Getting To Crazy

[djAdvocate]

opinions???

Tags : None
Another excellent Krugman commentary ~ while I believe the new GOP/TP class in the House might in fact be 'crazy' by virtue of their blind and raging ideological fervor, to me [at least a BIG segment of] the GOP/TP are simply liars and hypocrites, fueled by the egotism of 'self above all' ~ Sooz

Op-Ed Columnist
Getting to Crazy
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: July 14, 2011

There aren’t many positive aspects to the looming possibility of a U.S. debt default. But there has been, I have to admit, an element of comic relief — of the black-humor variety — in the spectacle of so many people who have been in denial suddenly waking up and smelling the crazy.

A number of commentators seem shocked at how unreasonable Republicans are being. “Has the G.O.P. gone insane?” they ask.

Why, yes, it has. But this isn’t something that just happened, it’s the culmination of a process that has been going on for decades. Anyone surprised by the extremism and irresponsibility now on display either hasn’t been paying attention, or has been deliberately turning a blind eye.

And may I say to those suddenly agonizing over the mental health of one of our two major parties: People like you bear some responsibility for that party’s current state.

Let’s talk for a minute about what Republican leaders are rejecting.

President Obama has made it clear that he’s willing to sign on to a deficit-reduction deal that consists overwhelmingly of spending cuts, and includes draconian cuts in key social programs, up to and including a rise in the age of Medicare eligibility. These are extraordinary concessions. As The Times’s Nate Silver points out, the president has offered deals that are far to the right of what the average American voter prefers — in fact, if anything, they’re a bit to the right of what the average Republican voter prefers!

Yet Republicans are saying no. Indeed, they’re threatening to force a U.S. default, and create an economic crisis, unless they get a completely one-sided deal. And this was entirely predictable.

First of all, the modern G.O.P. fundamentally does not accept the legitimacy of a Democratic presidency — any Democratic presidency. We saw that under Bill Clinton, and we saw it again as soon as Mr. Obama took office.

As a result, Republicans are automatically against anything the president wants, even if they have supported similar proposals in the past. Mitt Romney’s health care plan became a tyrannical assault on American freedom when put in place by that man in the White House. And the same logic applies to the proposed debt deals.

Put it this way: If a Republican president had managed to extract the kind of concessions on Medicare and Social Security that Mr. Obama is offering, it would have been considered a conservative triumph. But when those concessions come attached to minor increases in revenue, and more important, when they come from a Democratic president, the proposals become unacceptable plans to tax the life out of the U.S. economy.

Beyond that, voodoo economics has taken over the G.O.P.

Supply-side voodoo — which claims that tax cuts pay for themselves and/or that any rise in taxes would lead to economic collapse — has been a powerful force within the G.O.P. ever since Ronald Reagan embraced the concept of the Laffer curve. But the voodoo used to be contained. Reagan himself enacted significant tax increases, offsetting to a considerable extent his initial cuts.

And even the administration of former President George W. Bush refrained from making extravagant claims about tax-cut magic, at least in part for fear that making such claims would raise questions about the administration’s seriousness.

Recently, however, all restraint has vanished — indeed, it has been driven out of the party. Last year Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, asserted that the Bush tax cuts actually increased revenue — a claim completely at odds with the evidence — and also declared that this was “the view of virtually every Republican on that subject.” And it’s true: even Mr. Romney, widely regarded as the most sensible of the contenders for the 2012 presidential nomination, has endorsed the view that tax cuts can actually reduce the deficit.

Which brings me to the culpability of those who are only now facing up to the G.O.P.’s craziness.

Here’s the point: those within the G.O.P. who had misgivings about the embrace of tax-cut fanaticism might have made a stronger stand if there had been any indication that such fanaticism came with a price, if outsiders had been willing to condemn those who took irresponsible positions.

But there has been no such price. Mr. Bush squandered the surplus of the late Clinton years, yet prominent pundits pretend that the two parties share equal blame for our debt problems. Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, proposed a supposed deficit-reduction plan that included huge tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, then received an award for fiscal responsibility.

So there has been no pressure on the G.O.P. to show any kind of responsibility, or even rationality — and sure enough, it has gone off the deep end. If you’re surprised, that means that you were part of the problem.

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on July 15, 2011, on page A23 of the New York edition with the headline: Getting To Crazy.

www.nytimes.com/20...tml?_r=1&ref=opinion

[cereb]

Hmm. I notice that the resident republicans on this forum are curiously absent from commenting on this particular article. Not much left for them to say I guess.

[mmhmm]

That really is a great article and right on target. At some times, and on some matters, it could correctly be applied to both sides of the political fence. If people would just stop jumping on the wagon and riding it to the end of the line instead of thinking for themselves and realizing the end of the line is a freaking brick wall hit at breakneck speed, we might actually get something worthwhile going. I'd hold my breath, but I'm the practical type ...

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Krugman has been ripe for the rubber-room himself for some time now. I really don't pay much attention to anything he has to say.

[ungenteel]

<<Krugman has been ripe for the rubber-room himself for some time now. I really don't pay much attention to anything he has to say. >>

Perhaps attacking the specifics of his statement might say more than a simple Ad hominem attack

[cereb]

Jul 16, 2011 19:31:31 GMT -5 ungenteel said:

<<Krugman has been ripe for the rubber-room himself for some time now. I really don't pay much attention to anything he has to say. >>

Perhaps attacking the specifics of his statement might say more than a simple Ad hominem attack

Thanks for saying that.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Recently, however, all restraint has vanished — indeed, it has been driven out of the party. Last year Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, asserted that the Bush tax cuts actually increased revenue — a claim completely at odds with the evidence

And Krugman isn't someone with whom I disagree, he is someone that lives in an alternate reality. Case in point:

After the dot com crash, and the radical islamist attacks of 2001 revenues fell. However, by the end of Bush's second term in 2007 we once again saw the 2000 peak of around a trillion in revenues to the treasury. No tax increase necessary.

[ungenteel]

<<After the dot com crash, and the radical islamist attacks of 2001 revenues fell. However, by the end of Bush's second term in 2007 we once again saw the 2000 peak of around a trillion in revenues to the treasury. No tax increase necessary.>>

The revenues of which you speak were washed out by the fact that Bush was prosecuting two wars "off budget" ... the revenues weren't real ... and the revenues were the result of the subsidized interest rates that helped to create the housing bubble

[djAdvocate]

Jul 16, 2011 19:24:04 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Krugman has been ripe for the rubber-room himself for some time now. I really don't pay much attention to anything he has to say.

that's a shame, because i think this is the best analysis of the current political and economic situation i have read in a good long while.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 16, 2011 19:36:39 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Recently, however, all restraint has vanished — indeed, it has been driven out of the party. Last year Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, asserted that the Bush tax cuts actually increased revenue — a claim completely at odds with the evidence

And Krugman isn't someone with whom I disagree, he is someone that lives in an alternate reality. Case in point:

After the dot com crash, and the radical islamist attacks of 2001 revenues fell. However, by the end of Bush's second term in 2007 we once again saw the 2000 peak of around a trillion in revenues to the treasury. No tax increase necessary.

did you remember to adjust for inflation and GDP growth?

revenues as a percent of GDP are off 20% in the last 10 years, and are now at the lowest level of any industrialized nation other than Iceland.

i think i will trust a Nobel Prize winning economist over an anonymous bb poster, if you don't mind.

[❤ mollymouser ❤]

Most days, I'm just as disappointed with the Republicans as I am with the Democrats.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 16, 2011 20:53:48 GMT -5 ❤ mollymouser ❤ said:

Most days, I'm just as disappointed with the Republicans as I am with the Democrats.

that puts you with about 4 out of 5 Americans. yet many posters here seem to think that it is 100% a Democratic problem.

[verrip1]

Sigh.

As usual, Krugman's failures are dominated by his inaccurate, biased precepts. Here's just a few:

1. He simply ignores the issues Obama is clinging to in the the debt ceiling discussions and asserts that Obama has given into everything the Reps want. Patently untrue.

2. He simply ignores that the threat to default is equally held by the Democrats. I guess that Krugman believes than ignorance is bliss.

3. He states without even an attempt of proof his blanket assertion that the GOP fundamentally does not accept a Democrat presidency.

4. He fails to offer proof that supply side economics might be valid. He notes that taxes were raised under Reagan, but that is not a proof or an invalidation of supply side economics.

OK, four is enough. I've read this blithering ass many far too many times to have a need to dissect more of his drivel. He's simply another blind ideologue. He has the same level of intellect and perception as Ann Coulter. Even as an economist, he is far out of the mainstream. He gave up his academic specialty years ago and has become nothing more than a professional leftist hack.

Of course, liberals love him. They think his political opinions are worth something because he won a Nobel Prize in economics. Go figure.

[deziloooooo]

Seems some who run into those who don't agree with their own thoughts on things , especially political, all become in the minds of those who aren't happy with their ideas, just " ;blithering asses ", they suffer from "blind ideologue.", they have the "same level of intellect and perception as Ann Coulter", and are no more then "and have become nothing more than a professional leftist hack" in their minds.

The ones who feel this way all seem to have it right but the ones they demean as a argument on their thoughts, ideas, , so many are quite well respected .

In fact even that it is wrong to consider their ideas , "They think his political opinions are worth something because he won a Nobel Prize in economics. "..

possible not the last word but definitly one's I would listen to as far as their ideas on the subject.. just a thought of mine, could do worse you know.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 16, 2011 21:52:54 GMT -5 verrip1 said:

4. He fails to offer proof that supply side economics might be valid. He notes that taxes were raised under Reagan, but that is not a proof or an invalidation of supply side economics.

i have but one question for you.

verrip- do you believe that cutting top incremental income tax rates increases tax revenue in the general case?

[djAdvocate]

Jul 16, 2011 21:52:54 GMT -5 verrip1 said:

Of course, liberals love him. They think his political opinions are worth something because he won a Nobel Prize in economics. Go figure.

i think his economic opinions are worth consideration for that reason, certainly.

however, in this case, i think he also hit the nail on the head, politically. i share the opinion with him that there is a trajectory here from barely listening to the CIC to pretty much totally rejecting him, and it is not serving the interests of either the GOP or the nation. if you don't, i am cool with that. political opinions are like tablecloths. they change with the time, and they serve only as conversation pieces, which is precisely why i posted it.

i came to this board a month ago, verrip. and every day i post here there are no less than 5 posts saying that Obama is a communist who is destroying our nation. what i love about Krugman is that he is saying something different. it is the same thing i love about Bachmann candidly. i get really tired of the same shit OVER and OVER and OVER again. i just want to hear a fresh perspective. if nobody else here does.....tough shit. you are getting one anyway.

[cereb]

"i came to this board a month ago, verrip. and every day i post here there are no less than 5 posts saying that Obama is a communist who is destroying our nation. what i love about Krugman is that he is saying something different. it is the same thing i love about Bachmann candidly. i get really tired of the same shit OVER and OVER and OVER again. i just want to hear a fresh perspective. if nobody else here does.....tough shit. you are getting one anyway."

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

It really doesn't matter if you feel Obama's failed Presidency has been the result of a carefully crafted plan to destroy the country, or whether you think his catastrophic failure is the result of mere incompetence. The results are the same. The solution is the same: Obama must be defeated at the polls in 2012. It almost doesn't matter who replaces him.

[privateinvestor]

Yet Republicans are saying no. Indeed, they’re threatening to force a U.S. default, and create an economic crisis, unless they get a completely one-sided deal. And this was entirely predictable.

There is no doubt in anyone's mind that the Republican leadership in congress will work against Obama in order to make him look weak and indecisive. But they are not alone in the debt reduction meetings i.e Obama is willing to consider Means Testing for Medicare but Pelosi and Van Hollen are opposed to him on this issue.. Also Obama has not signed off on the Defense Budget Cuts proposed by the Liberals/Progressives until Leon Panetta goes along with the cuts that were also recommended by the Debt Reduction Commission appointed by Obama..

[djAdvocate]

Jul 17, 2011 8:34:04 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

It really doesn't matter if you feel Obama's failed Presidency has been the result of a carefully crafted plan to destroy the country, or whether you think his catastrophic failure is the result of mere incompetence.

actually, it makes a great deal of difference in terms of criminality. if one is an incompetent boob, they cannot be held responsible for their failings. if one is maliciously destroying a nation, then they are a treasonous felon. in the latter case, the individual deserves much more than five posts a day of malicious personal attacks.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 17, 2011 9:20:45 GMT -5 @privateinvestor said:

Yet Republicans are saying no. Indeed, they’re threatening to force a U.S. default, and create an economic crisis, unless they get a completely one-sided deal. And this was entirely predictable.

There is no doubt in anyone's mind that the Republican leadership in congress will work against Obama in order to make him look weak and indecisive. But they are not alone in the debt reduction meetings i.e Obama is willing to consider Means Testing for Medicare but Pelosi and Van Hollen are opposed to him on this issue.. Also Obama has not signed off on the Defense Budget Cuts proposed by the Liberals/Progressives until Leon Panetta goes along with the cuts that were also recommended by the Debt Reduction Commission appointed by Obama..

PI- i don't think it is safe to decide what he can get done with his own party until his bluff is called. and let's be honest for a moment here, he has positioned himself thusfar so as to not even have to try. he has been letting the GOP do all the work. ;]

[privateinvestor]

Jul 17, 2011 9:57:04 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 17, 2011 9:20:45 GMT -5 @privateinvestor said:

Yet Republicans are saying no. Indeed, they’re threatening to force a U.S. default, and create an economic crisis, unless they get a completely one-sided deal. And this was entirely predictable.

There is no doubt in anyone's mind that the Republican leadership in congress will work against Obama in order to make him look weak and indecisive. But they are not alone in the debt reduction meetings i.e Obama is willing to consider Means Testing for Medicare but Pelosi and Van Hollen are opposed to him on this issue.. Also Obama has not signed off on the Defense Budget Cuts proposed by the Liberals/Progressives until Leon Panetta goes along with the cuts that were also recommended by the Debt Reduction Commission appointed by Obama..

PI- i don't think it is safe to decide what he can get done with his own party until his bluff is called. and let's be honest for a moment here, he has positioned himself thusfar so as to not even have to try. he has been letting the GOP do all the work. ;]

Yea I know and this week should be interesting to say the least...

Congressional leaders have to decide if they want to see a default or not...they cannot even agree on a top number yet or $1 Trillion Dollars but Obama wants to see @ $4 Trillion over the next ten years of debt reduction, I think??

[djAdvocate]

Jul 17, 2011 10:02:03 GMT -5 @privateinvestor said:

Jul 17, 2011 9:57:04 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

PI- i don't think it is safe to decide what he can get done with his own party until his bluff is called. and let's be honest for a moment here, he has positioned himself thusfar so as to not even have to try. he has been letting the GOP do all the work. ;]

Yea I know and this week should be interesting to say the least...

Congressional leaders have to decide if they want to see a default or not...they cannot even agree on a top number yet or $1 Trillion Dollars but Obama wants to see @ $4 Trillion over the next ten years of debt reduction, I think??

i believe that he DOES want that $4T. now, it may be that he knows he can't get it, and is hoping it will end up somewhere in the middle, but i don't think any of us are going to know that until a deal is hammered out.

i do know this, however. it is time to increase my position in gold and silver. ;]

[djAdvocate]

revenues as a % of GDP are at a post WW2 low.

note the steady drop in spending as a % of GDP under Clinton. the 90's are a model for how we get back to solvency.

note also the sharp reversal of fortune under Bush. this despite the fact that the leadership in congress was largely unchanged during that period, which belies the "blame the democratic congress" mantra.

[ameiko]

Learn to ignore Krugman; Nobel prize laureate or not (really, the Noble prize has become nothing but a giveaway to liberals like Carter, Gore, and Obama... or unrepetent terrorists like Arafat), he is a moron and discipline of the disproven Keynesian school of economics.

A number of commentators seem shocked at how unreasonable Republicans are being. “Has the G.O.P. gone insane?” they ask.

Where were these same commentators when BHO added 5 trillion dollars to the debt and blew spending well past the trillion dollar deficit mark?

Why, yes, it has. But this isn’t something that just happened, it’s the culmination of a process that has been going on for decades. Anyone surprised by the extremism and irresponsibility now on display either hasn’t been paying attention, or has been deliberately turning a blind eye.

Wow, not spending what you don't have is suddenly insane? Who knew? Then again, Krugman believes in government spending to stimulate the economy even if it crowds our the wealth creating private sector or creates so much debt that what is collected in tax revenues is increasingly going towards interest on a malignant debt. Certainly, the BHO stimulus by their own benchmarks has failed miserably.

Let’s talk for a minute about what Republican leaders are rejecting.

Yes, please do. Please try to spin it.

President Obama has made it clear that he’s willing to sign on to a deficit-reduction deal that consists overwhelmingly of spending cuts, and includes draconian cuts in key social programs, up to and including a rise in the age of Medicare eligibility.

Liar. BHO has refused to name specifics. He has also vaccilated on whether Medicare, Medicaid, and SS are on the table. He changes his mind with the wind and polls.

These are extraordinary concessions.

They are nothing because he has not offered anything specific AT ALL!!!

Yet Republicans are saying no. Indeed, they’re threatening to force a U.S. default, and create an economic crisis, unless they get a completely one-sided deal. And this was entirely predictable.

Again with the compromise or one-sided arguement nonsense. Since when must a good deal involve compromise? If your child wants to eat a gallon of ice cream for dinner and you compromise to only a half gallon, is this a good idea?

NO!

The GOP has no problem with 4 trillion in cuts in theory (since BHO will not state what they are) but they ARE saying NO to new tax hikes because historically, it crashes the economy. It did under Bush I when he bowed to the Democrat written tax hikes as part of a "compromise" that they used to stab him in the back with!

First of all, the modern G.O.P. fundamentally does not accept the legitimacy of a Democratic presidency — any Democratic presidency. We saw that under Bill Clinton, and we saw it again as soon as Mr. Obama took office.

Again, utter nonsense and lies. The GOP accepted that Bill Clinton was President. Even most accept BHO despite serious issues with the man's (lack of) past and many, many inconsistencies such as classmates unable to remember BHO in class or that as a youth he traveled to nations hostile to America where a US passport would not have been accepted. And we all remember the birth certificate.

By contrast, it is the DEMOCRATS who refused to accept the legitimacy of Bush's first term; remember the "President Select" nonsense? What most the GOP do to accept a Democat presidency: roll over and play dead? Ignore the constitutents who elected them and rubber stamp the Democrat agenda even if it destroys our nation? Ignore the seperation of powers as outlined in the Constitution?

Seriously, is THIS what passes for scholarly thought from a Nobel Prize Lauraete?

As a result, Republicans are automatically against anything the president wants, even if they have supported similar proposals in the past. Mitt Romney’s health care plan became a tyrannical assault on American freedom when put in place by that man in the White House. And the same logic applies to the proposed debt deals.

Most on the GOP do not agree with Romneycare but at least that was only attempted on a state level which has a stronger Constitutional basis (not to say a strong one, mind you) based on the 10th Amendment.

Put it this way: If a Republican president had managed to extract the kind of concessions on Medicare and Social Security that Mr. Obama is offering, it would have been considered a conservative triumph. But when those concessions come attached to minor increases in revenue, and more important, when they come from a Democratic president, the proposals become unacceptable plans to tax the life out of the U.S. economy.

Wow, love the demagouging. These cuts are are not inextricably linked to tax hikes. Give us the cuts and not the hikes: problem solved and crisis passed. So simple even Krugman should understand that.

But there has been no such price. Mr. Bush squandered the surplus of the late Clinton years, yet prominent pundits pretend that the two parties share equal blame for our debt problems.

Dear God, ENOUGH LIES!!!!

1. Most of the surplus was skimming was the SS trust fund! Remove that and you have only 2 years of surpluses and one of those a mere 1 billion!
2. Much of the enhanced revenue was from a powerful but unsustainable tech boom, NOT Clinton!
3. The GOP restrained Clinton from his tax and spend, spread the wealth around nonsense and they must receive both the credit and the blame for what surpluses were there.
4. Krugman completely ignores that BHO had increased the deficit by an order of magnitude from the 2007 budget under Bush and the GOP Congress (note this does include SS surpluses since the Democrats love to toss that around).

So there has been no pressure on the G.O.P. to show any kind of responsibility, or even rationality — and sure enough, it has gone off the deep end. If you’re surprised, that means that you were part of the problem.

BHO is the insane one with his out of control spending. Did Bush spend too much? Oh yeah: but Obama is Bush spending on mega steroids! Yet Krugman lambasts the GOP!

Seriously, how sad is this? *I* am smarter in economics and fiscal history than a Nobel Prize Laurate Economist!

Up is down, freedom is slavery, life is death, and it's all crashing down.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 17, 2011 11:05:56 GMT -5 ameiko said:

Learn to ignore Krugman; Nobel prize laureate or not (really, the Noble prize has become nothing but a giveaway to liberals like Carter, Gore, and Obama... or unrepetent terrorists like Arafat), he is a moron and discipline of the disproven Keynesian school of economics.

actually, the Nobel became a joke when it was awarded to Kissinger, imo. but Krugman is an outstanding economist, no matter what the right says. he knows his s(*t. particularly when it comes to international trade.

it may surprise not a few here to learn that Krugman is opposed to such stalwarts as the federal minimum wage. so although he is a social liberal, he is hardly what i would call a socialist.

i won't even bother to comment about your skewering of Keynsianism, other than to say that Laffer is a Keynsian.

[ameiko]

Jul 17, 2011 10:47:47 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

revenues as a % of GDP are at a post WW2 low.

note the steady drop in spending as a % of GDP under Clinton. the 90's are a model for how we get back to solvency.

note also the sharp reversal of fortune under Bush. this despite the fact that the leadership in congress was largely unchanged during that period, which belies the "blame the democratic congress" mantra.

You can't read your own graph. We see a decrease in revenue from about 1999 or 2000 (still under Bill Clinton and the recession that Bush inherited from him) that drops until 2003 when it PLUNGES! Gee, what happened THEN? OMG, the Bush tax cuts!!!! And then we see a very sharp surge until 2007 when:

1. Democrats swept into Congress
2. A novice socialist look poised to capture the Democrat Presidential nomination
3. The MSM went into overdrive on how bad the economy was... just as they did with Bush I.

Now look at spending. An undeniable if meandering increase under Bush that ticks up in 2008- first Democrat Congress AND it SOARS under BHO!

So clearly we can see that when a GOPer is in power, we get more revenue as a % of the income and when a socialist neophyte and his cronies come to power (like Pelosi), we get HUGE surges in outlays.

Thank you for proving my points! LOVE YOU!!!

[ameiko]

Jul 17, 2011 11:11:13 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 17, 2011 11:05:56 GMT -5 ameiko said:

Learn to ignore Krugman; Nobel prize laureate or not (really, the Noble prize has become nothing but a giveaway to liberals like Carter, Gore, and Obama... or unrepetent terrorists like Arafat), he is a moron and discipline of the disproven Keynesian school of economics.

actually, the Nobel became a joke when it was awarded to Kissinger, imo. but Krugman is an outstanding economist, no matter what the right says. he knows his s(*t. particularly when it comes to international trade.

it may surprise not a few here to learn that Krugman is opposed to such stalwarts as the federal minimum wage. so although he is a social liberal, he is hardly what i would call a socialist.

i won't even bother to comment about your skewering of Keynsianism, other than to say that Laffer is a Keynsian.

Interesting that you could not dispute a SINGLE point I made.

I will take that as admission that Krugman is a moron.

[djAdvocate]

"BHO is the insane one with his out of control spending. Did Bush spend too much? Oh yeah: but Obama is Bush spending on mega steroids! Yet Krugman lambasts the GOP!"

Krugman's critique of the GOP is political. and i think it is largely correct. the GOP could get a LOT out of Obama right now. he is willing to make broad concessions to the cause of curbing the deficit if the GOP were not so hell bent on making sure that he has nothing to campaign on next year.

it is this reckless disregard for sound economics that is so galling. if a president comes to you and says i want to cut $4 for every $1 of tax increase, you don't tell him to fuck off.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 17, 2011 11:13:38 GMT -5 ameiko said:

Jul 17, 2011 11:11:13 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

actually, the Nobel became a joke when it was awarded to Kissinger, imo. but Krugman is an outstanding economist, no matter what the right says. he knows his s(*t. particularly when it comes to international trade.

it may surprise not a few here to learn that Krugman is opposed to such stalwarts as the federal minimum wage. so although he is a social liberal, he is hardly what i would call a socialist.

i won't even bother to comment about your skewering of Keynsianism, other than to say that Laffer is a Keynsian.

Interesting that you could not dispute a SINGLE point I made.

interesting that you think that.