It is completely UNFAIR....not to interview/report on the HONEST Republicans
running for President and Vice President...
A good debate just might occur between the Democratic views (yours) and
your honest opposition...
I hope you are not afraid of debating someone as astute as you are
Professor Krugman....and I mean Bill Weld...I just dare you...and it would
be refreshing if this was a vigorous...and effective debate...I would be
persuaded ....most Likely...because I am thoroughly DISGUSTED...with
The NYTimes...TABLOID...news .....and Hillary ducking her speeches to
Goldman Sachs.........Honesty Matters....and the entire world thinks the
USA...has lost its political compass...and is run and will continue being run
by ROGUE REPUBLICANS....like the KOCH Brothers...PLEASE....Debate Weld.
running for President and Vice President...
A good debate just might occur between the Democratic views (yours) and
your honest opposition...
I hope you are not afraid of debating someone as astute as you are
Professor Krugman....and I mean Bill Weld...I just dare you...and it would
be refreshing if this was a vigorous...and effective debate...I would be
persuaded ....most Likely...because I am thoroughly DISGUSTED...with
The NYTimes...TABLOID...news .....and Hillary ducking her speeches to
Goldman Sachs.........Honesty Matters....and the entire world thinks the
USA...has lost its political compass...and is run and will continue being run
by ROGUE REPUBLICANS....like the KOCH Brothers...PLEASE....Debate Weld.
1
“We are great. We’re still great and, more to the point, we’re actually good.”
"Children under 18 years represent 23 percent of the population, but they comprise 32 percent of all people in poverty. Many more children live in families with incomes just above the poverty threshold.1 Among all children, 44 percent live in low-income families and approximately one in every five (21 percent) live in poor families."
http://www.nccp.org/publications/pub_1145.html
Such is the task of a Democratic party pundit during the final year of a two-term Democratic president: sweep the poverty statistics under the rug and put a cheery spin on the economic malaise that's occurring at a time when over half of our discretionary spending is going to the military.
Krugman and others rightfully malign the Republican Party, but without the Republicans, who would the Democrats have to favorably compare themselves to? Who would they have to blame for the dreadful consequences of neoliberal policies to which both parties have doggedly adhered for 2 1/2 decades?
And how about some appreciation from the Democrats for the Republican's shift to the hinterlands of the far right, therefore allowing the "New" DNC Democrats some breathing room in the opposite direction from the New Deal policies which Sanders attempted to resuscitate, but that Krugman and corporate America find so repulsive?
With every column, Krugman sounds more and more like an economic centrist than a "liberal with a conscience".
"Children under 18 years represent 23 percent of the population, but they comprise 32 percent of all people in poverty. Many more children live in families with incomes just above the poverty threshold.1 Among all children, 44 percent live in low-income families and approximately one in every five (21 percent) live in poor families."
http://www.nccp.org/publications/pub_1145.html
Such is the task of a Democratic party pundit during the final year of a two-term Democratic president: sweep the poverty statistics under the rug and put a cheery spin on the economic malaise that's occurring at a time when over half of our discretionary spending is going to the military.
Krugman and others rightfully malign the Republican Party, but without the Republicans, who would the Democrats have to favorably compare themselves to? Who would they have to blame for the dreadful consequences of neoliberal policies to which both parties have doggedly adhered for 2 1/2 decades?
And how about some appreciation from the Democrats for the Republican's shift to the hinterlands of the far right, therefore allowing the "New" DNC Democrats some breathing room in the opposite direction from the New Deal policies which Sanders attempted to resuscitate, but that Krugman and corporate America find so repulsive?
With every column, Krugman sounds more and more like an economic centrist than a "liberal with a conscience".
Let's be clear:
1) Obama inherited one of the worst economic crises in U.S. history -- arguably caused by 8 years of Bush Administration policies.
2) After putting out the above fire, Obama has faced nearly 6 years of non-stop obstructionism from the Republicans.
Poverty and its horrible effects on children in this country is caused by Republican policies, not Democratic policies. The Republicans focus on tax breaks for the wealthy and spending cuts that mostly affect the poor, the disadvantaged, and the middle class. Their strategy is to block legislation proposed by Democrats that will shift power and wealth away from the 1%.
Sanders talked at length about resuscitating New Deal policies, but 1) his policies are not that different from Clinton's policies, and 2) he would not have had any more success than Obama or Clinton when facing an obstructionist Congress.
What we need is a Congress -- whether it's Republican or Democrat -- that is willing to work with the president to enact New Deal-like policies. Which party do you think would be willing to do that? I suggest you give this some more thought and redirect your criticism:
1) Obama inherited one of the worst economic crises in U.S. history -- arguably caused by 8 years of Bush Administration policies.
2) After putting out the above fire, Obama has faced nearly 6 years of non-stop obstructionism from the Republicans.
Poverty and its horrible effects on children in this country is caused by Republican policies, not Democratic policies. The Republicans focus on tax breaks for the wealthy and spending cuts that mostly affect the poor, the disadvantaged, and the middle class. Their strategy is to block legislation proposed by Democrats that will shift power and wealth away from the 1%.
Sanders talked at length about resuscitating New Deal policies, but 1) his policies are not that different from Clinton's policies, and 2) he would not have had any more success than Obama or Clinton when facing an obstructionist Congress.
What we need is a Congress -- whether it's Republican or Democrat -- that is willing to work with the president to enact New Deal-like policies. Which party do you think would be willing to do that? I suggest you give this some more thought and redirect your criticism:
2
Truly LOL journalism, this. Let's examine the conservative media, the things said about Hillary on talk radio, even in Fox News. Benghazi!!
Regarding climate change. Soaring temperatures could certainly be related to global warming. Global warming's effects on floodwaters are more difficult to discern. Maybe yes or maybe no. Wild fires in California are far more likely due to the policy of fire prevention which allowed the accumulation of underbrush.
What Krugman should be mad at is leading the DNC bandwagon of sycophants against Sanders, and not at least trying to strategize a way to attain some of Sanders' policy goals, which would be most likely to mitigate what Krugman does not like about the world.
Instead, Krugman courageously took a pass - too difficult, unrealistic, not incremental. He chose more of the same. Doesn't he realize it is 3 minutes to midnight?
Hey, Professor, if the existential problems you cite do not develop linearly, but unfold exponentially, will your head still be deep in the sand?
And can we stop breathlessly referring to Krugman as "Nobel prize winning". That was eight years ago and has no validity outside a very narrow technical subject.
Instead, Krugman courageously took a pass - too difficult, unrealistic, not incremental. He chose more of the same. Doesn't he realize it is 3 minutes to midnight?
Hey, Professor, if the existential problems you cite do not develop linearly, but unfold exponentially, will your head still be deep in the sand?
And can we stop breathlessly referring to Krugman as "Nobel prize winning". That was eight years ago and has no validity outside a very narrow technical subject.
1
A Round Table Debate...with the real Republicans.....and the real Democrats
who are not tainted by Wall Street....
Let's say Robert Reich and his nemesis...(name one)
and
Let's say Paul Krugman and his nemesis..(name one_
Just get the actual Democratic Party point of view vs the Republican point of
view (prior to voodoo Reagan crazy ruinous economic junk)
So...Academics...have at it and let the Media keep spinning the junk news
on Corporate Media....and in the newspaper as well.
who are not tainted by Wall Street....
Let's say Robert Reich and his nemesis...(name one)
and
Let's say Paul Krugman and his nemesis..(name one_
Just get the actual Democratic Party point of view vs the Republican point of
view (prior to voodoo Reagan crazy ruinous economic junk)
So...Academics...have at it and let the Media keep spinning the junk news
on Corporate Media....and in the newspaper as well.
1
It was nice to hear Paul Krugman end on a positive note. One other positive note, which he didn't bring up, is the likely rejection come November of all that the infantile Trump stands for. That should boost most everyone's spirits.
However, with the dazed-and-confused GOP undergoing an identity crisis while at the same time in control of the Senate and Congress, it won't be enough for Hillary to gain the White House without down-ballot help. It's time to throw the bath water out with the baby!
However, with the dazed-and-confused GOP undergoing an identity crisis while at the same time in control of the Senate and Congress, it won't be enough for Hillary to gain the White House without down-ballot help. It's time to throw the bath water out with the baby!
3
I'm mad too. But my grouse is against all fair minded Americans who see the right wing's Jihadi-like pursuit of Mrs Clinton and look the other way. It seems to me that all fair minded people ought to rally to Clinton's side - or at least turn against her unqualified, unstable rival, Mr Trump. It's only due to the stridency of his followers and supporters that Trump is still in the fray.
But it does not speak well of our country that a coterie of hatred filled people can keep alive the candidacy of an unstable, ignoramus person like Mr Trump. The worst part is that here is a man who talks and behaves like a chronic, compulsive liar, and yet by common lore, it is Mrs Clinton who is considered as a dishonest and untrustworthy person. Maybe it's time that we the uncommitted independents in the middle start exerting our weight to show that lies and falsehood, no matter how frequently spoken or repeated, cannot, and will not, carry the day.
But it does not speak well of our country that a coterie of hatred filled people can keep alive the candidacy of an unstable, ignoramus person like Mr Trump. The worst part is that here is a man who talks and behaves like a chronic, compulsive liar, and yet by common lore, it is Mrs Clinton who is considered as a dishonest and untrustworthy person. Maybe it's time that we the uncommitted independents in the middle start exerting our weight to show that lies and falsehood, no matter how frequently spoken or repeated, cannot, and will not, carry the day.
4
what caused trump? ratings driven right wing talk radio and the fall to dishonesty and breeding separation and hatred. and the demise of the fairness doctrine.
1
Have global temperatures ever been higher than today? Yes.
Have global temperatures ever been lower than today? Yes.
Have sea levels ever been higher than today? Yes.
Have sea levels ever been lower than today? Yes.
Have human beings existed (and survived) on earth during all of these conditions? Yes.
This is why I don't get too bent out of shape over climate change.
Have global temperatures ever been lower than today? Yes.
Have sea levels ever been higher than today? Yes.
Have sea levels ever been lower than today? Yes.
Have human beings existed (and survived) on earth during all of these conditions? Yes.
This is why I don't get too bent out of shape over climate change.
"Extreme weather events" do not substantiate climate change due to anthropogenic factors. Events are anecdotes. For them to be correctly analyzed very careful statistical procedures must be used and there MUST be a valid historical baseline. The climate records that alarmists (those who believe that man is catastrophically changing climate willy-nilly) address are at best spotty and highly sensationalized in a selective fashion.
In short, manmade global warming is a fashionable idea quite popular with global elites because it offers them license to be very important and have enormous power over the economic destiny of entire civilizations.
The climate skeptic point of view is that the dogmatic insistence that carbon dioxide is PROVEN to be the most significant factor in climate change is absurd. CO2 is likely a very feeble factor indeed, as 2017 will bear out when solar sun spot activity and the El Nino/La Nina southern hemisphere oscillation force our planet into a dramatic period of cooling. Perhaps, even a new mini-Ice Age will be on our plate.
Global elites at present are secular humanist pragmatists. This really means that they embrace few sturdy principles, but readily (and in a fickle manner) adopt fashionable sympathies. These sympathies always insist to be high moral priorities, even to the point of dogmatic certitude.
Thus pop celebrities and cognoscenti exhibit meticulous Obama-grade arrogance and snarkiness.
Trump needs to get us to 2017 intellectually.
In short, manmade global warming is a fashionable idea quite popular with global elites because it offers them license to be very important and have enormous power over the economic destiny of entire civilizations.
The climate skeptic point of view is that the dogmatic insistence that carbon dioxide is PROVEN to be the most significant factor in climate change is absurd. CO2 is likely a very feeble factor indeed, as 2017 will bear out when solar sun spot activity and the El Nino/La Nina southern hemisphere oscillation force our planet into a dramatic period of cooling. Perhaps, even a new mini-Ice Age will be on our plate.
Global elites at present are secular humanist pragmatists. This really means that they embrace few sturdy principles, but readily (and in a fickle manner) adopt fashionable sympathies. These sympathies always insist to be high moral priorities, even to the point of dogmatic certitude.
Thus pop celebrities and cognoscenti exhibit meticulous Obama-grade arrogance and snarkiness.
Trump needs to get us to 2017 intellectually.
1
"Relaxed" Richard Pryor on how he imagined it felt to be white in America. "Just us" Richard Pryor on what he found after visiting a prison and looking for justice.
Climate change is based in the sciences of physics, chemistry and biology.
Economics is based in the history of gender, color, race, ethnicity, sociology, anthropology, politics plus arithmetic. There are way too many unknowns and variables along with the possibility of using any meaningful controls to make economics repeatable and refutable. Thus the Nobel in Economics which Mr. Nobel did not establish is more akin to the Nobel in Literature which he did. There is no science in economics nor politics nor social nor history nor finance nor accounting nor banking.
If you look like you could be President Obama or you could be his son, father, uncle, cousin or brother and you are on the West or South Sides of Chicago while living, breathing, walking or driving while black then your life is a safari and you are the big game.
Hillary Clinton is a former First Lady who is a temperate experienced politcian and former POTUS cabinet official. Hillary is also a cowardly serial liar corrupt crony capitalist corporate plutocrat oligarch welfare queen. Along with being a military-industrial complex global interventionist war monger who believes in mass black incarceration and black welfare deformation. Trump has never been First Lady nor held any elected or selected government office. Trump is intemperate and ignorant
Climate change is based in the sciences of physics, chemistry and biology.
Economics is based in the history of gender, color, race, ethnicity, sociology, anthropology, politics plus arithmetic. There are way too many unknowns and variables along with the possibility of using any meaningful controls to make economics repeatable and refutable. Thus the Nobel in Economics which Mr. Nobel did not establish is more akin to the Nobel in Literature which he did. There is no science in economics nor politics nor social nor history nor finance nor accounting nor banking.
If you look like you could be President Obama or you could be his son, father, uncle, cousin or brother and you are on the West or South Sides of Chicago while living, breathing, walking or driving while black then your life is a safari and you are the big game.
Hillary Clinton is a former First Lady who is a temperate experienced politcian and former POTUS cabinet official. Hillary is also a cowardly serial liar corrupt crony capitalist corporate plutocrat oligarch welfare queen. Along with being a military-industrial complex global interventionist war monger who believes in mass black incarceration and black welfare deformation. Trump has never been First Lady nor held any elected or selected government office. Trump is intemperate and ignorant
1
Krugman knows all about false moral equivalences. This will be one of the few times I select anything authored by him after his Sanders tantrum. Just no longer interested. By the way, where are the columns extolling Clintons virtues?
The idea that Krugman is responsible for Trump’s candidacy is almost as absurd as Paul regards it. Trump’s probably not that important. At least not to Barack Obama, who really IS responsible for Trump’s candidacy.
First we find a place for Andrew Rosenthal to be mad at things, now Paul Krugman. I’m waiting for Gail Collins to be given a spot in this space because I have LOTS of Emily Litella riff ideas I haven’t used to offer in response.
More rats in New York? How would anyone know? When was the last time Paul (OR Susan) spelunked beneath Manhattan’s surface to hobnob with the vast population of HUMANS down there, much less to count the cat-sized rats that prowl the subway tunnels, some of them out of service for almost a century?
That podcast couldn’t have gone for more than sixty seconds. Obviously, Paul isn’t mad at too many things, which always is better for the digestion. The environment, false equivalences and Republicans generally. Quelle surprise.
First we find a place for Andrew Rosenthal to be mad at things, now Paul Krugman. I’m waiting for Gail Collins to be given a spot in this space because I have LOTS of Emily Litella riff ideas I haven’t used to offer in response.
More rats in New York? How would anyone know? When was the last time Paul (OR Susan) spelunked beneath Manhattan’s surface to hobnob with the vast population of HUMANS down there, much less to count the cat-sized rats that prowl the subway tunnels, some of them out of service for almost a century?
That podcast couldn’t have gone for more than sixty seconds. Obviously, Paul isn’t mad at too many things, which always is better for the digestion. The environment, false equivalences and Republicans generally. Quelle surprise.
1
@RL
" At least not to Barack Obama, who really IS responsible for Trump’s candidacy."
I've seen this meme from various Republicans and it really is laughable. The Republicans through their nominating process nominated Donald Trump. They did it of their own free will. Obama wasn't behind the scenes orchestrating dirty tricks to cause this to happen.
The Republican leadership met within hours of Obama's inauguration and vowed to resist everything he put forward. No cooperation. They shut down the government even though that didn't go so well for them with Newt in the 90s. What prominent Republican spoke up when Trump was birther in chief and called it out as nonsense? When Republican Congressmen were floating the birther and Muslim innuendo, did McConnell or Boehner tell them to cool it? No they didn't dare offend the nut jobs.
And finally why couldn't the supposedly "strong bench" of Republican candidates stop him? Did Obama undermine their candidacies? No they were just a bunch of ineffectual hacks who were unable to counteract a loudmouth buffoon. Trump threw away all the dog whistles and picked up a bullhorn and they couldn't deal with it for fear of offending their "base".
The Republicans nominated Trump. They own it.
" At least not to Barack Obama, who really IS responsible for Trump’s candidacy."
I've seen this meme from various Republicans and it really is laughable. The Republicans through their nominating process nominated Donald Trump. They did it of their own free will. Obama wasn't behind the scenes orchestrating dirty tricks to cause this to happen.
The Republican leadership met within hours of Obama's inauguration and vowed to resist everything he put forward. No cooperation. They shut down the government even though that didn't go so well for them with Newt in the 90s. What prominent Republican spoke up when Trump was birther in chief and called it out as nonsense? When Republican Congressmen were floating the birther and Muslim innuendo, did McConnell or Boehner tell them to cool it? No they didn't dare offend the nut jobs.
And finally why couldn't the supposedly "strong bench" of Republican candidates stop him? Did Obama undermine their candidacies? No they were just a bunch of ineffectual hacks who were unable to counteract a loudmouth buffoon. Trump threw away all the dog whistles and picked up a bullhorn and they couldn't deal with it for fear of offending their "base".
The Republicans nominated Trump. They own it.
5
I see that it still pains right-wingers immensely simply to call the President of the United States of America the President of the United States of America.
Gee, I wonder what the problem is? Golly, why the loud disrespect?
Gee, I wonder what the problem is? Golly, why the loud disrespect?
2
Richard Luettgen: "The idea that Krugman is responsible for Trump’s candidacy is almost as absurd as Paul regards it. Trump’s probably not that important. At least not to Barack Obama, who really IS responsible for Trump’s candidacy."
I knew it! With that paragraph, Mr. Luettgen has let the cat out of the bag - he's actually a writer for The Onion!
Keep up the great humorous comments, please!
I knew it! With that paragraph, Mr. Luettgen has let the cat out of the bag - he's actually a writer for The Onion!
Keep up the great humorous comments, please!
2
Thank you for bringing up climate change.
Mounting evidence in the form of cascades of extreme weather events (some reported, many not*) is another reason everyone should inform themselves about state-of-the-art knowledge about our earth. (Try this: http://climate.nasa.gov/ )
We are so accustomed to exploiting cheap nature, beginning with Genesis which told us the earth is here to serve us, that we have a hard time accepting that earth's systems operate independently of our desires and will. We, earth's largest predator, an expanding population with growing appetites on a finite planet, are approaching the limits of what earth can support. We have no innate right to more of the world's goods than those who cannot take hot and cold running water for granted. They too will be wanting TVs and easy transport, heat and A/C, light switches, and all, which will add to the already huge burden we impose on our hospitable home.
We wish it weren't so, because it means drawing back our infinite demands and sharing and working together to solve problems, and we have become used to our comforts. I understand, I feel it too.
But here we all are, and floods like this are just one of many signs (the west Pacific is also being devastated, there's a big storm in the Arctic dispersing ice, the list goes on and on).
*For lists of costly extremes, scroll down here:
https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=3387
Mounting evidence in the form of cascades of extreme weather events (some reported, many not*) is another reason everyone should inform themselves about state-of-the-art knowledge about our earth. (Try this: http://climate.nasa.gov/ )
We are so accustomed to exploiting cheap nature, beginning with Genesis which told us the earth is here to serve us, that we have a hard time accepting that earth's systems operate independently of our desires and will. We, earth's largest predator, an expanding population with growing appetites on a finite planet, are approaching the limits of what earth can support. We have no innate right to more of the world's goods than those who cannot take hot and cold running water for granted. They too will be wanting TVs and easy transport, heat and A/C, light switches, and all, which will add to the already huge burden we impose on our hospitable home.
We wish it weren't so, because it means drawing back our infinite demands and sharing and working together to solve problems, and we have become used to our comforts. I understand, I feel it too.
But here we all are, and floods like this are just one of many signs (the west Pacific is also being devastated, there's a big storm in the Arctic dispersing ice, the list goes on and on).
*For lists of costly extremes, scroll down here:
https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=3387
17
What bugs me about Krugman is his cheer leading for Obamacare as a cure for America's healthcare mess when we know he's never experienced this system first hand. It's like somebody who has never been to the moon saying that from here the climate up there looks great.
Last year my wife pulled a tick out of my arm. She brought it down to town hall. They packaged it and mailed it off to the state lab where it was tested and analyzed. It came back positive. The tick carried lyme disease. The cost for this was $0.
Even though I am insured the Lyme diagnosis for a human (me) would have run in to the $1,000's out of pocket for the visit and the tests. When I spoke with a doctor's office the receptionist told me that if I tested positive the doctor wouldn't prescribe antibiotics anyway unless I was sick. And the waiting list for new patients was 9 months.
For a living human being who pays over $700 a month I'd still have to pay out of pocket for the tests. Even if they were positive I wouldn't receive any treatment in any sort of timely manner.
Healthcare testing is covered 100% by the state health department. It's a great deal if you happen to be a dead tick.
Last year my wife pulled a tick out of my arm. She brought it down to town hall. They packaged it and mailed it off to the state lab where it was tested and analyzed. It came back positive. The tick carried lyme disease. The cost for this was $0.
Even though I am insured the Lyme diagnosis for a human (me) would have run in to the $1,000's out of pocket for the visit and the tests. When I spoke with a doctor's office the receptionist told me that if I tested positive the doctor wouldn't prescribe antibiotics anyway unless I was sick. And the waiting list for new patients was 9 months.
For a living human being who pays over $700 a month I'd still have to pay out of pocket for the tests. Even if they were positive I wouldn't receive any treatment in any sort of timely manner.
Healthcare testing is covered 100% by the state health department. It's a great deal if you happen to be a dead tick.
13
People do have bad experiences with these systems, as with any system, including the systems we had in place before ACA. For example, many millions of people HAD NO INSURANCE AT ALL and had to take their chances with Lyme disease. It sounds like you got a bad deal in your case. I would note that in some cases, according to the Mayo Clinic, Lyme disease can be very difficult and expensive to diagnose. This is what makes evaluation of health care so difficult: anecdotal stories like yours can never tell a full story. And even if Paul K. WAS an ACA user, his individual stories would not be determinant even as yours are not. Evaluation takes experts looking at data across the whole spectrum of providers, users, and procedures. Individual experiences, expert or not, informed or not are insufficient to judge the whole of the system.
And by the way, well-equipped earthbound scientists have good knowledge of the weather on the moon.
And by the way, well-equipped earthbound scientists have good knowledge of the weather on the moon.
1
A fair chunk of the reason for the high price of medicine is the way Americans jump up and down and demand tests and drugs they don't need.
Jump on the CDC website, and look for the symptoms: ring rash, fever, malaise.
Oh and not that you'll care, people aren't given antibiotics until they're symptomatic because a) the fact that the tick tested pos doesn't mean that it passed on Lyme, and b) the antibiotics have side effects, especially at high doses.
Jump on the CDC website, and look for the symptoms: ring rash, fever, malaise.
Oh and not that you'll care, people aren't given antibiotics until they're symptomatic because a) the fact that the tick tested pos doesn't mean that it passed on Lyme, and b) the antibiotics have side effects, especially at high doses.
2
I wish that, in the same way fracking turned oil production supply upside down, some type of economic incentives can be applied rapidly to affect the production of CO2, or any other way to avert climate disaster. Other than laws, which seems to stall for many reasons such as fairness between nations or just awaiting for more evidence. Is it just a truly inconvenient truth that we wish to deny, like the proverbial boiled frog ignoring the warming bath?
7
Daniel,
The policy you are looking for has a name: Carbon Fee & Dividend. You can learn more about it here:
http://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-fee-and-dividend/
It creates economic incentives for shifting away from energy based on fossil carbon. It does this without unfairly burdening low-income Americans, or damaging the economy, or growing government bureaucracy (it's revenue-neutral). The incorporation of an incentive makes it capable of applying broadly, and being effective.
The policy you are looking for has a name: Carbon Fee & Dividend. You can learn more about it here:
http://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-fee-and-dividend/
It creates economic incentives for shifting away from energy based on fossil carbon. It does this without unfairly burdening low-income Americans, or damaging the economy, or growing government bureaucracy (it's revenue-neutral). The incorporation of an incentive makes it capable of applying broadly, and being effective.
Daniel - the policy exists and is called Carbon Fee & Dividend. It places a small but steadily rising fee on fossil-based carbon at the point of extraction or import, and returns all revenue to households on a per capita basis. For more on this, see:
www.citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-fee-and-dividend/
It's a transparent policy which is effective because it creates incentives operating throughout the economy for moving away from using fossil fuels whose use is altering the atmosphere and causing climate change. It does this without placing an undue burden on low-income Americans, or damaging the economy.
www.citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-fee-and-dividend/
It's a transparent policy which is effective because it creates incentives operating throughout the economy for moving away from using fossil fuels whose use is altering the atmosphere and causing climate change. It does this without placing an undue burden on low-income Americans, or damaging the economy.
Some individuals, and some dedicated small groups, are great. Some even get recognised with laurels. The reason we don't give prizes or awards to countries is that only a named person or group can be rewarded. A country cannot be acknowledged as good or great because it is not countries but only their people that matter.
5
I seem to remember a comment by a Founding Father, which I must very liberally paraphrase: "We have a wonderful country, it's boundless land rich in soil and natural resources and beautiful climate, without enemies within or anywhere near our borders that open into boundless oceans, with its people steeped by heritage in the rule of law and of freedom as assured by our constitution; it is a land of limitless possibility. We're going to have to work pretty hard to screw this up!"
Why direct your anger at people who are relatively low in the social hierarchy, who face constraints of their own, not of their own making? It makes no sense when Republican elites do it; it makes no sense when Democratic elites do it. But it does make sense for elites to redirect people’s anger away from them.
3
I agree with Professor Krugman. We should the using the worst terms to describe the climate and our future. "Climate change" is weak. "Climate disaster" is good. Climate Apocalypse is better.
The NYT today recommended that New York garbage trucks be powered by renewable natural gas. What's renewable about natural gas? And so it reduces our carbon footprint. So what? If we aren't taking pollutants out of our atmosphere, instead of adding to them more slowly, what are we accomplishing?
Our grandchildren will still have to decide whether to have children, because if they do those kids may have to seek higher ground at best, or live in caves, or just die, at worst.
As he says, "really scary."
The NYT today recommended that New York garbage trucks be powered by renewable natural gas. What's renewable about natural gas? And so it reduces our carbon footprint. So what? If we aren't taking pollutants out of our atmosphere, instead of adding to them more slowly, what are we accomplishing?
Our grandchildren will still have to decide whether to have children, because if they do those kids may have to seek higher ground at best, or live in caves, or just die, at worst.
As he says, "really scary."
14
Exactly. A lot of people who acknowledge climate change due to human caused warming still haven't read enough of the science. Floods,drought,disease,storms,ocean acidification,extinctions and ecosystem collapse add up to catastrophe.They don't realize that total global societal breakdown is in the offing if we don't act much faster than we are.
21
"What's renewable about natural gas?"
If your question is genuine, you should read the article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/19/opinion/how-garbage-trucks-can-drive-a...
Renewable natural gas is the methane (CH4) generated by rotting garbage. If used to power trucks or generators, it becomes water and CO2 (in the same quantity it was absorbed from the air by the plants that ultimately became the garbage). So it's carbon-neutral. If not burned in trucks or generators, the methane escapes into the air, where it's a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. Also, replacing diesel trucks with natural gas trucks eliminates the diesel particulate pollution that causes millions to suffer from asthma and other lung diseases.
If your question is genuine, you should read the article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/19/opinion/how-garbage-trucks-can-drive-a...
Renewable natural gas is the methane (CH4) generated by rotting garbage. If used to power trucks or generators, it becomes water and CO2 (in the same quantity it was absorbed from the air by the plants that ultimately became the garbage). So it's carbon-neutral. If not burned in trucks or generators, the methane escapes into the air, where it's a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. Also, replacing diesel trucks with natural gas trucks eliminates the diesel particulate pollution that causes millions to suffer from asthma and other lung diseases.
1
It actually has to be explained that when garbage decays it releases methane, which is what nat gas is.
Good grief.
Good grief.
Enduring goodness? tell that to Indochina, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, most of Latin America, Native Americans ... Such self-congratulation is refuted by so much history.
16
The majority of countries and religions of this world for the most part promote population growth by punishing women for having an abortion, for making it difficult or in many parts illegal taking birth control pills making it very difficult to practice population control. We all know abortions and birth control has been practiced for many centuries. Why are these leaders, politicians as well as religious leaders, confronted with their own selfishness just to keep the numbers up? Those are the ones who should be blamed along with corporate creed for destroying this beautiful planet of ours. And of course it is mostly the ones who can least afford it to have so many children in the first place. Humanity is doomed because of our own irresponsibility. Population control is the number one priority when wanting to turn around this disaster right along with so many other urgent reasons mentioned above in previous letters.
1
American exceptionalism: We are great means: we are better than everybody else. Doesn't this remind you of something...? (Hint: something that happened in Germany in the 1930s.)
And how about our being "exceptional" in our inequalities, levels of poverty, workers benefits, energy consumption and waste, etc., compared to other industrialized countries?
And how about our being "exceptional" in our inequalities, levels of poverty, workers benefits, energy consumption and waste, etc., compared to other industrialized countries?
42
America is good... because it prevents a hopeful candidate from getting to the elections.
America is good... because it guns down black people in the streets.
America is good... because it ceasely produces enemies, instead of promoting fraternity.
America is good... because it has taught poor people that they deserve it.
Good, good, good!
America is good... because it guns down black people in the streets.
America is good... because it ceasely produces enemies, instead of promoting fraternity.
America is good... because it has taught poor people that they deserve it.
Good, good, good!
10
Krugman is only to blame for reducing further the credibility and class of the New York Times, a paper I've read for 50 years, but can't see reading any longer.
7
Then, don't read it. We (NY Times readers) won't miss you.
35
Have faith MF, Krugman is right, however, if we retain a do nothing congress in November, Hillary will have a problem getting things done.
If only we could concentrate on domestic issues and stop our Middle East interventions, including Israel perhaps we could see America great.
Palm Harbor, Fl
If only we could concentrate on domestic issues and stop our Middle East interventions, including Israel perhaps we could see America great.
Palm Harbor, Fl
14
Would you like me to hold the door for you to speed your exit?
6
"America is great and good". This statement is -- as Karl Popper would say -- not falsifiable. So the question is not really about its truth value but rather why people like PK say it. In no other country do you hear such a discourse. My own analysis is: My lady doth protest too much!
5
To paraphrase Bill Maher, thinking America is the best is like thinking your wife is the best. On that level, it's normal and good.
But on the level where you think "My wife is the best, and any other man would gladly kill his wife to have mine, so I have to defend against that", not so great.
But on the level where you think "My wife is the best, and any other man would gladly kill his wife to have mine, so I have to defend against that", not so great.
17
What's "not falsifiable" about it? Suppose Trump were elected!!!
4
The point is that there are no universally accepted conditions for its being false. Trump, for example, would think that his being elected is a sign of America's greatness... and perhaps even its goodness.
Fools. The vast majority of so-called one-per enters are liberals. Hollywood, Wall Street, and the wealthiest companies, as measured by worth, are in that camp with the exception of the Walton family, which by the way contributed heavily to the candidacy of one WJC for Arkansas Governor. I believe he has a part-time spouse running for corrupter-in-chief. Gates, Sorso, Zuckerberg, Buffett, Ratner, Bloomberg, all one-percenters, all liberals. Tax their stock options as ordinary income, tax their unearned income in that fashion and see them squeal like the ovines they be, until that is, their howling changes all those progressive minds. Just in case anyone has a modicum of interest, each of these billionaires live in segregated, gated, walled off enclaves which of course is de rigueur for preachy, progressive, liberal hypocrites.
2
I'm sure there are as many conservatives in the same camp. The Koch bros. come to mind. It doesn't matter. They all need to be taxed more,and their companies need to be regulated more to protect workers,consumers and the environment.
30
My understanding is that Mr. Buffet lives in the same house he lived in before he became wealthy. I don't know too much about it so I won't say it's modest, but it certainly isn't ostentatious and certainly isn't in a gated community. I could be wrong. You might want to check that one out.
"Additionally, we need Congress, right now, to enact a minimum tax on high incomes. I would suggest 30 percent of taxable income between $1 million and $10 million, and 35 percent on amounts above that. A plain and simple rule like that will block the efforts of lobbyists, lawyers and contribution-hungry legislators to keep the ultrarich paying rates well below those incurred by people with income just a tiny fraction of ours. Only a minimum tax on very high incomes will prevent the stated tax rate from being eviscerated by these warriors for the wealthy."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/opinion/buffett-a-minimum-tax-for-the-...
"ZAKARIA: What about taxes? Do you support President Obama’s proposal to increase taxes on the wealthy?
SOROS: Yes, I very much do so, because it’s the big boom, the super-bubble that resulted in a great increase in inequality. Not only do we have the after effect where we have slow growth one way or the other, but if you have better distribution of income, the average American will be better off."
https://youtu.be/Aj6v55czZLk
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/opinion/buffett-a-minimum-tax-for-the-...
"ZAKARIA: What about taxes? Do you support President Obama’s proposal to increase taxes on the wealthy?
SOROS: Yes, I very much do so, because it’s the big boom, the super-bubble that resulted in a great increase in inequality. Not only do we have the after effect where we have slow growth one way or the other, but if you have better distribution of income, the average American will be better off."
https://youtu.be/Aj6v55czZLk
1
Looking at the quagmire that is the world's economy and trying to see what's really going on and how to fix what needs to be fixed without destroying things that are working is not for mere mortals, but Paul is no mere mortal when it comes to the economy. Hillary, give this guy a key to the Whitehouse!
21
The notion that liberal columnists are to blame for Donald Trump candidacy would mean that folks who vote for Donald Trump actually listen to liberal columnists. No one would be talking at all about Donald Trump if he ran during the Republican primaries, said outrageous things, and dropped out of the race because he didn't win any states. Donald Trump's candidacy matters because a whole lot of Republicans voted for him across the country, and the "liberal" media has absolutely nothing to do with that. It would be more accurate to give the credit - or the blame - for Donald Trump to the conservative media. The linked article was too silly for words.
48
Saw Dr. Krugman in a debate with one of DTs' economic advisers. It was laughable and it hurt at one and the same time. The arguments being made by his opponent made no sense. Still, the kindly Nobfel Laureate was gentle and logical in making his case. The exchange was a parallel to this entire election.
One side is totally whacked out while the other struggles futilely toward a rational dialogue.
One side is totally whacked out while the other struggles futilely toward a rational dialogue.
47
I have never doubted Dr Krugman's integrity but my exposure to the degrowth Conference in Montreal in 2012 led me to believe that Dr Krugman's economic philosophy is wrong for the United States, wrong for the 21st century and wrong for the planet. It matters not that right wing economic theory is destructive of the planet and compromises so many of the moral choices we must make with regards to our own economic well being. Neoliberalism is still a compromise between right and wrong and only a little bit wrong is still wrong.
I too feel America is a good country but as sincere as Dr Krugman may feel about the rightness or even righteousness of his economic philosophy it cannot but bring catastrophe to a finite planet.
The papers from the Degrowth Conference are still available on line at
http://montreal.degrowth.org/papers.html
To me the economic papers make sense. History teaches of the mass starvation that occurred in mid 19th century Ireland a land whose economy was based on food export. It was the economists who convinced the politicians that the starvation was necessary to preserve Ireland's food export economy and even as a million starved to death Ireland exported meat, cheese and grain to set on the world's most plentiful tables.
What will it take to explain to professor Krugman that climate change and growing pessimism is a direct result of the awareness that a perpetually growing economy may be great economic theory but we are confined to a very finite planet.
I too feel America is a good country but as sincere as Dr Krugman may feel about the rightness or even righteousness of his economic philosophy it cannot but bring catastrophe to a finite planet.
The papers from the Degrowth Conference are still available on line at
http://montreal.degrowth.org/papers.html
To me the economic papers make sense. History teaches of the mass starvation that occurred in mid 19th century Ireland a land whose economy was based on food export. It was the economists who convinced the politicians that the starvation was necessary to preserve Ireland's food export economy and even as a million starved to death Ireland exported meat, cheese and grain to set on the world's most plentiful tables.
What will it take to explain to professor Krugman that climate change and growing pessimism is a direct result of the awareness that a perpetually growing economy may be great economic theory but we are confined to a very finite planet.
15
Have you never heard of Sputnik, Apollo, and Pioneer? I am glad that Columbus did not feel that we were confined to the Old World.
3
Len ,
I rejoice at your optimism.
I rejoice at your optimism.
Have you looked into what Columbus did for the natives of the New World?
Dear Woof, Dr. Krugman made it very clear that in fact there were NO reasonable Republican candidates. The GOP needed no assistance from Dr. Krugman. They created Trump, starting with Reagan. Lee
22
Trump is a mirror image of what most republicans are -- bigoted, ignoramus, provincial, boorish... need I go on? The party created its own frankistein and now they are lost as to what to do. To blame Prof Krugman for Trump is utterly laughable. The debate about Climate change is still not conclusive . But at least let's start from the premise that humans have some role to play in the undeniable changes we are encountering.
4
Are there increases in the use of illegal drugs? Is there a horrific amount of poverty in the inner cities? Has the militarization of the police increased the gulf between the plutocrats and the rest of the people? Is the policy of the government towards China's annexing of islands in the South China Sea irrational, seen within the context of the Defense Departments decades-old policy of strategic island defense (Specifically, the Chagos Archipelago.)? Is a 1% tax on all Wall Street transactions really a bad idea?
4
There's no business like show business whether you paint a bright or a foggy picture. Trump's gloom and doom or Hillary's apple pie and ice cream, both are true to some extent and saying doesn't make either one so for everyone. The advent of the database and data collection has fooled us into thinking peoples' lives are as measurable as grains of rice and it's o.k. to treat them that way-somethings to be sold something. That explains why every so often a surprise occurs-FDR is a great example, as Dewey found out.
5
According to his podcast, Krugman sees climate change as one of the most serious problems confronting the planet, and I agree. I just got back from a trip to Kirkenes, Norway, and was amazed at how warm it is so far north of the arctic circle. For the first time a luxury cruise ship is planning to sail through the Northwest Passage from Anchorage to New York. This because arctic sea ice is disappearing.
Krugman seems to enjoy castigating Republicans because they tend to deny global warming, and yes such denial seems incomprehensible in view of the evidence. But Democrats are also in denial.
The reason for climate change is too much population growth, and this has been understood for many decades. Paul Ehrlich wrote about it in his 1968 book, "the Population Bomb."
And surprisingly many of the policies suggested by Republicans are closer to admitting this population bomb problem than Democrats.
If you really believe as I do that global warming is a disaster in the making, then it seems absolutely essential to push for zero population growth. Some countries have already achieved this, including Japan, which has a vibrant economy, and fewer people at the very lowest rungs of society. One advantage of low population growth is an incarceration rate which is 1/14 as large as that of the US.
What disturbs me is that liberals NEVER discuss this problem.
A solution would seem to require no further illegal immigration and encouraging smaller family size.
Krugman seems to enjoy castigating Republicans because they tend to deny global warming, and yes such denial seems incomprehensible in view of the evidence. But Democrats are also in denial.
The reason for climate change is too much population growth, and this has been understood for many decades. Paul Ehrlich wrote about it in his 1968 book, "the Population Bomb."
And surprisingly many of the policies suggested by Republicans are closer to admitting this population bomb problem than Democrats.
If you really believe as I do that global warming is a disaster in the making, then it seems absolutely essential to push for zero population growth. Some countries have already achieved this, including Japan, which has a vibrant economy, and fewer people at the very lowest rungs of society. One advantage of low population growth is an incarceration rate which is 1/14 as large as that of the US.
What disturbs me is that liberals NEVER discuss this problem.
A solution would seem to require no further illegal immigration and encouraging smaller family size.
11
and keeping abortion legal and accessible...
6
If a family of 4 moves here from Mexico, or anywhere else for that matter, how do they contribute to population growth? We ALL live on the same planet!
5
I live in Japan. We often discuss the population situation here. With fewer young people, there is less need for schools. (I am a teacher, so...) With fewer people, there is less need for infrastructure. Expensive bullet train lines built years ago will never be able to be paid off, and will never have enough population to make them worthwhile. Fewer people pay for the retirement of older people.
You are right . We do not have to be mad at Trump . There will always be crazy demagogues . We have to be mad at people , specially in the media , that equate things like racism , xenophobia , dishonesty and continuous lying , to very minor things like the e-mail controversy .
16
Anger is the new political reality. Optimism, coherence and decency are not "populist". PK, thank you for optimism, coherence and decency.
7
How do you qualify lying to congress, the American people and possibly hundreds of journalists as "not important"? Certainly, it is not a difficult case to make that Mr. Trump is not a qualified candidate for president. However, to suggest that Secretary Clinton and her staff's mishandling of information, her abuse of her office and the influence that she bartered to billionaires, emirs and others is non-consequential is pure hubris.
The "non-importance" Mrs. Clinton's sins of omission and commission is not decided by the press or even the voter. They have their own importance in terms of undermining basic social principles, such as honesty, and may have already materially contributed to the corruption of the government. At the very least, she has increased the general malaise the US citizen feels for Washington.
The "non-importance" Mrs. Clinton's sins of omission and commission is not decided by the press or even the voter. They have their own importance in terms of undermining basic social principles, such as honesty, and may have already materially contributed to the corruption of the government. At the very least, she has increased the general malaise the US citizen feels for Washington.
3
"However, to suggest that Secretary Clinton and her staff's mishandling of information, her abuse of her office and the influence that she bartered to billionaires, emirs and others is non-consequential is pure hubris."
Yes, and if Dr. Krugman had actually SAID any of that, it would be terrible . . .
Yes, and if Dr. Krugman had actually SAID any of that, it would be terrible . . .
6
What lying? Name the lies. Clinton and/or her staff may have mishandled a small amount of information...but I seriously doubt that she was any different than other Federal Department heads. She's being crucified by a mob...people like you, because she's a Democrat running for President. You have to make a mountain out of a mole hill, because that's what people like you do.
You claim she bartered influence to billionaires....prove it. PROVE IT. You claim she abused her office. PROVE IT. You have nothing but accusations. What has really led to the corruption of society is the tendency to throw accusations around as though they were proof. The assumption of innocent until proven guilty has been completely lost in the mad rush by mob members to crucify anyone they don't like. YOU belong in that mob; that mob is YOU.
You claim she bartered influence to billionaires....prove it. PROVE IT. You claim she abused her office. PROVE IT. You have nothing but accusations. What has really led to the corruption of society is the tendency to throw accusations around as though they were proof. The assumption of innocent until proven guilty has been completely lost in the mad rush by mob members to crucify anyone they don't like. YOU belong in that mob; that mob is YOU.
3
huge fan of Dr. Krugman. i wish he would schedule a few lectures every once in a blue moon around the country for a little give and take.
such as, why does our economy require growth?
I dont know why but he reminds me of the PhD. played by Edward G. Robinson
in Soylent Green uncovering fantastic facts through careful research.
such as, why does our economy require growth?
I dont know why but he reminds me of the PhD. played by Edward G. Robinson
in Soylent Green uncovering fantastic facts through careful research.
6
Krugman strong partisan beliefs has undermined his credibility as an economist.
He cannot be both.
He cannot be both.
3
Maybe you can't chew gum and walk at the same time...but Krugman can....and do economics.
2
'Soaring temperatures, rushing floodwaters and wild fires point to the worst news of the week: climate disaster, says Mr. Krugman. Professor Krugman clearly doesn't understand the difference between weather and climate (and apparently a poor grasp of statistical fluctuations as well) which is not surprising since he has no training in the subject. he should only speak about what he understands but then he would have to remain silent.
1
Well, he clearly understands a great deal more than Richard Gaylord, who makes an accusation that is meant to mislead.
Climate is weather over space (the whole planet) and time (decades, 30 being minimal for proper evaluation).
Isn't it something that the moment words are clarified, unskeptical "skeptics" rush in to exploit them in a different way?
I just came across an excellent saying about this: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bq3v771IQAAoY__.jpg
"The amount of energy needed to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
Climate is weather over space (the whole planet) and time (decades, 30 being minimal for proper evaluation).
Isn't it something that the moment words are clarified, unskeptical "skeptics" rush in to exploit them in a different way?
I just came across an excellent saying about this: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bq3v771IQAAoY__.jpg
"The amount of energy needed to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
7
your definition of climate is incorrect.
Technically your point may have some merit, but it rests on the uncertainty of assigning specific weather events to global warming.
What is however certain is that earth's climate is warming and we are responsible. We risk leaving a heavily altered planet for our children and grandchildren, who will have to contend with large rises in sea level, loss of arable land and desertification at low latitudes. And yes, an increased probability of severe weather events!
That's the big picture and Prof. Krugman is absolutely right to be reminding readers of the threat and the urgency of doing something about it.
What is however certain is that earth's climate is warming and we are responsible. We risk leaving a heavily altered planet for our children and grandchildren, who will have to contend with large rises in sea level, loss of arable land and desertification at low latitudes. And yes, an increased probability of severe weather events!
That's the big picture and Prof. Krugman is absolutely right to be reminding readers of the threat and the urgency of doing something about it.
1
I fed the dog a couple of Paul Krugman columns. He just looked at me a bit funny, then described the liquidity trap, then consumed, some liquid refreshment, A good Islay malt. Other times a double Cappacino.
You don't follow?
That's how I felt about the weird piece by Karol Markowicz. Maybe it was satire, or perhaps sarcasm.
The GOP became a seditious reactionary organization during the 1990s. Pat Buchanan signaled the shift to extremism with his hate filled speech to the 1992 GOP convention in Houston.
These irregulars began with the aim of forcing a sitting president out of office by Delegitimizing. Sounds familiar. Newt Gingrich began the New Republicon program, campaigning with code words, fog whistles, sometime Just blatant racism to chip. They took the House.
First item of business - impeach Clinton, kick him out of office and then cement themselves a "permanent Republican Majority." Gingrich concealed his own whackdillows that exceeded anything Clinton did. The GOP planned to replace him with Livingston, ooos, another serial sex problem.
Aha, Good old Denny Hastert. No woman problem with him ... Just as it turns out a long term hidtory of sexually abusing young boys. Got caught paying one off.
i wish I could give Paul Krugman credit for Trump,
But alas, dear GOP, the poison flows everywhere within you. You have to own up to it. you have created an evil monster. Trump is your baby.
You don't follow?
That's how I felt about the weird piece by Karol Markowicz. Maybe it was satire, or perhaps sarcasm.
The GOP became a seditious reactionary organization during the 1990s. Pat Buchanan signaled the shift to extremism with his hate filled speech to the 1992 GOP convention in Houston.
These irregulars began with the aim of forcing a sitting president out of office by Delegitimizing. Sounds familiar. Newt Gingrich began the New Republicon program, campaigning with code words, fog whistles, sometime Just blatant racism to chip. They took the House.
First item of business - impeach Clinton, kick him out of office and then cement themselves a "permanent Republican Majority." Gingrich concealed his own whackdillows that exceeded anything Clinton did. The GOP planned to replace him with Livingston, ooos, another serial sex problem.
Aha, Good old Denny Hastert. No woman problem with him ... Just as it turns out a long term hidtory of sexually abusing young boys. Got caught paying one off.
i wish I could give Paul Krugman credit for Trump,
But alas, dear GOP, the poison flows everywhere within you. You have to own up to it. you have created an evil monster. Trump is your baby.
36
Actually Prof. Krugman, you cant take all the credit for the rise of Trump. At a recent art opening that I attended a gentleman was rattling on about the deficiencies of Donald Trump. I made what I thought was a self evident comment that the ascendency of Trump came about because GOP supporters voted for him in the primaries. This gentleman immediately became agitated and red-faced and loudly and forcefully declared that no Republican ever voted for Trump. It was all the Democrats fault because they crossed over in the primaries and foisted Trump onto the Republican party. So there you have it. When things go wrong in America it is not just your fault, it is always and forever Democrats fault as well.
20
"This gentleman immediately became agitated and red-faced and loudly and forcefully declared that no Republican ever voted for Trump."
Methinks the gentleman doth . . . . protest a little bit too much . . .
Methinks the gentleman doth . . . . protest a little bit too much . . .
4
The popularity of Trump reveals the unpopularity of the Republican dominated congress, and it reveals the tendency for his supporters to not be acting in their own best interest. Information, recalling history, and understanding some basics of cause and effect may be part of the problem of not acting in own best interest, broadly defined to include patriotism. Globalization makes use more interdependent, and makes the understanding of economic cause and effects more complicated. Krugman has helped us much in this regard
9
On the 'Mad' side - The FBI gave Trump his first security briefing. Apparently they told him the names of more than fifty of the world's countries and got his assurance that he wouldn't let other Americans know about them.
13
"“We are great."
America gets the pundits it deserves.
America gets the pundits it deserves.
6
Um...that was obviously in response to Il Duce's "make America great again" drivel. And Krugman's supporting argument was spot on.
Cling to whatever stereotypes give you comfort, but while Europe is falling deeper into the pit of white nationalism, the U.S. is about to reject it in a very big way.
Cling to whatever stereotypes give you comfort, but while Europe is falling deeper into the pit of white nationalism, the U.S. is about to reject it in a very big way.
14
While the Parisian is sleeping, I will defend him.
1. Krugman and other rational actors should not mimic their enemies' discourse.
2. Let us not forget that Europe has been much more sucessful than the US in launching Left-alternatives: witness Syriza, Podemos, Sinn Fein, Sortu, Parti de Gauche, etc
1. Krugman and other rational actors should not mimic their enemies' discourse.
2. Let us not forget that Europe has been much more sucessful than the US in launching Left-alternatives: witness Syriza, Podemos, Sinn Fein, Sortu, Parti de Gauche, etc
Ms Karol Markowicz is quite right that Krugman contributed to rise of Trump, by using his perch at the NY Times to discredit responsible Republican candidates, such as Kasich and Bush, by building up Trump. She was too polite in her article to mention Mr. Krugman's "Trump is right on economics" Op-ed piece in the NY Times that is a classical example on how to selectively pull a few quotes from Trump to demolish Bush.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/07/opinion/paul-krugman-trump-is-right-on...
to attack Bush and Kasich
For record, Markowicz is a Hillary Clinton supporter not Trump supporter
http://forward.com/opinion/335212/if-its-trump-vs-hillary-shes-the-pro-i...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/07/opinion/paul-krugman-trump-is-right-on...
to attack Bush and Kasich
For record, Markowicz is a Hillary Clinton supporter not Trump supporter
http://forward.com/opinion/335212/if-its-trump-vs-hillary-shes-the-pro-i...
4
Problem was all GOP candidates were awful.
43
How many of the uneducated white males, that were the vast majority of Trump voters in the primary, read and are influenced by Dr. K? This is utterly nonsense!
10
I'm sure that Donald Trump supporters are so swayed by Mr. Krugman!
12
As usual, Dr. K. is correct - there's no point in being mad at the fact free sausage machine headed up Drumpf, Ailes, et al; in a post fact checking culture, they're doing what they've turned into an art form.
The problem is that the contagion of the fact-free bubble which 1%-ers inhabit, shielding them from most of life's vicissitudes (especially declines in their bond portfolios and bankster financial crises) gets transmitted through things like GOP'er obstruction and do-absolutely-nothing Congresses to the real world of all the rest of us.
The rest of the world is not the same as their snow globe, where 1%-ers' donor dollars buy obeisance from politicians and lobbyists, kowtowing to ever newer variations of voodoo economics, climate change denial, etc., with very great dangers to us all.
Vote Democratic early and often - undo Citizens United !
The problem is that the contagion of the fact-free bubble which 1%-ers inhabit, shielding them from most of life's vicissitudes (especially declines in their bond portfolios and bankster financial crises) gets transmitted through things like GOP'er obstruction and do-absolutely-nothing Congresses to the real world of all the rest of us.
The rest of the world is not the same as their snow globe, where 1%-ers' donor dollars buy obeisance from politicians and lobbyists, kowtowing to ever newer variations of voodoo economics, climate change denial, etc., with very great dangers to us all.
Vote Democratic early and often - undo Citizens United !
116
This is why we love PK. Entire families love PK. Our pets love PK. Thanks.
93
@ winchestereast - win in that short take he did not give me as many reasons to love PK as you seemed to hear but maybe it was that paen to us Americans at the end that drew all those loves. When I was in the Upper Madison neighborhood of Albany for a few days I had that feeling because there are so many different kinds of people up and down the sidewalks and friendly! From my Swedish side I like Paul for his occasional ventures into something Swedish but his love for the Swedish duo First Aid Kit escapes me.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
dual citizen US SE
Times Insider offered me a look!
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
dual citizen US SE
Times Insider offered me a look!
2
I can understand pets loving PK but not humans seeking balanced and fair economic analysis untainted by strong partisanship.
3
going between Real Republicans....and Real Democrats...not those
who are in this Commission For Debates...private...made for Debate...
This circus needs to end:....tomorrow night...and let's see if Clinton can really
debate the issues....with Sanders in the Room...with Johnson and Weld...and
Jill Stein...and others...and let's see a real Oxford Forum Debate..
Then...the gloves will be off.....and you Professor will not much more to
complain about...because;........you will then see your peers in action.
Stop complaining get a Round Table together with respectable candidates.
and stop feeding the Corporate Media Maws...with all that Citizens United
thousands /millions ..WASTED...on combatting a con artist like Donald Trump