Krugman Trounces Conservatives For "making Stuff Up"...

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm not sure I'd agree that Heritage pushes monetarism. Monetarism is merely an economic theory that may explain why the economy(ies) perform the way it does, and how it may be guided to certain outcomes. Heritage pushes an agenda that is not really libertarian. It acts to further the interests of the very rich who created it and support it. The irony de jour is the universal mandate for HC emerged, or got support there, only for it to be quickly abandoned in light of the TPM, as former supporters in the gop were de-elected from congress. That has nothing to do with monetarism.

My mistake then. I don't really follow Heritage foundation literature that closely. I have an older publication from the late 80's which is clearly influenced by Milton Friedman's Principles, and that is from the Reagan/Bush era. If they have gone through an evolution, well, I guess their goal is strictly partisan, not ideological. If that's the case, their goal is to project power, not to study truth. Not much of a think tank if you ask me.

But then, the same can be said of Krugman, if any one had bothered reading that piece I posted about him. The facts bear that out.

"Conscience of a liberal?" Yeah, not much of social science and an apolitical approach to analyzing data there buddy. Economists shouldn't HAVE A Conscience. No one can take an "economist" seriously that writes opinion pieces. He ceased being an economist, and started being a pundit when he started writing opinion pieces.

hey, I wasn't dissing you. Heritage has gone through several metamorphises. (sp) I read conscience of a liberal sometime back. All I recall is my general take, and I loaned the book to someone who didn't give it back. I don't agree with Krugman's view that "the great compression" of the late 60s, where post-tax incomes were more so than less so equalized, was really the heyday of the US and civilization in general. However, I do think he had a stroke of genius in his take that without unions to give political voice to forcing higher wages, we should elect leaders who use progressive taxes to fund stuff like healthcare, that back when there were unions, workers forced the few that own the vast maj of equities to provide as part of wages.

Thing about Krugman is that he's both a writer/commentator who seeks to communicate with everyday morons like us, and who is also a very reputable economist whose major work was being sort of seminal in international trade economics. Conscience of a liberal was a short little treatise on how govt can act, if we want it to. And sure, he's as apt to use data for his purpose as is anyone else when he's got his writer/commentator hat on.

more importantly, does Krugman have any rational ideas. If so name a substantive one or admit you are wasting time on trivia that suits your low liberal IQ while making you think you're discussing something important.

I find it very substantive to suggest the dem party (or gop) use progressive taxes to fund workers' healthcare. The gop was not opposed to that prior to 2008. I also find it substantive to use progressive taxes to educate a work force.

The reason neither party is opposed to using peoples money to make them into slaves is because the elites in either party are not averse to the growth of the government beyond it's constitutionally proscribed bounds. The constitution originally DID NOT call for a private central banking cartel. In fact, most of the founders knew it was more of a danger to American liberty then foreign dictators.

That is the reason Krugman is so misguided and a terrible American. Krugman supports the concept of the Central Bank, (or Federal Reserve) which destroys the value of the currency. THIS IS A REGRESSIVE TAX. It is not a progressive tax. This has had, by far, a much larger effect on the economy than any other tax proposed by the government. This effectively makes saving money a waste of time. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT KEYNESIANS ABHOR. They hate savers. The elites know it. That is why they have bought off politicians on the left and on the right. Talking about taking money out of the economy, from the rich to educate and care for the population is peanuts. The truth is, the currency gets devalued every year, It is worth less and less. So now, it's worthless.

So who cares if the so called leftists get a so called "progressive" tax structure? With the currency devalued so much, they won't be able to do shit with it. Besides, official government channels are useless for getting anything done. Bureaucratic red tape makes everything costly and inefficient. Public schools and national health care are both a costly joke. When people were responsible for pursuing their own dreams before the turn of the 20th century, even before public schooling was entrenched, America's education was FAR better.

But really, it's a fact. As government grows and gets more involved in health care and education, as it taxes folks more, these sectors of the economy and their success at delivering these services goes down. It isn't progressive, it's regressive. Why do people want to deny that? It happens the same way in nation after nation. Time after time.



Elite foundations get everything done. That is how the laws have been written. Big money has made sure of that.

Both conservatives and liberals support different forms of Keynsianism. It allows them to borrow and spend. The biggest losers of this policy are the poor. Their purchasing power is eroded with each successive decade. Leftest politicians that support loose fiscal policy try to hide this corrupt monetary policy by bribing the public with promises of "minimum wage increases." They do this so the electorate won't ever figure out that the reason their food, gas and rent costs have been increasing each year is because the central bank has been debasing their purchasing power with the printing press. Thus, they will never be able to save and invest.

But the right is not guilt free. They do THE EXACT SAME THING. Only to a lesser degree. (Military spending and bank bail outs usually, but not always, don't cost as much.)

Oh, but to look forward to the day when the Republican actually passes a balanced budget amendment like it always claims it will. They don't have a clue. I support it though. It is akin to declaring war on the FED. The first thing to go would have to be the interest payments. They would have two choices; either default on the loans, or get rid of the free loaders at the Fed. There is a lot more voters that receive entitlements than bankers that receive dividends.

TAXATION IS THEFT.

Letting the government determine the value of the currency? It makes it's subjects into slaves.

The constitution originally DID NOT call for a private central banking cartel. In fact, most of the founders knew it was more of a danger to American liberty then foreign dictators.

That's funny, considering the Founders then created one in 1791 and George Washington signed it into law.

I guess you're more originalist than Washington.

 

[bendog]

Edward, let me try again and be civil. I will happily concede that I doubt the founders envisioned progressive taxes to fund workers' healthcare. But, I doubt they envisoned the industrial revolution, either. And, more importantly, not only did we amend the constitution to provide for an income tax, the supreme court held it was constitutional even w/o the amendment. And, in the 1950's we'd have gone to some form of a publically funded, mandated health insurance except for the fact that the big 3 automakers told congress that healthcare was a responsibility that employers owed employees. Times changed, wages went down, but none of that detracts from the notion that the constitution is not offended by govt using progressive taxes to provide healthcare. Moreover, soc sec, medicare and Medicaid have all been held constitutional. And, Obamacare is a tax, and govt can spend tax revenue. Though, I think it was a mistake to tax benefits. Having workers insured benefits not only healthcare providers but also employers and those owning most of the stock in employer corporations. I just don't see a moral/civic argument in saying there's some impediment to taxing them.

Now personally, I'm not in favor of a British style system, and I'm not a fan of putting able bodied adults on Medicaid. I suspect Krugman would prefer a single payor, and in conscience of a liberal he explicitly opined that that would eventually be the result because, he believes, medicare is more efficient than private insurance. And in terms of administrative cost, he's probably right. But, medicare doesn't have the same incentives for not accessing care you may not really need, because once you get a supplemental insurance plan, the more you consume the better deal you're getting. Private insurance doesn't really work that way. Even with really good plans, you have to not only meet the copays, but there's generally a requirement that the copays apply until you hit a pretty hefty out of pocket level. I don't recall Krugman addressing that in his book.

At any rate, it was a nifty little book that should be around pretty cheaply, used.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Moreover, soc sec, medicare and Medicaid have all been held constitutional.

Yes dear and by traitorous lib commies! The court can be subversive and liberal too. If they can find a right to an abortion in the Constitution they can find anything they want.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I doubt they envisoned the industrial revolution, either. .

So??? the Industrial revolution did not magicially change the Constitution!!! Are you slow?

 

[bendog]

I doubt they envisoned the industrial revolution, either. .

So??? the Industrial revolution did not magicially change the Constitution!!! Are you slow?

OK, I'm done with you asshole.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I doubt they envisoned the industrial revolution, either. .

So??? the Industrial revolution did not magicially change the Constitution!!! Are you slow?

OK, I'm done with you asshole.

dear, if you are afraid to grow and learn you'll be a liberal all your life!! How would you like that? Ever see a conservative have to run from a debate? What does that teach you?

 

[Dot Com]

I doubt they envisoned the industrial revolution, either. .

So??? the Industrial revolution did not magicially change the Constitution!!! Are you slow?

OK, I'm done with you asshole.

You'll be happy you dispensed w/ "that one"

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

At any rate, it was a nifty little book that should be around pretty cheaply, used.

so why be so afraid to tell us the most substantive truth that is in the niffty little book? What does your fear teach you?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I doubt they envisoned the industrial revolution, either. .

So??? the Industrial revolution did not magicially change the Constitution!!! Are you slow?

OK, I'm done with you asshole.

You'll be happy you dispensed w/ "that one"

yes liberals are stupid, sadly, so they dispense with conservatives with fear of democratic debate. Liberals are not fit for democracy. Ever see a conservative afraid to debate? What does that teach you?