|
On August 17 2011 00:33 Vore210 wrote:
I feel sorry for the U.S that you have to choose between the president that failed you (though he was opposed at practically every turn), and one of the nuttiest political parties in the western world.
Well, good luck ;/.
It's not like Fine Gael or Labor have done all that much for Ireland recently. Bad economic cycles correlate with bad political administrations, it's life.
|
On August 17 2011 00:42 Vore210 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 00:36 Duban wrote:On August 17 2011 00:33 Vore210 wrote:
I feel sorry for the U.S that you have to choose between the president that failed you (though he was opposed at practically every turn), and one of the nuttiest political parties in the western world.
Well, good luck ;/. I'm not sure Obama "Failed us". He got a TERRIBLE term as president for reasons outside his control. He inherited an Economic crisis, two wars, and the most belligerent Republican party in decades. I don't think any president could have handled that well. Thats why I said he was opposed at practically every turn, by those factors. However he didn't stand up to the republicans, he compromised a heck of a lot (from what I can see internationally, with guantanamo and the recent talks with boehner (wasn't it?)). The problem, as far as I can see, is that the democrats don't go far enough in the opposite direction to the republicans. The dems seem to be somewhere near the middle, maybe centre left though a lot of what they've done has been more conservative. The repubs have moved so far to the right they've lost their way and ended up in a nuthouse. There needs to be a lunatic left wing to counterbalance the zany right wing, so at least a middle ground can be found rather than the frequent right wing outcome.
Are you kidding? Staying rational and logical is preferred over having lunatic left wingers, thank you. I would not like a coffee party. 
|
On August 17 2011 00:36 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 00:30 On_Slaught wrote:He did this by stealing jobs from other states. The New York Times puts it better than me: What Texas shows is that a state offering cheap labor and, less important, weak regulation can attract jobs from other states. I believe that the appropriate response to this insight is “Well, duh.” The point is that arguing from this experience that depressing wages and dismantling regulation in America as a whole would create more jobs — which is, whatever Mr. Perry may say, what Perrynomics amounts to in practice — involves a fallacy of composition: every state can’t lure jobs away from every other state. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/the-texas-unmiracle.html This is just stupid. First of all, economics and business development isn't a zero-sum game. Lowering taxes and reducing regulations lowers the cost of doing business generally, which lowers the cost of entry of into business, which, in turn, ENCOURAGES people to get into business, thereby creating new jobs. Second, reducing regulations and taxes on businesses on a national level will obviously stem the flow of businesses and jobs out of the US and maybe even attract some to come back. The NYT author clearly is too dumb to see that what works on an interstate level for obvious reasons would also work on an international level for the very same reasons.
There's no conceivable way we could ever lower the cost of doing business enough to prevent companies from going overseas or to Mexico. If we could, it would be devastating to workers, the environment, the federal budget, etc, etc, etc. Businesses that have the resources to leave will leave.
It's always going to be cheaper to hire workers for near slave wages in a country with no workplace safety laws, no environmental regulations, and no corporate taxes.
|
On August 17 2011 00:36 Duban wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 00:33 Vore210 wrote:
I feel sorry for the U.S that you have to choose between the president that failed you (though he was opposed at practically every turn), and one of the nuttiest political parties in the western world.
Well, good luck ;/. I'm not sure Obama "Failed us". He got a TERRIBLE term as president for reasons outside his control. He inherited an Economic crisis, two wars, and the most belligerent Republican party in decades. I don't think any president could have handled that well.
Oh yes he inherited 2 wars, big deal and he actually expanded the two wars and made it 6 wars now! Yeah he hasn't failed you. He inherited 6% unemployment and now he has 10%, oh yeah he hasn't failed you. He inherited the last weeks of the patriot act and he guess what? - EXPANDED IT. The patriot act was about to end and he pushed to get it extended. And remember he promised to end it? He promised to end the wars and is now in 6 wars, all without congress approval and has increased the troops in Afghanistan from 60.000 from Bush era, to 120.000.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, Syria? I mean are you just trolling or are you serious?
Obama works for the same people Bush worked for, it doesn't matter if the president is republican or democrat as long as they are part of the establishment and until you people realize that you are going down as a country and are going to take the world with you in that black hole with all these endless wars and stopping the natural flow of oil so that oil prices are absurdly high until every country in the world is destroyed.
|
On August 17 2011 00:38 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 00:34 Zergneedsfood wrote:
Isn't what your post is that at the heart of conservatism there's sensible philosophical underpinnings....and at the heart of liberal thinking it's just bogus?
How does that make Democrats equally loony? A lot of the classic Conservative/Liberal divide comes down to differences of pure opinion, about which there can be no reasoned debate. The question of whether or not everyone, regardless of income, should have access to healthcare of a certain standard, for instance, is a matter of opinion - it turns fundamentally on personal views of ethics. Thus plenty of Liberal policy can be supported in a perfectly non-loony fashion. The same is true for Conservative policy (and so is the reverse - there's idiocy on both sides in roughly equal amounts). I think Democrats have more idiocy in terms of quantity than Republicans, but we have people like Bachmann, so our quality of idiocy is through the roof, if that makes any sense.
How on earth can you think the Republicans are less crazy than the Democrats when someone like Bachmann or Perry is within inches of the nomination? You said yourself she is not quite sane.
|
On August 17 2011 00:38 Zergneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 00:33 Vore210 wrote:
I feel sorry for the U.S that you have to choose between the president that failed you (though he was opposed at practically every turn), and one of the nuttiest political parties in the western world.
Well, good luck ;/. Obama's has kept a good deal of promises, much to my surprise. Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 00:36 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2011 00:30 On_Slaught wrote:He did this by stealing jobs from other states. The New York Times puts it better than me: What Texas shows is that a state offering cheap labor and, less important, weak regulation can attract jobs from other states. I believe that the appropriate response to this insight is “Well, duh.” The point is that arguing from this experience that depressing wages and dismantling regulation in America as a whole would create more jobs — which is, whatever Mr. Perry may say, what Perrynomics amounts to in practice — involves a fallacy of composition: every state can’t lure jobs away from every other state. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/the-texas-unmiracle.html This is just stupid. First of all, economics and business development isn't a zero-sum game. Lowering taxes and reducing regulations lowers the cost of doing business generally, which lowers the cost of entry of into business, which, in turn, ENCOURAGES people to get into business, thereby creating new jobs. Second, reducing regulations and taxes on businesses on a national level will obviously stem the flow of businesses and jobs out of the US and maybe even attract some to come back. The NYT author clearly is too dumb to see that what works on an interstate level for obvious reasons would also work on an international level for the very same reasons. Oh you know...I guess a nobel prize in economics makes you too dumb to understand interstate level economics. >.> To be honest, your theory sounds awesome, but the economy doesn't always work in the ways prescribed in a text book. I'll be truthful and say that I don't like Krugman too much (Fareed Zakara <33333), so I won't debate you on what he writes, because I'm frankly a little tired of him too.
Nobel Prize be damned, Krugman's a dolt (besides, anyone who thinks that the Nobel prize can be taken seriously anymore only needs to look at the Nobel Peace Prize that Obama got). Obama and the democrats have basically implemented all of Krugman's recommended policies over the past couple year with nothing to show for it. The only difference is that Obama and the democrats didn't spend as much as Krugman would have wanted. So what's Krugman's solution now? Double down on spending! Sheer brilliance. With the colossal failure of these policies, there's going to be a referendum on the wisdom Keynsian spending in economic circles sooner rather than later.
|
I think Romney has the highest chance of beating Obama in 2012. Honestly, the Republican lineup isn't terribly strong; we'll see how Rick Perry does, since there's quite a bit of hype surrounding him.
|
On August 17 2011 00:45 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 00:38 kzn wrote:On August 17 2011 00:34 Zergneedsfood wrote:
Isn't what your post is that at the heart of conservatism there's sensible philosophical underpinnings....and at the heart of liberal thinking it's just bogus?
How does that make Democrats equally loony? A lot of the classic Conservative/Liberal divide comes down to differences of pure opinion, about which there can be no reasoned debate. The question of whether or not everyone, regardless of income, should have access to healthcare of a certain standard, for instance, is a matter of opinion - it turns fundamentally on personal views of ethics. Thus plenty of Liberal policy can be supported in a perfectly non-loony fashion. The same is true for Conservative policy (and so is the reverse - there's idiocy on both sides in roughly equal amounts). I think Democrats have more idiocy in terms of quantity than Republicans, but we have people like Bachmann, so our quality of idiocy is through the roof, if that makes any sense. How on earth can you think the Republicans are less crazy than the Democrats when someone like Bachmann or Perry is within inches of the nomination? You said yourself she is not quite sane.
Because, like I said, we have our Bachmanns/Palins, who are utterly insane, but the vast majority of Democrats are slightly-to-moderately insane.
Its quite hard to be a completely nuts liberal without going full-on communist, whereas its rather easy to be an insane conservative without being a fascist.
|
On August 17 2011 00:45 thehitman wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 00:36 Duban wrote:On August 17 2011 00:33 Vore210 wrote:
I feel sorry for the U.S that you have to choose between the president that failed you (though he was opposed at practically every turn), and one of the nuttiest political parties in the western world.
Well, good luck ;/. I'm not sure Obama "Failed us". He got a TERRIBLE term as president for reasons outside his control. He inherited an Economic crisis, two wars, and the most belligerent Republican party in decades. I don't think any president could have handled that well. Oh yes he inherited 2 wars, big deal and he actually expanded the two wars and made it 6 wars now! Yeah he hasn't failed you. He inherited 6% unemployment and now he has 10%, oh yeah he hasn't failed you. He inherited the last weeks of the patriot act and he guess what? - EXPANDED IT. The patriot act was about to end and he pushed to get it extended. And remember he promised to end it? He promised to end the wars and is now in 6 wars, all without congress approval and has increased the troops in Afghanistan from 60.000 from Bush era, to 120.000. Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, Syria? I mean are you just trolling or are you serious? Obama works for the same people Bush worked for, it doesn't matter if the president is republican or democrat as long as they are part of the establishment and until you people realize that you are going down as a country and are going to take the world with you in that black hole with all these endless wars and stopping the natural flow of oil so that oil prices are absurdly high until every country in the world is destroyed.
not to mention the possible wars with NK and Iran
|
On August 17 2011 00:47 synapse wrote:
I think Romney has the highest chance of beating Obama in 2012. Honestly, the Republican lineup isn't terribly strong; we'll see how Rick Perry does, since there's quite a bit of hype surrounding him.
Any of the republicans will beat Obama at the rate that he's becoming unpopular.
|
|
|
On August 17 2011 00:36 thoradycus wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 00:31 ShadeR wrote:
Genuine Q. Which of the 18 listed is not a creationist/ID? none. But how is all this related?
Candidate with a basic grasp of science would be nice, is academia in regards to science so wrong within the conservative sphere?
|
On August 17 2011 00:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 00:38 Zergneedsfood wrote:On August 17 2011 00:33 Vore210 wrote:
I feel sorry for the U.S that you have to choose between the president that failed you (though he was opposed at practically every turn), and one of the nuttiest political parties in the western world.
Well, good luck ;/. Obama's has kept a good deal of promises, much to my surprise. On August 17 2011 00:36 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2011 00:30 On_Slaught wrote:He did this by stealing jobs from other states. The New York Times puts it better than me: What Texas shows is that a state offering cheap labor and, less important, weak regulation can attract jobs from other states. I believe that the appropriate response to this insight is “Well, duh.” The point is that arguing from this experience that depressing wages and dismantling regulation in America as a whole would create more jobs — which is, whatever Mr. Perry may say, what Perrynomics amounts to in practice — involves a fallacy of composition: every state can’t lure jobs away from every other state. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/the-texas-unmiracle.html This is just stupid. First of all, economics and business development isn't a zero-sum game. Lowering taxes and reducing regulations lowers the cost of doing business generally, which lowers the cost of entry of into business, which, in turn, ENCOURAGES people to get into business, thereby creating new jobs. Second, reducing regulations and taxes on businesses on a national level will obviously stem the flow of businesses and jobs out of the US and maybe even attract some to come back. The NYT author clearly is too dumb to see that what works on an interstate level for obvious reasons would also work on an international level for the very same reasons. Oh you know...I guess a nobel prize in economics makes you too dumb to understand interstate level economics. >.> To be honest, your theory sounds awesome, but the economy doesn't always work in the ways prescribed in a text book. I'll be truthful and say that I don't like Krugman too much (Fareed Zakara <33333), so I won't debate you on what he writes, because I'm frankly a little tired of him too. Nobel Prize be damned, Krugman's a dolt (besides, anyone who thinks that the Nobel prize can be taken seriously anymore only needs to look at the Nobel Peace Prize that Obama got). Obama and the democrats have basically implemented all of Krugman's recommended policies over the past couple year with nothing to show for it. The only difference is that Obama and the democrats didn't spend as much as Krugman would have wanted. So what's Krugman's solution now? Double down on spending! Sheer brilliance. With the colossal failure of these policies, there's going to be a referendum on the wisdom Keynsian spending in economic circles sooner rather than later.
I don't think your logic works. Obviously if the White Houses' stimulus was too low according to Krugman, he would advocate to "double down on spending". That's a perfectly consistent attitude, not really deserving of your mocking. You should also mention it's not like he is the only person who thinks this, it's actually mainstream economic thought.
|
On August 17 2011 00:43 Zergneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 00:42 Vore210 wrote:On August 17 2011 00:36 Duban wrote:On August 17 2011 00:33 Vore210 wrote:
I feel sorry for the U.S that you have to choose between the president that failed you (though he was opposed at practically every turn), and one of the nuttiest political parties in the western world.
Well, good luck ;/. I'm not sure Obama "Failed us". He got a TERRIBLE term as president for reasons outside his control. He inherited an Economic crisis, two wars, and the most belligerent Republican party in decades. I don't think any president could have handled that well. Thats why I said he was opposed at practically every turn, by those factors. However he didn't stand up to the republicans, he compromised a heck of a lot (from what I can see internationally, with guantanamo and the recent talks with boehner (wasn't it?)). The problem, as far as I can see, is that the democrats don't go far enough in the opposite direction to the republicans. The dems seem to be somewhere near the middle, maybe centre left though a lot of what they've done has been more conservative. The repubs have moved so far to the right they've lost their way and ended up in a nuthouse. There needs to be a lunatic left wing to counterbalance the zany right wing, so at least a middle ground can be found rather than the frequent right wing outcome. Are you kidding? Staying rational and logical is preferred over having lunatic left wingers, thank you. I would not like a coffee party.
So would I. But from what I can see of the U.S, rational and logical gets run over by propaganda, anti current government rhetoric and blame games.
And yeah, Fine Gael, Labour, Fianna Fáil haven't done the best jobs. But they aren't nuts (we wouldn't tolerate that here), just incompetent.
|
On August 17 2011 00:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 00:38 Zergneedsfood wrote:On August 17 2011 00:33 Vore210 wrote:
I feel sorry for the U.S that you have to choose between the president that failed you (though he was opposed at practically every turn), and one of the nuttiest political parties in the western world.
Well, good luck ;/. Obama's has kept a good deal of promises, much to my surprise. On August 17 2011 00:36 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2011 00:30 On_Slaught wrote:He did this by stealing jobs from other states. The New York Times puts it better than me: What Texas shows is that a state offering cheap labor and, less important, weak regulation can attract jobs from other states. I believe that the appropriate response to this insight is “Well, duh.” The point is that arguing from this experience that depressing wages and dismantling regulation in America as a whole would create more jobs — which is, whatever Mr. Perry may say, what Perrynomics amounts to in practice — involves a fallacy of composition: every state can’t lure jobs away from every other state. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/the-texas-unmiracle.html This is just stupid. First of all, economics and business development isn't a zero-sum game. Lowering taxes and reducing regulations lowers the cost of doing business generally, which lowers the cost of entry of into business, which, in turn, ENCOURAGES people to get into business, thereby creating new jobs. Second, reducing regulations and taxes on businesses on a national level will obviously stem the flow of businesses and jobs out of the US and maybe even attract some to come back. The NYT author clearly is too dumb to see that what works on an interstate level for obvious reasons would also work on an international level for the very same reasons. Oh you know...I guess a nobel prize in economics makes you too dumb to understand interstate level economics. >.> To be honest, your theory sounds awesome, but the economy doesn't always work in the ways prescribed in a text book. I'll be truthful and say that I don't like Krugman too much (Fareed Zakara <33333), so I won't debate you on what he writes, because I'm frankly a little tired of him too. Nobel Prize be damned, Krugman's a dolt (besides, anyone who thinks that the Nobel prize can be taken seriously anymore only needs to look at the Nobel Peace Prize that Obama got). Obama and the democrats have basically implemented all of Krugman's recommended policies over the past couple year with nothing to show for it. The only difference is that Obama and the democrats didn't spend as much as Krugman would have wanted. So what's Krugman's solution now? Double down on spending! Sheer brilliance. With the colossal failure of these policies, there's going to be a referendum on the wisdom Keynsian spending in economic circles sooner rather than later.
This post makes me wonder if you have paid attention to any economic policy at all. Also, you should know that a Nobel in economics (which is substantive) is hugely different than a Nobel Peace Prize (which is often, if not usually, political).
|
On August 17 2011 00:50 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 00:46 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2011 00:38 Zergneedsfood wrote:On August 17 2011 00:33 Vore210 wrote:
I feel sorry for the U.S that you have to choose between the president that failed you (though he was opposed at practically every turn), and one of the nuttiest political parties in the western world.
Well, good luck ;/. Obama's has kept a good deal of promises, much to my surprise. On August 17 2011 00:36 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2011 00:30 On_Slaught wrote:He did this by stealing jobs from other states. The New York Times puts it better than me: What Texas shows is that a state offering cheap labor and, less important, weak regulation can attract jobs from other states. I believe that the appropriate response to this insight is “Well, duh.” The point is that arguing from this experience that depressing wages and dismantling regulation in America as a whole would create more jobs — which is, whatever Mr. Perry may say, what Perrynomics amounts to in practice — involves a fallacy of composition: every state can’t lure jobs away from every other state. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/the-texas-unmiracle.html This is just stupid. First of all, economics and business development isn't a zero-sum game. Lowering taxes and reducing regulations lowers the cost of doing business generally, which lowers the cost of entry of into business, which, in turn, ENCOURAGES people to get into business, thereby creating new jobs. Second, reducing regulations and taxes on businesses on a national level will obviously stem the flow of businesses and jobs out of the US and maybe even attract some to come back. The NYT author clearly is too dumb to see that what works on an interstate level for obvious reasons would also work on an international level for the very same reasons. Oh you know...I guess a nobel prize in economics makes you too dumb to understand interstate level economics. >.> To be honest, your theory sounds awesome, but the economy doesn't always work in the ways prescribed in a text book. I'll be truthful and say that I don't like Krugman too much (Fareed Zakara <33333), so I won't debate you on what he writes, because I'm frankly a little tired of him too. Nobel Prize be damned, Krugman's a dolt (besides, anyone who thinks that the Nobel prize can be taken seriously anymore only needs to look at the Nobel Peace Prize that Obama got). Obama and the democrats have basically implemented all of Krugman's recommended policies over the past couple year with nothing to show for it. The only difference is that Obama and the democrats didn't spend as much as Krugman would have wanted. So what's Krugman's solution now? Double down on spending! Sheer brilliance. With the colossal failure of these policies, there's going to be a referendum on the wisdom Keynsian spending in economic circles sooner rather than later. I don't think your logic works. Obviously if the White Houses' stimulus was too low according to Krugman, he would advocate to "double down on spending". That's a perfectly consistent attitude, not really deserving of your mocking.
Its consistent only if you grant the dubious claim that unless you spend precisely as much as Krugman wants, you achieve nothing. Keynesian stimuli has consistently failed to generate evidence that it would work much better if it was done harder/better/faster/stronger (DOHO).
[edit] And his Nobel Prize was in an area that grants him essentially no extra credibility in the spheres he now occupies.
|
“If you’re involved in the gay and lesbian lifestyle, it’s bondage. It is personal bondage, personal despair and personal enslavement” - Senator Michele Bachmann.
Please don't give her that amount of credit, she won her own dimwitted district not votes from the entire state of Minnesota. It's Representative Michele Bachmann, our senators are Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar. They had to get the votes of the entire state and it's only the sixth district that voted for Bachmann.
|
Pretending that wars in Libya/Syria/etc are even close in scope to those in Afghanistan/Iraq is a complete riot. At least those 'wars' have international support.
|
On August 17 2011 00:27 shinyA wrote:
I'm still quite sad Mike Huckabee isn't running, I think ( know ) he would be a far better candidate than any we have. I don't know who I will vote for, I have too many disagreements with every candidate but have even more of a problem with Obama.
We'll see how it goes~ =)
If you have too many disagreements with the current list of candidates... Then how can you have any agreements with Huckabee? He's just as much as a religious nutjob as the rest of them.
|
On August 17 2011 00:49 thoradycus wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 00:45 thehitman wrote:On August 17 2011 00:36 Duban wrote:On August 17 2011 00:33 Vore210 wrote:
I feel sorry for the U.S that you have to choose between the president that failed you (though he was opposed at practically every turn), and one of the nuttiest political parties in the western world.
Well, good luck ;/. I'm not sure Obama "Failed us". He got a TERRIBLE term as president for reasons outside his control. He inherited an Economic crisis, two wars, and the most belligerent Republican party in decades. I don't think any president could have handled that well. Oh yes he inherited 2 wars, big deal and he actually expanded the two wars and made it 6 wars now! Yeah he hasn't failed you. He inherited 6% unemployment and now he has 10%, oh yeah he hasn't failed you. He inherited the last weeks of the patriot act and he guess what? - EXPANDED IT. The patriot act was about to end and he pushed to get it extended. And remember he promised to end it? He promised to end the wars and is now in 6 wars, all without congress approval and has increased the troops in Afghanistan from 60.000 from Bush era, to 120.000. Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, Syria? I mean are you just trolling or are you serious? Obama works for the same people Bush worked for, it doesn't matter if the president is republican or democrat as long as they are part of the establishment and until you people realize that you are going down as a country and are going to take the world with you in that black hole with all these endless wars and stopping the natural flow of oil so that oil prices are absurdly high until every country in the world is destroyed. not to mention the possible wars with NK and Iran
First of all..Syria? We don't have troops in Syria. At least publicly. >.>
We've HAD troops in Yemen.
We AREN'T in NK and Iran. They have ALWAYS been a problem.
We've HAD troops in Pakistan.
We've left things to NATO in Libya.
We've drawn down in Iraq. We are going to draw down in Afghanistan.
No. We're not in 6 wars. Obama is doing everything in his power to stop them, but you do realize that you don't just pull our troops out immediately when you're stuck in the middle of conflict. Give the president some credit, his foreign policy is probably his best part right now.
Unemployment has decreased. He inherited 6% unemployment...okay, how about you check what happened after the markets exploded and we soared above double digit unemployment? That's dropped after a while, not increased. Again, give credit where credit is due and stop blatantly blowing up the issue and exaggerating it.
On August 17 2011 00:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 00:38 Zergneedsfood wrote:On August 17 2011 00:33 Vore210 wrote:
I feel sorry for the U.S that you have to choose between the president that failed you (though he was opposed at practically every turn), and one of the nuttiest political parties in the western world.
Well, good luck ;/. Obama's has kept a good deal of promises, much to my surprise. On August 17 2011 00:36 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2011 00:30 On_Slaught wrote:He did this by stealing jobs from other states. The New York Times puts it better than me: What Texas shows is that a state offering cheap labor and, less important, weak regulation can attract jobs from other states. I believe that the appropriate response to this insight is “Well, duh.” The point is that arguing from this experience that depressing wages and dismantling regulation in America as a whole would create more jobs — which is, whatever Mr. Perry may say, what Perrynomics amounts to in practice — involves a fallacy of composition: every state can’t lure jobs away from every other state. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/the-texas-unmiracle.html This is just stupid. First of all, economics and business development isn't a zero-sum game. Lowering taxes and reducing regulations lowers the cost of doing business generally, which lowers the cost of entry of into business, which, in turn, ENCOURAGES people to get into business, thereby creating new jobs. Second, reducing regulations and taxes on businesses on a national level will obviously stem the flow of businesses and jobs out of the US and maybe even attract some to come back. The NYT author clearly is too dumb to see that what works on an interstate level for obvious reasons would also work on an international level for the very same reasons. Oh you know...I guess a nobel prize in economics makes you too dumb to understand interstate level economics. >.> To be honest, your theory sounds awesome, but the economy doesn't always work in the ways prescribed in a text book. I'll be truthful and say that I don't like Krugman too much (Fareed Zakara <33333), so I won't debate you on what he writes, because I'm frankly a little tired of him too. Nobel Prize be damned, Krugman's a dolt (besides, anyone who thinks that the Nobel prize can be taken seriously anymore only needs to look at the Nobel Peace Prize that Obama got). Obama and the democrats have basically implemented all of Krugman's recommended policies over the past couple year with nothing to show for it. The only difference is that Obama and the democrats didn't spend as much as Krugman would have wanted. So what's Krugman's solution now? Double down on spending! Sheer brilliance. With the colossal failure of these policies, there's going to be a referendum on the wisdom Keynsian spending in economic circles sooner rather than later.
Like I said, I don't really like Krugman either, but like my statement above, give credit where credit is due. Krugman's an obsessive Keynesian but he's not stupid enough to not understand basic economics.
Keynesian economics isn't just "massive spending", but I mean, if you want to just umbrella the concept into two words, I guess that's fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
