly call 'socialist' Europe - because of its strong safety nets for all - I have with great horror seen overt racism proudly raising its very ugly head again in this country.
Without going into the details of Prof. Krugman's excellent analysis of Economics 101, one that he has written about frequently - the latest having been about Greece - their hate and constant opposition to everything our president suggests won't stop while he is still in office, thus hurting this country even more for the next two years.
And yes, I am very, very afraid of any Republican even getting within a mile of the White House come next election. Collectively they are all Charlatans and Cranks.
45
I am afraid. I'm afraid that it's too easy to believe that cutting taxes will solve every problem America has. It's also too easy to believe that cutting government solves all the problems. The GOP sells this snake oil with a vengeance and, unfortunately for America, many Americans accept this as the gospel truth. The same goes for blaming immigrants, legal and otherwise, for the job problems in America. The more we refuse to fund our government the less capable it is of protecting us, acting in our interests, starting the vital upgrade of our infrastructure, regulating businesses so they don't walk all over the average citizen, and attracting intelligent, committed civil and elected officials.
However, this is precisely what the GOP wants. They want to defund social security, eviscerate what's left of the social safety net, make sure that big businesses can avoid taxes, underpay employees, fire at will, get rid of the ACA rather than improving it, and decimate the pesky middle class so that the only ones they have to pay attention to are their rich donors. Their actions over the last 35 years but especially since President Obama was elected in 2008, are a testament to their willingness to destroy the middle and working classes. So, yes, I am afraid that their simplistic view, while not true, is very appealing.
However, this is precisely what the GOP wants. They want to defund social security, eviscerate what's left of the social safety net, make sure that big businesses can avoid taxes, underpay employees, fire at will, get rid of the ACA rather than improving it, and decimate the pesky middle class so that the only ones they have to pay attention to are their rich donors. Their actions over the last 35 years but especially since President Obama was elected in 2008, are a testament to their willingness to destroy the middle and working classes. So, yes, I am afraid that their simplistic view, while not true, is very appealing.
30
Our Congressional Republicans remind me of Germany's Angela Merkel, who insists that Greece -- a poor country that does the best it can to help its people -- has now been told by Europe, in the person of Mrs. Merkel, that if it wants any financial help at all it must end all its social programs. In the face of all evidence to the contrary, she would force Greece into a state of utter failure in all ways except paying money into the Organization of European States.
Austerity accomplishes nothing except to cause or add to suffering.
Austerity accomplishes nothing except to cause or add to suffering.
7
The problem with economics is that there are no isolated experiments. The closest to such a situation is Kansas. Economists should bless Gov. Brownback. Soon there will be conclusive proof that "supply side" economics does not work. Too bad for the citizens in Kansas, but good for the rest of us. I hope that this example is remembered.
41
Sadly your observation is very accurate. As a native Kansan and fourth generation Republican I mourn the death of moderate state politics but try to find solace in the idea we are "taking one for the team." I hope the rest of the nation is paying attention, learns from this disaster and that ultimately this too shall pass.
7
Sandel - You're still a Republican? Why? Doesn't what they've done bother you at all?
2
There is the opposite of Kansas in Gov. Dayton's Minnesota. There the liberal trickle up, demand side of economics is blowing Walker's Wisconsin into outer space, let alone the full fledged "What's Wrong with Kansas's Brownback".
3
There is a certain mindset--maybe it's a personality type--inclined to believe The Word, especially predictions. It tends to be somewhat childish: Daddy Says, So It Must Be True. And it's intellectually insecure. If The Word is demonstrably not true, if the earth actually does revolve around the sun (say nothing about the sun being one of uncounted billions of stars, not necessarily at the center of the Milky Way, fuggedabout the universe!), then where do Believers go? Science is so *hard* and might require math!
I'm reminded of efforts in Oklahoma and Colorado to refuse to teach the high school AP history curriculim. Gotta stick with the mythology! I'm also reminded of evidence of Neanderthal DNA in modern humans, and of Darwin's observations (not "theory" exactly) of evolution--or lack thereof in some specific cases. For the same phenomenon in an entirely different context, read the essay in the current Atlantic on the thread of Islamic fundamemtalism (the predictions of the Quran coming true) evident in the statements & actions of ISIS.
Call it JO's Dumbo Unified Theory of Human Behavior (GOP for short).
I'm reminded of efforts in Oklahoma and Colorado to refuse to teach the high school AP history curriculim. Gotta stick with the mythology! I'm also reminded of evidence of Neanderthal DNA in modern humans, and of Darwin's observations (not "theory" exactly) of evolution--or lack thereof in some specific cases. For the same phenomenon in an entirely different context, read the essay in the current Atlantic on the thread of Islamic fundamemtalism (the predictions of the Quran coming true) evident in the statements & actions of ISIS.
Call it JO's Dumbo Unified Theory of Human Behavior (GOP for short).
10
I have one question for the GOP: exactly how much tax cutting is enough? Are zero taxes enough?
They have insisted, in the best of times (the Clinton years) and the worst of times (the Bush-caused Great Recession) that cutting taxes is the one and only solution to every problem. And if there isn't even a problem (budget surpluses under Clinton) they create a problem ("the federal government is holding too much of our monrey") as a phony justification for more tax cuts.
They have insisted, in the best of times (the Clinton years) and the worst of times (the Bush-caused Great Recession) that cutting taxes is the one and only solution to every problem. And if there isn't even a problem (budget surpluses under Clinton) they create a problem ("the federal government is holding too much of our monrey") as a phony justification for more tax cuts.
29
Since we have record tax revenues at the federal level your question seems wildly inappropriate, especially since those collections are falling on a shrinking fraction of the employed population.
1
Clinton had nothing to do with the surpluses of the late 90s. John Kasich and the Republicans wrote every budget from 1995 on. And Clinton signed a bill reducing cap gains taxes. And Bush didn't cause the recession. (9/11 crushed the economy.
1
I think that Prof K has two issues confused here. There is Republican confusion on economics, and economist confusion on economics. Mr, Walker, whatever his dimness, has an excuse: never having gone to college, he's never had a chance to learn any economics (it is one subject usually avoided by high schools). It's the economist who are the problem. The curious thing: when the president changes from Dem to Rep, the whole Council of Economic Advisors is out on their tails, and a new crowd comes in. That doesn't happen at the Pentagon, or State, or Ag. The professionals stay, maybe get juggled a bit by a new Secretary, but the vast majority stay in place. But not the CEA. Why? Because economics clearly comes with party labels! Are there Republican and Democratic versions of physics? or epidemiology? or road construction? Maybe the Rs and Ds would aim the roads in different directions, but they would be made the same way. R vs. D aircraft piloting??? No chance. But there surely are R vs. D (vs a half dozen other things) economics. And that's why Mr. Laffer is such a laugher to this D.
10
The defining incident of our dreadful, politicized, disinformation era of intentional lies was Scott Walker's efforts to strike the phrase "search for truth" from the Un. of WI mission statement. In the hopes of pleasing the Koch boys & turning public universities into vocational schools to train workers for serfdom in a have-not economy, Walker edited out the statement: "Inherent in this broad mission are methods of instruction, research, extended training and public service designed to educate people and improve the human condition. Basic to the purpose of the system is the search for truth." Why is truth the enemy?
True or False GOP information? Trickle down economics and austerity work; climate change is a hoax; spending money on endless unwinnable wars in developing countries is good, but spending money on better health care and education for Americans is bad; it's your choice to vaccinate your kids, so don't let the government tell you what to do; more guns make us safer. Answers: true is false, and false is true.
You would think Americans would find totally laughable the wrong-about-everything, aspiring GOP presidential candidates Scott Walker, Chris Christie, Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee, et al.; the Mad Hatter right-wing media; and the so-called "think-tank" purveyors of biased, misleading information/propaganda. The GOP is selling comic-book characters to appeal to comic-book minds.
Other 2016 option: Jeb Bush or H. Clinton and crony capitalism
We're toast!
True or False GOP information? Trickle down economics and austerity work; climate change is a hoax; spending money on endless unwinnable wars in developing countries is good, but spending money on better health care and education for Americans is bad; it's your choice to vaccinate your kids, so don't let the government tell you what to do; more guns make us safer. Answers: true is false, and false is true.
You would think Americans would find totally laughable the wrong-about-everything, aspiring GOP presidential candidates Scott Walker, Chris Christie, Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee, et al.; the Mad Hatter right-wing media; and the so-called "think-tank" purveyors of biased, misleading information/propaganda. The GOP is selling comic-book characters to appeal to comic-book minds.
Other 2016 option: Jeb Bush or H. Clinton and crony capitalism
We're toast!
27
Keep dreaming that Hillary will face Walker or Bush. Walker has emerged. as was clear he would, as the only semi-viable candidate on the right, replacing the Rubios, Perrys, Huckabees, etc. etc.
Bush reminds one of John Connally in 1976 with a huge war chest and one deleg ate. The Republicans are going to run him against Clinton???
Do you really think President Christie will have only cranks? At least he will have advisers with different views and not just totally give all power to Citigroup and Rubin. At the moment, Sect. of Treasury, Under Secretary for the Euro crisis, 1st dep chair (real chair) of the Fed, chairman of Council of Economic Advisers, and Sect. of Health to run Heritagecare. The other top official, the chair of the Economic Council, is a top private equity investor.
Bush reminds one of John Connally in 1976 with a huge war chest and one deleg ate. The Republicans are going to run him against Clinton???
Do you really think President Christie will have only cranks? At least he will have advisers with different views and not just totally give all power to Citigroup and Rubin. At the moment, Sect. of Treasury, Under Secretary for the Euro crisis, 1st dep chair (real chair) of the Fed, chairman of Council of Economic Advisers, and Sect. of Health to run Heritagecare. The other top official, the chair of the Economic Council, is a top private equity investor.
1
I fear what America will turn into after Barack Obama leaves office. America under this President has been heavenly compared to what has come before. And now, regardless of whether the winner will be a Republican or Democrat, it will not have this same calmness - a sense that an adult is in charge and is taking care of us.
The only hope I have is seeing pictures of Hillary and Elizabeth Warren consulting with each other. I would love a Hillary/Warren ticket. Warren has said that she wasn't running for President but has she said anything about Vice President?
The only hope I have is seeing pictures of Hillary and Elizabeth Warren consulting with each other. I would love a Hillary/Warren ticket. Warren has said that she wasn't running for President but has she said anything about Vice President?
19
Warren is needed more in the Senate as a stop gap for the GOP policies. VP would not allow her that same power. She must use her position to tell us what the GOP is up to and must use the platforms her position in the Senate provides.
A Clinton/Warren ticket would be a nightmare come true for the Republican party. I would donate to that ticket today if it existed.
If a politician supports redistribution, also known as stealing the income from successful Americans. I will vote against him or her even if this politician's economic policy were blessed by the almighty. Stealing is wrong. Its that simple. The only fair tax is a flat tax with no deductions.
2
Yes, DRS, stealing is wrong. Your "successful Americans" have the power to rig the game to advance their own success by, in effect, taxing all of the rest of us. Following the sacred mandate to maximize profits for stockholders and fighting off any controls that would protect the environment and nurture a healthy population, they have shifted capital into the hands of fewer and fewer people. We need to employ "demand side" economics that will assure that more currency goes into the hands of common people where it can drive the economy for the well-being of all.
9
Every day I pay taxes to support low earning employees of the 1% while that 1% stashes their money overseas and takes advantage of loopholes. You don't call that stealing and redistribution?
4
I recommend then that you stay off the roads, bridges, and do not accept any form of infastructure that has been paid for by the taxpayers!
2
Clearly Krugman hates the GOP.
Anything else to say, Krugman?
Anything else to say, Krugman?
6
Any reasonable, truthful person would hate the GOP for many, many very good reasons...
3
Don't mistake lack of respect for hatred.
5
@R. R. - Thanks for that nugget of shining intellect! If only we had a nation full of people who think in short sentences, we'd be in a far better place. Wait....
5
Those people have not merely been wrong in their economics and slow to admit it. They lie in a deliberate and considered effort to promote political propaganda. To a large extent it is working. Given that the media and the market it produces for is not especially clever, I'd expect it to continue to work.
17
In the face of the Republicans remarkable track record of both failed policies and ineffectual governing their political successes are quite disappointing. As the medium and long term demographics continue to move the country leftward the Republicans are still able to cobble together a "coalition" of mainly older, whiter and socially conservative people who already benefit greatly from government support (e.g. Social Security & Medicare) who vote in greater numbers relative to the general population in non-Presidential election years. But some point, probably sooner rather than latter, all of the voter suppression, gerrymandering, and election buying will come to end and it simply will not be soon enough.
14
Very nice article. If some of the consequences of Republican thinking weren't so potentially dire for the nation, I would have been able to chuckle reading it. As a social psychologist, it amazes me the thought processes of people in politics. As an Independent, it's hard to take politics seriously when you see the things people are willing to say as long as it gets them elected.
17
Thank you for repeatedly and candidly emphasizing the fact that in today's climate-science-denying, health-care-stealing, tax-cuts-for-the-rich-will-cure-anything-that-ails-you GOP right, we're dealing with sick, shamelessly dishonest people who pose a grave threat to our nation and our future.
95
Perfectly stated Dave. I would also add "FOX-deranged" to the list of adjectives and I would also describe this bunch as the enemies of democracy.
2
Dr. Krugman, wrong only if the goal was US financial and budget stability and growth. Right if the goal was moving wealth to the top of the top. You know the answer.
7
So basically we have a totally blowhard media machine for the conservative party which not only gets every economic measure ans forecast 100% percent wrong, but isn't challenged and sent packing by the mainstream media. The question remains why? Why haven't the Broadcast News channels, CNN, MSNBC, and the online publications like Mother Jones, Huffington Post, and all the rest of "objective" media been out front with the kind of data and information that should be able to completely shoot the republican lies right out of the box? Who are they afraid of if the continual message and predictions remain outright lies and fantasy predictions? How about the Wall Street Journal, who most everybody agrees has a bang up "news reporting and analysis segment" and a lousy right wing, nut job editorial section? Everybody I know never places any faith on the opinion page but reads the news and financial analysis pages faithfully.
I've even heard good things about Chris Wallace and Shep Smith on, of all things FOX News for being hard questioning at times, actually forcing some of the lying liars om the right to tome down their outrageous comments. Everybody also knows to turn off any and all of the other programimg of the "Friends" and comment shows. So what gives and why isn't the information that our very good Dr. Krugman and others given a better national platform?
I've even heard good things about Chris Wallace and Shep Smith on, of all things FOX News for being hard questioning at times, actually forcing some of the lying liars om the right to tome down their outrageous comments. Everybody also knows to turn off any and all of the other programimg of the "Friends" and comment shows. So what gives and why isn't the information that our very good Dr. Krugman and others given a better national platform?
21
The generally accepted wisdom of the mainstream media is that both sides do it and each example of GOP manufactured fact must be balanced by a Democrat gaffe is necessary to keep the campaign advertising money flowing. If one party is deemed to be completely off the rails it hinders the horse race coverage that is easy, predictable, profitable and ultimately irrelevant.
Always follow the money.
Always follow the money.
1
Because dire predictions raise revenues for the media while well-considered, level-headed analysis and explanation don't. Money is always the bottom line.
Yeah Steve I get that about the "news" media, particularly since all the MSM is owned by only a very few individuals and corporations. Fortunately we have these forums to dissect the garbage in and out business. But this current status quo can't last forever, not if we demand more accountability. The more we get off cable and satellite television and go to TIVO and ROKU for our news and entertainment, the less advertisements we have to suffer, which cuts back on Faux type News revenue. These steps may be small but huge numbers of us are starting to make bigger dentd in their otherwise insulated world propaganda.
1
If anyone thinks there is much difference between the so called liberal and conservative views in Congress they are suffering under an illusion that we still live in an open Democracy. We, the voting public, have allowed ourselves to accept whatever claptrap is spun from both party wheels as the golden threads of a promised, but never materializing prosperity.
Before the last election many who sent comments to this paper urged people to vote, but read by very few the message was transmitted to ears closed to anything except the latest drivel from the top forty.
Unfortunately it is our kids who will be around to pick the fruit of the seeds we allow to be sown. Be very, very afraid of no one else but ourselves.
Before the last election many who sent comments to this paper urged people to vote, but read by very few the message was transmitted to ears closed to anything except the latest drivel from the top forty.
Unfortunately it is our kids who will be around to pick the fruit of the seeds we allow to be sown. Be very, very afraid of no one else but ourselves.
1
Charlatans and Cranks?
No thanks!!!
No thanks!!!
16
One of your best couplets! Pithy and apt.
Actually;y Paul Supply Siders did get it right when it counted most.
Everything we enjoy today is the result of Ronald Reagan's efforts to scale back the size and scope of government.
Everything we enjoy today is the result of Ronald Reagan's efforts to scale back the size and scope of government.
5
@Eric:
This post exemplifies exactly why liberals get so frustrated talking to conservatives. Conservatives just don't live in the real world, or acknowledge the existence of anything that contradicts their own personal mythologies. Ronald Reagan did not shrink the government. The Federal government added 1.4 million jobs under Reagan. And supply side economics did not work as advertised. In fact, it wasn't even seriously tried. After the 1982 tax cuts Reagan turned around the next year and put in the largest tax increase in the nation's history up to that time. And even if you think supply side economics was actually tried during the 80's, how can you possibly say it worked when Reagan's economic policies resulted in a tripling of the national debt? Wasn't supply side economics supposed to result in budget surpluses for the Federal government, or at least smaller deficits? Under Reagan the Federal government ran the biggest budget deficits as a % of GNP of any President post WWII up to that time.
How can you rationally discuss anything with people who insist on 'facts' that are the metaphorical equivalent of arguing that up is down, the world is flat and the Sun rises in the West and sets in the East? It can't be done.
This post exemplifies exactly why liberals get so frustrated talking to conservatives. Conservatives just don't live in the real world, or acknowledge the existence of anything that contradicts their own personal mythologies. Ronald Reagan did not shrink the government. The Federal government added 1.4 million jobs under Reagan. And supply side economics did not work as advertised. In fact, it wasn't even seriously tried. After the 1982 tax cuts Reagan turned around the next year and put in the largest tax increase in the nation's history up to that time. And even if you think supply side economics was actually tried during the 80's, how can you possibly say it worked when Reagan's economic policies resulted in a tripling of the national debt? Wasn't supply side economics supposed to result in budget surpluses for the Federal government, or at least smaller deficits? Under Reagan the Federal government ran the biggest budget deficits as a % of GNP of any President post WWII up to that time.
How can you rationally discuss anything with people who insist on 'facts' that are the metaphorical equivalent of arguing that up is down, the world is flat and the Sun rises in the West and sets in the East? It can't be done.
6
Way to prove Krugman's point, Eric:
"What are you going to believe, right-wing doctrine or your own lying eyes? These days, the doctrine wins."
You do know that the national debt tripled under Reagan? He reduced FUNDING of the government, not spending. Public debt rose from 26% GDP in 1980 to 41% GDP by 1988
"What are you going to believe, right-wing doctrine or your own lying eyes? These days, the doctrine wins."
You do know that the national debt tripled under Reagan? He reduced FUNDING of the government, not spending. Public debt rose from 26% GDP in 1980 to 41% GDP by 1988
2
Oh sure, after Reagan came in, I left tech and became a marketer of empty factories.
1
So anyone who disagrees with Paul is a charlatan. I can't wait to read his next column on civility.
5
1) No, just those that purposely misstate facts and refuse to acknowledge their mistakes and adjust their theories to match reality.
2) http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/18/the-civility-whine/
Actually reading the article you are posting on or searching the internet on a topic before raising it would help.
2) http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/18/the-civility-whine/
Actually reading the article you are posting on or searching the internet on a topic before raising it would help.
3
"For those unfamiliar with the phrase, “charlatans and cranks” is associated with N. Gregory Mankiw, a professor at Harvard who served for a time as George W. Bush’s chief economic adviser. In the first edition of his best-selling economics textbook, Mr. Mankiw used those words to ridicule “supply-siders” who promised that tax cuts would have such magic effects on the economy that deficits would go down, not up."
2
Did you read the second paragraph? The "charlatans and cranks" title was conferred by N. Gregory Maniw, a Harvard professor who served as an economic advisor to George W. Bush. Please read more carefully before light into Mr. Krugman for being uncivil.
2
Krugman would like us to believe his future predictions. However, the evidence seems to indicate he, like a lot of other economists, can't even accurately predict the past.
8
Ahhh....just another "hit piece" by America's favorite socialist economist. Once again, he's treating us to the same mantra:
Republicans are wrong.
Republicans are stupid
Republicans are evil
Only Krugman understand economics
Oh....and more government spending, please.
No facts this time, no numbers, no recitation of historical facts--just straight, unfettered diatribe.
Tiresome, very tiresome.
Republicans are wrong.
Republicans are stupid
Republicans are evil
Only Krugman understand economics
Oh....and more government spending, please.
No facts this time, no numbers, no recitation of historical facts--just straight, unfettered diatribe.
Tiresome, very tiresome.
8
You must live under a rock, Jesse. Certainly not in Wisconsin where it is impossible to avoid the truth and reality of Walker's disastrous, mean-spirited and evil policies.
1
Take a look at Kansas, at the great recession, at the two senseless and expensive wars. If you don't think those things are wrong, stupid and evil then you're not thinking at all.
1
You forget to list how hopelessly juvenile you are.
How about we give an example of how Keynesian economics IS working instead of focusing on the supply-siders and their idiotic doctrine?
In Minnesota, right next to Scott Walker's Wisconsin, Governor Mark Dayton has made his state into a laboratory of Liberal policies and surprise surprise... Minnesota has an unemployment rate of 3.6% to Wisconsin's 5.2% and lists of other healthy economic numbers.
In Minnesota, right next to Scott Walker's Wisconsin, Governor Mark Dayton has made his state into a laboratory of Liberal policies and surprise surprise... Minnesota has an unemployment rate of 3.6% to Wisconsin's 5.2% and lists of other healthy economic numbers.
37
I have an acquaintance who spent her working life as a teacher in Minnesota and is a very vocal supporter of the President. She retired with the pension and health benefits that her union secured for her and promptly moved to Wisconsin. Her reason? Lower taxes! Could there be a more perfect example of "progressive" hypocrisy?
3
"Scott Walker, the governor of Wisconsin, is said to be a rising contender for the Republican presidential nomination."
The Koch brothers are starting to see a return on their investment.
The Koch brothers are starting to see a return on their investment.
34
Back up on my soapbox again......where is the blame the media richly deserves? If they had been doing their job of informing the public the Republicans would never have gotten away with their budget busting supply side snake oil. How often have you seen anyone in the mainstream "liberal" media debunk the claim that tax cuts generate so much economic activity that lost revenue is recouped? That has never been true and even some conservative economists like Mr. Mankiew have publicly said so. The only other time that I am aware of was a WaPo article in '07 (Mr. Giuiliani and the Tax Fairy).
How can we survive as a democracy if journalists cannot be bothered to report facts, not faux balance?
How can we survive as a democracy if journalists cannot be bothered to report facts, not faux balance?
12
Not sure just how educated journalists are about economics. And the ones who are, are in the business sections and often tread softly to preserve access to Wall Streeters. Also, a lot of them learned their economics in the Reagan era and seem to be waiting for those "efficient markets" to fix everything. Look at how colleges and universities have jumped on the big bucks bandwagon!
2
You really don't believe that we have a free press, do you?
1
Professor,
Bravo for having the courage and conviction to take on these lunatics! Unfortunately, in our nation, there appears to be no penalty for such economic treason against the majority. You can get away with, well, practically anything. If there are no consequences at the ballot box or elsewhere for being consistently wrong and for outright lies, these avaricious people get away with what they are doing.
Republicans have been scheming and committing economic treason patiently and methodically since Reagan! They have their think tanks and propaganda outfits. They pass legislation to gut regulations that stand in the way of profits, like repealing Glass-Segal, one step at a time. They push up deficits and then cry bloody murder, demanding spending cuts, while insisting on more tax cuts for their patrons, the rich and the corporations. This has been going on for 3 decades now. If this nation does not wake up, and penalize and ostracize these prevaricators, we are doomed.
Progressives don't have this long-term scheming mentality and alas, that is their downfall! They should learn from the Republicans and level the field.
Bravo for having the courage and conviction to take on these lunatics! Unfortunately, in our nation, there appears to be no penalty for such economic treason against the majority. You can get away with, well, practically anything. If there are no consequences at the ballot box or elsewhere for being consistently wrong and for outright lies, these avaricious people get away with what they are doing.
Republicans have been scheming and committing economic treason patiently and methodically since Reagan! They have their think tanks and propaganda outfits. They pass legislation to gut regulations that stand in the way of profits, like repealing Glass-Segal, one step at a time. They push up deficits and then cry bloody murder, demanding spending cuts, while insisting on more tax cuts for their patrons, the rich and the corporations. This has been going on for 3 decades now. If this nation does not wake up, and penalize and ostracize these prevaricators, we are doomed.
Progressives don't have this long-term scheming mentality and alas, that is their downfall! They should learn from the Republicans and level the field.
16
Reagan's backers committed outright treason in Iran to destroy Carter.
2
Here are the secrets of the eternal infallibility of rightwing thought:
1. If a dubious assertion fails to turn into fact after a 100 repetitions, then make the assertion with feeling one more time and begin another round all over again.
2. Use facts as instruments of faith, nothing more, nothing less. If they conform to faith, let them be. If not, why, change them!
3. In orthodox right-wing theology, faith is absolute and defies explanation to infidels. Facts are relative, man-made constructs and as such orders of magnitude lower in their value and significance.
4. A right-winger is always right and never has to say "sorry."
1. If a dubious assertion fails to turn into fact after a 100 repetitions, then make the assertion with feeling one more time and begin another round all over again.
2. Use facts as instruments of faith, nothing more, nothing less. If they conform to faith, let them be. If not, why, change them!
3. In orthodox right-wing theology, faith is absolute and defies explanation to infidels. Facts are relative, man-made constructs and as such orders of magnitude lower in their value and significance.
4. A right-winger is always right and never has to say "sorry."
14
Mr Krugman's Op-ed is in my view a brilliant companion piece to Mr. Friedman's earlier one on the decline of democracy. Just like Vladimir Putin, Recep Tayyip Erdogan and others of similar ilk, the republican party seems very bent on distorting facts and disseminating falsehoods to control their masses and fit an agenda that ultimately just benefits the loyal few. I guess they get away with it because they have a well oiled propaganda machine (Fox News being the main tool), and less and less people seem to care, which is scary.
What will US democracy become, if it can even be called that, knowing big business can sway elections and one of the major parties practices very effective mass-controlling propaganda.
The Republican party would much rather transform the US into an oligarchy, if they could. Who says they won't find a way to reach that goal eventually?
Time for a revolution...
What will US democracy become, if it can even be called that, knowing big business can sway elections and one of the major parties practices very effective mass-controlling propaganda.
The Republican party would much rather transform the US into an oligarchy, if they could. Who says they won't find a way to reach that goal eventually?
Time for a revolution...
15
It might be somewhat easier to elect non-Republican candidates if we took big money out of campaigning--------------
Give equal amounts of free TV and radio time for all candidates to introduce themselves to voters and make their stances on issues very clear
Make illegal all paid political TV and radio commercials featuring candidates or parties whether paid for by the candidates or by issue or political groups
Feature all candidates on TV debates, not just Dems and Republicans, and do not charge them for the time
Give equal amounts of free TV and radio time for all candidates to introduce themselves to voters and make their stances on issues very clear
Make illegal all paid political TV and radio commercials featuring candidates or parties whether paid for by the candidates or by issue or political groups
Feature all candidates on TV debates, not just Dems and Republicans, and do not charge them for the time
The reason Art Laffer still has a voice has to do with the powerful effect of wishful thinking. Wanting a bigger paycheck is natural and a lower tax bill means a bigger pay check. Must of us recognize that the government pays for things we want, but we still wish it would be possible to get the bigger paycheck and get the things that government buys. I suspect that Laffer is well aware of this and has been living off it for years.
6
It just goes to show what I have been saying for years. If you analyze every economic policy prescription, do not listen to what conservative "economists" say, just ask yourself: does it help the rich get richer? If the answer is yes, Republicans are for it. Likewise, if the policy helps the poor, Republicans are opposed to it.
14
The 'denial of reality' is just lying. The leaders of the right, and their hired hack economists, know that what they are saying is false, but they are saying it to deliberately mislead voters, which fits the very definition of lying. Truth doesn't matter to these people, only winning does
18
Lying is often the only way to tell Americans what they want to hear.
2
I am very afraid because there are no prominent Democratic politicians except a few like Larry Summers that can credibly rebuke Republican economics. Democrats have been passive for long against Republican's supply sider economics or monetarist economics. This is one of the reasons why our country has followed the guidance by the rich Republicans. Not-so-rich Republicans can tolerate Rich Republicans' abuse of their voting rights. These not-so-rich Republicans have not challenged enough to take over governership of the Republican states even though they have to pay higher consumption related taxes in exchange for the tax cut for the wealthy. Yet, these not-so-rich Republicans rush to take advantage Obamacare like Republican voters in Hialeah, South Florida. According to the Miami Herald," No city in the country, when measured by ZIP codes, has more enrollments through the federal insurance exchange than Hialeah, one of the most Republican cities in America." These people lucky because most of them have been uninsured for long. Again yet, these not-so-rich Republicans shout," It's like communism! I don't like Obamacare!" These people believe that health insurances they bought are "Government insurance". This is the reason why I am afraid. These not-so-rich Republicans and a large number of so-called "middle" have no idea about the danger of the Republican economics.
12
I don't see anyone who can explain economics in plain language anywhere.
1
It's the voters we have to be afraid of. They can't be all that bright if they keep electing these types of empty suit politicians. The Republicans have nothing but a moral agenda. Nothing else. They profess less government, but actually want more government in our lives to further their views on how we should live. The dumbing down of America has succeeded.
8
"It's the voters we have to be afraid of."
Exactly. We are reaping the whirlwind of the dumbing down of America.
Exactly. We are reaping the whirlwind of the dumbing down of America.
They made themselves God's agents here when they legislated the country under God in 1953.
Once again everything that Professor Krugman is saying here is true. And once again, he does not call out the mainstream media, including this paper, who again and again give legitimacy to failed economic policies. One has to search in this paper to find articles like ones showing that since the mid-20th century under Democratic presidencies growth is higher (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/upshot/luck-and-a-little-mystery-the-e... and the majority of Americans do better economically--the majority, not just the 1%--than under Republicans. This isn't magic, but has to do with economic and social policies that equalize the playing field in a number of ways.
I understand the fear of being called a "liberal" media outlet, especially with a loudspeaker like Fox braying nonstop. But until the mainstream media call out these failed ideas and policies, which brought us the worst recession since the Great Depression, in 2007-8 (and let's not forget those dates!), they will stay in the public discourse and people will buy them, even though they're destroying the economic futures of millions of people.
I understand the fear of being called a "liberal" media outlet, especially with a loudspeaker like Fox braying nonstop. But until the mainstream media call out these failed ideas and policies, which brought us the worst recession since the Great Depression, in 2007-8 (and let's not forget those dates!), they will stay in the public discourse and people will buy them, even though they're destroying the economic futures of millions of people.
21
Heaven forbid that this newspaper admit that it is a brick in the wall of an interlocked directorship.
2
I wonder if I could find a lawyer, pro bono, of course, that could support my contention that the perpetual election cycle constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" inflicted on American Citizenry? I venture to say the constant cycle contributes to the low turnout we see on election day. One can hardly rest after voting before some presidential wannabe states the electee is wrong for America and announces his/her intentions to run in the next cycle.
8
Nobody in this farce seems to have a clue where to begin to negotiate a social contract.
If Jeb Bush expects to ride the DNA he shares with his brother into the White House by supporting the 2003 invasion of Iraq, then he needs to take a look at a Reason-Rupe poll from October 2014. The poll found that only 39 percent of respondents recalled supporting the war and 51 percent said they had opposed it. 2003 polls, however, were vastly different. Then, 72 percent supported the invasion, with only 23 percent opposing it.
Interesting, isn't it how memory "dims" with the passage of time, especially when the dimming re-writes an embarrassing personal history.
Obama defeated Hillary Clinton in 2008 largely because of his opposition to the invasion, which also set him apart from so many other establishment Democrats during primary season, who, despite being the majority party in the Senate, allowed the war powers resolution to pass with only 22 dissenting Democrat votes.
Now that we have seen the bloody horror of Arab states lacking strong secular leadership, who among the 2016 candidates will have the wherewithal to see and the courage to say that support for freedom movements in the Middle East – save, perhaps, Tunisia's – was a foreign policy mistake?
Libya, Iraq and Syria are in worse shape today and are getting worser by the day.
Is there a candidate who can finesse a return to a Kissinger-esque real politik that worked with, and supported, tyrannical regimes in the name of stability even though they were rife with human rights abuses?
Interesting, isn't it how memory "dims" with the passage of time, especially when the dimming re-writes an embarrassing personal history.
Obama defeated Hillary Clinton in 2008 largely because of his opposition to the invasion, which also set him apart from so many other establishment Democrats during primary season, who, despite being the majority party in the Senate, allowed the war powers resolution to pass with only 22 dissenting Democrat votes.
Now that we have seen the bloody horror of Arab states lacking strong secular leadership, who among the 2016 candidates will have the wherewithal to see and the courage to say that support for freedom movements in the Middle East – save, perhaps, Tunisia's – was a foreign policy mistake?
Libya, Iraq and Syria are in worse shape today and are getting worser by the day.
Is there a candidate who can finesse a return to a Kissinger-esque real politik that worked with, and supported, tyrannical regimes in the name of stability even though they were rife with human rights abuses?
2
Don't worry. We still have ultra-neoconservative John McCain to handle foreign
affairs in countries where presidential wanna-bes who happen to be right-wingers mysteriously become the Number One candidates in their countries.
Venezuela, for one, and now Ukraine, but others as well.
affairs in countries where presidential wanna-bes who happen to be right-wingers mysteriously become the Number One candidates in their countries.
Venezuela, for one, and now Ukraine, but others as well.
So what's the matter with Kansas? Why do Republicans keep winning elections even though their candidates constantly spew out errant nonsense and govern so very, very badly when they're in charge? Governor Brownback guts Kansas' public sector, tanks the state's economy and wins reelection. Governor Walker guts public unions, destroys Wisconsin's public school system and is considered a front runner in the race to be the GOP's presidential nominee. You - we - can complain as much as we want about money in politics, right wing media's influence and all the rest, but the simple fact is that those two guys and their ilk keep winning elections.
If this keeps up the coroner will have to list suicide under cause of death when this country's middle class finally expires.
If this keeps up the coroner will have to list suicide under cause of death when this country's middle class finally expires.
49
The world is rife with fundamentalist beliefs. The Jews have a 3000 year old divine right to Palestine. The Arabs blindly follow the edicts of Muhammad, ISIS is justified in chopping off people's heads, Christians are convinced that Christ will return someday, and the Republicans have their supply side, inflation shouting economic gurus. It's all the same. Krugman calls it a conservative "doctrine". It's really a conservative religion. Doctrines have logic and empirical evidence to back them up. Religions are not concerned with such things. All they need is belief.
When belief runs the show, any manner of "evidence" is accepted as true. The tornado missed my house because God answered my prayers. Inflation is really high because we are not measuring it correctly. Cutting taxes increases government revenue, even though deficits keep increasing.
All this is done to bond the the group, or tribe, together. In politics, its done to get votes and raise funds from big contributors. I believe in the good my church does, so I give it money.
Of course, this process is terribly destructive to government. Problems cannot be solved pursuing failed policies. But we pursue them anyway, over and over again. We are not as evolved as we think we are.
When belief runs the show, any manner of "evidence" is accepted as true. The tornado missed my house because God answered my prayers. Inflation is really high because we are not measuring it correctly. Cutting taxes increases government revenue, even though deficits keep increasing.
All this is done to bond the the group, or tribe, together. In politics, its done to get votes and raise funds from big contributors. I believe in the good my church does, so I give it money.
Of course, this process is terribly destructive to government. Problems cannot be solved pursuing failed policies. But we pursue them anyway, over and over again. We are not as evolved as we think we are.
59
Right! The trouble country has is that low info voters have been sold a bill of goods on many issues especially on the economy which is really the whole ball game.
There are 2 main problems with the economy. The first is inequality which takes money from the people who need it & will spend it and gives it to the people who do not need it, spend a much smaller percentage, and use the rest to speculate.
The low info voter is in favor of reducing inequality, but to a large extant opposed to the methods to do so. Many are opposed to raising taxes on the rich because they have been told that all taxes are evil. A dollar sent to DC will be swallowed up by some horrible monster, never to be seen again. They have been taught that unions are evil in spite of what we saw after WWII or see today in countries like Germany.
The second way to help the economy is more federal deficit spending, but people are unable to understand that federal spending is income for the private sector, people & businesses. If you use tax dollars, all you do is to put back money you have already taken out of the private sector; deficits can get NEW money to the people who need it.
The lo info voter believes that all debt is bad because it may be bad for him. He cannot see the difference between himself and a huge country that lasts a long time and can print the currency its debts are in.
From many comments in the Times, I have learned that data will change not his mind
There are 2 main problems with the economy. The first is inequality which takes money from the people who need it & will spend it and gives it to the people who do not need it, spend a much smaller percentage, and use the rest to speculate.
The low info voter is in favor of reducing inequality, but to a large extant opposed to the methods to do so. Many are opposed to raising taxes on the rich because they have been told that all taxes are evil. A dollar sent to DC will be swallowed up by some horrible monster, never to be seen again. They have been taught that unions are evil in spite of what we saw after WWII or see today in countries like Germany.
The second way to help the economy is more federal deficit spending, but people are unable to understand that federal spending is income for the private sector, people & businesses. If you use tax dollars, all you do is to put back money you have already taken out of the private sector; deficits can get NEW money to the people who need it.
The lo info voter believes that all debt is bad because it may be bad for him. He cannot see the difference between himself and a huge country that lasts a long time and can print the currency its debts are in.
From many comments in the Times, I have learned that data will change not his mind
2
You are so spot on. Yours just happened to be the first comment I read. I am visiting my 88 year old aunt in Alabama. She watches Fox News religiously, and I mean religiously; we just had an argument yesterday about the horrendous inflation that is going to hit us any minute because the Federal Reserve is "out of control" and is printing money like "Germany before World War II."
She also wants this country to "get back to where it's supposed to be--founded by Christians for Christians"--apparently the First Amendment doesn't apply somehow. ISIS is going to invade any day now. I could go on....
You could say it's comical but you are correct. We all know what happens when belief trumps government by the people.
She also wants this country to "get back to where it's supposed to be--founded by Christians for Christians"--apparently the First Amendment doesn't apply somehow. ISIS is going to invade any day now. I could go on....
You could say it's comical but you are correct. We all know what happens when belief trumps government by the people.
2
Thank you Mr. Rozenblit. Well said.
We are sliding into the abyss and few seem to realize it.
Religion. Ain't it great?
We are sliding into the abyss and few seem to realize it.
Religion. Ain't it great?
1
"And don’t get me started on climate change."
Please! Start!!
It should be clear by now that the more immediate threat from AGW is not sea-level rise or larger storms someday, but the droughts and severe water shortages that are already upon us.
For a minute, ignore:
-- the Syrian Civil War, which burst into flame after the western provinces of that ancient land endured five years of record droughts;
-- Russia's annexation of rich Ukrainian farmland;
-- The water crisis in Sao Paulo, the largest city in the Western Hemisphere, and the ensuing five- or six-figure death toll which is likely to have an apocalyptic impact on Brazil's economy, its democratic government, and the already-bleeding Amazon rain forest.
Instead, focus on how fast the land for hundreds of miles north of the 30th parallel is turning into desert. The "Horse Latitudes" have always been vulnerable to dry conditions; the air is atmospherically stagnant there. Look at a world map; those lands are mostly desert.
Now, those conditions are moving northward. That means a huge portion of the Earth's farmland is being rendered agriculturally useless. [Draining the aquifers doesn't help either.]
Obviously, this is bad for business.
Perhaps this is a larger economic (and political) concern than what the GOP will do should they retake the White House. This global mega-drought is coming on so fast that it may even be the top issue for voters in 2016.
So please Paul... speak up! We are running out of time.
Please! Start!!
It should be clear by now that the more immediate threat from AGW is not sea-level rise or larger storms someday, but the droughts and severe water shortages that are already upon us.
For a minute, ignore:
-- the Syrian Civil War, which burst into flame after the western provinces of that ancient land endured five years of record droughts;
-- Russia's annexation of rich Ukrainian farmland;
-- The water crisis in Sao Paulo, the largest city in the Western Hemisphere, and the ensuing five- or six-figure death toll which is likely to have an apocalyptic impact on Brazil's economy, its democratic government, and the already-bleeding Amazon rain forest.
Instead, focus on how fast the land for hundreds of miles north of the 30th parallel is turning into desert. The "Horse Latitudes" have always been vulnerable to dry conditions; the air is atmospherically stagnant there. Look at a world map; those lands are mostly desert.
Now, those conditions are moving northward. That means a huge portion of the Earth's farmland is being rendered agriculturally useless. [Draining the aquifers doesn't help either.]
Obviously, this is bad for business.
Perhaps this is a larger economic (and political) concern than what the GOP will do should they retake the White House. This global mega-drought is coming on so fast that it may even be the top issue for voters in 2016.
So please Paul... speak up! We are running out of time.
28
Please! End!
Average global precipitation has increased .2%/decade (1901-2012)
Average US precipitation has increased .5%/decade (1901-2012, 48 contiguous states)
Data source: NOAA-2013
The GOP platform should include sump pump tax credits and rebates for swimming pool catchments.
Average global precipitation has increased .2%/decade (1901-2012)
Average US precipitation has increased .5%/decade (1901-2012, 48 contiguous states)
Data source: NOAA-2013
The GOP platform should include sump pump tax credits and rebates for swimming pool catchments.
The key word to include in describing the modern Republican (aka Tea or Plutocrat) Party besides "charlatans and cranks" is "snake oil salesmen." Scott Walker is the best current exemplar of the slick, oily politician who manages to hide the ineffectiveness of his utterly regressive and destructive policies at the bidding of his plutocratic patrons. Mr. Walker is a creation and consummate advance man for the Koch Brothers who believe in an unfettered--that is, totally unregulated--market. And like the famous quote from "Engine Charlie" Wilson, that means "What's good for Big Oil is good for the country." The policies to support this are: more tax cuts for the rich, no unions, "drill baby drill," no EPA regulations, and constant involvement in the Middle East oil wars (aka fighting ISIS and supporting Saudi Arabia). Do these economic policies work? They've been buying them in Wisconsin and they certainly work for the "one percent."
18
Watch out now for the damage to be done by the TPP (TransPacific Partnership), written in secret by corporate representatives/lawyers to benefit corporations instead of the people in its member countries and by our representatives, also corporate types. And of course the European version to come.
Public Citizen (citizen.org/trade) has all the grimy details.
Public Citizen (citizen.org/trade) has all the grimy details.
That's our boy, Scotty. All the virtue he extolls about less government works in the margins and erodes our quality of life and the Wisconsin I love. He is the product of out of state money dominating our elections.
My question for journalists and scholars: Where in the US Constitution does it say money if free speech? I also would like to know if where it specifically defines corporations as people.
My question for journalists and scholars: Where in the US Constitution does it say money if free speech? I also would like to know if where it specifically defines corporations as people.
21
Several years ago I served as an appointed government official in state government working in a cabinet level department charged with dealing with many complex socially important scientific issues and policies. On at least two occasions I was asked if I believed in sound science. My response was that those persons who used the phrase sound science didn't understand the meaning of those words. Science is not a matter of belief. It is a systematic method of inquiry that seeks to uncover objective truth. However, by using the phrase, the thought processes of the questioner are revealed. Many people actually think that science and objective truth are matters of belief - the vaccination debate is a current example. That this phenomenon occurs in economic disciplines is not surprising but it is unfortunate. That it occurs in politics is completely predictable and as you conclude, we should all be very, very afraid.
13
For every complex problem, there's a simple, easy, obvious wrong answer. The Republicans seem to find it every time. Unfortunately, there is a human tendency to look for simple answers, and too many citizens are intolerant of ambiguity and the notion that sometimes things can't get fixed fast and completely, so the attractive sound bite has enormous power. But if you have to campaign with bumper-stickers, you should at least choose ones that bear some resemblance to reality.
We should expect that the people who are supposed to actually be working on these problems should grasp some of the complexities, but I don't know of even one Republican who doesn't sound like a simpleton.
We should expect that the people who are supposed to actually be working on these problems should grasp some of the complexities, but I don't know of even one Republican who doesn't sound like a simpleton.
11
"Along with this denial of reality comes an absence of personal accountability. If anything, alleged experts seem to get points by showing that they’re willing to keep saying the same things no matter how embarrassingly wrong they’ve been in the past."
Dr. Krugman, one more thought I had in mulling over your column today. It concerns those pols who travel to Europe to "bolster" their foreign policy cred. The embarrassing exchange between the Brit reporter and Governor Walker just shows how even our allies are appalled the amazing level of ignorance and stupidity dominating a major political party in the US.
The Brits, and indeed foreign friends I have in Italy and beyond, indicate their total amazement that half the country denies reality on climate change, on economic laws, on the rationale for "going to war." And, they must shake their heads in total amazement, that in 2015, one of the right's most pressing concerns is to repeal the first major initiative to increase access to vital healthcare for lower income Americans.
I'm sure they think to themselves, "This is a superpower?" Stupid is, as stupid does, says Gump. Gump is smarter than most of the current GOP contenders.
Dr. Krugman, one more thought I had in mulling over your column today. It concerns those pols who travel to Europe to "bolster" their foreign policy cred. The embarrassing exchange between the Brit reporter and Governor Walker just shows how even our allies are appalled the amazing level of ignorance and stupidity dominating a major political party in the US.
The Brits, and indeed foreign friends I have in Italy and beyond, indicate their total amazement that half the country denies reality on climate change, on economic laws, on the rationale for "going to war." And, they must shake their heads in total amazement, that in 2015, one of the right's most pressing concerns is to repeal the first major initiative to increase access to vital healthcare for lower income Americans.
I'm sure they think to themselves, "This is a superpower?" Stupid is, as stupid does, says Gump. Gump is smarter than most of the current GOP contenders.
23
Charlatans and cranks are fiddling with the data in every sphere to play sweet melodies in tune with their preprogrammed prejudices, in economics, health recommendations, climate change, election laws, and more. Commonly used terms, such as research, science, and experts, have lost their usual assumption of impartiality. Even the most respected journals in various fields publish reports sponsored by vested interests. These trends have corrupted public discourse and suggest that we are living in an age of disinformation.
255
As I've recounted numerous times lately, reading Kevin Phillip's book "American Dynasty", the truth is even worse than Krugman paints here. There has been criminal collusion by the Bush family and their cronies over decades and now their lackey economists must air brush the truth with phony numbers. I was once married to an attorney who thought if he yelled something enough, he could make everyone believe a lie was the truth. I think this is much of what is going on now. It's not just the right that's doing it. Both parties are in on the joke on the American people with the whole foreign policy of the Middle East and how the largess of the American people was fleeced from them not just in 2008, but continually over the past fifty years. We have a massive disfunctional system designed to move the wealth to a few and it has succeeded wildly around the entire globe. To dislodge this could be an extremely bumpy ride.
6
I've also started to read "American Dynasty" now that Jeb Bush is a likely presidential contender in 2016.
It is a book that should be required reading. Perhaps a reprint and an update to cover W's second term (2004-2008) is in order.
It is a book that should be required reading. Perhaps a reprint and an update to cover W's second term (2004-2008) is in order.
3
Following the inimitable Krugman style, the article below, through models, examples, locations, and issues looks at the globe's best economic practices for growth. It digs into industries (rails, for example) where the US has the right mix of skills, financing, and open trade, but is near the bottom in over 200 sub-industries (from adhesives to coatings to signals), conceding the assembly market to France and Canada (which supplies NYC's subway cars).
The article, “Hillary Clinton: Will Her Economic Policy Follow Global Best Practices?” [bit.ly/1FMJTJM] begs voters and candidates (esp. Hillary!) to dump the traditional debate over debt and taxes and quit working around the margins of the economy.
Again, it looks like Republicans are going to drive the debate--with debt and taxes--and with a narrow view ignoring the market ideals they claim to embrace, but have no strategy for. Theirs is a capital strategy. It vacuums up wealth from the national treasury. Republicans don't reward or create penetration or domination of growing markets. They offer no coordinated vision or plan. They put no economic boots on the ground (except for war!)
Other countries are moving forward (China's Pearl River zone, Botswana in housing, Morocco in solar), but the US is missing contracts. Democrats are silent and the GOP outcry in the end is simply a shrug. As it stands, the wealthy win, opportunities are lost, and the nation stalls.
The article, “Hillary Clinton: Will Her Economic Policy Follow Global Best Practices?” [bit.ly/1FMJTJM] begs voters and candidates (esp. Hillary!) to dump the traditional debate over debt and taxes and quit working around the margins of the economy.
Again, it looks like Republicans are going to drive the debate--with debt and taxes--and with a narrow view ignoring the market ideals they claim to embrace, but have no strategy for. Theirs is a capital strategy. It vacuums up wealth from the national treasury. Republicans don't reward or create penetration or domination of growing markets. They offer no coordinated vision or plan. They put no economic boots on the ground (except for war!)
Other countries are moving forward (China's Pearl River zone, Botswana in housing, Morocco in solar), but the US is missing contracts. Democrats are silent and the GOP outcry in the end is simply a shrug. As it stands, the wealthy win, opportunities are lost, and the nation stalls.
14
It seems pretty simple to me. The Republicans deal in propaganda which bears no relationship to the truth. Just ignore the facts on the ground or make up some phony excuse to cast the facts in a different light like tax cuts result in more government income or huge profits for the rich somehow trickle down to the rest of us.
7
And by doing this, the Republicans continue to garner more votes and win elections! When will the Democrats call them out by yelling at them in chambers: LIARS! The Democrats are just too polite! The people have no one really fighting on their side, for their cause. No one but Elizabeth Warner and Bernie Sanders standing up and telling it like it is.
America! America! Oh my America! Where hast thou gone?
America! America! Oh my America! Where hast thou gone?
Yes, the right wing ideologues are wrong on every issue. The only subject they get an A in is rhetoric and pontificating. Eventually they will lose on every issue, but in the meantime the damage they will do to the country and the planet is scary, very very scary.
Truthfulness and objective realism are the basis for sound mental health and the making of good decisions. Where is all this emotional dysfunction coming from? We have blamed many of our ills on poverty and the disadvantaged. Maybe it's time to look at wealth, privilege and entitlements that cause people to distort truth and bend facts to meet their own goals.
Truthfulness and objective realism are the basis for sound mental health and the making of good decisions. Where is all this emotional dysfunction coming from? We have blamed many of our ills on poverty and the disadvantaged. Maybe it's time to look at wealth, privilege and entitlements that cause people to distort truth and bend facts to meet their own goals.
19
I expect that the right wing pundits will eventually discover a way to blame liberals for all the damage resulting form the right wing pundits' preferred policies. For example, it's only a matter of time before we see an article from a right-wing pundit blaming global warming on ObamaCare, or droughts on a failure to drill enough oil wells.
12
You write of Pessimists versus optimists. Conservatives are backwards minded and thinking while liberals are full of hope and act to attain that hoped for prosperity.
Whether you subscribe to either leaning, the economic cycle will progress through time naturally giving voice to those who are contrary to the growth or recession of our economy.
When times are good, the conservatives see gloom and misfortune. When times are bad, liberals hold the podium with messages of hope wanted by most.
It's just the natural order of things. As the cycle goes now, the optimists will prevail.
Whether you subscribe to either leaning, the economic cycle will progress through time naturally giving voice to those who are contrary to the growth or recession of our economy.
When times are good, the conservatives see gloom and misfortune. When times are bad, liberals hold the podium with messages of hope wanted by most.
It's just the natural order of things. As the cycle goes now, the optimists will prevail.
6
"Reality does not win elections".
The evolutionary struggle to win elections (Lamarckian evolution by the way) results in these strange political contortions. Also, the Republican Party has been undergoing its Cambrian explosion.
The evolutionary struggle to win elections (Lamarckian evolution by the way) results in these strange political contortions. Also, the Republican Party has been undergoing its Cambrian explosion.
3
"....they’re willing to keep saying the same things ...." --- this allegedly is a sign of strong character.
6
Or a symptom of insanity.
1
Professor Krugman, those you describe are nothing but snake oil salesmen paid by the very rich to dupe low informed easily gullible Americans into supporting an agenda that benefits only the very rich.
They have to know they are lying and deceiving the public or incredibly stupid.
They have to know they are lying and deceiving the public or incredibly stupid.
36
There is not one thing, that is wrong with the economy, the country, the world, that the Republicans don't have their fingers in it. Nothing, zilch, nada, zip!
16
I think the relevant terminology to apply to today's economics is a running thread of orthodoxy (right thought) rather than orthopraxy (right practice). Hopefully we will understand our error and correct our behavior for the common good.
3
The neocons wanted the economic collapse, it just happened too soon and was't severe enough. They figured the only way to get rid of Social Security and all the federal agencies that regulate commerce was to create a crisis. So their backwards approach nearly worked before and they are selling it again.
15
Exactly. Their goal has never been to be correct. It's to make us believe the economy is so fragile that the only way to strengthen it is to privatize Social Security and Medicare so they and their wealthy friends can get there hands some of those billions.
24
It's also their plan for public education: use the big lie technique to subvert it and finally turn it over to profiteers. In many places where it's already been privatized, the results have been dismal, but they'll never admit it. Their ideas always work, even though it can be easily demonstrated that they don't. Like the scorpion in the fable, It is their nature.
3
So how many of you commenters are going to sit out the 2016 election because Hillary Clinton isn't "pure" enough for you. thus helping to elect one of the real charlatans you are railing about, just to prove some kind of point?
40
Me, for one. Not sit out, but vote for someone else. In recent elections, there have been no suitable candidates on the slate (the minor parties (both left and right) seem to favor cooks both, so I usually write in my wife's name: she could govern better in her sleep.
Can you imagine voting for Obama twice, Cuomo twice, Shumer (Mr. Wall Street) three times, etc. etc., down the list of a failed and corrupt party? The Republicans do represent the ignorant, but the Democrats, "Intelligentsia" label not withstanding, represent the stupid, and in the long run, stupid will lose every time.
Can you imagine voting for Obama twice, Cuomo twice, Shumer (Mr. Wall Street) three times, etc. etc., down the list of a failed and corrupt party? The Republicans do represent the ignorant, but the Democrats, "Intelligentsia" label not withstanding, represent the stupid, and in the long run, stupid will lose every time.
1
Is Hillary Clinton the "charlatan" to whom you're referring?
Glenn,
If you really think they away you write -- and are not a troll or click-baiter of some sort -- then you are part of the problem. If the next SC Justice is named by a Republican President, you and those of your persuasion are to blame.
I won't speak up for Cuomo or Schumer, but President Obama has done a fantastic job given the hand he was dealt -- the best President in my lifetime so far, which goes back to Harry Truman.
Sec. Clinton is the best viable option (pace Bernie Sanders, the best Senator of all times) for 2016. She will do a fine job and her policies will be a far cry from any Republican regressiveness.
Reading your post reminded me of 2000, when people saw "no difference" between Al Gore and George W. Bush -- nonsense then and nonsense now. Writing in your wife's name, even if she is a wonderful person, is wasting your vote. Please reconsider reality.
If you really think they away you write -- and are not a troll or click-baiter of some sort -- then you are part of the problem. If the next SC Justice is named by a Republican President, you and those of your persuasion are to blame.
I won't speak up for Cuomo or Schumer, but President Obama has done a fantastic job given the hand he was dealt -- the best President in my lifetime so far, which goes back to Harry Truman.
Sec. Clinton is the best viable option (pace Bernie Sanders, the best Senator of all times) for 2016. She will do a fine job and her policies will be a far cry from any Republican regressiveness.
Reading your post reminded me of 2000, when people saw "no difference" between Al Gore and George W. Bush -- nonsense then and nonsense now. Writing in your wife's name, even if she is a wonderful person, is wasting your vote. Please reconsider reality.
2
The headline should be Cracking Up for 2016 for the loss of our collective minds as this nonsense continues. And for the constant chuckling about the inside joke of it all that must be going on at board meetings across the corporate world.
6
I'm afraid.
8
Dr Krugman, as ususal, plays the facts a little loosely from his lofty perch. He uses an oversimplisitc interpretation on Professor Mankiw's views to outrage. Let Mankiw speak for himself:
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/07/on-charlatons-and-cranks.html
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/07/on-charlatons-and-cranks.html
2
As uaual, Prof Mankiw fails to understand the importance of deficits in an economy operating below potential. How else is hi-powered money to get to the private sector? For a brief look at the data see:
http://www.slideshare.net/MitchGreen/mmt-basics-you-cannot-consider-the-...
and
http://www.slideshare.net/MitchGreen/its-what-you-know-for-sure-that-jus...
And always keep in mind:
The federal government has balanced the budget, eliminated deficits for more than three years in just six periods since 1776, bringing in enough revenue to cover all of its spending during 1817-21, 1823-36, 1852-57, 1867-73, 1880-93, and 1920-30. A depression began in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893 and 1929.
http://www.slideshare.net/MitchGreen/mmt-basics-you-cannot-consider-the-...
and
http://www.slideshare.net/MitchGreen/its-what-you-know-for-sure-that-jus...
And always keep in mind:
The federal government has balanced the budget, eliminated deficits for more than three years in just six periods since 1776, bringing in enough revenue to cover all of its spending during 1817-21, 1823-36, 1852-57, 1867-73, 1880-93, and 1920-30. A depression began in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893 and 1929.
6
Actually, Stephen M, just checked the link that you kindly provided. Krugman is citing the phrase accurately-- since Mankiw's blog merely wanted to specify that the phrase only applied to the notion of smaller deficits coming from lowering taxes. Mankiw said that the phrase does not apply to the general issue of tax cuts. In his piece today, Krugman specifically ties tax cuts to the deficit issue, in keeping with Mankiw's usage.
2
You realize P.K. linked to that article, right? The link was provided precisely so G.M. could speak for himself. And, frankly, there's nothing in that article to suggest that P.K. was playing loosely with the facts. Mankiw says he used the phrase to describe advisors who told Reagan that cutting taxes would raise revenues. That's pretty much Krugman's summary in his column today.
2
Professor Krugman predicated a $3 trillion deficit during the last decade which turned out to be $10 trillion and then he goes on to criticize others for being so far off in their estimates. None of the other erred forecasts came near to the Professor's $7 trillion quack estimate.
Since President Obama we have amassed a $10 trillion deficit and what has it produced? We now have the lowest labor participation rate in modern times, the highest number of welfare participants, and so forth.
Since President Obama we have amassed a $10 trillion deficit and what has it produced? We now have the lowest labor participation rate in modern times, the highest number of welfare participants, and so forth.
7
And yet our debt is considerably less as a percentage of GDP than it was in 1946 which ushered in a 27 year long period of great prosperity.
Ya think there may be other factors?
Ya think there may be other factors?
29
Unsupported "facts" and generalizations. Sources?
2
What you say is true, but you did not state how many individual's insurance premiums (those that are not paid by the Government) have gone up more than 50% (mine did) when PK and others told me I would be saving money.
1
Back in the 60's, there was a perfume ad--I can't recall the substance of the ad--given the product category, there probably wasn't ad--but the tag line was memorable:
"Promise her anything, but give her Arpege."
The modern GOP has concluded that an updated version of that line is effective in a reality where a political press, effectively emasculated and cowed by three decades of by the Republicans' strategy of countering critical coverage as proof solely of "liberal bias"--is incapable of calling them out for their failures, follies and unrepentant fabulism.
In their version, the line is "Promise them anything, give them garbage--they won't recognize it, and if they do, blame it on someone else."
It is left to folks like Dr. Krugman--is the safe but shrinking space of the "opinion" pages--to point to the mendacity of the Republicans' method, and the madness of continuing to believe what they offer is going to deliver a better outcome the next time around.
"Promise her anything, but give her Arpege."
The modern GOP has concluded that an updated version of that line is effective in a reality where a political press, effectively emasculated and cowed by three decades of by the Republicans' strategy of countering critical coverage as proof solely of "liberal bias"--is incapable of calling them out for their failures, follies and unrepentant fabulism.
In their version, the line is "Promise them anything, give them garbage--they won't recognize it, and if they do, blame it on someone else."
It is left to folks like Dr. Krugman--is the safe but shrinking space of the "opinion" pages--to point to the mendacity of the Republicans' method, and the madness of continuing to believe what they offer is going to deliver a better outcome the next time around.
345
Actually, I think the old schoolyard corruption of the original ad - "Promise her anything, but give her a Pez" is more applicable. The G.O.P. have replaced something of some perceived value - a proper conservative economic viewpoint - with the economic equivalent of candy for children. While "Arpege" does not seem to be a very relevant fragrance these days, I still see Pez dispensers sold just about everywhere. Same sadly seems to be the case about current G.O.P. economic thought leadership.
1
My fellow Don, I couldn't agree more, appreciate your post. In simple terms (for me), the GOP political strategy has been to get the message out, repeat it, and say it again - the infamous "talking points" - factual basis be dammed, the priority is to repeat the message no matter how bogus, like a minstrel piped piper leading lemmings off the cliff and into the sea. Sound bites become news facts for too many TV watching channel surfing Americans that don't want to think much for themselves, don't read enough if at all - if its on internet/TV it must be true mentality - and then they believe the message because they heard it over and over, and then they vote. Play on fears, worse yet, create fear, and throw in racist tendencies for good measure. My gosh, we re-elected G.W. Bush.
It is dark and I am very afraid.
It is dark and I am very afraid.
1
Right now, I am more afraid of the American voter, suffering from amnesia or denial, than any Republican politician.
74
Well, the amnesia of the average American voter is a reflection of the "genius" of the Republican propaganda machine that has long ago abandoned any belief in the importance of Truth and honor.
4
The Bush lies in wait, patiently, for the next major war he can create and then pounces. This, he thinks, assures election. And it is in fact the best chance he stands at reelection. Only patriotism, not competence, not wisdom, could get a Bush reelected.
12
To paraphrase Rudy Giuliani, Bush -- or the Bushes et al -- are the antidote and the answer to Obama who, he says, "Doesn't love America."
I don't know if fear is the appropriate response, Professor. Concern, maybe. We should always be concerned when enough of the electorate becomes untethered from reality to make a Scott Walker nomination even a remote possibility. Walker is clearly kowtowing to his monetary masters and pandering to the baseness, hatred, ignorance, and pettiness of his handlers and admirers. As we've so tragically witnessed in other times and places, those are never good things.
16
Mr. Walker, as a religious man, is accustomed to accepting counterfactual beliefs, and he is merely applying his well-developed religious faith to his undeveloped economics. To him, the unattainability of the desired result is its main recommendation.
I find it ironic that the most sought out governors contending for the presidency have enacted state policies that have either reduced their credit ratings or greatly impacted quality of life for average citizens.
I'm not sure the country can withstand another supply sider as President. Is the intellectual currency of the right so barren that they can only rely on failed policies of past, discredited presidents like Bush? For Jeb to declare he's his "own man" and then haul in the same old weary warmonger advisors to help him develop "a new foreign policy" is absurd.
When it comes to political races, it's Groundhog Day redux. Whether people have short memories, don't follow the news, or simply don't care, the result is the same: the least qualified leaders, slicing and dicing data as they see fit to prove a particular world views, are about to walk on the international stage.
To imagine a man like Walker, who might be grand in Wisconsin, sitting with his finger on the trigger when he can't even think on his feet fast enough to jockey a British reporter's question is pretty horrifying. Particularly when Russian war planes had to be escorted out of British airspace just a few days ago.
The right doesn't seem to get it that you can't get blood out of a turnip--at some point, the "new" state mantra of tax the poor while "untaxing" the rich is going to reach the breaking point.
Unless, as I suspect, it already has.
I'm not sure the country can withstand another supply sider as President. Is the intellectual currency of the right so barren that they can only rely on failed policies of past, discredited presidents like Bush? For Jeb to declare he's his "own man" and then haul in the same old weary warmonger advisors to help him develop "a new foreign policy" is absurd.
When it comes to political races, it's Groundhog Day redux. Whether people have short memories, don't follow the news, or simply don't care, the result is the same: the least qualified leaders, slicing and dicing data as they see fit to prove a particular world views, are about to walk on the international stage.
To imagine a man like Walker, who might be grand in Wisconsin, sitting with his finger on the trigger when he can't even think on his feet fast enough to jockey a British reporter's question is pretty horrifying. Particularly when Russian war planes had to be escorted out of British airspace just a few days ago.
The right doesn't seem to get it that you can't get blood out of a turnip--at some point, the "new" state mantra of tax the poor while "untaxing" the rich is going to reach the breaking point.
Unless, as I suspect, it already has.
100
@Christine_mcmorrow:
I am sympathetic to your observations, but I think we need to remember that experience in running a state's economy is not necessarily a full education for running a sovereign country. A citizen can't make his or her own laws and can't print money. A state can make laws but can't print money. A nation can do both.
I am sympathetic to your observations, but I think we need to remember that experience in running a state's economy is not necessarily a full education for running a sovereign country. A citizen can't make his or her own laws and can't print money. A state can make laws but can't print money. A nation can do both.
1
Unfortunately you are right . The country won't withstand it. What will that look like?
With climate destruction, bankruptcies homelesses much increased, the rich in their protected cocoons may have to find anothrr planet.
With climate destruction, bankruptcies homelesses much increased, the rich in their protected cocoons may have to find anothrr planet.
1
It is hard to imagine that a Republican will be elected to the presidency next time around but what is the difference? The Republicans win because the Democrats let them. Enough of the D-party is hardly distinguishable from the Republicans except on certain social issues which provide perfect leverage for the R-party every 2 years. The fact that these issues don't work with the Presidency has to do with the fact that gerrymandering has far less an effect on Presidential elections while securing the R-slant in congressional elections and thereby the red tail continues to wag the purpley-blue dog in the good ole USA.
I do not think Scott Walker will be a serious nominee, he appears not much more ready for prime time than Rick Perry. Ted Cruze on the other hand might work if they could get him a voice coach.
I do not think Scott Walker will be a serious nominee, he appears not much more ready for prime time than Rick Perry. Ted Cruze on the other hand might work if they could get him a voice coach.
10
If the human desire for forming groups is a more primary driving factor than being objectively correct on policy issues and the substantive knowledge on which they based, if those policy issues are seen more as organizing principles for defining group membership than they are being presented for their truth value, then, for me at least, a lot of what is described in this column falls into place.
We don't escape our human flaws and foibles, such as the way we let group formation affect policy ideas, until we become aware of them -- and then we need to do something to compensate for them or to remove them. I think of it sort of like a bad script being staged as a play just in order to give a certain group of actors (maybe even stars) an excuse to get on stage together -- the point is not the play. I also think that our culture is slow to recognize how some academic disciplines -- psychology comes to mind -- come to take on the dynamics and function religious belief systems have in the past involved. Even if a discipline can be engaged in more objectively, it can also be used in other ways, and it seems to me that they are, especially when they get out of academe and into the mainstream.
We don't escape our human flaws and foibles, such as the way we let group formation affect policy ideas, until we become aware of them -- and then we need to do something to compensate for them or to remove them. I think of it sort of like a bad script being staged as a play just in order to give a certain group of actors (maybe even stars) an excuse to get on stage together -- the point is not the play. I also think that our culture is slow to recognize how some academic disciplines -- psychology comes to mind -- come to take on the dynamics and function religious belief systems have in the past involved. Even if a discipline can be engaged in more objectively, it can also be used in other ways, and it seems to me that they are, especially when they get out of academe and into the mainstream.
7
The way to escape our human flaws and foibles is to educate the elecortate so that the voters can critically evaluate the claims of these con artists. Unfortunately we are no doing that.
1
Recent opinion pieces in the NYT's on secular humanist proves your point.
Thank you for your wisdom and insight. Have you ever thought of writing a book?
Thank you for your wisdom and insight. Have you ever thought of writing a book?
Linda:
Agitate more for "voting rights", code for facilitating the act of voting to the point of triviality -- in order to co-opt more of what the left assumes is their natural base. I'm sure you'll find it so much easier to "critically evaluate the claims of these con artists".
Agitate more for "voting rights", code for facilitating the act of voting to the point of triviality -- in order to co-opt more of what the left assumes is their natural base. I'm sure you'll find it so much easier to "critically evaluate the claims of these con artists".
Same two parties
Same old candidates
Same old campaign contributors
Same old party first, contributors, second, Americans last
Same old I have a solution for everything
Same old press coverage
Same old negative ads
Same old same old
Same old candidates
Same old campaign contributors
Same old party first, contributors, second, Americans last
Same old I have a solution for everything
Same old press coverage
Same old negative ads
Same old same old
37
Wrong, wrong, wrong. There is no equivalency between a know nothing party bound by ideology, and a party that stands for reason and intelligence. Sorry, but you are parroting a nihilist POV.
3
Obviously we should blame the media and the media only, for this country's sad decline in terms of any fairness for the people, any fairness that makes for an elite that has merit, an elite that values something of real worth, and not just in terms of money and whatever money can buy. Money has bought for us a disgraceful society, a disgracefully bad profit- motivated kind of capitalism. We should hope not simply for more equality in incomes, but for giving people a real education that does not overly place a priority on making money as such. Instead the opposite has been happening. TV and the media inflate the egoistic use of money, the money-minded basis for status, and a relegation of any other values to the ash heap, It is not that those who can rise in terms of having people seek to emulate them is itself bad. This has become bad just because those who achieve recognition, and any chance to run for office, have to have catered to, thus have had to succumb to some degree at least to the draw of money, to have given in, to have in effect been bribed by a system that has relegated many important values, and thus chances for people to look at life and their country is ways correct at all, to that ash heap of history.
History should become our friend, not a baneful thing to rue, and we need to create a better chance for history to say civilization has advanced instead of retrogressed to the barbarism born of greed and willful ignorance of any real values.
History should become our friend, not a baneful thing to rue, and we need to create a better chance for history to say civilization has advanced instead of retrogressed to the barbarism born of greed and willful ignorance of any real values.
20
Here is an important bit of history for you to ponder, Mr. Karch:
The federal government has balanced the budget, eliminated deficits for more than three years in just six periods since 1776, bringing in enough revenue to cover all of its spending during 1817-21, 1823-36, 1852-57, 1867-73, 1880-93, and 1920-30. A depression began in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893 and 1929.
The federal government has balanced the budget, eliminated deficits for more than three years in just six periods since 1776, bringing in enough revenue to cover all of its spending during 1817-21, 1823-36, 1852-57, 1867-73, 1880-93, and 1920-30. A depression began in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893 and 1929.
3
Professor, tilting at windmills, (again) I see. As Greek citizens fall under the German boot no one seems to be able to understand economics. The Obama economy is a drop-dead wonderment yet Conservstives hate the man. Nevertheless, HRC might be ushered into the Whitehouse without a wrinkled pants suit or debate.
3
Look, somebody has to do it: the windmill thing. And yes, Hillary's best play at the moment is to stay right out of the fray. Why should she or any other potential Democrat open themselves up to offer a target by the lying liars on the right? Right about now they, the republicans must be trembling at the prospect that the only 2016 news is the usual clown car of wannabees. With this show already out and about I imagine even Jon Stewart is reconsidering his retirement from the Daily Show; at least until the election!
1
Another - sort of - left-hand attack on Scott Walker. Don't be fooled, folks. Should be clear that the liberals are just terrified of this guy. This is evident from the onslaught of negative attributions the Time's columnists have unleashed upon Scotty. He hasn't even announced a candidacy - testing the waters so they say - and kaboom - the fur begins to fly.
Is that because they know in their soft hearts that the college dropout would make mincemeat of Hillary in a mano e mono? To be sure they listened to Walker's last speech and now they know that Scott can deliver in a manner that Hillary just can't. Walker didn't win three elections in four years in a blue state by being a dummy, weak strategist, ineffective speaker, and a coward caving to public service union demands (as all the Dem governors consistently do - which is why their states sit on the bankruptcy precipice).
Walker's turn approaches - and here I agree with Krugman but for different reasons - liberals, be "very, very afraid."
Is that because they know in their soft hearts that the college dropout would make mincemeat of Hillary in a mano e mono? To be sure they listened to Walker's last speech and now they know that Scott can deliver in a manner that Hillary just can't. Walker didn't win three elections in four years in a blue state by being a dummy, weak strategist, ineffective speaker, and a coward caving to public service union demands (as all the Dem governors consistently do - which is why their states sit on the bankruptcy precipice).
Walker's turn approaches - and here I agree with Krugman but for different reasons - liberals, be "very, very afraid."
8
You live in SC not WI, so maybe you should do a little traveling beyond what your daily consumption of right wing media allows by proxy. Scott Walker has driven us deeply into debt, is dismantling our once envied education infrastructure, and driven a wedge between the people of this state down to the neighborhood level. He's not playing with a full deck intellectually, though he's won the pot by what can only be described by an ethical person as cheating (which involves a great deal of lying). The fact that people all over the country are cheering him on is a sad comment on our values, and that includes vanishing Wisconsin values that prized clean government and fair play. It's not "liberals" who should fear Walker. We know him well and our primary emotion more akin to dread at this point. It is right wing Republicans who should fear him. They're the ones he'll happily destroy on his way to where he wants to go. Open your eyes.
8
Tom Paine says that Krugman's essay is "Another - sort of - left-hand attack on Scott Walker."
Did Tom Paine read the essay? It's a attack on the abandonment of facts for ideology, and Walker comes in only incidentally.
Tom Paine ignores the central theme of the essay in order to focus on an irrelevant side show, namely Scott Walker. This suggests to me that Tom Paine agrees with Krugman on the central facts, agrees with Krugman on the interpretation of the central facts, and finds those central facts and interpretation so embarrassing that he wants to change the topic.
Did Tom Paine read the essay? It's a attack on the abandonment of facts for ideology, and Walker comes in only incidentally.
Tom Paine ignores the central theme of the essay in order to focus on an irrelevant side show, namely Scott Walker. This suggests to me that Tom Paine agrees with Krugman on the central facts, agrees with Krugman on the interpretation of the central facts, and finds those central facts and interpretation so embarrassing that he wants to change the topic.
5
Terrified?
If (nuntius horribilis!) this son of Joe McCarthy were nominated as the best and brightest that the Republicans could come up with, and, for the sake of discussion, he faced Sec. Clinton in the general election, ask yourself -- "How many states that President Obama won in 2012 would he be able to flip?"
As Prof K keeps reminding us, right-wing (they are not "Conservative" in any sense of that noble word) partisans do not let objective reality taint their opinions.
If (nuntius horribilis!) this son of Joe McCarthy were nominated as the best and brightest that the Republicans could come up with, and, for the sake of discussion, he faced Sec. Clinton in the general election, ask yourself -- "How many states that President Obama won in 2012 would he be able to flip?"
As Prof K keeps reminding us, right-wing (they are not "Conservative" in any sense of that noble word) partisans do not let objective reality taint their opinions.
5
Dr. Krugman, what to be fair you cannot in your position point out is is the simple fact:
Reality has a liberal bias.
Once you really grasp this idea then you are able to understand the conservative denial of reality.
Reality has a liberal bias.
Once you really grasp this idea then you are able to understand the conservative denial of reality.
31
The conservatives have figured out that most of the public can be swayed to their side if they say falsehoods without anyone there to give an immediate rebuttal.
18
The liberals are very good at disseminating falsehoods too.
Makes sense for him to follow the lead of the charlatans and cranks on economic matters if he still has doubts about evolution as he clearly demonstrated during his recent visit to London.
12
It is a given that the Republican presidential clown show will pander to the rabid core for money and primary votes. Whatever candidate emerges from the primary fracas will spend the rest of the campaign back-tracking and soft-soaping everything he said trying to sway independent voters. What didn't work in 2012 probably won't work in 2016. We should be paying more attention, and giving more money, down the ballot to congressional candidates. Restoring congressional majorities back to the grownups should be paramount.
11
America is facing the large bore problems of climate change, infrastructure needs that are greater than 20% of GDP, and income stagnation for more than 20 years. Our political system is so rigged that Congress and President Obama signed off on a regulation written by Citi that made sure Americans insure the banks when they gamble on derivatives.
Has America become a bunch of suckers? We pay around twice as much for healthcare as the rest of the industrialized world with results that are generally worse. Ditto our broadband speeds and service.
Our health care system could shine if we negotiated reasonably for services.
Social Security could be made solvent for generations by eliminating the cap on income subject to payroll taxes.
A 0.1% tax on financial transactions could generate enough funding to fix our infrastructure problem and bring it up to 21st Century standards.
Where have all the real political leaders gone?
Has America become a bunch of suckers? We pay around twice as much for healthcare as the rest of the industrialized world with results that are generally worse. Ditto our broadband speeds and service.
Our health care system could shine if we negotiated reasonably for services.
Social Security could be made solvent for generations by eliminating the cap on income subject to payroll taxes.
A 0.1% tax on financial transactions could generate enough funding to fix our infrastructure problem and bring it up to 21st Century standards.
Where have all the real political leaders gone?
184
It's amusing that the premier progressive economist charlatan and crank sees only his polar opposites when he looks in the mirror.
4
It's amusing that NRroad presents his one-sentence opinion without any facts or analysis to support that opinion.
2
But, what did he say that was incorrect?
2
It is amusing that the base of the charlatans and cranks think they know more about economic matters than a Nobel price winner in that field. But than, that very base seems to be always thinking with their gut, instead of the little grey cells provided for complex reasoning.
1
Classic, what the average man has been saying for 35 years finally gets front page in the NYTimes. No knock on the Doc, but what took so long to without hedging call these people out? Art Laffer was a sham in 80. He is a sham today. Larry Kudlow a light weight economist who has conned his way into good jobs as a mouthpiece. Then there is Steven Moore, the intellectual love child of Steve Forbes. He is the one who has ridden a rich mans wake to be a quoted and respected journalist. Not an original thought in his brain. Just keep saying, lower taxes more revenue over and over again. Close my eyes and visualize it works. Poof, I was right. Not only are these people as dumb as a cow they might possess some kind of pathological illness, call it mad mans disease. The real tragedy, lots of people still listen to them, including the dunce of the party, Scott Walker.
67
Correction; Kudlow is not an Economist - lightweight or otherwise. He holds a BA in History from the University of Rochester (NY). That is all. You and I, and my mum, are every bit as much an Economist as Kudlow.
1
I would expect that Mr. Laffer, Mr. Kudlow and Mr. Moore would be trying to draft Governor Brownback of Kansas to run for President since he has shown, at the state level, how successful their ideology can be when passed in its purest form. His campaign slogan writes itself: Let Brownback do for the US what he has done for Kansas.
110
Bravo!
The 2016 will mark a watershed moment for the Republican Party to regain due place in American political landescape as a Grand Old Party.Charlatans,cranks and hawks, represented by the 'Tea Party' sitting on the driving seat may not let it happen.Though the tea party influence is waning in recently elected Congress.
The hard core economic fundamentalism as political ideology that has been the guiding 'mantra' of the newer crop has no place in the world determined by scientific research and reasoning.
The Republicans have been pursuing agenda of denial,deception for too long.This might have helped some electoral gains every now and then. But it has dent America image on the global stage and has widened already existing inequality within the USA.
The greatness of America, as widely acknowledged, lay in the reality that no American however poor or lowly,feels inferior to any other. No American however rich and powerful,feels superior to any other citizen.This noble principle of a democratic egalatarian society has been marred by the Republican leadership under the diehard 'Tea Party'acolytes.
The hard core neo-liberal economic policies - too much corporate welfare and too many tax concession that benefit the rich ( 1 percent) that the Republicans have pursued since George W Bush has been anti-American and anti-people.
Eisenhower resurrection,"To protect the right and privilèges of free people and who would preserve what is good and fruitful in our national heritage".
The hard core economic fundamentalism as political ideology that has been the guiding 'mantra' of the newer crop has no place in the world determined by scientific research and reasoning.
The Republicans have been pursuing agenda of denial,deception for too long.This might have helped some electoral gains every now and then. But it has dent America image on the global stage and has widened already existing inequality within the USA.
The greatness of America, as widely acknowledged, lay in the reality that no American however poor or lowly,feels inferior to any other. No American however rich and powerful,feels superior to any other citizen.This noble principle of a democratic egalatarian society has been marred by the Republican leadership under the diehard 'Tea Party'acolytes.
The hard core neo-liberal economic policies - too much corporate welfare and too many tax concession that benefit the rich ( 1 percent) that the Republicans have pursued since George W Bush has been anti-American and anti-people.
Eisenhower resurrection,"To protect the right and privilèges of free people and who would preserve what is good and fruitful in our national heritage".
8
In trying to make sense of what Prof. Krugman writes today, I would note how he doesn't follow his own admonitions he expects the 'Right' to follow.
He wrote: "Across the board, the modern American right seems to have abandoned the idea that there is an objective reality out there, even if it’s not what your prejudices say should be happening."
But if they abandoned the idea of any reality out there, then 'it' doesn't even exist, so there arises no question as to what any alleged 'prejudices' say about that non-existent 'it'. No matter if 'it' actually exists, this is a kind of dream world the 'conservatives' are talking about, instead of anything objective. Maybe the 'conservatives' as such don't really exist either.
But WHAT IS the objective reality?
That is what the liberal left keeps dreaming about. He wrote: "Look at another issue, health reform. Before the Affordable Care Act went into effect, conservatives predicted disaster: health costs would soar, the deficit would explode, more people would lose insurance than gain it."
The Left continues to dream how these objective facts aren't really true.
Health costs have soared. The deficit is out of control, and more people have lost insurance than gained any real betterment in their health care, no matter what the cooked-up numbers attempt to fool us all with.
He wrote: "Across the board, the modern American right seems to have abandoned the idea that there is an objective reality out there, even if it’s not what your prejudices say should be happening."
But if they abandoned the idea of any reality out there, then 'it' doesn't even exist, so there arises no question as to what any alleged 'prejudices' say about that non-existent 'it'. No matter if 'it' actually exists, this is a kind of dream world the 'conservatives' are talking about, instead of anything objective. Maybe the 'conservatives' as such don't really exist either.
But WHAT IS the objective reality?
That is what the liberal left keeps dreaming about. He wrote: "Look at another issue, health reform. Before the Affordable Care Act went into effect, conservatives predicted disaster: health costs would soar, the deficit would explode, more people would lose insurance than gain it."
The Left continues to dream how these objective facts aren't really true.
Health costs have soared. The deficit is out of control, and more people have lost insurance than gained any real betterment in their health care, no matter what the cooked-up numbers attempt to fool us all with.
3
There is no real "left" or "right" in our nation anymore. There's just people like the Koch's who own Congress and the rest of us 99% arguing ineffectively over who is worse off.
7
@R. Karch: If you believe all the numbers are "cooked-up" is it safe to assume that you also believe Osama bin-Laden is still alive? And that Al Gore was President between 2000 and 2008 and that it was during his time in office that America's biggest budget surplus was transformed into its biggest deficit? And that R. Karch is the name of a Nobel-prize winning economist who writes op/ed pieces for the NY Times? Sorry to have disturbed you; you can now return to Fantasyland.
7
Thank you for perfectly proving Dr. Krugman's point.
6
It certainly is a wonder, but the need to belong trumps facts and reality. If you want to be in the Party you've got to talk the talk and walk the walk. All this ridiculousness, though, serves a purpose. It cripples government, puts more money in the pockets of those who do not want to pay taxes, and forms the basis of the deregulation of everything. All you have to do is look around for a few seconds to realize who it is that gains from it. In the moment, I am reminded of Mr. Walker's phantom call with one of the Koch brothers. Walker is like a monkey on a string, and Koch is the organ grinder.
14
Undermining the country to win elections is a dangerous trend. What if it succeeds in 2016 as it did in 2014? Will both parties then adopt it? Then no matter who holds power we will be on a downward spiral.
7
The money in politics has destroyed democracy, reducing it to an endless charade of political campaigning based on pure propaganda. Walker has his debunked supply-siders and Jeb Bush has his debunked neocon warmongers. They survive because the ability to glibly prevaricate in the age of Citizens United is a skill more valuable than any professional degree or university affiliation tacked on to give the experts-for-sale an air of false legitimacy. And corruption pays very, very well.
Follow the money. The people paying the liars are the same people running the plutonomy: an economy of, for, and by the very rich. And though most of the subterfuge is from Republicans, the centrist "New Dems" are joining in the fun too. This week, columnist David Leonhardt unquestioningly wrote about a study purporting to prove that income inequality is all in our heads. Just a little digging showed that the study, by George Washington University economist Stephen Rose, was published with the financial and editorial support of Wall Street billionaire Pete Peterson's Third Way conglomerate of deficit hawks.
Barring a miracle (Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren?) the upcoming presidential campaign might as well be called Neoliberal Death Match 2016. "May the best plutocratic shill win" should be the intro at the presidential "debates" sponsored by the same oligarchs and corporations who turned America into a fascist state where permanent war and an Uber economy are the New Abnormal.
Follow the money. The people paying the liars are the same people running the plutonomy: an economy of, for, and by the very rich. And though most of the subterfuge is from Republicans, the centrist "New Dems" are joining in the fun too. This week, columnist David Leonhardt unquestioningly wrote about a study purporting to prove that income inequality is all in our heads. Just a little digging showed that the study, by George Washington University economist Stephen Rose, was published with the financial and editorial support of Wall Street billionaire Pete Peterson's Third Way conglomerate of deficit hawks.
Barring a miracle (Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren?) the upcoming presidential campaign might as well be called Neoliberal Death Match 2016. "May the best plutocratic shill win" should be the intro at the presidential "debates" sponsored by the same oligarchs and corporations who turned America into a fascist state where permanent war and an Uber economy are the New Abnormal.
244
Sen. Saunders has just hired Stephanie Kelton as Chief Economist for the Democrats on the Finance Committee. Here is a sample of her economics:
"We may strive to balance our work and leisure time and to eat a balanced diet. Our Constitution enshrines the principle of balance among our three branches of government. And when it comes to our personal finances, we know that the family checkbook must balance.
So when we hear that the federal government hasn't balanced its books in more than a decade, it seems sensible to demand a return to that kind of balance in Washington as well. But that would actually be a huge mistake.
History tells the tale. The federal government has achieved fiscal balance (even surpluses) in just seven periods since 1776, bringing in enough revenue to cover all of its spending during 1817-21, 1823-36, 1852-57, 1867-73, 1880-93, 1920-30 and 1998-2001. We have also experienced six depressions. They began in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893 and 1929.
Do you see the correlation? The one exception to this pattern occurred in the late 1990s and early 2000s, when the dot-com and housing bubbles fueled a consumption binge that delayed the harmful effects of the Clinton surpluses until the Great Recession of 2007-09.
Why does something that sounds like good economics — balancing the budget and paying down debt — end up harming the economy? The answers may surprise you."
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/21/opinion/la-oe-kelton-fiscal-clif...
"We may strive to balance our work and leisure time and to eat a balanced diet. Our Constitution enshrines the principle of balance among our three branches of government. And when it comes to our personal finances, we know that the family checkbook must balance.
So when we hear that the federal government hasn't balanced its books in more than a decade, it seems sensible to demand a return to that kind of balance in Washington as well. But that would actually be a huge mistake.
History tells the tale. The federal government has achieved fiscal balance (even surpluses) in just seven periods since 1776, bringing in enough revenue to cover all of its spending during 1817-21, 1823-36, 1852-57, 1867-73, 1880-93, 1920-30 and 1998-2001. We have also experienced six depressions. They began in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893 and 1929.
Do you see the correlation? The one exception to this pattern occurred in the late 1990s and early 2000s, when the dot-com and housing bubbles fueled a consumption binge that delayed the harmful effects of the Clinton surpluses until the Great Recession of 2007-09.
Why does something that sounds like good economics — balancing the budget and paying down debt — end up harming the economy? The answers may surprise you."
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/21/opinion/la-oe-kelton-fiscal-clif...
14
Well said, Karen is the Joan of Arc of the NYTimes respondent army.
5
Groups are trying to repeal Citizens United, but little media attention. Cspan recently showed a 2 hour meeting about campaign finance reform. Bizarrely, Sen McConnell had said it was actually Citizens United that has leveled the playing field--he felt it was too tilted away from the rich previously. CU thus righted a wrong.
Yes, trace big money looking for ROI, with campaign donations to call the shots. This is so ingrained in our elections now, the parties won’t even argue—candidates will carry out the parameters the big donors set. Their crazy credos are all in the service of that mission.
While it’s fun to vent spleen on fanatical, loony Repub true believers, it would be more informative to get to a large part of the motivation for sticking to their doctrines of anti govt, low wealth tax, trickle down, anti regulation.
What do all these issue positions have in common? Budget cutting, inflation warnings, climate change denial, Iraq wars, etc----they all service the top financial elites, while they sacrifice us, the majority. Our laws are passed per elite wishes, as Princeton studies show.
Economists should Follow the Money, not just pour scorn on the bizarre Repub Circus. Mr. Krugman, I’m waiting for some mention of Campaign Finance. How does it affects our far-out political culture? And how might reform affect the policies you write about in your columns?
Yes, trace big money looking for ROI, with campaign donations to call the shots. This is so ingrained in our elections now, the parties won’t even argue—candidates will carry out the parameters the big donors set. Their crazy credos are all in the service of that mission.
While it’s fun to vent spleen on fanatical, loony Repub true believers, it would be more informative to get to a large part of the motivation for sticking to their doctrines of anti govt, low wealth tax, trickle down, anti regulation.
What do all these issue positions have in common? Budget cutting, inflation warnings, climate change denial, Iraq wars, etc----they all service the top financial elites, while they sacrifice us, the majority. Our laws are passed per elite wishes, as Princeton studies show.
Economists should Follow the Money, not just pour scorn on the bizarre Repub Circus. Mr. Krugman, I’m waiting for some mention of Campaign Finance. How does it affects our far-out political culture? And how might reform affect the policies you write about in your columns?
I have wondered for years if Mr. Stephan Moore made his home in a television studio. He was on a different channel everyday to the point of being sad. I also came to the conclusion that this man had no idea of what he was talking. How could a man who seems to live in a TV studio possibly know what is going on in the world in which he lives? Recently his non stop TV appearances seem to have stopped, perhaps people have just tired of his face and crazy thoughts. Larry Kudlow is an entertainer and in a way I feel sorry for him, at least at times he can admit an error. Mr. Moore should get out in the real world sometimes and see what is going on. Life in a TV studio has blinded him to the world in which he lives.
2
1. Laffer's original curve was that tax revenues will be $0 if the effective rate is 0%, and will be $0 if the effective rate is 100%, so the curve WAS a bell with a maximum somewhere between 0% and 100%, and Prof Krugman accepts this bell curve; meanwhile, today Laffer says the rate that maximises tax revenue, while between 0% and 100%, is always less than the current rate, which implies that the tax rate that maximises taxes is 0%, so Laffer contradicts himself. Those of us who believe in logic do not reject the hobgoblin of consistency as Emerson did.
2. I watched on TV as the Iraqis did welcome the coalition forces as liberators. Then the US followed the 'liberation' with severe punishment of all Iraqis for perpetrating 9/11, except for a few Iraqis repatriated from the US to be the puppet rulers (subject to the real US rulers, of course). For some reason, the Iraqis did not accept this punishment as well-deserved, even though many confessed their guilt under 'enhanced interrogation'. After a very short time, the Iraqis stopped cheering the US liberators, for some reason, and some even joined the DA (formerly Daesh or ISIS).
Prof Krugman is absolutely right, and the Bush advisers (for the last two Bushes) are completely wrong, but Prof Krugman's reasons why he's right and they're wrong are not altogether correct.
2. I watched on TV as the Iraqis did welcome the coalition forces as liberators. Then the US followed the 'liberation' with severe punishment of all Iraqis for perpetrating 9/11, except for a few Iraqis repatriated from the US to be the puppet rulers (subject to the real US rulers, of course). For some reason, the Iraqis did not accept this punishment as well-deserved, even though many confessed their guilt under 'enhanced interrogation'. After a very short time, the Iraqis stopped cheering the US liberators, for some reason, and some even joined the DA (formerly Daesh or ISIS).
Prof Krugman is absolutely right, and the Bush advisers (for the last two Bushes) are completely wrong, but Prof Krugman's reasons why he's right and they're wrong are not altogether correct.
2
The Laffer Curve is simply an elementary theorem from calculus.
Theorem: A continuous function, f, on the interval [0,1] with f(0) = f(1) = 0, has a maximum.
The theorem says nothing about where the max is, let alone that it is a bell curve. It could wiggle all over the place. Since the CBO has analyzed every case of tax cuts since at least WWII and shown that in every one, tax revenues would have been higher in the absence of these cuts, in all cases the max must be fairly close to 1.
Theorem: A continuous function, f, on the interval [0,1] with f(0) = f(1) = 0, has a maximum.
The theorem says nothing about where the max is, let alone that it is a bell curve. It could wiggle all over the place. Since the CBO has analyzed every case of tax cuts since at least WWII and shown that in every one, tax revenues would have been higher in the absence of these cuts, in all cases the max must be fairly close to 1.
3
This adherence to doctrine is what Colbert said in his famous roast of dubya. As with dubya, it is seen as a virtue.
12
Republicans are nothing if not loyal...
2
The polarization we see in the US is absurd. Think for a moment beyond the terms being thrown around - such as socialist healthcare, or President-emperor... What is it that most people really want? Stability, jobs and decent education. These are common to nearly everyone whether they wear the label of liberal or conservative. And yet, we seem to be in an impossibly polarized society with little hope of the twin meeting. Why is this? Why does this division persist? Here's my thesis - it persists because it benefits those who make the most of the existing system. Keeping us polarized and in perpetual disagreement makes for a fragile political system. In a such a shaky system, who wins? Well - those who can afford to buy power in DC. The possibility of the candidacy of Scott Walker is only realized in the context of such a thesis. How else can you explain the relevance of someone who has slashed job growth and education funding in what used to be one of the most progressive states in the US? Kansas tried the same experiment and see where they are now. It's time to wake up and realize where the real problems lie...
161
Spot on John. The oligarch (or OILigarchs) like the Kochs benefit tremendously by the dysfunction they fuel. But until people stop voting against their own economic interests, the situation will continue.
13
Socialism works fine until other people's money runs out. Cheerio!
2
The divisions you speak of exist because it serves the monied class:
" I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half."
(attributed to) Jay Gould
Do you really think this reality has been lost to this new generation of plutocrats that run America today?
" I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half."
(attributed to) Jay Gould
Do you really think this reality has been lost to this new generation of plutocrats that run America today?
11
So what if their last 99 predictions were not only wrong, but were the exact opposite of what came to pass?
No problem: Lie. Revise history. Shake the Etch A Sketch. The past never catches up with the present.
Why do they, the charlatans and cranks, never learn? The better question is, why do WE, the rest of us, never learn?
No problem: Lie. Revise history. Shake the Etch A Sketch. The past never catches up with the present.
Why do they, the charlatans and cranks, never learn? The better question is, why do WE, the rest of us, never learn?
137
I think a lot of us do learn. The problem is that so many of us can't be bothered to turn out on election day. If the Democratic candidates actually fought for what they believed rather than denying what they and their party stands for, they might generate enough excitement to win an election or two, even without Obam
a or Bill Clinton on the ballot.
a or Bill Clinton on the ballot.
10
They don't learn because they don't have to. They never suffer the consequences,
Mankiew, Moore, and Kudlow, along with the notorious inventor of the Larger Curve, certainly deserve the description of charlatans and cranks. This makes them virtually perfect advisors for college dropout and full-time Koch-puppet Scott Walker,
Walker was originally elected in the aftermath of the financial crisis, a crisis hatched in the supply-side lunacy of the Bush Administration, where the answer to every problem was one more giant top end tax cut, deregulation and privatization of everything in sight. Somehow, in the midst of this supply-side utopia, we ended with a financial collapse and an economy losing 600,000 jobs a month. Enter Scott Walker, promising his state hundreds of thousands of jobs; mentioning absolutely nothing about destroying collective bargaining rights for public employees, a right in existence for decades. Five years later the jobs still haven't materialized, but a week or so into his Administration, Walker announced the real agenda. Lots of tax cuts, the destruction of unions, and a series of attacks on public education at all levels, along with a rain of corporate tax cuts and subsidies, especially for polluters in the extraction industry. Payoff time for the Koch's favorite Republican. A charlatan if there ever was one, his latest assault is on the University of Wisconsin in Madison. A truly despicable politician in the tradition of Joe McCarthy, whose tactics he uses frequently.
Walker was originally elected in the aftermath of the financial crisis, a crisis hatched in the supply-side lunacy of the Bush Administration, where the answer to every problem was one more giant top end tax cut, deregulation and privatization of everything in sight. Somehow, in the midst of this supply-side utopia, we ended with a financial collapse and an economy losing 600,000 jobs a month. Enter Scott Walker, promising his state hundreds of thousands of jobs; mentioning absolutely nothing about destroying collective bargaining rights for public employees, a right in existence for decades. Five years later the jobs still haven't materialized, but a week or so into his Administration, Walker announced the real agenda. Lots of tax cuts, the destruction of unions, and a series of attacks on public education at all levels, along with a rain of corporate tax cuts and subsidies, especially for polluters in the extraction industry. Payoff time for the Koch's favorite Republican. A charlatan if there ever was one, his latest assault is on the University of Wisconsin in Madison. A truly despicable politician in the tradition of Joe McCarthy, whose tactics he uses frequently.
463
And yet, the people of WI voted for him three times in four years. He is clearly not the only one believing in economic fairies. Reality doesn't seem to touch these voters.
2
Please do not group Mankiw with the others. Just because you are conservative does not mean you are a crank.
Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner is following the same playbook in Illinois.
1
Cranking Up the Grand Old Propaganda Machine has never failed the seditionists in 35 years.
Even when the Republicans don't 'win' the Presidency, they sufficiently poison the wells of reason, fact, science and logic and voter information to disable the Senate, House, and judicial system so that little harm is done to their 35-year, 0.1% hijacking of American public policy.
When they happen to win the Presidency, the modern GOP elixir of slashed federal revenues, exploded defense spending and zero regulation perfectly guarantees fiscal and social disaster.
And even when they lose the Presidency, they manage to turn Democratic Presidents into moderate Republicans.
Remember, while Bill Clinton admirably raised taxes, he also unforgivably helped repeal Glass Steagall.
But who handed Bill Clinton the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (a.k.a. the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999) ?
Gramm, Leach and Bliley - all rabid 'free-market' Republicans - and a GOP House and Senate directly behind them formulated the economic plutonium that later helped George Bush, his tax cuts for millionaires and his drunken military escapades drive the country off multiple cliffs.
And President Obama, while more liberal than Bill Clinton, can barely mention America's very real and destructive income, wealth and social inequalities and inequities without being labeled the new Che Guevara.
The Greedy Old Prevaricators are master salesmen of profound ignorance.
Greed, Lies (and Jesus): GOP 2016
Even when the Republicans don't 'win' the Presidency, they sufficiently poison the wells of reason, fact, science and logic and voter information to disable the Senate, House, and judicial system so that little harm is done to their 35-year, 0.1% hijacking of American public policy.
When they happen to win the Presidency, the modern GOP elixir of slashed federal revenues, exploded defense spending and zero regulation perfectly guarantees fiscal and social disaster.
And even when they lose the Presidency, they manage to turn Democratic Presidents into moderate Republicans.
Remember, while Bill Clinton admirably raised taxes, he also unforgivably helped repeal Glass Steagall.
But who handed Bill Clinton the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (a.k.a. the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999) ?
Gramm, Leach and Bliley - all rabid 'free-market' Republicans - and a GOP House and Senate directly behind them formulated the economic plutonium that later helped George Bush, his tax cuts for millionaires and his drunken military escapades drive the country off multiple cliffs.
And President Obama, while more liberal than Bill Clinton, can barely mention America's very real and destructive income, wealth and social inequalities and inequities without being labeled the new Che Guevara.
The Greedy Old Prevaricators are master salesmen of profound ignorance.
Greed, Lies (and Jesus): GOP 2016
788
"And even when they lose the Presidency, they manage to turn Democratic Presidents into moderate Republicans."
So the tail is wagging the dog. A handful of corporate interests and low information voters in low population density states are telling us all how to live. Anyone who works in corporate america can tell you that has been going on for the last twenty years in the work place. And it gets worse every year.
If you want a government that works for the people big money has to go and big business has to go right along with it.
So the tail is wagging the dog. A handful of corporate interests and low information voters in low population density states are telling us all how to live. Anyone who works in corporate america can tell you that has been going on for the last twenty years in the work place. And it gets worse every year.
If you want a government that works for the people big money has to go and big business has to go right along with it.
13
Actually the Commodities Futures Mdernization Act, also written by Phil Gramm, the architect of the 2008 collapse, forbid regulation of derivatives, opened the Enron Loophole and allowed the establishment of "shadow exchanges. You might be amused by the manner in which that bill was passed at the very end of the 2000 lame duck session.
"The Republican leadership of the House incorporated "The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000(H.R. 5660)" by reference, as Section 1(a)(7), in a long and complex conference report to the 11,000 page long "2000 omnibus budget bill"'
So nobody saw the bill until the conference report on the omnibus budget bill where it was buried in a footnote. It was never debated in the House or the Senate, never sent to any committee, and it was not attached to the bill until AFTER the conference in the dead of night.
"The Republican leadership of the House incorporated "The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000(H.R. 5660)" by reference, as Section 1(a)(7), in a long and complex conference report to the 11,000 page long "2000 omnibus budget bill"'
So nobody saw the bill until the conference report on the omnibus budget bill where it was buried in a footnote. It was never debated in the House or the Senate, never sent to any committee, and it was not attached to the bill until AFTER the conference in the dead of night.
22
socrates - When such things happen anywhere else on the planet, we deride the countries as being run by cults and call them banana republics, waiting for their inevitable decline because their leaders create their own alternative reality.
The Laffer, Kudlow, Moore event for big-time donors was just such a cult rally, akin to the ' drink the kool-aid ' litmus tests held by House wing-nuts in voting 50+ times to repeal Obama-care.
The worse problem is that this crowd freely admits they are constructing their own reality, which they bragged about to Ron Suskind in 2004 when he wrote about Dubya's administration:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html
as well as the fact that we know from the financial melt-down this cult's greed makes them incapable of restraining themselves from destroying the economy/institutions that they feast upon.
Delusion is an ugly thing.
The Laffer, Kudlow, Moore event for big-time donors was just such a cult rally, akin to the ' drink the kool-aid ' litmus tests held by House wing-nuts in voting 50+ times to repeal Obama-care.
The worse problem is that this crowd freely admits they are constructing their own reality, which they bragged about to Ron Suskind in 2004 when he wrote about Dubya's administration:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html
as well as the fact that we know from the financial melt-down this cult's greed makes them incapable of restraining themselves from destroying the economy/institutions that they feast upon.
Delusion is an ugly thing.
14
By way of explanation ... We all have lies we tell about ourselves and the world around us. Once we make decisions based on an untruth, we have become vested in that untruth and it becomes part of our self. It must surely be even worse with folks that make their living on it.
If I wrote a book about how vaccines cause autism, and I made a small fortune on this, and it was proven untrue, well I have two choices: Either I can admit my mistake and languish in obscurity, or I can "double-down" on the lie and continue a modest success.
I think it takes a fair amount of courage to admit this type of mistake, because you are essentially committing career suicide, particularly because there are plenty of wealthy Republicans who need your lie to keep going.
But isn't this how the war is won or lost? When the intellectuals who know better surrender and admit the lie, then the war will truly be over as their house of lies collapse.
To win this war we have to bury these lies for good, and be unforgiving to the craven liars who keep spreading them.
If I wrote a book about how vaccines cause autism, and I made a small fortune on this, and it was proven untrue, well I have two choices: Either I can admit my mistake and languish in obscurity, or I can "double-down" on the lie and continue a modest success.
I think it takes a fair amount of courage to admit this type of mistake, because you are essentially committing career suicide, particularly because there are plenty of wealthy Republicans who need your lie to keep going.
But isn't this how the war is won or lost? When the intellectuals who know better surrender and admit the lie, then the war will truly be over as their house of lies collapse.
To win this war we have to bury these lies for good, and be unforgiving to the craven liars who keep spreading them.
40
Why have you reneged? Here is a story you won't see in the headlines:
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/Autism/31590
Vaccine-Autism Study Co-Author Cleared
John Walker-Smith, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist who was stripped of his medical license because of misconduct related to a discredited study that linked the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism, has been cleared of the misconduct charges.
The decision, which came down from Justice John Mitting of the High Court of Justice in London, reverses the U.K. General Medical Council's (GMC's) finding of serious professional misconduct and restores Walker-Smith's ability to practice medicine in the U.K.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/Autism/31590
Vaccine-Autism Study Co-Author Cleared
John Walker-Smith, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist who was stripped of his medical license because of misconduct related to a discredited study that linked the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism, has been cleared of the misconduct charges.
The decision, which came down from Justice John Mitting of the High Court of Justice in London, reverses the U.K. General Medical Council's (GMC's) finding of serious professional misconduct and restores Walker-Smith's ability to practice medicine in the U.K.
1
Lies sell better than truth. This is especially true if the lie someone is peddling seems to conform to received folk wisdom that has drifted through the minds of the public for several generations.
Consider, also, this: as long as one is predicting future disaster, there is no way he can be proved wrong. Its the future, so who knows? Even though some might have to admit they got the big picture wrong, little tidbits can be picked up here and there indicating they were right. The world, and economy, is large and gives off many different signals. Go look for one you like and you can probably find it.
In many ways, lies are stronger than truth and once someone has accepted them, it is hard to give them up. They become a little part of the self, something cherished. To admit one mistake is to consider many more. Dangerous.
The Laffer curve has always been a joke. When it entered popular conversation during Reagan, it was often called the Laughable Curve. There is a tiny kernel of truth in it, though (the best lies have that feature). Think what an amazing economy we could have for a few years if all taxes were eliminated. In the end, we would have no economy and no nation, but what glory of excess those years would be, at least for some.
These folks, Walker included, aren't giving up until they bring us all down, hard.
http://terryreport.com
Consider, also, this: as long as one is predicting future disaster, there is no way he can be proved wrong. Its the future, so who knows? Even though some might have to admit they got the big picture wrong, little tidbits can be picked up here and there indicating they were right. The world, and economy, is large and gives off many different signals. Go look for one you like and you can probably find it.
In many ways, lies are stronger than truth and once someone has accepted them, it is hard to give them up. They become a little part of the self, something cherished. To admit one mistake is to consider many more. Dangerous.
The Laffer curve has always been a joke. When it entered popular conversation during Reagan, it was often called the Laughable Curve. There is a tiny kernel of truth in it, though (the best lies have that feature). Think what an amazing economy we could have for a few years if all taxes were eliminated. In the end, we would have no economy and no nation, but what glory of excess those years would be, at least for some.
These folks, Walker included, aren't giving up until they bring us all down, hard.
http://terryreport.com
20
The Koch brothers picked Walker a few years ago as their puppet when they backed his election for governor of Wisconsin.
30
is this really what qualifies as an op-ed piece 700+ words of attacking economists and financial reporters?
why don't you just do a hit job on the candidate and publish some easily checked lies, like your co-writers do.
why don't you just do a hit job on the candidate and publish some easily checked lies, like your co-writers do.
1
@alan: Please cite the lies you're referring to. Mr. Krugman, for one, uses facts and figures.
23
For 2016, I am looking for a masked man on a white horse who travels with his
faithful Indian companion. And believes in balanced budgets.
faithful Indian companion. And believes in balanced budgets.
4
The federal government has balanced the budget, eliminated deficits for more than three years in just six periods since 1776, bringing in enough revenue to cover all of its spending during 1817-21, 1823-36, 1852-57, 1867-73, 1880-93, and 1920-30. A depression began in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893 and 1929.
Are you sure you want to balance the budget?
Are you sure you want to balance the budget?
5
Back Bernie Sanders for 2016
2
Hold on there. I think I just found him.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/20/world/middleeast/saudi-king-unleashes-...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/20/world/middleeast/saudi-king-unleashes-...
2
Supply Side economics: You have 3 dogs and you give one of them a weiner and expect him to share.
21
You've been listening to Bill Maher. A good metaphor but always give credit to your sources...
11
One would hope if the Republicans ever elected one of their own as a president again that he would strengthen the party by banishing these voices to the wilderness and putting the GOP, however conservative, at least back in the reality-based community. That would give us two competent major parties again, which we desperately need to address major issues in the coming years and decades. Some of the party's 2016 candidates, possibly, understand just how wrong Laffer, Kudlow, and Moore have been over the years and would sideline them if they were elected president. Scott Walker, terrifyingly, does not strike me as one of those people; he may very well believe every word they say, especially if it is relayed to him that the Kochs feel similarly. As far back as their darkest hour in early 2009, Republicans figured out that while they can't beat Obama at the ballot box, they never have to admit that their policies have failed or that their predictions were way off. Some Democrats, in those heady days, actually believed the GOP would seek to find compromise with the president in order to rebuild its brand. It was logical, but by then the Republican Party no longer believed in logic. Americans have paid the price.
514
Dream on! What you see is what you get, Matt. There will be no throwing out of any Republican rascals after the 2016 election. That would be repudiating the other rascals that bankroll the Republican Party, and that's not going to happen.
2
This is spot on! One of the things I found most disheartening was the Republicans' utter lack of remorse for the multiple disasters that they bequeathed to Obama. No, not just lack of remorse, but doing everything in their power to thwart him!
2
Mr Krugman is a voice crying from that wilderness described by Republicans as the "Reality-Based Community", as Karl Rove is reported to have described it.
Whether it is through ignorance, naivety or sheer mendacity I am afraid we can expect lots more irrationality from the GOP in the run up to the Presidential election.
Whether it is through ignorance, naivety or sheer mendacity I am afraid we can expect lots more irrationality from the GOP in the run up to the Presidential election.
7
Thing is, if these charlatans and cranks thought for a second that hayseed nation was capable of reading AND understanding their lie filled economic fairytales maybe they'd change their ways.
I mean, if the "leaders" of the GOP can't even be bothered to do a little fact checking on these outlandish and perennially wrong Trickle Downlies,
I mean, if the "leaders" of the GOP can't even be bothered to do a little fact checking on these outlandish and perennially wrong Trickle Downlies,
9
Truth is not their friend, but we already know that. Supply side
is bunk.
Mr. Moore is a well paid phoney baloney
is bunk.
Mr. Moore is a well paid phoney baloney
11
As long as so many Dems are on the Wall St pad – hello, Senator Schumer & ex-Sen. Hillary Clinton – there'll be too little push back from Dems against GOP posturing for $$$.
12
And it is obvious that the Oligarchs have positioned most Americans in the "success rooting section" of Wall St. by offering 401 k's to the little people instead of the Wall street blind "defined distribution" type of retirement programs.
As liberals, our political and economic wishes are at odds.
As liberals, our political and economic wishes are at odds.
1
Aided and abetted by undesirable alien Rupert Murdoch's Faux and the limitless funds, and greed, of the eco terrorists of Koch Propaganda & Pollution the right has created it's own information universe.
Disinformation, agitation propaganda and brainwashing are the order of the day.
As Herr Goebbels proved the Big Lie Works.
Disinformation, agitation propaganda and brainwashing are the order of the day.
As Herr Goebbels proved the Big Lie Works.
32
Déjà vu in 2016??
Out of the 330 million people, do we really have to pick either a Neo-Liberal, deficit, war hawk or a Conservative, deficit, war hawk? Really? Or there no better choices among us??
America needs another FDR to set things right – both morally and economically. Moral issues: immigration, Climate Change and endless wars. Economic issues: Low wages, stagnant wages, student loan defaults, income inequality, low business taxation, Entitlements, infrastructure, TPP, tax loopholes and low revenues.
Both these candidate don’t even blink when it comes to low taxes and endless wars even though both are expensive to fund. Where are the discussions/debates on how to raise revenue to cover these costs? Instead, our leaders continue to mortgage our country’s future. All the people get in return is the loss of blood and treasure as well as austerity and empty promises.
Nothing is going to change until people step up to the plate and call out the oligarchs among us. We fled Europe over 250 years ago. We can’t flee anymore…
Out of the 330 million people, do we really have to pick either a Neo-Liberal, deficit, war hawk or a Conservative, deficit, war hawk? Really? Or there no better choices among us??
America needs another FDR to set things right – both morally and economically. Moral issues: immigration, Climate Change and endless wars. Economic issues: Low wages, stagnant wages, student loan defaults, income inequality, low business taxation, Entitlements, infrastructure, TPP, tax loopholes and low revenues.
Both these candidate don’t even blink when it comes to low taxes and endless wars even though both are expensive to fund. Where are the discussions/debates on how to raise revenue to cover these costs? Instead, our leaders continue to mortgage our country’s future. All the people get in return is the loss of blood and treasure as well as austerity and empty promises.
Nothing is going to change until people step up to the plate and call out the oligarchs among us. We fled Europe over 250 years ago. We can’t flee anymore…
18
The US really is helpless to save itself from its own worst psychopaths.
16
Thank you, Professor Krugman, for holding the feet of the "alleged experts" to the fire, since the mainstream media so rarely does. I am sure that the subjects of Professor Krugman's skewering will be enraged, but the rest of us have had a good laugh at their expense. That is one of the surprising pleasures of reading Krugman's columns -- he has a very funny, dry sense of humor. For instance,
" But his numbers are consistently wrong; they’re for the wrong years, or just plain not what the original sources say. And somehow these errors always run in the direction he wants."
I'm sure the above is true, and it's so outrageous, it's funny.
" But his numbers are consistently wrong; they’re for the wrong years, or just plain not what the original sources say. And somehow these errors always run in the direction he wants."
I'm sure the above is true, and it's so outrageous, it's funny.
20
Dostoevsky got it right in The Brothers Karamazov when he observed that those who lie to themselves and tell those lies to others reach a point in their own lives where they cannot see the lies within themselves. A most accurate description of these Republican charlatans and cranks you describe.
39
Add Mr. Hollande's fugue to this parade of reality-averse celebrants of Unilateral Declaration of the Truth of Un-Truth.
When a card-carrying Socialist, in fact Party Leader, adopts as national purpose, the Greatest Misses of the Supply-Side (Pacte de responsabilité et de solidarité), the Ruby Slippers School of Economics has prevailed.
When a card-carrying Socialist, in fact Party Leader, adopts as national purpose, the Greatest Misses of the Supply-Side (Pacte de responsabilité et de solidarité), the Ruby Slippers School of Economics has prevailed.
6
Social science has a term for when ideology, emotion or needs overpower the accurate perception of reality....its called "motivated cognition" and, as you might expect, is a frequent pair of sunglasses for us humans. How do we survive under these conditions? Yes, we have a guardian angel that saves us during times when we are too stupid to see or admit the truth. Really?
5
It's just that reality has a liberal bias. What is needed is simply the equivalent of politifact for pundits--a neutral observer who simply records every prediction and grades them at the point in time that grading is possible. Of course, one can argue about the graders and their methodology, but it should be possible to come up with something that most reasonable people will view as authoritative and unbiased.
12
Most reasonable people already accept the views of those who speak truth about reality. That is not the problem. Those who reject reality as having a liberal bias will do so until their manipulators (Fox News, etc.) tell them which reality to accept, regardless of the neutrality and authority of any mechanism.
If we ever come up with another (you know, different than say the vast majority of scientists) plan to get the facts of reality across, it will speedily become tainted with the stain of "liberal bias" by the Foxites.
If we ever come up with another (you know, different than say the vast majority of scientists) plan to get the facts of reality across, it will speedily become tainted with the stain of "liberal bias" by the Foxites.
3
You might think that since Obama inherited the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression and the stock market has more than doubled since, Americans would begin to question the wisdom of the country's media doomsayers. You'd be wrong, of course, and let's speak frankly about the reason they fail to notice: your typical American voter is dumber than a brick about politics and what the people they elect to govern them truly represent.
If you were a politician and lying about the opposing party had worked as well for you as it has for Republicans over the past 35 years, would you change your approach? Giving credit where due and admitting that your opponent has done something right has never been a winning strategy in American politics and it never will be. Obama has done an outstanding job considering the obstructionism he's faced, but unless another Democrat as good and decent as him is elected next year, another economic crisis as bad or worse than the last one is guaranteed.
The oligarchical elite and their Republican servants couldn't possibly care any less about the plight of the working class, nor about the fate of the country, so if the midterm election was a sign of things to come, it would be a good idea to stock up on canned food. Calvin Coolidge said the country was headed for a rocky road before the Great Depression, but if we are foolish enough to elect another Republican, to borrow from Ronald Reagan, we ain't seen nothing yet.
If you were a politician and lying about the opposing party had worked as well for you as it has for Republicans over the past 35 years, would you change your approach? Giving credit where due and admitting that your opponent has done something right has never been a winning strategy in American politics and it never will be. Obama has done an outstanding job considering the obstructionism he's faced, but unless another Democrat as good and decent as him is elected next year, another economic crisis as bad or worse than the last one is guaranteed.
The oligarchical elite and their Republican servants couldn't possibly care any less about the plight of the working class, nor about the fate of the country, so if the midterm election was a sign of things to come, it would be a good idea to stock up on canned food. Calvin Coolidge said the country was headed for a rocky road before the Great Depression, but if we are foolish enough to elect another Republican, to borrow from Ronald Reagan, we ain't seen nothing yet.
230
Paul conveniently "forgets" that Art Laffer was right that lowering excessively high tax rates would raise revenue. Federal tax receipts went up dramatically afterwards. Reagan's problem was not revenue, but spending.
Sorry Paul. You may be able to fool the naive readers, but others know better.
Sorry Paul. You may be able to fool the naive readers, but others know better.
7
Clinton raised taxes and revenues went up more dramatically than under Reagan. The revenues went up along with economic growth, which was stronger under Clinton's tax rates that Reagan's.
72
Requires deeper analysis, since, for example, Reagan raised taxes even as he lowered rates, and he engaged in deficit spending which would have goosed the economy and yielded more revenue. Just because a and b happened together doesn't mean a caused b.
16
Revenue only goes up temporarily, though. You lose the long-term. George W. Bush came into office with a budget surplus and decided to send rebate checks to everyone "It's YOUR money!", he said. It was downhill from there. Additionally, he started two wars and put neither on the books. Barack Obama inherited a HUGE deficit, particularly after putting the wars back into the books where they needed to be to get a realistic look at the finances. The US was also losing jobs in huge numbers under Bush when Obama came into office. There's nothing good that came out of Bush era economic policies.
During Obama's tenure, there has a been a great reduction of the debt and we have had record job growth.
So who's policies seem to be the correct ones??
During Obama's tenure, there has a been a great reduction of the debt and we have had record job growth.
So who's policies seem to be the correct ones??
32
"Along with this denial of reality comes an absence of personal accountability."
That phrase sums up the past decade and more in this nation. And I think it's important to call out those responsible for creating and delivering the narrative that led to our current situation. For example, people actually think that we are being invaded by hordes of illegal immigrants. But they do not stop to think about the fact that they are coming because they get jobs here. Instead of targeting the cost-cutting policies of the companies that hire them, people are being brain-massaged into blaming a "communist","boy-king", "emperor", "the Obummer"... etc. This is no longer a nation of people who think before they act, or before they speak. It has been fed one too many news bites that are the news equivalent of fries and sodas. And they have about the same amount of information content as those foods have healthy nutrition.
Why has this happened? Mainly, I think, because it is far easier for individuals to react to fear than to spend time thinking deeply about the issues. Most news media these days, whether right, center or left, is churning out the news equivalent of junk food. Just as junk food clogs our arteries and causes any number of health issues from hypertension to obesity, so the bad narrative churned out by news media clogs our thought processes and leads to stupidity. How can people make good voting decisions in such a climate of misinformation and fear?
That phrase sums up the past decade and more in this nation. And I think it's important to call out those responsible for creating and delivering the narrative that led to our current situation. For example, people actually think that we are being invaded by hordes of illegal immigrants. But they do not stop to think about the fact that they are coming because they get jobs here. Instead of targeting the cost-cutting policies of the companies that hire them, people are being brain-massaged into blaming a "communist","boy-king", "emperor", "the Obummer"... etc. This is no longer a nation of people who think before they act, or before they speak. It has been fed one too many news bites that are the news equivalent of fries and sodas. And they have about the same amount of information content as those foods have healthy nutrition.
Why has this happened? Mainly, I think, because it is far easier for individuals to react to fear than to spend time thinking deeply about the issues. Most news media these days, whether right, center or left, is churning out the news equivalent of junk food. Just as junk food clogs our arteries and causes any number of health issues from hypertension to obesity, so the bad narrative churned out by news media clogs our thought processes and leads to stupidity. How can people make good voting decisions in such a climate of misinformation and fear?
211
Just yesterday in my office in Chicago I interviewed a coworker who formerly worked in the Wisconsin state capitol and who knows Scott Walker on very close terms. And she reassured me that Walker does not possess the experiential or intellectual breadth, as we agreed to call it, to be considered a serious candidate for the presidency. I give every reader my word as a Federal law enforcement officer, and have heard this from another officer, that we don't have to worry about a Walker candidacy for GOP nominee, at least.
51
Do not be complacent.
That's what they said about Ronnie Raygun!
That's what they said about Ronnie Raygun!
21
If what you say is true, then certainly a man like George W. Bush could not be elected. Oh wait, I guess he could.
15
I`m sure Scott " let me at them boss " Walker doesn`t have a chance. But his handlers don`t want him to win, they want him to experience time off the bench and have trained him to be a great spitting cobra, spewing venom to cloud the eyes of any that turn to watch. He`s a diversionary tactic to make the other snakes in the grass of the republican field look almost useful.
11
The hypocrisy of Krugman's pst is mind-boggling.
He starts by quoting Mankiw's phrase "charlatans and cranks" used to
"ridicule "supply-siders" who promised that tax cuts would have such magic effects on the economy that deficits would go down, not up."
Does he not remember the ARRA pushed by Obama in 2009? To his credit, Krugman does correctly point out that Obama's $878 billion stimulus proposal was way too small. But he doesn't mention that instead of more spending on infrastructure and education, the Obama stimulus was focused on "tax cuts" and tax credits that "would have such magic effects on the economy that deficits would go down, not up." Admittedly the higher EITC benefits provided by Obama were directed at the poor, not so much the wealthy. But lacking was a jobs program for America's unemployed.
Krugman pillories Laffer, Kudlow and Moore. Perhaps these are not intellectual heavyweights, by they are certainly no more mentally challenged than Joe Biden, who offended his Chinese hosts on a state visit by characterizing the one-child policy as "repugnant."
And Biden's remark illustrates that not all the denial is among Republicans. Yes, they may deny climate change, but it is even worse to deny the impact of population growth which has climate change as one of its consequences.
Indeed, Obama's recent efforts to provide amnesty for illegal immigrants represents an much more appalling denial of the impact of population growth than Biden's offensive comment.
He starts by quoting Mankiw's phrase "charlatans and cranks" used to
"ridicule "supply-siders" who promised that tax cuts would have such magic effects on the economy that deficits would go down, not up."
Does he not remember the ARRA pushed by Obama in 2009? To his credit, Krugman does correctly point out that Obama's $878 billion stimulus proposal was way too small. But he doesn't mention that instead of more spending on infrastructure and education, the Obama stimulus was focused on "tax cuts" and tax credits that "would have such magic effects on the economy that deficits would go down, not up." Admittedly the higher EITC benefits provided by Obama were directed at the poor, not so much the wealthy. But lacking was a jobs program for America's unemployed.
Krugman pillories Laffer, Kudlow and Moore. Perhaps these are not intellectual heavyweights, by they are certainly no more mentally challenged than Joe Biden, who offended his Chinese hosts on a state visit by characterizing the one-child policy as "repugnant."
And Biden's remark illustrates that not all the denial is among Republicans. Yes, they may deny climate change, but it is even worse to deny the impact of population growth which has climate change as one of its consequences.
Indeed, Obama's recent efforts to provide amnesty for illegal immigrants represents an much more appalling denial of the impact of population growth than Biden's offensive comment.
3
Nowhere, in your comment, do you refute anything that Prof Krugman says in his column. Your argument amounts to "Oh yeah, you stink worse than I do." However, Prof Krugman's hygiene is perfectly adequate and his statements factual. bc
99
You conveniently forget that the original stimulus proposed by the Obama administration was far larger with the percent of tax cuts far smaller. It was the Republican caucus that insisted the stimulus be pared down in total and a larger percentage of tax cuts included.
138
Are you saying that the one-child policy is not repugnant?
18
Mr. Kudlow describes the failure of runaway inflation to materialize...as “miraculous.”
When I was about 13 years old, sick in bed, my mother threw me William Shirer's "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich." In there he made a point of agreeing with Hitler that strong government prevented inflation during Germany's massive arm's build up in the 30s. At that point I figured Shirer must be wrong. I thought it through. In a demand deficient depression, vendors with too much supply can't raise prices or people will just go to the competitor next door for the lower price.
I was 13 at most with no economics education. So at 13 I figured out what Kudlow, Moore and Laffer can't well past their 40s? What are these guys? Keystone cops? 3 stooges parading as economist? Are they trying to tell me that they're idiots dumber than a 7th grader?
I think the answer lies in the op-ed posted in the Times January 2014 by Sam Polk. The Right's BigMoney rich are addicted to greed & power. They're all just junkies. The GOP is their dealer/supplier.
The big tell? Climate change.
If you are billionaire-ish rich the only true worry you have is mega collapse of the system that protects your property rights. And presumably even the rich will have to live on this planet in the future. Climate change is one of the few things they should be worried about. But addicts don't even care about that, they need their next fix, future be damned.
GOP=Policy of, by, for Junkies. And yes they are VERY dangerous.
When I was about 13 years old, sick in bed, my mother threw me William Shirer's "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich." In there he made a point of agreeing with Hitler that strong government prevented inflation during Germany's massive arm's build up in the 30s. At that point I figured Shirer must be wrong. I thought it through. In a demand deficient depression, vendors with too much supply can't raise prices or people will just go to the competitor next door for the lower price.
I was 13 at most with no economics education. So at 13 I figured out what Kudlow, Moore and Laffer can't well past their 40s? What are these guys? Keystone cops? 3 stooges parading as economist? Are they trying to tell me that they're idiots dumber than a 7th grader?
I think the answer lies in the op-ed posted in the Times January 2014 by Sam Polk. The Right's BigMoney rich are addicted to greed & power. They're all just junkies. The GOP is their dealer/supplier.
The big tell? Climate change.
If you are billionaire-ish rich the only true worry you have is mega collapse of the system that protects your property rights. And presumably even the rich will have to live on this planet in the future. Climate change is one of the few things they should be worried about. But addicts don't even care about that, they need their next fix, future be damned.
GOP=Policy of, by, for Junkies. And yes they are VERY dangerous.
580
The extremely wealthy ignore climate change because part of money worship is the belief that your billions can secure you from any cataclysm. In a world confronting disaster, they picture themselves safe on Mount Olympus.
15
O'Really
I'm picking up what you're dropping. But again, I think that's the addiction talking to the self. If the planet boils, you'll be fine in your liar in Tibet, if not on the moon (see Dr. Evil).
But a clear head would surely not buy into that kind of carbon fiber. And masters of the universe are supposed to have a clear head. If so many acres of land are put out of production because Florida disappears under rising see water, then the pie shrinks, and chaos breaks out, in which case the strongest/luckiest will survive and being the strongest may not be the same as being the richest.
If you are a billionaire, economic security is guaranteed to you through this life and easily for the next five generations of your progeny, far beyond the foreseeable future, but only if the system that protects your wealth by recognizing and protecting your property rights itself survives.
The smart thing then is to make sure the system survives. This is not rocket science. This has happened so many times in history. The French revolution wasn't that long ago. The guillotine mechanized the beheading of the nobles. The wealthy are playing with fire. They wouldn't do this if they were smart or clear headed. This is nothing but policy of, by and for the junkies. They can't stop themselves. We have to do it for them or we will all be victimized.
Perhaps we need the national equivalent of an intervention. However, history also shows the junkies don't give up easy.
I'm picking up what you're dropping. But again, I think that's the addiction talking to the self. If the planet boils, you'll be fine in your liar in Tibet, if not on the moon (see Dr. Evil).
But a clear head would surely not buy into that kind of carbon fiber. And masters of the universe are supposed to have a clear head. If so many acres of land are put out of production because Florida disappears under rising see water, then the pie shrinks, and chaos breaks out, in which case the strongest/luckiest will survive and being the strongest may not be the same as being the richest.
If you are a billionaire, economic security is guaranteed to you through this life and easily for the next five generations of your progeny, far beyond the foreseeable future, but only if the system that protects your wealth by recognizing and protecting your property rights itself survives.
The smart thing then is to make sure the system survives. This is not rocket science. This has happened so many times in history. The French revolution wasn't that long ago. The guillotine mechanized the beheading of the nobles. The wealthy are playing with fire. They wouldn't do this if they were smart or clear headed. This is nothing but policy of, by and for the junkies. They can't stop themselves. We have to do it for them or we will all be victimized.
Perhaps we need the national equivalent of an intervention. However, history also shows the junkies don't give up easy.
18
No amount of money could buy you escape from the Titanic.
9
For 35+ years, Congressional governance has moved rightward because there is no push back. Conservatives thrive on its ideology/beliefs, ignorance of facts and science, supply side/trickle down mumbo jumbo, smaller government except when it comes to Wall St Bailouts and unfunded wars, low/no taxes and expensive/expansive Defense.
They make no bones their policies benefit the wealthy elites/plutocracy and corporations. The Right has subverted our Democracy: repealing voting rights, ALEC, Koch Brothers, Citizens United using think tanks and Fox News as cover.
Without any political center, all discussions and policies end up Right of center. Because the far Right pulls governance their way, we end up with polices like Laissez-faire, Patriot Act, endless expensive wars, NDAA/FISA/PRISM, expensive tax cuts, inversion, repeal of Glass Steagall, bloated MIC, Austerity, and skyrocketing income inequality.
Without Stewart or Colbert showing the hypocrisy and malpractice on the Right, Conservatives grow more powerful and unchecked every day. Without a voice, the Left only becomes weaker and the middle/working class take a bigger hit as Congress has all but forsaken them for their own gains.
They make no bones their policies benefit the wealthy elites/plutocracy and corporations. The Right has subverted our Democracy: repealing voting rights, ALEC, Koch Brothers, Citizens United using think tanks and Fox News as cover.
Without any political center, all discussions and policies end up Right of center. Because the far Right pulls governance their way, we end up with polices like Laissez-faire, Patriot Act, endless expensive wars, NDAA/FISA/PRISM, expensive tax cuts, inversion, repeal of Glass Steagall, bloated MIC, Austerity, and skyrocketing income inequality.
Without Stewart or Colbert showing the hypocrisy and malpractice on the Right, Conservatives grow more powerful and unchecked every day. Without a voice, the Left only becomes weaker and the middle/working class take a bigger hit as Congress has all but forsaken them for their own gains.
297
regarding the contributions of the comedians that i, too, have valued, one astute essayist has suggested that they might amount only to our reward for actually doing nothing. we sit on our hands and let their observations, rendered as entertainment, convince us that important work is being done. we, the heroes watching television, as colbert put it, have sat in our concerned smugness watching those guys entertain us when we should have been at local party meetings doing the hard work to nudge policy leftward.
7
Republican political leadership is promoting a long list of falsehoods. Politicians follow the voters. For the past two generations, the main creator of this world of falsehood has been the conservative media. In this world of falsehood, the main king maker is Rupert Murdoch.
Businesses and politicians spend enormous sums on advertising because it works. For the past generation, hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent operating the conservative media. A large fraction of the voters have been taken in by this world of propaganda.
There has been no alternative to the conservative media. The mainstream media is owned by Wall Street. Wall Street wants people to be content. It doesn’t want debate over serious issues. As a result, MSM does very little journalism. Mostly what it does now is he-said-she-said. When conservatives attack MSM for having a liberal bias, that’s just another conservative falsehood.
Businesses and politicians spend enormous sums on advertising because it works. For the past generation, hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent operating the conservative media. A large fraction of the voters have been taken in by this world of propaganda.
There has been no alternative to the conservative media. The mainstream media is owned by Wall Street. Wall Street wants people to be content. It doesn’t want debate over serious issues. As a result, MSM does very little journalism. Mostly what it does now is he-said-she-said. When conservatives attack MSM for having a liberal bias, that’s just another conservative falsehood.
15
Spence writes: "For 35+ years, Congressional governance has moved rightward because there is no push back." Very true. That there is no push back is something we can lay at the doorstep of the Democrats. We have two parties that support big business and the 1 percent, they just differ in tactics. The Republicans attack workers and the middle class, and the Democrats wring their hands and do nothing about it.
1
For a couple of decades, the right derided postmodern theories, including those that questioned the idea of an objective "truth." Now, those very critics who condemned this denial of any kind of objective reality are busily creating their own "truthiness." Ironic that these "conservative postmodernists" are using the very ideas that they claimed would undermine society - to undermine society. They teach us that that liberals hate America, the 14th Amendment didn't really happen, the Articles of Confederation are still really in effect, and cutting taxes drastically will stimulate an economy awash in uninvested corporate cash. The left has its own shibboleths, but nothing that rises to this level of audacity of mindless parroting. Perhaps a democratic system that panders to ideological extremists (who never sit out an election) needs a dose of civic virtue and true public spirit
80