Krugman: GOP party of Beavis & Butthead
#1
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02...editation/

Quote:What should government do? A Jindal meditation

What is the appropriate role of government?

Traditionally, the division between conservatives and liberals has been over the role and size of the welfare state: liberals think that the government should play a large role in sanding off the market economy’s rough edges, conservatives believe that time and chance happen to us all, and that’s that.

But both sides, I thought, agreed that the government should provide public goods — goods that are nonrival (they benefit everyone) and nonexcludable (there’s no way to restrict the benefits to people who pay.) The classic examples are things like lighthouses and national defense, but there are many others. For example, knowing when a volcano is likely to erupt can save many lives; but there’s no private incentive to spend money on monitoring, since even people who didn’t contribute to maintaining the monitoring system can still benefit from the warning. So that’s the sort of activity that should be undertaken by government.

So what did Bobby Jindal choose to ridicule in this response to Obama last night? Volcano monitoring, of course.

And leaving aside the chutzpah of casting the failure of his own party’s governance as proof that government can’t work, does he really think that the response to natural disasters like Katrina is best undertaken by uncoordinated private action? Hey, why bother having an army? Let’s just rely on self-defense by armed citizens.

The intellectual incoherence is stunning. Basically, the political philosophy of the GOP right now seems to consist of snickering at stuff that they think sounds funny. The party of ideas has become the party of Beavis and Butthead.
Reply
#2
To be fair, the Democrats do the exact same thing when they're not in power. I.e. programs to reduce abortions come in for a heavy share of ridicule, especially the non-contraceptive ones.
Reply
#3
Krugman is a left wing hack who wont be happy until the crimninal Obmama and his band of Bolsheviks control every aspect of our lives. I detest him and his liberal agenda, the GOP is filled with putz's but the Democrats want complete socialism. Within 3 years Obama, Krugman and the left wing scum will be completely discredited once we have inflation of nightmare proportions. Krugman and the leftist want economic chaos in order for his side to have an excuse to assume control and in time a world government.
Reply
#4
This ardent disciple of Keynes is certainly one of the most celebrated, and ignorant, economists going today. He worships at the altar of total state control of all thing economic. With Obama at the helm, he see this as the chance of a lifetime to leave his grimy fingerprints all over the ruin of the American economy.   
Reply
#5
1. Paul Krugman, ignorant economist. FALSE. He is celebrated precisely by economists.

2. Paul Krugman, worshipper at the altar of total state control of all things economic. FALSE. That's called socialism. Paul Krugman is all for the market.

3. Paul Krugman, left wing hack, Bolshevik. FALSE. Figure out what a Bolshevik is.

4. Democrats want complete socialism. FALSE. Figure out what socialism is.

5. Everything in-between... you believe it, the burden of proof is on you.

Quote:To be fair, the Democrats do the exact same thing when they're not in power. I.e. programs to reduce abortions come in for a heavy share of ridicule, especially the non-contraceptive ones.

You're correct in that Democrats certainly have their share of problems (I'm all for wiping out the strength of the pro-choice faction, especially the irrational dogmatists who have shoved it down the threat of the DNC and want to keep it there) but I don't think nearly as many as the GOP. In some ways Krugman is helping the GOP here... if the GOP wants to make any comebacks, the GOP will have to wake up, and offer solutions.
Reply
#6
There's no need to be so cross. Economists aren't so unanimous as you make them out with their praise: there are neo-Keynesians, neo-liberals, Marxists, etc.. I've read plenty criticisms from neo-liberal economists over Krugman's recent Nobel Prize. They seem to think that the Swedish Academy awarded it to a Keynesian because the current economic crisis is seen by some as a repudiation of the excesses of an unrestrained free market.

And Krugman is a neo-Keynesian. Granted, this is not Bolshevism, but Krugman does favor an expansive and aggressive role for government. To liberals, this state intervention compromises basic market freedoms, but your real Marxists would say it doesn't go far enough. Really, it's a question over whether you consider economies such as France and Sweden to be "socialist." If you view mixed economies as fundamentally unfree rather than tempered and moderate, you won't care for Krugman, and you'll have a good number of economists on your side.

There are a number of competing theories and frameworks. It is no more useful to say "economists praise" something than to say "theologians hold" or "philosophers agree." It's intellectually dishonest to create the appearance of unanimity.
Reply
#7
Canisius12 Wrote:Krugman is a left wing hack who wont be happy until the crimninal Obmama and his band of Bolsheviks control every aspect of our lives. I detest him and his liberal agenda, the GOP is filled with putz's but the Democrats want complete socialism. Within 3 years Obama, Krugman and the left wing scum will be completely discredited once we have inflation of nightmare proportions. Krugman and the leftist want economic chaos in order for his side to have an excuse to assume control and in time a world government.


A bit vicious, esp since Democrats and GOP-in principle and increasingly in practice-are the same, 2 wings on the same bird-of-prey......to pretend otherwise is plain delusional.........your last comment, same applied to Bush and Co, scions of NWO/Fabian type socialists.Bush hangs out with same Bilderbergers,etc....
Reply
#8
JonathanCid Wrote:nearly as many as the GOP. In some ways Krugman is helping the GOP here... if the GOP wants to make any comebacks, the GOP will have to wake up, and offer solutions.


Did not in the 6 yrs they controlled Congress, White House and sympathetic Supremes...same bird, same prey...arguing over scarps, never principles
Reply
#9
Cyriacus Wrote:There's no need to be so cross. Economists aren't so unanimous as you make them out with their praise: there are neo-Keynesians, neo-liberals, Marxists, etc.. I've read plenty criticisms from neo-liberal economists over Krugman's recent Nobel Prize. They seem to think that the Swedish Academy awarded it to a Keynesian because the current economic crisis is seen by some as a repudiation of the excesses of an unrestrained free market.

And Krugman is a neo-Keynesian. Granted, this is not Bolshevism, but Krugman does favor an expansive and aggressive role for government. To liberals, this state intervention compromises basic market freedoms, but your real Marxists would say it doesn't go far enough. Really, it's a question over whether you consider economies such as France and Sweden to be "socialist." If you view mixed economies as fundamentally unfree rather than tempered and moderate, you won't care for Krugman, and you'll have a good number of economists on your side.

There are a number of competing theories and frameworks. It is no more useful to say "economists praise" something than to say "theologians hold" or "philosophers agree." It's intellectually dishonest to create the appearance of unanimity.

There is a great disparity between the number of economists who are Democrats and the number of economists who are Republicans or anything else. There is a near-unaninimity there, at least in terms of where economists fall politically and their views of the market. It isn't comparable to "theologians hold" or "philosophers agree" where there is much more disagreement, especially considering that theology or particular kinds of philosophy (those loosed from more rigorous logic) don't typically adhere to any scientific method or rigor, whereas the discipline of economics does.
Reply
#10
Come down to the University of Chicago department of economics and suggest that they are "all Keynesians now." I'm not kidding. I'd love to see it.

Just because economics is a social science, at least ostensibly going from evidence to abstraction of systems, does not imply anything of the sort of automatic consensus. There is still virulent disagreement over what caused the Great Depression.

The social sciences, while using a rational, scientific rigor, are very much alive with debate and wrought with faults of various sorts. Even in linguistics, not everyone buys Chomsky's generative grammar! In anthropology, not everyone is a cultural materialist! Historians can't, free of criticism, even identify trends and causative forces.

I'm not entirely sure what you're suggesting. Virtually all economists are Democrats and support the current policies of the Democrats as ideal? Surely, a larger number do, but most academics are already operating with a leftist set of assumptions. If your point is that the political precedes the scientific, and that those who disagree tend to be Republicans, I would ask you: what person of good faith, rejecting the assumptions of the left, would vote Democrat? And there is room for a lot of suppositions.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)