On "Fox News Sunday" (on Fox News, Sunday), Rand Paul offered some inspiring thoughts on how the economy really works, based purely on the theories of Ayn Rand plus multiple massive bong hits: Tax rates have nothing to do with who gets wealthy in America. Rather, wealth is simply an indicator of how good you are at doing capitalism to other people. Paul rejected the idea that economic policy has any effect on who wins and who loses in the economy, which will certainly come as news to the army of corporate lobbyists who've been writing our great nation's tax code since the Reagan era.
So how was your "Tom Russell Radio?" I actually prefer mostly his older stuff, but all of it is pretty good (Long Way Around, Borderland my favorite albums).
You stated perfect competition is not possible. I agree, and I can assure you that Rand Paul has never voiced any support for the notion of "perfect competition." The concept is actually opposed by the economists who Paul shares views with. Market economists realize that the old static models of market equilibrium do not functionally describe the real world dynamism of the market.
In reality, it is government antitrust regulators who base economic policy on the incorrect notion that markets do not perform well with information asymmetries, and devote their efforts to the futile task of "correcting" these asymmetries and creating "perfect competition."
The consequences, of course, with doing away with this "perfect competition" model means doing away with the antitrust regulators. So go ahead, lead the fight against this erroneous economic notion. I'm right behind you.
Not bad, what little I got to listen to. Ended up being a busier afternoon than expected. I cheated a little, and just shuffled artist, instead of a radio station, so gMusic didn't send me off in strange directions this time.
Your plan to raise taxes on the poor and lower them for the rich has proven time and time again to be unsound policy. It completely hinders growth and always sends the economy into recession or worse. It has never once worked. Ever.
The effects of supply and demand don't go away, but the real world is a hell of a lot more complicated than that simple principle can express. Wages don't automatically go up or down in sync with the national economy, and they don't always follow supply and demand as strictly as you might think. Wages are, in short, sticky. But how sticky are they, exactly?
If we look at the quotes you (or, more likely, conservative websites) have mined here, we'll note that the first rejects the notion that wages "can be set based on considerations of justice, not supply and demand, without unpleasant side effects". So Krugman is saying that you can't simply disregard supply and demand completely - hardly a controversial view. Now, I don't know who or what Krugman was arguing against here, but I do know the context of the second quote, because I've read the column it came from; in it, Krugman is arguing that it wouldn't hurt the current economy if you raise the minimum wage. And he didn't just pull that out of his ass because it was convenient. Here's the paragraph that follows immediately after the first paragraph you quoted:
"What’s the evidence? First, there is what actually happens when minimum wages are increased. Many states set minimum wages above the federal level, and we can look at what happens when a state raises its minimum while neighboring states do not. Does the wage-hiking state lose a large number of jobs? No — the overwhelming conclusion from studying these natural experiments is that moderate increases in the minimum wage have little or no negative effect on employment."
It should be obvious that Krugman has never been an opponent of raising the minimum wage under any and all circumstances, so it's not even clear that his views have changed at all. But if they have, it's not about something so simple and basic as supply and demand, but about the much more complex interplay between those factors and the many other forces that have an effect on a nation's economy. And the reason for the change was clearly new evidence from natural experiments, conducted by several states in recent years.
The effects of supply and demand don't go away, but the real world is a hell of a lot more complicated than that simple principle can express. Wages don't automatically go up or down in sync with the national economy, and they don't always follow supply and demand as strictly as you might think. Wages are, in short, sticky. But how sticky are they, exactly?
I think what you're trying to say is that wages are not as elastic given the current conditions as they would be in a purely market economy. This is true. There are all kinds of factors that prevent wages from adjusting with supply and demand. Mostly, these factors are artificial and in the form of government regulations. For example, both Hoover and FDR set price floors on wages at the Depression's onset, which prevented wages from adjusting downward with the rest of the market and produced massive unemployment, extending the Depression well past its natural correction cycle.
If we look at the quotes you (or, more likely, conservative websites) have mined here, we'll note that the first rejects the notion that wages "can be set based on considerations of justice, not supply and demand, without unpleasant side effects". So Krugman is saying that you can't simply disregard supply and demand completely - hardly a controversial view.
Indeed. This is the the old Krugman, the one who actually thought like an economist, for the most part. The context was a 1998 critique of an economics publication calling for a "living wage."
but I do know the context of the second quote, because I've read the column it came from; in it, Krugman is arguing that it wouldn't hurt the current economy if you raise the minimum wage.
Of course you have. You no doubt follow his blog with fervor.
And in this column, he casts aside his old method of applying economic analysis and embraces the very fallacies he once argued against. He now claims that you can indeed cast aside market forces, legislate away scarcity, and ignore the law of supply and demand.
And he didn't just pull that out of his ass because it was convenient.
Actually, pretty much anyone who argues for a price floor on wages is pulling trash out of their rear end. Whether they make pseudo-intellectual arguments or avoid making a rational argument at all, it can be reasonably assumed that they are not serious people.
Krugman even very nearly prophesizes his own argument, noting in his much earlier critique:
Indeed, much-cited studies by two well-regarded labor economists, David Card and Alan Krueger, find that where there have been more or less controlled experiments, for example when New Jersey raised minimum wages but Pennsylvania did not, the effects of the increase on employment have been negligible or even positive. Exactly what to make of this result is a source of great dispute. Card and Krueger offered some complex theoretical rationales, but most of their colleagues are unconvinced; the centrist view is probably that minimum wages "do," in fact, reduce employment, but that the effects are small and swamped by other forces.
Then he deconstructs the very argument he is now making.
What is remarkable, however, is how this rather iffy result has been seized upon by some liberals as a rationale for making large minimum wage increases a core component of the liberal agenda--for arguing that living wages "can play an important role in reversing the 25-year decline in wages experienced by most working people in America" (as this book's back cover has it). Clearly these advocates very much want to believe that the price of labor--unlike that of gasoline, or Manhattan apartments--can be set based on considerations of justice, not supply and demand, without unpleasant side effects. This will to believe is obvious in this book: The authors not only take the Card-Krueger results as gospel, but advance a number of other arguments that just do not hold up under examination.
So you see, Krugman was principally opposed to the minimum wage before he was for it.
It should be obvious that Krugman has never been an opponent of raising the minimum wage under any and all circumstances, so it's not even clear that his views have changed at all.
I'm not sure how you can claim such a thing as "obvious" when there is very clear evidence that he quite explicitly opposed raising the minimum wage back in 1998, when he actually practiced economics. The reason for the change, I'll bet, has much to do with the fact that he now writes a blog oriented around political economics, and he has a bias towards progressivism and state intervention in the economy.
What in gods holy name are you blathering about? Obviously you don't understand sarcasm which I was laying on pretty thickly for you so I'll try a different track. One of largest of the numerous problems of Rand Paul's argument (seriously it has a blind spot large enough to sail a boat through in terms of stability) is the wealth gap. I'll leave out the racial component because I don't think Rand Paul is bright enough to see the problems with "free associations" both economically and socially (it's a reason the KKK and white separatists love Ron Paul).Instead what I'll do is focus on this one question: is growing inequality good for the economy and where does inequality come from? Rand Paul and right wingers simultaneously argue that inequality IS good and then blame inequality on the government, positions which do not reconcile and are a major point of departure from academics (side note: long considered a bastion of academic conservatives, economics is actually dominated by liberals these days because conservatives are crazy). The problem with this position aside from them not reconciling is we know they are false: what are the two eras with the largest, most explosive inequality? the late 19th Century (1870's-1910) and 1981-present. The features of those two eras are the lack of regulation (or from 1981-onward evisceration of regulation) and non-existent wage bargaining power for employees (1981-present, the decline and end of unions) with all power squarely placed in the hands of employers.The interesting part of the late 20th century up until now is that wages are flat while demands for productivity and hours worked are ever increasing. So, where is that money going to? The wealthy and it's barely taxed...if Rand Paul had his way it won't be taxed at all and we won't have a safety net or food safety or OSHA or anything. You cannot run a society based upon the principal of "every man for himself!" and you cannot run a healthy society without oversight because as Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" and the Triangle Shirt Waste fire among others demonstrate, letting employers decide such issues will always see safety and health bow to profits- ALWAYS. So if that's the future you want where your life is basically spent working without wage increases, you only have health insurance if you can afford the ridiculous rates (good luck getting them to explain why it's so expensive) you don't care about what's in your food or how it's made, you don't care if when you take a plane someone has checked twice to make sure its maintained properly or your car actually functions how its supposed to or your roads don't have tolls every few blocks or your kids are taught an education that benefits them and not some corporation or your prisoners are 'inventory' with stiffer sentences dictated by profitability...please, support libertarianism's quest to privatize it all. Oh and before you accuse me of exaggeration- actually I'm not exaggerating at all, study any industry before it was highly regulated and you'll see everything I say is correct....so seriously, go right ahead and get rid of the 'distortions' of oversight and laws to protect employees. I'd just hate it if you're not on the 'ownership' side because much like a USSR citizen your life will suck thanks to serving an ideology over reality.
Sarcasm? You sounded pretty serious when you said:
Also there's within the idealistic notion of capitalism a rarely utilized codicil where in an exchange the buyer is supposed to be presented with as much information about the product as the seller...This principle of capitalism (aka 'perfect competition' from econ 101, a course most conservatives paid maybe, half attention to while insisting they know all the economics) exists only in two places: 1) livestock auctions and 2) in the idealistic world of capitalism idiots like Rand Paul draw their views from while ignoring the "equal information" principle that is so important to a meritocracy.
I responded to your post because you incorrectly characterized not only capitalism, but also the economic views which Rand Paul holds true. In short, you created a strawman argument, and then insulted that strawman with as much vigor as you could muster.
The irony is that the erroneous concept of "perfect competition" is held not by Rand Paul, but by the government regulators that you likely credit with maintaining a functioning market economy.
So the question can be asked, what are YOU blathering about now? Are you attempting to change to direction of the conversation after I refuted your claims? And are you going to do this in a long, run-on paragraph with very little punctuation, making it difficult to mount a coherent response?
Consumption by itself does not drive economic growth. The economy is a balancing act between consumption and production. You can't consume what doesn't get produced, and nobody is going to produce anything if they don't receive the benefits of risking their own capital to do so.
Putting more money in the pockets of the wealthy is what the current Fed rate policy does. It is the monetarist's version of "trickle down economics," and it has political support from both sides of the aisle. Rand Paul is one of the very few to oppose its policy of lining the pockets of the rich.
Putting more money in the hands of the productive benefits the rest of us. We benefit from the productivity of those with capital to risk, not their consumption. People who spend wantonly, including the government, quickly indebt themselves and go bankrupt. They do nothing to benefit anyone else at that point, and become a social drain.
You're right, I would be better off putting my faith in the criminal who runs Fox News, or Rush Limbaugh. Not to mention I'm old enough to have lived through multiple election cycles, and I've noticed a funny thing. Any time Republicans are allowed to run the country they manage to run it into the ground. What do 1929, 1987, and 2008 all have in common? All were crashes brought on by easy money and bank deregulation that were pushed by the president at the time. You're wrong about the two parties agreeing on taking money. Republicans cut taxes on the wealthy, and then spend like drunken sailors, while Democrats try to actually figure out a way to pay for the things they want.I guess "pocket Progressive" is supposed to be an insult? I'd prefer you call me "someone who looks at facts and makes rational decisions based upon them."
You're right, I would be better off putting my faith in the criminal who runs Fox News, or Rush Limbaugh.
Either you're under the impression that these are your only two options, or you think, for some reason, that I support Fox News or Rush Limbaugh. Neither of these is true. There are other places you can put your faith than the state or Fox News/Rush Limbaugh, and I would never, ever support Fox News or Rush Limbaugh with my time or efforts.
All were crashes brought on by easy money and bank deregulation that were pushed by the president at the time.
Easy money via the Fed is a bipartisan game, pal, or maybe you didn't notice the entire time you were living your life. The current political regime under Obama gives its full support to the Fed's multiple programs of Quantitative Easing, as do the Republicans by the way.
You're wrong about the two parties being different on what actually matters. They're the same Big Government, Big Spending, Big Surveillance, Big War, Big Prison, Big Banks parties. Democrats figured out how to pay for Big Government? How? By sinking the nation another $8 Trillion in debt?
I prefer to call you someone who doesn't look at facts and doesn't make rational decisions. I prefer to call you someone who forms his opinions based on emotion, and clings to these opinions tightly even when confronted with a reality that would contradict them.
Yes that was pure sarcasm and the giveaway was that I used 'meritocracy' and perfect competition which is a principle you're still not grasping and I'll let you in on how I know you aren't grasping it: the government has nothing to do with perfect competition. Nothing, bupkis, it doesn't even factor into the notion of perfect competition. I used livestock auctions as the one place perfect competition exists in for a reason...think about it. Anyone who knows anything about reality knows that the term meritocracy is only used sarcastically or ironically (idiots use it straight but like I said, they're idiots). Conservative children of privilege use it in their economic arguments because they are selfish, arrogant, naive, mean and are incapable of empathy. So there you go, you didn't refute anything but a sarcastic riff that you continue to not understand and also that you take out of context....
What? You're seriously joking.....the vast majority of the rich are like Paris Hilton for one and for two, much like how meritocracy is a joke the children of rich people don't get rich because of hard work or intelligence but it's because their ticket is written the minute they get out of the womb. They will attend the best schools because their parents can afford it, they will get the Ivy League degrees as legacies and will inherit daddy's connections that daddy inherited from grandpa and so on and so forth. There's something really off about you, either you're still in college (freshman judging by your at best rudimentary knowledge and self assured arrogance in espousing your ignorance) and you don't know anything about life or you're an idiot who's read too many Glenn Beck books.
I agree that putting more money in the hands of the productive is what drives the economy, not anything else. And who are the productive ones? The workers. Cutting taxes on the rich and raising the taxes of the workers is not the way to achieve economic growth. Taxes on the wealthy must be raised, taxes on workers should be lowered, so they have more money to put into the economy. Trickle-down economics has been proven to be a huge failure time and time again. Corporate welfare lines the pockets of the already wealthy and does absolutely nothing to spur economic growth. The only way to stimulate economic growth is to get money into the hands of people who need it, and who will spend it. Cutting a billionaire's taxes does nothing.
“It’s a fallacious notion to say, ‘Oh, rich people get more money back in a tax cut,'” Paul responded. “If you cut taxes 10 percent, 10 percent of a million is more than 10 percent of a thousand dollars. So, obviously, people who pay more in taxes will get more back.”
I'm pretty sure he pronounced "fellatious notion" which of course meant "get on your knees and blow me over my wonderful plan!"
At best, you have shown that Krugman has changed his mind as an increasing amount of evidence from natural experiments have shown that his earlier worries about a moderate increase in the minimum wage were overblown. So what? I'd say that's a good thing, a sign that he's still learning and keeping an open mind.
But this is where you demonstrate for all the world that you are fighting a strawman:
"He now claims that you can indeed cast aside market forces, legislate away scarcity, and ignore the law of supply and demand."
Feel free to show me where Krugman ever said any such thing. It's most certainly not the argument he makes in the column you quote.
So how was your "Tom Russell Radio?" I actually prefer mostly his older stuff, but all of it is pretty good (Long Way Around, Borderland my favorite albums).
You stated perfect competition is not possible. I agree, and I can assure you that Rand Paul has never voiced any support for the notion of "perfect competition." The concept is actually opposed by the economists who Paul shares views with. Market economists realize that the old static models of market equilibrium do not functionally describe the real world dynamism of the market.
In reality, it is government antitrust regulators who base economic policy on the incorrect notion that markets do not perform well with information asymmetries, and devote their efforts to the futile task of "correcting" these asymmetries and creating "perfect competition."
The consequences, of course, with doing away with this "perfect competition" model means doing away with the antitrust regulators. So go ahead, lead the fight against this erroneous economic notion. I'm right behind you.
Not bad, what little I got to listen to. Ended up being a busier afternoon than expected. I cheated a little, and just shuffled artist, instead of a radio station, so gMusic didn't send me off in strange directions this time.
Your plan to raise taxes on the poor and lower them for the rich has proven time and time again to be unsound policy. It completely hinders growth and always sends the economy into recession or worse. It has never once worked. Ever.
The effects of supply and demand don't go away, but the real world is a hell of a lot more complicated than that simple principle can express. Wages don't automatically go up or down in sync with the national economy, and they don't always follow supply and demand as strictly as you might think. Wages are, in short, sticky. But how sticky are they, exactly?
If we look at the quotes you (or, more likely, conservative websites) have mined here, we'll note that the first rejects the notion that wages "can be set based on considerations of justice, not supply and demand, without unpleasant side effects". So Krugman is saying that you can't simply disregard supply and demand completely - hardly a controversial view. Now, I don't know who or what Krugman was arguing against here, but I do know the context of the second quote, because I've read the column it came from; in it, Krugman is arguing that it wouldn't hurt the current economy if you raise the minimum wage. And he didn't just pull that out of his ass because it was convenient. Here's the paragraph that follows immediately after the first paragraph you quoted:
"What’s the evidence? First, there is what actually happens when minimum wages are increased. Many states set minimum wages above the federal level, and we can look at what happens when a state raises its minimum while neighboring states do not. Does the wage-hiking state lose a large number of jobs? No — the overwhelming conclusion from studying these natural experiments is that moderate increases in the minimum wage have little or no negative effect on employment."
It should be obvious that Krugman has never been an opponent of raising the minimum wage under any and all circumstances, so it's not even clear that his views have changed at all. But if they have, it's not about something so simple and basic as supply and demand, but about the much more complex interplay between those factors and the many other forces that have an effect on a nation's economy. And the reason for the change was clearly new evidence from natural experiments, conducted by several states in recent years.
The effects of supply and demand don't go away, but the real world is a hell of a lot more complicated than that simple principle can express. Wages don't automatically go up or down in sync with the national economy, and they don't always follow supply and demand as strictly as you might think. Wages are, in short, sticky. But how sticky are they, exactly?
I think what you're trying to say is that wages are not as elastic given the current conditions as they would be in a purely market economy. This is true. There are all kinds of factors that prevent wages from adjusting with supply and demand. Mostly, these factors are artificial and in the form of government regulations. For example, both Hoover and FDR set price floors on wages at the Depression's onset, which prevented wages from adjusting downward with the rest of the market and produced massive unemployment, extending the Depression well past its natural correction cycle.
If we look at the quotes you (or, more likely, conservative websites) have mined here, we'll note that the first rejects the notion that wages "can be set based on considerations of justice, not supply and demand, without unpleasant side effects". So Krugman is saying that you can't simply disregard supply and demand completely - hardly a controversial view.
Indeed. This is the the old Krugman, the one who actually thought like an economist, for the most part. The context was a 1998 critique of an economics publication calling for a "living wage."
but I do know the context of the second quote, because I've read the column it came from; in it, Krugman is arguing that it wouldn't hurt the current economy if you raise the minimum wage.
Of course you have. You no doubt follow his blog with fervor.
And in this column, he casts aside his old method of applying economic analysis and embraces the very fallacies he once argued against. He now claims that you can indeed cast aside market forces, legislate away scarcity, and ignore the law of supply and demand.
And he didn't just pull that out of his ass because it was convenient.
Actually, pretty much anyone who argues for a price floor on wages is pulling trash out of their rear end. Whether they make pseudo-intellectual arguments or avoid making a rational argument at all, it can be reasonably assumed that they are not serious people.
Krugman even very nearly prophesizes his own argument, noting in his much earlier critique:
Indeed, much-cited studies by two well-regarded labor economists, David Card and Alan Krueger, find that where there have been more or less controlled experiments, for example when New Jersey raised minimum wages but Pennsylvania did not, the effects of the increase on employment have been negligible or even positive. Exactly what to make of this result is a source of great dispute. Card and Krueger offered some complex theoretical rationales, but most of their colleagues are unconvinced; the centrist view is probably that minimum wages "do," in fact, reduce employment, but that the effects are small and swamped by other forces.
Then he deconstructs the very argument he is now making.
What is remarkable, however, is how this rather iffy result has been seized upon by some liberals as a rationale for making large minimum wage increases a core component of the liberal agenda--for arguing that living wages "can play an important role in reversing the 25-year decline in wages experienced by most working people in America" (as this book's back cover has it). Clearly these advocates very much want to believe that the price of labor--unlike that of gasoline, or Manhattan apartments--can be set based on considerations of justice, not supply and demand, without unpleasant side effects. This will to believe is obvious in this book: The authors not only take the Card-Krueger results as gospel, but advance a number of other arguments that just do not hold up under examination.
So you see, Krugman was principally opposed to the minimum wage before he was for it.
It should be obvious that Krugman has never been an opponent of raising the minimum wage under any and all circumstances, so it's not even clear that his views have changed at all.
I'm not sure how you can claim such a thing as "obvious" when there is very clear evidence that he quite explicitly opposed raising the minimum wage back in 1998, when he actually practiced economics. The reason for the change, I'll bet, has much to do with the fact that he now writes a blog oriented around political economics, and he has a bias towards progressivism and state intervention in the economy.
What in gods holy name are you blathering about? Obviously you don't understand sarcasm which I was laying on pretty thickly for you so I'll try a different track. One of largest of the numerous problems of Rand Paul's argument (seriously it has a blind spot large enough to sail a boat through in terms of stability) is the wealth gap. I'll leave out the racial component because I don't think Rand Paul is bright enough to see the problems with "free associations" both economically and socially (it's a reason the KKK and white separatists love Ron Paul).Instead what I'll do is focus on this one question: is growing inequality good for the economy and where does inequality come from? Rand Paul and right wingers simultaneously argue that inequality IS good and then blame inequality on the government, positions which do not reconcile and are a major point of departure from academics (side note: long considered a bastion of academic conservatives, economics is actually dominated by liberals these days because conservatives are crazy). The problem with this position aside from them not reconciling is we know they are false: what are the two eras with the largest, most explosive inequality? the late 19th Century (1870's-1910) and 1981-present. The features of those two eras are the lack of regulation (or from 1981-onward evisceration of regulation) and non-existent wage bargaining power for employees (1981-present, the decline and end of unions) with all power squarely placed in the hands of employers.The interesting part of the late 20th century up until now is that wages are flat while demands for productivity and hours worked are ever increasing. So, where is that money going to? The wealthy and it's barely taxed...if Rand Paul had his way it won't be taxed at all and we won't have a safety net or food safety or OSHA or anything. You cannot run a society based upon the principal of "every man for himself!" and you cannot run a healthy society without oversight because as Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" and the Triangle Shirt Waste fire among others demonstrate, letting employers decide such issues will always see safety and health bow to profits- ALWAYS. So if that's the future you want where your life is basically spent working without wage increases, you only have health insurance if you can afford the ridiculous rates (good luck getting them to explain why it's so expensive) you don't care about what's in your food or how it's made, you don't care if when you take a plane someone has checked twice to make sure its maintained properly or your car actually functions how its supposed to or your roads don't have tolls every few blocks or your kids are taught an education that benefits them and not some corporation or your prisoners are 'inventory' with stiffer sentences dictated by profitability...please, support libertarianism's quest to privatize it all. Oh and before you accuse me of exaggeration- actually I'm not exaggerating at all, study any industry before it was highly regulated and you'll see everything I say is correct....so seriously, go right ahead and get rid of the 'distortions' of oversight and laws to protect employees. I'd just hate it if you're not on the 'ownership' side because much like a USSR citizen your life will suck thanks to serving an ideology over reality.
Sarcasm? You sounded pretty serious when you said:
Also there's within the idealistic notion of capitalism a rarely utilized codicil where in an exchange the buyer is supposed to be presented with as much information about the product as the seller...This principle of capitalism (aka 'perfect competition' from econ 101, a course most conservatives paid maybe, half attention to while insisting they know all the economics) exists only in two places: 1) livestock auctions and 2) in the idealistic world of capitalism idiots like Rand Paul draw their views from while ignoring the "equal information" principle that is so important to a meritocracy.
I responded to your post because you incorrectly characterized not only capitalism, but also the economic views which Rand Paul holds true. In short, you created a strawman argument, and then insulted that strawman with as much vigor as you could muster.
The irony is that the erroneous concept of "perfect competition" is held not by Rand Paul, but by the government regulators that you likely credit with maintaining a functioning market economy.
So the question can be asked, what are YOU blathering about now? Are you attempting to change to direction of the conversation after I refuted your claims? And are you going to do this in a long, run-on paragraph with very little punctuation, making it difficult to mount a coherent response?
Consumption by itself does not drive economic growth. The economy is a balancing act between consumption and production. You can't consume what doesn't get produced, and nobody is going to produce anything if they don't receive the benefits of risking their own capital to do so.
Putting more money in the pockets of the wealthy is what the current Fed rate policy does. It is the monetarist's version of "trickle down economics," and it has political support from both sides of the aisle. Rand Paul is one of the very few to oppose its policy of lining the pockets of the rich.
Putting more money in the hands of the productive benefits the rest of us. We benefit from the productivity of those with capital to risk, not their consumption. People who spend wantonly, including the government, quickly indebt themselves and go bankrupt. They do nothing to benefit anyone else at that point, and become a social drain.
You're right, I would be better off putting my faith in the criminal who runs Fox News, or Rush Limbaugh. Not to mention I'm old enough to have lived through multiple election cycles, and I've noticed a funny thing. Any time Republicans are allowed to run the country they manage to run it into the ground. What do 1929, 1987, and 2008 all have in common? All were crashes brought on by easy money and bank deregulation that were pushed by the president at the time. You're wrong about the two parties agreeing on taking money. Republicans cut taxes on the wealthy, and then spend like drunken sailors, while Democrats try to actually figure out a way to pay for the things they want.I guess "pocket Progressive" is supposed to be an insult? I'd prefer you call me "someone who looks at facts and makes rational decisions based upon them."
You're right, I would be better off putting my faith in the criminal who runs Fox News, or Rush Limbaugh.
Either you're under the impression that these are your only two options, or you think, for some reason, that I support Fox News or Rush Limbaugh. Neither of these is true. There are other places you can put your faith than the state or Fox News/Rush Limbaugh, and I would never, ever support Fox News or Rush Limbaugh with my time or efforts.
All were crashes brought on by easy money and bank deregulation that were pushed by the president at the time.
Easy money via the Fed is a bipartisan game, pal, or maybe you didn't notice the entire time you were living your life. The current political regime under Obama gives its full support to the Fed's multiple programs of Quantitative Easing, as do the Republicans by the way.
You're wrong about the two parties being different on what actually matters. They're the same Big Government, Big Spending, Big Surveillance, Big War, Big Prison, Big Banks parties. Democrats figured out how to pay for Big Government? How? By sinking the nation another $8 Trillion in debt?
I prefer to call you someone who doesn't look at facts and doesn't make rational decisions. I prefer to call you someone who forms his opinions based on emotion, and clings to these opinions tightly even when confronted with a reality that would contradict them.
Yes that was pure sarcasm and the giveaway was that I used 'meritocracy' and perfect competition which is a principle you're still not grasping and I'll let you in on how I know you aren't grasping it: the government has nothing to do with perfect competition. Nothing, bupkis, it doesn't even factor into the notion of perfect competition. I used livestock auctions as the one place perfect competition exists in for a reason...think about it. Anyone who knows anything about reality knows that the term meritocracy is only used sarcastically or ironically (idiots use it straight but like I said, they're idiots). Conservative children of privilege use it in their economic arguments because they are selfish, arrogant, naive, mean and are incapable of empathy. So there you go, you didn't refute anything but a sarcastic riff that you continue to not understand and also that you take out of context....
What? You're seriously joking.....the vast majority of the rich are like Paris Hilton for one and for two, much like how meritocracy is a joke the children of rich people don't get rich because of hard work or intelligence but it's because their ticket is written the minute they get out of the womb. They will attend the best schools because their parents can afford it, they will get the Ivy League degrees as legacies and will inherit daddy's connections that daddy inherited from grandpa and so on and so forth. There's something really off about you, either you're still in college (freshman judging by your at best rudimentary knowledge and self assured arrogance in espousing your ignorance) and you don't know anything about life or you're an idiot who's read too many Glenn Beck books.
I agree that putting more money in the hands of the productive is what drives the economy, not anything else. And who are the productive ones? The workers. Cutting taxes on the rich and raising the taxes of the workers is not the way to achieve economic growth. Taxes on the wealthy must be raised, taxes on workers should be lowered, so they have more money to put into the economy. Trickle-down economics has been proven to be a huge failure time and time again. Corporate welfare lines the pockets of the already wealthy and does absolutely nothing to spur economic growth. The only way to stimulate economic growth is to get money into the hands of people who need it, and who will spend it. Cutting a billionaire's taxes does nothing.
“It’s a fallacious notion to say, ‘Oh, rich people get more money back in a tax cut,'” Paul responded. “If you cut taxes 10 percent, 10 percent of a million is more than 10 percent of a thousand dollars. So, obviously, people who pay more in taxes will get more back.”
I'm pretty sure he pronounced "fellatious notion" which of course meant "get on your knees and blow me over my wonderful plan!"
At best, you have shown that Krugman has changed his mind as an increasing amount of evidence from natural experiments have shown that his earlier worries about a moderate increase in the minimum wage were overblown. So what? I'd say that's a good thing, a sign that he's still learning and keeping an open mind.
But this is where you demonstrate for all the world that you are fighting a strawman:
"He now claims that you can indeed cast aside market forces, legislate away scarcity, and ignore the law of supply and demand."
Feel free to show me where Krugman ever said any such thing. It's most certainly not the argument he makes in the column you quote.