Subject: Krugman in London?? From: HMartinez To: All Date Posted: Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 10:37:08 (EDT) Email Address: martinez@hotmail.com Message: Does anyone knows whether or not Mr Krugman plans to appear in London (UK) as a part of his book tour or otherwise? Thanks, HM

Subject: O'Reilly: Center of Universe From: Susan D. To: All Date Posted: Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 09:37:24 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Did anyone happen to catch Joseph Lieberman on the O'Reilly Factor on Friday night? O'Reilly brought up Lieberman's plans to raise taxes on the upper income bracket to around 39 percent I believe. O'Reilly quickly calculated that he himself would pay out 66 percent of his income to the fed. state and local govt. He asked if that were fair. For starters, can someone tell me why that's wrong? I know he's got to be stretching the truth or even just dead wrong on his calculations. But even if he's not, can someone tell me why the working class, who can't even find a job, would care about how much taxes O'Reilly, a man lucky to have his job, would have to pay if taxes were raised? It's just another example of the right-wing media's propoganda about raising taxes. And it once again shows how ignorant O'Reilly truly is. His last comment (of course, he always gets the last jab) was that the tax would be soaking the rich. Boo hoo. Maybe if he finds the thought of taxes so disconerting, he should quit his job and look for a less lucrative line of work than spewing nonsense on an extremist channel pays.

Subject: Answer About 22% From: jd To: Susan D. Date Posted: Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 17:10:25 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Remember, even if you are in the 35% bracket you do not pay 35% of your income in taxes. The bracket begins above $300,000 and there are all sorts of deduction including all other taxes. Capital gains are taxed 15%. Dividends are taxed 15%. As Warren Buffet wrote, taxes will come to about 22% for the wealthiest. About the same as a personal assistant for Warren Buffett. Duh. The O'Reilly guy is an idiot and a lying idiot.

Subject: On Taxes From: jd To: Susan D. Date Posted: Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 17:04:08 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: http://www.cbpp.org/ The Decline of Corporate Income Tax Revenues - 10/24/03 Corporate income tax levels have fallen to historically low levels and are projected to remain at low levels even after the economy recovers. Yet Congress, despite these low corporate receipts and a sharp deterioration in the budget outlook, is considering significant new tax breaks for corporations. Federal Income Taxes, as a Share of GDP, Drop to Lowest Level Since 1942, According to Final Budget Data; Erosion of income tax base drives other key budget developments - 10/21/03

Subject: Taxes and Taxes From: jd To: Susan D. Date Posted: Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 17:02:53 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: O'Reilly is an idiot and lying idiot. State and local taxes are deductible from federal taxes. You do not add the highest tax brackets together. So 35% federal, and 12% state and 2% local equal 35 12 2 or 49%. What trash. The 35% bracket only begins above $300,000, and is subject to all sorts of deductions. The wealthiest of families pay about 22% in taxes, which is about the same as middle class families. There are any number of studies on this. We really have a flat tax system all told.

Subject: Re: O'Reilly: Center of Universe From: Paul G. Brown To: Susan D. Date Posted: Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 12:28:05 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: 1. 66% don't seem right. Even a 66% marginal rate (which is very different from 66% of his income on taxes) is way high. Lieberman missed a good come-back line. He should have told O'Reilly that if O'Reilly ended up paying 66% of his income in taxes then O'Reilly should hand his tax preparation to someone who understands numbers. 2. Well, the 'taxes are bad' argument is partly pragmatic, and partly social justice. The pragmatic argument says that as we increase marginal tax rates we reduce the incentive of individuals to earn more/invest more. While this is true --logically if you raise marginal tax rates to 100% then there is no reason to try to make any money--it isn't the whole picture. Countries with much higher marginal tax rates than the US--Sweden--burdened by lower rates of population growth still achieve pretty good economic growth. And as we're now re-learning lowering marginal tax rates don't appear to do butkas--at least in the short to medium term--for economic growth. The social justice argument is that taxation is a form of theft: I earned it, so it's only right that I should have the right to dispose of it as I see fit. Again, there is some merit to this argument. But there are other arguments. For one thing, the economically privileged consume more state services than the underprivileged: they use the courts more, require more law enforcement to protect their property, and their businesses generally benefit by the presence of state investment in infrastructure such as education, roads, etc. For another thing, moving money from the more privileged--who generally spend less on consumption of goods & services--to the less privileged-- who spend more--has a beneficial economic effect. And third, the rich & the rest of us rely on a minimally equitable distribution of wealth for medium to long term social stability. That's the 'enlightened self-interest' argument. During the darkest days of our journey along the road to serfdom (irony there, folks) very few rich emmigrated from the US to countries that actually followed the policies now being espoused. Why? Because such nations are uniformly backwards shit-holes. 3. I think the Grover Norquists of the world are sincere. They all believe in the liberterian vision of a nation of strong individualists unfettered by the hand of the state. It's a lovely vision. But history passed a rather dim judgement on the practicality of that vision.

Subject: Re: O'Reilly: Center of Universe From: Jim Mueller To: Susan D. Date Posted: Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 12:12:48 (EDT) Email Address: Disappointed in O'Reilly Interview Message: A few nights ago, Terry Gross interviewed Bill O'Reilly on her program, 'Fresh Air'. Gross was rendered speechless as O'Reilly delivered a steady barrage of invective, insults and diatribe and then walked off the air. The right has developed a well-rounded combat team including ones like O'Reilly who know how to fire a rhetorical stun gun to paralyze moderate voices. That's a well-known fascist technique.

Subject: Baker, Emma and Trolls From: John Gelles To: All Date Posted: Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 07:38:13 (EDT) Email Address: indexed-savings@sbcglobal.net Message: Russell Baker wrote, in the review of Krugman's new book that Emma posted: 'All politics is to a great extent about who gets the lion's share of the money at a government's disposal, and a public that realized this might be less insouciant about elections than today's American nonvoter.' Baker finds Krugman refreshing and the review finds little fault with his new book version of his columns. By the way in internet slang a troll is a trouble maker. (Krugman?) I like Baker's generalization on politics. If only government would create enough money to raise the minimum standard of living to a decent level our politics would be a success. I've been away from this list and on to the New Kind of Science forum run by Stephen Wolfram's Wolfram Science dot com. They accused me of being a money crank which is a form of troll. Emma and the gentleman who calls me a trouble maker have not yet called me a money crank -- and I'm not. But neither have they agreed we need a government willing to spend all the money it takes to put things right. As to Krugman's softmess on anti-Semitism when it serves to calm Malaisia, I think it's disgraceful. Thank God Bush spoke the truth and admonished the anti-Semite. I would admonish the softness of Krugman. He is pretty hard when he wants to be. By the way, the NKS board is the best I've seen. Easy to edit your errors anytime. www.tiea.us

Subject: Re: Baker, Emma and Trolls From: John Gelles To: John Gelles Date Posted: Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 07:49:06 (EDT) Email Address: indexed-savings@sbcglobal.net Message: SUBJECT: Simple change may make a big difference [This subject and message followed my posting of Lincoln's advice that government spend enough greenbacks to protect the general welfare and public interest. My post was condemned in private as money-cranking -- trolling. Within the forum itself, it has not been challenged yet.] It is possible to interpret this thread's first message as an attempt to market crank ideas for funny money. So I have removed website references in it (and will remove any other that may still be in my profile or signature.) Still, the content of the first (and even this) messge may remain misunderstood. There is no doubt that when Lincoln said that 'some other basis for the issue of currency must be developed', he was NOT aware of computer programs or defined recursive functions that might help to guide such issuance. Moreover, there is no doubt that our evolved money, similar to our evolved mathematical techniques and literature, has staying power and a record of major achievement. So why would someone, like me, challenge our evolved monetary system of private and public production? Is it for fame or fortune? Or is it to satisfy an obsession? I claim it is not these. Rather I suggest sometyhing else: Could it really be that that a minor change, to add lawmakers' interest-free money to central bank money, could actually make a difference? That it could tip the system from fostering unemployment and individual insecurity to something more likely to accept exponential growth in output (like of CD's loaded with Mathematica and NKS) without lowering price or reflecting diminishing returns ahead of the time when all who need the CD's have them? If it could, that is my motive. If it can't that is still my motive. Possibly money cannot perform this complex task. Perhaps if Lincoln and Wolfram and others were holed up for a year to try to make the system tip they would come up with nothing. I have no desire to beat this matter to death on the NKS forum. The forum has other fish to fry. But it would be worth a lot of effort to have found a proper category for a project that turned computation loose to do the job that evolved money fails to do: to halt economic contraction that global trade invites just when supply of necessities seems to be catching up to need. __________________ John Gelles

Subject: Muslims acting like Hitlers From: Spiderman To: All Date Posted: Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 01:05:33 (EDT) Email Address: dontworry@dontemailme.com Message: Wasn't it Hitler that really brought to the forefront the concept of 'infidels'? Why is the media so condensending toward these blood thirsty killers so eager to group sacred resources into such phrases as 'Jews', Americans, etc.?? Why do they get away with it?

Subject: Latest bogus PK criticism From: Austin Stoneman To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Oct 23, 2003 at 14:49:00 (EDT) Email Address: austinstoneman@aol.com Message: Now the ADL has written a letter to the New York Times, criticizing Krugman for pointing out the complexities of the Malaysia situation. Let me emphasize, this is absolute hypocrisy on the part of the ADL. Why? Zev Chafets, a conservative Israeli-American pundit, wrote almost exactly the same thing about the anti-semetic statements of the Malaysian leader in his most recent column (www.jewishworldreview.com/1003/chafets_2003_10_20.php3), how the Malaysian leader is a moderate cloaking his moderation in anti-semetic language, yet has received no letter from the ADL about rationalizing anti-semetism. The ADL is suspicious of Krugman just because he is anti-Bush, not because he said something offensive.

Subject: Zev Chafets From: Emma To: Austin Stoneman Date Posted: Thurs, Oct 23, 2003 at 16:32:40 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1003/chafets_2003_10_20.php3?printer_friendly How to be a Muslim moderate : An Islamic leader camouflages some truth-telling about the Islamic world with anti-Semitic lies By Zev Chafets On Thursday, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad made headlines by charging that a Jewish conspiracy controls the planet. 'The Europeans killed 6 million Jews out of 12 million, but today the Jews rule the world by proxy,' he told the leaders and representatives of 57 Islamic nations who were gathered in Putrajaya, Malaysia, for their biggest summit meeting since 9/11. 'We are up against a people who think. They invented socialism, communism, human rights and democracy so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong, so that they can enjoy equal rights with others. With these, they have gained control of the most powerful countries.' Naturally, this screed elicited loud protests from Jewish leaders and Western governments. A State Department spokesman denounced the remarks as 'offensive and inflammatory' and said the U.S. government views them 'with the contempt and derision they deserve.' On the other hand, Mahathir received a standing ovation from his Islamic colleagues. Supposed moderates cheered along with everyone else. Afghan President Hamid Karzai praised the speech as an 'an eyeopener.' 'It is great to hear Prime Minister Mahathir speak so eloquently on the problems of the Muslim world and ways to remedy them,' he told reporters after the speech. How could Karzai, an American client of surpassing moderation, laud such a paranoid rant? The answer, I think, is that Karzai heard a different speech than the one reported in the press — a rather subversive speech camouflaged by the virulent anti-Jewish rhetoric that typifies all Islamic gatherings....

Subject: Thanks for Reference From: jd To: Austin Stoneman Date Posted: Thurs, Oct 23, 2003 at 16:14:09 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Thank you for this post.

Subject: Take the Conservative Challenge!! From: Susan D. To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Oct 23, 2003 at 13:01:46 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I am not sure if it's this site I found it on or someplace else. Maybe Bobby can answer, but if you want to find out more about the Republican Party and what is truly going on in this country. My advice, go to the website for the Commonwealth Institute. I found all kinds of valuable (startling, scary, OMG we're screwed) information there. But this post comes with a warning. It will scare the crap out you. Also any people coming on the site thinking they are in line with their party's way of thinking, I challenge you to go there!!!! Bet you won't do it, because you know that Bush is not the moderate Republican he told us he was when he was running for election. Bobby, if you have that website, could you type it in for everyone. Thanks! To Paul Krugman: Thanks so much. Please keep doing what you're doing! It's sad to say, if you don't, who will???

Subject: Russell Baker on Paul Krugman From: Emma To: All Date Posted: Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 13:30:25 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16730 When The New York Times tempted Paul Krugman to try daily journalism, no one, including Krugman, could have anticipated what was to come. Krugman was an Ivy League professor of economics, a scholar acclaimed for his youthful brilliance, and an author of learned books and occasional commentary on international money crises. All clues pointed to a master of the tedious. One suspected the Times wanted someone to be boring in a genteel, scholarly way twice a week on its Op-Ed page. Krugman himself may have thought so. In The Great Unraveling he says he intended to write about globalization, world financial problems, and sometimes the 'vagaries' of the domestic economy. Before anyone could say 'narcolepsy,' politics intruded, and it quickly became obvious that Krugman was incapable of being either boring or genteel, but was highly gifted at writing political journalism. Starting in January of the election year 2000, he rapidly acquired a large, adoring readership which treasured his column as an antidote for the curiously polite treatment President Bush was receiving from most of the mainstream media. At his most polite, Krugman was irreverent, but much of the time he seemed to think irreverence was much too good for the President, the people around him, and almost everything he stood for. In The Great Unraveling he commits the ultimate rudeness: Bush, he says, is surreptitiously leading a radical right-wing political movement against American government as it has developed in the past century. The words 'radical' and 'right-wing' are bad words in the political lexicon of mainstream American journalism. Normally they are simply not used to describe presidents, except by the kind of people who write for funky little out-of-the-mainstream journals....

Subject: Re: Russell Baker on Paul Krugman From: Paul G. Brown To: Emma Date Posted: Thurs, Oct 23, 2003 at 13:40:10 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: For another opinion on the Baker Review -- not on PK's book -- looky over yonder at: http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh102103.shtml and http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh102203.shtml

Subject: Re: Russell Baker on Paul Krugman From: Susan D. To: Emma Date Posted: Thurs, Oct 23, 2003 at 11:50:09 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16730 When The New York Times tempted Paul Krugman to try daily journalism, no one, including Krugman, could have anticipated what was to come. Krugman was an Ivy League professor of economics, a scholar acclaimed for his youthful brilliance, and an author of learned books and occasional commentary on international money crises. All clues pointed to a master of the tedious. One suspected the Times wanted someone to be boring in a genteel, scholarly way twice a week on its Op-Ed page. Krugman himself may have thought so. In The Great Unraveling he says he intended to write about globalization, world financial problems, and sometimes the 'vagaries' of the domestic economy. Before anyone could say 'narcolepsy,' politics intruded, and it quickly became obvious that Krugman was incapable of being either boring or genteel, but was highly gifted at writing political journalism. Starting in January of the election year 2000, he rapidly acquired a large, adoring readership which treasured his column as an antidote for the curiously polite treatment President Bush was receiving from most of the mainstream media. At his most polite, Krugman was irreverent, but much of the time he seemed to think irreverence was much too good for the President, the people around him, and almost everything he stood for. In The Great Unraveling he commits the ultimate rudeness: Bush, he says, is surreptitiously leading a radical right-wing political movement against American government as it has developed in the past century. The words 'radical' and 'right-wing' are bad words in the political lexicon of mainstream American journalism. Normally they are simply not used to describe presidents, except by the kind of people who write for funky little out-of-the-mainstream journals.... --- For starters, Paul Krugman is not a journalist; he's a columnist and therefore afforded much more leway than a journalist (unless you are one of those journalist who work for a right-wing media mogul. Then you can only nod your head and smile at anything that comes out of the White House). Secondly, the NY Times hired Krugman for his opinion, and last time I checked, everyone was allowed to have one, but the prospects of that continuing in the future grow dimmer by the day. So if Mr. Krugman's opinion is that Bush is a radical and his administration and policies are 'right-wing' then he can write that. Because, after all, that's what the NY Times is paying him for.

Subject: Terrific Review From: JR To: Emma Date Posted: Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 15:34:43 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Wish Russell Baker were still with the NYTimes as well as PK. These folks are so important.

Subject: This Hotboard PK Board From: John Gelle To: All Date Posted: Tues, Oct 21, 2003 at 18:12:38 (EDT) Email Address: indexed-savings@sbcglobal.net Message: I like the speed and simplicity of this bulletin board. It would be nice if we had teams of pro-PK punditry, anti-PK punditry, and Half-'n-Half-on- PK punditry. I know I'm a late-comer to this board -- and apologize for that. I read PK in the NYT on line and have been reading PK on line for years. Just never much used the board. PK once referred to me in one of his columns -- years ago. I'm not sure if he approved or disapproved of my views. Certainly I'm no credentialed economist. But I am a retired lawyer-accountant and a better pundit and lawyer-accountant than Paul K. A partner at the firm I started with once asked me to research whether accountants understood the logic of money better than economists. My answer in 1951 was that I could not prove the case one way or another. A half century later I know !! Accountants and economists are basically ignorant on money -- only Lincoln understood it. www.tiea.us

Subject: You are a troll - From: David E To: John Gelle Date Posted: Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 15:00:53 (EDT) Email Address: daveellis_39@hotmail.com Message: The character of a troll is not admirable. He is not interested in the exchange of ideas, he wants the satisfaction of poking people and watching them jump. Dont feed trolls!

Subject: You are a troll - Agreed From: Emma To: David E Date Posted: Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 15:27:15 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: John Gelles is a troll.

Subject: Interesting From: Terri To: John Gelle Date Posted: Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 13:04:10 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Sorry, I thought in early readings you were simply trying to attack with no reason. Actually, the posts are interesting though I too am not sure of the critical context.

Subject: I was Fooled From: Terri To: Terri Date Posted: Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 15:29:56 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: To hell with trolls.

Subject: Context for wanting Lincoln's Greenbacks From: John Gelles To: All Date Posted: Tues, Oct 21, 2003 at 18:00:01 (EDT) Email Address: indexed-savings@sbcglobal.net Message: [Extract from message to Post Keynesian Thought, Univ. of Colorado] I believe we must face up to the monetary policy facts -- we don't need taxes and the more we support them the longer our reforms will be delayed. Taxes made sense only when they taxed away gold or other real wealth. Today, taxes take nothing away -- nothing but support for our side of the street. Think of it: (Forget the European central bank for a moment -- that monster is counter the law everywhere else.) Any sovereign nation that can create its own money needs no taxes to pay its bills. It can create money via government spending. Such money can be saved by the private sector in a mostly unlendable account. The same unlendable money can be partially released via reserve bank lending to multiply and create the flow of money we're used to. The unlendable portion of saved money, replaces a great deal of debt as we know it; it replaces the national debt as we know it; and it replaces all taxes for as long as it works. It will work as long as supply remains high and prices low. Subsidies help with this. The internal revenue service after taxes are gone will become a government development bank. In a free market with private property, licensed professions and de facto monopoly through patents and the like, we do end up with a distribution of income that often makes no sense -- the crook or descendant of a crook has too much, the hard worker has too little. But this unfair and unnecessary distribution does not mean the middle class has to pay taxes to pay for the public necessities like water, education, defense, etc. Moreover, the rich to do not buy what we buy or affect by their consumption the prices we pay for our needs. If we were to chose to tax luxuries THAT can make sense -- if the resources for luxuries are to be diverted away from luxury production and turned to building affordable homes, etc. Taxes are part of the production system and may be ended in favor of all the above PLUS absorption of any excess desire to spend from savings by government sales -- instead of government taxes. Sales of what? Anything. Especially things like low marginal cost copies of collectibles or honors of every description. I've got to quit here -- but I hope some of you out there agree that taxes motivate opposition to reform. And that we can pay for reform without taxes. Reform of money can pay for all other reforms. Idiots say there is no free lunch -- then when you want to work for your lunch they say there are no jobs, there is no work. What the hell is wrong with us. Work IS money. But only if we define money more or less the way Lincoln defined it: The following is his definition: [this was posted to Krugman board yesterday] www.tiea.us

Subject: I Can Not Help Being a Moron From: J Troll Gell To: John Gelles Date Posted: Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 15:32:27 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I can not help being a moron. That is what trolls are.

Subject: Re: Context for wanting Lincoln's Greenbacks From: Blani To: John Gelles Date Posted: Tues, Oct 21, 2003 at 18:28:45 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: In the 80's,supply-side economics(power),now demand-side economics(=work).

Subject: How badly go things; how brilliant PK From: John Gelles To: All Date Posted: Tues, Oct 21, 2003 at 17:28:17 (EDT) Email Address: indexed-savings@sbcglobal.net Message: PK writes today in the NYT op-ed section: Listening to Mahathir By PAUL KRUGMAN The Europeans killed 6 million Jews out of 12 million. But today the Jews rule this world by proxy: They get others to fight and die for them.' So said Mahathir Mohamad, the prime minister of Malaysia, at an Islamic summit meeting last week. The White House promptly denounced his 'hate-filled remarks.' Indeed, those remarks were inexcusable. But they were also calculated — for Mr. Mahathir is a cagey politician, who is neither ignorant nor foolish. And to understand why he made those remarks is to realize how badly things are going for U.S. foreign policy. --- --- --- --- my comment follows --- --- -- Of course if things are going great for the USA and Mahathir gathers enemies among normal people, Krugman's appeasement of Muslim anti-Jews political action makes little sense. The Muslims face Russian, Chinese, Hindu and Christian political enemies. If they politically attack Jews, as Mahathir did, they add a few million more enemies to a list that today tops five billion. America has offered the Muslims a choice -- chose peace or chose war. So far they have chosen war. Krugman, like appeasers before him, makes no sense. As Churchill taught, -- to chose appeasement is to ensure a worse war at a later date. Things going badly? I don't think so. Talliban down. Sadam out. Iran on notice. Non-Muslim North Korea contained. Krugman has once again proved how little a PHD means. He, Chomsky and the appeasers, America-haters and American self-haters once had their isolationist right political doctrine. Now they have the same on the left -- in spades. If only Bush catches Lincoln's greenback fever we will roll to a quick victory. If not we will move slowly to victory over terror as we prevailed over communism. www.tiea.us/greenbk.htm

Subject: Re: How badly go things; how brilliant PK From: Blani To: John Gelles Date Posted: Tues, Oct 21, 2003 at 17:54:39 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I am 75 years old and I discovered a so-called technology called internet!(P.S.:I hate Brejnev!Putin?Who the hell is Putin?)

Subject: Thoughts that may have been Lincoln's From: John Gelles To: All Date Posted: Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 20:10:21 (EDT) Email Address: indexed-savings@sbcglobal.net Message: When Lincoln had greenbacks printed, theese may have been his thoughts. Many people think they were. No matter the fact, the thoughts are what counts. Consider them for today. Money is the creature of law, and the creation of the original issue of money should be maintained as the exclusive monopoly of national government. Money possesses no value to the state other than that given to it by circulation. Capital has its proper place and is entitled to every protection. The wages of men should be recognised in the structure of and in the social order as more important than the wages of money. No duty is more imperative for the government than the duty it owes the people to furnish them with a sound and uniform currency, and of regulating the circulation of the medium of exchange so that labour will be protected from a vicious currency, and commerce will be facilitated by cheap and safe exchanges. The available supply of gold and silver being wholly inadequate to permit the issuance of coins of intrinsic value or paper currency convertible into coin in the volume required to serve the needs of the People, some other basis for the issue of currency must be developed, and some means other than that of convertibility into coin must be developed to prevent undue fluctuation in the value of paper currency or any other substitute for money of intrinsic value that may come into use. The monetary needs of increasing numbers of people advancing towards higher standards of living can and should be met by the government. Such needs can be met by the issue of national currency and credit through the operation of a national banking system. The circulation of a medium of exchange issued and backed by the government can be properly regulated and redundancy of issue avoided by withdrawing from circulation such amounts as may be necessary by taxation, re-deposit and otherwise. Government has the power to regulate the currency and credit of the nation. Government should stand behind its currency and credit and the bank deposits of the nation. No individual should suffer a loss of money through depreciation or inflated currency or Bank bankruptcy. Government, possessing the power to create and issue currency and credit as money and enjoying the right to withdraw both currency and credit from circulation by taxation and otherwise, need not and should not borrow capital at interest as a means of financing government work and public enterprise. The government should create, issue and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the government and the buying owner of consumers. The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of government, but it is the government's greatest creative opportunity. By the adoption of these principles, the long-felt want for a uniform medium will be satisfied. The taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest, discounts, and exchanges. The financing of all public enterprises, the maintenance of stable government and ordered progress, and the conduct of the Treasury will become matters of practical administration. The people can and will be furnished with a currency as safe as their own government. Money will cease to be the master and become the servant of humanity. Democracy will rise superior to the money power. www.tiea.us

Subject: I do not Understand From: Emma To: John Gelles Date Posted: Tues, Oct 21, 2003 at 17:11:06 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: If you are being sincere, then I do not understand the context of the passage or the context of the previous post. What are the points?

Subject: I Understand From: J Troll Gelles To: Emma Date Posted: Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 15:29:14 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Not simply an idiot, rather an idiot troll.

Subject: Re: I do not Understand From: John Gelles To: Emma Date Posted: Tues, Oct 21, 2003 at 17:35:06 (EDT) Email Address: indexed-savings@sbcglobal.net Message: I am completely sincere. The post on Lincoln argues for government spending for peace the way Lincoln spent for the war to end slavery in America. We can end 'wage slavery' if we follow lincoln's advice: that adice is at http://www.tiea.us/greenbk.htm -- I thought I posted it here -- if I did not I will in a few minutes.

Subject: Re: I do not Understand From: John Gelles To: John Gelles Date Posted: Tues, Oct 21, 2003 at 17:42:18 (EDT) Email Address: indexed-savings@sbcglobal.net Message: Dear Emma, I think I get your point. I posted Lincoln but not the context: Well Krugman is not for a Lincoln greenback solution to our necessary spending needs. Krugman is not for interest-free money (or debt-free money either). Therefore he for taxes that so many voters hate, that the hate is turned against liberal government itself. I think I will post a message on this that I posted to an economics forum called Post Keynesian Thought. Best to You John Gelles

Subject: I am an Idiot Troll From: J Troll Gelles To: John Gelles Date Posted: Tues, Oct 21, 2003 at 15:22:18 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Sorry - I can not help being an idiot troll.

Subject: Tax Cuts From: Emma To: All Date Posted: Sat, Oct 18, 2003 at 18:26:45 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/16/business/16SCEN.html Cloudy Thinking on Tax Cuts By ALAN B. KRUEGER CONSERVATIVE and liberal political commentators alike have wondered why most Americans have enthusiastically supported two of the largest tax cuts in history even though most benefits will flow to upper-income families. Adding to the conundrum, in public opinion surveys Americans routinely express support for spending more on government programs like education, opposition to government budget deficits, and disappointment that the gap in income between rich and poor has widened — all of which are in conflict with regressive tax cuts. In the most extensive analysis yet available, Larry Bartels, a political scientist at Princeton University, gives a simple but persuasive explanation: 'unenlightened self-interest.' Middle- and lower-income Americans supported tax cuts they suspected went largely to the rich because they thought they, too, would benefit, if only by a small amount, and because they failed to connect the tax cuts to rising inequality, their future tax burden, or the availability of government services. Professor Bartels analyzed a small battery of questions added to the National Election Survey, a poll of 1,500 people interviewed in the six weeks before the November 2002 election, and again in the month after the election. The survey turned up some remarkable results, which he reports in 'Homer Gets a Tax Cut: Inequality and Public Policy in the American Mind.' ...

Subject: Re: Tax Cuts From: Susan D. To: Emma Date Posted: Thurs, Oct 23, 2003 at 12:06:12 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: With all due respect to Prof. Bartels, Another explaination as to why people supported the tax cut in spite of the fact that it truly only benefited the rich: Because perhaps many of them at that time still trusted Bush. Fresh off a 9/11, we saw him as trustworthy. The nation was frightened and would not admit that their President didn't have anything but the best intentions for the little guy. Which goes to what Paul Krugman said in the intro of The Great Unraveling. (In my own words) We found it hard to believe, to grasp the truth that a man we elected to guide our nation into the 21st Century, would care so little about the citizens who toil to keep it afloat. And speaking for myself, I was uninformed. Too trusting, too busy with keeping my family fed, clothed, etc. etc., to worry about a man I thought we could trust. What Bush and the Republicans are doing seems like something out of a John Grisham novel, not realty, but fiction. So if I didn't voice dispproval over economic policy, it was only because like the rest of the country, I had other things to worry about. And Mr. Bush was so busy keeping the citizens of the US gripped in fear, they had other things to worry about as well.

Subject: Interesting Comment From: TR To: Susan D. Date Posted: Thurs, Oct 23, 2003 at 12:31:53 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Makes sense. These are not the conservatives of past Administrations. These folks are radicals, and after the middle class.

Subject: Re: Tax Cuts From: John Gelles To: Emma Date Posted: Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 19:54:26 (EDT) Email Address: indexed-savings@sbcglobal.net Message: The tax cuts objected to by most liberal and some centrist economists do not have to threaten future public services. Once we wake up to the fact that taxes are part of the money system of a sovereign nation with a central bank, we will do as Lincoln did in 1861, print some greenbacks to win the victory over wage slavery. Taxes are used, not for the money they take in -- we can create all or some the money government spends (like banks do now at interest to firms)-- but they (taxes) are used only to keep prices affordable. This can be done if the middle class saves to keep demand in balance with production. The rich don't buy what we buy and have no effect on our prices. We could tax the rich -- that's OK with me. Tax them as high as you please. But, until you can raise their taxes, please cut all taxes on the poor and middle class -- such taxes are not needed. They only make us poorer. With government freed from borrowing -- the way Lincoln freed us when it was necessary, government can spend and lend to end poverty and raise the standard of living of the poorest American to middle class level (today's) as fast as production and full employment allow. Therer is a lot of stupidity around -- not the least of which is among economists who refuse to remember how we financed World War II with greenback-bonds that cost no interest and paid for full employment and the arsenal of democracy.

Subject: Excellent Article From: Terri To: Emma Date Posted: Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 12:54:01 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Excellent article! Does this ever make sense. Thanks.

Subject: Re: Tax Cuts From: David To: Emma Date Posted: Sat, Oct 18, 2003 at 23:16:25 (EDT) Email Address: daveellis_39@hotmail.com Message: What can you expect from a bunch of 'ditto-heads'? Alan Kruger nailed it nicely with 'In this sense, Homer Simpson had it backward when he said, 'Just because I don't care doesn't mean that I don't understand.''

Subject: Alan Krueger From: Emma To: Emma Date Posted: Sat, Oct 18, 2003 at 18:28:35 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Alan Krueger is also a professor of economics at Princeton.

Subject: Re: Alan Krueger From: austin To: Emma Date Posted: Sat, Oct 18, 2003 at 20:22:26 (EDT) Email Address: austin@boston.com Message: Thanks for alerting us to that article, quite informative...

Subject: A better scenario From: John Gelles To: All Date Posted: Sat, Oct 18, 2003 at 15:44:53 (EDT) Email Address: indexed-savings@sbcglobal.net Message: Our most popular pundit-economist writes: -- What will eventually follow failure to raise taxes, cut spending and cut imports? Answer:'a sharp fall in the dollar and a sharp rise in interest rates. In the worst-case senario, the government's access to borrowing will be cut off, creating a cash crisis that throws the nation into chaos.' Paul Krugman, describing the worst above, fails to say what the best-case scenario looks like. So let me paint my own: A sharp fall in the dollar will compel congress and our central bank to finance with low interest (or no interest) credit to maintain domestic production, employment and growth. Tax cuts will reduce stress on business and on ordinary people whose productive energies are needed -- their money as tax revenues is not. But if tax cuts bring inflation, privately owned earnings can be withheld from people and firms in the form of forced savings, not taxes, until higher output of products again allows private spending at will. There will be no cash crisis, but there may be a general increase in commodity prices that brings on general prosperity, especially in third world nations. The era of low effective demand in the face of technology's power to raise supply will be over. The supply of economist-accountant-lawyer-bankers, charged to match demand to supply and supply to need, will rise. Others in these professions, who want to regress to harder times, will have take jobs in fast food eateries. And the media will remove from view economist-pundits whose ideas are truly half-baked. John Gelles www.tiea.us

Subject: I am a Troll of Trolls From: J Troll Gelles To: John Gelles Date Posted: Sat, Oct 18, 2003 at 18:08:25 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I John Gelles am a looney troll. Sorry.

Subject: Re: I am a Troll of Trolls From: John Gelles To: J Troll Gelles Date Posted: Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 20:03:18 (EDT) Email Address: indexed-savings@sbcglobal.net Message: The humorist who hides his name is in over his head. How come he reads Krugman and has not the wit to understand Krugman or a critic. I know he should be ignored. But maybe he'll read what I just wrote on taxes. Maybe he'll see that Lincoln, not Krugman, knew money. Go to google and search for Lincolon's greenbacks policy. If anonymous grow up and asks, I'll post Lincoln's thoughts here.

Subject: I Can not Help being a Troll From: J Idiot Gelles To: J Troll Gelles Date Posted: Sat, Oct 18, 2003 at 18:27:33 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Duh.

Subject: Growth and Fiscal Soundness From: Emma To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Oct 16, 2003 at 14:44:17 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: http://www.nytimes.com/financialtimes/business/FT1059480619786.html Ricardo Caballero The US economy is indeed a 'tightly coiled spring', with plenty of growth potential - definitely enough for a very good second half of this year and beginning of next year, but also way beyond that. However, this opportunity will be squandered unless a much sounder fiscal path is credibly outlined soon.

Subject: Re: Growth and Fiscal Soundness From: David E To: Emma Date Posted: Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 17:51:31 (EDT) Email Address: daveellis_39@hotmail.com Message: What is the probability President Bush will have balanced fiscal accounts? I think 'zip' and it sounds to me like 'Ricard Caballero' thinks 'zip' also. Read how carefully he spells out his assumptions. I think he also thinks its a 'Dont Look Down' situation. 'In the capital output calculations above, I assumed balanced fiscal accounts. If we assume sustained fiscal deficits of 4-5 per cent of gross domestic product that are not compensated for by a one-for-one increase in private savings (which seldom happens), the new equilibrium capital-output ratio falls as low as 1.1. In this scenario, the pessimists are correct and the US has a large excess- capacity problem; the obvious corollary of this is a huge increase in the long-run interest rate. The US economy is indeed a 'tightly coiled spring', with plenty of growth potential - definitely enough for a very good second half of this year and beginning of next year, but also way beyond that. However, this opportunity will be squandered unless a much sounder fiscal path is credibly outlined soon.

Subject: What does the article mean? From: jd To: Emma Date Posted: Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 15:07:06 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Could anyone explain the Ricardo Cabellero article? I simply do not get it. Thanks!

Subject: Krugman = Stupidity ; Luskin = Analysis From: Steve To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Oct 16, 2003 at 00:43:51 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Check out... http://www.poorandstupid.com/chronicle.asp and the entry for Wednesday, October 15th. Please take a serious read and ask yourself if Krugman's column 'Don't Look Down' provides the reader with an accurate description of the US economy. It's all too obvious that Paul -- even though he has FINALLY written another column about the economy -- has lost all ability to show reason. www.poorandstupid.com/chronicle.asp

Subject: Re: Krugman = Stupidity ; Luskin = Analysis From: Susan D. To: Steve Date Posted: Thurs, Oct 23, 2003 at 12:23:05 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Not only are you delusional, but I don't see where you list your name or affliation, so I can only conclude that you are indeed Luskin, which is just so pathetic as to be believed. And for all Krugman fans, (I will speak for the ones who allow me to do so, the rest of you, post your own thoughts) 'NO MATTER what Luskin says, we will not take Luskin's rantings seriously, but instead continue to see him as the seriously mentally ill man that he is. And in no way can we take one thing that he says seriously for several reasons. A person so completely obsessed with another person can only be said to be either a). Mentally deranged. b)Jealous or c) Fearful because he knows that Krugman speaks the truth which threatens his existance. Now the question remains. Which of those is Luskin? My guess is a combination of all of above. Because we all have to face facts. As wonderful as Krugman is, as smart as he is, and as right as he is. . . He is, after all, only one man in a sea of useless liberal media. So we then need to ask ourselves. If Krugman is just one man is a sea of uselss liberal media, why on earth does Luskin feel the need to lambaste him to the point of ridiculousness??? I am not one to believe in conspiracy theories, but you have to look at who employs Luskin and you have to ask yourself, does Luskin really despise Krugman that much?? Or was he given the job to destroy Krugman's reputation by some right-wing group? If the latter is the case, I must say to them, fire him. He's doing a very poor job and what's more, he looks like a blooming idiot!!!

Subject: Re: Krugman = Stupidity ; Luskin = Analysis From: R. Davis To: Steve Date Posted: Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 01:18:14 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: On the contrary, it's Luskin arguments that are getting more and more incoherent. Read the analysis of Luskin's October 15th 'analysis' at http://home.netcom.com/~rdavis2/luskin3.html . Likewise, read analyses of some of his other recent articles at http://home.netcom.com/~rdavis2/luskin.html .

Subject: War of the bloggers From: David E To: Steve Date Posted: Thurs, Oct 16, 2003 at 14:11:45 (EDT) Email Address: daveellis_39@hotmail.com Message: Guess who else thinks that the U.S. economy is set up for a big fall? John Templeton - a superstar of investing, called the fall of the market in 2000. http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?SearchID=73150372261645&Avis=SH&Dato=20031014&Kategori=NEWS&Lopenr=310140464&Ref=AR And check out this bloggers link to a bigtime MIT economist who thinks the same way. (search on Ricardo Caballero to find the link to caballero's views) http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/001013.html Got your parachute on? - Call Apex Mfg - they deliver.

Subject: Pile-on From: David E To: David E Date Posted: Thurs, Oct 16, 2003 at 16:12:37 (EDT) Email Address: daveellis_39@hotmail.com Message: It seems like 'Don't Look Down' is a recurrent theme in my reading today. Guess who else piles on Paul Krugman's side? Molly Ivins- This girl talks very plain - 'dittoheads' should be able to understand her column. http://creators.com/opinion_show.cfm?next=0&ColumnsName=miv

Subject: Just Another True Believer From: Kate To: Steve Date Posted: Thurs, Oct 16, 2003 at 08:23:26 (EDT) Email Address: Kate14617@aol.com Message: Steve, you've given us the summary of your analysis of the article. How about some specific facts to back up your summary. What's inaccurate about the 'Don't Look Down' article? My guess is you don't have a logical fact-based argument. You're just another 'True believer' in the Bush/Republican/Christian White Way.

Subject: Who I Am From: Donald Duck Duskin To: Kate Date Posted: Thurs, Oct 16, 2003 at 14:41:04 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I am the analyst who was bounced from Jim Cramer's 'TheStreet.com' for being unable to analyze anything other than myself and even that was incompetent analysis.

Subject: Don't look down? From: Jhempi To: All Date Posted: Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 15:25:30 (EDT) Email Address: nma@hotmail.com Message: Ok, the 'Coyote' in this story represents the overheated american economy as a function of the FED's interest-rate and the 'plunge' the lack of demand(confidence) due to the foreign policy and protective economical behaviour. The sharp fall of the dollar (the attempt to fill this demand-, confidence-gap) leads to a reduction in the US current account deficit(observable fact right now). The rising interest-rate (later) is (P.S.: 'Currencies and Crises' by PK, p.36) the consequence of this move toward the current account balance, the latter reducing the supply of savings domestically. But yet, I am wondering:'What about the Road-Runner?', China?

Subject: Laffer Curve From: Ken Pryor To: All Date Posted: Tues, Oct 14, 2003 at 18:23:42 (EDT) Email Address: kpryor@antara.net Message: What validity is there to Laffer Theory? Supply Siders claimed it worked in the 80’s. They claim, After marginal tax rates were cut by Reagan from 70% to 30-something % at the beginning of his first term, tax revenues increased from $1.5T to $1.9T over the next two years. This was all that Arthur Laffer and his famous Laffer Curve postulated If it is so great why hasn't it been embraced by economist of either stripe??

Subject: Luskin appreciates me! From: Michael Turner To: All Date Posted: Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 10:20:03 (EDT) Email Address: leap@gol.com Message: I got 'Thank you for writing. I appreciate your support', in response to the following letter: Dear Mr. Luskin, Today I 'learned' from you about how much Paul Krugman lies, in the same sense of the word 'learned' that Bush used in reference to some supposed Niger yellowcake shopping run on the part of Saddam Hussein's flunkies. After some utterly irrelevant ad hominems -- Krugman sounds like Woody Allen; he deigns to be interviewed by someone who generally gets braindumps from 'pop musicians and chick-flick directors' -- you actually get around to your points. Hollow points, it turns out. Krugman, you say, 'lies' when he suggests that Bush said that Iraq was 'an imminent threat when in fact the evidence points the other way', and you support your claim with this, from a State of the Union speech made long after Bush started trumping out the Iraq 'threat': 'Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?' Bush and others in his administration conflated Saddam Hussein's supposed WMD with Al Qaeda's terrorist attacks over and over, primarily through insinuation, never through direct statement, undoubtedly in full knowledge that a great many Americans suspected (probably with the air-tight inference of 'he's a ruthless murdering Arab, too, right'?) that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 or involved in it somehow. And in this State of the Union address, made after the Saddam/9-11 insinuation had been made many times, Bush weasels onward, conflating 'threat' with 'explicit, vocal threat', when clearly, in context, 'threat' meant a supposedly-hidden hidden WMD cache that Blix at al. fruitlessly sought, and a very *unstated* threat -- in fact, denial from the supposed source of the threat that there was any threat. Why is Bush's weasel-wording defensible, while Krugman's characterization of previous Bush weasel wording so indefensible? As for Bush never claiming to offer working class people anything with his tax cuts, well, what's this, from a June 2001 signing ceremony? 'Tax relief is an achievement for families struggling to enter the middle class. For hard working lower income families, we have cut the bottom rate of federal income tax from 15 percent to 10 percent. ' Or this, from a May 2003 signing speech: 'We are helping workers who need more take-home pay. ..' People who actually *need* more take-home pay are not the well-to-do, or the upper middle class. And yet the remainder of the speech is about tax relief for employers and stockholders, not for workers per se, nor it it about tax relief on their wages -- their 'take-home pay.' And here he is on the campaign trail: '... The principle is, it's your money, once we afford government, let's give you back some of your money. It also helps the economy. That's a principle that I believe in.' (Feb 11, 2000) Well, here we are: government we can't afford right now, but where does the vast bulk of a probably-unaffordable tax cut go? To people who least need one. Is Krugman lying when he says that 'The Real Fiscal Danger' is 'tucked way in the back' of 'the last budget' the Bush administration put out? If you assume he's talking about the FY2004 budget, he's got a ghost of a chance of being right in some sense. 'The Real Fiscal Danger' is tucked a ways back in the *main section,* at least relative to the dangers it discusses. These dangers not mentioned even once in Bush's budget message -- a serious sin of omission. Anyone concerned about the deficit projects and the effect of Bush's tax cuts on them might be excused for thinking, after reading Bush's comments, that any section entitled 'The Real Fiscal Danger' isn't going to address any real danger and might off and will go off and read hundreds of other pages. But if you look at the FY2003 budget, which Krugman might have been talking about, there really are hundred of pages between the President's bold rhetoric and the tables in the appendices from which the truth might be gleaned. Save yourself some trouble and read this analysis instead: http://www.house.gov/budget_democrats/pres_budgets/fy2003/fy03_presbud_long. pdf Until there's some clarification about which budget Krugman was talking about, I'll just assume that you weren't lying about Krugman lying, and simply made the mistake of assuming that he was talking about the most recent budget proposal from the White House, instead of checking, or leaving it aside as too ambiguous to attack. How's that for nice? As for this amazing statement: '[Bush] has put in place a courageous initiative to fundamentally redesign Social Security'you link to the site of the CSSS study group that finished its work long ago, and last reported to Congress in Oct 2003. The final report -- way back in March 2002 -- refers only to the desirability of funding Social Security without tax increases, and says nothing about massive tax cuts. Where is the 'courageous initiative' that has been 'put in place'? Hey, I won't call you a 'liar' for portraying this now-defunct activity as 'a courageous initiative' that has been 'put in place.' How about I just assume you got lazy about fact-checking, and lost track of time? 'Lazy'. Is that so bad? I mean, it's better than being called a dunce, isn't it? Regards, Michael Turner

Subject: God Save Small Minded Conservatives From: Susan D. To: Michael Turner Date Posted: Thurs, Oct 23, 2003 at 12:30:52 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I am so happy for you that a thanks from someone who is so clearly nuts makes your day! Instead of puking out rhetoric, maybe you should actually read Krugman with an open mind. For doing so would be 'better than being called a dunce, wouldn't it?'

Subject: NPR last saturday From: EZ To: All Date Posted: Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 09:25:07 (EDT) Email Address: ejz23@yahoo.com Message: Paul Krugman was on Weekend Edition last saturday morning. Just thought I would let you know. NPR website www.npr.org

Subject: The Type D Economist - A Response From: R. Davis To: All Date Posted: Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 14:20:35 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Luskin recently wrote an article for National Review Online that accuses Krugman of using deceptive arguments. In fact, Luskin's own analysis is full of questionable numbers. See the article attached to this message (at http://home.netcom.com/~rdavis2/luskin2.html ). The Type D Economist - A Response home.netcom.com/~rdavis2/luskin2.html

Subject: portland lecture question From: Trillian To: All Date Posted: Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 11:24:31 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hi, I have to miss the Krugman lecture in Portland today (Oct 11), does anyone know if it will be taped, broadcast, or posted? Will anyone here be going and taping it?

Subject: Re: portland lecture question From: Bobby To: Trillian Date Posted: Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 12:27:48 (EDT) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: Unfortunately I'm on the other side of the country in CT so I can't attend or tape it for you. I've been calling the RSVP phone # 503-546-9307 but haven't gotten hold of anyone there yet (you might have better luck calling than I have so far). Anyhow, I'll keep trying them, and, if I get any news, I'll post it on this board.

Subject: Re: portland lecture question From: Trillian To: Bobby Date Posted: Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 16:46:09 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message:

Subject: Columns From: jg To: All Date Posted: Fri, Oct 10, 2003 at 20:47:41 (EDT) Email Address: jg@jg.com Message: We need PK in the political arena analyzing economic issues. For example, read Washington Post coumnist Robert Samuelson's moronic, incorrect, and partisan take on the economy from today, which goes to torturous lengths to exonerate GWB but somehow concludes with the idea that government spending is responsible for our economic problems-- these types of economic columns desperately need debunking. We do not need PK writing self-referential trite like his column of today, and we similarly do not need him joining all the other dime-a-dozen coumnists in promulgating hack political or foreign policy analysis. While Krugman spends his time writing columns like today's, which may be interesting to fellow members of the punditocacy but is without application in anyone else's world, idiots like Samuelson are allowed to influence the dialogue about the economy.

Subject: Clark for President From: Emma To: All Date Posted: Fri, Oct 10, 2003 at 16:19:46 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Bobby We also like Clark quite a bit, but think every Democratic candidate for President would assure far far better on economic policy than this awful Administration. We will happily support any Democratic candidate.

Subject: BU..SH.. From: Philemon Sturges To: All Date Posted: Fri, Oct 10, 2003 at 11:20:04 (EDT) Email Address: phistur@aol.com Message: Back in the mid 70's I had an outrageous friend who maintained that 'bull sh..' was the lubricant of the 20th century. It occurs to me that it's become the substance of the 21st. Isn't it appropriate that the name of the first president of the new millennium is an acronym for this all pervasive substance?

Subject: donald luskin - q & a From: h To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Oct 09, 2003 at 23:18:56 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Dear Mr. Luskin: I have a few questions. They are rather straightforward. I apologize if they are unduly blunt. 1) If you hate Krugman so much why did you buy his book, and ask him to sign it for you? ### I bought his book because the publishers refused to send me a review copy for free. They finally relented and sent three copies. Now I have four. I asked him to sign one because I thought it was fun and ironic. 2) Why are you plugging and selling his book on your website? ### I think the explanation on my site is adequate to answer your question on that point. 3) A lot of people think you are certifiable, that you're a stalker, that Krugman should put out a restraining order on you. How do you respond to such allegations? ### Why is it stalking to criticize? Why is it stalking to attend a lecture? Is Krugman “stalking” Bush because he criticizes him? 4) Are you playing the stalker to get exposure? Because it's working - lots of bloggers are writing about you - the response has been almost exclusively negative. ### I’m not playing the stalker. If some bloggers want to use that name to diminish me, I can’t stop them. 5) Do you really think you are Laszlo from Casablanca? ### No. 6) Are you strictly an objectivist? What else informs your worldview? ### I am strictly an objectivist in that I try to be guided by reason and principle, but not an “Objectivist” in that I am not a member of any group. Best regards,

Subject: Krugman's speech for WAC on NPR From: David Keating To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Oct 09, 2003 at 13:05:40 (EDT) Email Address: ddt000@hotmail.com Message: I have been looking for a copy of the speech Krugman gave for the World Affairs Council in San Francisco (Sept. 25th I believe) that was rebroadcast on NPR last monday ~8pm (Its Your World I think). I have had no luck on the NPR archives site, nor on audible.com, nor with getting a response from WAC.

Subject: Re: Krugman's speech for WAC on NPR From: DK To: David Keating Date Posted: Thurs, Oct 09, 2003 at 13:12:24 (EDT) Email Address: ddt000@hotmail.com Message: The WAC announcement is here: http://www.itsyourworld.org/program.php?page=671

Subject: Re: Krugman's speech for WAC on NPR From: Bobby To: DK Date Posted: Thurs, Oct 09, 2003 at 14:52:01 (EDT) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: I've been looking too. I might be able to get a transcript up, though it could take awhile if they never put up a stream.

Subject: Luskin does San Diego From: viktor To: All Date Posted: Tues, Oct 07, 2003 at 17:41:53 (EDT) Email Address: viktor_p@mail.com Message: I'd never have suspected Luskin had seen old movies like Casablanca! Maybe he just came to feel like Rick, an alcoholic in the middle of the battle. Kudos to Krugman. Fear has changed sides? Or is it a rhetoric dodge by Luskin to create a terror of the Red subversive forces now people think Bin Laden was defeated somewhere between Bassrah Baghdad and Tikrit? As usual Luskin can't even begin to find a valuable point to score. Evil is a cool word for little boys who can't understand. Luskin seemed really depressed he couldn't strike back. What a brave man who doesn't dare to voice his remarks in front of the guy he keeps bashing because he fears a bunch of scholars! So depressed he went on to attack 'easy prey' Friedman. Ok Friedman is always lagging behing the topical issues and he seems to display the bitter common sense of a white collar tired with his workday. Well, that's the problem with compulsive bashing: you have to find the frail guy that won't kick back once the tougher brethrens are bored with your sputter.

Subject: Re: Luskin does San Diego From: Susan D. To: viktor Date Posted: Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 09:01:16 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Good comment.

Subject: to ravel or unravel that is the question From: a markman To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Oct 02, 2003 at 19:20:34 (EDT) Email Address: am5751@aol.com Message: oct 02 oh dang, the cat is out of the bag, the newly christened manuscript is enroute to walden books...and my kitten, who flunked economics, nevertheless loves to ravel. yarn is his specialty. yours truly invariably ends up unraveling the mess. which brings us to the increasingly popular, and certainly ironic, practice of raveling and otherwise obfuscating that perfectly good and tidy verb,unraveling. webster said it, not i. oh well,onward and upward...vox populi or be danged(or raveled). jes thot you'd like to know. greetings from anthony in the bronx.

Subject: New Tab for Left Nav Bar -- 'LIES' From: Steve To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Oct 02, 2003 at 10:43:49 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Given the many errors in Paul's last sordid column, how about including a new tab to this site titled 'LIES'? There are at least three factual (not opinion, factual) errors in the column. (1) The Churchill quote. (2) MCI experience. (3) Bechtel repair work.

Subject: Of Winston Churchill From: Emma To: Steve Date Posted: Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 14:51:12 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Correction: Many people, including Paul Bremer in recent testimony and myself, have linked Churchill's remark about the 'most unsordid act' to the Marshall Plan. In fact, Churchill was referring to an earlier program, Lend-Lease. But one suspects that he wouldn't have minded the confusion.

Subject: Lying Liar From: Steve Troll To: Steve Date Posted: Thurs, Oct 02, 2003 at 14:23:58 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: General George C Marshall - A History... It is not by chance that his name is given to what Sir Winston Churchill described as 'the most unsordid act in history' -- the Marshall Plan Try Google Idiot Troll....

Subject: Lying Liar From: Steve Troll To: Steve Date Posted: Thurs, Oct 02, 2003 at 14:23:20 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: General George C Marshall - A History... It is not by chance that his name is given to what Sir Winston Churchill described as 'the most unsordid act in history' -- the Marshall Plan Try Google Idiot Troll....

Subject: We Have a Troll From: Steve the Troll To: Steve Date Posted: Thurs, Oct 02, 2003 at 14:10:30 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Trolls is folks too - almost.

Subject: deman side economies From: Bill L. To: All Date Posted: Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 21:10:57 (EDT) Email Address: BL69ER_99@YAHOO.COM Message: Just would like to know what he recomends we do right now, as far as the demand side economics are working in today economy

Subject: Re: deman side economies From: Joe To: Bill L. Date Posted: Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 22:21:25 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Just about the OPPOSITE Bush is doing. That's the start. If you're insinuating that demand-side economics are not working very well in today's economy, that's because they are not being used. We're back to the Reagan-era supply-side economic program again, only this time it's a calculated attempt to absolutely once-and-for-all destroy ALL social programs and bring us back to the era of the Robber Barons!

Subject: Re: deman side economies From: Gabriele To: Joe Date Posted: Tues, Sep 30, 2003 at 15:40:36 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Why?Productivity is ok,isn't it?

Subject: Re: deman side economies From: glsheehy To: Gabriele Date Posted: Thurs, Oct 02, 2003 at 09:36:34 (EDT) Email Address: glsheehy@rockwellcollins.com Message: Productivity isn't the issue with this recession. This recession is different. In previous recessions, consumer spending dropped which resulted less output (GDP). In this recession, industrial output dropped beginning in April, 2000. Productivity has continued to grow faster than GDP growth. In fact, GDP growth has been far below that of a normal recovery. With GDP growth below 5%, unemployement will continue to edge up over the next four quarters (estimates are for around 3.2-3.8% GDP growth during the next 4 quarters). References: http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions.html http://www.jobwatch.org/ http://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/ET2003/0903/laborprod.pdf http://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/ET2003/0903/ecoact.pdf http://fidweek.econoday.com/reports/US/EN/New_York/ip_and_cap_util_rate/year/2003/yearly/09/index.html

Subject: Re: deman side economies From: Okapi To: glsheehy Date Posted: Tues, Oct 07, 2003 at 14:30:03 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: So, what will that mean?

Subject: Re: deman side economies From: David E To: Okapi Date Posted: Tues, Oct 07, 2003 at 19:23:26 (EDT) Email Address: daveellis_39@hotmail.com Message: That means unemployement will climb way over 3 million during presidential elections. (on the evidence to contrary - somehow after doing seasonal adjustments - the govt reported a September gain of 57,000 jobs. Very strange because September unadjusted numbers were very low.)

Subject: Krugman is wrong on almost all counts From: John Gelles To: All Date Posted: Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 16:48:22 (EDT) Email Address: indexed-savings@sbcglobal.net Message: Krugman claims Bush will either cause inflation or turn America into Argentina. He does not say how much inflation we may need to be able to win the war on terrorism and create all the jobs we need. He is a critic who would have us worry about inflation when some inflation is vitally necessary. The Individual Estate Account www.tiea.us

Subject: More Tax Cuts for the Richees From: Debt Lover To: John Gelles Date Posted: Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 12:31:45 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Right - Give me more debt - more more more - more tax cuts fir the richees!

Subject: Krugman is wrong on almost all counts From: John Gelles To: All Date Posted: Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 16:44:33 (EDT) Email Address: indexed-savings@sbcglobal.net Message: Krugman claims Bush will either cause inflation or turn America into Argentina. He does not say how much inflation we may need to be able to win the war on terrorism and create all the jobs need. He is a critic who would have us worry about inflation when some inflation is vitally necessary. The Individual Estate Account www.tiea.us

Subject: Re: Krugman is wrong on almost all counts From: John Read a Intro Econ Book Please To: John Gelles Date Posted: Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 18:07:33 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Um, inflation and the war on terrorism aren't directly related. If anything, Krugman advocates giving more money on terrorism defense than any of the bushies (ie he wants to give money to first responders like police, fire dept, hospitals). As for inflation, if you've ever read Krugman's academic articles, you'll realize he is for inflation targeting (ie Japan papers), but in the case of the US, we aren't as depressed and to cause runaway inflation in the long run would be detrimental. There is no reason to sacrifice the future for a short term problem that could be solved a lot cheaper (not handing out 40% of tax cuts to the richest 1%) and more efficiently by giving aid to people who actually need it.

Subject: Re: Krugman is wrong on almost all counts From: jg To: John Gelles Date Posted: Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 18:06:35 (EDT) Email Address: jg@jg.com Message: When has Krugman claimed Bush will cause inflation?

Subject: joblessness From: Rob Abbott To: All Date Posted: Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 10:41:38 (EDT) Email Address: mrabbotts@hotmail.com Message: I listened to your interviews and read your columns, it's so true what you said about the current situation and the causes of it. I am jobless now for over 2 and half years, I just don't know how many years I need to be in school to 'hide' from the real world.

Subject: We Need to Create Jobs From: Emma To: Rob Abbott Date Posted: Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 12:34:42 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Jobs are the need!!!

Subject: Krugman at Buchanan & Press' From: viktor p To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Sep 25, 2003 at 10:13:01 (EDT) Email Address: viktor_p@mail.com Message: So Krugman was interviewed just before Laura 'carping harpie' Ingraham? I'd be curious to read about her arguments (and the way Buchanan tried to play this up). Anyone know where I can find this? Thx

Subject: Re: Krugman at Buchanan & Press' From: here it is To: viktor p Date Posted: Thurs, Sep 25, 2003 at 10:45:31 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: http://www.msnbc.com/news/970633.asp

Subject: Re: Ingraham at Buchanan & Press' From: viktor To: here it is Date Posted: Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 09:24:27 (EDT) Email Address: viktor_p@mail.com Message: Well, Ingraham had nothing interesting to say, not even the slightest argument percolating. Maybe she should go live a couple of days with rednecks in the Heart-mother-promised-land to built up an appealing story where no elites are to be bashed...

Subject: Re: Krugman at Buchanan & Press' From: viKtor To: here it is Date Posted: Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 10:16:42 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Muchas gracias amigo! viK

Subject: Krugman live on KQED From: Yoichi To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Sep 25, 2003 at 01:43:02 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Professor Krugman shows up 'Forum' on KQED at 9:00am PST, Sep. 25. You can directly ask him questions by calling (866)SF-FORUM. You can also listen to the program real time from http://www.kqed.org/

Subject: Re: Krugman live on KQED From: Yoichi To: Yoichi Date Posted: Thurs, Sep 25, 2003 at 01:44:40 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I am sorry, not 9:00am PST but 9:00am PDT.

Subject: Question about Interest Rates From: W.W. Witherson To: All Date Posted: Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 06:21:41 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I just have a basic economics question, not Krugman related. I was wondering, why is it that if the government is running a non-expansionary deficit (because tax reciepts have fallen due to recession), then why do real interest rates not go up? Wouldn't the governments new demand for credit result in an increase in interest rates?

Subject: Re: Question about Interest Rates From: David E To: W.W. Witherson Date Posted: Thurs, Sep 25, 2003 at 12:16:28 (EDT) Email Address: daveellis_39@hotmail.com Message: Because I dont know very much I will comment on your question. Hopefully someone will see a need to correct my comments and WWW and I will learn something. I have been wondering how long the Federal Reserve can keep interest rates low when deficit spending and trade balances are both 5% of the economy? I am just guessing, but China would support our deficits until its economy is industrialized or found a better place to put its money. With its current rate of growth in 12 years China's industrialization will double. At that point, China will definitely be an industrial economy. China will start looking for better places for its money the moment that speculators decide that the Chinese support of our deficits will soon stop. That moment might be (just for discussion) four to eight years away. The Federal reserve at that moment will not be able to control interest rates and they would go up.

Subject: Luskin calls for pie attacks From: Eyeballs To: All Date Posted: Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 01:26:23 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/truthsquad090803.asp Quote: His personal website lists 14 speaking engagements around the country, with more to come (a helpful reader suggested that coconut cream pie works best for such occasions). Sarcastic Comment: Incitement to violence. Now that's a knockout way to answer an argument.

Subject: Let's pelt him with cakes and pastries! From: Matthew Bristow To: Eyeballs Date Posted: Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 01:43:56 (EDT) Email Address: matthew.bristow@britishcouncil.org.hk Message: The National Review's new tactic of throwing pies at Professor Krugman is the reductio ad absurdum of their whole case against him. Krugman says that the United States is heading for a fiscal crisis. We can't really think of a reply to that, so let's pelt him with cakes and pastries! That will wipe the smile off his face! It wouldn't surprise me if the cretins start sending dial-a-pizza vans to his house, and leaving roller skates on his drive in the hope that he fractures his pelvis. They lack the wit even to smear him creatively. Soon Luskin will be reduced to writing stinging attacks on Krugman's beard. Meanwhile the country goes insolvent and we all get ruined. Just to repeat: the Federal Government will soon be bankrupt; financial ruin stares us in the face. Not just Krugman, but virtually every mainstream economist says so. The rational response is to panic and run around in circles howling. The only people who are still relaxed are those who don't understand what is happening.

Subject: Let's pelt him with cakes and pastries! From: Matthew Bristow To: Eyeballs Date Posted: Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 01:41:43 (EDT) Email Address: matthew.bristow@britishcouncil.org.hk Message: http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/truthsquad090803.asp Quote: His personal website lists 14 speaking engagements around the country, with more to come (a helpful reader suggested that coconut cream pie works best for such occasions). Sarcastic Comment: Incitement to violence. Now that's a knockout way to answer an argument. --- This National Review's new tactic of throwing pies at Professor Krugman is the reductio ad absurdum of their whole case against him. Krugman says that the United States is heading for a fiscal crisis. We can't really think of a reply to that, so let's pelt him with cakes and pastries! That will wipe the smile off his face! It wouldn't surprise me if the cretins start sending dial-a-pizza vans to his house, and leaving roller skates on his drive in the hope that he fractures his pelvis. They lack the wit even to smear him creatively. Soon Luskin will be reduced to writing stinging attacks on Krugman's beard. Meanwhile the country goes insolvent and we all get ruined. Just to repeat: the Federal Government will soon be bankrupt; financial ruin stares us in the face. Not just Krugman, but virtually every mainstream economist says so. The rational response is to panic and run around in circles howling. The only people who are still relaxed are those who don't understand what is happening.

Subject: Paul Krugman Interview Video From: Eric Rolph To: All Date Posted: Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 14:18:49 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Paul Krugman was recently interviewed by Christopher Lydon, former host of NPR’s ‘The Connection’ by way of the Harvard Book Store Author Series in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Krugman spoke about the U.S. economy, budget deficits, Republicans, Democrats, Ralph Nader, journalism, blogging, and the war in Iraq. The interview was at times scathing of the Bush White House and at othertimes comical of other institutions.: If Bush said the earth is flat, of course Fox News would say “Yes, the earth is flat, and anyone who says different is unpatriotic.”  And mainstream media would have stories with the headline: “Shape of Earth: Views Differ; and would at most report that some Democrats say that it’s round.” Paul Krugman Quicktime Video of Interview www.archive.org/movies/details-db.php?collection=opensource_movies&collectionid=krugman-cambridge

Subject: Re: Paul Krugman Interview Video From: hume To: Eric Rolph Date Posted: Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 23:49:34 (EDT) Email Address: hume_an@yahoo.com Message: Yeah, I was there. The interview was held at First Parish Church in Harvard Square - it was completely packed. Robin, Paul's wife, was there as well. Christopher Lydon's audio was kind of spotty - fading in and out. There were a lot of Howard Dean supporters there. A few people had signs that said 'Dean and Krugman for 2004 (we wish!)' I was able to get my copy of the Great Unraveling signed (had to wait in line for 20 minutes), and my wife snapped a couple of pictures of Krugman (I was in one of them). It was cool. I was pleased to see that Krugman was a little bit nervous - sometimes colouring when the applause drowned out the interview. Krugman is human - he's not an overly suave celebrity - which is good to know.

Subject: Re: Paul Krugman Interview Video From: Bobby To: Eric Rolph Date Posted: Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 15:44:54 (EDT) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: Does anyone know how I can *stream* this video as opposed to making people download all 200MBs of it, which obviously no one wants to do?

Subject: Re: Paul Krugman Interview Video From: Eric Rolph To: Bobby Date Posted: Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 23:36:28 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: It's obviously a problem which will soon be resolved, I've uploaded a streaming version to the server and it should take only a day or two for it to be replaced.

Subject: Re: Paul Krugman Interview Video From: Bobby To: Eric Rolph Date Posted: Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 23:52:03 (EDT) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: Whew. Thank you so much Eric. I'm looking forward to watching :)

Subject: Re: Paul Krugman Interview Video From: Eric Rolph To: Bobby Date Posted: Tues, Sep 23, 2003 at 20:58:03 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: There's a link to the streaming version, it should be active either today (Sept. 23) or tomorrow. http://archive.org/movies/details-db.php?collection=opensource_movies&collectionid=krugman-cambridge-der

Subject: Re: Paul Krugman Interview Video From: Bobby To: Eric Rolph Date Posted: Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 19:36:25 (EDT) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: Okay, I still find it saying: 'This movie is not yet available. The current progress notes are: Thumbnail maker failed. Waiting for administrator to correct.'

Subject: all the time From: Mark Peddy To: All Date Posted: Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 22:15:13 (EDT) Email Address: mapeddy@yahoo.com Message: Hey Paul, I read your column everytime. You keep fuel in the fire for for my frequent debates with the non-dissentents. I have a degree in political economics, but sometimes find it hard to keep up with all the scandal; so you are my refresher. I manage one of the big bookstores and see what the great unread, but manipulated public buy. I can not project my political bent, but do try to steer them towards a diversified understanding(I force myself to read the other patriotic view). Thanks for so eloquently(Molly is too much), keeping my in sync. Mark

Subject: Remember 4 months ago? From: stephanie To: All Date Posted: Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 12:59:55 (EDT) Email Address: steffi@virgilio.yt Message: Four months ago you could read many messages in this board complaining about PK focusing too much on uncool 'conspiracy theories', instead of writing the wise and elegant economic columns people were accustomed to. Now I hardly read any such message. I wonder if people are starting to find PK's political views 'cooler', or if they just have gotten tired of complaining. What do you think?

Subject: Maybe Conspiracy isn't a strong enough word From: Susan D. To: stephanie Date Posted: Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 09:11:09 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Perhaps like me, they have all done some more research into the extreme right that runs this country and they now, not only think a conspiracy is possible, they Know it's happening. The ground work for such a conspiracy has been being laid for year in the think tanks that make up a huge portion of the Republican Machine. If the Republican party were any more organized, they could not only take over the country, they could take over the world. It always fascinates me when I say to people, the Republican party want to turn this country into a one party system and people reply, of course they do. Of course they do??? Does that strike anyone as being insane? Our country was built as a mult-party system. Our democracy was built with more than one party. If indeed, the goal of Republicans is to turn this country into a one-party system, then you can be sure, that the exstinction of democracy is just around the corner. Already, the masses, the middle class, the working class, are losing more and more money and more and more power in this country. When the time comes that we must take back our country, we won't have the resources to do so. And that could be exactly what the right wingers want.

Subject: Re: Remember 4 months ago? From: chris To: stephanie Date Posted: Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 23:09:34 (EDT) Email Address: ctmilo@earthlink.net Message: I'm a big fan of Krugman's, but I do agree with you that the constant Bush battering, while much deserved, would be better done by someone else, and Krugman should stick to the economics.

Subject: Remember From: Jenn To: stephanie Date Posted: Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 17:20:24 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: There is a truth to PK that in time is fiercely powerful.

Subject: Re: Remember 4 months ago? From: Flep To: stephanie Date Posted: Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 15:42:05 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: He is too smart, too clever, too intelligent and too integer.

Subject: Currency boards and Argentina From: PJ To: All Date Posted: Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 00:42:17 (EDT) Email Address: psjohn@hotmail.com Message: PK writes that Wall Street banks supported currency boards because they tied in with conservative ideology, by removing discretionary monetary policy. Is this right? How many conservatives in America want to peg the dollar to the yen? Are British conservatives so eager to ditch the pound for the euro? From talking to investment bankers in the runup to Argentina's default, I think that the real reason they supported the peg to the bitter end was because they were captured by a false syllogism: a developing country must attract foreign investment; foreign investment is deterred by currency risk; therefore eliminating currency risk will increase foreign investment and lead to prosperity for all. I don't need to point out the numerous flaws in that argument, but I think PK is wrong in saying that the abolition of monetary autonomy is (per se) part of conservative ideology, and that this was a reason why investment banks supported Argentina's currency board. They supported it because they thought it would boost investment, particularly foreign investment, and thereby increase growth in that benighted country.

Subject: Currency boards and Argentina From: Jenn To: PJ Date Posted: Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 17:22:46 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Remember that there was a considerable amount of foreign investment at stake. Wall Street and Spanish bankers did not wish a devaluation under any circumstances.

Subject: Re: Currency boards and Argentina From: PJ To: Jenn Date Posted: Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 19:37:29 (EDT) Email Address: psjohn@hotmail.com Message: But they also wanted Argentina's economy to work. Those who owned businesses in Argentina or Argentinian equities wanted a growing economy to increase corporate profits, and bond holders wanted a growing economy to reduce the probability of a default-cum-devaluation. It was in everybody's interests for Argentina to get on a path to sustainable economic growth. So I think PK is letting his love of vast right-ing conspiracies get the better of him.

Subject: WNYC interview From: PK IS GOD To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Sep 18, 2003 at 12:55:22 (EDT) Email Address: ejz23@yahoo.com Message: Bobby, just letting you know that there was an interview on Leonard Lopate Tuesday with Paul. www.wnyc.org

Subject: Re: WNYC interview From: Bobby To: PK IS GOD Date Posted: Thurs, Sep 18, 2003 at 17:32:33 (EDT) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: Thanks! I've posted it.

Subject: The purchase of raw materials From: jhempi To: All Date Posted: Tues, Sep 16, 2003 at 17:30:59 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Why has the purchase of raw materials = directly proportional to the (weak?) dollar reached a top now, and what could be the consequences (for the globalized? economy) when firms (interest rate 1% = investment = higher? productivity = W.S. happy) will be confronted with the banks = debts (later) if demand = const.?

Subject: Re: The purchase of raw materials From: Flep To: jhempi Date Posted: Thurs, Sep 18, 2003 at 17:55:52 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Plus what dtoff wrote before: ( till now -74%), seems to correspond to a lack of international trust (and corresponds to less people also borrowing less money) = currency gets weaker and weaker = the final result is?

Subject: PK on Real Time w/ Bill Maher From: goof To: All Date Posted: Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 12:56:31 (EDT) Email Address: bob@bob.net Message: No comments on this week's Real Time with Bill Maher? I was having a difficult time wrapping my head around the absurdity of PK debating against Jesse Ventura (and I'm not sure Paul ever was able to wrap his head around it).

Subject: Foreign direct investments From: dtoff To: All Date Posted: Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 16:26:03 (EDT) Email Address: dtoff@hotmail.com Message: Foreign direct investments in the US, 2003 (until now): ?

Subject: Exploiting the Atrocity From: Jim Mueller To: All Date Posted: Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 15:26:03 (EDT) Email Address: jrmmgr@aol.com Message: Bush will continue to invoke 9/11 and exploit it in support of every radical policy change and decision. This is because his Old Testament support base perceives the war between itself (as the good) and evil (mostly Islamic people and oriental non-christians) being fought everywhere and involving everything. 9/11 proved conclusively that evil is on our shores as well as foreign. The Old Testament white believe it was the 'liberal' insistence on inclusion that allowed evil to gain a foothold in America. 9/11 convinced them that desperate times call for desperate means. Thus Bush will continue to invoke 9/11 for everything from energy policy to judgeships.

Subject: Re: Exploiting the Atrocity From: Richard Provost To: Jim Mueller Date Posted: Tues, Sep 16, 2003 at 16:34:52 (EDT) Email Address: politicalhonesty@aol.com Message: Re. Paul Krugman's 'Exploiting the Atrocity,' it's pure (and puerile) partisan nonsense. Paul Krugman’s accusations demonstrate a level of intellectual dishonesty I’ve never before seen in the Op-Ed pages. Even stipulating that Bush uses 9/11 for political purposes (which can be debated as far as degree and appropriateness)… so what?? It’s at worst a venial sin. Krugman is disingenuously hysterical over something that would be expected from any politician. His intellectual dishonesty begins with what he doesn’t say: that any Democrat would use 9/11 in a similar fashion (just imagine the amount of lip-biting that Clinton would do). The ultimate laugher comes right on the heels of the allegation that Bush now produces his own TV shows, when Krugman blames the president for NOT showing up at the 9/11 commemoration. Which is it, Paul? Is Bush an exploiter or is he a neglecter? Captain Yossarian knows about this game. But the biggest cheap shot in this foaming-at-the-mouth polemic comes when Krugman decides to accuse the administration of “major scandals” based on his feelings. Hey, when facts aren’t available just go ahead and make the most heinous allegations possible based on “suggestions.” The effect is essentially the same, isn’t it? The message is put in the minds of readers without the messy burden of proof. Then vaulting into absurdity, Krugman predicts that the 2004 election will be the nastiest ever …from the Republican side! …from the Republican side! (Rim shot here.) All I can say at this point is that Krugman’s clinical hatred for Bush has completely unhinged him. Incapable of forming a rational argument, he resorts to the basest form of personal vilification – over and over – upping the ante in every column. What I predict is that at this rate he’ll be accusing George W. Bush of personally masterminding 9/11, the holocaust, and slavery within the month. Oh, and I’ll look forward to the New York Times’ articles about Bush-haters. You know, just like all those articles on Clinton-haters, right? Hello? Hello?

Subject: So What!!??? From: Susan D. To: Richard Provost Date Posted: Thurs, Oct 23, 2003 at 14:34:47 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: They very fact that you answer your own question about what's wrong envoking 9/11 for polictical purposes is very telling. So What?!??? So WHAT??????? Because it's called exploitation and he is exploiting the deaths of 3,000 people. Not only is bringing up the deaths of 3,000 to further your political cause self-serving, evil, and unconscionable, but by constantly being reminded of a terrorism attack, the country is kept in a constant state of anxiety. Oops. That's exactly what he wants to do, because it we're so worried about our public safety, we won't actually see what he and his cronies are up to.

Subject: Re: Exploiting the Atrocity From: Poote Genous To: Richard Provost Date Posted: Tues, Sep 23, 2003 at 15:35:13 (EDT) Email Address: jgeiger6047@cfl.rr.com Message: Hello, Hello. No Major scandals, are you kidding? The Bush crime syndicate is replete with well documented Major Scandals. Keep your head in the sand Richard, because like 70% of the Americans polled you have been duped.

Subject: The Real Problem Within the Problem From: Stephen To: All Date Posted: Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 15:01:17 (EDT) Email Address: schambers1980@yahoo.com Message: Clearly, as Mr. Krugman explains, a crisis looms--brought on from within; essentially, a dismantling of modern America by her own leaders. Yes. However, the real danger lies with the international community--within this context. Suppose the American economy cannot recover and there is a significant financial collapse by the end of the decade. Further, suppose that American unilateral supremacy--now lagging--is championed by her leaders with rhetoric such as, 'We will not lose our rightful place as leaders of the world'. Now. Suppose a country with an EXTREMELY powerful economy and military ambitions, such as China, should move in a posture that conflicts with the position of the United States to take advantage of this situation: what will happen? 2011: China invades Taiwan. Spurred by domestic pressure and a panicked, unrealistic concept of American supremacy amid a failing economy, the U.S. intervenes. A world war begins. That, or a situation like it, is the real danger in a financial crisis within the world hegemon. 9/11 will be remembered as a turning point in terms of establishing a doomed financial policy which will heighten and make inevitable disastrous confrontations abroad. What do you think?

Subject: Re: The Real Problem Within the Problem From: polenta To: Stephen Date Posted: Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 13:31:50 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Ummm... may happen, or may not, but the fact we're even considering the possibility speaks by itself. Formerly powerful nations in a state of decline are the most scary beasts one can think of. And given that amrrricans are so prone to some forms of collective histeria ...

Subject: new book :ebook version ? From: Matthieu To: All Date Posted: Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 14:14:28 (EDT) Email Address: matthieu@deuxtowers.com Message: Hi, I live in France, I've read several books of PK, in french or in english. The lastet was 'Fuzzy Math' and I've purchased the ebook version on peanutpress website : http://www.palmdigitalmedia.com/book.cgi/0393103854 And I would like to be able to buy 'The Great Unraveling'. PeanutPress considers title request, you can write to them from this page : http://www.palmdigitalmedia.com/feedback.cgi/requests/ Matthieu

Subject: President Starve-the-Beast From: NP To: All Date Posted: Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 13:15:53 (EDT) Email Address: austinstoneman@aol.com Message: The 3-year totals are in for 'The Radical President': according to Brookings, the number of people working for the federal government is at a thirteen-year high, federal spending up 21% in the Bush years, compared to down 0.7% in the first three Clinton years. Spending on education is up 61%, health and human services, up 21%, labor department, up 56%. Bush-backed prescription drug benefit, $400 billion over 10 years. Oh yeah, and he wants to unravel the social safety net and labor protections. He's just going about it in a quirky way.

Subject: Bush family fortune documentary From: Phi To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Sep 11, 2003 at 19:35:00 (EDT) Email Address: nisus2003@yahoo.com Message: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4115.htm Made in cooperation with the BBC--Amazing stuff they are getting away with.

Subject: NPR interview 10 Sept 03 From: Hal Levin To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Sep 11, 2003 at 17:01:55 (EDT) Email Address: hlevin@cruzio.com Message: NPR's Terry Gross interviewed Paul Krugman yesterday. You can listen to Wednesday, September 10, 2003 Listen to Economist Paul Krugman Krugman has collected the last three years of his New York Times op-ed columns in the new book, The Great Unraveling: Losing Our Way in the New Century. In the preface he writes that the book is 'a chronicle of the years when it all went wrong again -- when the heady optimisim of the late 1990s gave way to renewed gloom. It's also an attempt to explain the how and why: how it was possible for a country with so much going for it to go downhill so fast, and why our leaders made such bad decisions.' Krugman teaches at Princeton University. Click on http://freshair.npr.org/day_fa.jhtml?display=day&todayDate=09/10/2003

Subject: Summary of _Fuzzy Math_ From: Stephen J Fromm To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Sep 11, 2003 at 11:13:26 (EDT) Email Address: stephen.fromm@verizon.net Message: Bobby (editor of pkarchive.org), I have a summary of Krugman's _Fuzzy Math_ that you're free to link to or pilfer, at: http://www.truthandpolitics.org/cgi-bin/html_gen?entryId=20

Subject: Krugman On Fresh Air From: Larry Dunn To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Sep 11, 2003 at 10:01:22 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: This voice in the wilderness of the the ignored is one that needs to be present often enough in the mainstream culture as to be heard by those whose lifes are being or will soon be adversely affected by the bushies. In essence all of us need to heed the message that the economic math of the bush administration does not add up. Additionly, the level of cynicism exhibited by the bushies is hard to fathom. I hope the transcript from the 'Fresh Air' show Krugman was recently heard on will soon be available on this site.

Subject: MY DISCOVERY OF YOUR VIEWS. From: GREG HARRINGTON To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Sep 11, 2003 at 03:06:14 (EDT) Email Address: kittyharrington@hotmail.com Message: Dear Mr. Krugman, I heard you're interview with Terry Gross on NPR. Very interesting views! It was, I believe, the first time I'd listened to an economist talk for any length of time without nodding off! Your ability to make the incomprehensible ( W's economic program) understandable was very much appreciated. I'm looking forward to reading 'THE GREAT UNRAVELING' Thank-you for the worthy work that you do.

Subject: Re: MY DISCOVERY OF YOUR VIEWS. From: Jim Mueller To: GREG HARRINGTON Date Posted: Thurs, Sep 11, 2003 at 13:07:13 (EDT) Email Address: jrmmgr@aol.com Message: On 'Fresh Air' (Terry Gross' NPR Program), Krugman hesitated to answer one question, and it was one which is crucial to his argument. Gross asked Krugman: what are the goals of the right wing perpetrating these intentionally irresponsible destructive acts to starve the federal government which will lead to destruction of the great social programs of the 20th century. She asked him why the right wing would intentionally destroy the very system that has made its members wealthy and provided them the freedom to pursue their goals. I would be interested in others views on motivation. I believe the right wing is motivated by a religion composed of self-justifying interpretations of the Old Testament and the sense of superiority conveyed by wealth. This religion supports a righteous zeal for behavior beyond the reasonable the same as Islam fundamentalism supports what we call terrorism. We will view the acts of the right wing as terror, when their consequences are fully played out.

Subject: Re: MY DISCOVERY OF YOUR VIEWS. From: Jonathan To: Jim Mueller Date Posted: Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 10:57:57 (EDT) Email Address: jonathan@lyingsocialistweasels.com Message: In my view, today's right wing positions are largely self-destructive, but are motivated by short-term personal interest. Massive tax cuts for the wealthy are bad for long term business, to be sure, but they represent an enormous windfall for a few very wealthy people right now. You're not necessarily talking about rational positions. A good many people do not see the benefits they've received from government programs, regulation, etc.

Subject: The Radical Right is Motivated by Religious Zeal From: Jim Mueller To: Jonathan Date Posted: Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 14:36:14 (EDT) Email Address: jrmmgr@aol.com Message: You're right: greed is an ever-present motivation, and ignorance corrupts logical thinking. Dick Cheney, in his first debate with Lieberman back in 2000, claimed to have made his money himself, and thus was more entitled to it than the government. He neglected to account for the support and benefits he had received individually from government as well as corporate welfare he got indirectly while at Halliburton. But, the zeal of the radical right is too powerful to be caused by simple greed and ignorance. The angry destructiveness and drive to extreme acts and declarations is behavior seen in religious extremism. The causes supported by the radical right are guided by, in the right's view, the commandments of the Old Testament. Examples of these causes: the right-to-life movement, where some proponents are driven to riot and even murder; the creationist movement to alter science education; the movements to establish and preserve religious theme monuments and rituals on public property and in public schools. No less than God's will is the motivation and justification for their extremism.

Subject: Argentina and interest rates Question From: Roger Williams To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Sep 11, 2003 at 01:41:27 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: In Paul Krugman's article 'NOTES ON DEPRECIATION, THE YEN, AND THE ARGENTINO' (found in the crises) he says... 'Here’s one way to think about it. Suppose that your country is committed to a fixed nominal exchange rate – and that the currency is overvalued...Even if the nominal exchange rate is completely credibly pegged – if, say, your economy is dollarized – the nominal rate in your country will be the same as the rate abroad. But because of the ongoing relative deflation, your real interest rate will be higher than it is abroad. And your economy will be depressed both because of depressed exports (the direct result of overvaluation) and because of a high real interest rate.' Why would interest rates be higher??? If you have a currency that is over valued, like he is arguing Argentina does, then the central bank will have to use its reserves to buy Pesos (or whatever) to substitute for the lost demand. This is basically taking money out of the economy, which is contractionary and would lead to LOWER interest rates...wouldn't it??? Can someone help me here!! Find article here:http://www.pkarchive.org/crises/Argentino.html

Subject: Re: Argentina and interest rates Question From: AT To: Roger Williams Date Posted: Thurs, Sep 11, 2003 at 08:33:42 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Great confusion in you I sense. If you take money out of the economy that makes interest rates higher, which is contractionary as you say. Why do you think less money would lead to lower interest rates? Given a constant demand, less quantity would lead always to a higher price, happens with money too. In any case, what PK argues there has nothing to do with reserves. He is talking about a credible(dolarized) pegged system where the interest rate is the same that the foreign currency mantains and there is no loss of reserves. The overvaulation makes export more dificult depreesing demand and bringing deflation (a lesser inflation rate would do it too)so the real interest rate(taking the evolution of prices into account)will be higher. So he argues that there are two ways that and overvalued pegg depresses the economy. the anonymous teacher.

Subject: Notes for Great Unraveling From: Craig Harlan To: All Date Posted: Tues, Sep 09, 2003 at 15:41:04 (EDT) Email Address: charlan@calpoly.edu Message: There are none in the book itself. Are there any available otherwise -- on the web or whatever?

Subject: Re: Notes for Great Unraveling From: Bobby To: Craig Harlan Date Posted: Tues, Sep 09, 2003 at 17:56:51 (EDT) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: What do you mean by notes? Like endnotes of the sort you find in say Joe Conason's book, Al Franken's etc.?

Subject: $221 Billion for Iraq From: Kevin Drum To: All Date Posted: Tues, Sep 09, 2003 at 12:45:57 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: '$221 BILLION FOR IRAQ....The Los Angeles Times reports this morning that President Bush's $87 billion funding request isn't going to do the job. $55 billion more will still be needed for postwar reconstruction. We already allocated $79 billion a few months ago, and 79 87 55 = 221. I'm not sure exactly what period these funding requests cover, but at a guess that's $221 billion over the course of perhaps 15 months, or about 2% of GDP. That's a lot of dough.'

Subject: Krugman on Russert From: Kris To: All Date Posted: Tues, Sep 09, 2003 at 09:09:07 (EDT) Email Address: dahedgehog@hotmail.com Message: I was flipping by MSNBC this weekend and caught a great interview with Krugman on Russert's show (no, not Meet the Press). I'm desperately searching for a transcript. My search of the MSNBC website has thus far been fruitless. Can anyone help me out? Thanks, Kris

Subject: Re: Krugman on Russert From: Bobby To: Kris Date Posted: Tues, Sep 09, 2003 at 14:43:53 (EDT) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: Hi Kris, You can get it here: http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/TimRussert090603.html

Subject: PAUL KRUGMAN is a commi loving Liberal From: V W R C To: All Date Posted: Tues, Sep 09, 2003 at 03:53:25 (EDT) Email Address: AlGore@lost.com Message: 'colonel' wrote in message news:3f5d6ef5.996390@news.io.com... > September 9, 2003 > > Other People's Sacrifice > By PAUL KRUGMAN > > > In his Sunday speech President Bush made a call for unity: 'We cannot > let past differences interfere with present duties.' He also spoke, in > a way he hasn't before, about 'sacrifice.' Yet, as always, what he > means by unity is that he should receive a blank check, and it turns > out that what he means by sacrifice is sacrifice by other people. > > It's now clear that the Iraq war was the mother of all bait-and-switch > operations. Mr. Bush and his officials portrayed the invasion of Iraq > as an urgent response to an imminent threat, and used war fever to win > the midterm election. It was never political. It was always in responce to an act of war against these united states. Then they insisted that the costs of occupation > and reconstruction would be minimal, and used the initial glow of > battlefield victory to push through yet another round of irresponsible > tax cuts. Today was marked the stock markets best gain in 18 months, ALL economic indicators are up. Which means revenues to the treasury will be increasing soon. During the Marshal Plan, 3% of GDP was used to rebuild Europe and Japan. Today that would be $300 billion. > > Now almost half the Army's combat strength is bogged down in a country > that wasn't linked to Al Qaeda and apparently didn't have weapons of > mass destruction, and Mr. Bush tells us that he needs another $87 > billion, right away. It gives me no pleasure to say this, but I (like > many others) told you so. Back in February I asked, 'Is this > administration ready for the long, difficult, quite possibly bloody > business of rebuilding Iraq?' The example of Afghanistan (where > warlords rule most of the country, and the Taliban - remember those > guys? - is resurgent) led me to doubt it. And I was, alas, right. Bill Clinton cut the military budget, reducing the number of soldiers. All in a 'loathing' effort to bring peace to the world. It projected weakness to the Taliban and el Qaeda. > > Surely the leader who brought us to this pass, and is now seeking a > bailout, ought to make some major concessions as part of the deal. But > it was clear from his speech that, as usual, he expects to take while > others do all the giving. The days of concession are over. The UN Security Council has an opportunity to help America bring democracy to that Hell Hole. We all know of the French and German interests which were part of the 'Oil for Food' and spear parts programs. If Old Europe wants in on profiteering now is there chance but conceding on US authority isn't negotiable. > > The money is actually the least of it. Still, it provides a clear test > case. If Mr. Bush had admitted from the start that the postwar > occupation might cost this much, he would never have gotten that last > tax cut. Now he says, 'We will do what is necessary, we will spend > what is necessary. . . .' What does he mean, 'we'? Is he prepared to > roll back some of those tax cuts, now that the costs of war loom so > large? Is he even willing to stop urging Congress to make the 2001 tax > cut permanent? Of course not. No concessions commi. Tax cuts are helping. The $300 I got was spent on my boat. The salesman, manufacturer of the trailer bearings on down to the stock boy at the Piggly Wiggly thanks President Bush for my spending habits while I was on vacation in the Keys last week. The recession has ended. We're now in a growing economy. Rolling back taxes is a tax increase, punitive damage to an economy (real people) which has been asked to sacrifice. Where is your sacrifice? > > Then there's the issue of foreign participation. The key question here > is whether the Bush administration will swallow its pride and cede > substantial control over the occupation to the U.N. No pride to swallow chump. The UN has an oppertunity to help. Hospitals need restocking, police need uniforms. New paint would make a world of difference in schools. It isn't about ego you fool. It's about bringing stability to a war zone. Pride goith before fools. That's surely the > price of a large contingent of foreign soldiers. Mr. Bush didn't > address this issue directly, but he did say that he is seeking only > one more multinational division, which suggests that he isn't going to > make major concessions. Duh, the US is the leader, the UN Security Council had its chance to be the hero. Conceding authority is what the Terrorists would love. Especially when it takes years for any UN decisions to 'trickle down' to reality. > > Yet as I understand it, one more division won't make much difference > in the security situation. In particular, it will do little to > alleviate the looming problem identified by the Congressional Budget > Office: in March, the U.S. will have to start withdrawing most of its > troops if it wants to maintain 'acceptable levels of military > readiness' in the Army as a whole. More foolishness. Every day brings new hope and progress to Iraq's infrastructure. Soon American Capitalists such as caple companies will bring CNN and FoxNews to the repressed. Liberty will be sprinkled with truth and all the while the UN has its collective thumbs up its... There isn't anything to concede her homey, only opportunities to blow. > > Meanwhile, the administration is still counting on Iraq's receiving > billions of dollars in aid from other countries. Unless the U.S. makes > major concessions, forget about it. Iraqi oil is coming online soon. Along with investment capital which freedom brings, the mother of invention is on the side of time, money will not be the hard part, ego's in the UN will. Concession is for losers. The authority is America's to dole our for who ever wants to profit while helping their neighbors. I put my faith in American know how rather than UN bureaucracy and apathetic authority.. > > But the most important concession Mr. Bush should make isn't about > money or control - it's about truth-telling. He squandered American > credibility by selling a war of choice as a war of necessity; if he > wants to get that credibility back, he has to start being candid. LOL, God your a pompous ass. The time for truth was back when Germany and France were selling Saddamn parts banned by the UN. You forget about that? Americans haven't. The members of the UN Security Council all had dirty hands as far as the 'Oil for Food and 'supplies' program'. The whole reason that the UN Security Council obstructed America's diplomatic efforts to bring Saddamn to account for his missing WMD was to protect their self interests and their deceits. > > Yet in the speech on Sunday he was still up to his usual tricks. Principals to the foolish are seen as tricks. UN schemes and games with humanity hasn't been forgotten as you seen to have. Once > again, he made a rhetorical link between the Iraq war and 9/11. This > argument by innuendo reminds us why 69 percent of the public believes > that Saddam was involved in 9/11, despite a complete absence of > evidence. I'd much rather error on the side of caution than take the word of Liberals who've never been right on matters of national security or America's interest. The bottom line to appeasers is political power, mud slinging and greed. All I learned about concession and apathy to defense I learned on 9/11. You don't seem to have learned a thing. Saddamn was one of the largest heads in the Hydra of Terrorism. He rewarded those who would see American's and Jews dead. It was only a matter of time for agents of madness to be financed by the Baa'th Party. America can not afford to concede on its defense. Apathy is what brought on 9/11 in the first place. (There is, on the other hand, strong evidence of a Saudi > link - but the administration's handling of that evidence borders on a > cover-up.) And rather than acknowledge that the search for W.M.D. has > come up empty, he declared that Saddam 'possessed and used weapons of > mass destruction' - 1991, 2003, what's the difference? Diplomacy, American interests in Saudi Arabia and timing. The Saudi's are coming to understand the war on Terror is their war too. Their own concessions to Evil has resulted in progressive violence within the Kingdom. Time will tell just where their loyalties lay. Is it your intent to stir up animosity where cooperation is needed? What concessions would you have Americans give? > > So will Congress give Mr. Bush the money he wants, no questions asked? It's the ongoing heavy price of freedom. Some fight for it, others want to recoil in isolation, ignoring the world around them. > It probably will, but it shouldn't. Mr. Bush created this crisis, and > if he were a true patriot he would pay a political price to resolve > it. Maybe it's time for him to do a couple of things he's never done > before, like admitting mistakes and standing up to the hard right. Superman show his weakness for those who plot against him? You really are a fool. -- CB 'Iraq was a brilliant campaign fought with minimal casualties, 11 September was a humiliating failure by government to fulfill its primary role of national defence. But Democrats who complained that Bush was too slow to act on doubtful intelligence re 9/11 now profess to be horrified that he was too quick to act on doubtful intelligence re Iraq. This is not a serious party.' http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old§ion=current&issue=2003-07-19&id=3319

Subject: Spit and Move ON From: VWRC the Troll To: V W R C Date Posted: Tues, Sep 09, 2003 at 12:28:38 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Spit at trolls and move on....

Subject: Re: PAUL KRUGMAN is a commi loving Liberal From: jimsum To: V W R C Date Posted: Tues, Sep 09, 2003 at 09:49:29 (EDT) Email Address: jimsum@rogers.com Message: You said that the Iraq invasion was a response to an act of war. What was that act, exactly? You haven't addressed the apparent fact that that Iraq was not a threat to the United States, which was the primary justification for the invasion. As Krugman asked, '1991, 2003 what's the difference?' What factor justified invading Iraq in 2003 that didn't apply in 2002 or 2001? What new factors lead Bush to believe that Iraq was a threat that had to be dealt with immediately? I'd also like to applaud your concern for the real people that have been asked to sacrifice for the economy. I am impressed at your sacrifice in spending your $300 tax refund on your boat; you’ve done your part.

Subject: Re: PAUL KRUGMAN is a commi loving Liberal From: V R W C To: jimsum Date Posted: Sun, Sep 14, 2003 at 07:16:09 (EDT) Email Address: CB@prayforme.com Message: You said that the Iraq invasion was a response to an act of war. CB: Against the Baa'th Party. What was that act, exactly? CB: Of taking out the Baa'th Party and it's leaders. You haven't addressed the apparent fact that Iraq was not a threat to the United States, which was the primary justification for the invasion. CB: You're correct, Iraq was not the enemy, the Baa'th Party 'was'. As Krugman asked, '1991, 2003 what's the difference?' What factor justified invading Iraq in 2003 that didn't apply in 2002 or 2001? CB: Saddamns willingness to support (pay the families of bombers) Terrorism by encouraging suicide bombing. Sooner than later that support would gain wider range. In this new age of Terrorism, America cannot afford to give the Baa'th Party any benefit of Liberal doubt. What new factors lead Bush to believe that Iraq was a threat that had to be dealt with immediately? CB: Not Iraq, the 'Baa'th Party'. Now that you know that President Bush took out the Baa'th Party, not Iraq, do you feel more secure in the urgency of taking out murderous leaders who've proved their inhumanity and willingness to kill again in mass? I'd also like to applaud your concern for the real people that have been asked to sacrifice for the economy. I am impressed at your sacrifice in spending your $300 tax refund on your boat; you’ve done your part. CB: Thanks, every little bit I can do for this Bush economy is a blow to those would see America fall. CB DemocRAT Solution? http://www.comics.com/editoons/ariail/archive/images/ariail2813140030908.gif

Subject: Paul Warned Us From: Emma To: All Date Posted: Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 16:08:23 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/08/international/worldspecial/08PREX.html Mr. Bush's request for $87 billion was on the high end of what Congress had expected. In recent days, administration officials have said they anticipated asking Congress for an additional $60 billion to $80 billion for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. The financing, if approved by Congress, would significantly add to the federal government's deficit, which is approaching $500 billion. The president said that $66 billion of the $87 billion would be for military and intelligence operations over the next year in Iraq and Afghanistan 'and elsewhere,' and that the rest would be for reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, including restoring basic services like water and electricity. Mr. Bush did not say how the money would be apportioned between Iraq and Afghanistan, but the bulk of it was expected to go to Iraq. The $87 billion request for the next fiscal year would add to the amount that Congress approved in a $79 billion bill last spring to pay the war costs for the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30.

Subject: Re: Paul Warned Us From: Eyeballs To: Emma Date Posted: Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 01:35:39 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: To add insult to injury, the word is that the administration will ask for $40 billion more in a few months. Further, some estimate for reconstruction and occupation costs and associated debt service interest have been in the trillion dollar range over a period of ten years. Haliburton and Bechtel are no doubt very pleased by this. So much for the Iraq conquest paying for itself out of Iraqi oil revenues.

Subject: want to sell old econ books? From: hume To: All Date Posted: Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 01:36:06 (EDT) Email Address: hume_an@yahoo.com Message: I need Microeconomics and behavior, Fifth Edition, by Robert H. Frank (McGrawHill, 2003) Macroeconomics, Fifth Edition, by N. Gregory Mankiw, New York:Worth Publishers, 2002 If anyone wants to get rid of these books, and can do so for a reasonable price, pls. let me know. -Hume hume_an@yahoo.com

Subject: EBay From: Jenn To: hume Date Posted: Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 13:28:19 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: EBay should be a fine source.

Subject: Paul Krugman Interview From: Emma To: All Date Posted: Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 15:33:59 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: LiberalOasis Interviews Paul Krugman Paul Krugman, whose unflinching commentary has been one of the brightest lights in these dark times, hits the bookshelves this month with “The Great Unraveling: Losing Our Way In the New Century.” You can order the book here. The work combines several years of his essays – from the New York Times, Fortune and Slate – tied together with new material, in order to fully explain what he calls the “economic disappointment, bad leadership, and the lies of the powerful.” LiberalOasis has named “The Great Unraveling,” the Book of the Month for September, and on August 29, Paul Krugman joined LiberalOasis to discuss the book and the state of the economy. LiberalOasis: What do you hope to accomplish with your latest book, “The Great Unraveling”? Paul Krugman: I’m hoping that I can help people put it together, just pull it together in a way where they see just how badly they’ve been misled. How the things that are going wrong now are not just stuff that happened, but has been building from three years ago and before. LO: Have things gone so off course that if a Democrat was elected President in 2004, that it wouldn’t even be possible to fix everything in a four-year period? PK: Certainly on the budget it has. Even a Democrat with a majority of both houses of Congress I think would find that…there was so much to be repaired that we wouldn’t, as of 2008, be where we were in 2000. Of course, the environment has also gotten a bit worse. Think about it this way. It really took a long way through the Clinton Administration to work off the legacy that came in. I’m not saying the Clinton people were perfect, but they were certainly by and large trying to do the right thing. But American policy in the first Bush Administration was wildly sensible and responsible compared to anything that’s been happening in the second Bush Administration. LO: Part of the Republican party-line is that the economy started to decline under Clinton. The stock market drop started in March 2000. And implicit in that is the notion that the Clinton economy was phony -- it was just the dot-com bubble. Is that a fair criticism? PK: No. There was a bubble. The one piece of it is to say that the budget surplus was inflated by the stock market bubble, that capital gains were certainly giving us a lot more revenue. The huge budget surpluses of the Clinton Administration had a lot to do with the stock market bubble. They were not really a lasting achievement. The gradual return to a balanced budget was a real achievement. But that move into surplus was the stock bubble. A couple of things here. Was the improvement of economic performance real? Yes. The stock market got ahead of the real economy. But the improvement of economic performance was real. That doesn’t necessarily mean it was Clinton’s achievement, but it was real. Most of the improvement in the budget, but not that last couple hundred billion dollars, was a real achievement. The thing to say is…we had tax cuts that were justified on the basis of the surplus that wasn’t -- wasn’t real. If you ask, “who was it that bought into the illusions of the dot-com bubble?” It wasn’t Clinton. It was Bush. And we have had an economic policy which has not really responded at all. OK, so we had a bubble, so there’s some retrenchment. So you set about saying, “what do we need to do to bridge to economy over this difficult period?” Instead, what we got was policies that were designed to cater to the hard-right base, and to exploit the economic difficulties, not to actually solve them. LO: Second quarter GDP was just revised to 3.1% annual rate of growth. That’s near the point where many economists say job creation will kick in. Does that mean the economy is turning around, and Bush can credit the tax cuts for doing it? PK: Well, it’s quite possible that we will see some positive job growth. But, I still don’t see anything in there that says we’re going have jobs growing fast enough to keep up with the growth in the population, let alone make up all the ground that’s been lost. And the main thing to say is: gosh, if you let me run a 500 billion dollar deficit, I could create a whole lot of jobs. That’s roughly equal to the wages of 10 million average workers. So the fact that we’ve managed to go from a 200 billion surplus to a 500 billion deficit, while losing three million jobs, is actually a pretty poor verdict on the policy. Now if you say, is all of this deficit spending likely to produce some stabilization of the economy? Maybe, but that’s not an achievement to be proud of. LO: There seems to be a fault line forming in the Democratic primary, with one side Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt wanting to repeal all the Bush tax cuts, and on the other John Kerry, John Edwards and Joe Lieberman saying we should at least keep the tax cuts for the middle-class. Is one of those strategies better than another for the economy? PK: Put it this way. If you do the arithmetic, take the estimates of where we are on budget, we’re actually very deep in the hole. The best estimates say we got a fundamental shortfall of about 4.5 or 4.6 percent of GDP. The Bush tax cuts are actually about 2.7 percent of GDP. So the truth is, even if we rolled them all back, we would still have a hole in the budget. If you wanted to…keep the tax cuts for the middle-class, there’s something to be said for [it]. Our tax system has gotten a lot less progressive over the past 20 years. But that means that you’re going to have to come up either with some kind of program cuts or some kind of additional revenue elsewhere. Even with all the Bush tax cuts rolled back, we still have a long-run budget problem, though it’s not nearly as severe as the one we’re right now facing. So if somebody says, “I just want to repeal some parts of it,” I think it’s fair to ask, “Well OK, what else are you going to do?” LO: So in either case, it doesn’t solve the entire budget problem. But is one better than the other as far as the overall economy is concerned? PK: The question of the tax cuts and the question of the economy are not very closely linked. Nobody thinks that we should be raising taxes, this year, now, right away. Because the economy needs to find its feet again, so you don’t want to be sucking purchasing power out of the economy immediately. We’re really talking about what will happen over the course of several years, as the economy recovers. It’s not really… a question about what it does to the economy. The question is, who’s got a real plan make the government solvent again. LO: Are issues such as trade and globalization more relevant to the long-term effects of the economy? PK: I have to say those issues – they seemed terribly big issues a few years ago. And I’d like to imagine us back to a situation where they become top issues. But at this point, they’re really second-order. The key thing, in terms of the state of the world right now, is that the United States has gone mad. Let’s get some return to fiscal and environmental and general governmental sanity in this country, and then we can talk about we manage globalization. LO: Having been considered a proponent of globalization, how do you feel that has worked in practice? Has it helped developing countries raise incomes for the impoverished? PK: It’s a mixed picture…There are dramatic success stories, mostly in Asia. There’s a lot of disappointment and worse, especially in Latin America. If we ever get back to the point where we can even talk about these issues seriously, then I think we’re going to have to ask: is there a way to get the good stuff without the bad stuff? Clearly, disruptive movement of speculative capital [and] currency crises…have undermined the case for globalization a lot. I was a pretty strong proponent of globalization. I still cling to the hopes, because all of the real movement up, all of the cases where desperately poor countries have made it into the ranks of countries with a reasonably decent standard of living have involved production for the export market. So I’m pro-globalization in the general sense, because it seems to be the way out of poverty. But I have to admit there have been some real bad stories. LO: Like Argentina? PK: Well, Argentina or Indonesia have got to be the two worst. Argentina, in particular, is a tragedy. They bought into the advice coming from Washington and New York, and had themselves a few years that looked really good, and then plunged into the abyss. So this has got to be a cautionary tale. For what it’s worth…I saw it coming a little bit before most people did, and I think it’s possible to separate the good advice from the bad advice. My dream for America would be to return to a situation in which people of decency and good will can have vicious arguments of globalization again. Right now, that seems to be a luxury we can’t afford. LO: We are seeing some talk from the Democratic candidates at least about NAFTA, that whatever help it was to the economy in the 1990s, that you’re starting to see jobs being shipped away that aren’t being replaced. And so, perhaps we should renegotiate those agreements and incorporate some more labor and environmental standards for other countries. Is that the right way to go? PK: I think you have to be very careful. A certain amount of labor standards and environmental standards are a good thing. It’s actually one of those cases where we can do good for everybody by putting it in. But if no jobs are shipped out, then there’s no gain. There has to be some rearrangement of who works where. That actually is, in a way, the point of NAFTA… ...I actually think that a lot the new questioning of NAFTA, isn’t really about NAFTA. It isn’t really about Mexico. It’s really about the depressed US economy, the fact that we’re not generating jobs at home. If you think about it, the jobs in North Carolina, that are now being lost to foreign competition, are jobs that were once in New England, and were lost to competition from North Carolina. There is a cycle in these things. That can sound very callous, because you say, “What about the people who lose their jobs?” The answer is you ought to have a booming economy that creates new jobs to replace the old ones, and you also have a decent social safety net, so that people aren’t that much at risk. If we ever emerge from this tunnel of policy insanity that we’re in right now, then I’m happy to have a discussion. And I think probably we’ll find that people who thought that they were bitterly opposed on policy towards international trade and globalization will discover that after seeing how many values we share, there’s probably a lot more room for finding common ground. LO: As you were putting the book together, going back over your old columns, is there anything you were surprised about? Anything you were particularly right or particularly wrong about? PK: I underestimated. I just consistently underestimated just how bad things were going to be. I thought, well they might blow the budget surplus, but I didn’t think we were going to have a 500 billion deficit. I thought they would politically exploit September 11. I didn’t think they’d take us off into an unrelated war. My finest hour, at least in terms of seeing something that you weren’t supposed to see, was the California energy crisis. Not that I figured it out. Smart energy economists in California figured it out. I listened to them. This is not a shortage of capacity created by just the environmentalists. This is market-rigging on a grand scale, and so it has turned out. LO: Is there anything we should be learning from that in regards to the recent blackout? PK: Yeah. It’s a little different. Although some people are floating conspiracy theories about the blackout, I haven’t seen any real evidence for that this time around. What’s definitely true was that this thoughtless deregulation led to underinvestment in the grid. We had a system that gave these regulated monopolists responsibility for the whole ball of wax. And so, they maintained power lines along with everything else. We then took that system, and deregulated the power plants. It’s just not possible to deregulate the grid. But we left that part – it was nobody’s responsibility anymore, no incentive to make sure it worked. It’s caused by deregulation. The California crisis was an actual abuse of the deregulated system by the companies. The blackout wasn’t that kind of thing. We don’t think that there was anybody artificially generating a crisis. But it was another failure of deregulation because people didn’t think through how this system was supposed to work… …Deregulation in this whole industry is a very tricky business. It’s something that could work. If you had a combination of state-owned or heavily subsidized transmission network, and then competition at the power plant level, coupled with a very alert, aggressive regulatory agency that was prepared to crackdown on anything that looked remotely like the California situation, then this thing could work. It doesn’t seem to me that we’re going to make it work. LO: Is it something that needs to work to have an efficient, inexpensive power delivery system? PK: We know how to run a power system. We have a model that more or less worked. It had some inefficiencies. But this is really a case where an ideology of deregulation led us to fix something that wasn’t broken. And it’s a mark of how powerful our ideology is right now, that people regard it as inconceivable that we could go back to anything like the old system. But I have to say, this new system that we’ve adopted doesn’t seem to be functioning. LO: In the intro of “The Great Unraveling,” you mention how you came across an old book by Henry Kissinger from 1957 that you believe helps explain what’s happening in American politics today. How so? PK: What Kissinger told me was not so much what the people running the country are doing, as why it’s so difficult for reasonable, sensible people to face up to what it is in fact dead obvious. He talked in very generic terms about the difficulty of people who have been accustomed to a status quo, diplomatically, coping with what he called a “revolutionary power.” The book is about dealing with revolutionary France, the France of Robespierre and Napoleon, but he was clearly intending that people should understand that it related to the failure of diplomacy against Germany in the 30s. But I think it’s more generic than that. It’s actually the story about how confronted with people with some power, domestic or foreign, that really doesn’t play by the rules, most people just can’t admit to themselves that this is really happening. They keep on imagining that, “Oh, you know, they have limited goals. When they make these radical pronouncements that’s just tactical and we can appease them a little bit by giving them some of what they want. And eventually we’ll all be able to sit down like reasonable men and work it out.” Then at a certain point you realize, “My God, we’ve given everything away that makes system work. We’ve given away everything we counted on.” And that’s basically the story of what’s happened with the Right in the United States. And it’s still happening. You can still see people writing columns and opinion pieces and making pronouncements on TV who try to be bipartisan and say, “Well, there are reasonable arguments on both sides.” And advising Democrats not to get angry – that’s bad in politics. And just missing the fact that – my God, we’re facing a radical uprising against the system we’ve had since Franklin Roosevelt. LO: Do you sense that people are starting to catch on? PK: If I believe the rumors, Al Franken’s “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them” is Number One, and Joe Conason’s “Big Lies” is going to hit the best seller list. In some ways for me, the low point was those months after September 11, when everyone wanted to believe in the picture of a heroic president and a noble, unified nation confronting the threat. And I was watching the actual policies. I was in touch with people in Congress who knew what legislation was being pushed. And that wasn’t what was happening. What you actually had was a cynical power grab. I felt for a little while there like I was all alone, [that] they’re all mad but me. And now, a large number of people understand what’s been going on. It’s still, unfortunately, a minority. But it’s a large minority. It’s not a handful of voices in the wilderness.

Subject: Re: Paul Krugman Interview From: David To: Emma Date Posted: Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 18:48:41 (EDT) Email Address: daveellis_39@hotmail.com Message: Thanks Paul, for being there, being 'shrill'. Imagine, their best criticsm was 'shrillness'. They have never debated fairly, and that is the best way to recognize their revolutionary intent. Kissinger's thoughts about the difficulty in recognizing the power of revolution are true. I can't believe that I wasted over a 100 hours trying to understand neo-cons. My first instincts were right, these guys are just 21st century nazis. Hungry for power, no respect for the powerless.

Subject: Re: Paul Krugman Interview From: Steven To: David Date Posted: Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 05:54:26 (EDT) Email Address: hillelschwartz@yahoo.com Message: I wish Krugman would be more specific about what's so terribly wrong. Fiscal mismanagement, fair enough, but what else? Labor and environmental standards? There is still an EPA and an OSHA. There is still medicare, medicaid, and Social Security, still Title I, still massive spending on ag susidies and transportation projects. War in Iraq? Appalling, but not unexpected. The Democratic Party has becoming uniformly, scathingly anti-Bush, just as the Republican Party was scathingly anti-Clinton. Maybe I'll have to buy the book...

Subject: Re: Paul Krugman Interview From: Susan D. To: Steven Date Posted: Thurs, Oct 23, 2003 at 12:49:26 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Indeed, buy the book. Because if you find credible (which I do) what people are saying, while you may think you can rely on things such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and public schools, those things may soon become a thing of the past. In additon, I suggest you go to the site for Commonweath Institute and read. Just read. And don't read late at night while you're at home alone. What you will find will scare the hell out of you. good luck!

Subject: The Radical Administration From: Jenn To: Steven Date Posted: Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 16:38:20 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The structural budget deficit we now have is a looming threat to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. We are an aging society, and there needs to be provision for the retirement of the baby boomers. A temporary deficit to boost us out of the recession and the slow growth recovery was called for. We have a permanent deficit given the rounds of tax cuts for the rich and richest. As far as labor policy is concerned, can you imagine an Administration more hostile to labor interests? Same for middle class economic needs. Spending on transportation needs was set during the Clinton years. Spending on other infrastructure needs has been fought and fought by right wingers. This radical Administration and company deserve to be voted out of office, and I will vote accordingly.

Subject: Re: The Radical Administration From: Steven To: Jenn Date Posted: Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 04:31:54 (EDT) Email Address: fallinglikerome@aol.com Message: Yes, I can imagine an administration more hostile to labor interests-- for example, one that would refuse to place punitive tariffs on foreign steel dumping. The 9-11 air quality thing was indefensible, yet most of the regulatory changes on the Clean Air Act are things the GOP has been talking about for years. There is only scattered right-wing opposition to transportation spending. And Teddy Roosevelt was not half as liberal, in word or deed, as most suppose. I think people who moan about how radical this administration is-- or who lavish praise on how forward thinking it is-- are sorely mistaken. The worst thing about the Bush administration is that it has refused to do anything out of the ordinary, a sort of caustic hodgepodge of hoary right-wing ideologies and interests.

Subject: Re: The Radical Administration From: RL To: Steven Date Posted: Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 07:43:16 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: foreign steel dumping, that is quite funny.

Subject: The Radical Right Administration From: JT To: Steven Date Posted: Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 15:01:26 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Yes. This is truly a radical right Administration from Iraq to ecology.

Subject: Re: Paul Krugman Interview From: Emma To: Steven Date Posted: Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 13:37:47 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Fair argument. But, but, but.... Just on the enviromnment, I can not imagine a more hostile Administration. There is an EPA, but an EPA that stifled air qual;ity data that would have protected workers and familes after 9/11 about lower Manhattan. Everything the Roosevelts - TR and FDR - care for is hated by this awful radical right Administration.

Subject: Revaluing the Yuan (9/5 NYT) From: John Ginnane To: All Date Posted: Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 06:02:57 (EDT) Email Address: jginnane@bellatlantic.net Message: 1. 90% of what you buy at Walmart is made in China. 2. Bushites want to increase the value the yuan / reminbi by 30% relative to the dollar (according to Business Week). This is to counter the inflationary actions of the administration )which so far haven't been reflected in real-world inflation statistics. 3. While a suddenly more expensive yuan might help Walmart inventories, imagine the effect on the US economy if your strings of Xmas lights, etc. went up 30% at the checkout -- overnight. 4. Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that a floating yuan would lead to furtherm more drastic economic dislocations the Bushies would try to blame on others -- rather than accept as the consequences of their ideologically driven Zeitgeist? What happens to the price of housing if the US dollar is effectively devalued by 30% overnight? /JJG

Subject: FYI - Book out From: Greg To: All Date Posted: Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 14:34:02 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Saw the book yesterday at the Barnes and Noble on 86th Street in Manhattan.

Subject: Re: FYI - Book out From: hume To: Greg Date Posted: Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 02:44:20 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I bought the Great Unraveling yesterday at a Borders in Cambridge. It's available in hardcover for about $25 - also available on CD and tape (but was not available at the Borders I went to). The softcover is not yet available.

Subject: greenspan abandons the production of goods From: joneill To: All Date Posted: Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 11:53:58 (EDT) Email Address: jamzo@comcast.net Message: it seems to me that Alan Greenspan's statements as quoted by a 9/1/03 Washington Post editorial mark a profound shift in policital/social/economic direction and are receiving scant attention Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan was uncharacteristically plain-spoken in recent congressional testimony in which he essentially wrote off manufacturing as the job creator of the past. 'Ideas,' not physical goods, 'are becoming increasingly the predominant means by which we create wealth,' Mr. Greenspan said

Subject: Re: greenspan abandons the production of goods From: Chicago Boy To: joneill Date Posted: Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 00:02:17 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Sounds like Greenspan's merely stating the obvious here.

Subject: Re: greenspan abandons the production of goods From: steven To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 00:32:37 (EDT) Email Address: saggypants123@aol.com Message: Our manufacturing sector is being decimated at tremendous social cost. Look at the way the textile sector is currently being purged from American soil. We need to put throw some cold water on this or ease it somehow-- that does not mean restrictive quotas, but limited industrial policy like European countries.

Subject: Re: greenspan abandons the production of goods From: Chicago Boy To: steven Date Posted: Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 02:11:25 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: : that does not mean restrictive quotas, but limited industrial policy like European countries. Why should the rest of the economy be forced to subsidize an inefficient, poorly performing sector?

Subject: Re: greenspan abandons the production of goods From: steven To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 05:46:09 (EDT) Email Address: twistinginthewind@yahoo.com Message: The whole point of government in America historically was to subsidize business. We subsidize agriculture and lots of other poorly performing sectors--like new roads, for example, which always lose money, and schools in high-poverty areas, which perform at a very low level by almost any standard. I would argue its in our national interest to at least prop up the manufacturing sector-- through the tax code, for example, by making companies that relocate offshore ineligible for gov. contracts,-- and also to ease the pain of regions suffering huge job losses. There is no way we can sit back and accept staggering job losses.

Subject: Re: greenspan abandons the production of goods From: David To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 17:29:55 (EDT) Email Address: daveellis_39@hotmail.com Message: I wonder what President Bush's new minister of manufacturing is going to find to do. Do you think President Bush thinks there is a chance he will be effective?

Subject: record the videos From: drassioc To: All Date Posted: Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 06:57:35 (EDT) Email Address: coissard@infonie.fr Message: is it possible to record the krugman's video on my computer? if it is, could you explain me? thank you

Subject: PK Book Tour: Cities? From: hume To: All Date Posted: Sat, Aug 30, 2003 at 01:52:53 (EDT) Email Address: hume_an@yahoo.com Message: Hey Bobby, I haven't been following the message board lately, so I don't know if you've addressed this: do you know when and where PK will be touring to promote the Great Unraveling? A stop to the Boston area? Thanks for any info. you can give me. ChicagoBoy - if you read this, I just wanted to apologize for leave you hanging with my last few messages. You're probably glad that I trailed off . . . Been busy transitioning to a new city. Also wanted to apologize if I said anything to offend you (it seems like so long ago). -Hume

Subject: Re: PK Book Tour: Cities? From: Auros To: hume Date Posted: Thurs, Sep 04, 2003 at 14:13:47 (EDT) Email Address: rmharman@auros.org Message: I know there was at least one event that was left off that list. http://www.itsyourworld.org/program.php?page=671 So there might be others.

Subject: Re: PK Book Tour: Cities? From: Bobby To: hume Date Posted: Sat, Aug 30, 2003 at 20:30:59 (EDT) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: Hmmm. I'm not sure. It would of course be a big oversight to miss Boston. I'll find out and post what I know ASAP.

Subject: Re: PK Book Tour: Cities? From: hume To: Bobby Date Posted: Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 01:03:09 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Thanks Bobby.

Subject: Re: PK Book Tour: Cities? From: Bobby To: hume Date Posted: Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 05:11:11 (EDT) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: From what he put out so far, the only date I see that he'll be in Boston is the following: Friday Sept. 19: Boston/Cambridge, First Parish Church (for Harvard Bookstore), 5:45 PM

Subject: Krugman NYT Column Comments From: Anil To: All Date Posted: Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 13:59:15 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Thanks for all the columns posted on this website; it's great for all those times I've missed them and couldn't get access to them. Whatever happened to the short one-sentence synopses that used to go with them? Please, bring them back! (They were funny.) Thanks!

Subject: Re: Krugman NYT Column Comments From: Bobby To: Anil Date Posted: Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 15:08:36 (EDT) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: The synopses have beem there on the articles themselves the past two weeks. I will put synopses on all the articles that dont have them soon, but haven't I've been having some trouble with my computer, so it's been a little hard to update recently. I would say that I can get them done by the end of September.

Subject: Love Bobby From: JD To: All Date Posted: Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 11:44:18 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Bobby - We Love You

Subject: Re: Love Bobby From: Bobby Brown To: JD Date Posted: Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 06:05:27 (EDT) Email Address: bobbybrown@pusher.net Message: Dear JD, I truly appreciate the support given to me by loyal fans such as yourself in my time of need. Thank you. --Bobby Brown

Subject: Liquidity trap myth From: jg To: All Date Posted: Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 00:32:50 (EDT) Email Address: austinstoneman@aol.com Message: Response, anyone? The Liquidity-Trap Myth by Richard C. B. Johnsson [Posted May 19, 2003] As concerns are raised about the risk of the Japanese economic malaise spreading to the U.S. and elsewhere, some commentators have tried to revitalize the old Keynesian idea of the 'liquidity trap.'[1] Although the trap itself follows from the J.R. Hicks IS-LM analysis, the basic idea is borrowed from J.M. Keynes.[2] In fact, Japan has not been in such a trap in the years following 1990. The whole idea of the trap is gravely flawed. According to Keynes, the relation between investment and Marginal Efficiency of Capital (MEC) is negative. Writes Keynes, '[t]o induce new investment 'the rate of return over cost must exceed the rate of interest',' referring to the words of Irving Fisher who 'uses his 'rate of return over costs' in the same sense and for precisely the same purpose as I employ 'the marginal efficiency of capital'.'[3] Thus, as the difference between what is returned and the costs constitute the profits, Keynes was basically saying that to induce new investment, the rate of profit must exceed the interest rate. But as investment increases, any profitable investment opportunities are exhausted. This means that the rate of profit (MEC) falls and approaches the interest rate. And as it approaches the interest rate, businessmen will cease investing. This follows from Keynes's idea of the liquidity preference: 'The rate of interest at any time, being the reward for parting with liquidity, is a measure of the unwillingness of those who possess money to part with their liquid control over it. The rate of interest is not the 'price' which brings into equilibrium the demand for resources to invest with the readiness to abstain from present consumption. It is the 'price' which equilibrates the desire to hold wealth in the form of cash with the available quantity of cash.'[4] And because investors will be indifferent between holding cash and investing, investment collapses. According to these Keynesian ideas, if for some reason investment, output, and employment fall, there is a call for the government to intervene and lower the interest rate. Alternatively, the government could print money, since '[t]he expectation of a fall in the value of money stimulates investment.'[5] Also, fiscal measures like tax cuts and public deficit spending could be recommended, where the latter is preferred because of a larger multiplier effect. The idea Keynes propounded was that the relation between profits and investment was negative. Hicks, when creating the IS-LM framework, built on this idea. Within this framework, the IS-curve represents the negative relation between the rate of profit and investment that Keynes wrote about.[6] And as investment determines output, the negative relation is carried over to a negative relation between the rate of profit and output. And in an almost Marxist fashion, output is in a 1-to-1 relation with employment. The liquidity trap would occur if the LM curve of the IS-LM framework is horizontal, making any government intervention in the money market futile. The government can't simply save the economy from itself, and the economy is caught in a trap. Thus, when some commentators put forward the liquidity trap as an explanation of the Japanese problems from 1990 onward, they are implicitly assuming that there is a negative relation between the rate of profit and investment. According to this view, when investment rises, profit falls, and when investment falls, profit rises. Let's see if this relation holds for Japan in the 1990–2001 period. Figure 1 shows the rate of profit, both actual and forecasted, and the changes in the volume of operating profits in Japan 1990–2001 (left axis). The figure also shows the percent changes in the net investment for the same period (right axis). As the figure reveals, the relation has been far from negative. Rather, the data reveals that the relation is positive. When investment falls, profit falls, and when investment rises, profit also rises. The evidence is conclusive—Japan hasn't been caught in a liquidity trap.[7] Moreover, since the relation has been positive rather than negative in what is believed to be the schoolbook example of a liquidity trap, clearly refuting the trap idea itself, the evidence should end all discussion about the risk the trap could spread to the U.S. and elsewhere. In addition, the fact that the relation has been positive rather than negative, implying that the MEC and IS curves should generally be sloping upward instead of downward, the foundations of the Keynesian and Hicksian IS-LM analysis are shaken or even collapsing. Reisman (1996, Chap. 18) provides a plausible argument for the positive relation between profits and investment, arguing that the relation is almost 1-to-1 in dollar terms. This follows since profit is the difference between sales revenue and costs while net investment is the difference between productive expenditure and costs (productive expenditure is the expenditure on goods and labor made by businesses). Under normal circumstances, sales revenue and productive expenditure very much changes in the same manner, resulting in a positive relation[8]. The unrealistic assumptions of the IS-LM analysis help explain why Krugman (1998b) has such problems of applying the liquidity trap to Japan. For example, he changes investment on the horizontal axis to consumption, i.e. the exact opposite of investment. In a way, this could be seen as indication of the fact that Krugman also has come to see that the Keynesian ideas need serious revision (although perhaps of another kind than the one suggested by Krugman). Figure 1 – The rate of profit, both actual and forecasted, and the changes in the volume of operating profits (left axis) vs. the changes in net investment (right axis), Japan 1991–2000. Sources: The Bank of Japan Tankan—Short-term Economic Survey of Enterprises in Japan (rate of profit) and the Economic and Social Research Institute (net investment and volume of operating profits). It is highly unfortunate that the Keynesian ideas have dominated the monetary and fiscal policies pursued in Japan during the period under scrutiny, including interest cuts down to zero, serious monetary pumping and assorted fiscal measures. It should come as no surprise to the reader that these policy measures have utterly failed. But as I argue in a recent report (Johnsson 2003), these Keynesian measures were not only ineffective, and not only worsened things, but even managed to turn a favorable development of the mid 1990's around. The end result of these Keynesian monetary and fiscal policies was exactly the terrible situation one perceived one was combating! The Keynesian policy measures will not work in the future either, despite the advice of Neo-Keynesians like Nobel laureate and former World Bank chief economist Joseph Stiglitz or popular economist Paul Krugman.[9] Keynes wrote in the preface to his General Theory that 'I cannot achieve my object of persuading economists to re-examine critically certain of their basic assumptions except by a highly abstract argument and by much controversy.' He ends the same preface by stating that '[t]he difficulty lies, not in the new ideas, but in escaping the old ones.' Maybe these words have taken on a new meaning, this time meaning that it is Keynes' own ideas we have to escape? Or as Reisman (1996) puts it: 'The Keynesian analysis is so wrong that it is beyond redemption. The one, fundamental change that is needed is its total abandonment.' --- --- Richard C.B. Johnsson works at The Ratio Institute in Stockholm, Sweden. He earned a Ph.D. in economics in March 2003 at the University of Uppsala, Sweden, after successfully defending a thesis that included the construction and application of a Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) model. Contact author at richard.johnsson@ratioinstitutet.nu or visit his personal website . References Hazlitt, H. (1960). The Critics of Keynesian Economics, (ed). Princeton, N.J., 1960. Hicks, J. R. (1937). 'Mr. Keynes and the Classics: A suggested simplification.' Econometrica. Johnsson, R. (2003). 'Deflation—Some Classical Lessons.' Working Paper No. 23, The Ratio Institute, 2003. Available at http://swopec.hhs.se/ratioi/. Keynes, J.M. (1936). The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. New York: Harcourt, Brace. Krugman, P. (2003). 'No Relief in Sight. ' New York Times, 2.28.03 —. (2001). 'After The Horror.' New York Times, 9.14.01. —. (1998a). Why Aren't We All Keynesians Yet?' 8/3/98. Available at (http://www.pkarchive.org/theory/keynes.html) —. (1998b). 'Japan's trap.' May 1998. Lahart, J. (2003). Trapped like Japan?, CNN/Money Senior Writer, May 9, 2003. Reisman, G. (1996). Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics. Jameson Books, Ottawa, Illinois. Reuters. (2003). Weaker yen may help Japan deflation fight-Stiglitz, April 14, 2003. --- --- --- - [1] See for example Lahart (2003). See also Krugman (1998b). [2] See Keynes (1936) and Hicks (1937). [3] Keynes (1936), Chapter 11, II. [4] Keynes (1936), Chapter 13, II. [5] Keynes (1936), Chapter 11, III. [6] There are some major modifications, like the fact that Hicks (1937) denotes investment as depending on a single interest rate/rate of profit. The IS-curve isn’t really a curve but rather an equilibrium locus, where demand meets supply. But the underlying idea is still the same as Keynes’s. [7] As shown in Johnsson (2003), it doesn’t matter if one instead compares the rate of profit to the Gross Domestic Product, or even Gross Investment or Gross Domestic Revenue according to the Reisman (1996) framework. [8] And it is this argument that prompted the present author to inquire into the situation in Japan. See also for example Hazlitt (1960) for further criticism of the Keynesian ideas. [9] According to Reuters (2003), Stiglitz the same day said, “the Japanese government could stimulate domestic demand by printing money, in a form similar to U.S. treasury paper.” That is, above the money printing conducted by the Bank of Japan. According to Krugman (1998a, 2001 and 2003), the problem is too little spending regardless of what kind, so that the spending in connection to the destruction of skyscrapers or even war is good for the economy. BACK

Subject: Re: Liquidity trap myth From: Rafa Loring To: jg Date Posted: Thurs, Sep 04, 2003 at 11:23:56 (EDT) Email Address: rafaelloring@yahoo.es Message: I will try to answer this riddle. I do not see why the relation between investmet and profit(rate of return) dismiss the idea of a liquid trap. They are ineversely related in a given point of time but that doesn't meen they have to do trough time. It happens the same with most economic variables, take price and demand for example, In a given point of time if prices goes up, demand is supposed to go down, agree?. But if you actually look for data when prices have risen you will probably find that demand has risen too. But you wont go around saying the theory is not correct. Exactly the same with the rate of return and investment, In a given point of time (CETERIS PARIBUS) when the the rate of return rises the investment proyects you can have that brings you a profit that exceed the rate of return decreeses, therefore the investment will be reduced. But that doesn't mean that you have to look for this relationship in time series. I don't know if I am making my self clear. Rafa Loring

Subject: Liquidity trap in Japan From: Emma To: jg Date Posted: Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:24:56 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: If Japan has not been in a liquidity trap, then such an animal does not exist. But, Japan HAS been in a liquidity trap from the middle 90's. The simple point of a liquidity trap is that lowering central bank interest rates and lower general interest rate do not result in a quickening of economic growth. Japan has been in it, we want to avoid it, the point is understanding not playing with definitions.

Subject: A Real Liquidity Trap From: Allen To: Emma Date Posted: Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 16:09:55 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: A liquidity trap is defined by dramatic lowerings of interest rates that do not spur ec0nomic growth. Exactly the case in Japan, much to the surprise of contemporary economists. PK has it right.

Subject: Re: A Real Liquidity Trap From: jg To: Allen Date Posted: Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 18:18:31 (EDT) Email Address: austinstoneman@aol.com Message: None of these response posts question the ideas of the article at all-- I don't find these assurances that the liquidity trap has a broad definition that is beyond argument very inspiring. And the fact is, Krugman did not see Japan's depression coming-- he was confident enough in Japan's fiscal management to declare in '91, 'The problem cannot be dismissed. Japan is a great economic power that does not play by the same rules as the other great economic powers. Economically, and above all politically, that is a fact that cannot be ignored...One way or another, the United States has got to find a way of dealing with Japan. My political forecast is that the bashers will more or less have their way, and that the next decade will be one of growing economic nationalism. This nationalism will be expressed in a demand for import restrictions that will hurt our own economy at least as much as they hurt Japan’s.' Well, PK, was pretty wrong on that prediction. If Argentina is the failure of conservative economic policy, how about Japan as the failure of Keynesian policy?

Subject: Japan is a Triumph From: Jenn To: jg Date Posted: Tues, Aug 26, 2003 at 11:53:41 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Suggest you go to Japan, and view the triumph of Keynesian policy. Japan is a glorious economic triumph. The economic problems are reasonably small and are being overcome. The comment about Keynesian policy is absurd.

Subject: Schwartzy From: Jenn To: All Date Posted: Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 11:00:35 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Schwartzy has a solution. From bed and bathroom in the morning to bathroom and bed at night we are taxed taxed taxed. Of course the public is not interested in numbers, but cut taxes and all will be well always and forever. No taxes for defense or police or fire fighters or roads or schools or water supply or sanitation or Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid. No taxes and all will be well. Get it???

Subject: Re: Schwartzy From: Terri To: Jenn Date Posted: Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 12:31:06 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: New Poll Shows Bustamante Leading Arnold By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS California Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante has a significant lead over actor Arnold Schwarzenegger in the race to succeed Gov. Gray Davis, according to a new poll released Saturday night. Of 801 likely voters surveyed by the Los Angeles Times, 35 percent backed Bustamante, a Democrat, and 22 percent supported Schwarzenegger, a Republican....

Subject: Schwartzy the Rightee From: Jenn To: All Date Posted: Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:25:36 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The more Schwartzy refuses to answer policy questions, the more the radical right love Schwartzy. The more ignorant we are, the happier the radical righters.

Subject: Schwarzenegger From: Intellectual To: All Date Posted: Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 15:27:13 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Paul Krugman suffers apparently from a common problem. Whenever miorities fight for their rights we have to give them what they want-but it is okay to attack Schwarzenegger as a 'stupid bodybuilder' from Austria. It is not surprising for the New York Times to apply double standarts and to trash everone of germanic decent, still I have to congratulate you on your recent article. At least an article which not a black guy copied from somewhere else. Your paper is making progress, I am sure Arnold's spending program can start in a few weeks, the cancellation of NYT subscriptions. Already delivered papers could be used instead of toilet paper. The only proplem is the smell of hate that comes out of your paper. If you want to know more about bad journalism ask for Dick Morris and he will tell you how the Times didn't mention Whitewater in exchange for an exclusive interview.

Subject: Here is Racism From: Intellectual Fraud To: Intellectual Date Posted: Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 17:43:08 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: What a racist moron you are.

Subject: Intellectual troll From: Illiterate To: Intellectual Date Posted: Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 15:54:02 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I am an intellectual racist troll.

Subject: Donald Duckel Luskin From: L To: All Date Posted: Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 10:49:34 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Generally I have taken Donald Duckel as merely a mean spirited dishonest radical righter, but Duckel is also really really really stupid. Bye bye, Donald Duckel. Fair and Balanced - L

Subject: Wonderful Paul Krugman From: Cindy Fair and Balanced To: All Date Posted: Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 10:39:14 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Paul Krugman, what a wonderful courageous thinker and columnist you are. Do we ever need you. Cindy

Subject: Competitiveness_Singapore ? From: tt To: All Date Posted: Tues, Aug 19, 2003 at 04:46:52 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: P. Krugman has shown that competitiveness do nothing to US economy. I wonder that what is the effect of competitiveness to the small contry like singapore ? unlike US, singapore economy involve heavily in international trade.

Subject: Competitiveness From: Paul Handley / Bard Delong Blog To: tt Date Posted: Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 14:00:24 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: For policy's sake, it would all be fine if [trade] shifts happened gradually based on constant adjustments. In practice, instead you have these dam-bursting events that grow from political events that can't be easily predicted or mitigated and render the retraining and competitive adjustment response ineffective. Examples include the effect on Japan of the sudden revaluation of the yen in the 1980s. Extremely long overdue, this was finally a political decision which led to a massive shift in trade balances and loss of Japanese manufacturing jobs offshore, mainly to China and Southeast Asia. Initially the effects in Japan were mitigated by new growth in the same region -- increasing consumption volumes of all those goods so Japan-based plants could stay open -- and by the social welfare policies of Japanese corporations. But here we are, almost 20 years later, and Japan is still suffering the effects of the bubble that burst. A second and concurrent example is China's opening. From the beginning of the 1980s, suddenly you had a massive supply of cheap labor, skilled and unskilled, flood the market. But they were really only available in China. Bang: every country around the world has experienced a shift of jobs to China faster than they can adjust to it. And because the labor supply in China is so huge -- just limited by the infrastructure access to it, which constantly improves -- the effect is a 30-year assault on jobs in other countries. A micro-example: at the end of the 1980s Thai shoe manufacturers got upgraded to begin producing mid-range Nikes and such. This was a significant advance up the ladder. But then suddenly political changes in cheaper labor markets like China, Indonesia and Vietnam quickly took this away, before the Thais could get their skills to the point that they could move another step up the ladder, to Air Jordans and all. So the shoe industry which was competitive one year was suddenly under threat of being wiped out the next. Add to the political event of China's opening the similarly opening economies in Eastern Europe and Russia, Mexico and the rest of Latin America, now increasingly India (which, fortunately for China, has never has the export-manufacturing acumen as East Asian countries), and you end up with a sudden massive economic event that can mean overly rapid displacement for a generation, whatever your central bank tries to do. Even Singapore is not immune. The city-state itself has become a fairly high-cost economy and has mainly survived by importing/buying cheaper skilled workers from other countries, in particular China (but also executive help from the West). Even so, Singapore is in a slump, with an uncomfortably high jobless rate, and a forced fall in salaries, partly explained by a tendency of potential investors to look beyond them to cheaper locations and Singapore's own inability to keep upgrading skills, retraining its work force, fast enough to contiue to compete for investment in the tier of high-cost economies. (It doesn't help that many well educated Singaporeans are Emigrating to more open societies.) Singapore's challenge is unique to its own size and location, but it reflects the problem of dam-bursting shifts in the global economic power balance that can really shake societies no matter how well their own central banks have prepared the ground. The lesson of Japan especially is that these shifts can undermine whatever policy-makers do.

Subject: Re: Competitiveness From: tt To: Paul Handley / Bard Delong Blog Date Posted: Thurs, Aug 21, 2003 at 02:54:13 (EDT) Email Address: tt@aa.com Message: How can Japan suffer economically because of China when it still has huge current account surplus ? If China really affected Japan and robbed Japan's job by substituting Japan export with their cheap product, we should see Japan run a current account deficit. Japan isssue should be domestic problem rather than trade problem.

Subject: Jobs are being lost to China From: Jenn To: tt Date Posted: Thurs, Aug 21, 2003 at 13:46:51 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: No. As in the United States, Japanese jobs are being lost to China.

Subject: Competitiveness - Explain From: Jenn To: tt Date Posted: Tues, Aug 19, 2003 at 15:15:25 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Please explain a bit more. what do you mean by competitiveness?

Subject: Governed by Film Stars From: Emma F&B To: All Date Posted: Sat, Aug 16, 2003 at 17:31:42 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/15/opinion/15THAR.html A Land Governed by Film Stars By SHASHI THAROOR Arnold Schwarzenegger has farther to go than he thinks. He may become governor of California, but he can't become God. That privilege is reserved for the Indian movie-star-turned-politician N. T. Rama Rao, who played so many mythological heroes in so many hit films that fans built a temple to him. NTR, as he was popularly known, traded his divine celebrity for the dross of office by founding his own political party in 1980 and romping to victory in state elections. That made him chief minister, the equivalent of a governor, of Andhra Pradesh, a state which then had 50 million people (California is home to a scant 34 million). While the United States has Hollywood, India has a movie industry that may be lesser known worldwide, but is much bigger, producing more than 800 films a year in 19 languages and employing 2.5 million people — Hollywood averages about 200 theatrical releases annually. Film is the principal story-telling vehicle in India, a country that's still more than 40 percent illiterate, and the cheapest tickets cost no more than a quarter, ensuring action heroes mass adulation....

Subject: Cruz Bustamante From: Ronny To: All Date Posted: Sat, Aug 16, 2003 at 17:29:48 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Cruz Bustamante is holding up well in the polls, even with the immense publicity Arnuld has had. I think Cruz will be a tough campaigner.

Subject: Hiring Buffett is dangerous From: Mr F&B David To: All Date Posted: Sat, Aug 16, 2003 at 12:58:40 (EDT) Email Address: daveellis_39@hotmail.com Message: What a show we have in California! Warren has pointed out the handcuffs that bind finances in this state. We have a property tax system that penalizes the newcomer. Property valuations are limited to 2% annual growth. Valuations are stepped up when the property is sold. That means a lot of people are going to be upset with Arnold and Warren. Talk about vested interests, everybody that hasnt moved in the last 5 years. Of course, businesses rarely sell their property. They just merge. So this has been a huge cost savings for them. So people like me who bought my $435,000 home for $190,000 and businesses could see our taxes going up a lot. Of course Warren is right, the whole thing is unfair. We adopted a cheap fix in the 70's instead of figuring out an equitable solution. It was done by proposition only because there was no chance the legislature could do the job. The problem that Proposition 13 attempted to solve was that when real estate values are rapidly rising - automatically government revenues rise. And no government revenue is left unspent. We are going to have a real food fight. I like Warren Buffet, nobody from California would have dared say something was wrong. You have to admire honesty and the truth. Now, I am afraid that rational discussion wont happen. Because of term limits we have a legislature of amateurs that have no sense of history. Who else would try to deregulate a natural monopoly? We have left wing and right wing nuts that will fight to the end for 100% of what they believe in. Nuts on the left and the right, and the majority in the middle gets screwed. Bipartisan politics has a bad name, and I dont know why.

Subject: Re: Hiring Buffett is dangerous From: David - Fair and Balanced To: Mr F&B David Date Posted: Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 16:56:54 (EDT) Email Address: daveellis_39@hotmail.com Message: It looks like I was wrong as usual in expecting a rational discussion in politics. Arnold will make Warren do 500 situps if he says anything. And Warren has to sit on his left. I am worried about the groping incidents. Read them and see if the incidents dont make you very uncomfortable. The Arnold reported is very different than his public image. The stuff reported was way out of line (unwelcome groping and incredible insensitivity). Movie stars have sued and won for lesser allegations. You have to wonder that Arnold didnt sue because the truth is a defense against slander.

Subject: Arnuld and Buffett From: Barry To: Mr F&B David Date Posted: Sat, Aug 16, 2003 at 16:18:36 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Warren Buffett is right, but Arnuld will never ever go along because the Republicans will not allow it. Hopefully Bustamante wins and the Republican coup is thwarted. The recall was a Republican disgrace.

Subject: Re: Arnuld and Buffett From: ArnOld To: Barry Date Posted: Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 15:39:43 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I think people like you who are apparently unable to write Arnold's name correctly should not take part in an election. I am sure you are unable to spell his last name either. Certainly you are not able to speak or learn a foreign language or go to Austria and make money and become a politician. In fact, you are even unable to run for office in your own country. So, what's left for a looser like you - the post messages on the web.

Subject: Re: Arnuld and Buffett From: Fair and Balanced David To: Barry Date Posted: Sun, Aug 17, 2003 at 00:41:36 (EDT) Email Address: daveellis_39@hotmail.com Message: I agree with you that the repuglican strategy is to win any dirty way they can. And that they have no interest in really solving California's problems. But isn't it exciting to be possibly talking about real issues and possibly real solutions. Warren Buffett has hit the nail on the head. Grey Davis was that--just grey, he shouldnt have rolled over when FERC stuffed the state. When Cheney says 'those california's just dont get it' 'those stupid californians didnt build enough power plants?' Those are fighting words and Grey tried to handle it administratively, behind the scenes. What is up with selling $ 11 billion in bonds to pay those carpet baggers from Texas. Davis could have called their bluff by threatening to seize the power plants until they started making power. What is up with not holding the repuglicans feet to the fire now - make them say where they are going to cut. Davis has no fire, and we need fire to fight repuglicans. Maybe Clinton will light a fire under Davis, if he doesnt change, he is dead meat in California. And maybe Bustamente has a fire in his belly and maybe not. There is nothing in the democratic party to be excited about.

Subject: Thanks From: Emma To: Fair and Balanced David Date Posted: Sun, Aug 17, 2003 at 10:43:53 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: All else I agree with.

Subject: Terrific Democrats From: Emma To: Fair and Balanced David Date Posted: Sun, Aug 17, 2003 at 10:42:27 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: There are all sorts of things in the Democratic Party to be excited about. Howard Dean and Cruz Bustamante are among many Democrats who are terrific middle class responsive politicians.

Subject: Arnuld and Buffett From: Barry F&B To: Barry Date Posted: Sat, Aug 16, 2003 at 16:19:19 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Oops

Subject: Unemployment statistics From: Ernie To: All Date Posted: Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 13:00:51 (EDT) Email Address: Ernie.Ciccotelli@valley.net Message: Frequently, the unemployment rate is defined as the number of people who stop looking for work (for various reasons, such as discouragement). The index the rate is based on is the number of people receiving unemployment insurance for whatever reason, most particularly because the period they may collect benefits has run out. The result of these two factors is that someone who has stopped receiving unemployment benefits because their benefits have run out is deemed to have stopped looking for work. This is a specious statistic, but seems to be repeated and reinforced by use in the media. Would it be possible for Paul to start the ball rolling on a clearer understanding of this specious statistic, so that when some media outlet reports that the unemployment rate is dropping because people are no longer looking for work, the readers will understand that job-seeker are not voluntarily ceasing their search for work, but rather they are simply arbitrarily defined as such, and that this definition suits the powers that be, in that they then can point to an artificially defined drop in the unemployment rate as an 'improvement' in the employment picture, when no such thing exists, and in fact the opposite is the reality. Thank you

Subject: Employment statistics From: Fair and Balances Jenn To: Ernie Date Posted: Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 15:49:42 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: See http://www.epinet.org/index.cfm for extensive comments on employment statistics....

Subject: Re: Employment statistics From: The Rabbit To: Fair and Balances Jenn Date Posted: Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 17:37:28 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I think you're wrong on the unemployment statistic. Unemployment is defined as the ratio of all people seeking work who have been unable to find any for at least 2 weeks to the entire labor force, where the labor force are all people actively seeking work. In fact, discouraged workers are not considered part of the labor force and drop out of the unemployment statistics. That is why many economists feel that the official unemployment rate during a prolonged recession underestimates the true effect of joblessness, and it also helps explain why unemployment is a lag factor: as the economy grows again, people start looking for work again at a faster rate than the creation of positions for them to fill, and so unemployment expands. The statistics (and I'm addressing this to the original author of the post, not the person who first replied, btw) regarding unemployment claims are measured separately as, well, the number of new unemployment claims, and the discouraged workers can probably be determined by looking at the size of the labor force and adjusting it for population growth. So now, the statistic isn't specious at all, but people should know exactly what it means

Subject: Re: Employment statistics From: The Rabbit To: Fair and Balances Jenn Date Posted: Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 17:36:05 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I think you're wrong on the unemployment statistic. Unemployment is defined as the ratio of all people seeking work who have been unable to find any for at least 2 weeks to the entire labor force, where the labor force are all people actively seeking work. In fact, discouraged workers are not considered part of the labor force and drop out of the unemployment statistics. That is why many economists feel that the official unemployment rate during a prolonged recession underestimates the true effect of joblessness, and it also helps explain why unemployment is a lag factor: as the economy grows again, people start looking for work again at a faster rate than the creation of positions for them to fill, and so unemployment expands. The statistics (and I'm addressing this to the original author of the post, not the person who first replied, btw) regarding unemployment claims are measured separately as, well, the number of new unemployment claims, and the discouraged workers can probably be determined by looking at the size of the labor force and adjusting it for population growth. So now, the statistic isn't specious at all, but people should know exactly what it means

Subject: Coincidence From: Yann To: All Date Posted: Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 09:01:07 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Please read 'Twilight Zone Economics' (8/15), in particular, the passage about the labor market. Then read 'A strange recovery' in The Economist (8/9). Funny.

Subject: Economist From: Jenn To: Yann Date Posted: Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 15:44:19 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Economist.com: 8/9/03 AMERICA'S economy is now supposedly on the road to recovery, but somebody forgot to tell the labour market. Non-farm payrolls fell by another 44,000 in July. Since the recession began in early 2001, 3.2m jobs have disappeared in the private sector. If the early-1990s' upturn was the jobless recovery, this, says Merrill Lynch, is 'the job-loss recovery'. In the first 20 months of previous post-war recoveries, employment rose by an average of almost 6%. The latest recession officially ended in November 2001, but in the 20 months since then employment has fallen by almost 1%....

Subject: Employment Problem From: Jenn Fair and Balanced To: Jenn Date Posted: Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 15:47:14 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Paul Krugman 8/15/03 Since November 2001 — which the National Bureau of Economic Research, in a controversial decision, has declared the end of the recession — the U.S. economy has grown at an annual rate of about 2.6 percent. That may not sound so bad, but when it comes to jobs there has been no recovery at all. Nonfarm payrolls have fallen by, on average, 50,000 per month since the 'recovery' began, accounting for 1 million of the 2.7 million jobs lost since March 2001. Meanwhile, employment is chasing a moving target because the working-age population continues to grow. Just to keep up with population growth, the U.S. needs to add about 110,000 jobs per month. When it falls short of that, jobs become steadily harder to find. At this point conditions in the labor market are probably the worst they have been for almost 20 years....

Subject: Bonds From: Emma - Fair and Balanced To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Aug 14, 2003 at 14:31:47 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Well the 10 year treasury has risen from 3.11 on June 13 to 4.60 on August 14. Largest such rise in percentage terms I know of.

Subject: Is It the End? From: David - F&B To: Emma - Fair and Balanced Date Posted: Thurs, Aug 14, 2003 at 16:09:16 (EDT) Email Address: daveellis_39@hotmail.com Message: Is it the end or just the start of the collapse? What about Fannie and Freddie? Did their derivative positions work or are they stuck with billions in losses? If its losses, will the US government pick them up? Is the next step price controls on interest rates? We sure dont want high interest rates to subvert our recovery. Whoever said that bonds are dull and stodgy didnt know what he was talking about. I am having as many thrills as I had in 2000 with the stock market. Are foreign buyers quitting the market causing the rates to go up?. All we have now is May data, and Japan bought a lot to keep the dollar up and the yen low.

Subject: Is It the End? From: Emma To: David - F&B Date Posted: Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 12:24:33 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: From May to June, shorting the 10 year treasury made sense. Now? Who can say. Euro banks were asked to lighten up on US mortgage debt, but we can not know whether they have already done so. How much leverage is left? After a 50% rise in the yield of the 10 year treasury, there may not be all that much. Again, fine question, no sure answer. No price controls on interest rates are thinkable.

Subject: Price Controls From: David F&B and B&B To: Emma Date Posted: Sat, Aug 16, 2003 at 00:13:55 (EDT) Email Address: daveellis_39@hotmail.com Message: You are right price controls wont be an option, Greenspan has used up all of his tools, and failed. I bet he wished for price controls though, that is how we got a nice run of low rates after WWII.

Subject: Price Controls From: Jenn F&B To: David F&B and B&B Date Posted: Sat, Aug 16, 2003 at 12:01:37 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Did not know that price controls on interest rates were used after WWII. Were these controls only on bank interest? Will check. Thanks.

Subject: for now From: Emma Fair and Balanced for now To: Emma Date Posted: Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 12:25:40 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Fair and Balanced

Subject: Will Bonds Slow Economy? From: Fair & Balanced - Randall To: Emma - Fair and Balanced Date Posted: Thurs, Aug 14, 2003 at 15:46:28 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Do you think the rise in yields will slow the economy further?

Subject: Heat Casualties From: PK - Emma Fair and Balanced To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Aug 14, 2003 at 11:49:24 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: HEAT CASUALTIES (8/13/03) Paul Krugman Some people have asked me for the source of the letter about water shortages in Iraq. It's not Hackworth's site - I know he's often accused of self-promotion, though there's no reason to question the letters he passes on. But anyway, I took it from Stars and Stripes - lead letter, under the headline 'Heat casualties' Here's the text, in case the letters are taken down: My name is Pfc. John Bendetti. I’m assigned to the 220th Military Police Company with the Colorado Army National Guard. We arrived in Kuwait one month before the war started. Just before the war ended, we were sent to Iraq. We arrived during the “winter” months. We’ve been living at Tallil Air Base. We’re currently living off Meals, Ready to Eat, T-rations, and junk food from the local post exchange. We’re also currently living without air conditioning. During the day the temperature reaches 127 degrees in the shade. Due to more attacks on convoys, more items are becoming rare. Two examples are mail and bottled water. Our mail has been reduced to two times a week. Due to a lack of bottled water, each soldier has been limited to two 1.5 liter bottles a day. We’ve had two soldiers drop out due to heat-related injuries. A person with common sense knows that a normal person can’t survive on three liters of water a day. One would think that the Army could coordinate with the Air Force and have supplies flown in from Kuwait. All I’m saying is that we’ve been “climatized” to the heat, but new troops have not. There will continue to be more heat casualties until something is done. Hopefully we won’t have to lose someone because of someone’s stupidity. We need to come up with a solution quick! Pfc. John Bendetti Tallil, Iraq Here's another, from more recent letters : It frustrates me that those who want to tell soldiers in Kuwait and Iraq to buck up are in the U.S. or Germany. None of them knows what it’s really like out here. I’m tired of people like the writer of the letter “Attitude appalling” (July 20) who say that noncommissioned officers’ attitudes out here are appalling. I’ll tell reader’s what’s appalling: The way officers, especially upper-level officers, have stripped NCOs of their ability to take care of their soldiers and give them direction. Why would the Army’s backbone, the NCO Corps, have its soldiers puzzled and perplexed at this deployment/war? It’s because the ones in power are the officers, and they’ve drawn us all out here into this conflict without a real mission just to fulfill their need for promotion or recognition. There are thousands of soldiers in Kuwait who were never supposed to be here. My unit was told that we weren’t supposed to be here. We were told by a lieutenant colonel on our second day in country that we were supposed to demobilize and return home. We asked if we could return. He laughed and said, “No. We got you here. Now we will find something for you.” As with tens of hundreds of other units, we were without a mission. How do readers think our morale was as of day two in country, let alone all the other units that sat here waiting for a job but never got one? Like us, they are still waiting for a way home. I feel bad for 3rd Infantry Division soldiers and everyone on this deployment. We got shafted by upper-level officers who don’t care about their soldiers’ well-being and are so selfish that they’d mobilize battalions and battalions of soldiers who are not needed and have no mission. Then those officers return home without their soldiers, who are stuck in country with new officers who want to get theirs and are thinking of themselves, not their soldiers. It is so much worse. If I could only find the words to describe the harsh reality here in Kuwait and Iraq, I would. Politics and selfishness are at the lead of this nation-building operation, the complete opposite of all Army values. So the next time anyone wants to slam NCOs or any other soldiers for the situation that we’re in, they shouldn’t blame us. They should look at the big picture and see what hell we live in out here. They have no right to sit in Germany or the States and judge us and our conditions. Spc. Jason K. Sapp Kuwait And here's an excerpt from the Financial Times story on 8/11: But the growing dependence on such private sector support concerns some military experts. Part of the problem is that contractors are not subject to military discipline and could walk off the job if they felt like it. The only thing the military could do would be to sue the contractor later on - the last thing on the mind of a commander on the battlefield. This is not just an idle possibility. Since the end of the recent war in Iraq, US army officers have complained that their troops suffered poor living conditions because civilian contractors sometimes failed to show up. Even the mail handled by Halliburton was slow to get through. 'We thought we could depend on industry to perform these kinds of functions,' Lt Gen Charles S. Mahan, the Army's logistics chief, was quoted as saying by Newhouse News Service this month. He said it got 'harder and harder to get (them) to go in harm's way'. One senior US official says the use of private contractors has 'been going on now for at least two decades and it has really intensified lately and has got some of the military planners . . . pulling their hair out'. In part, says the official, this is because US military planners are looking at a possible war on the Korean peninsula, one that would be 'a more traditional conventional war, if you will, one that will be bloody as hell and fought on cross-compartmental terrain that makes the desert looks like child's play. 'These people can't do that,' the official continues. 'You've got to have military cooks and military people doing all this logistics tail and so forth. You aren't going to get contractors to go. You have got this situation . . . where better than 20 or 30 per cent of services that used to be done in house by combat trained people are now (done by) contractors.' Critics, do your homework!

Subject: Bonds Bonds From: SR - Fair and Balanced To: All Date Posted: Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 14:34:26 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: http://www.morganstanley.com/GEFdata/digests/20030722-tue.html Losing Control Stephen Roach (New York)[Morgan Stanley] The current rout in the US bond market is starting to reach epic proportions. Yields on 10-year Treasuries have backed up an astonishing 108 bp in just five weeks. Given the record low yields that were prevailing on June 13 (daily close of 3.11%), this sell-off is far worse on a percentage change basis -- a 35% surge in long-term government interest rates. It’s a carnage that is now taking on the trappings of the worst sell-off of them all -- the great bond market rout of 1994, when yields on 10-year Treasuries rose by 44% (or 246 bp from 5.57% in January 1994 to 8.03% in November 1994). Needless to say, if the rout continues, all bets could be off on other asset markets, to say nothing of the nascent recovery in the US economy....

Subject: Bonds Bonds From: PK - Fair and Balanced To: All Date Posted: Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 13:56:40 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Dropping the Bonds In his July testimony to Congress on monetary policy, Alan Greenspan was cautious but _ adjusting for his usual funereal demeanor _ quite upbeat. ``Although the uncertainties of earlier this year are as yet not fully resolved,'' he declared, ``the U.S. economy appears to have withstood a set of blows. Not surprisingly the depressing effects of recent events linger. Nevertheless, the fundamentals are in place for a return to sustained healthy growth.'' O.K., I cheated: those quotations come from his testimony in July 2002, not July 2003. Needless to say, ``healthy growth'' failed to materialize. Undaunted, he said pretty much the same thing last week _ and the result was to reinforce a huge sell-off in the bond market, which may undermine the very recovery he predicted. I used to be a great admirer of Mr. Greenspan. But something has gone very wrong with the maestro.... July 25, 2003

Subject: Re: Bonds Bonds From: david To: PK - Fair and Balanced Date Posted: Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 19:27:33 (EDT) Email Address: daveellis_39@hotmail.com Message: Its a real problem, he has to say at the same time, 'watch out deflation' and 'the recovery is coming'!

Subject: Re: Bonds Bonds From: jeff To: david Date Posted: Thurs, Aug 14, 2003 at 14:33:06 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: This rise in yields can not be healthy for the economy.

Subject: Would Paul do a column on the bond collapse? From: David To: All Date Posted: Tues, Aug 12, 2003 at 17:30:46 (EDT) Email Address: daveellis_39@hotmail.com Message:

Subject: Re: Would Paul do a column on the bond collapse? From: David To: David Date Posted: Tues, Aug 12, 2003 at 17:43:22 (EDT) Email Address: daveellis_39@hotmail.com Message: I am a fat fingered guy today. Posted without putting my message in. (only twice today!) It might not be possible to do in 750 words, but the collapse of bond prices is leaving me wondering. Some folks are blaming derivatives, others are blaming Alan Greenspan, and others are blaming foreign investors. Derivatives are a good story, believable because I dont understand how that works. Blaming Alan works - because talking up how you are going to fight deflation is not a smart thing when you want the economy to get rolling. (Maybe that's why he did his 180). Foreign investors bought record amounts of bonds in May. Was that an effort to maintain exchange rates? What happened in subsequent months -did they stop buying? This is a huge story - Almost as big as the Mar 2000 collapse of stock prices, but no coverage.

Subject: A bond story From: jimsum To: David Date Posted: Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 10:51:24 (EDT) Email Address: jimsum@rogers.com Message: Here's a link to a story about bond prices. It was written by a Canadian, which is maybe why he didn't know he wasn't supposed to cover the issue :-) http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030811.wbmath0811/BNStory/Business/

Subject: Re: A bond story From: David To: jimsum Date Posted: Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 13:34:56 (EDT) Email Address: daveellis_39@hotmail.com Message: Thanks, I hope it is as simple as the canadian thinks.

Subject: Shrill Shrill Shrill From: JD To: All Date Posted: Tues, Aug 12, 2003 at 14:41:09 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/12/nyregion/12FRAN.html 'Al Franken is neither a journalist nor a television news personality,' according to the complaint. 'He is not a well-respected voice in American politics; rather, he appears to be shrill and unstable. His views lack any serious depth or insight.' Lawyers for Fox who filed the complaint also take issue with Mr. Franken's book cover because it 'mimics the look and style' of two books written by Bill O'Reilly, a prominent Fox News personality. Mr. O'Reilly is also pictured on the cover, just beneath the word 'Lies.' The court papers refer to Mr. Franken, who is a former 'Saturday Night Live' writer and performer, as a 'parasite' who hopes to use Fox's reputation to confuse the public and boost sales of his book.

Subject: But why do they say what they do? From: Susan D. To: JD Date Posted: Thurs, Oct 23, 2003 at 13:40:45 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Can we expect anything less from Fox News??? No we can't. They are part of the Republican machine. They are a weapon being used against critics of the Administration and any liberal including liberal media, who seek facts and answers rather than rhetoric. They are using the words Shrill,( which is defined as high-pitched or sharp in sound), angry, hateful and rabid to describe anything resembling an unkind word about government policies and actions. But that is part of the conspiracy, part of their major plan. According to the New Fundalmentalist's website, members are ordered to dismiss liberals as rabid dogs, and then in parenthesis, they include (of course, they are not.) But the Conservatives benefit when the nation begins to believe that liberals are full of hatred, are 'SHRILL' (very sick of that word, these people are journalist, can't they find a new one?) are rabid, are angry. You see my point. Because if the nation believes that Democrats are 'crybaby girlies' well certainly they can't run a country being threatened by the 'axis of evil' Perhaps that's why they use the word shrill so much because the word conjurs up images of the nagging wife or raving lunatic. What the liberal press should do, is write an article explaining their use of this very tactic. And of course, they Conservatives will deny, deny deny. But the damage will be done, the information will be out there and the Right wingers will be forced to find a new tactic. But at least this will clear the way for open discussion about Mr. Bush's policies. Why they haven't done so is beyond me. The best defense is a good offense, but I truly believe that most liberal media consider themselves too proper, too professional to take the gloves off and come out swinging. In the end, it will be attributed as their biggest fault during this period of our history. As an example of Fox's propaganda, On O'Reilly Factor, Bill interviewed Alan Combs, Fox's ultra conservative liberal, who has just published his new book, Red, White and LIberal. After a bit of wrangling, altho not much indeed, he got Combs to admit that many of the liberal books out now, Bushwhacked, The Great Unraveling, are nothing more than hateful Bush Bashing. Now why would Combs not disagree with such a statement. After all, aren't people, even liberals allowed to express their opinion in print?? Of course they are, but not if you listen to Fox News. NO BUSH BASHING ALLOWED< in spite of all of the lies surrounding this administration, no one is allowed to question the most powerful man in the world. Well why would Combs not defend his fellow liberals? Because he better not. He may claim to be a Democrat, but he still gets his paychecks from one of the most extreme right-wing news networks on the air. And why would the media bend over backwards to please Bush? Because a ruling has allowed Media Moguls and Conglomerates, such as Rubert Murdock and Clear Channel, (whose board member Mr. Hicks, bought the Texas Rangers from Bush and made Bush a rich man) take over huge chunks of the airwaves. In turn, those media moguls give the Republican Party plenty of contributions back in return. All devised to keep the Republican Party in power and keep the rich getting richer.

Subject: Re: Shrill Shrill Shrill From: JD To: JD Date Posted: Tues, Aug 12, 2003 at 14:42:42 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: 'Shrill' is the new radical right word of smear. Al Franken is shrill. Paul Krugman is shrill. I am shrill.... Woooooooooooo.

Subject: Donald Fussfuss From: Atrios To: All Date Posted: Tues, Aug 12, 2003 at 11:19:40 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Shorter Donald Luskin My readers are too stupid to understand what Paul Krugman writes, and it is therefore fair for me to accuse him of misleading them based on their ignorant misinterpretations.

Subject: News is not popular From: David To: All Date Posted: Sun, Aug 10, 2003 at 22:46:28 (EDT) Email Address: daveellis_39@hotmail.com Message: The ny times reported today the drop in TV news viewers this summer. Seems like nobody wants to watch the news. Never mentioned in the article was the reason I suspect no one watches. When lately has the TV news covered anything relevant? Severe dislocations in society have occurred and no discussion no understanding. My pension disappeared six years before my retirement - and all that hit the news was some hard to understand stuff about pension troubles at IBM. This was a watershed turn in events - a recognition that corporation pension promises couldn't be kept. A big event in a majority of people's lives and no discussion. An even bigger event - the difficulty of paying for social security is undiscussed. Huge deficits caused by tax cuts are increasing the difficulty of paying for social security. TV news should be covering this, explaining different viewpoints, educating voters so they can make informed decisions. Another example, when you add to the unemployment rate those who want to work full time and those who havent looked in the last 4 weeks, you get a number over 10% unemployed. That is a story and its not covered. Let them eat cake I guess, those folks are not important. Why watch the news, the important news you need to understand changes in life are not covered. TV news is irrelevant.

Subject: Spin is not popular From: jimsum To: David Date Posted: Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 10:41:16 (EDT) Email Address: jimsum@rogers.com Message: I'll say the drop in TV news viewing is due to the fact that the majority of TV news just repeats the spin of the Administration. My favourite example (from about a year ago) was a business story on CNN that was reporting on tax cuts for small businesses that 'averaged' $2000. The story featured a businessman who said he would use his tax cut to expand his operation and hire new workers; all this with a $2000 tax cut? Needless to say, the TV story gave no information about who would really benefit from the tax cut; it only gave the impression that the benefits would be widely spread among small businessmen; while ignoring the story's counter-example that showed the benefit would not be widely spread. People know they are not going to hear the truth on TV, or at least that they won't hear anything that contradicts the spin of the day; so why watch TV when you won't learn anything? Personally, I only read the news section and watch TV news to find out what the hot topics are. To get any real information, I read the opinion columns (and political cartoons)!

Subject: Truth is not Popular From: Terri To: David Date Posted: Tues, Aug 12, 2003 at 11:05:40 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Truth is not popular with this Administration. They wish problems away, so focus on most important problems becomes most difficult.

Subject: Tax Policy Distortions From: Terri To: All Date Posted: Sun, Aug 10, 2003 at 11:27:15 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The post by Paul Krugman on treasury department distortions of the effects of current tac policy is most important and disturbing. This Administration is doing all sorts of harm to the miidle class.

Subject: Love to Bobby From: Terri To: All Date Posted: Sat, Aug 09, 2003 at 17:19:00 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Bobby - What a wonder you are!

Subject: Re: Love to Bobby From: Bobby To: Terri Date Posted: Thurs, Aug 14, 2003 at 12:44:49 (EDT) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: Thanks :)

Subject: There They Go Again From: Paul Krugman To: All Date Posted: Sat, Aug 09, 2003 at 13:48:29 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: August 9, 2003 THERE THEY GO AGAIN Paul Krugman How today's Treasury lies with numbers, part CCCLVI: The following letter appeared in today's Times: As the former Deputy Assistant Secretary responsible for tax analysis at the Treasury Department I must respond to Mr. Krugman’s recent column (August 5, 2003) accusing political bias. The Treasury does detailed analysis of tax legislation and has reported many of these analyses on its web site. The Treasury Department also frequently responds to requests by the media for analysis. Mr. Krugman objects to an analysis that showed the effects of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for six representative families. Among the six representative families, the analysis provided an example of a married couple, both spouses aged 65, with $40,000 in income, including $2,000 in dividend income. Mr. Krugman objects that such a family is not representative of elderly taxpayers. Obviously, no single example can be representative of all elderly taxpayers, but the example is useful precisely because it is unlikely to be misinterpreted - it applies to the couple described. Further, this couple has income quite close to the median for such filers, their $2,000 in dividends is quite close to the average amount of dividends for elderly filers at their income level, about half of which have dividend income. As a result, the elderly couple Mr. Krugman objects to is quite representative of such income tax filers. The example couple has seen a decline in its income tax liability from $1,396 to $675 as a result of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Mr. Krugman is certainly free to oppose the tax relief provided to the taxpayers described in these examples but he should be more circumspect in asserting political bias in the underlying analyses. Andrew B. Lyon College Park, MD Did you get that? I'm more accustomed to this sort of math than 99 percent of readers, and it took me about 6 reads. The average dividend of elderly families with the median income, half of whom receive dividends ... it sounds as if this refutes what I said . But you'll notice that he never takes on my assertion that only about 1/4 of elderly families receive any dividends, which comes from Tax Policy Center ; nor does he challenge my statement that only 1 in 8 elderly households receive as much as $2000 in dividends, which comes from CBPP . I leave it as an exercise for readers to figure out how Lyon's discussion is consistent with a real world in which the Treasury's 'low-income' elderly household has more dividend income than 7 out of 8 elderly households. The point, however, is that the confusing discussion shows the Treasury strategy at work. 1. Never answer the question directly. 2. Offer an elaborate calculation that sounds as if it refutes the accusation that the tax cut mainly favors the wealthy, when in fact it does no such thing. For afficianados: notice how they're still doing the average/median thing. It's clear from what he says that the median dividend for families with the median income is ... '0.'

Subject: Average and Median From: jimsum To: Paul Krugman Date Posted: Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 11:10:27 (EDT) Email Address: jimsum@rogers.com Message: I think more than afficionados should notice the average/median thing; I think it will turn out to be the primary means that the Republicans will use to misrepresent policies, and this scheme ought to be exposed at every opportunity. If you want to get idea about the total cost of a tax benefit, the average is very useful; but if you are arguing about how the benefits are distributed, the average tells you nothing. Krugman has been arguing that the distribution of the tax cuts favours the rich, and Lyon shows he knew this was the point of contention since he wrote, 'Mr. Krugman objects that such a family is not representative of elderly taxpayers'. Lyon then goes on to argue a completely different point, that this fictitious family receives the average amount of income and dividends; a point that was not in dispute. The average :-) American thinks that average means the same thing as 'representative'; that the 'average' American is synonymous with the common or normal American. Given the uneven distribution of income (and of taxes), averages do not have any real value in informing a person of how much benefit they will personally receive. The median gives a much better indication of how benefits are spread to different economic levels; but since the Republicans don't seem to want to emphasize the distribution of benefits resulting from their economic policies, I'm sure we will be hearing a lot more about averages in the future.

Subject: Average and Median - Nice Post From: Moen To: jimsum Date Posted: Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 17:31:59 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Niced post!

Subject: Poster From: Emma To: Paul Krugman Date Posted: Sat, Aug 09, 2003 at 13:50:44 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Post of Paul Krugman comment....

Subject: Euro as oil currency From: efranck To: All Date Posted: Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 13:25:48 (EDT) Email Address: efranckny@hotmail.com Message: I would love to hear or read Paul Krugman about the consequences on the dollar and the US ecoonomy of the Euro becoming an accepted currency for purchasing oil. Interesting that Iraq had apparently begun accepting Euro for oil in 1999, and that Iran and Venezuela were looking in to it... FYI - interesting read: http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/sovereign/dollar/2003/03oil.htm

Subject: Re: Euro as oil currency From: DharmaBum To: efranck Date Posted: Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 11:12:31 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Here's this article by PK from March 2003 http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/NothingforMoney.html

Subject: Not Likely From: Emma To: efranck Date Posted: Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 13:47:41 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The general pricing of oil and gas in Euro terms is not likely, though the effect would be minor in any case. When Russia and Nigeria price energy in Euros, we can pay attention.

Subject: Dollar and Euro From: Terri To: Emma Date Posted: Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 15:17:42 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The weakening of the dollar against the Euro has been minor, and only mildly reverses years of a strong dollar. There is no reason to believe countries other than Iran or Venezuela will switch oil price links to the Euro. We control Iraq now. The dollar has maintained its value against Asian currencies other than Australia's dollar, and held its value against Mexico's currency. The dollar has weakened against the Canadian dollar.

Subject: Re: Dollar and Euro From: efranck To: Terri Date Posted: Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 15:34:09 (EDT) Email Address: efranckny@hotmail.com Message: I appreciate your comments, but they do not address my question: what would be the consequences to the dollar and the US economy should important players (Russia and others) accept the Euro as a currency for natural resources such as oil and gas? If it is important (it must be), then how does it influence US foreign policy (going into Iraq, for example)? I have not seen this issue addressed anywhere, although it may be a critical one. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the fact that courties worldwide have to purchase dollars to pay for oil/gas, etc is a major factor of stability and strength for the dollar. Again, If anyone knows of a serious study on this issues, I would be very interested. I am sure Paul Krugman would have something to say on the subject (maybe he already has). Thanks for your answers and for this very useful site.

Subject: There is No Problem From: Emma To: efranck Date Posted: Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 16:24:10 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The point is that the Euro is stable, the Yen is stable, even though oil and gas are not priced in Euro or Yen terms. There is no special problem here. The stability of the dollar will rely on far more important matters, such as the combined private and federal debt. Oil and gas pricing are not important components of dollar stability.

Subject: Re: There is No Problem From: efranck To: Emma Date Posted: Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 21:04:28 (EDT) Email Address: efranckny@hotmail.com Message: I disagree. First, Europe does not run a 400 Billion Euros deficit! Second,foreign countries need to hold massive amounts of dollars to pay for oil, gas, etc. 'The effect of an OPEC switch to the euro would be that oil-consuming nations would have to flush dollars out of their reserve funds and replace these with euros.' 'Not important component of dollar stability?' I can only disagree. Again, if anyone finds a serious analysis on this issue, pls let me know. I think this problem will arise sooner than we think.

Subject: There Is NO Problem From: Shell To: efranck Date Posted: Sat, Aug 09, 2003 at 16:22:52 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Emma is correct. The reason you can not find serious analysis on the issue, is because there is no issue here. Russia and Saudia Arabia, for instance, are not about to dump dollars and buy Euros for that will entail massive immediate losses for THEM. A weaker dollar would actually make America more competitive.

Subject: A link related to your question From: David To: Shell Date Posted: Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 15:00:40 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: this report is from Richard Benson --- a investment services executive http://www.prudentbear.com/archive_comm_article.asp?category=Guest Commentary&content_idx=25491

Subject: Re: A link related to your question From: David To: David Date Posted: Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 15:59:02 (EDT) Email Address: daveellis_39@hotmail.com Message: Here is a quote from the article - this relates directly to what you were asking about, Arabian oil trading in euros. ' If anything put the final nail in Saddam Hussein’s coffin, it was his move to start selling oil for Euros.'

Subject: Re: A link related to your question From: efranck To: David Date Posted: Tues, Aug 12, 2003 at 09:03:03 (EDT) Email Address: efranckny@hotmail.com Message: Thanks! I've just read that in 2001, Romano Prodi, president of the European Union asked Vladimir Putin that Russia shift to the Euro for Russia/Euro-zone trade (including oil). As pointed out in this article, the consequences of such shift from the dollar to the euro would be phenomenal. Again, I would like to see a detailed analysis of this (Mr Krugman, what a key subject!). It may very well be that the biggest threats to the US are the himalayan US debt and the Euro. For all our might and power, the US may very well be in a very weak position, hostage of its own foreign debt and of the willingness of nations worldwide to keep using the greenback. Well, what if the dollar continues to depreciate, what if we continue alienating nations around the world with BushNeocon policies, what if Iran, Venezuela, Russia, Saoudi Arabia and others start taking Euro-for-oil? Why wouldn't they? The GDP of the new European Union will match that of the US. I don't like 'conspiratcy theories', but I think a serious analysis may very well conclude that the writing's on the wall... We better reign in our debt, change this credit-card lifestyle or else... What can we do, what should we do to avoid the fall (aside from sending in troops, twisting arms, etc, which can only work for so long?) This very serious question needs to be addressed and acted upon. Cheers to all.

Subject: Again - NO Problem From: Terri To: efranck Date Posted: Tues, Aug 12, 2003 at 14:17:44 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Treasury debt is dollar debt and can not be defaulted. There is no danger to the treasury from a decline in the value of the dollar however steep. The concerns may be genuine but are of no merit. Let Iran seel oil to whom it will for what currency it will, there will be no effect. We have other problems, the Euro is not a threat.

Subject: Re: Again - NO Problem From: David To: Terri Date Posted: Tues, Aug 12, 2003 at 14:54:34 (EDT) Email Address: daveellis_39@hotmail.com Message: What you said is true, but it seems too me that there is a problem. If Arabia was to decide the Euro or the yuan was a more stable holder of value than dollars, then they would trade in euros/ or yuans. This would steeply decrease the demand for treasury dollars. To sell treasury notes in the face of steeply declining dollar values,the treasury would have to raise rates to make the notes more attractive. Raising rates would be a bitter pill for those interested in seeing the US economy move to full employment.

Subject: Here you are Right From: Terri To: David Date Posted: Tues, Aug 12, 2003 at 15:02:11 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Here you are right. I understand the concern more fully now.

Subject: Re: Here you are Right From: David To: Terri Date Posted: Tues, Aug 12, 2003 at 17:27:44 (EDT) Email Address: daveellis_39@hotmail.com Message: I messsed up- and posted my message to quoted message - it disappeared. Here is the message I intended. 'I was thinking maybe you were saying it wasn't an economics problem, and that's true it isn't an economics problem. Its a political problem. Economics is clear - you shouldn't spend more than you make. Running deficits is a political problem. '

Subject: In one sense, you are right From: David To: Terri Date Posted: Tues, Aug 12, 2003 at 17:20:11 (EDT) Email Address: daveellis_39@hotmail.com Message:

Subject: Re: There Is NO Problem From: David To: Shell Date Posted: Sun, Aug 10, 2003 at 13:37:06 (EDT) Email Address: daveellis_39@hotmail.com Message: The tipping point will not be Arabia and Russia, the big holders of US dollars are China and Japan. Their objective is to keep the price of the yuan and yen high, so they wont sell until the holding cost becomes too high. Sometime just before everybody decides that the US economy looks too much like Argentina's is when the tipping point will arrive. Wait until it seems likely before you bet any money. The current sale of treasury debt went well with just a slight (random)? burp on 3 year notes.

Subject: Tax Saving From: Emma To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Aug 07, 2003 at 13:22:53 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Tax saving on $2,000 in dividend income = ~ $300 if stocks are held outside of retirment account = 0 if stocks held in retirement account To have $2,000 in taxable dividend income a household would have to have between $500,000 and $1 million in stocks outside of retirement account.... ' The Treasury's example of a 'lower income' elderly household was one receiving $2,000 a year in dividend income. In fact, only about one elderly household in four receives any dividend income, and only one in eight receives as much as $2,000. '

Subject: Darpa Dee Darpa Doo From: Emma To: All Date Posted: Tues, Aug 05, 2003 at 12:45:29 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: IN PRAISE OF ALAN ABELSON (8/3/03) Paul Krugman I hate to admit it, but I subscribe to Barron's. Gotta keep up with what they're thinking. And I do have a very soft spot for Alan Abelson, whose ever-cynical column fits the times like a glove. Anyway, this week he surpassed himself. Since I suspect that people who check out this site don't get Barron's, here are his opening paragraphs: 'Having tried intelligence to win the war on terrorism and achieved mixed results - bad and worse - the defense department has decided to go the other way and give stupidity a chance. 'To effect the change required someone with proven credentials. Luckily, Rummy and cohorts didn't have far to look for just such a man - Adm. Pointyhead. 'Adm. Pointyhead runs a semi-clandestine operation within the Department of Defense known as Darpa (an acronym for Determinedly Asinine Research Projects Administration). Pointyhead - this may surprise you - isn't his real name. It's a nom de guerre (but refrain from using that phrase, as the admiral might see that you get sent to Guantanamo for consorting with an enemy language.) 'Pointyhead's bona fides for the assignment were impeccable. He's a man of notable conviction. He was, for example, convicted of lying to Congress (the conviction was annulled on the eminently just grounds that Congress, in its wisdom, had granted immunity to the admiral to lie to it.)' Abelson gives Maureen Dowd a run for the money, doesn't he?

Subject: Re: Darpa Dee Darpa Doo From: David To: Emma Date Posted: Tues, Aug 05, 2003 at 23:01:23 (EDT) Email Address: daveellis_39@hotmail.com Message: Thanks - it sure helps to get a good laugh from this stuff.

Subject: Puzzling From: Emma To: David Date Posted: Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 13:23:12 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Markets do tell us marvelous things over time and distance. What is puzzling is that a fair number of economists fail to find any limits at all to markets, and there really are limits to information that can be gained from markets. Trying to gain end of the world information, is more than a bit much.

Subject: Argentina From: Emma To: All Date Posted: Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 14:04:38 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/argent03.html ARGENTINA: THE ROLE OF IDEOLOGY (8/3/03) Paul Krugman There's an interesting story in today's Washington Post about Wall Street's role in Argentina's debacle. There's a lot there I didn't know. But I think the story downplays the role of the convertibility law, which pegged the peso to the dollar, in two ways. Some background: I was an Argentina pessimist long before it became fashionable. In fact, in 1995 I told a retreat of the Argentine Financial Executives Institute that I didn't expect the convertibility law to survive the decade. I was wrong, of course: it collapsed, bringing huge devastation, in 2001. (Incidentally, I gave that talk in Ushuaia, on Tierra del Fuego; so I have probably given the most southerly economics lecture in history.) The reason I predicted eventual failure was that the peg deprived Argentina of crucial flexibility. And so it turned out: the rigidity of the Argentine system in the face of declining capital inflows, the Brazilian devaluation of 1999, and the rise of the dollar between 1999 and 2001 was a large part of what went wrong. But that wasn't the whole role of convertibility: it was also crucial to the bullishness of Wall Street. The article hints at that, but I think fails to grasp the full extent of the story. Throughout the 90s, almost up to the bitter end, Wall Street was utterly convinced that Argentina's currency board - which in effect reproduced the gold standard - was simply a wonderful idea. When you raised questions about the economy's performance, the answer was always that this marvelous monetary system ensured the country's success. And Domingo Cavallo, the architect of the system, was treated as a hero. Now the funny thing was that there was no evidence to back up this enthusiasm. There was and is a case for currency boards; there is also a case against. You can choose sides in that debate, but nothing in actual currency experience justified the huge enthusiasm of Wall Street economists. So why the wild enthusiasm? Because a currency board fitted a conservative ideology: by eliminating any discretionary monetary policy, it moved us back toward a pre-Keynesian world. That's why Forbes and the WSJ editorial page sang Argentina's praises; and Wall Street economists swallowed the whole thing. But, you say, aren't financial analysts supposed to be hard-headed types who look at the facts, never mind the ideology? Well, we can talk about why it doesn't work that way. But the bottom line is that these guys - with some honorable exceptions - are suckers for anyone who fits their ideological preconceptions. And they are very, very reluctant to admit it when a government that talks the free-market talk, and says that to grow rich is glorious, is in fact running the country into the ground. Does any of this bear on the unwillingness of Wall Street to face up to our own fiscal catastrophe, and its repeated declaration of business cycle victory even as jobs continue to melt away? What do you think?

Subject: Social Security From: Emma To: All Date Posted: Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 13:30:19 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/socsec03.html SOCIAL SECURITY (8/2/03) Paul Krugman I hear from the grapevine that people are fulminating about comparisons between Social Security and the Bush tax cuts. The tax cuts must be minor, they insist, compared with the 'real problem'. Sheesh. Is it really so hard to do a bit of homework? The basic point - that the Bush tax cuts are much bigger than the actuarial shortfall of Social Security over the next 75 years - isn't even controversial, at least among those who've done the numbers. Here is a good summary. Here are more up to date numbers. General point: anyone who talks fiscal policy without regularly reading the work of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Tax Policy Center is either lazy or doesn't want to know. Yes, they're both (mildly) liberal in outlook. But they're also both scrupulously honest. And there's no counterpart on the other side. I wonder why?

Subject: Re: Social Security From: Terri To: Emma Date Posted: Tues, Aug 05, 2003 at 15:49:22 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: What a terrible period of fiscal policy. What a terrible Administration!

Subject: This site is a Treasure From: jd To: All Date Posted: Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 13:19:33 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Bobby. Bobby. What a wonder you are for this site. Should have told you this much before. We use the site over and over.

Subject: To American Sentimentalists From: DharmaBum To: All Date Posted: Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 16:49:08 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I hope you won't think this is spam, just an interesting site I found: http://www.thesentimentalist.com/

Subject: California From: Leon To: All Date Posted: Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 16:30:43 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Mayor of NYC, Michael Bloomberg also has strikingly low poll numbers. There is not much enthusiasism for him from right or left. After all, NYC too had a dangerous budget deficit that has called for a tax increase, fee increases, and service cuts. The Mayor or Governor who can not agree to please with tax and fee cuts and services increases is in a difficult position. The difference in New York City is Bloomberg can not be recalled by petition for not being popular. NYC is fixing the deficit. We will see how the Mayor fares from here. Recalling a Governor, who we may not care for, for not be popular is absurd. Unless Governor Davis has violated the oath of office, recall is political spite and no more. Though I am angry with a right inspired recall, I would be so with a left effort. This is a radical right effort.

Subject: Column of 8/1/03 From: Jim To: All Date Posted: Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 17:35:38 (EDT) Email Address: jzmarg@aol.com Message: I have been a Californian since 1971 when I came here from Illinois after law school. Though I am an admirer of PK's intelligence and prescience, his statement in his 8/1/03 column that Prop 13 greatly damaged California's excellent public school system is incorrect. California's public schools were never good. (Particularly when compare to Northeast or Midwest schools) They have generally been poor to mediocre. Prop. 13 did great damage. It made California's public schools, with rare exception, mostly poor.

Subject: Re: Column of 8/1/03 From: Captain of Crush To: Jim Date Posted: Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 03:18:49 (EDT) Email Address: mmenos@hotmail.com Message: also, from what i have heard, there are other, legitimate reasons to recall Davis, other than what paul attributes to republican stonewalling and personal attacks. why is it that his approval rating is so low? if it is bad enough that he actually will be recalled, partisanship aside, maybe he should be recalled. do you know?

Subject: California From: Leon To: Captain of Crush Date Posted: Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 12:55:10 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: If there is a legitimate reason to recall Governor Davis, other than a petition supported by millions of dollars of advertising and right wing absurdity, I sure do not know what it would be. California has a severe budget problem that the Governor has been stimied in resolving by Republicans who care only for low taxes however much that limits services.

Subject: Re: California From: Captain of Crush To: Leon Date Posted: Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 13:48:40 (EDT) Email Address: mmenos@hotmail.com Message: From what i have heard on daily kos, gray davis is bad enough to be recalled. supposedly he has turned ca into a crony convention. daily kos is a lefty site, and the people who made the comments were lamenting the fact that the democrats wouldn't put up someone in case davis was recalled than the rightwing funhouse effort itself. does such a sentiment exist, and if so, why? again, his numbers are so low that even people who would see through a partisan sideshow are still willing to recall him. what is the deal?

Subject: Reason for failures From: David To: Captain of Crush Date Posted: Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 01:56:50 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The righties wanted term limits and got them. Now we have a legislature that is like babes in the woods. They havent got enough experience to tell up from down. The supposed expert Davis is using is the same babe in the woods that let Enron tell him how to deregulate electricity. Things are going to get much worse,and it could be 2005 before these guys know what they are doing.

Subject: David did not Deregulate From: Nell To: David Date Posted: Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 12:40:40 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Governor Davis DID NOT 'deregulate electricity.' This was Governor Wilson's doing!

Subject: Re: Davis did not Deregulat From: Nell To: Nell Date Posted: Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 12:41:55 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Davis not David. Oh well.

Subject: Re: Davis did not Deregulat From: David To: Nell Date Posted: Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 14:28:24 (EDT) Email Address: daveellis_39@hotmail.com Message: You are right, I did not mean to implicate Davis with deregulation. Davis did not degregulate. The legislative lead on that project was Steven Peace, who is Davis's budget man. My point is that the depth of experience of the legislature is not up to the task. The legislature heard economists say this deregulation wouldnt work and decided that Enron, being run by experienced businessmen, and right wing ideologists were right. The stupidity of our legislature has reached historical proportions. First the Enron mistake, and now a budget that hasnt made the tough choices. I blame Davis for not calling out the 'no tax cut' ideologists. He should have challenged them months ago and made them come up with a budget. Its easy for them to say 'no new taxes', make them say the hard stuff, what they want to cut. Davis is a wimp and a loser.

Subject: The Recall From: Nell To: David Date Posted: Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 12:40:52 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Governor Davis may be this or that or the other, still there is no reason to recall a Governor with whom we merely disagree. Another election would have done. Also, the Governor has been a winner and a tough winner.

Subject: Casualties From: Avi To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 31, 2003 at 13:42:12 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Casualties: American soldiers 107 British soldiers 11 --- 120 Since May 1 American 248 British 44 --- 292 Totals Note: American forces have risen to 148,000 British forces have been cut from 10,000 to 5,000

Subject: Re: Casualties From: Chris To: Avi Date Posted: Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 16:29:29 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Casualties: American soldiers 107 British soldiers 11 --- 120 Since May 1 American 248 British 44 --- 292 Totals Note: American forces have risen to 148,000 British forces have been cut from 10,000 to 5,000 --- And we don't even count the long-term casualties caused by the uran bombings...

Subject: Re: Casualties From: David To: Avi Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 31, 2003 at 20:23:53 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Iraq soldiers & citizens 6000 plus

Subject: Re: Casualties From: Avi To: Avi Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 31, 2003 at 13:47:46 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Sadly 107 should be 109

Subject: Sad Indeed From: Trent To: Avi Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 31, 2003 at 15:03:36 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Sad indeed.

Subject: Casualties From: Avi To: All Date Posted: Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 13:35:59 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Casualties: American soldiers 107 British soldiers 11 --- 118 Since May 1 American 246 British 44 --- 290 Totals Note: American forces have risen to 148,000 British forces have been cut from 10,000 to 5,000

Subject: Re: Casualties-- you forgot 3,000 From: Tombo To: Avi Date Posted: Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 16:57:16 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Try getting a little perspective. More US soldiers were killed in Beirut in ONE DAY by Arab terrorists twenty years ago than have been killed in the entire Iraq engagement. And over TWENTY TIMES that number of civilians were killed two years ago, again in a single day of Islamist terror. The Iraqi engagement is as important to our security as the German engagement in the late forties. No way on earth that this nation will turn tail and run as we did from Beirut during the Reagan administration. As bin Laden's statements and rhetoric indicated, repeating this error would only invite more devastating attacks. CLinton knows this, as does his ex-wife. Why can't the rest of the Dems follow Bill and Hillary's example and leave off attacking the war?

Subject: Re: Casualties-- you forgot 3,000 From: IGotNewsTombo To: Tombo Date Posted: Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 16:18:01 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: You forget 6000 iraqi people. I could as well bring out the list that circulates on the internet about people killed around the world thanks to 60 years of succesful American 'foreign affairs' policies in: Chile, Argentina, Spain, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, Nicaragua, Panama, etc, etc, etc... Believe me, do not even try to compare this figure with the twin towers disaster: there's orders of magnitude between them. Try instead wondering whether this fanatic islamist rage has any deeper motivation other than innate dumbnes/meanness.

Subject: Re: Casualties-- you forgot 3,000 From: RL To: IGotNewsTombo Date Posted: Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 07:59:24 (EDT) Email Address: non Message: SPAIN??

Subject: Re: Casualties-- you forgot 3,000 From: CantBeCanIt? To: RL Date Posted: Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 12:39:46 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: and guess with whom was doing business Dubya's grandfather in the 1930's? It was a german guy with a tiny moustache...Cant be, can it? http://64.239.13.64/free/ww3/10_09_01_carlyle.html

Subject: Re: Casualties-- you forgot 3,000 From: CantBeCanIt? To: RL Date Posted: Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 12:31:35 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: guess what country supported franco, apart from nazi germany?

Subject: Re: Casualties-- you forgot 3,000 From: RL To: CantBeCanIt? Date Posted: Tues, Aug 05, 2003 at 04:21:25 (EDT) Email Address: non Message: fascist Italy :) I am from Spain and I know exactly what kind of support Franco received from US and when it happened. US didn’t cause any death in Spain. Way different was the policy of US in Central and South America in the 60's, where the White House actively helped to destabilize democracies governed by leftist parties. Still I think is nonsense to compare these deaths with those of the twin towers. Just the same is to justify the II gulf war on the basis of 'little deaths'. In my opinion Bush attacked because Saddam was his enemy in a strategically important area of the world and had the opportunity to more or less 'justify' this attack and It was a war it could win easily. This kind of imperial foreign policy is very dangerous and can backfire, as it will probably happen in Iraq. It is quite difficult that without the presence of US troops in Iraq, Whasington could maintain a friendly government there. So the presence of US in Iraq will last long I presume, with increasing attacks to its soldiers and a deterioration of the US image in the middle east and in the world. And this I agree is not in the interest of the USA.

Subject: Nutso Tombo From: Tombo Nutso To: Tombo Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 31, 2003 at 13:36:32 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Tombo lunatico

Subject: No Truth From: TomLie To: Tombo Nutso Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 31, 2003 at 14:10:29 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: These radical rightees simply abhor truth.

Subject: contradictory beliefs...? From: Amanda To: All Date Posted: Tues, Jul 29, 2003 at 20:24:59 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I just finished reading Mr. Krugman's piece titled 'Who's really being unpatriotic?' and am intrigued by this man who apparently believes that to send troops into Iraq is unpatriotic but who, not too long ago, could not get enough of our sending troops into Kosovo. Perhaps someone who has followed his work a little more closely than I could explain to me how these two seemingly contradictory beliefs are in fact not.

Subject: True Understanding From: Trent To: Amanda Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 31, 2003 at 15:02:47 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: America's soldiers are always patriots, but I have trouble seeing the war in Iraq as justified by a threat to America. Where are the WMDs? If the reason for war in Iraq was humantarian, to free the Iraqi people from a monster regime, that would be another matter. But, the was presented as a matter of self-defense especially against WMDs. We all knew why we sent troops to Kosovo, and all went extremely well.

Subject: Truthfulness and Lies From: JennyL To: Amanda Date Posted: Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 14:05:36 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Lying about WMDs as a reason to attack Iraq was decidely unpatriotic. Of course, Amanda is safe and American soldiers in Irq are not. Sending troops to Kosovo was done with honesty and the reults were excellent.

Subject: Re: contradictory beliefs...? From: Chicago Boy To: Amanda Date Posted: Tues, Jul 29, 2003 at 20:56:26 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Amanda, There's absolutely nothing contradictory about it. Krugman is an altruist. He thinks sending troops abroad should be an act of charity. Thus, when sending troops overseas is in our best interest, as in Iraq, he's against it. When it's not in our interest, as in Kosovo, he's all for the idea. Krugman is quite consistent on this point.

Subject: War in Iraq From: Arthur To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 14:15:52 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Spending American lives and $100 billion dollars or so to attack Iraq, when it was not a threat to us, was not in our interest. Iraq was contained!

Subject: Whose interest? From: Dumb-oh To: Arthur Date Posted: Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 17:03:24 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: It was at least in Dubya's interest indeed. And now he'll go for poor Iran, where chances of natural social evolution for good are so near, basically due to demography. He's impatient to enter with his bombs like an elephant in a glass store: spoil all the cultural legacy, break society to pieces, and leave a state of chaos behind. Because after Afghanistan and Iraq I do not believe (neither did I before) that the USA are capable to bring peace, order and democracy to any country by using huge amounts of brute force.

Subject: Akerlof: GOP policy 'a form of looting' From: Eyeballs To: All Date Posted: Tues, Jul 29, 2003 at 19:22:05 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Found this interesting interview with George Akerlof earlier today. He condemns GOP fiscal policy as 'a form of looting,' describes the current administration as 'the worst government the US has ever had in its more than 200 years of history' and calls for open civil disobidence. Saying that he's worried and angry would be an understatement. Read the interview here http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/0,1518,258983,00.html (The site is German but the interview is in English)

Subject: Thanks! From: Emma To: Eyeballs Date Posted: Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 15:52:42 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Interesting interview.

Subject: GOP policy 'a form of looting' From: Avi To: Eyeballs Date Posted: Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 13:35:14 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Powerful Interview!!!

Subject: Democratic Nomination From: Chicago Boy To: All Date Posted: Tues, Jul 29, 2003 at 18:41:24 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Who do you guys think will win? Who do you want to win? Naturally, I'm rooting for Howard Dean. ;-)

Subject: Re: Democratic Nomination From: Captain of Crush To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 03:28:09 (EDT) Email Address: mmenos@hotmail.com Message: me too, and i don't care what you think about electability. anything is better than Bushco.

Subject: American Casualties From: Avi To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 13:32:06 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: How about thinking of American soldiers in Iraq! Casualties: American soldiers 107 British soldiers 11 --- 118 Since May 1 American 246 British 44 --- 290 Totals Note: American forces have risen to 148,000 British forces have been cut from 10,000 to 5,000

Subject: Feldstein on Poverty and Inequality From: Chicago Boy To: All Date Posted: Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 22:53:00 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: This should straighten a lot of things out. THE PUBLIC INTEREST Number 137, Fall 1999 'Reducing poverty, not inequality' By MARTIN FELDSTEIN According to official statistics, the distribution of income has become increasingly unequal during the past two decades. A common reaction in the popular press, in political debate, and in academic discussions is to regard the increase in inequality as a problem that demands new redistributive policies. I disagree. I believe that inequality as such is not a problem and that it would be wrong to design policies to reduce it. What policy should address is not inequality but poverty. The difference is not just semantics. It is about how we should think about the rise in incomes at the upper end of the income distribution. Imagine the following: Later today, a small magic bird appears and gives each Public Interest subscriber $1,000. We would all think that this is a good thing. And yet, since Public Interest subscribers undoubtedly have above average incomes, that would also increase inequality in the nation. I think it would be wrong to consider those $1,000 windfalls morally suspect. Pareto principle vs. Gini coefficient When professional economists think about economic policies, they generally start with the principle that a change is good if it makes someone better off without in making anyone else worse off. That idea, first suggested by the Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto, is referred to as the Pareto principle. I find it hard to see how one could disagree with such a principle, which is why it is the widely accepted foundation for the evaluation of economic Policies Not all policies can be evaluated in reference to the Pareto principle. There are policies that make some people better off while making others worse off. The desirability of such a policy depends on how much the gainers gain, how much the losers lose, and the initial income and circumstances of the individuals involved. But that difficult evaluation is not my concern here. I am interested only in evaluating changes that increase the incomes of high--income individuals without decreasing the incomes of others. Such a change clearly satisfies the common-sense Pareto principle: It is good because it makes some people better off without making anyone else worse off. I think such a change should be regarded as good even though it increases inequality. Not everyone will agree with me. Some see inequality as so intolerable that they regard increasing the income of the wealthy as a 'bad thing,' even if that increased income does not come at anyone elses expense. Such an individual, whom I won describe as a 'spiteful egalitarian,' might try to reconcile this with the Pareto principle by saving, ' It makes me worse off to see the rich getting richer. So if a rich man gets $1000, he is better off and I am worse off. I dont have fewer material goods, but I have the extra pain of living in a more unequal world.' I reject such arguments and stick to the basic interpretation of the Pareto principle that if the material well-being of some individuals increases with no decrease in the material well-being of others, that is a good thing even if it implies an increase in measured inequality. I would note that one can reject spiteful egalitarianism and still favor redistributive policies and tax progressivity. Such redistributive policies reflect an assumption that the social value of incremental income (in economic terminology, the social marginal utility of income) declines as income rises - i.e., that an extra $100 of income means less to a millionaire than to someone whose income is $10,000. Of course, many economists reject such comparisons on the grounds that there is no way to compare how much pleasure two different individuals get from money or from the goods that money buys. But analyses that conclude that all increases in inequality are bad imply something much stronger: that the social value of incremental income to a rich person is actually negative. More formally, economists and other policy analysts often use the 'Gini Coefficient' as a measure of income inequality. (1) The Gini Coefficient measures the concentration of incomes in the nation, with a higher Gini Coefficient value implying more concentration. A feature of the Gini Coefficient is that an increase in the incomes of the rich with no change in the incomes of others will raise the Gini Coefficient. The common procedure of regarding a higher Gini Coefficient as a deterioration of the national condition is equivalent to treating the social marginal utility of high incomes as negative - i.e., that something bad has occurred when the well-to-do become better off. In rejecting the criticism of inequality per se, and in asserting that higher incomes of the well off are a good thing, I am not referring to the functional arguments that some have offered in defense of inequality. Such analysts argue that an unequal distribution of income may contribute to general economic growth, and therefore to the poors standard of living, by increasing the national saving rate. Alternatively, they contend that inequality is a reflection of Schumpeterian innovation, which eventually helps most, if not all, individuals in the economy. I am also not defending high incomes because the affluent support charitable causes or 'high culture.' All of this may be true, and even convincing to someone who doesnt care about the well-being of the wealthy or who gives negative weight to their increased well-being. But I am not relying on such arguments here, because I want to stress that there is nothing wrong with an increase in the well-being of the wealthy or with an increase in inequality that results from a rise in high incomes. The rich get richer There has been a relatively greater increase in higher incomes in recent years in the United States and in some other countries. Some part of the rise in top incomes reflects the fact that the cut in top marginal tax rates in 1986 caused high-income taxpayers to shift the form of their compensation to taxable cash from fringe benefits and other nonobservable forms of compensation. But there have also been real increases in the pretax incomes at the top. It is important to understand why. The increase in higher incomes has been the result of four principal factors. First, there are now more individuals with advanced education and enhanced marketable skills, and market forces reward these high skills relatively more than they did in the past. Thus individuals have a strong incentive to acquire these skills and to select occupations in which such skills are rewarded. Second, entrepreneurial activities are on the rise. The creation and growth of new businesses has been an important source of the larger number of individuals with high incomes and significant wealth. Third, high-wage individuals work increasingly long hours. We all know about investment bankers, lawyers, and other highly paid professionals who are now working 70 or more hours a week, twice the weekly hours of a typical employee. Dora Costa, an economic historian at MIT, has recently reported that this observation is part of a more general trend toward longer working hours for higher paid employees, a reversal of the earlier tendency of those with lower wages to work longer hours. The result: measured inequality has increased. Finally, declines in the cost of capital, reflecting an improved fiscal outlook and perhaps a decrease in perceived financial risk as a result of lower inflation, translate into higher stock and bond prices, an additional source of increased wealth for those with higher incomes. Each of these four sources of higher incomes for those at the upper end of the distribution is, I would argue, a good thing in itself. They add to the income or wealth of those individuals without reducing the incomes and wealth of others. Mismeasuring poverty The real problem on which national policy should focus then is not inequality but poverty. I have in mind the incomes of those in the bottom decile or quintile of the income distribution. After discussing the problems of measuring poverty, I will consider three possible sources of poverty - unemployment, a lack of earnings ability, and individual choice - and what can be done about them. Of course, measuring the incomes of the lowest income group is not a simple task. Cash income overestimates the number of the poor. A broader measure that includes in-kind benefits like health care and housing suggests much less poverty. There is also a problem in classifying someone as poor if his income is only temporarily low. More generally, sociologists who have actually studied the poor directly and spoken with them about their living conditions (a research method that economists use too little) have been puzzled by how the poor could live on so little income. Those who have gained the confidence of the poor discover the answer: the underground economy. The true incomes of many of those with very low measured incomes are actually higher than the data indicate. Such individuals do not report their total income since doing so might reduce their eligibility for cash and in-kind transfers. This is a major problem for studies of the incomes of the poor. Careful studies of income distribution are most reliable when they look at the wage distribution of the middle classes, an unfortunate fact since the most interesting questions are about the very poor and the very rich, for whom data are simply not very good. A separate issue that plagues attempts to measure trends in poverty and in income levels more generally is the difficulty of measuring changes in the cost of living. A growing body of research suggests that the consumer price index (CPU and related official measures overstate the rise in the true cost of living and, therefore, understate the rise in real personal incomes. Even if the bias in the CPI is as little as 1 percent a year, the cumulative effect over two decades is to understate the growth of real incomes by more than 20 percent. These measurement difficulties should make us cautious about attempting to assess changes in the extent of poverty over time. Nevertheless, poverty today is a real and serious problem in the United States and other countries. I will thus consider three sources of poverty and the policies that might be directed to counter them. Unemployment and poverty There exists a small, but serious, amount of very long-term unemployment in the United States that creates poverty and hardship. Its extent goes beyond the measured amount of long-term unemployment since most individuals who have been out of work for considerable periods of time in the United States are classified as 'not in the labor force' rather than unemployed. But, although this long-term nonemployment is a problem and a source of poverty, it is not a cyclical problem that is amenable to expansionary monetary or fiscal policy. Current long-term unemployment is very different from the unemployment of the Great Depression when a large fraction of the labor force was unemployed and out of work for a year or longer. The current long-term unemployment is also very different from the cyclical unemployment that we see now in the United States. Most cyclical unemployment spells are short, ending in less than 10 weeks. During such spells of unemployment, the decline in consumption is very small. Unemployment insurance generally replaces more than half of the lost net income of those who receive benefits, and the earnings of second earners in the household of the unemployed help to stabilize total household income. While the unemployed may not have access to formal lines of credit, they are often able to defer payments during part or all of their unemployment spells. The situation is, of course, different in Europe where unemployment rates tend to rise during recessions but not to fall during a recovery. Cyclical unemployment there becomes long-term unemployment because of the adverse incentives in the European system of unemployment benefits and welfare payments. Reform of the American unemployment system in the 1980's led to a decline in the rate of unemployment. One important aspect of those reforms was subjecting unemployment benefits to the personal income tax, a reform that obviously did not affect the poor (who do not pay income tax). However, this measure did reduce the very high replacement rates that previously made it possible for some individuals in higher-income households to have more net income by being unemployed than by working. Lack of earning ability The most commonly recognized reason for poverty in the United States is the inability of poor individuals to earn more than a very low hourly wage. This low earnings ability, is often attributed to inadequate schooling or training. It is clear that inadequate schooling can limit an individuals earning ability and that the obvious remedy is more or better schooling. Many economists and educators who are studying how to improve our educational system have concluded that decentralization and competition are essential. Research by Larry Katz and Claudia Goldin of Harvard shows that the historic spread of high-school education and vocational education in the United States reflected decisions of local governments rather than the actions of the states or federal government. Research by Caroline Hoxby and others shows that the quality of local public education today improves (as measured by graduation rates, continued education, post-school wages, etc.) where competition flourishes due to a larger number of school districts or a greater availability of nonpublic (typically parochial) education. The importance of competition has increased interest in vouchers to promote individual choice. A second reason for low earnings ability is inadequate training. Experience suggests that on-the-job training is best. The German system of formalized apprenticeships appears to allow Germany to escape the high youth-unemployment rates that plague much of Europe; the system may also reduce poverty in later years. In the United States, in contrast, minimum-wage legislation limits the ability of individuals with low skills, low education, and low ability to obtain on-the-job training. Although someone who comes to a job with good ability and skills can both earn the minimum wage or more and also obtain additional skills through on-the-job training, an employer cannot afford to pax the minimum wage and provide training to those with the lowest skills. The evidence on government-sponsored training programs for the middle-aged unemployed is very discouraging. For women, participation in training programs raises employment and wages by more than the cost of the training, but the impact on employment and poverty for the trainees is very small. For men, the results are even worse: The gains from training are less than the costs. The problem of low human capital as a source of poverty is not just a matter of schooling and training, but also low cognitive ability. As I read the evidence, while variations in cognitive ability (IQ) close to the mean score do not have much impact on individuals wage rates, individuals with extremely low levels of cognitive ability (IQ levels below 80) have a very hard time earning a decent wage rate. This is not a fashionable view. Americans like to think that all men and women are quite literally created equal and that education can therefore solve the problem of low human capital and low earnings. Unfortunately, however, very low cognitive ability is likely to be a serious cause of poverty that cannot be remedied by education and training. Only when this is accepted will it be possible to develop appropriate new policies. Finally, there are those for whom low earnings ability reflects pathologically dysfunctional life styles - drug abuse, alcoholism, and mental illness. Policies that deal with these specific problems, if they are successful, will do much to reduce human suffering as well as to alleviate poverty. The role of individual choice Not all poverty can be attributed to involuntary unemployment or to the lack of earning ability. Individual choices, rational or irrational, can lead to poverty. Some individuals who are in poverty may be making considered choices. For example, some individuals may choose leisure (not working or working very little) over cash income even though this leaves them poorer than they otherwise would be. Choosing not to work may be an increasingly important source of poverty. Over time the standard of living that is possible without working has increased for some segments of the population as a result of the rise in the real value of cash and in-kind welfare benefits. Often the real value of these welfare benefits has increased more rapidly than the real value of wages available to low-skilled workers, increasing the likelihood that the appeal of such benefits would exceed the attractiveness of work. This is reinforced to the extent that transfer rules reduce the incentive to work. Reducing such voluntary poverty requires reexamining the structure of welfare programs. Not all individual choice is properly described as 'considered' or ' rational,' and some individuals may choose poverty in error. In other words, they may think that they are making a rational decision (what economists would call a 'utility maximizing' decision) when in fact their facts are wrong. Some of those individuals may think that they will not like work (or the combination or work and the money that it brings) as much as they currently like staying at home but would discover the opposite if they went to work. Moreover, these individuals may not recognize that they will advance in their jobs, shifting over time to more appealing work or at least to higher incomes. A policy of 'tough love' that forces such individuals to enter the world of work for an extended period of time may be the best way to overcome this problem. 1. See, for example, the papers discussed at the Federal Reserve conference, 'Income Inequality: Issues and Policy Options' (Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, 1998), at which an earlier version of the current essay was presented.

Subject: Re: Feldstein on Poverty and Inequality From: PJ To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 31, 2003 at 21:10:28 (EDT) Email Address: psjohn@hotmail.com Message: Good man, Feldstein. Good post, non-Chicago hermaphrodite. The contrast with Paul's recent unbalanced ranting is almost embarassing.

Subject: Thanks, I think From: Captain of Crush To: PJ Date Posted: Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 03:13:41 (EDT) Email Address: mmenos@hotmail.com Message: PK is quite hard on the republicans. i trust that his evidence is sound though; it would be too easy for us to check his facts for him to lie or misinterpret. i haven't done it though. i have a good idea for a project for you haters out there...and don't tell me luskin is already doing this...what you should do is offer a 'spinsanity' type debunking. for instance, in the 08.01.03 post, PK says that republicans blocked tax increases that could have alleviated that state's fiscal crisis. well, the project would be to find out if the proposal that the republicans blocked was a reasonable one. i take paul's word for it, but if paul's ranting is 'unbalanced' prove how and show your side.

Subject: CoC on Feldstein From: Captain of Crush To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Tues, Jul 29, 2003 at 13:24:54 (EDT) Email Address: mmenos@hotmail.com Message: Let me start off by saying i have no idea what school martin feldstein comes from, or what awards he has won. i really do not care, either. he seems like a reasonable man, though, and that is good enough for me... 'When professional economists think about economic policies, they generally start with the principle that a change is good if it makes someone better off without in making anyone else worse off' no-one that i know disagrees with pareto's assumption here. the possibility remains, however, that this assumption could be misapplied, for instance, by ignoring how someone could be worse off by a change. 'Not all policies can be evaluated in reference to the Pareto principle. There are policies that make some people better off while making others worse off. The desirability of such a policy depends on how much the gainers gain, how much the losers lose, and the initial income and circumstances of the individuals involved' brief aside: why should the initial income and circumstances play into the equation? if you cite anything like the kahneman(sp?)-tversky value curves to explain why, please do so consistently. 'Imagine the following: Later today, a small magic bird appears and gives each Public Interest subscriber $1,000. We would all think that this is a good thing. And yet, since Public Interest subscribers undoubtedly have above average incomes, that would also increase inequality in the nation. I think it would be wrong to consider those $1,000 windfalls morally suspect' another brief aside: does this imply an increase in the money supply? 'Some see inequality as so intolerable that they regard increasing the income of the wealthy as a 'bad thing,' even if that increased income does not come at anyone elses expense' these people are less common than you think, CB. i don't see inequality as bad in and of itself, i am just highly suspicious of increasing the incomes of those who are already rich. if it is not proved to me that increasing the income of a rich person does not come at anyone's expense, i tend to assume that the rich person is taking advantage of the poor or the system. if it is proved that he earned the extra money by his own ethical and efficient devices, i will have no problem with it. what is ethical and efficient? that is material enough for another post. 'I would note that one can reject spiteful egalitarianism and still favor redistributive policies and tax progressivity. Such redistributive policies reflect an assumption that the social value of incremental income (in economic terminology, the social marginal utility of income) declines as income rises - i.e., that an extra $100 of income means less to a millionaire than to someone whose income is $10,000' this is a good statement of how i feel about income redistribution and how it can be good for efficiency. 'analyses that conclude that all increases in inequality are bad imply something much stronger: that the social value of incremental income to a rich person is actually negative' i must emphasize that past a certain point (which i think has already been passed in our society today), all NET increases in income inequality represent an increasing probability of lost opportunity at efficiency or well being by investing instead in poorer individuals. this is not because of the inequality itself. often, it seems to me, income inequality is a symptom and a cause of a conspiracy of wealthy men to take more than their share of the product of an economy. to me, it is more likely past a certain point, or a certain value of the gini coefficient. i could be wrong, but that is what i would seek to prove if i had the numbers and the time, because i believe it to be true. if goods randomly appeared in the economy, though, it would be asinine to say that if they appeared in the home of the richest person, society would be better off had they never appeared. money, of course, is a different story. i have no problem saying that in an economy of constant size, an increase in income inequality has negative social consequences based on the above assumptions; a point with which i am sure you will agree, CB. 'The increase in higher incomes has been the result of four principal factors. First, there are now more individuals with advanced education and enhanced marketable skills, and market forces reward these high skills relatively more than they did in the past' what about the distribution among these individuals? the average might be higher, but you know what happens when bill gates walks into a bar. but that is just nitpickery. the thing is, it is easier to get an advanced degree when you come from a rich family, easier to engage in entrepreneurial activity once you have already had a job, easier to work long hours when you have a job, and easier to buy machines when you have something to offer for them. i think there might be a way to increase the employment of lower income individuals, leading to more production than might be spent paying for a high income individual's overtime. a restructuring of training methods might be in order, but from what i know about high income individuals working overtime, it is a wasteful, self-serving practice that doesn't lead to much in the way of production (they only have to work overtime because they were waiting for someone else to get them information they needed to do something that takes very little actual time to do). 'Even if the bias in the CPI is as little as 1 percent a year, the cumulative effect over two decades is to understate the growth of real incomes by more than 20 percent' that still doesn't excuse the measured gap in income inequality. 'The true incomes of many of those with very low measured incomes are actually higher than the data indicate. Such individuals do not report their total income since doing so might reduce their eligibility for cash and in-kind transfers' i don't believe that this makes poverty any less of a problem. to be honest, i think the welfare system corrects for information masking and moral hazard, just like the insurance industry. 'The real problem on which national policy should focus then is not inequality but poverty' agreed. between income inequality and poverty, poverty is the bigger problem. there are other issues that require tax revenue to fund however. but i digress. 'Current long-term unemployment is very different from the unemployment of the Great Depression when a large fraction of the labor force was unemployed and out of work for a year or longer' he never says how it is different, only that a large fraction of the labor force was unemployed during the great depression. if you can't get work to support yourself, it doesn't matter what the fraction is. 'It is clear that inadequate schooling can limit an individuals earning ability and that the obvious remedy is more or better schooling' great idea in principle. how are we going to pay for it, though? do we take from their future earnings the cost of their education? would that be unethical? the principle behind progressive taxation is that the richer you are, the more you value living in a place that enables you to have such wealth, with the reasoning being that the protections the government affords (such as providing an adequate education in this case) enable you to be wealthy. i don't think that is unethical at all. 'Research by Caroline Hoxby and others shows that the quality of local public education today improves (as measured by graduation rates, continued education, post-school wages, etc.) where competition flourishes due to a larger number of school districts or a greater availability of nonpublic (typically parochial) education' although i haven't seen the research, my own experience tells me that competition only tends to flourish in richer areas; i doubt you will find a parochial school in watts or newark, where competition is needed most. 'individuals with extremely low levels of cognitive ability (IQ levels below 80) have a very hard time earning a decent wage rate'...'Only when this is accepted will it be possible to develop appropriate new policies' income redistribution. social safety net. euthanasia. what hasn't been tried? 'some individuals may choose leisure (not working or working very little) over cash income even though this leaves them poorer than they otherwise would be' everyone does this to some extent. i don't view these individuals as having a problem that needs to be addressed, because i don't think they are as numerous as one would hope. i don't know how many poor people subscribe to the views of seneca, but a lot of them are mentally ill, which i think is a bigger problem. anyone who would make an informed decision to live in poverty should be left to decide thus, if one follows a libertarian tack. 'Some of those individuals may think that they will not like work (or the combination or work and the money that it brings) as much as they currently like staying at home but would discover the opposite if they went to work' that is no reason to coerce them, is it? if so, it is like taxing their leisure. i don't have a problem taxing their leisure, i pay taxes on my income. maybe we should pay them to work. income inequality in and of itself isn't bad, just the love of money that manifests itself in the worldcoms and enrons of the world. the way i see it, those phenomena are par for the today's course of giving to the rich what could more productively be given to the poor.

Subject: Why I care about Income Inequality From: Bobby To: All Date Posted: Sun, Jul 27, 2003 at 06:55:39 (EDT) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: We live in a wonderful (mostly) free market economy with ever-changing production technologies, which produces wonderful growth and huge amounts of goods and services in aggregate. But one of its greatest costs is income inequality (that is the dispersion of incomes between people, and especially between the rich and the rest of the population), not just poverty (a separate issue). Here I'll argue that the government should take moderate action to decrease income inequality. Obviously I am arguing about decreasing it and not getting rid of it completely. Yes, some income inequality is meritocratic (that is due to better ability, industriousness, etc.), and of course much inequality is necessary for and increases efficiency (one innovates, gets an education, invests, supplies labor in order to improve his own economic lot, which would not occur if *too much* of his reward were redistributed among the populus to guarantee equality of income among everyone). The distribution of income due to unfettered markets does not *necessarily* have any moral superiority the over a distribution that occurs due to the market and is then 'improved' by an elected government. We should remember that market outcomes are amoral. Yes, sometimes a market outcome may happen to treat the 'deserving' favorably, and they are usually very efficient. But this comes at a great cost: They usually do fail in terms of rewarding with great enough incomes those who are 'deserving' and especially those who are 'in need.' Someone who has a job today finds himself outmoded tomorrow, and the technological crap shoot will yield high relative wages for some jobs and low ones for some jobs even if the people in both are equally industrious and deserving of success. One might argue that it is a 'deprivation of freedom' for the govt to take a part of Person A's income that he made from the market and then redistribute it to Person B who made less income. But one could also argue that it is the amoral market that actually deprived Person B of income that he rightfully deserved (by some fairness criteria) by distributing it blindly and wrongfully to Person A. Hence, one could argue that it is a *moral improvement* that the government makes winners, like Person A, compensate the losers, like Person B, somewhat. Therefore the government should provide some social insurance that redistributes *some* of the income of the rich to those with less. Second, one could argue that fighting income inequality is actually a Pareto improvement. In fact if a market for, say, income inequality insurance existed (and it fails to do so due to various non-internalized externalities, informational problems, free-rider problems etc.) people would buy some and this would improve everyone's welfare. So the govt should do *something* to simulate such an insurance system. Third, think of the children. Children do not choose which family they are born into, whether rich, middle class, or poor. Why should children be penalized for something that is not their fault. In fact *the children* would probably take out some form of insurance before they were born if such a thing were possible. So even if you don't think the govt has any obligation to adults, you can say that the government should protect innocent children from the consequences of income inequality. Fourth, income inequality undermines and could destroy the middle-class democratic society that we imagine ourselves to be. It also allows the super wealthy to have disproportionate influence over politicians and lessens the influence of the non-wealthy who don't have as much money -- and putting economic and political power into the hands of ever fewer people puts the protection of our fundamental rights, both, negative rights ('things that protect citizens from their government: due process of law, freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of belief, etc' -- JB DeLong) and positive rights ('things that give citizens the ability to actually do things with their negative liberty: education, public health, social insurance, stable stores of wealth, courts that will enforce promises and thus allow you to commit yourself to courses of action, etc.' -- J.B. DeLong), at risk. There are also arguments about life expectancy, infant mortality, and public health that are associated with less income inequality, which I am not qualified to make. When asking "how much inequality should we decrease?" this is a personal opinion by the voter, policymaker, etc. We must remember that it comes often at the cost of growth and efficiency over time. We must also consider that, we should not do so much redistribution as to make those with less too dependent or punish too severely the rich. My opinion is it should be done at moderate levels so that we do not sacrifice too much growth and efficiency.

Subject: Re: Why I care about Income Inequality From: Eyeballs To: Bobby Date Posted: Tues, Jul 29, 2003 at 19:15:01 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: A fundamental argument against severe income inequality can be built on purely economic grounds. The rich are much more likely to save, rather than spend, the increases in income that they are given. Not spending obviously reduces demand for products. Eventually, this short circuiting of the circular flow model will result in a surplus of investment capital in comparison to the overall demand for products. The net result will be a decline in interest rates (as a result of more capital chasing fewer investments), ultimately leading to a liquidity trap. This is sounds really familiar, doesn't it?

Subject: Re: Why I care about Income Inequality From: Chicago Boy To: Bobby Date Posted: Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 22:22:45 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: : We live in a wonderful (mostly) free market economy with ever-changing production technologies, which produces wonderful growth and huge amounts of goods and services in aggregate. But one of its greatest costs is income inequality (that is the dispersion of incomes between people, and especially between the rich and the rest of the population), not just poverty (a separate issue). Yes, that's why Feldstein separated poverty and inequality in that quote. : Yes, some income inequality is meritocratic (that is due to better ability, industriousness, etc.), and of course much inequality is necessary for and increases efficiency (one innovates, gets an education, invests, supplies labor in order to improve his own economic lot, which would not occur if *too much* of his reward were redistributed among the populus to guarantee equality of income among everyone). But who says how much is too much? Doesn't that seem pretty arbitrary to you? You even admitted as much yourself. Do you really want to give that kind of power to the government? Surely, it would be used for political advantage. Why should we trust them w/that much access to wealth? : We should remember that market outcomes are amoral. We should also remember that market outcomes are based on voluntary exchange. Government redistributionism isn't. : Yes, sometimes a market outcome may happen to treat the 'deserving' favorably, and they are usually very efficient. But this comes at a great cost: They usually do fail in terms of rewarding with great enough incomes those who are 'deserving' and especially those who are 'in need.' Someone who has a job today finds himself outmoded tomorrow, and the technological crap shoot will yield high relative wages for some jobs and low ones for some jobs even if the people in both are equally industrious and deserving of success. That may be so, but how are you going to redistribute this wealth? From the top fourth to the bottom fourth? What about the middle two quarters? Should any more money go to them? Let's remember that the relationship between 'merit' and income is not necessarily homoscedastic. Those in the top will generally be really high in merit w/very few exception and those in the the bottom will usually be low in merit, also w/very few exceptions. This seems pretty 'fair' to me. On the other hand, our 'merit' variable will likely have less predictive utility in the middle of our distribution. However, most of these ppl will already be doing ok in terms of income, so why bother distributing wealth their way? They're already doing ok. : One might argue that it is a 'deprivation of freedom' for the govt to take a part of Person A's income that he made from the market and then redistribute it to Person B who made less income. One might argue that? : But one could also argue that it is the amoral market that actually deprived Person B of income that he rightfully deserved (by some fairness criteria) by distributing it blindly and wrongfully to Person A. Ok, but by whose fairness criteria? This is still very arbitrary. You must have more faith in government and democracy than I do. : Hence, one could argue that it is a *moral improvement* that the government makes winners, like Person A, compensate the losers, like Person B, somewhat. Therefore the government should provide some social insurance that redistributes *some* of the income of the rich to those with less. But how much? How can that be decided? : Second, one could argue that fighting income inequality is actually a Pareto improvement. In fact if a market for, say, income inequality insurance existed (and it fails to do so due to various non-internalized externalities, informational problems, free-rider problems etc.) people would buy some and this would improve everyone's welfare. So the govt should do *something* to simulate such an insurance system. Wait... Would ppl buy inequality insurance, or would they buy insurance against poverty? I might buy the latter, but I doubt I'd waste my money by spending it on the former. : Third, think of the children. I do. That's why I support vouchers. : Children do not choose which family they are born into, whether rich, middle class, or poor. Correct. That's why I'm in favor of some sort of safety net for the poor. : Why should children be penalized for something that is not their fault. In fact *the children* would probably take out some form of insurance before they were born if such a thing were possible. How much insurance? And would it be against poverty or inequality? We've already agreed that those are two different concepts. : So even if you don't think the govt has any obligation to adults, you can say that the government should protect innocent children from the consequences of income inequality. Again, the consequences of inequality or poverty? : Fourth, income inequality undermines and could destroy the middle-class democratic society that we imagine ourselves to be. It also allows the super wealthy to have disproportionate influence over politicians and lessens the influence of the non-wealthy who don't have as much money -- and putting economic and political power into the hands of ever fewer people puts the protection of our fundamental rights, both, negative rights ('things that protect citizens from their government: due process of law, freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of belief, etc' -- JB DeLong) and positive rights ('things that give citizens the ability to actually do things with their negative liberty: education, public health, social insurance, stable stores of wealth, courts that will enforce promises and thus allow you to commit yourself to courses of action, etc.' -- J.B. DeLong), at risk. So you're going to protect individual liberties by violating them w/redistributionism? Have two wrongs ever made a right? : There are also arguments about life expectancy, infant mortality, and public health that are associated with less income inequality, which I am not qualified to make. Are these associated w/inequality or poverty? : When asking 'how much inequality should we decrease?' this is a personal opinion by the voter, policymaker, etc. Right, and it's a very arbitrary one. Hence, the personal opinion of this voter is 'none.'

Subject: Re: Why I care about Income Inequality From: Bobby To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Tues, Jul 29, 2003 at 08:22:24 (EDT) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: 'But who says how much is too much? Doesn't that seem pretty arbitrary to you? You even admitted as much yourself. Do you really want to give that kind of power to the government? Surely, it would be used for political advantage. Why should we trust them w/that much access to wealth?' Yes, it is arbitrary. Not everything can be governed by hard-and-fast inalienable rules or by dogmatic philosophy. And I do trust the government with that much power. By the same token, I could ask, 'When there is so much wealth in the hands of so few people (who are not at all accountable to me), why should I trust them with access to so much wealth?' After all, they are not at all accountable to me and could use it to take away my rights. I would much rather have an elected representative, who is actually somewhat accountable to me (or, more exactly, accountable to people like me as a group), responsible protecting my rights rather than some rich person who is not at all accountable. Redistributing some of the wealth of those rich people also dissipates some of the ability of their ability to abuse their power over me. In general, there must be a mix between the power of the govt and the power of the economically well-off that occurs due to the market. And of course there is the power of interest groups within the rest of the electorate to influence govt and of the electorate itself. A proper mix of power among groups prevents any one of them from having too much power over the others. What is "proper" is, again, arbitrary, but I think that there is an interval of consensus among most citizens about where the proper mix is. And we must beware of deviating substantially from the proper mix because without it we likely will not be able to protect people's rights or maintain high growth or efficient and equitable markets (I am of course talking about the inefficiency of and corruption of socialism if the govt controls the market too much and the inefficiency and corruption of crony capitalism if the rich control the govt too much. And both of these regimes abuse their power to such an extent that they often *do* violate people's rights). 'We should also remember that market outcomes are based on voluntary exchange. Government redistributionism isn't.' Decentralized voluntary exchange, even if we assume perfect competition, may have great qualities like efficiency, but it has no superiority ihn terms of *morality and justice* over a democratically elected govt rule. Just as you hold voluntary exchange sacred, I could hold sacred the practice of voting for my elected representative and the rule of the laws that result from my representative govt. Personally, I think that neither is more sacred than the other and, again, there should be a proper mix of the two (and, yes, that mix is arbitrary). There may be differences of efficiency and distribution of social welfare between a market with more intervention and one with less, but let's judge each policy more on these criteria and less on the 'is it violating freedom' criterion (The 'it violates my freedom' criterion, in most people's view, is not very relevant to most of the very moderate economic policies currently in the realm of serious debate -- nobody here is proposing economic policies that a reasonable person would say 'violates his rights.' You can only say this when policies do things that are extreme --arbitrary again-- which most policies that we are debating are not in the view of the reasonable person). 'That may be so, but how are you going to redistribute this wealth? From the top fourth to the bottom fourth? What about the middle two quarters? Should any more money go to them? Let's remember that the relationship between 'merit' and income is not necessarily homoscedastic. Those in the top will generally be really high in merit w/very few exception and those in the the bottom will usually be low in merit, also w/very few exceptions. This seems pretty 'fair' to me. On the other hand, our 'merit' variable will likely have less predictive utility in the middle of our distribution. However, most of these ppl will already be doing ok in terms of income, so why bother distributing wealth their way? They're already doing ok.' Most people doing okay is not good enough because, for one thing, greater income inequality upsets the mix of power in society I mentioned before, which can have horrible results for people's rights, both positive and negative, as well as results like crony capitalism, market distortions, etc. And I do not think that your criterion for merit is the same as mine -- I am making an argument about morality and justice as to who, in my opinion, deserves more compensation. Differences between two people's marginal product of labor (which tends to equal the wage) does not capture most of the difference between the two people's merit. I do not think it just or moral that a CEO earns *so much* more than, say, a school teacher (just as, in a moral sense diamonds are worthless and water is valuable). Yes, the CEO's marginal product of labor is greater, but they both put in a lot of effort, often have a comparable amount of education, are both law-abiding citizens, etc. Yes, there should be *a* differential of the take-home pay between him and the teacher, even a very large one, because of the differential of their marginal products of labor. However, due to my personal opinion that too large a differetial is unjust, I am asking that his pay be greater only, say, by a factor of 10 as opposed to 20 (completely hypothetical figures). This is a completely arbitrary judgment on my part, but I think something like it is widely shared in light of the public's outrage over how high CEO pay is and complaints that I often hear that teacher's aren't paid enough. Aside from the question of 'merit,' we must ask if less rich Person B 'needs' more income than wealthier Person A. Wages that result from markets do not address this issue well (and "need" of money applies to the middle class as well as those in poverty, though they are the *most* needy). Of course redistribution is very inexact and money goes to some who do not merit it or don't need it, but markets often yield similar results, and we can always debate about and improve a policy if it is not well targetted. And of course it is always arbitrary and debatable who 'merits' and who 'needs' more income to be redistributed to them. 'Ok, but by whose fairness criteria? This is still very arbitrary. You must have more faith in government and democracy than I do.' 'But how much? How can that be decided?' The fairness criteria *are* of course arbitrary. These are all arbitrary judgments to be made over time by society through our elected representatives and public discourse -- one could say that these choices are being made now and the arguments are now, have been, and will be hashed out, by our elected representatives and through debate between citizens. Obviously this is an arduous processwith much trial and error and it is far from perfect, but, as Winston Churchill said of democracy, 'It's the worst system known to man, except for all the rest we have tried.' 'Would ppl buy inequality insurance, or would they buy insurance against poverty? I might buy the latter, but I doubt I'd waste my money by spending it on the former.' In reality, they would likely take out insurance against both poverty and inequality, but here I am talking about ONLY inequality (if this bothers you, pretend for the sake of argument, that society is rich enough so that even the lowest income people are out of poverty, so inequality is the only issue). Remember that people are averse to variances of an expected value, and they must be compensated more (with a smaller price) to buy assets whose expected values have greater variances and they want to pay more to avoid assets whose expected values have greater variances. Eg. people are compensated with higher expected returns for stocks (since the expected returns of those stocks have higher variances than, say, a govt bond's expected return). An increase of income inequality increases the variance of the expected value of future lifetime income. If they could, people would pay during life (or before birth as in my 'Think of the children' argument) by buying insurance to avoid the greater uncertainty of their future lifetime income that occurs due to the greater variance of the expected value of their lifetime income. 'Correct. That's why I'm in favor of some sort of safety net for the poor.' Good. Me too. I'm glad we agree on that. But again I am talking about only inequality not poverty (see my for more). 'How much insurance? And would it be against poverty or inequality? We've already agreed that those are two different concepts.' Again, they'd insure against both inequality and poverty, but I'm only discussing inequality here. The same argument about being averse to variances applies here too. How much is a philosophical question, and, in practice, when choosing the level at which to 'simulate' this insurance market, this an arbitrary judgment that society and its elected representatives have to make. 'Again, the consequences of inequality or poverty?' Here, I am talking only about inequality, but obviously the govt should protect children from both poverty and inequality. 'So you're going to protect individual liberties by violating them w/redistributionism? Have two wrongs ever made a right?' There is no violation of liberty occurring here. Again, by the same token, the market outcome violates the liberty of those non-rich, like my hypothetical teacher, who 'deserve' but do not get income that should be rightfully theirs since the market distributes it to richer people, like my hypothetical CEO. 'Are these associated w/inequality or poverty?' I know they are definitely related to inequality, but, for all I know they could be related to poverty as well -- again, I'm not qualified to comment in any detail. 'Right, and it's a very arbitrary one. Hence, the personal opinion of this voter is 'none.'' 'None' is your opinion, but a lot of voters do not agree (and lot agree in principle, but not in practice, and there are quite a few who agree with you both in principle and in practice, but I digress). Yes the govt must make often make arbitrary choices and value judgements, but that's the way life is. By the same token, I could say that if the govt chose to let the market determine the income distribution without intervention, this is an arbitrary and questionable value judgment too.

Subject: Re: Why I care about Income Inequality From: Chicago Boy To: Bobby Date Posted: Tues, Jul 29, 2003 at 12:16:39 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: : And I do trust the government with that much power. By the same token, I could ask, 'When there is so much wealth in the hands of so few people (who are not at all accountable to me), why should I trust them with access to so much wealth?' After all, they are not at all accountable to me and could use it to take away my rights. I would much rather have an elected representative, who is actually somewhat accountable to me (or, more exactly, accountable to people like me as a group), responsible protecting my rights rather than some rich person who is not at all accountable. Redistributing some of the wealth of those rich people also dissipates some of the ability of their ability to abuse their power over me. If you want to get the rich and big business out of government, then your best bet is simply to get the government away from the rich and big business. That way, they'll only be at an arm's lenght apart. See, much of the reason why the rich and large businesses need to buy so much influence is for defensive measures. It's to prevent the sort of arbitrary redistributionism and regulation that you describe. So, you might even find yourself making the problem of money having control over politics even worse. : Decentralized voluntary exchange, even if we assume perfect competition, may have great qualities like efficiency, but it has no superiority ihn terms of *morality and justice* over a democratically elected govt rule. Then we have different ideas of morality and justice. I hold that both of those concepts necessitate the strict application of individual rights. : Just as you hold voluntary exchange sacred, I could hold sacred the practice of voting for my elected representative and the rule of the laws that result from my representative govt. So, you think any law is moral so long as it was the result of an elected government? I disagree. Individual liberty is a higher concept, to me, than democracy. That's why the constitution was written. It was to prevent a scenario where 51% of the population could enslave the other 49%. : You can only say this when policies do things that are extreme --arbitrary again-- which most policies that we are debating are not in the view of the reasonable person). Your assumption that every reasonable person would support redistributionism is highly insulting, and not to mention arbitrary (I'm a broken record). By that standard, Feldstein, Barro, and I would all be considered 'unreasonable,' as would probably over 36% of the population. Ironically, you talk about the wonders of democracy and redistributionism, but, in America, democracy actually prevents such redistributionist policies. Voters here are typically averse to that. : Most people doing okay is not good enough because, for one thing, greater income inequality upsets the mix of power in society I mentioned before, which can have horrible results for people's rights, both positive and negative, as well as results like crony capitalism, market distortions, etc. And you wouldn't have those things under a redistributionist regime? For every problem, there isn't necessarily a corresponding Big Government solution. There are 'government failures' as well as market failures. How could the arbitrary nature of redistributionism NOT be taken advantage of by the political process? : And I do not think that your criterion for merit is the same as mine -- I am making an argument about morality and justice as to who, in my opinion, deserves more compensation. Differences between two people's marginal product of labor (which tends to equal the wage) does not capture most of the difference between the two people's merit. I do not think it just or moral that a CEO earns *so much* more than, say, a school teacher (just as, in a moral sense diamonds are worthless and water is valuable). Oh, I think it's very just and very moral for a CEO to earn much, much more than a mere school teacher. Teachers regularly score well below virtually all other groups on standardized tests (e.g., ACT, SAT, or GRE). Let's face it, our best and brightest don't go into teaching, so it's no wonder they earn less. Like Feldstein's article says, although it's an unfashionable view, IQ is associated with earnings. : Yes, the CEO's marginal product of labor is greater, but they both put in a lot of effort, often have a comparable amount of education, are both law-abiding citizens, etc. Why should society pay people for effort, however? That would be a horrible way of allocating resources. I could expend a lot of effort writing crappy books and shitty music, but no one would value it. : but I think something like it is widely shared in light of the public's outrage over how high CEO pay is and complaints that I often hear that teacher's aren't paid enough. Actually, I think I was reading the other day that, thanks to unionization, most teachers are actually paid TOO MUCH; however, teachers in math and science aren't paid enough. : Aside from the question of 'merit,' we must ask if less rich Person B 'needs' more income than wealthier Person A. Wages that result from markets do not address this issue well (and 'need' of money applies to the middle class as well as those in poverty, though they are the *most* needy). The middle class is 'needy?' Since when? : If they could, people would pay during life (or before birth as in my 'Think of the children' argument) by buying insurance to avoid the greater uncertainty of their future lifetime income that occurs due to the greater variance of the expected value of their lifetime income. Although I agree that people are risk averse and expect a compensating differential for more variable payment schemes, is it really the job of the government to provide that differential? Not everyone would have bought such 'inequality insurance,' anyway. Think of it like car insurance. I'd buy insurance in case my car got in a wreck (analogous to to poverty insurance), but I wouldn't buy insurance against having a car that isn't as nice as the other guy's. : Here, I am talking only about inequality, but obviously the govt should protect children from both poverty and inequality. Obviously? It doesn't appear obvious to me, Barro, Feldstein, or a large chunk of the U.S. population. : There is no violation of liberty occurring here. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this point. : Again, by the same token, the market outcome violates the liberty of those non-rich, like my hypothetical teacher, who 'deserve' but do not get income that should be rightfully theirs since the market distributes it to richer people, like my hypothetical CEO. We'll just have to agree to disagree here. I don't see how a system of voluntary exchange violates individual liberties. : 'None' is your opinion, but a lot of voters do not agree (and lot agree in principle, but not in practice, and there are quite a few who agree with you both in principle and in practice, but I digress). They're entitled to their opinion, just as long as they don't come after my money. : Yes the govt must make often make arbitrary choices and value judgements, but that's the way life is. By the same token, I could say that if the govt chose to let the market determine the income distribution without intervention, this is an arbitrary and questionable value judgment too. Perhaps, but at least it would be based on a rigid, objective adherence to the principles of individual liberty.

Subject: Re: Why I care about Income Inequality From: Bobby To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 04:18:08 (EDT) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: 'If you want to get the rich and big business out of government, then your best bet is simply to get the government away from the rich and big business. That way, they'll only be at an arm's lenght apart. See, much of the reason why the rich and large businesses need to buy so much influence is for defensive measures. It's to prevent the sort of arbitrary redistributionism and regulation that you describe. So, you might even find yourself making the problem of money having control over politics even worse.' What you don't seem to understand is that govt action (through well-designed taxation and regulation schemes upon business and by redistributing the wealth of the rich) is the only realistic means available to keep the power of the wealthy in check and to prevent them from abusing it. The wealthy do not influence govt only or mainly to defend themselves -- they do so because abusing their influence is profitable. For example, think of govt contracts that the administration gives away to its friends like Bechtel and Halliburton. The influence of the rich also often encourages policies that create market distortions from which they can profit like monolopolies, various forms of fraud, etc. By stemming increasing inequality between the top and the rest of the population, the govt is employing one means of keeping their power from growing. Without this and other methods of keeping the wealthy in check, there exist opportunities for a small group of very wealthy elites to profit from abusing their power both economic and political, to create conditions whereby they gain even more wealth and power, etc. By preventing the govt from redistribution, you don't somehow prevent the wealthy from abusing their influence over govt or over the market. You increase their ability to do it since they are allowed to gain ever more wealth and power even faster. And the govt is not the only means by which the wealthy can wield and abuse their power. They can do so by through influence in the market as well. 'Then we have different ideas of morality and justice. I hold that both of those concepts necessitate the strict application of individual rights. ' I think that you have to judge it case by case, and, again, most serious policies within the realm of debate don't come close to violating 'individual rights.' 'So, you think any law is moral so long as it was the result of an elected government? I disagree. Individual liberty is a higher concept, to me, than democracy. That's why the constitution was written. It was to prevent a scenario where 51% of the population could enslave the other 49%.' That's not what I said. I said that neither was more sacred than the other and that there should be a proper mix between the two. Your comment about slavery has nothing to do with what I was saying and no policy that is currently under serious debate today is relevant to the possibility of enslaving 49% of the population in the service of 51%. 'Your assumption that every reasonable person would support redistributionism is highly insulting, and not to mention arbitrary (I'm a broken record). By that standard, Feldstein, Barro, and I would all be considered 'unreasonable,' as would probably over 36% of the population. ' Again, there is nothing wrong with it being arbitrary. Whether people agree with my sentiments on redistribution is something that they can act on at the polls. And if the case for more redistribution is not effectively made, and if voters refuse to elect pols who do more of it, who am I to impose values on the electorate that they don't want? Feldstein and Barro's beliefs on philosophical questions, like 'Should we care about inequality?' hold no more sway with me than the beliefs of Joe Blow. Political philosophy is not their field of expertise, and their research is on other things. Likewise (at the extreme) I would obviously not agree with the political philosophical beliefs of the game theorist Heinrich von Stackelberg, who was a Nazi -- although the Stackelberg duopoly game is still a wonderful tool for studying Industrial Organization. I consider the political philosophy of a great scientist or positive social scientist by itself as *separate* from their research. I do hold my views of Krugman's writings to the same standard -- my admiration of his articles for the public has nothing to do with the research that got him the Clark Medal. 'Ironically, you talk about the wonders of democracy and redistributionism, but, in America, democracy actually prevents such redistributionist policies. Voters here are typically averse to that.' Really? Last time I checked we had a progressive income tax code and even more progressive entitlement programs like Medicaid, Social Security, Medicare, etc. We are not as progressive as most developed nations of course. Also, if, in the future, the case for more distribution is not effectively made to voters, and voters somehow become so averse to redistribution that they refuse elect politicians who do more of it, who am I to impose on them something they don't want? Also, I did not talk about the wonders of redistribution and democracy -- I said that they have many faults and are very far from perfect. 'And you wouldn't have those things under a redistributionist regime? For every problem, there isn't necessarily a corresponding Big Government solution. There are 'government failures' as well as market failures. How could the arbitrary nature of redistributionism NOT be taken advantage of by the political process?'' I never said there was a govt solution for every or even *most* problems. I'm only talking about income distribution here, and there are many different kinds of policies to deal with this problem, such as a negative income tax or my favorite, which is a vast expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit. I'm not sure exactly where the govt failure comes from for the EITC, but I'm sure there is one. And yes the EITC does create DWL (as does the taxation to fund it) but its effects upon total output and growth should not be too bad if it is not expanded too far. Note that in my previous post I admitted that redistribution policies of which there are many different kinds, are often far from perfect and I discussed some of their faults in my previous post. Of course you have to look at each redistributive policy case by case to answer if the govt failure is worse than the market failure. And if the govt failure is worse obviously you should not do it. But wihtout a case-by-case debate on each different redistributive policy, any discussion is too rife with generalizations and it won't bear any fruit as to which policies are associated with greater govt failure and which with less. 'Oh, I think it's very just and very moral for a CEO to earn much, much more than a mere school teacher. Teachers regularly score well below virtually all other groups on standardized tests (e.g., ACT, SAT, or GRE). Let's face it, our best and brightest don't go into teaching, so it's no wonder they earn less. Like Feldstein's article says, although it's an unfashionable view, IQ is associated with earnings.' But I said that there should be a differential, even a large one. I just think that there are concerns besides marginal product of labor when we consider what a 'fair' differential is -- and yes this is arbitrary. 'Why should society pay people for effort, however? That would be a horrible way of allocating resources. I could expend a lot of effort writing crappy books and shitty music, but no one would value it.' It is a terrible way of allocating resources in terms of efficiency, but efficiency is only one of my concerns. The allocation of resources should reflect not only our desire for efficiency but also to some degree some criteria of fairness (arbitrary!). I am not saying that effort *always* merits more pay. My concern about effort is even taken care of slightly by a compensating wage differential. My point is that effort is *often* more important in a moral sense than the market gives it credit for (that is compared to the size of the compensating wagte differential). In terms of fairness and justice, the compensating wage differential for more effort is too small in my arbitrary view -- and effort is only one factor that I am considering. 'Actually, I think I was reading the other day that, thanks to unionization, most teachers are actually paid TOO MUCH; however, teachers in math and science aren't paid enough.' Too much or too little is of course arbitrary. In the view of most people, the differential between teachers and CEOs is too large. 'The middle class is 'needy?' Since when?' Life is often very hard for people in the middle class -- not as hard as poverty would be, but hard enough that money troubles are a very large problem in most people's lives even if they are well above poverty. Of course, since I would like a progressive redistribution scheme, less should be redistributed to those who need it less though. 'Although I agree that people are risk averse and expect a compensating differential for more variable payment schemes, is it really the job of the government to provide that differential? Not everyone would have bought such 'inequality insurance,' anyway. Think of it like car insurance. I'd buy insurance in case my car got in a wreck (analogous to to poverty insurance), but I wouldn't buy insurance against having a car that isn't as nice as the other guy's.' Well, I don't think a market for 'nice car' insurance exists or could exist without govt help (though it shouldn't exist). But the increasing variance of expected lifetime income due to growing inequality is obviously a much more important problem than a nice car. How big such a market could be or demand for it is a question of parameter estimates that we can't deal with here. Whether it is the job of the govt is an arbitrary judgment. I say yes because the govt is the only one capable of doing it, and because it makes the vast majority of the population better off while hurting (only slightly) rich people who are the least needy (financially, that is) members of society. 'Obviously? It doesn't appear obvious to me, Barro, Feldstein, or a large chunk of the U.S. population.' The sentence should have read 'obviously I was saying. . . .' This sentence was an answer to your question 'Again, the consequences of inequality or poverty?' Again, I don't care about Barro's or Feldstein's political beliefs, which I think have no more sway than the beliefs of a man on the street. They are economists, and I trust their beliefs on political philosophy about as much as I would trust their cooking tips. 'We'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.' 'We'll just have to agree to disagree here. I don't see how a system of voluntary exchange violates individual liberties.' Again, the market outcome violates the liberty of those non-rich, like my hypothetical teacher, who 'deserve' but do not get income that should be rightfully theirs since the market distributes it to richer people, like my hypothetical CEO. My definition of liberty is different from yours, but that is fine with me. Personally, I think that the market violates the liberty of the none-rich when income inequality increases and the govt violates the liberty of the rich when it redistributes their income. Regardless of what you do, liberty and justice is being violated in some sense for some people. You just have to judge (arbitrarily) which violation is worse. My judgment is that the market outcome is worse, while yours is that the govt intervention is worse. 'They're entitled to their opinion, just as long as they don't come after my money.' But you don't have a right not to pay your taxes, while your govt does have a right in the Constitution to raise your taxes. And this will happen if the electorate agrees with me. 'Perhaps, but at least it would be based on a rigid, objective adherence to the principles of individual liberty.' But who defines those principles? The choice of which principles to choose is itself arbitrary. I do not tie myself to any specific philosophy because I like to be flexible when choosing what policies to support and I do not like to be hidebound by dogma. I don't have any philosophy aside from a general sense of what is right, wrong, extreme, and not extreme that I learned growing up in New York.

Subject: Income and Markets From: Emma To: Bobby Date Posted: Sun, Jul 27, 2003 at 11:00:52 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: A well reasoned argument with Barro. I have trouble believing that France and Germany and Denmark and Sweden have sacrificed much in the way of long term GDP growth because of market inefficiencies produced by universal health care not to mention public education. Should we give over public education in America? Really, that is where arguments for extreme reliance on markets take us.

Subject: Re: Income and Markets From: Mads Keller To: Emma Date Posted: Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 07:57:01 (EDT) Email Address: Madskel@worldonline.dk Message: In the latest book i have got my grease little hands on : Varieties of Capitalism edited by Hall og Soskice, the differences between the libereal market economies as Australia UK and USA are compared to the coordinated market economies as Denmark Finland Germany Sweden. The results that there is not a golden rule that will have better growth than others. The differens is in who gets the money and how long the unemployment line is.

Subject: Barro on Inequality From: Chicago Boy To: All Date Posted: Sun, Jul 27, 2003 at 00:31:52 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/barro/bw/bw02_05_06.pdf

Subject: Tempering Markets From: Emma To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Sun, Jul 27, 2003 at 11:03:25 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Interesting, but extreme relaince on markets assumes there are no distortions of market in power and knowledge and that will not be. market power must be tempered, and that means some redistribution of resources.

Subject: Re: Tempering Markets From: Chicago Boy To: Emma Date Posted: Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 22:38:44 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: : Interesting, but extreme relaince on markets assumes there are no distortions of market in power and knowledge and that will not be. Where is he making that assumption? : market power must be tempered, and that means some redistribution of resources. How much redistribution? To alleviate inequality or poverty?

Subject: Inequality and Markets From: Emma To: All Date Posted: Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 13:35:35 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The question is whether raw market structure can reduce poverty, which in turn will reduce inequality. There are 2 problems: Markets are at times distored by concentration and poor balance of information and extreme difference in consumer means. Social structure at times limits market efficiency, as with discrimination.

Subject: Keller appoints David Brooks to NYT OpEd From: Tombo To: All Date Posted: Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 20:24:40 (EDT) Email Address: tpmclaughlin@hotmail.com Message: A new era has begun at the Times. How much longer before Keller clips Krugman's wings, forcing him to leave aside political hysterics and focus on economics? NY Times Appoints a Columnist www.nytimes.com/2003/07/25/national/25PAPE.html

Subject: Hating Democracy From: TomLie To: Tombo Date Posted: Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 12:28:05 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Prehaps you should figure out we live in a democracy.

Subject: Re: Hating Democracy From: Chicago Boy To: TomLie Date Posted: Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 17:09:53 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Not true. We live in a constitutional Republic.

Subject: Hating Constitutional Republics From: TomLie To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Tues, Jul 29, 2003 at 12:39:43 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: TomLie hates constitutional Republics. TomLie especially hates a free America.

Subject: Restoring Intelligence and Sanity to NYT From: Tombo To: TomLie Date Posted: Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 16:50:33 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The New York Times is neither a republic nor a democracy but a once-great paper that's desperately trying to recapture its authority as the paper of record-- this is Bill Keller's mandate, and this is why he hired a talented, sensible, balanced writer named David Brooks for the TImes' OpEd page. Only a matter of time before Paul's embarrasingly ill-informed political screeds cease disgracing the Times' OpEd page.

Subject: Tombo Nutso From: Nutso Tombo To: Tombo Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 31, 2003 at 13:33:01 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Tombo lunatico

Subject: Who will be dropped? Krugman, Kristof or Dowd? From: Tombo To: Tombo Sicko Date Posted: Sun, Jul 27, 2003 at 01:19:50 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: If David Brooks is being added to the NYT OpEd page, then another contributor will have to be dropped-- or at least scaled back to once per week. Will it be Paul??? One would expect the reigning lightweight, Mo Dowd, to be sacked, but don't rule out the chances of Paul's taking the hit. His (non-economics) columns are often as ludicrous and juvenile as Mo's. Kristof is annoying but he has more or less the same bgrd and bio as Keller (long-time foreign correspondents, and I believe they're both from Oregon originally) so Kristof is the least likely of the three liberals to get axed.

Subject: Apply to the Times From: TomLie To: Tombo Date Posted: Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 12:29:58 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Apply as well to Princeton, TomLie.

Subject: Fine Comment From: Emma To: All Date Posted: Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 14:48:35 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Fine comment. What are the development consequences of income and wealth inequality is a subject of interest to me, both for America and less developed countries. Also, what social obligations we might have beyond 'free' markets interests me. I am thinking about such issues. The problem of fiscal policy and debt will relate to matters of income and wealth equality, by the way. Economics is a study that spills over to other domestic and international concerns and I think PK's writing on Administration policy while quite critical is called for and methodical and rather bravely done. These are difficult times, and tough argument really is called for.

Subject: Re: Fine Comment From: Bobby To: Emma Date Posted: Sun, Jul 27, 2003 at 09:30:32 (EDT) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: There is something called the Kuznets curve, which says that, at first when a country is poor, as the country's GDP grows, income inequality increases and then, eventually, when the country gets rich enough, as GDP grows, income inequality decreases. But this should be taken very cautiously. This is just an observed empirical relationship which says nothing about whether GDP growth causes the inequality or whether inequality causes the GDP growth. Whether the Kuznets Curve is actually an empirical reality has also become very disputed in recent years.

Subject: OK Chicago From: Emma To: All Date Posted: Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 12:39:11 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: OK Chicago. As long as the bashing of PK stops, there is every reason to discuss and argue economic and social policy and thought.

Subject: Re: OK Chicago From: Chicago Boy To: Emma Date Posted: Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 14:20:24 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Ok, fair enough. As long as we avoid the use of ad hominem attacks, I'm ok. I'll even admit I was being extreme in saying PK isn't credible and in playing the credentials game with the CBPP. That, however, does not mean I have to agree with everything they (meaning PK and the CBPP) say. In all honesty, I think PK is a fine economist. I especially like his work on trade. However, many of his policy recommendations reflect a preoccupation with income inequality that I do not share (look at his writing for Mother Jones), and he seldom acknowledges the credibility of opposing views, like those held by Gary Becker, Robert Barro, and Martin Feldstein. Also, I think his columns lately have spent entirely too much time on foreign policy, an area outside of his expertise. So, there ya have it. Those are honestly my views, and I don't think I'm really 'bashing' anyone.

Subject: Re: OK Chicago From: libervative To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 17:47:12 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: '...many of his policy recommendations reflect a preoccupation with income inequality that I do not share...' Out of curiosity, Chicago, when you say you don't share such a 'preoccupation,' do you mean you don't think it's (the issue of income inequality) as important as Krugman does, or that it's just not very important at all? Either way, why?

Subject: Re: OK Chicago From: Chicago Boy To: libervative Date Posted: Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 18:16:56 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: 'I believe that inequality as such is not a problem and that it would be wrong to design policies to reduce it. What policy should address is not inequality but poverty.' -- Martin Feldstein That pretty much sums up my thoughts.

Subject: Markets From: Emma To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 13:40:23 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Martin Feldstein assumes markets with no friction. I think that too ideal. There need to be market checks at least, even in semi-ideal markets. Again, there are markets that tend to concentration.

Subject: Re: Markets From: Chicago Boy To: Emma Date Posted: Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 18:33:44 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: : Martin Feldstein assumes markets with no friction. I think that too ideal. I don't think Feldstein is making that assumption, hence his concern about poverty.

Subject: Thanks Chicago From: Emma To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 14:57:24 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I read the Greg Mankiw post on Social Security carefully. Social security was begun during the depression, and the first generation to receive Social Security was supported by those who were younger and employed. We pay for our parent's Social Security, while our children pay for us. Social Security is not my own retirement fund, but a social fund. Can we afford Social Security as the baby boomers retire? I think so, with some increases in the income level [$87,000-ceiling] that is to be taxed. Was Social Security in better shape beofre these 3 tax cuts? Oh, yes.

Subject: Chicago Fool From: Emma To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 24, 2003 at 16:26:22 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Laughing and sneering at you is for me and others. I could less less about a radical righter like C Fool.

Subject: Re: Chicago Fool From: Captain of Crush To: Emma Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 24, 2003 at 17:26:35 (EDT) Email Address: mmenos@hotmail.com Message: 'Emma,' what is wrong with you? while Chicago Boy may hold his beliefs so dearly that convincing him otherwise would require a 'clockwork orange' type of deprogramming apparatus, at least he brings his food to the table. i don't know what your schtick is, but it is getting rather tiresome.

Subject: Re: Chicago Fool From: Chicago Boy To: Captain of Crush Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 24, 2003 at 20:31:47 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Thanks, Captain. Oh, and just for the record, the only reason I come here is to talk to intelligent, economically literate liberals and moderates. I try to avoid hurling insults, and I appreciate it when others do the same. I may make some extreme statements once in a while, but that's mostly to be provocative and spark descussion, not to be an asshole.

Subject: Chicago Fool From: Ronn To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 24, 2003 at 14:05:44 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: When I come upon radical right rubbish, I make as nasty a comment as I can think of in the instant before I pass on.

Subject: Re: Chicago Fool From: Chicago Boy To: Ronn Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 24, 2003 at 14:53:41 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Defending Mankiw is radical right rubbish? He's a fine textbook economist.

Subject: Gregee Mankiwee From: Emma To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 24, 2003 at 12:30:53 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Gregee in Administration. That be all I need to know. Me must often refer to textbook as Gregee screws America's middle class. Me walk the same halls, but me no impressed by wolf in sheep's textbook. A radical right Administration draws radical righters about it. These folks are out to undo the New Deal and Great Society. Duh.

Subject: Re: Gregee Mankiwee From: Chicago Boy To: Emma Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 24, 2003 at 13:23:42 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Can you just write in plain English? : Me must often refer to textbook as Gregee screws America's middle class. Me walk the same halls, but me no impressed by wolf in sheep's textbook. These sentences don't even make sense. How can a textbook screw America's middle class? And how the Hell can one be a 'wolf in sheep's textbook?' : A radical right Administration draws radical righters about it. What's so bad about being a 'radical righter?' : These folks are out to undo the New Deal and Great Society. And thank God for that! As Bill Clinton said, 'The era of Big Government is over.' New Deal socialism is so inconsistent with American values that it could never last here. : Duh. Duh, what?

Subject: Looney Chicago From: Emma To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 24, 2003 at 14:10:31 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Chicago The idea that you could understand plain English is laughable.

Subject: Re: Looney Chicago From: Chicago Boy To: Emma Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 24, 2003 at 14:50:19 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The idea that you could engage in thoughtful discussion without using ad hominem attacks is even more laughable.

Subject: Poor Dear From: Emma To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 24, 2003 at 14:54:31 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The radical right is not capable of learning, so the idea of debate never occurs to me. Rather, treat them with the scorn they deserve. Actually, the tactic is effective.

Subject: Re: Poor Dear From: Chicago Boy To: Emma Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 24, 2003 at 16:22:55 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Your tactic is effective in doing what? Convincing me that most liberals are irrational and driven by their emotions?

Subject: Loonee Rightee From: Emma To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 24, 2003 at 16:28:26 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Love them loonee rightees.

Subject: Re: Loonee Rightee From: Chicago Boy To: Emma Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 24, 2003 at 20:23:53 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Love ya right back, hon.

Subject: PK for Senior Economic Advisor From: jp To: All Date Posted: Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 22:57:41 (EDT) Email Address: jparks03@operamail.com Message: I would like to see the Democratic candidate for President appoint Dr. Krugman as Senior Economic Advisor for the new 2004 administration. Let's start a petition - please write your favorite Democratic candidate and let them know about Paul!

Subject: Krugman's vacation photo From: Dave To: All Date Posted: Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 22:36:23 (EDT) Email Address: daveellis_39@hotmail.com Message: Paul's photo (cropped) should be used for his column.

Subject: Ending the New Deal From: Emma To: All Date Posted: Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 13:17:53 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The radical right fiscal policy of this Administration will cause fierce problems for the middle class for years and years. These are policies aimed to end the legacy of the New Deal and Great Society. I say 'Phooey!'

Subject: Re: Ending the New Deal From: Emma To: Emma Date Posted: Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 13:25:33 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: http://www.cbpp.org/ OMB Figures Show Revenues — Due To Tax Cuts — At Exceptionally Low Levels, While Spending Levels Are Not Especially High, 7/23/03, 2pp. New OMB data show that in 2003 revenues, as a share of GDP, will fall to lowest level since 1959. Spending as a percent of GDP will be lower than in other recent downturns and lower than in every year from 1980 to 1995.

Subject: Re: Ending the New Deal From: Emma To: Emma Date Posted: Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 13:28:34 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: http://www.cbpp.org/ Fact Sheet: Annual Deficits To Exceed $300 Billion Through The Coming Decade If the tax cuts are extended and other likely costs occur, deficits will total $4.1 trillion over the next ten years, will never fall below $325 billion in any year, and will reach $530 billion by 2013.'

Subject: Re: Ending the New Deal From: Emma To: Emma Date Posted: Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 13:25:07 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: OMB Figures Show Revenues — Due To Tax Cuts — At Exceptionally Low Levels, While Spending Levels Are Not Especially High, 7/23/03, 2pp. New OMB data show that in 2003 revenues, as a share of GDP, will fall to lowest level since 1959. Spending as a percent of GDP will be lower than in other recent downturns and lower than in every year from 1980 to 1995.

Subject: Gregee and Glenee From: Emma To: All Date Posted: Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 13:14:01 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Gregee Boy Mankiw is shilling for the radical right. Harvard was not quite enough. Besides Gregee wishes to end the New Deal. To hell with Social Security and Medicare. Like Glenee Boy Hubbardee, a radical righter.

Subject: Re: Gregee and Glenee From: Chicago Boy To: Emma Date Posted: Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 22:55:29 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I don't know how radical he is. Do you even know what you're talking about? Greg Mankiw always seemed pretty mainstream to me; that's why his textbook is so popular (the most popular, in fact).

Subject: Gregee and Glenee = Rightee From: Emma To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 24, 2003 at 12:43:22 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Gregee and Glenee are as main as radical rightees can be. All they want is to end Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and any and every other social benefit package that comes to mind.

Subject: Mankiw on Social Security. From: Chicago Boy To: Emma Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 24, 2003 at 13:32:44 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Doesn't sound like he wants to end it to me.... How to Screw Up Social Security First Principles By N. Gregory Mankiw Having trouble saving for your retirement? Try this simple solution: Borrow some money at 7%, buy stocks that return 10%, and pocket the 3% difference. Still running short? Don't worry--just do it again. This is, of course, ridiculous advice. Buying equities with borrowed money is a risky strategy, and no one should do it without understanding those risks. But this is in effect what President Clinton proposes we do as a nation. He wants to 'save Social Security' in part by selling some government bonds and using the proceeds to invest in stocks. It is easy to see why he'd be tempted: Over the President's lifetime, stocks have outperformed bonds by a large margin, on average--about 6% per year. And over the past decade, the gap has been even larger. Owning bonds seems like a sucker's bet. Why not return the Social Security system to solvency by taking advantage of the huge equity premium? (Hell, while we're at it, why not fund the Pentagon, welfare, and Amtrak by buying stock on margin?) Alan Greenspan has objected to this idea, fearing that if the government owned a large share of corporate America, capital would be allocated on political rather than economic grounds. There's another problem, however, a problem pointed out in the fine print in most mutual fund ads: 'Past performance cannot guarantee future results.' Sadly, the SEC does not require a similar disclaimer on State of the Union addresses. So let's consider the downside. Suppose the federal government put some of the Social Security trust fund in equities. Now suppose that the next decade turns out less like the early 1990s and more like the early 1930s, when the Dow Jones industrial average fell from 381 to 41--or like Japan today, where the stock market is still at less than half the level it reached a decade ago. What would happen? Clearly, Social Security would be in big trouble. Not only would baby-boomers be starting to retire, automatically boosting government spending on retirement programs, but the market collapse would likely coincide with a recession, reducing tax revenue. With the trust fund drained by low stock prices, Social Security benefits would almost certainly be cut. A lot. One might argue that this downside isn't so bad. After all, the President proposes to invest only 15% of the trust fund in stocks--much less than the typical private pension plan. But this overlooks the fact that because the government taxes capital gains and 401(k) distributions, it already has a large implicit position in equities. Indeed, that position is one reason for the current budget surplus; if the stock market tanks, the budget will swing back toward deficit, even without a direct government holding of equities. Although the downside risk is far from negligible, it could still be a risk worth taking. Buying stocks rather than bonds does work out, on average, and we would be irrational to avoid risk at all costs. But there are several reasons to think it's a bad bet. First, it seems an unlikely coincidence that the President's proposal comes on the heels of several years of truly exceptional stock returns. If we take a look at history, however, the stock market isn't nearly as impressive: In the 19th century, the average premium for investing in stocks over bonds was less than 3%. Second, the stock market's historical performance reflects a large amount of good luck. We live in the world's richest country, at the end of the most prosperous century ever; it should come as no surprise that the market has done so well. The future may give us a similarly lucky draw, but let's not count on it. Third, some economists see the large historical equity premium as an anomaly that's already been corrected. Most measures of stock market valuation are now at historical extremes. Perhaps this is because investors, realizing stocks were undervalued in the past, have corrected the problem. If so, stocks are unlikely to keep outperforming bonds by the same margin. None of this means equities should be excluded from the debate over Social Security reform. But the risks of holding equities should be brought into the open and stressed. One advantage of privatization proposals, advocated by many members of Congress, is that they are clear about where the risk would fall. The President's plan, by contrast, emphasizes the upside of equity ownership without mentioning the downside--just the way they'd do it in Vegas. __________ N. GREGORY MANKIW is an economics professor at Harvard and the author of Principles of Economics.

Subject: Mankiw on SS (Cont.) From: Chicago Boy To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 24, 2003 at 13:42:13 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Still doesn't sound like he's trying to 'end' Social Security. First Principles ECONOMICS A Great Pyramid Scheme By N. Gregory Mankiw The federal budget may be close to balanced, but the U.S. government's fiscal problems are far from over. Looming on the horizon is the Social Security system. That problem stems from a sad but unavoidable truth: Social Security masquerades as a pension plan, but it's really a pyramid scheme. The essence of a pension plan is that it accepts contributions from workers when they are young, invests them in stocks and bonds and other assets, and then pays out the return principal when employees retire. A pyramid scheme, on the other hand, never does much real investing. It offers fantastic rates of return to early investors by giving them some of the principal contributed by later investors. Eventually, someone is left shortchanged. Now consider Social Security. A person retiring in 1940 earned an annualized inflation-adjusted return on his and his employer's contributions of about 135%--a return that makes Warren Buffett look like a slouch. Of course, such incredible numbers couldn't last forever, but many Americans still enjoyed a good deal: The return was 24% for someone retiring in 1950, 15% in 1960, and 10% in 1970. The downward trend, however, is hard to miss. The return on Social Security fell to 8% for those retiring in 1980, 6% in 1990, and about 4% today. And the decline is hardly about to stop. Estimates put the unfunded liability at about $11 trillion--roughly three times the officially recognized national debt. Seeing Social Security as a pyramid scheme shows why the aging of the population is so problematic. A fully funded pension plan doesn't need new participants to pay off old ones: It can just sell off assets. But new participants are crucial for Social Security, and they aren't coming fast enough. According to most projections, the number of people over age 65 is expected to more than double over the next half-century, but the number of people ages 20 to 64 will increase by only 25%. The pyramid-scheme analysis also shows why we should not expect much from proposed reforms. Privatization of Social Security may be a good idea, but private pyramid schemes don't work any better than public ones. Investing some of the fund in equities may also be smart, but a pyramid scheme does not succeed simply by taking on riskier investments. Bill Clinton says he wants to save the system, but if proposals speak louder than words, he is more likely to make it worse. The President has not said what he wants to do with Social Security, but he has proposed expanding eligibility for Medicare, Social Security's system program, which is funded in largely the same way. Clinton claims that Medicare expansion would be voluntary and self-financing, but actuaries know otherwise: When a health-care program is voluntary, the least healthy (and most expensive) individuals sign up. Moreover, if Clinton were right that the program would be self-financing, the private market would have provided the service already. The President should be honest about the problem. The choices are simple but not pleasant: higher taxes, lower benefits, and/or later retirement ages. The longer we wait, the less attractive these options become. The pharaohs of ancient Egypt achieved a sense of immortality when they built pyramids that would forever mark the landscape. Franklin Roosevelt did much the same thing when he created Social Security. American's pyramid, however, doesn't look nearly so nice at sunset. __________ N. GREGORY MANKIW is a Harvard economics professor and author of Principles of Economics.

Subject: Chicago Phooey From: Ronn To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 24, 2003 at 14:07:52 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Phooey C Boy and Greg Boy and Glen Boy

Subject: Re: Chicago Phooey From: Chicago Boy To: Ronn Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 24, 2003 at 14:51:33 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: How substantive. You have a lotta class.

Subject: Making a career out of bashing Bush From: Bernard Lewis To: All Date Posted: Tues, Jul 22, 2003 at 12:42:15 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Sure seems to be what Krugman is doing. Hope his loyal fan club, you, recognize that Paul is not exactly objective. Maybe some of you even see a pattern similar to what Michael Moore has done.

Subject: Wuv Righters From: Bernie Bernie To: Bernard Lewis Date Posted: Tues, Jul 22, 2003 at 13:42:40 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Bernie Bernie, please please forgive PK for daring to criticize this wonderful wonderful wonderful Administration. We wuv looney radical righters. Wuv them so much.

Subject: Re: Wuv Righters From: Chicago Boy To: Bernie Bernie Date Posted: Tues, Jul 22, 2003 at 17:29:13 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The administration now includes Greg Mankiw on the Council of Enomic Advisers. Is he 'looney?' You may disagree with him, but looney?

Subject: On bashing Bush, Krugman and arguments From: Ox Metrics To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 08:12:38 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Dear all, So, is Krugman making a career out of bashing Bush? Not being his mother nor related to him in any way, I do not care about what he does precisely but about whether he is right or not. Yes, he has strongly-held views that I understand are of nature to upset people who don't share them. But he does argue them out and provide facts where possible. There are lots of calls on this forum asking for his dismissal, for being 'obviously biased' and the like. For the people who disagree with Krugman, expressions of frustration are much less helpful than arguments. For instance, take tax cuts. I am looking at the US situation from Europe and am not familiar with the nitty-gritty of the US fiscal system. But the kind of stuff that Krugman points out seems worrying for getting the economy started and otherwise - the bias of the tax cuts towards the wealthy, his figures on income inequality (not by decile, but by percentile and even less, cf his New School speech in the video section), the sheer size of the tax cuts and their motivations etc. If you disagree with him, then do like Allan Meltzer (again in the video section) and debate Krugman in the realm of argument rather than of passion. I would love to hear well-argued views, wherever they go. Also, we often get bogged down in some details, like the recent debate on US combat strength. That was an interesting point to pick up (btw, Krugman seems to have provided an explanation for his claim by stating that of the Army's 33 combat brigades, 16 are in Iraq --- see his latest column; whether this closes the debate is another matter). However, from what I read (could not see everything - I do work a little!), we got bogged down in the exact numbers rather than the overall impact on US defence capability. And no one seems to answer the charge made by Krugman that defence spending is misdirected (port security neglected etc. I remember seeing some work by Booz Allen Hamilton on this point I think). Plus, we also get bogged down in credentialism (cf earlier debate on the CBPP). Chicago Boy, I am a great fan of Mankiw as an academic economist. He is a genius, and has made brilliant contributions to the menu cost literature, growth, the Phillips curve, New Keynesian economics in general, market failure etc. True, calling the whole administration 'looneys' is completely unhelpful. But responding in the same way turns this thing into a game of cards kindergarden style, with each side pulling out their 'superheroes' and what not. Besides, to what extent can the Council of Economic Advisors be referred to as 'the administration', rather than just being advisors to the administration? Do they actually set policy? (I would appreciate if someone clarified this for me) Sorry for this long, long post. Thanks to whoever has read this far if anyone :) Take care, Ox Metrics.

Subject: Re: On bashing Bush, Krugman and arguments From: compassionate_conservative To: Ox Metrics Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 24, 2003 at 23:52:02 (EDT) Email Address: maylward@wesleyan.edu Message: Ox, I haven't been able to check up on this forum in about a week, and I come back and see your lone insightful comment drowned by the rest of this banter. I guess I should've known my half-hearted attempt at catalyzing some order wouldn't work, especially since I didn't even have time to post. Anyway, good looks on the suggestions; your restraint is admirable, but I think we both know it's time to take our opinions elsewhere. Do you know of any top notch forums we could migrate to? Anyway, I'd be interested to hear what a (seeming) krugman fan who makes intelligent posts does with his days, so email me if you like. By the way, as for the role of the CEA, Krugman said in a column immediately following Mankiw's appointment to Chair of the CEA, 'Mankiw is by any standard a brilliant economist, but when the Bush administration wants his opinion, they'll tell him what it is.' Given even a cursory knowledge of the current political situation in Washington, I'd agree with Paul...

Subject: Re: On bashing Bush, Krugman and arguments From: Bunger To: Ox Metrics Date Posted: Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 20:11:33 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Just question...have you ever tried writing in active voice? It sounds less obnoxious.

Subject: If their website URL is any indication... From: Chicago Boy To: Ox Metrics Date Posted: Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 17:51:04 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: ...then I'd say the CEA is definitely part of the administration: http://www.whitehouse.gov/cea

Subject: Nice post.... From: Emma To: Ox Metrics Date Posted: Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 13:19:50 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Nice post....

Subject: Re: Making a career out of bashing Bush From: Jonathan To: Bernard Lewis Date Posted: Tues, Jul 22, 2003 at 12:56:30 (EDT) Email Address: jonathan@lyingsocialistweasels.com Message: Krugman dislikes the Bush administration's actions with a passion. If you read some stuff of his from the 90's, you'll see an evolution to where he is now. He doesn't like insincerety, and has been fairly equal-opportunity in that regard. It's just that, these days, the greatest insincerety he sees is coming from the Bushies.

Subject: Website From: Silas Lynch To: All Date Posted: Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 03:43:09 (EDT) Email Address: silaslynch@aol.com Message: Isn't this website great? All these articles are free, and Paul is a great columnist. All of this (rather weak) message board discussion is comes from this website's small but dedicated following. His columns are direct, honest, and entertaining, but also willing to take strong stands on issues without sounding like a gasbag. No lefty columnist can compare-- certainly none of the female columnists like Dowd or Ivins, not way-over-the-hill Kinsley or any of the repoter-ish types who pass for columnists. Let me be the first to propose-- Krugman for President...

Subject: Paul as President? From: Paul for President To: Silas Lynch Date Posted: Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 17:39:07 (EDT) Email Address: awetawer@aawe.com Message: Hmmm, I wonder what type of President Paul would make. My guess is that he'd destroy the Democratic Party for a generation. He has no time for the insincerities and out-and-out lies which seem to go with political success, and he doesn't suffer fools nearly gladly enough. He'd be like Clinton though in that he'd increase greatly Republican strength in his mid-terms in the state legislatures, governorships and Congress. Of course, he'd be faced (at the moment, anyway) with a Republican Congress and a mostly conservative Supreme Court, so all his initiatives would be dead on arrival. Who would he choose as his running mate? I think he should choose Brad deLong. Still, I agree that this website is great, and would like to thank our friend Robert Y. Pelgrift III, descendant of one of the signatories of the Dec of Ind, for taking time out from his busy schedule to run it. Particularly the stuff in Japan, Global, New Economy, International Trade and Crises is oustanding.

Subject: Costs From: Beth To: All Date Posted: Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 15:48:52 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Casualties since May 1: American soldiers 87 British soldiers 10 Note: American forces have risen to 148,000 British forces have been cut from 10,000 to 5,000

Subject: Re: Costs From: Eyeballs To: Beth Date Posted: Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 15:41:08 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Most members of the US armed services vote Republican. The troops are getting killed for a leader they helped put into office. The irony is obvious.

Subject: Debt Matters in Time From: Ari To: All Date Posted: Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 14:44:13 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Think Asian monetary crisis. Think Mexican and Brazilian crises. Think Argentine crisis. We are a powerful economy, but growing growing growing debt eventually matters.

Subject: Passing It Along Question From: Ralph To: All Date Posted: Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 04:01:04 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: At the end of the article 'Passing it Along', Paul Krugman says that these long term deficits will hurt American credibility. I was wondering what he meant??

Subject: Delong's Article From: Ralph To: Ralph Date Posted: Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 05:33:37 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/macro_online/lec_notes/LN_ch14.pdf I found a chapter in Brad Delong's Lecture Notes that answers most of my questions from before. But, now I have a couple of new ones. I got lost when he was talking about the 'steady-state debt-to-GDP ratio'. I was wondering what this ratio is, and how it relates to the sustainability of the deficit. I am not trained in economics, but if someone could help me along i would greatly appreciate it.

Subject: Credibility on Deficits From: Ari To: Ralph Date Posted: Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 13:33:59 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: This coming year American combined public and private saving will hit zero or turn negative. This will in time put enormous pressure on the balance of payments deficit and dollar and push interest rates higher. So, international investors in America had best be cautious!

Subject: Re: Credibility on Deficits From: jimsum To: Ari Date Posted: Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 14:32:12 (EDT) Email Address: jimsum@rogers.com Message: The balance of payments deficit is already more than $500 billion per year; if that isn't already affecting credibility, I don't know when it will. I think the credibility Krugman is talking about is whether America is believed when it claims the deficit will only be temporary. There are two alternative hypotheses; that the deficit is a temporary measure to get the economy moving again, or that political favouritism has resulted in fiscally irresponsible tax cuts for the wealthy that will cause permanent deficits. Right now, America has enough credibility that it gets the benefit of the doubt when it claims the deficit will be temporary and inconsequential. However, if the deficit persists and no serious action is taken to control it, America will have as much fiscal credibility as Argentina, and since America is in approximately the same fiscal position as Argentina, it could possibly be treated the same.

Subject: Re: Credibility on Deficits From: Ralph To: Ari Date Posted: Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 14:21:17 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I still don't see why a federal budget deficit would single a lack of credibility or lack of soundness. I am thinking it might have something to do with risk. Like, since (if the deficits are long term and they don't raise taxes or cut spending) the government would have to keep barrowing to cover that spending pay the interest on previous bonds. So, their ability to pay would depend on their ability to get new loans (issue more bonds), so eventually they might be having to barrow so much that they barrow beyond their means (their ability to raise taxes i would guess) and the investors return is dependent on other people providing loans to the U.S. So, the minute they can't get a lone, the investors would be screwed. So they would be more cautious of providing loans to the US because it is more risky. Does that make sense?? Could someone help me out here.

Subject: Re: Credibility on Deficits From: jimsum To: Ralph Date Posted: Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 15:17:21 (EDT) Email Address: jimsum@rogers.com Message: I think you have it mostly right. The amount of interest the U.S. has to pay on bonds is of course affected by the riskiness of holding those bonds. If the U.S. is running a temporary deficit, the U.S. government's ability to repay the bonds hasn't been seriously affected, so rates won’t have to change. However, if the deficit is going to last a long time, investors have to be worried that an increasing debt is going to lead to inflation. Crudely, high debt leads to inflation because when the debt gets extremely large, a government is forced (or tempted) to print money to pay the bonds, and the added money will cause inflation. Things rarely get to that point because investors anticipate increased inflation, and demand higher interest rates to compensate for it. Although there is no real risk that government bonds won't get paid, there is a risk that inflation (and exchange rate changes for foreign investors) will reduce the payout. Now this situation causes real economic problems because interest rates have to be high enough to tempt investors to buy U.S. bonds, but this level of interest may be higher than is required by the economy. The government is then left with the unappealing choice between cooling down the economy by increasing interest rates, or setting an interest rate to help the economy and letting the value of the currency slide as foreign investors move their money elsewhere. Usually both happen. Argentina shows what happens when fiscal credibility evaporates; but even the Canadian example shows what harm can result. Canada ran huge budget deficits in the '80s and has been paying the price ever since. The recession at the start of the '90s was much worse for Canada than the U.S. and only recently have Canadian interest rates and the exchange rate recovered to more reasonable levels. Investors have long memories and tend to overreact; if they decide that investing in the U.S. is a bad idea, it will take a long time to change their minds back again, and much economic damage will occur in the meantime.

Subject: Re: Credibility on Deficits From: Eyeballs To: jimsum Date Posted: Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 15:16:00 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Investors have long memories and tend to overreact; if they decide that investing in the U.S. is a bad idea, it will take a long time to change their minds back again, and much economic damage will occur in the meantime. --- In the ideal world, everyone is fully informed and has no psychological predispositions. In the real world, 'too big to fail' is an all-too-real concept. For investors, it will be simply unthinkable that bonds from the world's largest economy could be unsafe unless the Americans get to a disaster point, such as when the cost of debt service equals revenues. This will obviously take quite some time. It's unfortunate, but the US economy won't collapse fast enough for the plutocracy party to be removed from office before they can finish establishing a one-party state.

Subject: Re: Credibility on Deficits From: Ralph To: jimsum Date Posted: Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 20:13:43 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I was with you on the inflation causing investors to demand higher interest rates part. I got a little lost trying to connect it to how this will show our lack of credibility. Will the high interest rates be harder to pay off, and eventually so high we can't pay them off (if it just continued and continued)? Also, on the economic cooling thing, I was wondering why that might be. Is it because the higher interest rates attract investors from putting their money into public spending instead of private investment? Also, if the deficit was being used for public investment that actually increased GDP, then wouldn't we be able to run the deficit indefinatley? Thanks for your help!

Subject: Re: Credibility on Deficits From: Thanks Jimsum To: jimsum Date Posted: Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 15:49:58 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Nice Post.

Subject: Nutty Bashers From: Lev To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 17, 2003 at 16:18:14 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Amazing just how nutty Paul Krugman's bashers are. The radical right is really terrified of criticism, or dmeocracy.

Subject: Re: Nutty Bashers From: Eyeballs To: Lev Date Posted: Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 15:31:16 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Ringwingnuts have an inbred hatred for diversity in all its forms. It doesn't matter if that diversity is expressed through either criticism or democracy. Like cockroaches, they aren't really smart enough to be terrified of anything--they simply act reflexively when presented with certain stimuli.

Subject: Paul's embarrasing to Dems like me From: Tombo To: Lev Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 17, 2003 at 16:26:26 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Krugman used to be known for fact-based, expert dissections of junk economics. Now he serves up un-factual, reckless, absurdly exaggerated rants on subjects where he has no expertise (US military deployments, UK politics, fascism in Europe etc). And when Democrats point out the damage done to the liberal cause by these rants, we're accused of being 'radical right' 'nutters'. Go ahead, Lev, destroy the Democratic party. You must be a freeper in disguise

Subject: Re: Paul's embarrasing to Dems like me From: DharmaBum To: Tombo Date Posted: Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 16:46:07 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Just one more thing: the Dems are showing a huge lack of personality and i don't think there's anything more damaging than this for a political party. Maybe in the past Dem meant 'left' and Rep meant 'right'. Now it seems Dem is already the right, and Rep is Ultra-right. God-bless-them-all. Tombo, the Reps look so healthy now. Maybe you should join them, since you seem to find them not so bad. No need to worry anymore about your party being destroyed ;-)

Subject: Re: Paul's embarrasing to Dems like me From: Tombo To: DharmaBum Date Posted: Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 17:44:03 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The Republicans have no coherent economic policy anymore, just as the Democrats are completely clueless when it comes to foreign affairs. Not much point in joining either party today. But since national security is far and away the most important issue--and the one where a president makes the greatest difference, as things stand, in 2004 I'll probably vote Republican for the first time in a presidential election. The Dems' hypocrisy and stupidity on this bogus non-scandal is nauseating.

Subject: Re: Paul's embarrasing to Dems like me From: DharmaBum To: Tombo Date Posted: Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 18:01:00 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The Republicans have no coherent economic policy anymore, just as the Democrats are completely clueless when it comes to foreign affairs. Not much point in joining either party today. But since national security is far and away the most important issue--and the one where a president makes the greatest difference, as things stand, in 2004 I'll probably vote Republican for the first time in a presidential election. The Dems' hypocrisy and stupidity on this bogus non-scandal is nauseating. --- see? i told you: what you need is to vote republican, your body's asking for it, only it is hard to admit it the first time. But it's evident: you're the conservative prototype :-) Too bad for the Dems if they are CLUELESS on foreign affairs: Bush sees everything so STRAIGHTFORWARD!!!

Subject: Re: Paul's embarrasing to Dems like me From: DharmaBum To: Tombo Date Posted: Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 16:34:52 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Tombo, I don't think Paul Krugman 'absurdly exaggertes' much. Since sept 11th many americans have switched their criticism off and the people who traditionally participate in 'creating opinion' are either silent or supporting the government's neo-biblic vision of the world. I think Krugman is only assuming his responsibility as a citizen to stimulate criticism, since the people who should be doing this job are not doing it. From my point of view, in a democracy every citizen has the duty of being well informed, thinking critically and having an opinion (otherwise voting is equivalent to playing lottery). Under this light, the USofA seem to me a country that is mentally still in the middle ages: praying to God, organizing wars, a country where dissenting from the government's opinion is equivalent to lack of patriotism. When you mention fascism in Europe, let me tell you i'm more scared of fascism in the US: i'm afraid in the end the ever-lowering educational level, the budget deficit, the increasing unequalities might lead the US to a huge depression, then the usual state of collective hysteria and finally the biggest nuclear arsenal ever exploding on all us, poor rest of the world.

Subject: Absurd Exaggerations--heal thyself From: Tombo To: DharmaBum Date Posted: Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 17:48:58 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Haha: You follow 'krugman doesn't exaggerate much' with 'Bush's neo-biblic vision'. Spare us your own absurd exaggerations. BTW, I love the 'neo-biblic' absurdism--as if Wolfowitz, Feith et al are pushing a Christian agenda... BTW, Wolfowitz is yet another former Democrat (Kirkpatrick, Krauthammer, Perle, many others) who left the party in disgust at its post-Vietnam confusion re foreign policy. This confusion remains the single major reason that no Dem will defeat Bush in 2004.

Subject: Re: Paul's embarrasing to Dems like me From: Jonathan To: Tombo Date Posted: Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 20:53:30 (EDT) Email Address: jonathan@lyingsocialistweasels.com Message: The basic problem, Tombo, is that you assume what Krugman is saying is hurting the Democrats. Why do you assume this? Krugman has brought several very damaging things to the attention of the general public. Furthermore, his writing on the corruption of the Bush administration is hardly extreme these days -- in case you hadn't noticed, Bush's latest approval ratings are down to the low 50% range, and Bush is embroiled in a scandal of epic proportions. I'm not sure why you have such a hard time finding Bush's behavior reprehensible -- it seems that you feel that means you'd have to condemn Clinton, too. But really, Clinton's actions were taken in another time, under different circumstances -- one cannot ignore this. And regardless of the morality or immorality of such, when it comes right down to it an all-out war (conducted at the cost of damage to our ties with allies) and four days of airstrikes are simply not the same thing. Perhaps Clinton was very wrong to have done what he did. At this point, it's a matter for the history books. And perhaps Bush made the best decision that could have been made, and used the intelligence provided to him responsibly and reasonably. We don't know. But from what's coming out right now, it doesn't look good. I think many Democrats find Krugman's writing like a breath of fresh air. I know I do. But I've never seen any evidence -- any at all -- that Krugman's writing turns off independents, or is hurting the party in the least. If anything, it's voices like his that are galvanizing support for the party in 2004.

Subject: Re: Paul's embarrasing to Dems like me From: jimsum To: Tombo Date Posted: Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 10:55:22 (EDT) Email Address: jimsum@rogers.com Message: Well, you could say that Krugman is trying to respond to the 'un-factual, reckless, absurdly exaggerated' claims made by the Bush government. No one, except those in government, really knows how good the evidence was that Saddam was a threat, or knows whether too many troops are tied up in Iraq. The government claims national security requires them to keep all the facts secret. Bush won't lay out the facts and have a real debate, so should we just concede his points and let him do whatever he wants? Conservatives get to talk in apocalyptic terms all the time, saying how certain actions will lead to the downfall of society or to communism. Can you counteract those claims with meek protestations that the facts don't support the claims, or should you respond in kind? The cynic in me thinks that the general public doesn't care about facts anymore, so if you want to get your message out, you have to use the same tactics of spinning and making unsubstantiated claims to get noticed. Read last Sunday's Doonesbury comic: http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20030713 Ouch, that really was too cynical. Fighting unsubstantiated claims by making unsubstantiated counterclaims is not going to improve the rationality of debates. Perhaps the best course of action is to push the classic liberal message of 'question authority', and be a little more patient about waiting for proof that claims are unsubstantiated, rather than rushing to make the point before all the facts are in. I hope that none of the actions that Bush is taking are so damaging that we can't wait for real proof that he is wrong.

Subject: Re: Paul's embarrasing to Dems like me From: Tombo To: jimsum Date Posted: Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 11:55:02 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message:

Subject: So Paul's now a cartoonist? From: Tombo To: Tombo Date Posted: Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 12:04:43 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Is Paul now on the level of a cartoonist? I thought he was a professional economist. BTW, could you tell us whether Clinton was justified in bombing a Sudanese aspirin factory, using intelligence that turnede out to be bogus, in 1998? Did Doonesbury/Krugman rip into CLinton for his administration's intelligence errors (not to mention the hundreds of innocent civilians who were killed)?

Subject: Re: So Paul's now a cartoonist? From: jimsum To: Tombo Date Posted: Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 13:38:49 (EDT) Email Address: jimsum@rogers.com Message: Did the cartoonist make a valid point or are you just dismissing the message because of the way it is presented? Would you say the only way a professional economist can debate issues is by submitting papers to a Journal, or are they allowed to make their points in different media, with different rules? I don't know if Clinton was justified bombing the aspirin factory, or whether Bush was justified in invading Iraq or even Afghanistan. We are in no position to judge the value of the intelligence that led to these actions; they could have been honest mistakes or the intelligence could have been a feeble fig leaf for decisions based on unrevealed motives. Without more disclosure, which unfortunately is impossible for national security reasons, we have no way to judge the merits of these decisions. We can only speculate based on the results, and whatever facts we can discover. As you imply, I don't think that Clinton was significantly criticized for his bombing adventure. Since the costs and consequences of the actions of Clinton and Bush are so different, maybe it is appropriate to make a big deal about Bush, and not care about Clinton; or maybe the whole thing is pure partisanship and the poor conservatives had no way to get their message heard in the Liberal media. However, what these incidents show us is that too much credence is being given to intelligence reports that turn out to be bogus; where are the checks and balances in the system to ensure intelligence is properly evaluated? Arguing about whose fault it is that mistakes got made may be fun, but it doesn't actually accomplish anything. What concrete actions have been taken to ensure that the U.S. doesn't start another $100 billion war based on faulty intelligence and assumptions? Should we just trust our leaders to make these kinds of decisions without ever having to justify them? As far as I can see, the Bush administration won't even admit there was a problem, let alone try to fix the situation. Perhaps Clinton should have been heavily criticized for his mistake, and Bush wouldn't have made what may be a much bigger mistake. If we don't change what we do, we are going to keep making the same mistakes; and politicians are not going to change the status quo unless a lot of people make it very clear they want change. Clinton got a free pass, Bush was given a free pass to start the Iraq war, maybe next time we can debate the intelligence before the war gets started, not after.

Subject: Re: So Paul's now a cartoonist? From: Tombo To: jimsum Date Posted: Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 20:56:20 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: ' the costs and consequences of the actions of Clinton and Bush are so different' To Osama and Saddam, Clinton's half-measures showed lack of seriousness and resolve. Osama was emboldened to stage further attacks. This is the massive cost of Clinton's half-measures. There is absolutely no question anymore of US resolve to prosecute this war to its conclusion, regardless how long it takes.

Subject: Re: So Paul's now a cartoonist? From: Jonathan To: Tombo Date Posted: Tues, Jul 22, 2003 at 12:52:41 (EDT) Email Address: jonathan@lyingsocialistweasels.com Message: You're assuming, of course, that Osama bin Laden acted primarily out of what he saw as an opportunity, rather than out of religious fervor and drive. From what we've seen, I think that's an ill-founded assumption. As for Saddam, how do you know that he reacted to Clinton's actions the way you claim? If anything, it would appear that, if he did have WMD in 1998, Clinton's actions convinced him that it was a bad idea to continue on that path. Tombo, your writing is just so indistinguishable from anything a right-winger would say, on virtually every topic we discuss, that I find it highly unlikely that you would have ever been a Democrat, as you claim.

Subject: Re: Paul's embarrasing to Dems like me From: Chicago Boy To: Tombo Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 17, 2003 at 19:28:48 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Tombo's right. Krugman's column has so much potential, but he wastes it on writing politically motivated columns that are outside of his expertise. I still read his old columns once in a while to balance out my reading of economists like Gary Becker, Martin Feldstein, Robert Barro, Milton Friedman, and Greg Mankiw.

Subject: Paul's embarrasing to Dems like me From: Tombo To: Lev Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 17, 2003 at 16:24:33 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message:

Subject: Re: Paul's embarrasing to Dems like me From: Ralph To: Tombo Date Posted: Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 03:46:46 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I have noticed the Krugman has really been focusing on the war in Iraq for the past...oh few months. I sort of understand why. I mean he's saying things no one else seems to be willing to say, which I thought was why he said he went into popular writing to begin with. Or part of the reason anyways

Subject: Re: Paul's embarrasing to Dems like me From: Tombo To: Ralph Date Posted: Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 11:59:11 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: 'nobody's willing to say'... like preposterous counterfactual claims about combat troop strength?

Subject: I Lie From: Tombo the Liar To: Tombo Date Posted: Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 13:41:15 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I can not help being a liar.

Subject: Troop Strength in Iraq From: Jay To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 17, 2003 at 14:46:28 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/17/international/worldspecial/17MILI.html General Abizaid said that, at present, the force of about 147,000 American troops and 13,000 allied forces on the ground in Iraq was sufficient.

Subject: Re: Troop Strength in Iraq From: Tombo To: Jay Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 17, 2003 at 15:46:32 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Let's try again: Paul said 'more than half of the US *Army's* *combat* troops are now in Iraq.' Of the 148,000 troops in Iraq, only 108,000 are in the Army, and only a fraction of those--perhaps one-third, perhaps half, but not more than two-thirds--are *combat* troops.

Subject: Re: Troop Strength in Iraq From: Jonathan To: Tombo Date Posted: Tues, Jul 22, 2003 at 12:36:39 (EDT) Email Address: jonathan@lyingsocialistweasels.com Message: Let's try again: Paul said 'more than half of the US *Army's* *combat* troops are now in Iraq.' Of the 148,000 troops in Iraq, only 108,000 are in the Army, and only a fraction of those--perhaps one-third, perhaps half, but not more than two-thirds--are *combat* troops. --- Actually, Krugman didn't say that. He said 'about half of the Army's combat strength is bogged down in Iraq. Today, he clarifies this: 16 of the Army's 33 combat brigades are in Iraq.

Subject: Tony Blair From: Emma To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 17, 2003 at 12:44:08 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The British press appear to agrre that Prime Minister Tony Blair has been harmed in publice standing precisely by the stance on Iraq and WMDs. Funny about the PM's Office copying a doctoral thesis from California for proof of WMDs in Iraq. Say what?

Subject: Re: Tony Blair From: PJ To: Emma Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 17, 2003 at 15:17:47 (EDT) Email Address: psjohn@hotmail.com Message: That's merely one episode in ten years of lies from Bliar. Certainly, he's been harmed by it, but saying he's lost trust because of it is like saying that Paul Krugman has lost his reputation for objectivity only because of his 16th July column, whereas of course he lost it for several years' worth of columns. Of course, it's the episode most visible to Americans, and therefore it's the one they notice most, but there ARE other issues and events in England besides the war and the relationship with the United States.

Subject: Re: Tony Blair From: Ox Metrics To: PJ Date Posted: Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 05:04:31 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: '... and he implied that Bliar lost the trust of his public because he backed Bush over Iraq, whereas his lying promises on public service improvements and general obsession with spin are I think more to blame.' --- see 'Pattern of Corruption' and previous PJ posts PJ: you make some good points but I would not be so dismissive of Krugman's comment. It is true that there is a lot of discontent regarding public services, and that obsession with spin is seriously eroding this government. But these are longer term sources of discontent. They were there before, and are operating gradually (e.g. nobody expects them to sort years of underinvestment in a few months, but it's becoming visible that the money they are pouring is not having the results people were hoping for, perhaps irrationally). A sort of negative growth for Blair's trust capital. They are not what prompted The Economist to title its cover 'Bliar?' a few weeks ago, and that was a pretty moderate reaction compared to what has been seen elsewhere in the press. Iraq was a 'levels effect' on Blair's trust capital. And I think it was pretty damaging. One thing that makes the damage harder to detect in Britain is: who would you vote for then? The Conservatives were largely behind Blair on this, and are still very much not ready for government in the public eyes overall. The Liberal Democrats were opposing the government, with some fudge, but are still regarded as the country's third party. And older parts of the Labour movement are not callling the party's shots. More detailed comments on British politics than this are welcome. You could argue about the wording Krugman chose ('lost the trust') and go for a more careful statement as I have made above. But it's a matter of degree rather than a qualitative one. Take care, Ox Metrics.

Subject: Re: Tony Blair From: PJ To: Ox Metrics Date Posted: Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 13:08:48 (EDT) Email Address: psjohn@hotmail.com Message: OxM - I thank you for a courteous and thought-provoking response. I think that, around this spring, five episodes came together which undermined trust in or confidence in Phoney Tony. Firstly, the rows over the welfare state, on education budgets in schools, on foundation hospitals, and yet more bad news on the railways. Secondly, the huge tax increases which nobody thinks is going to lead to better services, and which came out of people's pay packets in April. Thirdly, the messy aftermath of the war. Fourthly, the transparent fudge, justified by 1,800 pages of elaborately useless studies, on the Euro decision. Fifthly, the macroeconomic environment suddenly looks more difficult (though only slightly so). From Phoenix, AZ, it was fairly difficult to judge the relative importance of these factors. But from opinion polls available on the web, I'm guessing that they were important in roughly that order. The war could have been a big votewinner for him if he'd handled it right, as indeed it looked like being at one stage (see the Telegraph polls). But even if it had been, public services and taxation are closer to people's lives, and his repeated promises to improve them, not borne out by the facts, would have caused him huge difficulties. I have actually dealt with the man's office professionally, on and off for about a year, and its private personna is very different from the bogus sincerity displayed in public. His (or his office's) refusal to take unpopular decisions that they know are right and his craven disregard for his country's best interests are so absolute and his ruthlessness and obsession with spin so total, that I find them hard to describe with credibility to somebody who has been fortunate enough never to come across them. Incidentally, it looks like one of the most damaging critics of the British government on Iraq has conveniently turned up dead today. I'm no conspiracy theorist by nature, but sometimes ... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3076801.stm

Subject: PJ Rubbish From: JP To: PJ Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 17, 2003 at 16:20:23 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Another idiotic comment. Vote Conservative, idiot.

Subject: Re: PJ Rubbish From: Chicago Boy To: JP Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 17, 2003 at 19:31:16 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: It had a Hell of a lot more to offer than your mere adhominem attack.

Subject: Re: PJ Rubbish From: PJ To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 13:10:57 (EDT) Email Address: psjohn@hotmail.com Message: Thanks, CB. People only turn to ad hominem attacks when they've no other arguments to offer. By the way, I'm going to be in Chicago soon. Is the Sears Tower observation deck worth it?

Subject: Re: PJ Rubbish From: Chicago Boy To: PJ Date Posted: Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 15:58:42 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Haha, sorry PJ, I'm not from Chicago. I only took this name as a reference to the Chicago Boys who reformed Chile's economy. Sorry for the false advertising.

Subject: Chicago Boy From: PJ To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 14:24:39 (EDT) Email Address: psjohn@hotmail.com Message: I missed that reference. Are you actually a boy then? A number of people are calling for Blair to resign tonight, but I don't think he will. Power is the one thing he's determined to cling to, whatever the cost.

Subject: Re: Chicago Boy From: Chicago Boy To: PJ Date Posted: Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 14:47:49 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I'm a hermaphrodite.

Subject: Army Deployment From: Lawrence To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 17, 2003 at 12:38:27 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20030703.htm ...The Army still has more than 185,000 troops deployed in and around Iraq. Another 10,000 are in Afghanistan. More than 25,000 troops are in Korea; some 5,000 are in the Balkans; and dozens here and hundreds there are on temporary assignments around the world.... This total of nearly 250,000 deployed troops must be generated from an Army of just over 1 million. The active-duty force numbers 480,000, of which fewer than 320,000 are easily deployable at any given moment. The Army Reserve and Army National Guard together include 550,000 troops....

Subject: Re: Combat troops in Iraq/ all combat troops From: Tombo To: Lawrence Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 17, 2003 at 14:09:16 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Krugman spoke about 'combat troops' that are 'in Iraq', not all troops or troops 'around Iraq.' The Army does not have '185,000' troops in Iraq; the number is 108,000 as per the latest Order of Battle figures. A subset of these are combat troops--depending on one's definition, the number of combat troops in Iraq at present could be as low as 25,000 or as high as 70,000. But even if one takes the most liberal definition and asserts that 70,000 are in Iraq now, that still does not constitute 'more than half' of all US Army combat troops as per Paul's bizarre assertion.

Subject: Re: Combat troops in Iraq/ all combat troops From: jimsum To: Tombo Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 17, 2003 at 16:52:45 (EDT) Email Address: jimsum@rogers.com Message: I'm not sure we can reasonably debate this issue; as both Clinton and Bush have taught us, you need to know the meaning of every word in a statement before you can judge whether the statement is true or not :-). Krugman wrote: 'More than half of the U.S. Army's combat strength is now bogged down in Iraq'. So what is 'combat strength'? It might be interpreted as troops, or it might mean all combat resources including weapons and tanks. What does 'bogged down in Iraq' mean? It might refer to troops in Iraq, or it might refer to all troops supporting the war, i.e. that 50% of the Army's strength is involved in fighting the war, even if all of it isn't situated in Iraq. In fact, Krugman might even be using the term 'army' as a synonym for all the military services, and he might not be talking specifically about the army; we might be interpreting his statement too narrowly by only considering the Army. Without more information about what Krugman meant, I can't really judge whether the statement is true, but I won't let that stop me from posting :-). Let's assume Krugman specifically meant army troops stationed in Iraq, and see if his assertion is actually 'bizarre'. Lawrence's post says that 'fewer than 320,000 are easily deployable', referring to Army troops. 108,000 of those troops are deployed in Iraq (according to your figures), call them combat troops or whatever you want. Using those figures, 33% of deployable troops are in Iraq. This is less than 50%, but we don't know if the proportion of combat troops stationed in Iraq is the same as the proportion of combat troops in the easily deployable 320,000. I think it is reasonable to assume that there is a higher proportion of combat troops stationed in Iraq than in the army as a whole (after all, that is where the combat is). My understanding is that logistics is a huge part of waging war; so I’ll assume that 54,000 troops, (1/3 of a total of 162,000) are deployed outside Iraq to support the 108,000 troops inside Iraq. If that is true, a little more than 50% of the deployable army is involved with the Iraq war. If I further assume that the proportion of combat troops fighting the war are the same as those held in reserve, I conclude that a little more than 50% of deployable combat troops are involved with Iraq. If I then assume that almost all of those deployed combat troops are inside Iraq, I come up with Krugman’s figure of more than half of the Army’s combat strength bogged down in Iraq. Of course, any or all of my assumptions could be incorrect; but given the fuzziness of Krugman’s statement, I think it shows that Krugman could be factually correct.

Subject: so now Paul's making 'fuzzy statements'... From: Tombo To: jimsum Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 17, 2003 at 17:36:23 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I'm not sure that it's accurate to say 'the fuzziness of Krugman's statement', but if his language can be called imprecise, isn't this rather odd for a renowned economist? And isn't it more than a bit strange for a social scientist to base his entire argument on this 'fuzzy', unsubstantiated assertion? Especially when it can and should be clarified easily, as social scientists are expected to do.

Subject: Re: so now Paul's making 'fuzzy statements'... From: jimsum To: Tombo Date Posted: Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 09:38:50 (EDT) Email Address: jimsum@rogers.com Message: Suppose Krugman had written, 'A huge portion of the U.S. Army's combat strength is now bogged down in Iraq' instead. Does the message of his column change in any significant way? Yes, Krugman should be precise about these things (although I still haven't seen proof that his statement is wrong or even implausible), but his argument doesn't hinge on whether the exact percentage is more than 50%, it hinges on whether having that many troops bogged down in Iraq is a problem. Even if he clarified his statement, that wouldn't necessarily make any difference to his argument. I think the debatable assertion of the first paragraph is the claim that “All this puts us in a very weak position for dealing with real threats”. I think debating that point is more useful than whether he is correct about the exact number of troops in Iraq. I would guess that supporters of the Iraq invasion could concede all of Krugman’s points and still argue that they aren’t significant problems; and they might even be correct to do so.

Subject: Re: so now Paul's making 'fuzzy statements'... From: Tombo To: jimsum Date Posted: Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 11:58:38 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: But he didn't write 'a huge portion'! The core of his argument is the factually inaccurate premise in the first sentence of his piece.

Subject: Re: so now Paul's making 'fuzzy statements'... From: jimsum To: Tombo Date Posted: Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 14:09:15 (EDT) Email Address: jimsum@rogers.com Message: I think the core of his argument is that having that many troops in Iraq is a problem. I don't know of any fact that shows that the 50% level is a critical threshold. 100% of the army's troops could be in Iraq and that might not be a problem; or 10% could be in Iraq and it is a problem. Krugman is asking us to believe his claims and to conclude that those claims prove that the U.S. is in a weakened position to respond to threats; he can be (and has been) challenged on any of the claims or the conclusion. At any rate, we are arguing about the first paragraph, which tried to establish that the U.S. is in a weakened position due to Iraq. He didn’t prove that claim, but I think he was only making it to provide us with a reason to care about what he reveals in the rest of the column. The rest of the column was about how incorrect intelligence was used to justify the invasion. Even if you think invading Iraq has no significant consequences, it may still be worth worrying that people were making up their minds based on evidence that no one properly characterized as flimsy. Or, you could conclude that the Iraq invasion has no real consequences for the U.S., so it doesn’t matter that it was justified with unfounded claims.

Subject: 148,000 American troops From: Jay To: Tombo Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 17, 2003 at 14:42:57 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Today, an Administration official spoke of 148,000 American troops in Iraq.

Subject: How many 1) ARMY 2) COMBAT troops? From: Tombo To: Jay Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 17, 2003 at 15:44:27 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Again: how many troops are 1) in the Army 2) combat troops Paul isn't this clumsy with economic data. Why is he fiddling with numbers on Army combat troops? Just bullshitting, or off his rocker?

Subject: Army Personnel From: Jenn To: All Date Posted: Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 14:51:48 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3071313.stm There are only 480,000 active army personnel - the rest come from the reserves - and of that active duty force only some 320,000 are easily deployable at any one moment.

Subject: Reservists do combat / apples&oranges From: Tombo To: Jenn Date Posted: Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 15:03:41 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Nice try, but reservists serve in combat too. In any case, if you're going to subtract reservists from the numerator, then you have to subtract them from the denominator as well. If you're going to use this definition, then tell us how many reservists are in Iraq, subtract this from 145k and divide that number by the number of total non-reservists. BTW, you might try a different source from the quantitatively-challenged BBC, the folks who told us that reported that '178,000' antiquities were stolen from the Iraqi Museum and that US Special Ops forces were firing 'blanks' in a war zone....

Subject: Re: Reservists do combat / apples&oranges From: Tombo the SOB To: Tombo Date Posted: Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 15:58:50 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Amazing how ignorant and vicious you are.

Subject: only 24k COMBAT troops in Iraq From: Tombo To: Tombo Date Posted: Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 15:20:46 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Nearly all (about 120k) of the troops in Iraq are in support or non-combat functions. The only combat forces there are two Army divisions (ca 9k each) and one Marine Expeditionary Force (6k). To put this in perspective we have FOUR TIMES as many combat troops in Korea alone as we do in Iraq. Paul is shamelessly bullshitting. Why did he think no one would call him on this?

Subject: Re: only 24k COMBAT troops in Iraq From: Tombo the Vicious To: Tombo Date Posted: Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 15:56:32 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: What a vicious lying SOB you really are.

Subject: Bogged Down From: Ronald To: All Date Posted: Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 13:00:07 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: American has more than 145,000 toops in Iraq. The British have cut the number of troops to about 5,000. America has increased the number of troops. Casualties since May 1: American soldiers 84 British soldiers 10

Subject: Re: Paul's reckless disregard for the facts From: Tombo To: Ronald Date Posted: Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 13:22:24 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Paul wrote that 'more than half of the U.S. Army's combat strength is now in Iraq'. This is false. In fact it's not even close to the truth. Paul should know better than to lead a NYT OpEd piece with such a wildly inaccurate assertion.

Subject: Re: Paul's reckless disregard for the facts From: PJ To: Tombo Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 17, 2003 at 07:40:39 (EDT) Email Address: psjohn@hotmail.com Message: ... and he implied that Bliar lost the trust of his public because he backed Bush over Iraq, whereas his lying promises on public service improvements and general obsession with spin are I think more to blame. This is not the first time. I'm willing to believe that Paul knows something about American politics, but when it comes to England, he either makes questionable assertions as facts, or often writes complete rubbish. As somebody who apparently admires Britain and Canada (see his interview with die Weltwoche) he should take the trouble to find out about what he admires.

Subject: Re: Paul's reckless disregard for the facts From: Tombo To: PJ Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 17, 2003 at 14:37:35 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: On political issues, Paul is indeed a loose cannon. It's a mystery as to why a professional economist known for rigor and precision is allowed to get away with so many distortions and blatant falsehoods. It can't be explained just by Bush-hatred, can it? Is it just the man's temperament? Or is it Paul's Evil Twin?

Subject: Re: Paul's reckless disregard for the facts From: Chicago Boy To: Tombo Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 17, 2003 at 19:35:15 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I think it's just b/c his colleagues aren't reviewing his political stances. That provides enough of a 'check' to make his economic columns more reasoned.

Subject: Re: Paul's reckless disregard for the facts From: jimsum To: Tombo Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 17, 2003 at 17:28:02 (EDT) Email Address: jimsum@rogers.com Message: I think it is a reflection of the times. There is very little critical analysis of what various public figures say. It is hard work to dig up the facts that will disprove someone's claims, and reporters just seem too lazy to try. Read http://slate.msn.com/id/2085737/ and see if Timothy Noah's arguments make any sense (although he may be blinded by Bush-hatred as well; I know I am :-).

Subject: Paul's dumbing down--sad, really From: Tombo To: jimsum Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 17, 2003 at 17:42:12 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Maybe you're right. If so, then it's truly sad to see a major economist with a reputation for razor-sharp, factual analysis willingly lowering himself to the level of the Dowds and the O'Reillys. Why is Paul doing this to himself? A (professional) death wish??

Subject: Re: Paul's dumbing down--sad, really From: Jonathan To: Tombo Date Posted: Tues, Jul 22, 2003 at 15:37:38 (EDT) Email Address: jonathan@lyingsocialistweasels.com Message: Maybe you're right. If so, then it's truly sad to see a major economist with a reputation for razor-sharp, factual analysis willingly lowering himself to the level of the Dowds and the O'Reillys. Why is Paul doing this to himself? A (professional) death wish?? --- Perhaps, as you say, Krugman has 'a professional death wish'. But nothing you've posted yet demonstrates that Krugman has been 'lowering himself'. If anything, it demonstrates the desperate (and futile) attempts Krugman haters will make to discredit him. Thus far, all you've done is discredit yourself. Do keep trying though. I'm sure you'll find a legitimate complaint eventually...

Subject: Another Whopper from Unhinged Paul From: Tombo To: All Date Posted: Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 12:02:28 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: 'More than half of the U.S. Army's combat strength is now bogged down in Iraq' -- yesterday's screed in the NYT. C'mon, Paul, we have 145,000 or so combat troops, of which maybe 12% are in Iraq. Aren't ecoomists supposed to be careful with data points? Are you just shitting us, Paul, or have you gone off your trolley?

Subject: Re: Another Whopper from Unhinged Paul From: NP To: Tombo Date Posted: Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 14:27:29 (EDT) Email Address: alivealertawake@hotmail.com Message: I don't find this post very compelling. Until you cite a source, I'll believe PK.

Subject: Do some simple math From: Tombo To: NP Date Posted: Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 14:37:12 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: There are 145k total troops in Iraq, out of a total force of 1.41 million active duty. Even if you look only at the US Army, there are about 500k on active duty worldwide, compared with less than 145k (given that many in Iraq are serving within service branches other than the Army). So the *maximum* credible figure would be one-third, not 'more than half.' And the true number will probably be significantly less than one-third. Paul is either bullshitting us or else is deranged by Bush hatred. Economists are expected to at least get basic, simple numerical facts straight.

Subject: I did the math. From: RMS To: Tombo Date Posted: Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 14:57:40 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Tombo: These numbers are actually not quite accurate. I was a little skeptical myself so I checked out Dr. Krugman's assertion. First, the United States has 147,000 troops in Iraq right now (Source: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, quoted by CNN). Second, the key words in the column's assertion, I believe, are 'combat strength'. According to the Dept. of Defense (http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/m05/m05sep02.pdf), as of FY2002, the total number of military personnel in the U.S. Army was 486,542. Obviously, some of these troops are already strategically committed elsewhere in the world and thus cannot count as part of our 'combat strength'. If you take only the troops that were stationed in the United States during FY2002, that leaves 382,402 military personnel. Now, 147,000 is clearly not 50% of 382,402. However, some of those troops do have to stay in the United States; we can't leave our home bases completely unmanned. Clearly, I don't know how many soldiers it takes to staff all our military complexes inside the U.S. and its territories, so I can't say for sure what the actual figure is for ready combat troops. And it is true that these figures include only the Army (although I'm not sure exactly who is included in the 147,000 troops in Iraq and it was in fact only the U.S. Army that Krugman referenced). Just for argument's sake, let's suppose the U.S. Army requires 90,000 troops to provide defense inside the U.S. and its territories (we do currently have soldiers in every one of our states, including Alaska and Hawaii). This would leave 292,402 available troops -- what we might refer to as our available 'combat strength'. And 147,000 is actually 50.27% of 292,402. I think it is indeed feasible that the actual 'combat strength' (meaning troops available for allocation elsewhere in the world) of the United States Army prior to our engagement in Iraq was less than 294,000 troop, thus placing over 50% of our 'combat strength' in Iraq at this time. It's true that Krugman's assertion at the beginning of his latest column was a bit alarmist and you could disagree with it, depending on how you want to define our ready combat strength. However, I wouldn't call it a 'reckless disregard for the facts.' Actually, you have to examine the data pretty closely to come to that conclusion.

Subject: Non-US-based troops should be counted From: Tombo To: RMS Date Posted: Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 15:09:07 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: You go awry at the outset when you strangely assert that troops in Germany and other non-US forward deployments should be excluded from the total. In fact, many of the troops now in Iraq were re-deployed from Germany and other bases outside the US, and in any case the German bases are pretty much redundant as well. Perhaps 50k troops there could easily be re-deployed to other theatres. But nice to see that others recognize that Paul is fiddling with the numbers.

Subject: Re: Non-US-based troops From: RMS To: Tombo Date Posted: Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 15:30:49 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: You make a good point that some troops were deployed from outside the United States. So I'll give you the 65,569 deployed in Europe and even the 1,519 deployed in the Middle East and North Africa (Source:http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/M05/hst1202.pdf, as of 12/30/02). I think it's safe to say that our troops in Asia remained there. Even so, that adds at most an additional 67,088 troops that can be considered available combat strength. Even stripping our European deployments doesn't add a particularly large number of troops to the available total. The point still stands that some of these troops must remain at their deployment in order to staff bases, track terrorists, etc. So depending on how many troops the U.S. Army deems necessary to defend its bases and its home territories, Krugman's assertion could be true. Unfortunately, with the incomplete information available to us, I don't think any of us can conclusively state that Krugman was correct or incorrect. Lastly, my original point was not to recognize 'Paul fiddling with the numbers'. It was to note that depending on how you read the statistics, you get different answers. It was also to point out that his statement is indeed plausible. Although personally I'm less frightened by that statistic than by the $5 billion/month (Pentagon estimate, quoted in NYT) that the Iraqi occupation is costing us.

Subject: Why exclude Korea troops? From: Tombo To: RMS Date Posted: Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 16:32:12 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: More fiddling with numbers. Why are you not including the troops in Asia in the total figure? The whole point of this analysis is our ability to redeploy troops to meet emerging threats to our security. There is no mass, land-based threat to the continental US that would conceivably require us to shift troops from Korea to the US. All of the major military threats today are in Asia: southwest Asia (including the Gulf), southeast Asia and of course northeast Asia, all of which are more than adequately covered by current force strength. Or are you and Paul arguing that the troops in Korea and Iraq should be redeployed stateside? This is why I'm sure that Bill Keller will have a quiet chat with Paul and firmly tell him that his silly, hysterical foray beyond the economics realm is about to come to an end. As to $5B per month, it's worth every penny--at year's end this sum will still amount to little more than the annual total of aggregate spending that's wasted every year on the rathole known as the California primary & secondary public schools (I'm guessing that total bill is ca. $50B).

Subject: Re: Why exclude Korea troops? From: compassionate To: Tombo Date Posted: Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 17:20:16 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: '...at year's end this sum will still amount to little more than the annual total of aggregate spending that's wasted every year on the rathole known as the California primary & secondary public schools.' Holy cow, Tombo, look at what you just said. The quality of the california public schools aside, what can your possible points be from the above assertion? That the money was better spent on a military campaign than on education? Holy geez. Even if you think the quality of the public school system in california or anywhere absolutely sucks, saying 'screw it' and spending the money on the military -- or even private school vouchers, for that matter -- is not an answer. We could debate the merits of school vouchers, though I haven't seen any compelling pro-voucher arguments, but to compare educational spending to military is... I don't even know what it is, if not sick.

Subject: Re: Why exclude Korea troops? From: Tombo To: compassionate Date Posted: Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 18:28:31 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: 'That the money was better spent on a military campaign than on education?' Yes. As far as I'm aware, California spends far more per pupil on education than any society and yet we have atrocious schools--in many categories, dead last in a country whose primary and secondary public schools are below the industrialized world's average. OTOH the war in Iraq has destroyed one nightmare regime that threatened our security, intimidated two other neighboring nightmare regimes, and eliminated Osama's stated reason for attacking us (the presence of US troops on sacred muslim soil, in Saudi). A far better return on our investment than the returns generated by billions wasted on 'educationists,' returns that have been in most cases negative. School performance would not suffer in the slightest--in fact would improve in many areas-- were we to cut all the ridiculous, non-teaching-related expenditures that make up our $8k per pupil per year sinkhole.

Subject: Re: Why exclude Korea troops? From: Jonathan To: Tombo Date Posted: Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 18:43:58 (EDT) Email Address: jonathan@lyingsocialistweasels.com Message: Tell us, Tombo, how a regime with no WMD, which was defeated in less than three weeks by little more than a single infantry division and air power, threatened our security? This I've gotta hear.

Subject: Re: Why exclude Korea troops? From: Tombo To: Jonathan Date Posted: Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 20:37:49 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Are you asking for a defense of Operation Desert Fox? Don't know how to Google? Can't find Clinton's address to the nation in April 1998? Do yourself and the party a favor and cease this bullshit. hillary and Bill both know better than to attack Bush for extending-- much more thoroughly, intelligently and successfully-- a pre-emptive war policy that Clinton as president initiated and defended to the nation in 1998.

Subject: Re: Why exclude Korea troops? From: Jonathan To: Tombo Date Posted: Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 20:44:21 (EDT) Email Address: jonathan@lyingsocialistweasels.com Message: *sigh* Tombo, You made the claim that 'the war in Iraq has destroyed one nightmare regime that threatened our security'. To back that up, you need to explain in what way Hussein was a threat to us now. If you'd spend a little more time reading what people write, and a little less time thinking up invectives, you might not miss the point so frequently. Just a suggestion.

Subject: Desert Fox / Iraqi Freedom From: Tombo To: Jonathan Date Posted: Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 20:53:05 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Which is it, weasel? You said earlier that Clinton's pre-emptive war policy was *ineffective*, which implies that it did not diminish the major national security threat that Saddam posed, as per Clinton's argument. Face it, clown: the credible position is to attack both Clinton's 'Operation Desert Fox' and Bush's Operation Iraqi Freedom, or attack neither. Your muddled and silly non-arguments only trivialize yourself. You don't really work for Dean, do you?

Subject: Re: Desert Fox / Iraqi Freedom From: Jonathan To: Tombo Date Posted: Tues, Jul 22, 2003 at 12:44:21 (EDT) Email Address: jonathan@lyingsocialistweasels.com Message: Find a quote of me saying Clinton's policy was 'ineffective'. If you can't (here's a hint: I didn't say that) I guess it's always easier to argue against yourself, isn't it? Once again, Tombo: spend a little more time actually reading what people write, and a little less thinking up invectives. You'll get much farther, and look much less the fool.

Subject: Here's why. From: RMS To: Tombo Date Posted: Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 17:02:52 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Wow. You are completely missing the point. I am not arguing that troops -should- be moved anywhere. I'm just trying to point out that you can't assume that ALL of the troops in the U.S. Army are available to be deployed in Iraq and thus, it is misleading to assume that the total number of troops in the Army constitute our ready combat strength. All I'm saying is that when Krugman claimed that 50% of our combat strength is in Iraq, he may have only included in the denominator those troops not needed elsewhere. It's silly to assume that just because we HAVE almost 500,000 troops that all of those are available. The reason I didn't include troops in Asia in the total available to be deployed to Iraq is twofold: first, because they are much more strategically positioned than those in Europe, as you point out, and thus are unlikely to be moved to Iraq. Second, simply because many of them are farther away. On the point of the cost of the Iraqi war: I certainly hope that readers of this forum are concerned about the cost of the Iraqi war ($48 billion so far and $5 billion/month, according to the Pentagon), considering the federal deficit that we currently face.

Subject: No possible way Iraq combat troops=50% From: Tombo To: RMS Date Posted: Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 18:37:29 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Dude, Paul's numbers don't add up. There is simply no way that any numerate person can truthfully assert that 'more than half of the US Army's combat troops are now in Iraq.' However you define 'US Army combat troops,' it's clear that the total outside Iraq is far greater than 100,000: at least 80,000 combat troops in Germany Korea Afgh, and at least 50,000 stateside, and others scattered around the globe. The MAXIMUM number of US Army combat troops in Iraq is some fraction of 108,000--perhaps 30,000, perhaps 50,000 depending on your definition, but certainly not greater than 70,000 by any conceivable measure. In other words, the most liberal definition of US Army 'combat troops' would yield maybe 200,000 worldwide, of which not more than 70,000 are in Iraq now. Paul's an economist, right? I can't believe he's so innumerate as to botch these very simple calculations, which means he's bullshitting us.

Subject: More fun with Math From: jimsum To: Tombo Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 17, 2003 at 15:08:47 (EDT) Email Address: jimsum@rogers.com Message: I'll take a stab at convincing you that 50% is plausible. The statement at issue is 'More than half of the U.S. Army's combat strength is now bogged down in Iraq'. So whether this is true or not clearly depends on the definition of 'combat strength', but it also depends on what 'bogged down in Iraq' means. The troops that are in Iraq are obviously bogged down; but what about all the army personnel that are outside Iraq, but helping in the war effort? There are surely some soldiers involved in the war effort, but stationed outside Iraq, like logistics personnel or generals in the Pentagon. Now what is a 'combat troop'? I don't know, but you say there are 108,000 army troops of all kinds in Iraq now. I'd call all of those troops combat troops because they are all needed in Iraq (if they aren't needed, why are they in a war zone?). So we might as well call the whole 108,000 combat troops since they are needed for combat. Add in the troops that are not in Iraq but are 'bogged down' by the war, and you will come up with a number much higher than 108,000 involved in the war. Now suppose Paul is right, and 50% of the army's combat troops are bogged down in Iraq. That would mean that there are fewer than 216,000 army troops available to be in a war zone, and some unknown number of support personnel for those troops; I think 50% is probably a low estimate for the number of support troops needed, so according to Paul's claim and my wild-assed guess, there are only 324,000 army troops are available for waging wars like the invasion of Iraq. Now RMS reported that there are 486,542 army soldiers. Do you really think it is implausible that only 324,000 are available for combat? As RMS also pointed out, there are only 382,402 army troops stationed in the U.S. How many of those soldiers are needed to protect the United States? How many soldiers are uselessly deployed overseas and can be redeployed for combat (not many I hope)? There is a whole lot of supposition here, but I wouldn't say the 50% claim is obviously wrong. We can also look at this issue another way. Do you believe that the army could easily handle a second war the same size as Iraq? If you do, then fewer than 50% of combat troops are in Iraq. By your figures, which you claim are a worst case, the army can handle at least (200,000/70,000) wars, which is just under three Iraqi wars simultaneously. I don't believe that. If there are so many available troops, why aren't there more in Iraq preventing the deaths of Americans at the hands of Iraqi guerrillas? The stated aim of the Armed Forces is to be able to fight two wars at once, I sure hope they didn't hold back any of that capability at the cost of soldier's lives.

Subject: More fun w/ Paul's Ineptitude ex-Economics From: Tombo To: jimsum Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 17, 2003 at 15:55:26 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Fewer words, more facts, please. Chew on this: many, perhaps most, of the Army's troops now serving in Iraq are in non-combat roles that would not be required in a war theatre: MPs, Legal experts, what the Army calls 'Civil Affairs' generally. Paul is showing himself to be as ignorant and irresponsible in the realm of military analysis as he is in political analysis. Save this man's reputation before it's too late. Clip his wings, Bill!

Subject: Re: More fun w/ Paul's Ineptitude ex-Economics From: jimsum To: Tombo Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 17, 2003 at 17:09:39 (EDT) Email Address: jimsum@rogers.com Message: Sorry I don't have any facts to add; I read the 'new guidelines for posts: take notice' message after writing my long-winded ones and felt more than a twinge of guilt :-) Perhaps you could provide us with the facts that disprove Krugman's assertion. How many combat troops are there in Iraq? How many are available that aren't in Iraq? Your posts (including this one) haven't included any more facts about these proportions than mine did. I recognize that there are plenty of troops in non-combat roles. I think we have enough figures to show that unless the proportion of combat troops inside Iraq is substantially higher than the proportion available outside Iraq, Krugman is wrong. All we need is a fact that shows the proportion of combat troops inside Iraq is not substantially higher, and we have proven Krugman wrong.

Subject: Re: More fun w/ Paul's Ineptitude ex-Economics From: Tombo To: jimsum Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 17, 2003 at 17:39:47 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I've provided these plenty of times elsewhere. Again, some fraction of the 108,000 Army troops in Iraq are combat troops. Maximum would be maybe 70,000. For Paul's assertion to be correct, then there must be less than 70,000 other Army combat troops around the world. This is plainly ridiculous, given that we have that many Army combat troops in the European theater alone.

Subject: Re: More fun w/ Paul's Ineptitude ex-Economics From: jimsum To: Tombo Date Posted: Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 09:55:54 (EDT) Email Address: jimsum Message: Well, you've finally convinced me. I'll bet there are more than 108,000 combat troops outside Iraq, so you could count every troop in Iraq as a combat troop and his statement is still incorrect. I still think there is some room to argue about whether 'strength' means troops, it could be referring to all army resources; but I expect Iraq is not using up 50% of the army's total capacity, no matter how you count it. I am willing to believe that Iraq is using up 50% of the army's deployable capacity, but that is not what Krugman said. Now I don't think that necessarily means his argument is incorrect, but you can debate that point where I made it in a different thread :-)

Subject: Re: More fun w/ Paul's Ineptitude ex-Economics From: RMS To: jimsum Date Posted: Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 10:04:39 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Except that there are actually 147,000 U.S. Army troops in Iraq, not 108,000. At least according to Donald Rumsfeld. And I still think that you can't count troops which are not re-deployable (i.e. they must stay in our current position) as part of our 'combat strength'. After all, if we needed to fight another war right now, those troops would not be available. Krugman referred to our Army's 'combat strength', not 'all the Army's troops'. It all depends on how you choose to define that.

Subject: Re: Why exclude Korea troops? From: RMS To: Tombo Date Posted: Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 17:00:54 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Wow. You are completely missing the point. I am not arguing that troops -should- be moved anywhere. I'm just trying to point out that you can't assume that ALL of the troops in the U.S. Army are available to be deployed in Iraq and thus, it is misleading to assume that the total number of troops in the Army constitute our ready combat strength. All I'm saying is that when Krugman claimed that 50% of our combat strength is in Iraq, he may have only included in the denominator those troops not needed elsewhere. It's silly to assume that just because we HAVE almost 500,000 troops that all of those are available. The reason I didn't include troops in Asia in the total available to be deployed to Iraq is twofold: first, because they are much more strategically positioned than those in Europe, as you point out, and thus are unlikely to be moved to Iraq. Second, simply because many of them are farther away. On the point of the cost of the Iraqi war: I certainly hope that readers of this forum are concerned about the cost of the Iraqi war ($48 billion so far and $5 billion/month, according to the Pentagon), considering the federal deficit that we currently face.

Subject: Re: Another Whopper from Unhinged Paul From: Tombi Lying Tombo To: Tombo Date Posted: Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 13:02:12 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Tombi tombo is the looney liar!

Subject: Re: Keller will clip Paul's wings From: Tombo To: Tombo Date Posted: Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 12:06:15 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Bill Keller, take note. My bet is that Paul will be gently but firmly instructed to stick to analyzing economic issues in future OpEds. if he complies, great; if not, he'll have a big dust-up with Keller and leave for some lowbrow or lefty fringe publication (like The Nation) in a grand snit.

Subject: Re: Keller will clip Paul's wings From: Chicago Boy To: Tombo Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 17, 2003 at 19:39:34 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Wouldn't The Nation be a little too lefty for even Paul's views?

Subject: Re: Keller will clip Paul's wings From: Jonathan To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Tues, Jul 22, 2003 at 12:47:57 (EDT) Email Address: jonathan@lyingsocialistweasels.com Message: One of the best gauges of whether a person is a right-winger is how they view criticism of Bush. It's a remarkably consistent thing: wingers, almost to a man, think criticizing Bush is a sure indication of someone from the 'far left'. Talk about ironies.

Subject: new guidelines for posts: take notice From: compassionate_conservative To: All Date Posted: Tues, Jul 15, 2003 at 14:39:04 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Here are my rough proposals for restoring intelligence to the pkarchive.org message board (inspired by Wickle's helpful reminder that we can't simply just ignore 'whackos'), re-posted here so everyone can see them for longer: Yeah, I thought of that [the no-response problem] after I posted. What I had in mind is something like a one-strike system for arguments and users combined. The way I envisioned it working is having one person respond to a 'whacko' post (thus, checking to make sure no else has already set the whacko straight is an important part of the anti-whacko responsibility code), and if the whacko proceeds in whacko-ness, then ignore him. If another user takes up the whacko vein on a sufficiently similar tack, ignore him too. Now to adddress the problems of these guidelines: What is a whacko comment? Judgment is primordially important here, but we should have at least a rough and ready guide for whacko-dom. I propose that we (here on the message board) consider a whacko comment (for the above exclusionary purposes) one with immediately or obviously falsifiable assumptions (implicit or otherwise), and of course (and ESPECIALLY) one making no effort at a bare awareness of alternative (opposing...) viewpoints or evidence. A working definition by any measure, but hopefully it'll work, and improve as our debates evolve. As for how to guage whether a whacko post is sufficiently similar to a previous whacko post that has already been dispatched, I strongly suggest we err on the side of dismissal (ignoring) rather than on the side of correcting whackos explicitly. As the analytical reader will remember from econ 101, although we risk missing some potentially valuable opportunities to correct mistaken ideas, this policy will in the relatively short run reduce the whacko-content, and should encourage a continuously decreasing percentage of whacko-ness if the policy is strictly enough embraced. Of course, in truly 'on the border' circumstances, other factors like past willingness of the user to accept superior arguments should play a part in judgments of whether a response will be in the best interests of the content of this message board. This last allusion, though is of SUPREME IMPORTANCE. I cannot stress it enough: if we are to work towards a message board of first rate quality, vigilance and discipline are needed in heroic doses from all of you thoughtful and sincere bloggers. BE DISCRIMINATING, not with any perceived ideological foundations, but the substantive and methodological questions I've addressed here in the last few days. (Oh, by the way Bobby, I could use some support on this...) This could be an exciting time for the PKarchive chat! I'll post a topic for discussion under a new thread, so we can see how this goes...

Subject: Re: new guidelines for posts: take notice From: NP To: compassionate_conservative Date Posted: Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 14:19:35 (EDT) Email Address: austinstoneman@aol.com Message: I think you've used your one strike, Compassionate Conservative. Get a life.

Subject: Re: new guidelines for posts: take notice From: Tombo To: compassionate_conservative Date Posted: Tues, Jul 15, 2003 at 18:27:03 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: My suggestion: keep your replies CRISP. That is, short, sharp, to the point, fact-based wherever possible. And quit crying when someone attacks Paul. He's a big boy; he can take it.

Subject: the 'Democrat-ically inclined' thinktank From: compassionate_conservative To: All Date Posted: Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 16:43:32 (EDT) Email Address: maylward@wesleyan.edu Message: So Democrats are talking about starting up a research foundation to rival the largely conservative Hoover Foundation at Stanford... Al Gore is apparently in on the project, which is in heavy-duty fund-raising/planning stages right now. Anyway, even democrats admit that this is at least a mild departure from their previous reliance on 'the truth shall set us free' strategies based largely on university research. As far as I can tell, their new place will be a good move for them if they can pull its influence off, even if it doesn't have any more credibility than a conservative mecca like Cato. The reason is, if they can rely a little less on university research (substituting in-house findings just as republicans have for years), it should free up their (universities') reputations to return to their objective standards. I should point out that I don't see this as a real (substantive) issue, but rather a strategic issue: no reasonable person I know would say that there's any real danger of liberal bias in university research (something my unfortunately more zealous ideological partners have claimed throughtout the 90's). So, this change may eventually give us a more confident look at the objective truth, if university research is vindicated from the current (basless, as far as I've been convinced) claims of ideological partisanship. Anyhow, I don't know how fertile this topic is for discussion, but I look forward to any illuminating comments...

Subject: Re: the 'Democrat-ically inclined' thinktank From: Ox Metrics To: compassionate_conservative Date Posted: Tues, Jul 15, 2003 at 09:43:51 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hi there! This is quite an interesting development if it goes through. As a matter of revealed preference, it would show the Democrats feel handicapped by the think-tank vacuum on their side at present. On my side of the Atlantic, we hear quite a bit about Cato, Heritage and co of late, but I don't know how much of those ideas reach the American public as a whole? Compassionate_conservative makes an interesting point concerning the perception of universities and how prejudiced views against them could be cleared by introducing a Democratic think-tank. I do not know how relevant in practice this will be, as people will probably continue to shout 'partisan' whenever things do not go their way, howver good the quality of the research. The interesting thing is that I have not detected any similar suspicion on UK university research. One clearly knows that some people have strong ideological views (say, Patrick Minford, who was an important Thatcherite advisor as well as a prominent New Classical economist here), but research remains research. I believe that think-tanks are useful to bounce ideas around. Some of their output is really fuzzy, and rather 'soft' kind of research but I do not think it's without value. A serious think-tank is for example the Centre for European Reform (www.cer.org.uk), which floats some extremely controversial ideas on the institutional structure of the EU. On the Blairite side of life, there is the Foreign Policy Centre (www.fpc.org.uk), which also has interesting analyses. You may have seen them in the US press. Think-tanks are useful for very policy oriented issues. Universities remain the architects of the backbone of knowledge. One especially interesting animal are independent research institutions. They have a crucial role in that they do some academic research but also very policy relevant stuff. I can tell you that when the budget comes round, the British government feels the breath of the Institute for Fiscal Studies down its neck (www.ifs.org.uk). The Institute has an established reputation of being independent and is respected by all parties and by the press, which echoes its economic analysis (analysis, not rhethoric) reasonably widely. Is there such a thing in the States? If not, then perhaps this would be the most effective way to make the current administration accountable. Of course, it would also restrain future Democratic ones.... Thanks for the debate and take care, :) Ox Metrics.

Subject: Re: the 'Democrat-ically inclined' thinktank From: compassionate_conservative To: Ox Metrics Date Posted: Tues, Jul 15, 2003 at 17:59:33 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Ox, just a short question cuz I'm shirking work... you said: 'The Institute has an established reputation of being independent and is respected by all parties and by the press, which echoes its economic analysis (analysis, not rhethoric) reasonably widely. Is there such a thing in the States?' I'm wondering what the verdict is on the Center for Budget Policies and Priorities (CBPP), which is what started the big thread that led to your comment on big names, and the subsequent revolution of the pkarchive forum. (don't worry, I wrote the word 'revolution' with a chuckle...) I've heard that it's staff focuses on empirical issues relevant to the Democrat-ic side of things, but I HAVEN'T heard that their research is anything but non-partisan impeccable and non-debatable analysis. While this is addressed to you, Mr. Metrics (after all, your surname suggests you might have something interesting to say about it), it goes without saying that I welcome any illuminating feedback.

Subject: Re: the 'Democrat-ically inclined' thinktank From: Ox Metrics To: compassionate_conservative Date Posted: Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 04:37:18 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: ... and a short reply coz I'm shirking work too ;)) I'm afraid I do not have anything to add here, as it is Paul Krugman's columns that brought the Centre to my attention, but I too would love to hear some objective feedback about this. I will try to ask around. Ox Metrics.

Subject: Re: the 'Democrat-ically inclined' thinktank From: Captain of Crush To: compassionate_conservative Date Posted: Tues, Jul 15, 2003 at 08:33:47 (EDT) Email Address: mmenos@hotmail.com Message: i always thought that think tanks were a bad idea myself, something about 'faith-based research.' i do see the strategy involved in making university research a fulcrum of truth, a centerpoint between shouting, biased think tanks that cancel each other out. i am not sure it is a good idea, though; we are spending a lot of money so that every time heritage comes out with something silly, we can just say NO IT'S NOT!! we should just give that money to universities, so the democrats can really be the party of truth. think tanks are a bad idea, because their research assumes away whatever it needs to fit the forgone conlusions of its framers.

Subject: Re: the 'Democrat-ically inclined' thinktank From: Ox Metrics To: Captain of Crush Date Posted: Tues, Jul 15, 2003 at 09:50:50 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: By the way, even very ideologically biased places produce stuff that is very useful for everyone. In my research, I am using some data from the Fraser Institute (see http://www.fraserinstitute.ca) who compile an index of 'Economic Freedom'; they are a 'no-government-intervention-please' place. Their interpretation of things is often debatable (for example, see the subtle Card and Krueger type debates on the impact of the minimum wage in the US UK evidence), but the data behind their comments are definitely useful. Take care, Ox Metrics.

Subject: Exchange rates and trade deficits? From: Bull Dog To: All Date Posted: Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 16:07:22 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hi Does anyone know if Krugman ever wrote anything explaining balance of payments and trade deficits? Thanks. Gr8 site btw!

Subject: Re: Exchange rates and trade deficits? From: Emma To: Bull Dog Date Posted: Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 14:19:11 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Please explain and narrow your question more fully.

Subject: Still No Paul From: al To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 10, 2003 at 06:36:14 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Nothing on the official Page.. and no sign of Paul since late June... will be 13 days tomorrow. Where is paul...

Subject: Re: Still No Paul From: Jonathan To: al Date Posted: Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 00:12:23 (EDT) Email Address: jonathan@lyingsocialistweasels.com Message: Bad time for him to be gone, too. CBS News is reporting that Bush knew claims regarding nukes in his SOTU speech were false. On the other hand, giving this a weekend to stew will be the perfect setup for his return next week...

Subject: Sigh From: emma To: al Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 10, 2003 at 13:12:31 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Yes, I really do miss even a single missed article.

Subject: Re: Still No Paul From: Bobby To: al Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 10, 2003 at 09:12:02 (EDT) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: He's still on vacation. He'll be back next week. I swear.

Subject: Re: Still No Paul From: Tombo To: Bobby Date Posted: Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 15:19:35 (EDT) Email Address: tpmclaughlin@hotmail.com Message: Keller's in, which means Paul's on his way out. Keller will get rid of him and restore some reason and temperateness to the NYT Op Ed page. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53598-2003Jul14.html

Subject: Re: Still No Paul From: Tombo To: Bobby Date Posted: Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 15:19:02 (EDT) Email Address: tpmclaughlin@hotmail.com Message: Keller's in, which means Paul's on his way out. Keller will get rid of him and restore some reason and temperateness to the NYT Op Ed page. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53598-2003Jul14.html

Subject: Re: Still No Paul From: Jonathan To: Tombo Date Posted: Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 23:52:49 (EDT) Email Address: jonathan@lyingsocialistweasels.com Message: I make no prediction either way. But will you, Tombo, come back here in a year and announce you were wrong if Krugman hasn't been sacked by then? That's a notoriously difficult thing for a right-winger to do, I know. Still, it would show a lot of integrity...

Subject: Democrat Who Finds Paul Embarrassing From: Tombo To: Jonathan Date Posted: Tues, Jul 15, 2003 at 12:19:14 (EDT) Email Address: tpmclaughlin@hotmail.com Message: Not a 'right-winger' here. Just an honest Democrat who's willing to admit that Paul's writings on politics are embarrassingly witless, often hysterical. Paul exemplifies the kind of blind, unreasoning Bush-hatred that's crippling the Democratic Party today.

Subject: Re: Democrat Who Finds Paul Embarrassing From: Jonathan To: Tombo Date Posted: Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 20:08:10 (EDT) Email Address: jonathan@lyingosocialistweasels.com Message: By the way, Tombo, you never answered my question. If Keller doesn't sack Krugman, will you come back and acknowledge the fact that you were wrong?

Subject: Adult Supervision for Paul (by Keller) From: Tombo To: Jonathan Date Posted: Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 21:00:06 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: No. But I'd happily bet my next paycheck that at some point within the next 6-8 months Bill Keller, consummate journalistic pro and fair-minded veteran that he is, will clip Krugman's wings and tell him to stick to economics. Krugman's political screeds contain too many ludicrous distortions for him to continue much longer without adult supervision.

Subject: Re: Democrat Who Finds Paul Embarrassing From: compassionate_conservative To: Tombo Date Posted: Tues, Jul 15, 2003 at 17:17:46 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: So Tombo, as you might suspect from reading the new guidelines for this message board, this inquiry is a test. Fail it, and you'll have to read the guidelines to see what'll happen. 1) What do you mean by witless, and more importantly, on what do you base that claim? 2) On what do you base the claim that Paul (presumably you mean his op-ed pieces) exemplifies unreasoning Bush-Hatred? Less naively, and more to the point, how would you counter the obvious (so obvious that you really should have at least implicitly admitted it, and dealt with it, in a persuasive attempt like the one above) alternative claim that Paul's writings are well-informed and well-reasoned, and in fact that they represent a piercing look at the current administration's ruling style and priorities. Any intelligent reader of Paul's columns should be very well versed in this viewpoint: ignorance is not an excuse. If you wish to gain some intellectual credibility -- a new necessary condition for access to the substantive debates that will henceforth characterize this forum -- you will provide either (1) acceptable answers to these questions, (2) a statement admitting (however evasively, since I really don't want to be a prick about this) your comments were unsubstantiated, or (3) some illuminating or well-considered future post (not pressing, of course, me not being your mom). Would-be zealots on this forum, take notice. These comments are universally applicable, not matter how small or big a fan you are of Paul Krugman, the Welfare State, or the Democratic Party...

Subject: Re: Democrat Who Finds Paul Embarrassing From: NP To: compassionate_conservative Date Posted: Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 14:21:53 (EDT) Email Address: applesandbananas@hotmail.com Message: It's funny-- when people say, 'I don't want to be a prick about this,' its usually much too late.

Subject: Re: Democrat Who Finds Paul Embarrassing From: compassionate_conservative To: NP Date Posted: Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 15:52:20 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Alright, NP, I'll give you that the paragraph my 'prick' aside was in the middle of was a bit prickish, but I'm just trying to clean up the dirty lines of argumentation (In other words, the sherriff's got a little prick leeway). As for 'my one strike', where have you found me in violation of the anti-whacko guidelines? ...Yeah, I didn't think so. Anyway, how about a strike of your own for that get-a-life zinger of yours...

Subject: Re: Democrat Who Finds Paul Embarrassing From: Tombo To: compassionate_conservative Date Posted: Tues, Jul 15, 2003 at 17:55:58 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Witless: 'Enron will turn out to be more significant for the US than 9/11.' Also, Paul's ludicrous comparisons of Bush to Le Pen and other French fascists. Stupid. Embarrassing. Evidence of a good mind that's thrown off kilter by anything that anyone in the Bush admin does or says. Oh, and profoundly BORING--very much unlike the Paul I used to know and enjoy.

Subject: Re: Democrat Who Finds Paul Embarrassing From: Jonathan To: Tombo Date Posted: Tues, Jul 15, 2003 at 16:00:50 (EDT) Email Address: jonathan@lyingsocialistweasels.com Message: Not a 'right-winger' here. Just an honest Democrat who's willing to admit that Paul's writings on politics are embarrassingly witless, often hysterical. Paul exemplifies the kind of blind, unreasoning Bush-hatred that's crippling the Democratic Party today. --- Sure you are. Funny -- I know a lot of Democrats, liberal, moderate and right-of-center. Not a one thinks Krugman's writings are 'hysterical' or 'witless'. Not one. I've only ever heard Freeper types say stuff like that. If you're really a Dem, you're completely off and out of touch. If, as more likely, you're a right-winger playing games, you're not the first, and it's really not that clever.

Subject: Re: Democrat Who Finds Paul Embarrassing From: Tombo To: Jonathan Date Posted: Tues, Jul 15, 2003 at 17:56:50 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Nice try, but I was an early champion of Clinton's--voted for him twice, also voted for Gore. What is truly annoying about Krugman and the other rabid Bush-haters in my party is their complete dishonesty about Iraq. It was CLINTON who asserted, in an address to the nation in April 1998, that 'Saddam is determined to get nuclear weapons...and if he gets them, I guarantee, he will use them'. This was just before Clinton ordered the round-the-clock carpet bombing of Baghdad ('Operation Desert Fox', if I remember right). This was a *unilateral*, *pre-emptive* war effort that was neither sanctioned by the UN nor submitted to the UN or the French or anyone else for approval. This is why neither Bill nor Hillary has criticized Bush's war effort. And why all the Dems who supported Clinton in 1998--including Daschle, Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi-- have absolutely no credibility today if they criticize Bush for 'lying' to them about Saddam's nuclear ambitions. None whatsoever. In sum, I supported Clinton in 1998 when he unilaterally made war on Saddam, and I support Bush now. To attack one while supporting the other is political horseshit, and the vast majority of the US public recognizes this.

Subject: Re: Democrat Who Finds Paul Embarrassing From: Jonathan To: Tombo Date Posted: Tues, Jul 15, 2003 at 23:45:57 (EDT) Email Address: jonathan@lyingsocialistweasels.com Message: It's amazing how you keep quoting far-right material, yet keep claiming you're a Democrat. Well, I suppose they're not mutually exclusive. If you look at the reports from the time, Clinton attacked Iraq in 1998 to get the inspectors back in. NOT because Hussein posed an 'immediate threat'. And the strike was NOT a war, and it did NOT result in thousands of deaths, an ill-planned occupation of the country, etc. Furthermore, it's simply illogical to claim, without further information, that the two situations were the same -- as far as we know, the intelligence in 1998 WAS much more firm than it was in 2003. Trying to equate the two, despite the obvious problems with doing so, smells of a Freeper/Newsmax/Limbaugh talking point. Finally, the circumstances are also very different now -- we have a war against al Qaeda that must be fought, and it makes little sense to hamper that effort by going after an unrelated target. Oh, and polls suggest the 'vast majority of the US public' is even now turning against Bush, thanks to his obviously misleading statements. And what does all this have to do with Krugman? Do you know, for a fact, that he supported the strikes in 1998, anyway?

Subject: Re: Democrat Who Finds Paul Embarrassing From: Tombo To: Jonathan Date Posted: Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 11:53:06 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: More bullshit. Operation Desert Fox in 1998 devastated Iraq's infrastructure and killed who knows how many hundreds of Iraqi civilians--while leaving Saddam in power. The sanctions, likewise, were a completely failed policy that Saddam manipulated to cause the deaths of HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of innocent Iraqis. And you have the audacity to claim that this disastrous policy that resulted in hundreds of 000s of innocent civilian deaths was morally SUPERIOR to a war that 1) removed the root cause of these deaths, and 2) caused far fewer civilian deaths than were occurring every month under the failed bomb 'n' starve policy! And on top of this, Syria is in retreat, the mullahs are nearly finished, and we no longer need to station troops in Saudi. Do us a favor. Use some logic and stop throwing around labels. Anyone who looks at the facts can see that Bush's policy has had far far more beneficial effects for the Iraqi and the US populations--and for that matter, for the peoples of Iran and Syria as well. Until my party has the good sense and courage to admit this, they'll be doomed to repeat the debacles of 1972 and 1984. Mindless abuse and non-arguments won't alter this.

Subject: Re: Democrat Who Finds Paul Embarrassing From: Jonathan To: Tombo Date Posted: Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 20:21:56 (EDT) Email Address: jonathan@lyingsocialistweasels.com Message: The more I look, the more Tombo's claims don't wash. 'Operation Desert Fox' was four days of airstrikes in 1998. 100 targets were attacked, 35 of them surface-to-air missile sites. Fourty-nine were palaces and associated structures. One 'economic target' and 11 'WMD industry and production' targets were attacked. The rest were military facilities. And this was sufficient to 'devastate Iraq's infrastructure'? Where do you get this stuff? I'll not argue that the sanctions did not have bad effects, although those effects were likely exaggerated by Hussein's government (from where almost all estimates of their impact come). But sanctions as they existed then or war were hardly our only two options. The idea that 'the mullahs are nearly finished' is false on its face -- read the news. And the assertion that Syria is 'in retreat' is so much hand-waving. 'Use some logic', indeed. What else ya' got, Tombo?

Subject: Re: Democrat Who Finds Paul Embarrassing From: Tombo To: Jonathan Date Posted: Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 20:33:44 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Here's a novel defense of Clinton's carpet bombing: the weasel argues that it wasn't effective! Then he defends the sanctions 'n' bombs policy by saying they were 'hardly our only options.' You're not Howard Dean's strategist, are you? Given the influence of minds like yours, it's no wonder my party's in such pathetic shape.

Subject: Re: Democrat Who Finds Paul Embarrassing From: Jonathan To: Tombo Date Posted: Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 20:37:24 (EDT) Email Address: jonathan@lyingsocialistweasels.com Message: Re-read what I wrote. I didn't defend the bombing, nor did I defend the sanctions. And I'll say this once: if you want others to do the same, knock off the personal crap. You've been dealing it out since you got here, and you shouldn't be surprised when it comes back to you.

Subject: Re: Democrat Who Finds Paul Embarrassing From: Jonathan To: Tombo Date Posted: Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 19:23:42 (EDT) Email Address: jonathan@lyingsocialistweasels.com Message: Your claim that the sanctions regime was a 'completely failed policy' appears to be at odds with the fact that we've found literally no WMD in Iraq. Sounds like it's you who have a little problem meshing your beliefs with the reality on the ground. We're spending a billion dollars a week on Iraq right now -- one billion bucks per week we absolutely cannot afford. And let's see some references for your death figures. Talk is cheap. Perhaps 'mindless abuse and non-arguments won't alter' your assertions, but neither will they prove them. Time to put up or shut up, bud.

Subject: Re: Democrat Who Finds Paul Embarrassing From: Tombo To: Jonathan Date Posted: Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 20:19:28 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: How ridiculous you are! I give you hard, factual, numerical evidence of the failure of sanctions--the fact that Saddam easily manipulated them to cause hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths-- and you offer a non sequitur about not finding WMD! It was CLINTON who first argued that Saddam's drive for WMD capabilities justified a pre-emptive, unilateral war against Iraq. This was also the same justification for his bombing that aspirin factory in East Africa a month earlier. Again: limited but suggestive intelligence about a major threat to US security prompting an aggressive, unilateralist US military action. Quit bullshitting us. Bush attacked Iraq using a standard of proof re the WMD threat that was at least as high as Clinton's. You seem to seriously believe that the standard of proof should be vastly HIGHER than it was pre-9/11. No wonder the US public finds the Democrats' thrashing on this to be so much partisan horseshit.

Subject: Re: Democrat Who Finds Paul Embarrassing From: Jonathan To: Tombo Date Posted: Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 20:24:51 (EDT) Email Address: jonathan@lyingsocialistweasels.com Message: You're missing the point, Tombo -- perhaps deliberately? You claimed that the regime was a threat to us. I'm calling you on it. Bringing Clinton into this is a red herring. Bush is in office now, and the war was carried out on his orders, using (or misusing) today's intelligence estimates. Stick to the point, please, and stop trying to change the subject.

Subject: Re: Democrat Who Finds Paul Embarrassing From: compassionate_conservative To: Tombo Date Posted: Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 13:03:54 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Tombo, you make some interesting points comparing the effects of the Clinton campaign to Bush's. As far as your sweeping assertion that 'syria is in retreat, the mullahs are nearly finished, and we no longer need to station troops in saudi' goes though, I think you got a little carried away. Also, as for your attempt to compare the 1998 situation to this year's, you got more than a little carried away: 'I remind you that [1] Clinton's war vs Iraq was unilateralist and pre-emptive. And [2] of course based on incomplete intelligence info, as is almost always the case.' (1) There's a difference between a unilateral and pre-emptive bombing campaign that no one in the international community objected to (because they were more than likely grateful for having Saddam's military force kept at bay), and one whose timing, motivation, and method are hotly disputed. You know that, and you knew it when you wrote your post. Don't try to sweep anything under the rug when you voice your views on something -- it's obvious, frustrating (because then someone has to point out that you didn't acknowledge a blatant counterpoint), and cheapens your argument. So do everyone a favor and post only well-considered (that means including in your thought-progression all relevant viewpoints, NOT just the one you're arguing for) comments. (2) I'll be frank. The reason I think there's such a brouhaha right now about the intelligence issue is partly because the Democrats don't want to play ball on other debatable issues (budget issues like tax policy, on what -- and how much -- the government should spend; ethical issues like court decisions; etc.) because they think they're at a strategic disadvantage on them right now. This is a bold statement, but I'd bet some dem-strategists have taken it into account, considering the apparent momentum recently sweeping the nation to the conservative side of things. HOWEVER, Bush's 'incomplete intelligence' is a distinctly different case than whatever incomplete intelligence can be associated with Clinton's campaign. In a word, pulling the nuclear threat was a cheap shot, since he knew it provoke widespread fear and a knee jerk swing of support for war in iraq. It is certainly a more serious thing to deceive the public about too. I'll let that marinate; more later, got a seminar now...

Subject: Re: Partisan Posturing (yawn) From: Tombo To: compassionate_conservative Date Posted: Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 13:15:50 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Clinton's war was less controversial than Bush's, but still highly controversial. Just ask the Arabs or the Russians. As to the Iraqi nuclear threat, Clinton played this card just as Bush did. Were Howard Dean or Kerry to be elected president by some miracle in 2004, he too would play this card. All claims to the contrary are bogus partisan posturing that, post-9/11, doesn't really interest anyone outside the Beltway/Manhattan media axis.

Subject: Re: Partisan Posturing (yawn) From: compassionate To: Tombo Date Posted: Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 17:38:30 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: That's just it though: Bush played on the fears of America post-9/11! IF Kerry or Dean wanted to pursuade an otherwise weary nation into (you must admit at least slightly) a paranoid war, then of course they too would use the 'nuclear card', as you reductionist-ly put it. THAT'S what this controversy is about, Tombo: the willingness of Bush to try to persuade voters into an ethically precarious assent, vs. liberals' assertion that the truth about Iraq and its capability would have much preferred to the propaganda. On that narrow score, it's obvious the liberals have a good point.

Subject: Re: Partisan Posturing (yawn) From: Tombo To: compassionate Date Posted: Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 19:17:25 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: What standard of proof re the Iraqi threat did Clinton rely on when he pre-emptively carpet-bombed Baghdad in April 1998? Are you seriously suggesting that, post-9/11, the liberal position is to impose a HIGHER standard of proof than was used prior to 9/11? This is insane. The standard of proof is of course lower. The public wisely recognizes any suggestion to the contrary as partisan horseshit, not to be taken seriously.

Subject: Re: Partisan Posturing (yawn) From: Jonathan To: Tombo Date Posted: Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 19:27:06 (EDT) Email Address: jonathan@lyingsocialistweasels.com Message: Tombo, your argument is simply long on rhetoric and short on facts and logic. You have presented no evidence at all that 1) the standards of proof were different, 2) the evidence used was the same, 3) the same decision-making process was used or 4) the public agrees with your defensive rants. You may be a Democrat on paper, Tombo, but it's clear you're Freeper material through-and-through...

Subject: Re: Partisan Posturing (yawn) From: Tombo To: Jonathan Date Posted: Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 20:27:05 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: More asinine name-calling instead of an argument. Again, if you can't get this through your head, recall Clinton said that even though there was no proof that Saddam had nukes, Saddam was 'determined to get them...and if he gets them, I guarantee you he will use them' as justification for bombing the s*** out of Baghdad on the basis of limited evidence. this is why neither he nor Jillary has said as much as a word during this bogus non-scandal. As to the public's view, Bush's approval ratings remain at 62%. Tom Friedman accurately observes that the only thing that matters is whether the new Iraq becomes a reasonably stable, somewhat free, normal nation. And none of your embarrassingly lame hysterics will change that view.

Subject: Re: Partisan Posturing (yawn) From: Jonathan To: Tombo Date Posted: Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 20:34:33 (EDT) Email Address: jonathan@lyingsocialistweasels.com Message: First of all, you're behind the times. Bush's approval ratings are not 'remaining' anywhere. They're down 9 points in less than a month, and roughly 15 from the height of the war. Actual values depend upon which poll you read, of course, but the average is now in the mid-to-upper 50% range. And really, Tombo, if we want to take an honest look at who's been dealing out the ad hominems here, I think you'll find that the rest of us have been pretty restrained. I'm glad that you have the insight you do into Bill and Hillary's thinking. But really, it's beside the point of what's happening right now. You continue to attempt to change the subject, and it's not going unnoticed.

Subject: Re: Democrat Who Finds Paul Embarrassing From: Jonathan To: Jonathan Date Posted: Tues, Jul 15, 2003 at 23:59:12 (EDT) Email Address: jonathan@lyingsocialistweasels.com Message: Just went back and found a report regarding Clinton's statements about Iraq in 1998. He did, in fact, reference chemical, biological and/or nuclear threat to 'his neighbors and the entire world' before starting Desert Fox. So I retract my statement, above, claiming he did not -- I was in error. Clinton was trying to get the inspectors back in, but he did reference the alleged threat. Regardless, the rest of the objections are still valid -- find me evidence that the threat was exaggerated in 1998, and we'll have something to talk about. Oh, and one other thing -- I know quite a few people who didn't support the action against Iraq in 1998, either. Claims that it's all just a bunch of Bush-bashing are, therefore, a bit presumptuous.

Subject: Re: Democrat Who Finds Paul Embarrassing From: Tombo To: Jonathan Date Posted: Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 11:56:45 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Nice to see your retraction. Maybe now you'll see where this kind of blind, shoot-from-the-hip, Bush-as-Antichrist posture leads us. BTW, I remind you that Clinton's war vs Iraq was unilateralist and pre-emptive. And of course based on incomplete intelligence info, as is almost always the case.

Subject: Re: Democrat Who Finds Paul Embarrassing From: Jonathan To: Tombo Date Posted: Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 19:43:18 (EDT) Email Address: jonathan@lyingsocialistweasels.com Message: Just a few extra points, First of all, the only one I've seen 'shooting from the hip' here is you. I check my facts, and if I'm wrong, I report it. You, by contrast, spray wild, unreferenced assertions and personal attacks like you're watering a lawn, hoping something will come of it. Bush is not the 'anti-christ'. But he's clearly wrong here. Maybe Clinton was wrong, too. We simply don't know, based upon what we know so far. Dig up proof that he slanted the evidence to fit his agenda, and you'll have a point. Until then, you simply don't. Your postmodernist rationalization that 'no intelligence is perfect' misses the point. Intelligence comes with a wide range of certainty, to be sure, from 'completely unsubstantiated' to 'saw it with my own two eyes'. It's when you present the former as the latter in order to promote a pre-existing agenda that you're misusing the evidence. When you do it to get the country into a war, you've betrayed the trust of the American People. And really, most people who don't have an ulterior motive can see that. That is what we're talking about, and despite your highly defensive assertions, the public a) isn't going to care about what happened in 1998 either way, since it's an historical curiousity at this point and b) DOES care whether we were misled into war by the current president. Even now, his poll numbers are slipping. http://www.pollingreport.com

Subject: Re: Democrat Who Finds Paul Embarrassing From: Jonathan To: Tombo Date Posted: Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 18:33:17 (EDT) Email Address: jonathan@lyingsocialistweasels.com Message: It's not lost on me that you ignored almost all of what I wrote, in order to make your point.

Subject: Re: Democrat Who Finds Paul Embarrassing From: To the Loon To: Tombo Date Posted: Tues, Jul 15, 2003 at 12:37:55 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Of course, you are a radical right loon of the worst order. Loon, why not worry some about the 81 American soldiers who have been killed in Iraq since May 1.

Subject: Hummmmm From: emma To: Bobby Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 10, 2003 at 13:13:38 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: You will be held responsible otherwise!

Subject: On Being Reasonable From: Linda To: All Date Posted: Tues, Jul 08, 2003 at 13:18:03 (EDT) Email Address: LLinda@seanet.com Message: Astonishing how reasonable Paul Krugman is, and how much that infuriates the radical right. These radical righters folks would censure all they could. Happily, they can not.

Subject: Re: On Being Reasonable From: PJ To: Linda Date Posted: Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 09:42:09 (EDT) Email Address: psjohn@hotmail.com Message: Presumably you mean 'censor' rather than 'censure'. There is a difference between disagreeing with somebody violently, and wanting to silence them. I have seen nobody seriously proposing preventing Paul Krugman from writing. If right-wing journalists and commentators suddenly lost Paul Krugman, who else would they have to rant about? And if they can't write, their kids may go hungry. My own view, though I disagree with Paul's take on American politics, is that a free society needs people like him, and Ralph Nader and for that matter Pat Buchanan. They force us to reexamine fundamental beliefs and prevent complacency in a time of tremendous progress. And the one time out of twenty they are right is worth the 19 times they are wrong.

Subject: Censor it be. From: Linda To: PJ Date Posted: Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 12:14:28 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I meant censor. The idea of the right is to censor Paul Krugman or the Dixie Chicks or anyone who happens to disagree with what they decide is to be agreed. Censor it be. Love Paul Krugman, do not give a fig for the radical right who are never actually right.

Subject: Re: Censor it be. From: PJ To: Linda Date Posted: Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 18:56:00 (EDT) Email Address: psjohn@hotmail.com Message: Well, you still haven't told us what evidence you have that people want to censor him. A nil response counts as no evidence.

Subject: Will Bill Keller of NYT sack Krugman? From: Tombo To: All Date Posted: Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 20:12:46 (EDT) Email Address: onlyinmoscow@yahoo.com Message: Bill Keller's soon to be Howell Raines' replacement as Mg Editor at the NY Times, and Keller is as rational and professional as Krugman the Op-Ed Writer is hysterical and embarrassing. I would not be surprised if Keller sacks both Krugman and that moron Mo Dowd--perhaps not right away, but within another 9 months or so. Care to wager, anyone? I'll give 2:3 odds that Krugman's gone from the NYTimes within a year. No problem, Paul: there's always a spot for you at Rolling Stone. Plus a guest column opportunity at Jane magazine.

Subject: Re: Will Bill Keller of NYT sack Krugman? From: Tombo To: Tombo Date Posted: Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 15:16:02 (EDT) Email Address: tpmclaughlin@hotmail.com Message: Bill Keller just named as Exec Editor of NYT: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53598-2003Jul14.html

Subject: Re: Will Bill Keller of NYT sack Krugman? From: Jonathan To: Tombo Date Posted: Tues, Jul 08, 2003 at 12:52:32 (EDT) Email Address: jonathan@lyingsocialistweasels.com Message: Better praise for Krugman could hardly be found. Boy, he gets you wackos going, doesn't he?

Subject: Re: Will Bill Keller of NYT sack Krugman? From: To a Moron To: Tombo Date Posted: Tues, Jul 08, 2003 at 12:49:25 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: What a sick moron you are Tombi Bombi.

Subject: Re: Will Bill Keller of NYT sack Krugman? From: NP To: Tombo Date Posted: Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 20:37:18 (EDT) Email Address: austinstoneman@aol.com Message: Was that post an endorsement of Keller's left-wing editorial columns?

Subject: Re: Will Bill Keller of NYT sack Krugman? From: Em To: NP Date Posted: Tues, Jul 08, 2003 at 12:50:56 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: This is just radical right garbage mouthing. Ann Coulter and like mean mouthed idiots.

Subject: Re: Will Bill Keller of NYT sack Krugman? From: Tombo To: Em Date Posted: Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 15:15:18 (EDT) Email Address: tpmclaughlin@hotmail.com Message: No, I LIKE Krugman's writings when he sticks to things he understands. If he were to stick with international trade issues, and Mo Dowd were to stick with political celebrity gossip reporting, then I'd be delighted to see both of them continue in the NYT. But Paul's hysterical rants writings on politics are embarrassing, and Mo Dowd on politics is a joke. Sack 'em both.

Subject: Re: Will Bill Keller of NYT sack Krugman? From: NP To: Tombo Date Posted: Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 14:23:52 (EDT) Email Address: alivealertawake@hotmail.com Message: And replace them with Walter Williams and James Buchanan, right? Or maybe Ann Coulter?

Subject: CBPP From: Chicago Boy To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 03, 2003 at 04:25:47 (EDT) Email Address: mrwreckingball@budweiser.com Message: For all the talk on this board, you'd think they were actually a big deal. They're not. They have what is hands down the most unimpressive staff of any think tank I have ever seen in my life. Look who the Hoover Institution and Cato get to write for them, and compare THAT to the CBPP.

Subject: Re: CBPP -- go figure.... From: compassionate_conservative To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Tues, Jul 15, 2003 at 18:58:57 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: For all the talk on this board, you'd think they were actually a big deal. They're not. They have what is hands down the most unimpressive staff of any think tank I have ever seen in my life. Look who the Hoover Institution and Cato get to write for them, and compare THAT to the CBPP. --- So, Chicago, I went and checked out the CBPP site to be unimpressed. Even though Ox Metrics point that names aren't all that matter makes your assertion a moot point, I decided to see if their staff really did look unimpressive (to the reputation-grubbing sheep, that is) on paper. Here's what I found: The staff working in the 'National Policy' department of the CBPP comprises almost half of the entire staff (18 of 39 researchers), and is the driving force behind what's made the CBPP controversial lately. Here's where they studied, for the reputationc-conscious: - 1 has her JD from Northwestern - 3 have their JD's from Harvard Law, 2 of which have other advanced degrees - 3 have their M. of Public Policy (MPP) from the Kennedy School at Harvard, 2 with other advanced degrees - 1 has her M. of Public Administration (MPA) from the Kennedy School - 2 have their MPA's from the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton - 1 has his MPP from the Goldman School at Berkeley - 1 has her MPP from Michigan - 1 has his MA from Stanford That's 13 of 18 who hold advanced degrees from a spattering of the most elite and reputable research institutions in the country and indeed the world. Most of the remainder hold BA's or PhD's from equally reputable schools like Brown, Boston University, and Yale. As far as one can judge a staff by their covers, the CBPP's staff is nothing short of high-gloss. Parapgrasing from Richard Feynman's reputed response to a silly claim in a physics lecture of his, in Chicago Boy's original claim, he wasn't even wrong.

Subject: Re: CBPP From: hume To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 11:22:26 (EDT) Email Address: hume_an@yahoo.com Message: CB: 'They have what is hands down the most unimpressive staff of any think tank I have ever seen in my life.' Why don't you comment on the analysis! If the analysis is sound, who cares if its staff is made up of precocious 5th graders? Again Chicago Boy - you almost never take the argument head on - instead you employ the use of straw men, red herrings, appeal to authority, and circular reasoning. I'd be willing to chronicle your logical fallacies if you think I'm being unfair. You keep citing right-leaning economists such as Barro and Friedman, but they, at their worst, never stooped to the level of equivocation you routinely reach. And you said Krugman is disreputable - why? Yes, he does tend to be shrill at times, but I find his economic analysis sound - you have never satisfactorily shown otherwise. I think I could countenance your philosophy of selfishness (which I think is incomplete at best, noxious at worst) if you used logical and relevant arguments to back it up. Please forgive me if you think I'm coming down hard on you. I don't have a problem with you per se - I have a problem with your ideas and the dubious methods you use to advance such ideas.

Subject: Re: CBPP From: emma To: hume Date Posted: Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 13:15:59 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Nice nice set of responses Hume. Usually I just laugh and move on. Funny, how these rightee right types despise taxes while never questioning who is supporting our defense. Rightee rights are patriotic as heck, except when it comes to paying the price for their patriotism. Phooey.

Subject: Re: CBPP From: emma To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 03, 2003 at 15:05:12 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: http://www.cbpp.org/ http://epinet.org/ Fine economic analysis, unlike the looney right scribblings of Hoover, Cato and American Enterprise. Poor dears.

Subject: Re: CBPP From: Chicago Boy To: emma Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 03, 2003 at 17:40:00 (EDT) Email Address: mrwreckingball@budweiser.com Message: You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Look at the staff at CBPP. They honestly don't have anybody good. Cato has Walter Williams, James Buchanan, and Richard Stroup. Hoover has Robert Barro, Milton Friedman, Gary Becker, and Caroline Hoxby. These are some pretty big names in economics. Still wanna call 'em looney?

Subject: Re: CBPP From: NP To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 20:40:17 (EDT) Email Address: austinstoneman@aol.com Message: Walter Williams? James Buchanan? Are you serious?

Subject: Re: CBPP From: rhonda To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 03, 2003 at 14:56:59 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I got it. It took me a while, but I got it. You are a Radical-Republican hack. Hoover and Cato and American Enterprise are Radical-Republican hackeries. Hack away, hack away.

Subject: Re: CBPP From: Chicago Boy To: rhonda Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 03, 2003 at 17:46:53 (EDT) Email Address: mrwreckingball@budweiser.com Message: Yes, they're 'hackeries' that include Nobel prize winners. You really oughtta look into this before you speak.

Subject: Re: CBPP From: Leaving Princeton To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:30:33 (EDT) Email Address: LP@aol.com Message: Lots of Nobel prizes at American Enterprise and Cato and Hoover. Lots, or is that Noble? Me love American Enterprise. Me leaving Princeton for American Enterprise. Hacks is hacks, no matter the supposed prizes.

Subject: Re: CBPP From: Chicago Boy To: Leaving Princeton Date Posted: Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 02:35:30 (EDT) Email Address: mrwreckingball@budweiser.com Message: 1. It's Nobel, not Noble. 2. Economists like James Buchanon and Robert Barro aren't hacks.

Subject: Re: CBPP From: CP To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 20:43:25 (EDT) Email Address: silaslynch@aol.com Message: James Buchanan is a hack. The Nobel Prize committee can goof sometimes-- look at Yasser Arafat.

Subject: Re: CBPP From: Leaving Princeton To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 12:13:43 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Duh. Radical right is hacks, per se. Bought and paid for by their so-thought aristocratic masters.

Subject: Re: CBPP From: Chicago Boy To: Leaving Princeton Date Posted: Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 14:51:12 (EDT) Email Address: mrwreckingball@budweiser.com Message: I'm on the radical right. Nobody's paying me.

Subject: Re: CBPP From: Jonathan To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 03, 2003 at 23:26:37 (EDT) Email Address: jonathan@lyingsocialistweasels.com Message: Pot, meet Kettle. I believe you're referring to 'The Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel.' There actually is no 'Nobel Prize' for economics, although it's often erroneously referred to by that name. And the BoS Prize process has historically had some real problems with bias. http://www.public.iastate.edu/~jonvwill/resurgent/L-chinobel.htm Regardless, the quackery of much of Cato's work is well-known (many times, the errors are so glaring as to render their work self-refuting), as is the quality of CBPP's -- considered by many reputable folks as 'impeccable'. Really, it's much more convincing to actually address the content of the work produced, rather than playing 'credentialism'.

Subject: Re: CBPP From: Chicago Boy To: Jonathan Date Posted: Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 02:43:37 (EDT) Email Address: mrwreckingball@budweiser.com Message: 1. I've read that article. It was stupid. I could care less what you wanna call the Nobel Prize. 2. I've read that article, and it wasn't conclusive at all. Mostly, it amounted to a bunch of conspiracy theorizing. Face it, liberal economists have had their day. Liberalism is an ideology that is slowly dying. You're just the last ppl clinging to it. The evidence in favor of markets is so convincing that it's largely irrefutable. 3. I've only heard CBPP's work described as 'impeccable' by Paul Krugman. He's not reputable. 4. As for CBPP's content, I could care less. They're mostly addressing class warrior type questions that I find irrelevant. Even if their statistical work is perfect, it doesn't matter. They're still offering exactly the wrong solution; namely, big goverment.

Subject: Re: CBPP From: Jonathan To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Tues, Jul 08, 2003 at 12:26:26 (EDT) Email Address: jonathan@lyingsocialistweasels.com Message: All those words, so much confusion, and not a bit of content. Care to actually provide something to back up what you're saying? The article I posted did so. But hey, it's always easier to dismiss something if you don't have to substantiate your claims, isn't it? Where on earth do you get the idea that 'liberalism' is dying, or that it opposes the idea of markets? The fact remains that you're committing a basic logic error (credentialism) in your assertions. Since you actually admit that you aren't concerned with the content of what is produced by CBPP, why should anyone take your opinion regarding them seriously?

Subject: On big names From: Ox Metrics To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Tues, Jul 08, 2003 at 10:41:19 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hi there! Chicago boy: you seem to make a big deal out of the fact that Barro and Friedman and other have 'big names' and are Nobel prize winners. Both claims are true. They are very important academic economists and I appreciate a lot of their academic work. It does not mean that their analysis is always relevant to the real world (think of Ricardian equivalence stories for Barro and monetarism a la Friedman), and even less does it make the institutes they are associated with the official suppliers of Economic Knowledge directly handed down from God. For a start, these guys are not behind every report. And again, they make mistakes too. In a strange dichotomy in your posts, important prizes for Barro and Friedman seem to be sufficient and necessary conditions for reputability, and yet things like Krugman's John Bates Clark Medal are not. Krugman is a great academic economist. Whatever your views, you must give him that or sound silly (cf. contributions on currency crises, economic geography, strategic trade policy etc.) It would be a lot more compelling for your case if you criticised people's findings rather than their names. I think you will agree this makes sense. Take care! Ox Metrics.

Subject: Re: On big names From: compassionate_conservative To: Ox Metrics Date Posted: Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 02:24:16 (EDT) Email Address: maylward@wesleyan.edu Message: I'm a little curious as to why the minions (of either side) haven't said a peep about the 7/8 post from someone who not only has his head on straight, but uses it too: Ox Metrics. Do you people have something against sense or do you just hate fun? Let's have a little more substantive discussion here, with the careful consideration and awareness of opposing views that Mr. Metrics' post as a good beginning, though far from conclusive on even the point he took up, let alone all the other interesting topics in politics and economics we can talk about. And Mr. Boy -- or do you prefer Chicago? -- perhaps you could learn some of the rules for thinking like a competent economist, and thus debating effectively, from an excellent essay by someone you apparently admire, or at least whose reputation you seem to. Milton Friedman's 1953 essay, 'The Methodology of Positive Economics', is a powerful, if incomplete, guide to what victorian scientists might have called good scientific etiquette. You'd do well to take it in. Good day, friends, and I do hope we can start a really tangible conversation here... something we can sink our intellectual teeth into. And remember, for god's sake, there are such things as reasonable conservatives (Milton Friedman is certainly one of them), and their policies and arguments should not be dismissed with the back of a partisan hand. What kind of discussion would that facilitate? And then what kind of message board would this turn into...

Subject: Thanks From: Ox MEtrics To: compassionate_conservative Date Posted: Tues, Jul 15, 2003 at 04:50:22 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hi there! Thanks for your comments compassionate_conservative. We definitely could use a bit more helicopter views above the partisan trenches. Otherwise, we easily end up being other peoples' puppet foot soldiers. Take care, Ox Metrics. PS: it is indeed 'Mr. Ox Metrics'. But I could just as easily have been 'Ms. Ox Metrics' :)

Subject: Re: Thanks From: compassionate_conservative To: Ox MEtrics Date Posted: Tues, Jul 15, 2003 at 14:55:54 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Mr. Metrics, I like the helicopter image, and I thank you for furthering the new tradition of considered and informed posting in your comments on the thinktank issue. I'll give it the thoughtful response it warrants when I get a chance. As for referring to you earlier as 'Mr.', it was because I'd mistakenly assumed that your first name, or nickname, was Ox! Now that I know you're from the other side of the pond though, I know (or at least think) better... In any case, I look forward to more of your interesting and informative comments.

Subject: Re: On big names From: Jonathan To: compassionate_conservative Date Posted: Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 19:35:27 (EDT) Email Address: jonathan@lyingsocialistweasels.com Message: And remember, for god's sake, there are such things as reasonable conservatives (Milton Friedman is certainly one of them), and their policies and arguments should not be dismissed with the back of a partisan hand. What kind of discussion would that facilitate? And then what kind of message board would this turn into... --- Conservative, I fully agree that there are reasonable conservatives out there. You just can't hear them these days for all the noise made by the whackos. I really miss the 'Age of Consensus'...

Subject: Re: On big names From: compassionate_conservative To: Jonathan Date Posted: Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 00:26:25 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Well Shit, John, let's start another on of those ages right here on this very weblog (or perhaps some other appropriate slightly higher profile blog you know...)! The way I see it, all we've got to do is give credence to those who make good points -- regardless of stance -- and an earful of nothin to those who don't (as you might be able to tell, I've got a soft spot for methoodology). The silence, I guarantee, will be deafening, and the whackos will surely get the point. Let's start spreading the rules of this new game, and make it known how much its success hinges on the discipline to not respond to anything not worth a response. And it goes without saying, the best way to start surely includes setting an example...

Subject: Re: On big names From: Wickle To: compassionate_conservative Date Posted: Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 13:54:42 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: But, If no one responds to 'wackos', how will they ever know if they are wrong? And, how will people who read their posts know they are wrong (since sometimes it isn't so obvious). Hell, that's pretty much what 'Peddling Prosperity' and 'Pop Internationalism' were, just letting the wackos know what's what.

Subject: Re: On big names From: compassionate_conservative To: Wickle Date Posted: Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 23:08:00 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: After all that, I forgot to thank you, Wickle, for bringing up that important question. So thanks for the useful reminder!

Subject: Re: On big names From: compassionate_conservative To: Wickle Date Posted: Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 16:16:13 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Yeah, I thought of that after I posted. What I had in mind is something like a one-strike system for arguments and users combined. The way I envisioned it working is having one person respond to a 'whacko' post (thus, checking to make sure no else has already set the whacko straight is an important part of the anti-whacko responsibility code), and if the whacko proceeds in whacko-ness, then ignore him. If another user takes up the whacko vein on a sufficiently similar tack, ignore him too. Now to adddress the problems of these guidelines: What is a whacko comment? Judgment is primordially important here, but we should have at least a rough and ready guide for whacko-dom. I propose that we (here on the message board) consider a whacko comment (for the above exclusionary purposes) one with immediately or obviously falsifiable assumptions (implicit or otherwise), and of course (and ESPECIALLY) one making no effort at a bare awareness of alternative (opposing...) viewpoints or evidence. A working definition by any measure, but hopefully it'll work, and improve as our debates evolve. As for how to guage whether a whacko post is sufficiently similar to a previous whacko post that has already been dispatched, I strongly suggest we err on the side of dismissal (ignoring) rather than on the side of correcting whackos explicitly. As the analytical reader will remember from econ 101, although we risk missing some potentially valuable opportunities to correct mistaken ideas, this policy will in the relatively short run reduce the whacko-content, and should encourage a continuously decreasing percentage of whacko-ness if the policy is strictly enough embraced. Of course, in truly 'on the border' circumstances, other factors like past willingness of the user to accept superior arguments should play a part in judgments of whether a response will be in the best interests of the content of this message board. This last allusion, though is of SUPREME IMPORTANCE. I cannot stress it enough: if we are to work towards a message board of first rate quality, vigilance and discipline are needed in heroic doses from all of you thoughtful and sincere bloggers. BE DISCRIMINATING, not with any perceived ideological foundations, but the substantive and methodological questions I've addressed here in the last few days. (Oh, by the way Bobby, I could use some support on this...) This could be an exciting time for the PKarchive chat! I'll post a topic for discussion under a new thread, so we can see how this goes...

Subject: Re: CBPP From: EM To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 12:17:48 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: About time the middle class wages war against the looney rapacious rightee right richee richs.

Subject: Re: CBPP From: Thanks Jon To: Jonathan Date Posted: Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 17:23:39 (EDT) Email Address: gemma@aol.com Message: Jonathan Thanks for the interesting note!

Subject: Where is Paul? From: Tom Fox To: All Date Posted: Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 16:27:57 (EDT) Email Address: tcfox@aol.com Message: I enjoy Tuesday mornings because I can sit down with my Times and read Paul's column. I was disturbed not to find it yesterday morning, July 1st. Does anyone know why it didn't appear?

Subject: Re: Where is Paul? From: Arthur To: Tom Fox Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 03, 2003 at 13:29:45 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Twas vacation. Amazing how I look forward to these essays.

Subject: Re: Where is Paul? From: Bobby To: Tom Fox Date Posted: Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 17:22:53 (EDT) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: Paul is just on a vacation -- it happens every once in a while. I'm sure a new article will be there Friday or next Tuesday at latest. If there were a prolonged interval like two weeks without a new article, my impression is that Paul would say something on the Official Page about it.

Subject: Re: Where is Paul? From: Tombo To: Bobby Date Posted: Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 20:09:59 (EDT) Email Address: onlyinmoscow@yahoo.com Message: Don't be too sure. Bill Keller's soon to be Howell Raines' replacement as Mg Editor at the NY Times, and Keller is as rational and professional as Krugman the Op-Ed Writer is hysterical and embarrassing. I would not be surprised if Keller sacks both Krugman and that moron Mo Dowd--perhaps not right away, but within another 9 months or so.

Subject: Crony Capitalism From: emma To: All Date Posted: Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 14:48:03 (EDT) Email Address: gemma@aol.com Message: 'Deregulation, privatization of government services, elimination of environmental rules.' The point is these Administration devices are CRONY CAPITALISM. This is them.

Subject: Re: Crony Capitalism From: PJ To: emma Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 03, 2003 at 06:44:55 (EDT) Email Address: psjohn@hotmail.com Message: I'm baffled as to why you refer to these policies as crony capitalism. Deregulation and privatisation actually REDUCE the possibilities for crony capitalism, by limiting the possibility for favouritism, extortion and racketeering by government officials. OK, so it's possible to undertake privatisation in such a way that all the profits go to your friends - that's what was done in Russia. But nationalised industries can be run in this way too.

Subject: Re: Crony Capitalism From: emma To: PJ Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 03, 2003 at 12:38:09 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: These policies are precisely crony capitalism the way this Administration is bent on carrying them out! Of course if you wish to end Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, all is well.

Subject: Re: Crony Capitalism From: Chicago Boy To: emma Date Posted: Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 16:38:00 (EDT) Email Address: mrwreckingball@budweiser.com Message: No, those are sound, principled, free-market policies, as I've already stated several times. You must not have been paying attention.

Subject: Re: Crony Capitalism From: rhonda To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 03, 2003 at 15:47:03 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Never pay attention to radical right loons except to show off the looniness.

Subject: Re: Crony Capitalism From: emma To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 03, 2003 at 12:41:33 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: No, you are not paying attention to this Administration. These are not conservatives, these are radical righties at work. You see, I like public schools and environmental safeguards and Social Security. I do pay attention, my dear.

Subject: Re: Crony Capitalism From: Chicago Boy To: emma Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 03, 2003 at 13:09:05 (EDT) Email Address: mrwreckingball@budweiser.com Message: So what? I'm a radical righty, myself.

Subject: Re: Crony Capitalism From: rhonda To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 03, 2003 at 15:45:16 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Duh. Oh well. Imagine another selfish loon.

Subject: Re: Crony Capitalism From: Chicago Boy To: rhonda Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 03, 2003 at 17:48:43 (EDT) Email Address: mrwreckingball@budweiser.com Message: I don't see how being selfish makes me a loon.

Subject: Re: Crony Capitalism From: hume To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 10:52:38 (EDT) Email Address: hume_an@yahoo.com Message: CB: 'I don't see how being selfish makes me a loon.' There's nothing wrong with being selfish - the problem is that you aim too low - your desires are base and superficial.

Subject: Re: Crony Capitalism From: Jonathan To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 03, 2003 at 23:32:03 (EDT) Email Address: jonathan@lyingsocialistweasels.com Message: I don't believe she said it did. Rather, she may very well have referred to you both as 'selfish' and as a 'loon' simultaneously and independently. And frankly, if you can back the economic moves this administration has been making, I'm inclined to agree...

Subject: Re: Crony Capitalism From: Chicago Boy To: Jonathan Date Posted: Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 02:45:48 (EDT) Email Address: mrwreckingball@budweiser.com Message: You obviously haven't been following this conversation very closely. I'm very critical of the Bush administration's 'compassionate conservatism.' I much prefer unfettered free markets. Compassion is bullshit.

Subject: Re: Crony Capitalism From: Jonathan To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Tues, Jul 08, 2003 at 12:31:22 (EDT) Email Address: jonathan@lyingsocialistweasels.com Message: Well, disagreeing with the Bush administration's economic positions doesn't absolve one from being a loon. Given the radical objectivist/libertarian nonsense you seem to be espousing on this board, I'd say you're pretty much 'exhibit A' in that regard. Fortunately, most people seem to disagree with such unfeeling sentiments by instinct, rendering your opinion pretty much self-marginalizing. Enough said...

Subject: Re: Crony Capitalism From: hume To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 10:55:13 (EDT) Email Address: hume_an@yahoo.com Message: CB: 'I'm very critical of the Bush administration's 'compassionate conservatism.'' I don't know why you are against Bush's 'compassionate conservatism' -it exists in name only. He's been pretty successful at pushing a radically far right agenda under the guise of 'compassionate conservatism'.

Subject: Re: Crony Capitalism From: Enjoying Absurdity To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 13:52:08 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Please. 'Compassion' is merely a sop, a sop that gets round an agenda for radical social change away from the New Deal and Great Society. Of course, not to pretend to be compassionate is entirely absurd.

Subject: Re: Crony Capitalism From: PJ To: Jonathan Date Posted: Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 05:50:28 (EDT) Email Address: psjohn@hotmail.com Message: People usually engage in personal abuse when they have no decent arguments to make. Pathetic, really. If that's the best liberals can come up with, I foresee Republican Presidents and Congresses for the next 20 years.

Subject: Re: Crony Capitalism From: Jonathan To: PJ Date Posted: Tues, Jul 08, 2003 at 13:01:24 (EDT) Email Address: jonathan@lyingsocialistweasels.com Message: I love it when right wingers complain about stuff like this. It's really strange; you'd think that those whose 'intellectual' kin dish it out in spades would be able to take it. Tell you what, PJ: when right wing luminaries from Rush Limbaugh to Ann Coulter to Luskin stop dealing out the ad hominem crap, I'll think about doing so, too. Liberals have been taking this sort of crap for entirely too long. And if you bother to read other posts here, I think you'll find that most on the Left (including myself) actually do talk the issues, as well.

Subject: Re: Crony Capitalism From: Chicago Boy To: PJ Date Posted: Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 02:48:18 (EDT) Email Address: mrwreckingball@budweiser.com Message: I foresee even better than that. Liberalism will die out, and only conservatives and libertarians will be left. Face it, New Deal liberalism is a dying ideology.

Subject: Re: Crony Capitalism From: Jonathan To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Tues, Jul 08, 2003 at 13:03:09 (EDT) Email Address: jonathan@lyingsocialistweasels.com Message: You know, CB, your postings are such a caricature that I have to ask: do you really mean what you say? Or are you just trolling for responses?

Subject: Re: Crony Capitalism From: rhonda To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 13:54:58 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Tickle a radical righter and you find a disdain for democracy. Liberals bad bad bad, radical righters good good good good.

Subject: Re: Crony Capitalism From: rhonda To: PJ Date Posted: Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:33:32 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Poor widdle radical right loons. Poor dears.

Subject: Re: Crony Capitalism From: PJ To: rhonda Date Posted: Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 15:10:49 (EDT) Email Address: psjohn@hotmail.com Message: Make that 30 years ...

Subject: Re: Crony Capitalism From: Chicago Boy To: PJ Date Posted: Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 02:51:11 (EDT) Email Address: mrwreckingball@budweiser.com Message: Yup, the Democrats are getting more pathetic every day. Look at their candidates. They're gone.

Subject: On the certainty of Bush winning in 2004 From: Jonathan To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Tues, Jul 08, 2003 at 14:28:15 (EDT) Email Address: jonathan@lyingsocialistweasels.com Message: By the way, you might want to check out this story on today's Capital Hill Blue before crooning about the certainty of Bush's re-election: White House admits Bush lied about Iraqi nukes Excerpt: An intelligence consultant who was present at two White House briefings where the uranium report was discussed confirmed that the President was told the intelligence was questionable and that his national security advisors urged him not to include the claim in his State of the Union address. 'The report had already been discredited,' said Terrance J. Wilkinson, a CIA advisor present at two White House briefings. 'This point was clearly made when the President was in the room during at least two of the briefings.' Bush's response was anger, Wilkinson said. 'He said that if the current operatives working for the CIA couldn't prove the story was true, then the agency had better find some who could,' Wilkinson said. 'He said he knew the story was true and so would the world after American troops secured the country.' At the rate he's going, I'll be impressed if Bush is even in the race in 2004. But hey, call 'em like you want...

Subject: Re: Crony Capitalism From: Jonathan To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Tues, Jul 08, 2003 at 13:05:55 (EDT) Email Address: jonathan@lyingsocialistweasels.com Message: On the other hand, Bush's approval ratings are abysmal for a President just coming off a war, as are opinions of whether he knows how to deal with the country's problems. Given his rock-bottom performance in office thus far, I'm thinking just about anything with a pulse may have a decent shot at him in 2004. Time will tell, of course...

Subject: Re: Crony Capitalism From: Cheers To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 12:19:37 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Cheers for Ricky Boy Santooroom. Republican or Republicans.

Subject: Re: Crony Capitalism From: emma To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 03, 2003 at 12:41:13 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: No, you are not paying attention to this Administration. These are not conservatives, these are radical righties at work. You see, I like public schools and environmental safeguards and Social Security. I do pay attention, my dear.

Subject: Re: Crony Capitalism From: Eyeballs To: emma Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 03, 2003 at 17:05:58 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The word you're looking for to describe the adminstration is not 'radical righties' but rather 'fascists.' Similarly, 'crony capitalism' is merely a euphemism for 'fascism.'

Subject: The Krugmeister's Latest From: Chicago Boy To: All Date Posted: Mon, Jun 30, 2003 at 21:11:47 (EDT) Email Address: mrwreckingball@budweiser.com Message: 'They are rewarded with policies that increase their profits: deregulation, privatization of government services, elimination of environmental rules.' I can't believe I'm hearing this from an economist, let alone one who's supposed to win the Nobel. All of the above sounds like sound economic policy to me. I mean, if the guy's gonna bitch about corporate power, then why doesn't he go off on stuff like subsidies and protectionism? I would think the 'crony capitalist' policies of the Bush administration would be more of a worry, even to liberals, than the principled free market stuff like deregulation.

Subject: Re: The Krugmeister's Latest From: Eyeballs To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 02:49:17 (EDT) Email Address: no@no.no Message: I can't believe I'm hearing this from an economist, let alone one who's supposed to win the Nobel. --- Why? There's nothing inherently right-wing about economics. Regulation, government-provided services and standards of living ('environmental') protection are all perfectly legitimate economic tools to manage externalities and provide public goods (national defense, legal system, etc, etc) that the free market cannot cope with or provide.

Subject: Re: The Krugmeister's Latest From: Chicago Boy To: Eyeballs Date Posted: Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 03:18:22 (EDT) Email Address: mrwreckingball@budweiser.com Message: : Why? There's nothing inherently right-wing about economics. Yes, yes there is. Maybe not extremely right-wing, but definitely right of center. Neoclassical economics (which is what most of us really mean when we say 'economics') stresses the importance of markets and free trade, views unions as labor cartels, and suggests that public school performance would improve given more competition. All of these things come directly from mainstream economic theory.

Subject: Re: The Krugmeister's Latest From: Bobby To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Tues, Jul 01, 2003 at 06:11:26 (EDT) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: 'They are rewarded with policies that increase their profits: deregulation, privatization of government services, elimination of environmental rules.' You have to look at each govt service, each repealed regulation, each environmental rule that has been relaxed, etc. You have to look at each one *case by case* to determine which is a sound economic policy and which is not -- some of these policies do an excellent job of correcting market failures, so they should not be repealed, while some exacerbate market failures, and should be. The point of Krugman's sentence was not whether these Republican actions are sound or unsound economic policy -- it is that they are happening regardless of whether they are actually sound. The point was that, in order to get their campaign donations, to get them to use their influence to support the Republicans' agenda, to make them loyal only (or mainly) to Republicans, and to make them a general part of the Republican machine, the Republicans are rewarding these corporations with special favors and policies. This is bad for democracy and bad for the policymaking process. I think that the two problems that Krugman is identifying are: (1) for the average Republican politician, the influence of political patronage is increasing relative to the Republican politician's perception of "the public interest" when he is choosing what policy to support and (2) that this partonage system contributes to making our elections a forgone conclusion and undermines democracy. I don't think it is too difficult to imagine a scenario whereby the Republicans are so entrenched with some corporations that they actively craft policies that distort markets to create rents for those corporations.

Subject: Re: The Krugmeister's Latest From: Chicago Boy To: Bobby Date Posted: Tues, Jul 01, 2003 at 13:20:51 (EDT) Email Address: mrwreckingball@budweiser.com Message: : I don't think it is too difficult to imagine a scenario whereby the Republicans are so entrenched with some corporations that they actively craft policies that distort markets to create rents for those corporations. No, it's not too difficult to imagine. However, I don't see how the policies mentioned above, like deregulation, would 'distort' markets. Rather, it's the regulations themselves that distort the markets, if anything. Furthermore, on the subject of democracy, I'm far more concerned w/freedom. Democracy has the potential to turn into nothing more than collectivist mob rule. The Founders correctly warned us against this, and thus made America a constitutional republic (not a pure democracy). Benjamin Franklin, I think, even said that democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what's for lunch.

Subject: Re: The Krugmeister's Latest From: Bobby To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Tues, Jul 01, 2003 at 14:34:35 (EDT) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: 'No, it's not too difficult to imagine. However, I don't see how the policies mentioned above, like deregulation, would 'distort' markets. Rather, it's the regulations themselves that distort the markets, if anything.' Actually no specific policies were mentioned above either by Krugman or me, so I am not sure what exactly you have judged not to distort markets or even how you came to this judgement. Deregulation is not a specific policy, and is way too general a word to make any economic judgements, since some regulations distort markets while some regulations correct market distortions. Again, you have to look at it *case by case* at examine *each specific instance of deregulation* and *each specific instance of privatization* and *each specific environmental rule* on its own merits. Blanket statements like the quoted one are just as overbroad as it it would be for me to say that 'all regulations correct market failures and don't distort of markets.' Obviously neither is true or a substitute for rigorous analysis of each specific policy. 'Furthermore, on the subject of democracy, I'm far more concerned w/freedom. Democracy has the potential to turn into nothing more than collectivist mob rule. The Founders correctly warned us against this, and thus made America a constitutional republic (not a pure democracy). Benjamin Franklin, I think, even said that democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what's for lunch.' This comment about collectivist mob rule and the majority persecuting the minority is a complete straw man and is thoroughly irrelevant to what I was saying. I was talking about (1) whether politicians make policies that they perceive are best for the public interest, as opposed to policies that are best for patronage purposes (neither of these are obviously always the same), and (2) whether or not this patronage contributes to making our elections are a forgone conclusion, due to the fact that one side completely swamps the in terms of getting its message out to voters. Both of these undermine our most basic freedom to choose our representatives and the freedom to have our interests represented in and influence the legislative process (which is not mob rule). I fail to see how a patronage political system and this kind of predetermined election do not hurt freedom. Neither having politicians of at least some principle (which is 1) nor having a fair election of those politicians (which is 2) has anything to do with mob rule, the majority hurting persecuting the minority, or 'pure democracy' (by which I assume you mean rule by referrendum).

Subject: Re: The Krugmeister's Latest From: Chicago Boy To: Bobby Date Posted: Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 03:06:01 (EDT) Email Address: mrwreckingball@budweiser.com Message: : Actually no specific policies were mentioned above either by Krugman or me, so I am not sure what exactly you have judged not to distort markets or even how you came to this judgement. I'm saying that regulation distorts markets. Saying deregulation distorts markets is like saying markets distort markets. : Deregulation is not a specific policy, and is way too general a word to make any economic judgements, since some regulations distort markets while some regulations correct market distortions. Correct market distortions, or correct market failures? : Again, you have to look at it *case by case* at examine *each specific instance of deregulation* and *each specific instance of privatization* and *each specific environmental rule* on its own merits. Of course. Cost-benefit analyses should be done for everything. But, my sense is, that if we did that, we would start deregulating on a massive scale. : This comment about collectivist mob rule and the majority persecuting the minority is a complete straw man and is thoroughly irrelevant to what I was saying. Hey, you just said democracy. I'm just saying that I'm more concerned w/protecting individual liberties than w/whether or not I get to choose who's in power. : I was talking about (1) whether politicians make policies that they perceive are best for the public interest, as opposed to policies that are best for patronage purposes (neither of these are obviously always the same), I agree w/that point 100%, hence my post about deregulation. I think deregulation is a good, principled free-market policy, but you seem to think it somehow represents evidence for (what I might call) crony capitalism. In fact, why don't you just say that you're trying to fight crony capitalism? You could get a lot of bipartisan support for that. I'd gladly join you to fight corporate subsidies and protectionism. However, don't think it's some kind of conspiracy when I support free-market policies and stick to my own principles. : and (2) whether or not this patronage contributes to making our elections are a forgone conclusion, due to the fact that one side completely swamps the in terms of getting its message out to voters. Hmmm, seems like the Democrats had a lotta power there a little while back, and Republicans couldn't take Congress to save their lives. Now that the tables are turned, you think it's some sort of conspiracy? : Both of these undermine our most basic freedom to choose our representatives and the freedom to have our interests represented in and influence the legislative process (which is not mob rule). 1. If it involves a majority trampling my liberty, then it's mob rule, period. 2. I don't see how your freedom has been hampered. You can still vote, and so can everyone else. : I fail to see how a patronage political system and this kind of predetermined election do not hurt freedom. Has it ever occurred to you that ppl's interests have simply changed? Also, what about the fact that richer ppl tend to vote more and give more money? Neither of those things can really be changed, and those are the underlying issues here. I don't see how you can change those facts w/o undermining freedom, which would contradict your stated goal. Furthermore, if you've suddenly developed such a profound interest in freedom, why don't you become a libertarian? It's b/c you really aren't interested in gaining more freedom, you want more democracy. Those are two different concepts, which are quite often at odds w/one another. : Neither having politicians of at least some principle (which is 1) And a free-marketeer doesn't have principles? Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not a huge fan of Bush. But sometimes I think liberals really dislike the man, because he sticks to his principles too much. You just don't like the principles he stands for, which is fine. I just wish you and Krugman would come out and say that instead of acting like there some kind of conspiracy going on. : nor having a fair election of those politicians (which is 2) has anything to do with mob rule, the majority hurting persecuting the minority, or 'pure democracy' (by which I assume you mean rule by referrendum). This all depends on what you mean by a 'fair election.' If you're referring to the fact that Bush didn't get the majority of voters, I think you're wrong in saying that's unfair. The system is designed this way, so that those in less populated states can have more representation. That's also why each state gets two members in the Senate. If anything, I think that was a good idea on the part of The Founders. Of course, that's another problem w/liberals. They don't understand that The Founders of this nation are smarter than they are, and that they would be well advised to actually look into the reasoning that went into our constitution, electoral system, etc. They knew what they were doing, and their many, some might say, antidemocratic policies may very well have saved us from totalitarianism.

Subject: Re: The Krugmeister's Latest From: hume To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:16:51 (EDT) Email Address: hume_an@yahoo.com Message: Chicago Boy - You're posts continue to demonstrate how far afield you are. I’ve collected excerpts from several of your posts, and have commented on them. I don’t think I’ve taken them out of context – pls. correct me if I have. CB: 'I'm just saying that I'm more concerned w/protecting individual liberties than w/whether or not I get to choose who's in power.' If a nation's leadership is not beholden to its people how can one be sure individual liberties will be protected? CB: 'The Founders of this nation are smarter than they are, and that they would be well advised to actually look into the reasoning that went into our constitution, electoral system, etc. They knew what they were doing, and their many, some might say, antidemocratic policies may very well have saved us from totalitarianism.' Yes, I believe in the electoral college, federalism, separation of powers, the right to vote – all of the stuff in the constitution. Many liberals I know (I don’t consider myself a liberal, by the way) agree with all of those aspects of our political process – so I think you’re setting up another straw man. What Krugman is denouncing is Bush’s tendency to lie to pass policies that most Americans would disagree with if they knew the truth. Krugman also disagrees with what he views as Bush’s manipulation/wheeling and dealing with major media outlets to report only what Bush wants reported. Krugman is also uneasy about what he sees as misuse of presidential power to strongarm lobby groups and political contributors to only support the Republican party. The things Krugman are concerned about are unrelated to the ideas the Founding Father espoused – in fact they are antithetical to such ideas. I would even argue that if Bush achieves a one-party system, it'll bring us one step closer to totalitarianism. CB: “No, because redistributionist policies are immoral.” That’s a puzzling claim. How are they immoral - in a legal sense, in a metaphysical sense? What are your criteria? CB: “Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not a huge fan of Bush. But sometimes I think liberals really dislike the man, because he sticks to his principles too much. You just don't like the principles he stands for, which is fine. I just wish you and Krugman would come out and say that instead of acting like there some kind of conspiracy going on.” I don’t have a problem with most of Bush’s stated principles or goals. In his inaugural speech he spoke of wanting to usher in a new era of bipartisanship – turns out he’s ruthlessly partisan. He said we need to attack Iraq because of strong links to Al Qaeda and definite presence of WMD – the link-to-Al-Qaeda argument is an equivocation and the search for WMD continues. He said his jobs and growth plan was a stimulus package – but not even his CEA believes that. Then he said it was a growth package – but it’ll lead to record federal deficits, which will likely crowd out investment. He said his priority is education but his No Child Left Behind Act imposes expensive new mandates on states without funding such mandates – while states face massive budget deficits, forcing them to slash services. He said he’s committed to our children, yet he did all he could to deny moderately low-income families a child tax credit. He said homeland security and the war on terrorism is a high priority – yet he was unwilling to push through a billion dollar appropriation to strengthen border and port security. Instead, he fabricates reasons for a war against Iraq. He said he was committed to rebuilding Afghanistan and Iraq – yet he has abandoned Afghanistan and appears reluctant to take the steps to truly rebuild Iraq.

Subject: Re: The Krugmeister's Latest From: Chicago Boy To: hume Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:53:40 (EDT) Email Address: mrwreckingball@budweiser.com Message: : Chicago Boy - You're posts continue to demonstrate how far afield you are. Far afield of what? I know I'm not mainstream in any sense of the term. : If a nation's leadership is not beholden to its people how can one be sure individual liberties will be protected? And how can one be sure individual liberties will be protected if a nation IS beholden to its ppl? The main thing is having a strong constitution. : Yes, I believe in the electoral college, federalism, separation of powers, the right to vote – all of the stuff in the constitution. Good. : Many liberals I know (I don’t consider myself a liberal, by the way) agree with all of those aspects of our political process – so I think you’re setting up another straw man. Are these the same liberals who think the constitution is a living document? : What Krugman is denouncing is Bush’s tendency to lie to pass policies that most Americans would disagree with if they knew the truth. Fine, then he should just say that. : That’s a puzzling claim. How are they immoral - in a legal sense, in a metaphysical sense? What are your criteria? They're immoral, because it's wrong to take what one man has earned and give it to another. : He said we need to attack Iraq because of strong links to Al Qaeda and definite presence of WMD – the link-to-Al-Qaeda argument is an equivocation and the search for WMD continues. I've never expressed an opinion on the Iraq war. I'm pretty agnostic about it, actually. : He said his jobs and growth plan was a stimulus package – but not even his CEA believes that. Then he said it was a growth package – but it’ll lead to record federal deficits, which will likely crowd out investment. Possibly. Ever hear of Ricardian equivalence? : He said his priority is education but his No Child Left Behind Act imposes expensive new mandates on states without funding such mandates – while states face massive budget deficits, forcing them to slash services. That's the fault of the states. : He said he’s committed to our children, yet he did all he could to deny moderately low-income families a child tax credit. How much in taxes do low-income families even pay? I think it's about time they paid their fair share. : He said he was committed to rebuilding Afghanistan and Iraq – yet he has abandoned Afghanistan and appears reluctant to take the steps to truly rebuild Iraq. Who cares. He coulda just turned both countries into parking lots, and it wouldn't have bothered me at all. My only concern is for American troops.

Subject: Re: The Krugmeister's Latest From: hume To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:48:34 (EDT) Email Address: hume_an@yahoo.com Message: Chicago Boy - Last post tonight: CB: 'Fine, then he should just say that.' He has, time and again. Read his column. CB: 'They're immoral, because it's wrong to take what one man has earned and give it to another.' That's weak. It's immoral because it's wrong. I think we would both agree that circular reasoning will get us nowhere, so I'll ask the question again - why is it immoral? What criteria are you using to determine it is immoral? I wasn't asking you to comment on whether you agreed with Bush - the point of the litany was to show that Bush does not stick to his stated principles - you said he does - but since you commented, I'll repond: CB: 'Possibly. Ever hear of Ricardian equivalence?' I've heard of it, but don't know enough about it to comment. I'll leave that one to Bobby. CB: 'That's the fault of the states.' I assume you mean that the states put themselves into fiscal crisis. That's highly arguable. Check out 'Did States Spend Their Way Into the Current Fiscal Crisis' by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities at http://www.cbpp.org/5-9-03sfp3.pdf. CB: 'How much in taxes do low-income families even pay? I think it's about time they paid their fair share.' Aren't payroll taxes highly regressive? Why not a tax cut in payroll taxes - isn't it time that the wealthy paid their fair share? CB: 'Who cares. He coulda just turned both countries into parking lots, and it wouldn't have bothered me at all. My only concern is for American troops.' It's in your best interests to care. Neglecting to rebuild defeats the stated purpose of going to war - to combat terror. We will lose goodwill in the mideast, people will get angry, and terrorists will have a recruiting field day. That, if for no other reason, should square with your self-interest.

Subject: Re: The Krugmeister's Latest From: Chicago Boy To: hume Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 03, 2003 at 03:59:13 (EDT) Email Address: mrwreckingball@budweiser.com Message: : That's weak. It's immoral because it's wrong. I think we would both agree that circular reasoning will get us nowhere, so I'll ask the question again - why is it immoral? What criteria are you using to determine it is immoral? It is immoral, because you're using the force of a gun to take what one person has earned and give to another (who hasn't earned it). And I don't see how my statement was weak. Wealth redistribution is immoral by its very nature. The only moral system is one of VOLUNTARY exchange, where ppl deal w/each other as traders. : I wasn't asking you to comment on whether you agreed with Bush - the point of the litany was to show that Bush does not stick to his stated principles - you said he does I never said Bush sticks entirely to his stated principles. I was saying that liberals don't differentiate between the times when he's standing for principle and the times when he isn't. I think it's a fundamental distinction that needs to be made. : I've heard of it, but don't know enough about it to comment. I'll leave that one to Bobby. Fair enough, but it's worth looking into. Look up Robert Barro from Harvard. : I assume you mean that the states put themselves into fiscal crisis. Yes. : That's highly arguable. Maybe, but I've heard similar opinions expressed by Robert Barro and Gary Becker. Those guys know what they're talking about. : Check out 'Did States Spend Their Way Into the Current Fiscal Crisis' by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities at http://www.cbpp.org/5-9-03sfp3.pdf. Liberal think tank. : Aren't payroll taxes highly regressive? Who cares. : Isn't it time that the wealthy paid their fair share? Yes, yes it is. That's why I support lower taxes for the rich. : It's in your best interests to care. Not if we destroy them completely. : Neglecting to rebuild defeats the stated purpose of going to war - to combat terror. We will lose goodwill in the mideast, people will get angry, and terrorists will have a recruiting field day. That, if for no other reason, should square with your self-interest. If anything, we've been too nice. The best way to fight terrorists is to kill them. We need to instill in them a sense of fear and hopelessness. Then, when they have all either died or given up, we will have won. We cannot make gains through appeasement. Look at Israel's situation. The best thing they could do at this point is launch an all-out assault and destroy any and all Palestinian forces -- completely. The world has been far, far too tolerant of Islamic fundamentalism.

Subject: Re: The Krugmeister's Latest From: hume To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 11:33:56 (EDT) Email Address: hume_an@yahoo.com Message: CB: 'It is immoral, because you're using the force of a gun to take what one person has earned and give to another (who hasn't earned it). And I don't see how my statement was weak.' Your statement was weak and it remains weak, although I think I understand your position a little better now: the underlying principle of your argument is that it is wrong to forcibly take from one and give to another. The problem with your argument is that it misrepresents redistributionist policies - to pay taxes and have those taxes pay for social programs is not armed robbery - it's the law - it's part of being an American citizen. If you don't like it, you are free to go elsewhere. CB:'Wealth redistribution is immoral by its very nature.' One can just as easily say that redistribution is good by its very nature. CB:'The only moral system is one of VOLUNTARY exchange, where ppl deal w/each other as traders.' Says who? All morality is about voluntary exchange? I don't agree with that statement, but even if it were true redistributionist policies would not be considered immoral - we as Americans live according to a social contract, which is enshrined in the constitution and the body of laws that are created in accordance to the principles set forth in the constitution. Each citizen is making a voluntary exchange – to abide by the principles and laws of the U.S. in exchange for the privileges of being an American. Again, you have the right to leave the U.S. if you don’t like it. Do I think redistributionist policies are morally justified? I'm not sure. But I do believe there is a moral basis for providing a baseline level of support for the vulnerable in this country. Is private compassion enough to meet the need? I’m almost certain it isn't. Does the government do a perfect job? No, but it does a much better job than anyone else - most churches, charities, and other non profits who dispense social services would agree.

Subject: Re: The Krugmeister's Latest From: hume To: hume Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:31:23 (EDT) Email Address: hume_an@yahoo.com Message: Sorry for beating the hell out of a dead horse. I just read Bobby's post, and it addresses many of your points a lot more thoroughly than I have - though with a slighly different take.

Subject: Re: The Krugmeister's Latest From: Bobby To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 13:27:04 (EDT) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: 'I'm saying that regulation distorts markets. Saying deregulation distorts markets is like saying markets distort markets. ' 'Correct market distortions, or correct market failures?' First of all, I am using the term 'distortion' to refer to anything that decreases some measure of efficiency, like social surplus. Such inefficiencies can occur by themselves in markets (a market failure due to externalities, public goods, information problems, etc.), and many of these policies and regulations are there to address these distortions and do a good job (tradeable Pollution permits are a good example). Hence those regulations and policies should not be repealed -- maybe the structure of some of these should be changed to increase their efficiency, but this is not what Krugman or I (and I assume you) mean by regulation. However, repealing these regulations brings about the return of the inefficiencies that they addressed. This is the sense in which getting rid of of a good regulation distorts a market -- it brings back those inefficiencies by repealing the policies that prevent those inefficiencies. Many regulations are also there to address fairness criteria that are not met by the market acting alone (such as regulations regarding discrimination, which can be seen as an issue of market failure in the form of taste discrimination, as well as an of fairness in both the form of taste and statistical discrimination). Such inefficiencies, as well as inequity, can also be caused by government, in which case those specific policies and regs should be repealed (the North East Dairy Compact is a good example). 'Of course. Cost-benefit analyses should be done for everything. But, my sense is, that if we did that, we would start deregulating on a massive scale.' This statement is, even giving it the most charitable treatment I can, highly controversial among economists and even more so among the general public. And again, a serious discussion of the economic benefits of deregulation is meaningless unless we talk about specific regulations case by case. 'I agree w/that point 100%, hence my post about deregulation. I think deregulation is a good, principled free-market policy, but you seem to think it somehow represents evidence for (what I might call) crony capitalism. In fact, why don't you just say that you're trying to fight crony capitalism? You could get a lot of bipartisan support for that. I'd gladly join you to fight corporate subsidies and protectionism. However, don't think it's some kind of conspiracy when I support free-market policies and stick to my own principles.' Nobody said that enacting "free-market policies," *in general,* is evidence of crony capitalism -- this is just wrong and no one ever said it. The crony capitalism label applies to the specific *behavior* of the Bush administration: Krugman is saying that *if you consider the criterion by these policies are being put into effect (namely patronage)* the Bush administration is practicing crony capitalism. Remember that crony capitalism can produce good policies sometimes and often bad policies. Crony capitalism also produces policies that deregulate markets and ones that enact new regulations. Nobody is saying that all of these policies enacted by the crony capitalist administration are each-and-every-one bad ideas when considered on their own merits -- some are likely terrible (like the relaxing of FCC regs) while some are likely good. The problem is that *the way in which they choose which policies to support* is crony capitalism, and this is just that this is an aweful way to run a government and make policy. And Krugman *is* fighting crony capitalism, which makes me a foot soldier also fighting it, by extension I guess. I was saying that *Krugman is saying* that *politicians* in the Republican party aren't sticking to their principles -- and one of the points of his article is to make that case. Nobody was talking about *you* or whatever you happen to be doing with your principles. We both agree that we are against crony capitalism, but remember that crony capitalism goes both ways -- depending on what is in the interest of the corporation that is influenceing the policy in question, crony capitalism can create policies that are more regulatory sometimes and less regulatory sometimes, just as it sometimes results by chance in good policy and sometimes in bad policy. The policy is made *regardless* of the public interest. As to whether it is good policy, it is a crap shoot since what is in the interest of the corporation is not always good for the public, and therefore this is a bad way for a govt to operate. Our imperfect system of electing representatives who mostly follow their own perceptions of what is best for the public interest is imperfect, but I think more likely to result in good policy than crony capitalism. Krugman's is trying to make a case that this crony capitalist element is crowding out this other system within our govt. I am glad that we agree that we are both against crony capitalism. 'Hmmm, seems like the Democrats had a lotta power there a little while back, and Republicans couldn't take Congress to save their lives. Now that the tables are turned, you think it's some sort of conspiracy?' *Krugman* is making the case that there is a coordinated collective action led by Republicans to drown out the Democrats' message and, I think implicitly Krugman is arguing that this is happening at unprecedented levels (I emphasize that Krugman is making the argument and not me since this is an argument on which I can't provide any substantive support since I don't know the history of such a thing). I would not use the word "conspiracy" to describe this collective action, since it is unfair to Krugman and connotes that the person who believes it to be actually occuring is crazy. ': Both of these undermine our most basic freedom to choose our representatives and the freedom to have our interests represented in and influence the legislative process (which is not mob rule). 1. If it involves a majority trampling my liberty, then it's mob rule, period. 2. I don't see how your freedom has been hampered. You can still vote, and so can everyone else.' While it could be true in theory, this is not applicable in the 21st Century U.S. Within the range of possible new policies that might be enacted due to a realistic and reasonable increase of public participation and a realistic and reasonable increase of the influence of 'public interest' (the politician's perception thereof, that is) in policymaking, I am sure that none of these, especially concerning economic policy, would, in the view of the reasonable person, actually be 'trampling [your] liberty' and would definitely never qualify as 'mob rule' in the view of the reasonable person. 'Has it ever occurred to you that ppl's interests have simply changed?' Maybe they have maybe they have not, but our elections and polls likely would not reflect it because, due to the free-rider problem, most voters underinform themselves severely about which candidate serves their own interests. Therefore their choice on election day bears very little resemblance to what is actually in their own interest. Consider this: Becoming informed on politics, econ, etc. is still underdone due to the free-rider problem. My becoming informed has external benefits for the rest of society which I ignore when consuming information on politics, and the rest of society does not compensate me for that external benefit, so I inform myself below the efficient level. Likewise the rest of society becoming informed has external benefits upon me and I do not compensate them for it, so they underinform themselves as well. So even without tiring jobs, people will severely underinform themselves about politics, econ, etc. If there were no such thing as civic duty, or enjoying learning about politics and economics people would probably not inform themselves whatsoever except for what they happen to see through TV, radio, and the internet. The free-rider problem implies that markets can't solve this problem by themselves. The free-rider problem implies that there is not enough demand for more information, either in terms of more detail, a greater amount, more quality or more accuracy, and therefore the newsmedia, blogs, or whatever have no incentive to provide more good information. 'Also, what about the fact that richer ppl tend to vote more and give more money? Neither of those things can really be changed, and those are the underlying issues here. I don't see how you can change those facts w/o undermining freedom, which would contradict your stated goal.' Of course you can change these things! Here are some hypothetical ideas to do it. Place an exorbitant tax of, say, 1000% on all campaign donations (only for the donations of the rich) and have equal public funding for the two major parties which is not taxed, funded by an increase on taxes for the very wealthy -- this takes care of the rich giving more money and having more influence. The TV and radio airwaves are public property and can hence be regulated or, if not, any actions by special interests (this includes unions as well as corporations) to influence elections on those airwaves can be taxed exorbitantly like with the campaign donations plan. If it actually turns out that mainly an elite group is voting, and this is a problem that skews policy drastically enough, you can mitigate or completely solve this by having universal voter registration, making election day a holiday, mandatory universal voting, etc. etc. Remember that freedom from government is not the only important freedom that we should care about. You might say that these campaign regulations 'deny freedom' but this is bullshit in our modern world, since there exist more important and dangerous problems that result due to govt-free, unfettered markets and due to regulation-free elections than those that are imposed by govt interferance. For example, I could argue that the rich person's campaign money or any campaign commercials that he puts out independently has the exact same effect as if he had many more votes than I do. Therefore he is having the exact same effect as violating my right to have a vote that is equal to everyone else's. This is a hell of a lot worse violation of freedom than raising a tax on some fat cat who can easily afford it. In general, it is stupid to ignore problems that result from the collective effect of a bunch of private choices by private people, just because you are hidebound by some crazy ideology or crank philosophy like libertarianism. The examples that I gave aren't the best policies for these specific problems, and better policies surely exist. What you have to do is think very hard and find the best policy which can be determined by cost-benefit analysis and some fairness criteria. When you have found this best policy, you should say to yourself (and everybody does this implicitly) that every policy has winners and losers, and then you should ask yourself, 'Is the loss to the losers really so bad that I am violating their rights as human beings?' Most people don't see regulations of public goods (as in the airwaves) and progresive taxation (taxing campaign donations) as human rights violations or a slippery slope into whatever it is that libertarians fear we will become. 'Furthermore, if you've suddenly developed such a profound interest in freedom, why don't you become a libertarian? It's b/c you really aren't interested in gaining more freedom, you want more democracy. Those are two different concepts, which are quite often at odds w/one another.' Freedom *from government*, once again, is not the only kind of freedomn that I care about. I also care about freedom from many of the oppressive results of leaving unfettered the collective effect of a bunch of private choices by private people. I also care about the threat of wealthy and powerful elites who are outside of the government, who abuse their wealth and large businesses to wield vast *political* influence over the public and government, with ever-whithering regulation and oversight and with hardly any accountability to anybody for what they do with their power. This perception that I am somehow obsessed with the concept of democracy is your own mind's creation not mine. When I said 'less democracy' in my 1st post this was a synonym for *less public participation in policymaking and predetermined elections.* I figured that it was quite obvious why this would be a good thing, but apparently it is not obvious to you. Here's why it's a good thing: "Democracy" as I meant it, is a means to several ends, which are (1) reasonable protection of our rights, the definition and scope of which I am sure we would argue (2) economic efficiency and (3) equity of economic welfare. With predetermined elections and increasing the role of rewarding elites and special interests when making policy choices, on average, will skew those policies against these three criteria that I care about. Concerning the rest of your post: An election is NOT fair if only one side is allowed to get its message out -- this is what I was referring to when I said 'fair election' (read 'this is 2') not to whether 2000 was fair or anything about state representation, which are two more straw men. 'And a free-marketeer doesn't have principles?' I never said anything about free-marketers! Read in parentheses '(this is 1),' so being 'unprincipled' refers to making policy for patronage purposes -- not being a freemarketer. Obviously this 'unprincipled behavior' applies to any policy that is made for patronage purposes, which can be either free-market or anti-free-market. Yes Krugman listed only so-called 'free market' policies in his sentence, but his point was NOT that 'free-market' policies are bad. His point (aside from point 2) was that the entire criterion of a politician for whether to support a policy is becoming less oriented towards his perception of the public interest and more so towards patronage. By the way, I know you enjoy sticking it to 'liberals', by attributing simplistic and thoroughly unfounded Sean-Hannity-esque stereotypes to them, but I am not a liberal -- I am a moderate without a specific philosophy or ideology(I used to consider myself ever-so-slightly right of center before the center shifted rightwards after 2000, and I have not changed any policy positions since then).

Subject: Re: The Krugmeister's Latest From: Chicago Boy To: Bobby Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 03, 2003 at 00:40:57 (EDT) Email Address: mrwreckingball@budweiser.com Message: : First of all, I am using the term 'distortion' to refer to anything that decreases some measure of efficiency, like social surplus. Maybe market 'failure' should be used instead of 'distortion,' then? : Many regulations are also there to address fairness criteria that are not met by the market acting alone (such as regulations regarding discrimination, which can be seen as an issue of market failure in the form of taste discrimination, as well as an of fairness in both the form of taste and statistical discrimination). Antidiscrimination laws, except when applied to government institutions, are immoral. I should be able to hire whoever I want. The right of association means the right NOT to associate. Furthermore, as Gary Becker has pointed out, markets provide the best protection against unfair discrimination. : This statement is, even giving it the most charitable treatment I can, highly controversial among economists... And that's my point! There are respectable economists who want more deregulation, and massively, to boot. Thus, why should we assume that Bush's deregulating policies are examples of crony capitalism? His economic advisors probably were behind a lot of that stuff. : And again, a serious discussion of the economic benefits of deregulation is meaningless unless we talk about specific regulations case by case. To some extent, you have a point. But I still favor deregulation generally. : Nobody said that enacting 'free-market policies,' *in general,* is evidence of crony capitalism -- this is just wrong and no one ever said it. The crony capitalism label applies to the specific *behavior* of the Bush administration: Krugman is saying that *if you consider the criterion by these policies are being put into effect (namely patronage)* the Bush administration is practicing crony capitalism. Well, I guess I can't say that I blame them for fighting harder for policies that benefit their campaign donors -- provided those policies fit w/his stated principles. : Remember that crony capitalism can produce good policies sometimes and often bad policies. Then we have slightly different uses of the phrase 'crony capitalism.' Merely fighting harder for your friends and ppl who have supported your campaign, but whose ideas you agree w/nonetheless, shouldn't be regarded as crony capitalism. Everybody does that, and it's not a phenomenon that will ever go away. : Nobody is saying that all of these policies enacted by the crony capitalist administration are each-and-every-one bad ideas when considered on their own merits Maybe so, but Krugman doesn't seem too interested in giving credit where it's due. : some are likely terrible (like the relaxing of FCC regs) while some are likely good. Why would relaxing FCC regs be so bad? : The problem is that *the way in which they choose which policies to support* is crony capitalism, and this is just that this is an aweful way to run a government and make policy. And I generally agree w/those sentiments. : And Krugman *is* fighting crony capitalism, which makes me a foot soldier also fighting it, by extension I guess. I was saying that *Krugman is saying* that *politicians* in the Republican party aren't sticking to their principles -- and one of the points of his article is to make that case. How was he saying that Republicans aren't sticking to their own principles, though? Deregulation, getting rid of environmental regs, etc. are all pretty consistent w/conservative ideology. : Nobody was talking about *you* or whatever you happen to be doing with your principles. We both agree that we are against crony capitalism, but remember that crony capitalism goes both ways -- depending on what is in the interest of the corporation that is influenceing the policy in question, crony capitalism can create policies that are more regulatory sometimes and less regulatory sometimes, just as it sometimes results by chance in good policy and sometimes in bad policy. Ok, fine then. Why don't we all just present a united front to fight the BAD crony capitalism that we agree on, then? That's been my point this entire time. : I am glad that we agree that we are both against crony capitalism. Same here. I just wish we could present a united front against unambiguously bad, crony capitalist policies. : While it could be true in theory, this is not applicable in the 21st Century U.S. Within the range of possible new policies that might be enacted due to a realistic and reasonable increase of public participation and a realistic and reasonable increase of the influence of 'public interest' (the politician's perception thereof, that is) in policymaking, I am sure that none of these, especially concerning economic policy, would, in the view of the reasonable person, actually be 'trampling [your] liberty' and would definitely never qualify as 'mob rule' in the view of the reasonable person. Are you sure about that? What about more environmental regs and higher taxes? Both of those would trample on liberty. : Consider this: Becoming informed on politics, econ, etc. is still underdone due to the free-rider problem. True, but what would one do about that? Pay ppl for taking econ courses? That would anger the Hell outta most leftists. Just look on the internet for critiques of neoclassical economics. Most are by lefties. I think it's fair to say that w/compulsory economics courses (which I wholeheartedly support for high school and college students), our political spectrum would shift dramatically to the right. : Of course you can change these things! Here are some hypothetical ideas to do it. Place an exorbitant tax of, say, 1000% on all campaign donations (only for the donations of the rich) and have equal public funding for the two major parties which is not taxed, funded by an increase on taxes for the very wealthy -- this takes care of the rich giving more money and having more influence. Jesus, that's a TERRIBLE idea! Besides, why shouldn't the rich have more influence? They contribute more to society and wealth is at least somewhat correlated w/intelligence. Shouldn't we be glad that smarter individuals are voting at higher rates than dumb ones? : The TV and radio airwaves are public property and can hence be regulated or, if not, any actions by special interests (this includes unions as well as corporations) to influence elections on those airwaves can be taxed exorbitantly like with the campaign donations plan. If it actually turns out that mainly an elite group is voting, and this is a problem that skews policy drastically enough, you can mitigate or completely solve this by having universal voter registration, making election day a holiday, mandatory universal voting, etc. etc. Remember that freedom from government is not the only important freedom that we should care about. You might say that these campaign regulations 'deny freedom' but this is bullshit in our modern world, since there exist more important and dangerous problems that result due to govt-free, unfettered markets and due to regulation-free elections than those that are imposed by govt interferance. For example, I could argue that the rich person's campaign money or any campaign commercials that he puts out independently has the exact same effect as if he had many more votes than I do. Therefore he is having the exact same effect as violating my right to have a vote that is equal to everyone else's. This is a hell of a lot worse violation of freedom than raising a tax on some fat cat who can easily afford it. I disagree. If I wanna get rich in order to be able to give more money to my political causes, why shouldn't I be able to do that? : In general, it is stupid to ignore problems that result from the collective effect of a bunch of private choices by private people, just because you are hidebound by some crazy ideology or crank philosophy like libertarianism. Libertarianism is a 'crank philosophy' that is advocated by A LOT of economists, then. I'm not even sure Krugman himself would go so far as to regard libertarianism as a philosophy for cranks. : The examples that I gave aren't the best policies for these specific problems, and better policies surely exist. What you have to do is think very hard and find the best policy which can be determined by cost-benefit analysis and some fairness criteria. When you have found this best policy, you should say to yourself (and everybody does this implicitly) that every policy has winners and losers, and then you should ask yourself, 'Is the loss to the losers really so bad that I am violating their rights as human beings?' Most people don't see regulations of public goods (as in the airwaves) and progresive taxation (taxing campaign donations) as human rights violations or a slippery slope into whatever it is that libertarians fear we will become. Just b/c ppl don't see those regs as violations of rights, that doesn't mean they're correct. : Freedom *from government*, once again, is not the only kind of freedomn that I care about. I also care about freedom from many of the oppressive results of leaving unfettered the collective effect of a bunch of private choices by private people. But in order to obtain that 'freedom,' you have to take freedom away from others, thus violating their rights. :(3) equity of economic welfare. Thank you. Your point #3 in that paragraph is what I meant by collectivist mob rule. As Hayek once said, there is all the difference in the world between treating ppl equally and trying to make them equal. That's why I always cringe when ppl start talking about equity. : An election is NOT fair if only one side is allowed to get its message out Both sides are getting their messages out. : this is what I was referring to when I said 'fair election' (read 'this is 2') not to whether 2000 was fair or anything about state representation, which are two more straw men. Fair enough. : I never said anything about free-marketers! Read in parentheses '(this is 1),' so being 'unprincipled' refers to making policy for patronage purposes -- not being a freemarketer. Ok, fine, but you just seem to assume that free-market policies you disagree w/are crony capitalism, that's all. Right now, you don't say it's an example of patronage or crony capitalism, but, in practice, you normally seem to assume that it is. Get my point?

Subject: Re: The Krugmeister's Latest From: Bobby To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 03, 2003 at 12:38:23 (EDT) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: ”Maybe market 'failure' should be used instead of 'distortion,' then? “ Who cares? This is a ridiculous semantic argument. Failure, distortion, inefficiency, etc. are used interchangeably. Leave it at that. ”Antidiscrimination laws, except when applied to government institutions, are immoral. I should be able to hire whoever I want. The right of association means the right NOT to associate. “ This is a thoroughly indefensible and shameful comment on its face and needs no rebuttal except condemnation. It also shows that you are pretty extremist. The story is a lot different when you are on the receiving end of this discrimination and not able to find a job or make a decent living, not because of anything under your control, but only because your ethnicity. This injustice is one of the many denials of freedom that occurs on its own in private markets without proper government intervention. Government intervention through anti-discrimination laws expands the freedom of persecuted minorities, and, yes, thankfully it does come at the cost of an employer's ability to be a biggot in his role as employer, which should not and *must not* be protected. “Furthermore, as Gary Becker has pointed out, markets provide the best protection against unfair discrimination. “ Your characterization of Becker is too general and somewhat misleading. As I remember it, as presented in Borjas' Labor Economics, his argument has nothing to do with anti-discrimination regulations or their effectiveness. The argument was that taste-discriminatory firms are less profitable and hence will go out of business if there is enough entry by new non-discriminatory firms into the market, or be bought out by non-discriminators who can make more of a profit eventually. Anti-discriminationn regulations do not prevent this from occurring, and hence Becker’s argument is irrelevant to anti-discrimination laws (my view is that they might even speed this process along by making business even more distasteful to the discriminator thereby making him want to sell his business faster). Becker's argument regarding employment taste discrimination also becomes slow to implement in cases where only a few firms serve the market, with large employers, and where entry and takeover is difficult. ”And that's my point! There are respectable economists who want more deregulation, and massively, to boot. Thus, why should we assume that Bush's deregulating policies are examples of crony capitalism? His economic advisors probably were behind a lot of that stuff. “ I will say once again that a serious discussion of the economic benefits of deregulation is meaningless unless we talk about specific regulations case by case. Krugman's articles have many many examples as to why Bush's economic policies, both 'free-market' and not-'free-market' are not being made for principle. When you consider only a few policies by themselves, it may not look like crony capitalism -- but in the context of everything that the Bushies are doing, which Krugman discusses in the 6.27.03 article and in the rest of his Op-Eds, it is good circumstantial evidence of crony capitalism. ”To some extent, you have a point. But I still favor deregulation generally. “ Yes that is the point of my first post. Don't substitute rigorous analysis of individual policies for lazy ideological pronouncements that are tantamount to 'free market good. government bad. duh.' Economics and the world are far more interesting and need far more attention and hard thinking than that. I'm fine with you holding opinions like this for yourself, but remember that many excellent economists and regular people, for good reason, don't always agree with the simplistic blanket statement that '[deregulation, privatization of government services, elimination of environmental rules] sounds like sound economic policy to me.' Therefore it is irresponsible for you, thinking that Krugman disagrees with the aforequoted simplistic statement, to demean Krugman by saying, 'I can't believe I'm hearing this from an economist, let alone one who's supposed to win the Nobel.' Many people and economists disagree with your blanket statement, and quite a few of them are deserving of and have gotten Nobel Prizes. ”Maybe so, but Krugman doesn't seem too interested in giving credit where it's due. “ This was NOT THE TOPIC OF HIS ARTICLE! The article was about HOW policy is being made in this White House and not about whether the policies themselves are good or bad. The pro-Bush press gives Bush plenty of slack already – I don’t see why Krugman should have to cower to him. ”Why would relaxing FCC regs be so bad? “ Media consolidation affects who controls of the flow of information that the public receives. It is a very serious problem if only a handful of people in a few large corporations who are not accountable to anybody can control what our society knows about politics, current events, etc. ”Ok, fine then. Why don't we all just present a united front to fight the BAD crony capitalism that we agree on, then? That's been my point this entire time. “ ”Same here. I just wish we could present a united front against unambiguously bad, crony capitalist policies. The problem is that crony capitalism itself should not occur and you can't separate out bad crony capitalism from good. Even if you like some of the policies that happen to be made under crony capitalism, you can still advocate those policies under an alternative system of policymaking besides crony capitalism – say one where influence over politicians is more decentralized. Crony capitalism is a poor way of running govt and a poor way of making policy that has good policies sometimes and bad policies mostly and results on average in bad policy – the reason is that, when making government policy, the interests of a very few sometimes but usually do not coincide with the interests of the many. If you increase the influence of a few special interest in controlling our economic policy, they make our politicians put into effect *all * kinds of policies that are in their interests and not just the ones in the public interest – so under crony capitalism, you cannot just keep the good policies and throw away the bad. This is the wrong way to run our government. The minds of the elected officials themselves and their perception of the public interest need more influence over determining what policies to put into effect and not these corporations. ”Are you sure about that? What about more environmental regs and higher taxes? Both of those would trample on liberty. “ You have no right not to pay your fair share of taxes or the right to pollute the environment. You must look at each policy case by case. Remember, in many cases, that the words “unequal,” “unjust,” “arbitrary,” “inefficient,” “random,” “amoral,” “without regard to merit,” “special treatment,” “inefficient,” etc. can very easily apply to private market outcomes (or any collective outcome due to private choices). If, when doing a cost benefit analysis on these criteria (and whatever other criteria are important), a private market outcome is beaten by an outcome that would occur under a government policy, there is no inherent moral superiority of the market outcome over the government policy outcome, and in fact the government outcome is superior. Yes there are winners and losers from the govt policy, but the private market creates winners and losers too – we are just trying to judge which mix of winners and losers is better by these criteria. If a government policy helps society as a whole as measured by various efficiency, moral, ethical, and equity criteria, and, as long the loss to the losers does not cross some reasonable threshold of indecency, the government policy should be put into effect. It is no more a violation of your liberty for you to get a tax increase than it is a violation of someone’s else’s liberty if his EITC check gets slashed because you wanted a tax cut. The govt also provides protection to you and it created the atmosphere whereby you or your ancestors accumulated that wealth and you pay taxes for that protection in return. You also knew before you became rich that tax rates exist and fluctuate and you were well aware of this. Just as you think that environmental regulations violate your liberty, the rest of the public could claim that your pollution, which poisons them or ruins their property is violating their liberty. Also environmental regulations can be thought of (and often are in economics though likely not in law but I don’t know) as a way of allocating property rights over whatever is being protected by the regulation and punishing violations of those rights – you are not allowed to pollute a river because it is not your property, and whatever penalties occur due to your violation are just penalties that you incur from damaging property that is not yours. Nobody would agree with you that either taxes or environmental rules trample your liberty – they would say “quichyerbellyachin.” And if you disagree, you are way too sensitive compared to public opinion, far more than a reasonable person, and you are putting everything that creates inconvenience to you under the rubric of 'that tramples my liberty.' We live in a society where people must sacrifice for others, and law should not be tailored to some people’s ridiculously delicate sensibilities about what they think they are entitled to. ”True, but what would one do about that? Pay ppl for taking econ courses? That would anger the Hell outta most leftists. Just look on the internet for critiques of neoclassical economics. Most are by lefties. I think it's fair to say that w/compulsory economics courses (which I wholeheartedly support for high school and college students), our political spectrum would shift dramatically to the right. “ This is a straw man. I never said there was a solution to this or that one should be implemented. My point was that elections do not tell us much about whether people's interests have changed because of the free-rider problem’s effect on information gathering! ”Jesus, that's a TERRIBLE idea! Besides, why shouldn't the rich have more influence? They contribute more to society and wealth is at least somewhat correlated w/intelligence. Shouldn't we be glad that smarter individuals are voting at higher rates than dumb ones? “ This is another condemnable statement, and it shows how much an extremist ideology warps people's minds. Also, much of the dispersion between incomes is not attributable to ability or education or any variable about one’s self that one can control. The rich should not have very much more influence over our government than anyone else, since it allows the rich to abuse our government for their own interests regardless of, and usually against, the interests of the rest of us. No one can honestly think that the rich have any incentive or are so benevolent as to protect forever the rights and freedoms of what you call the 'dumb ones.' This result of increasingly putting control in the hands of so few is that our govt tends eventually towards persecution, economically, socially, etc., of what you call the 'dumb ones.' That is why I do not want influence over policy to shrink into the hands of every-fewer people -- since those with wealth and power recklessly abuse their influence over government in pursuit of their own interests regardless of, and usually against, the interests of those without wealth and power. ”I disagree. If I wanna get rich in order to be able to give more money to my political causes, why shouldn't I be able to do that? “ Because your campaign money has the exact same effect as if you had more than one vote, and therefore you are having the exact same effect as infringing on the right of someone else who is not rich enough to have an equal vote. ”Libertarianism is a 'crank philosophy' that is advocated by A LOT of economists, then. I'm not even sure Krugman himself would go so far as to regard libertarianism as a philosophy for cranks. “ No economist that I know of would be as hidebound by the philosophy as you appear to be. I also think that your posts, especially the comments on anti-discrimination laws being immoral and the rich “contribut[ing] more to society,” make the case very well. ”Just b/c ppl don't see those regs as violations of rights, that doesn't mean they're correct. “ The reason that they aren’t violations of your rights is that you are going way beyond legally protected rights and that it is just absurd on its face. And society can’t tailor itself to the weird fragile sensibilities of people within fringe movements like libertarianism who begin complaining about their rights whenever the slightest govt action inconveniences them. ”But in order to obtain that 'freedom,' you have to take freedom away from others, thus violating their rights. “ When choosing between policies (or no policy) you must consider who wins and who loses. Leaving the market alone results in “loss of freedom” by some people and a govt policy to correct it results in “loss of freedom” by some people. You have to compare which alternative is better by criteria of efficiency, equity, etc. This choice of which mix of freedom and other goods among people his best is unavoidable when you are choosing what to do or even if you are choosing to do nothing at all. ”Thank you. Your point #3 in that paragraph is what I meant by collectivist mob rule. As Hayek once said, there is all the difference in the world between treating ppl equally and trying to make them equal. That's why I always cringe when ppl start talking about equity. “ Nobody agrees that a more equitable (I obviously am not talking about completely equal or even close to that, just less dispersion than now) distribution of income is mob rule. To call it mob rule is yet more extremist fringe rhetoric. ”Both sides are getting their messages out. “ This just flat untrue. The point of Krugman article is that Republicans are trying to quash the Dems' ability to get their message out -- hence this Krugman article about a one-party system. The media has also been unquestionably pro-Bush and never misses a chance to question the Democrats' motives or condescend to them since Sept 11th (did you see their treatment of Howard Dean after the meet the press interview when he was off by a few percent on how many troops are in Iraq? Compare that to coverage of Bush not knowing who was in charge of WMD in Iraq – it was in an article in Time this week (only a piece of the article), but I’m still waiting for the network and cable news outlets to report on this the way they did with Howard Dean. ”Well, I guess I can't say that I blame them for fighting harder for policies that benefit their campaign donors -- provided those policies fit w/his stated principles. “ ”How was he saying that Republicans aren't sticking to their own principles, though? Deregulation, getting rid of environmental regs, etc. are all pretty consistent w/conservative ideology. “ ”Then we have slightly different uses of the phrase 'crony capitalism.' Merely fighting harder for your friends and ppl who have supported your campaign, but whose ideas you agree w/nonetheless, shouldn't be regarded as crony capitalism. Everybody does that, and it's not a phenomenon that will ever go away. “ ”Ok, fine, but you just seem to assume that free-market policies you disagree w/are crony capitalism, that's all. Right now, you don't say it's an example of patronage or crony capitalism, but, in practice, you normally seem to assume that it is. Get my point? “ Wrong. I said that this has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with the content of the actual policies themselves or whether those policies are “free-market” or “anti-free-market.” * The point is that these policies, regardless of whether or not they are free-market, are in the interest of these companies whose support Bush is vying for. * By itself, this statement is NOT evidence of crony capitalism. However, if you put this * in the context * of everything else that Krugman said in the 6.27.03 article, this becomes strong circumstantial evidence of crony capitalism. I think that Krugman’s evidence * taken as a whole * within the 6.27.03 article and the rest of his NYT articles is enough to convince me that Bush is actually a crony capitalist. I am condemning the system of crony capitalism, which results in both * more regulatory * as well as less regulatory policies, depending on what is in the interest of whatever corporation is influencing the policy at hand. I am doing this because it is a terrible way to make policy and run a government. This has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER I AGREE WITH THE POLICIES THEMSELVES and NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER THEY ARE FREE MARKET OR ANTI-FREE-MARKET. The policy choices for the administration have nothing to do with principle -- they have to do with patronage for their supporters regardless of principles or what the Republicans actually think is good for society. Krugman's point is that patronage is controlling policy a opposed to principle -- some policies follow those principles and some don't -- it is not about whether Krugman or I agree with the content of the policy. Again, Krugman is making the point within the 6.27.03 article that the METHOD of policy making has changed from principle to patronage – so this implies that policies will go through * regardless * of whether Republicans agreed with them beforehand. It is the METHOD of policymaking that is at issue here. Again, Krugman is trying to make a case that this is happening at levels never seen before, so the “Everybody does it” defense is no good (as I said before, I don’t know enough about the history of this so I am not prepared to make that case).

Subject: Re: The Krugmeister's Latest From: Chicago Boy To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Tues, Jul 01, 2003 at 02:13:34 (EDT) Email Address: mrwreckingball@budweiser.com Message: Ok, now, here's where I think Krugman should be focusing his efforts. A quote from the man himself... 'At the center of the picture stands an imposing figure--Roger Milliken, the billionaire textile baron from South Carolina. He is not the Moriarty of protectionism: He does not orchestrate everything (there is, in particular, a parallel but mostly distinct anti-globalization network funded by labor unions rather than industrialists), and even those who benefit from his largess do not always do his bidding. But Milliken is the biggest player in this game, and following the money trails that lead back to him is a pretty good way to understand how this particular piece of the world really works. On most issues Milliken is an unabashed hard-line right-winger, with a reputation as a Republican Party kingmaker. (His friends have boasted that without Milliken, Ronald Reagan would not have become president.) Among other things, he gave several hundred thousand dollars to GOPAC, Newt Gingrich's campaign organization pretending to be an educational foundation. Milliken has decided, however, that free-market principles do not extend to the importation of textiles. He hosts dinners of the so-called No Name club, a group of right-wing opponents of the North American Free Trade Agreement--dinners enlivened, according to press reports, by uproarious anti-Mexican jokes. And he has supported opponents of trade liberalization on a truly impressive scale--giving, for example, some $2 million in soft money to Patrick Buchanan to fund anti-GATT advertisements.' See? Now, why can't he do that sort of thing on a regular basis? He might even be able to make more of a difference if that's where he focused his efforts. Some Republicans, myself included, would find themselves agreeing w/him more often. However, as of right now, he's mostly preaching to the choir (esp. by writing for the NY Times).

Subject: Re: The Krugmeister's Latest From: hume To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 00:37:46 (EDT) Email Address: hume_an@yahoo.com Message: I think what bothers you about Krugman's column is that he is moving away from economics and unto territory where he has had little professional training. That used to bother me too - he's a first-class economist - shouldn't he be sticking to economic issues? It's not that I ever disagreed with what he wrote - it all seemed sensible to me - but I felt that he wasn't giving us his best work. I've since changed my mind. I believe Krugman has expanded his role beyond economic issues because he sees the systematic dismantling of the two-party system, and no one is saying anything. He sees that Bush and the Republicans are far right of the rest of the country, are employing dubious methods to push their agenda, and are out to dramatically change the character of government - and no one either knows or cares. When it comes down to it, Krugman is much more trenchant than most pundits. His rhetorical style is sharp and compelling, and he spurs thought and a sense of disquiet. I think the issues he tackles are extremely significant to most Americans: were we fighting a just war; what direction is our leadership leading us and by what means is it trying to get us there; is our president honest; are our policies based on logic and evidence or quackery; what are our leadership's priorities and do such priorities hew with fundamental American values; what are the costs of deliberate blindness and complacency. Krugman is relevant, reasonable, and sensible - there's certainly a place for the type of economic analysis he does best and I wish he did more - but overall, I think Krugman is on track - he challenges the establishment better than anyone I know. And I disagree that he only preaches to the choir. I don't see him as a jaundiced madman with an axe to grind. He represents the center - he's simply more incisive, articulate, and mordant than most people in the center - which explains why his detractors are so maniacally vociferous - but also why I believe he makes a convincing, well-argued case to the undecided. To those who believe that Krugman is a tendentious, overreaching, nonsensical idiot, I suggest you examine your reference point: if your standard of 'normal' is the Bush administration and most Republicans, then Krugman undoubtedly looks like a radical, so do I (a former Bush supporter), and I suspect, so do most Americans. I also suggest you honestly and seriously evaluate Krugman's arguments - not deliberately take them out of context - and see if such arguments meet the standards of logic and rigor. Perhaps Krugman is my Rasputin, and I am under his spell - I'll do my best to guard against sycophantry - but until I see compelling arguments that accurately present Krugman's position and squarely refute them - which I have not seen - I will continue to view Krugman as he is – a relevant voice of the center, an accurate and compelling bellwether, and a sharp, well-reasoned analyst.

Subject: Re: The Krugmeister's Latest From: Chicago Boy To: hume Date Posted: Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 02:35:55 (EDT) Email Address: mrwreckingball@budweiser.com Message: Krugman is the first 'centrist' I've known to write for Mother Jones. And, among economists, he's actually way left.

Subject: Re: The Krugmeister's Latest From: hume To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 23:40:17 (EDT) Email Address: hume_an@yahoo.com Message: Chicago Boy: 'And, among economists, he's actually way left.' Please elaborate. In what way is he far left? I confess that I don't know enough economists to make that determination - I thought Krugman represents mainstream economics. If he doesn't, please give me an example of who does - and explain why. Again, it really has to do with one's reference point - what is your reference point?

Subject: Re: The Krugmeister's Latest From: Bobby To: hume Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 03, 2003 at 19:41:39 (EDT) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: Not that I think the left-right dichotomy is useful, but Krugman is definitely not 'way left.' If you compare him to Stephen Marglin, John Roemer, Lester Thurow, James Galbraith, George Akerlof, Matthew Rabin, perhaps Joe Stiglitz (ironically a former Hoover fellow), perhaps Alan Krueger, etc. etc. (some of these are more left than others of course and each one, I would say, is more left than Krugman in general), the charactization that Krugman is somehow 'way left' falls apart. At most you can call Krugman liberal. Nobody would say 'way left,' which is ridiculous. And Mankiw would be called right of center in general, but not the center. I say this because of his writings for the public (say in Fortune). But I don't include the textbooks, which are actually very mainstream and, by the way, are completely consistent with Krugman's writings for the public on economics. Ricardian equivalence says that since deficits occur today, due to, say, a large tax cut not matched by any decrease of govt spending, taxes must increase at some future date to pay off the govt debt incurred. Therefore rational people will save all there tax cut in order to pay their future tax bill. The PV of the future tax increase due to today's deficit equals the deficit incurred today which equals the tax cut someone gets today. Therefore the PV of someone's income over their life has not changed due to a deficit. Since people choose to consume out of the PV of income over their life, which has not changed, their choice of how much to consume during each period of their life does not change. Since the tax cut does not increase their consumption, they are saving all of the tax cut. Hence the decrease of govt saving due to the deficit is offset by an increase of private saving, and national saving (which is private saving t govt saving) stays the same and there is therefore no crowding out of investment. Ricardian equivalence is far-fetched on its face, in my opinion, but here are some problems with Ricardian equivalence as identified by Mankiw, (1) people are myopic and not rational therefore don't realize that deficits now imply higher taxes later when they choose how much of their tax cut to save. Therefore they do not save very much of a tax cut to pay for the future taxes, private saving does not increase enough to offset the decrease of govt saving, national saving decreases, and investment is crowded out (2) Imperfect capital markets: eg. people who borrow, especially the poor, face much greater interest rates at which they borrow than those interest rates at which they can lend. Therefore, if you look at the intertemporal budget constraint, there is a kink at the endowment point and the borrowing side of the bc has a steeper slope than the lending point. A tax cut today, for example, will shift the endowment point outwards and hence the borrowing side of the bc shifts to the right. Anyone who is on the borrowing side of the bc therefore increases consumption today. Since part of this tax cut is consumed, the amount of the tax cut saved is not enough to offset the decrease of govt saving and investment is crowded out (3) The implied future taxes due to a deficit go to a future generations as opposed to the current one that is making the choice of whether to spend the tax cut. Unless people are altruistic and really really care about those future generations, they will spend some of the tax cut instead of saving enough to pay for the increased tax burden of those future generations. Therefore any increase of private saving is not enough to offset the decrease of govt saving, national saving decreases, and investment is crowded out. Bob Barro thinks that such altruism is realistic. Many, including Krugman and me, disagree.

Subject: Re: The Krugmeister's Latest From: Chicago Boy To: hume Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:42:15 (EDT) Email Address: mrwreckingball@budweiser.com Message: If you want mainstream, I'd go w/Greg Mankiw.

Subject: Re: The Krugmeister's Latest From: PJ To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Tues, Jul 01, 2003 at 05:59:18 (EDT) Email Address: psjohn@hotmail.com Message: I quite agree with you, Chicago Boy. Krugman has written a lot of excellent stuff on foreign macro issues, and on international trade. I was he would write a lot more on say Japanese or Argentinian problems, or the worldwide trend towards protectionism. But when he writes on US domestic politics, he only convinces the already convinced, and maybe even UN-convinces a few of those. Still, if my ideal society was Sweden in 1980 (just as it stopped outperforming its neighbours economically, incidentally), I probably wouldn't care much for Bush either.

Subject: Re: The Krugmeister's Latest From: Chicago Boy To: PJ Date Posted: Tues, Jul 01, 2003 at 13:23:16 (EDT) Email Address: mrwreckingball@budweiser.com Message: Thank you, PJ. I'm pretty sure we're not alone in our sentiments.

Subject: Re: The Krugmeister's Latest From: Mads Keller To: PJ Date Posted: Tues, Jul 01, 2003 at 11:46:02 (EDT) Email Address: Madskel@worldonline.dk Message: I am Danish, infact i come from a little island between Denmark and Sweden. So if i am not totally aware of all the implications imposed in supporting the idea of Sweden anno 1980 i think i got the basics down. The welfare State model does not inhibit growth, The nordic region is one of the richest in the world, and our inequlity is relativly small. So the question it comes down to in the end is how equal you want the world to be. A point Krugman has made seweral times is that one of the results of the budget deficits is the closing of some of the goverment programs that reduces inequality, and when the regional states also has economical problems, the result is that you just don't want to be poor in the United States of America. Not that you want to be that anywere but in Denmark it just aint that bad. So yes i can see Sweden in 1980 as a better place to be. And no i dont care much for Bush. People who God gives commands just freak me out.

Subject: Re: The Krugmeister's Latest From: PJ To: Mads Keller Date Posted: Tues, Jul 01, 2003 at 17:12:30 (EDT) Email Address: psjohn@hotmail.com Message: 'People who God gives commands just freak me out.' More than Saddam Hussein freaks you out? I think that the extremely high taxes required by the Scandanavian welfare state DO inhibit growth, though direct country comparisons will not show this beyond a doubt: there are too many other factors which make for economic growth. But the theoretical reasons to believe in the deadweight losses from taxation are compelling in the extreme. But I agree that it's something people can disagree on. I DO agree with Paul that Stockholm is a lovely city though (but my money is on Venice for the most beautiful in Europe), and would urge those visitors to this site who have not been there to visit it in the summer (but book accomodation way ahead). I'm off there next week as it happens.

Subject: Re: The Krugmeister's Latest From: Mads Keller To: PJ Date Posted: Tues, Jul 01, 2003 at 18:33:27 (EDT) Email Address: Madskel@worldonline.dk Message: Yes he does. Saddam was a threat to the region, and he commmited atrositis. About that there is no doubt. But the most powerful man in the world thinks he acts by decree of god. If that doesn't scares you i cannot see what will. What if god says something that is abit more extremely ? Yes there is a deadweight loss by high taxes. And there are also some huge benefits by having an educated working class. And then there is the whole deal about preferences again...... But if in the end, there really are no differens between a hardcore dog eat dog economy and a lets help around economy, how can one prefer the first ? Mayby it is culture but i dont understand. Really i dont.

Subject: Re: The Krugmeister's Latest From: Chicago Boy To: Mads Keller Date Posted: Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 03:24:15 (EDT) Email Address: mrwreckingball@budweiser.com Message: Because the first protects both freedom and property rights, and is the most moral of the two options. The latter takes your money at the point of a gun to give to others. If you don't see what's inherently wrong w/such coercion, then you are beyond hope.

Subject: Re: The Krugmeister's Latest From: Captain of Crush To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 08:33:56 (EDT) Email Address: mmenos@hotmail.com Message: The difference between mads and yourself is that he sees government as a friend and you see it as an enemy. it seems that most of the people in sweden feel like when they pay taxes, they get what they pay for; they are happy with it. their economic policies seem to work well for them, though i daresay that anywhere as large with a population as diverse as america might have trouble enacting similar policies. it would be foolish, however, to say that either is absolutely superior. i understand that libertarians equate taxes with theft. libertarians might do well to understand why the nordic folks think their high taxes are such a bargain.

Subject: Re: The Krugmeister's Latest From: PJ To: Captain of Crush Date Posted: Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 17:56:52 (EDT) Email Address: psjohn@hotmail.com Message: Just to amplify your point, there do seem to be a number of distinct differences between the Lutheran, relatively collectivist Scandavians, and the individualist, free market Americans (with the Brits, Aussies and Canadians somewhere in the middle). That's not an original observation, I know. I wonder if it is partly due to the different experiences of the welfare state in those countries? In America, the small welfare state is mainly to look after either the elderly, or very poor families with dependent children, while in Scandanvia, I understand, the welfare state includes many services of use to the middle classes such as free or very cheap university education, public transport and health care. That's why the Nordic middle classes don't mind being crucified by the taxman - they get much more in return. Did you know, by the way, that in Sweden, the priests in the state church are civil servants? I was amazed when I found that out. The Scandavian view is general in Europe. Only the British Conservatives really share the free market philosophy of the American Republicans and most Democracts. Right wingers in Europe (the Christian Democrat tradition) believe in state intervention, but believe it should benefit big business and not bother too much with income redistribution. I could never live under a government which took 70% of my [six-figure] income in income tax in peacetime - anything over 50% is I think morally wrong. You're working more for other people than you are for your own family. Sales taxes I mind less, particularly on non-essentials. But, unlike Chicago Boy, I accept that other views are possible and that Sweden is a thoroughly pleasant country.

Subject: Re: The Krugmeister's Latest From: Chicago Boy To: Captain of Crush Date Posted: Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 12:13:08 (EDT) Email Address: mrwreckingball@budweiser.com Message: : The difference between mads and yourself is that he sees government as a friend and you see it as an enemy. I see a definite place for government; namely, in protecting property rights and national defense. : it seems that most of the people in sweden feel like when they pay taxes, they get what they pay for; they are happy with it. Dollar for dollar, I feel that my money is better spent in the private sector. : their economic policies seem to work well for them, though i daresay that anywhere as large with a population as diverse as america might have trouble enacting similar policies. Agreed. : it would be foolish, however, to say that either is absolutely superior. No, because redistributionist policies are immoral. : i understand that libertarians equate taxes with theft. libertarians might do well to understand why the nordic folks think their high taxes are such a bargain. Even if it were a 'bargain,' a system like Sweden's would still be immoral. Governments are meant to protect individual liberties, not redistribute wealth.

Subject: Re: The Krugmeister's Latest From: Jonathan To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 03, 2003 at 23:44:31 (EDT) Email Address: jonathan@lyingsocialistweasels.com Message: I see a definite place for government; namely, in protecting property rights and national defense. --- 'I see a definite place for government; namely, in protecting property rights and national defense.' Then you've just justified virtually all current government programs, taxes, etc. Unfortunately, you cannot promote the protection of property rights while irrationally denying the property rights of the Government, and the accompanying right to charge for the use of that property and enforce the associated implied contracts. Happy Independence Day.

Subject: Re: The Krugmeister's Latest From: Captain of Crush To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 14:46:22 (EDT) Email Address: mmenos@hotmail.com Message: : I see a definite place for government; namely, in protecting property rights and national defense. To clarify my position a little, i assume you view any government action outside of 'protecting property rights and national defense' as threatening your liberty, whereas (again, i am assuming) mads perceives it as necessary, and not in an evil way. : Dollar for dollar, I feel that my money is better spent in the private sector. i respect your opinion, but only as an opinion. my personal stance is that in some areas private corporations, companies, suppliers, or whatever else have you are more likely to fumble my dollar than the government is. but my opinion differs from yours. : Agree do you agree that nordic economic policies seem to work well for the people who have enacted them? : redistributionist policies are immoral that argument is indefensible. it is a fact that most people don't correlate taxation with theft as strongly as your rhetoric does, otherwise one might conjecture that the tree of liberty would grow tall from drinking the blood of patriots. what would you do if you witnessed georgey from across the block walking down the alley with your playstation? why not do the same thing to jimmy the irs agent when he comes to take your income? hey, theft is theft, right? : Governments are meant to protect individual liberties, not redistribute wealth says you. maybe the swedes have a different conception of what governments are meant to do. perhaps the nordic people don't view what their government is doing as simply redistributing wealth, as you seem to. try asking yourself, without assuming that the swedish are just dumber than you are, why they are so satisfied with the government policies they have. maybe, for all your talk of morality and assertions of what governments are meant to do, you are overlooking something important.

Subject: Re: The Krugmeister's Latest From: Chicago Boy To: Captain of Crush Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 03, 2003 at 00:53:57 (EDT) Email Address: mrwreckingball@budweiser.com Message: : To clarify my position a little, i assume you view any government action outside of 'protecting property rights and national defense' as threatening your liberty, whereas (again, i am assuming) mads perceives it as necessary, and not in an evil way. Well, I might acquiesce to a minimal safety net (I'm being too generous, I know). But, in general, you're right. : i respect your opinion, but only as an opinion. Fair enough, and I respect yours. : do you agree that nordic economic policies seem to work well for the people who have enacted them? No. But they work better for the nordic ppl than they would ever work here. : that argument is indefensible. No it's not. I'm guessing you've never read any Ayn Rand. : it is a fact that most people don't correlate taxation with theft as strongly as your rhetoric does, So? That's just an appeal to popular opinion, not an argument. : says you. Yup, says me. : maybe the swedes have a different conception of what governments are meant to do. Maybe so, but should I care what the Swedes think? : perhaps the nordic people don't view what their government is doing as simply redistributing wealth, as you seem to. Perhaps not, but perhaps they should. : try asking yourself, without assuming that the swedish are just dumber than you are, why they are so satisfied with the government policies they have. Because they're a relatively rich nation that can afford to do stupid stuff. : maybe, for all your talk of morality and assertions of what governments are meant to do, you are overlooking something important. Maybe I am, maybe I'm not. Who knows?

Subject: Re: The Krugmeister's Latest From: Jonathan To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 03, 2003 at 23:53:42 (EDT) Email Address: jonathan@lyingsocialistweasels.com Message: : that argument is indefensible. No it's not. I'm guessing you've never read any Ayn Rand. --- One of the best comments on Rand's work I've read follows: Marriage vows in an objectivist church would probably run along the lines of 'Do you promise to attempt to dominate and subdue this woman until such time as you grow bored?' 'Maybe.' 'Close enough. And do you promise to applaud this man`s production until such time as you find someone with a bigger ... corporation?' 'Whatever.' 'By the power vested in me by having scammed you guys out of a marriage license fee, I now pronounce you man and appendage. May you be unencumbered by small persons.' Rob Slade, reviewing 'Atlas Shrugged'

Subject: Re: The Krugmeister's Latest From: hume To: Chicago Boy Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:05:20 (EDT) Email Address: hume_an@yahoo.com Message: CB: 'No it's not. I'm guessing you've never read any Ayn Rand.' Well, I've read and re-read the Fountainhead. It's a fun book, but certainly shouldn't be the foundation for a system of thought. Plus, it's hard to take as serious literature, with it's 70 pendantic speeches on objectivism and its uni-dimensional characters - the whole book is about erecting and attacking straw men - but it certainly is entertaining. Isn't Howard Roark based on Frank Lloyd Wright? If so, she makes some notable omissions to transform Wright into an objectivist hero. Is Rand your reference point for the center? Is objectivism your worldview?

Subject: Re: The Krugmeister's Latest From: Chicago Boy To: hume Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 03, 2003 at 04:04:42 (EDT) Email Address: mrwreckingball@budweiser.com Message: : Well, I've read and re-read the Fountainhead. It's a fun book, but certainly shouldn't be the foundation for a system of thought. Of course it's not. It's a fiction book. : Isn't Howard Roark based on Frank Lloyd Wright? No, not according to the author herself. : Is Rand your reference point for the center? No. : Is objectivism your worldview? No. It's a damned good philosophy, though, and at least Alan Greenspan agrees w/me.

Subject: Re: The Krugmeister's Latest From: hume To: hume Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:53:19 (EDT) Email Address: hume_an@yahoo.com Message: it should read: 70 page pedantic speeches

Subject: question about unemployment data From: arslan To: All Date Posted: Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 14:09:58 (EDT) Email Address: avedis@dakotacom.net Message: Monitoring unemployment data is an obviously important and useful practice for assessing the health of the economy. However, that data only provides a view of one aspect of the jobs picture. Why is more attention not given to data pertaining to household income? (eg) the median income has been declining at about 1.5% per annum since 2000 (avg). It is easy to imagine that folks that have lost high paying jobs have been forced to take lower paying positions; sometimes dramatically lower paying positions. Such folks are employed, true, but their purchasing power has been reduced. Their level of debt (personal/household) has increased, lost pensions and other benefits can effect consumption decisions.................. I would think that to anyone remotely concerned with the demand side, household and personal income levels would be just as important as overall employment. So why aren't these statistics discussed in tandem with employment levels and jobless claims?

Subject: Re: question about unemployment data From: rhonda To: arslan Date Posted: Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 14:57:11 (EDT) Email Address: rhondah42@aol.com Message: This is an excellent post. The decline in median income is quite worrisome.

Subject: Stranger's love letter to PK From: Captain of Crush To: All Date Posted: Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 08:58:59 (EDT) Email Address: mmenos@hotmail.com Message: quoted from the Seattle Stranger DEAR PAUL, by Bradley Steinbacher A Love Letter to the Left's Rock-Star Columnist You should know that the following confession is confined by a rigorously heterosexual identity. I have no ulterior motives. I have no romantic interest in you. I don't want to wine and dine and cuddle. I don't want to hold you. I ain't gay. Really. I just wanted to tell you that... well, Paul, I wanted to tell you that I love you. There, I said it. I love you because of your twice-weekly columns in the New York Times. I love your stinging attacks on George W. Bush, attacks that turn me into a blubbering schoolgirl. The way you slap him around, the way you expose him for the fraud that he is, the way you refuse to ease up on him and his nefarious, knuckle-dragging administration, the way you seem to merely shrug off the gripes about you from dim-witted right-wing pundits (pundits who, apparently, fail to recall their own rabid attacks on Bill Clinton from 1992 until... well, until this day)--all this fills me with no end of joy. In short, you are a motherfucking rock star. And I just wanted to tell you so. Hence this embarrassing mash note. You see, dear Paul, beginning way back before the 2000 election, when you and I and many others found ourselves befuddled and stunned by Bush's popularity, you rightly nailed our soon-to-be-president for exactly what he is: a lying idiot. As you wrote in your November 1, 2000 column (which blasted Bush's economic rhetoric during his campaign): 'My guess is that if elected, Mr. Bush will try to govern as he has campaigned. The accounts will simply be fudged until the financial markets, alarmed by America's rapidly deteriorating finances, deliver a message that cannot be ignored.... But maybe I've underestimated Mr. Bush's willingness to cast aside his campaign promises. Sad to say, if he wins we must indeed hope that he actually was playing bait-and-switch.' And after the election, when we all watched the 'popular' George W. Bush fail to win the popular vote, when he failed to win the Electoral College, when he failed to win Florida and yet still, somehow, went on to win the White House, your columns continued to inform and engage and give well-deserved drubbings to the president--the kind of well-deserved drubbings the rest of the media seem unwilling to administer. Another example, from your April 5, 2002 column on how Bush & co. were using the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in an attempt to sell their energy plan to the public: 'This isn't the first time the Bush administration has engaged in 'hitchhiking,' using a crisis to promote a pre-existing agenda that has nothing to do with that crisis. A year ago it was trying to promote drilling in the wildlife refuge as the answer to electricity shortages in California--a connection as far-fetched, if you think about it, as the alleged connection between arctic drilling and the war on terror. And the administration has shamelessly exploited Sept. 11 to cover its fiscal tracks, pretending--in flat contradiction of the facts--that the war on terror is the reason those huge projected surpluses have vanished, and that tax cuts have nothing to do with it.' These unkind words are bracing, thrilling. Like few columnists today, you simply refuse to pimp the Bush administration's line. You refuse to cower before the Presidential Primate. And that you blast away from Bush in the New York Times--America's recently battered, but still proud, paper of record--and not in some lefty echo chamber like the Nation or the American Prospect makes your columns all the more brilliant. And my crush on you all the more passionate. Fact is, Paul, sweetie, the left is in a severe state of disarray right now. Dubya and his henchmen seem to be winning at everything, and right-wingers keep declaring with relish that us lefties 'keep 'misunderestimating'' him--as if believing a moron is a moron, albeit a lucky moron surrounded by gleefully corrupt, arrogant advisers, were tantamount to underestimation, much less misunderestimation. The blunders of the Clinton administration, the vanity campaign of Ralph Nader, 9/11, the war on terrorism, the war on Iraq, cowardly Democrats--each has left the left in shambles. But while the few nationally prominent figures who protest the Bush regime's corrupt, immoral actions quickly find themselves shouted down, you refuse to shut up. On November 8, 2002--just three days after Republicans took complete control over Congress--you wrote: 'Even criticizing the Bush administration's policies will [now] become far more difficult. It will be hard even to find out what it's up to; the most secretive administration in the nation's history will now be even less forthcoming. And anyone who criticizes the administration, even on purely domestic issues, will be accused of lacking patriotism.' This, of course, is exactly what came to pass. How many Americans, both in the public eye and not, were called unpatriotic during the gear-up to the Iraq war? For simply questioning whether or not America needed to engage in the campaign, especially without the world's encouragement? And later in that same column, you drive the point home, writing, 'Too many pundits, confusing politics with policy--or engaging in sheer power worship--imagine that a party that wins a battle must be doing something right. But it ain't necessarily so. Political victory doesn't make a bad policy good; it doesn't make a lie the truth.' Dearest Paul, the intelligent dissent you provide no doubt has personal repercussions. I know that you are often attacked by right-wing hatchet men. But hopefully you receive many a flowery note such as this one from your devoted readers, and hopefully these kind words help to counteract the sour letters you are surely flooded with from Fox News-fed sheep. I say 'hopefully' because left-friendly writers are never as heaped with praise as their counterparts across the fence; any chump right-wing 'thinker' who makes appearances on Fox News (see Ann Coulter, Bill Bennett, et al.) is treated like royalty by right-wingers, while lefty writers and thinkers--unless their names are Chomsky or Ivins--are usually taken for granted by us liberals. But you, Paul, you deserve to be praised, loved, embraced. Worshipped. You deserve to be treated like a rock star. For that is what you are--a frumpy Mick Jagger penning columns for the New York Times. And you should be treated as such. If I wore women's underwear (on a regular basis, that is), I would certainly toss them your way. In closing, Paul, honey, I would like to bring up a December 2002 Washington Monthly profile of you in which you stated, 'This is not what I do. This is not who I am.... Sometimes, I think that if I had known what it would be like, I would never have agreed to do this column.' Your conflicts about your column--along with the limelight you have found yourself thrust into--are certainly understandable, but if ever we needed a hyperintelligent Princeton economics professor (and future Nobel laureate) penning a president-bashing column, it's now. The right wing is organized, and it has a lot of weight--both in the capital and in the media--on its side, which makes you (and, hopefully, one day more people like you) more important than ever. As you pointed out in November 29, 2002, 'The political agenda of Fox News... is hardly obscure. Roger Ailes, the network's chairman, has been advising the Bush administration. Fox's Brit Hume even claimed credit for the midterm election. 'It was because of our coverage that it happened,' he told Don Imus. 'People watch us and take their electoral cues from us. No one should doubt the influence of Fox News in these matters.'' We need your influence, Paul. We really do. Don't doubt your impact, reach, or rock-star status. Your number-one fan,

Subject: There was no immediate threat.... From: elisabeth To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Jun 26, 2003 at 13:22:01 (EDT) Email Address: elisa48@aol.com Message: Comparing President Bush and Roosevelt is absurd. Roosevelt was concerned with an immediate threat to democratic society. There was no immediate threat to democratic society from Iraq, no immediate threat to America or Britain.

Subject: For K Harris From: Bobby To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Jun 26, 2003 at 12:01:04 (EDT) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: It should say: 'If so, then the conclusion that Gale is 'correct or close' comes down to not much change in labor supply in response to more take-home pay?' Yes. I'd guess that any labor supply decreases that Gale is talking about are small. Anyway, I don't think it's worth debating whether the labor supply change is actually > 0 or < 0 or exactly 0 since the labor supply elasticity is approximately 0 so any actual change is small enough to be negligible. What's important is that the elasticity is about 0, so, if you assume that the change of the saving rate is not > 0, the growth effects of this tax cut are not > 0 according to the Solow model -- hence the tax cut has nothing to do with increasing long run growth. Of course if Gale actually saying that the labor supply decreases are large, he is employing estimates that I don't know about.

Subject: Why Bush gets away with 'lying' From: jimsum To: All Date Posted: Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 12:09:51 (EDT) Email Address: jimsum@rogers.com Message: I have a theory for why people are not more upset about Bush's lies with respect to Iraq; we have come to accept that everything that comes out of the Government is PR spin, no different than marketing messages. We are used to the fact that advertising lies; if we believe an ad that says our love life can be improved if we use a particular deodorant, we except the fact that we were deceived when it turns out not to be the case. We expect ads to lie in the same way as the Bush administration lies; they give viewers a false impression that technically is not a lie. We accept that all the women in Beer ads are beautiful and available, even though we know that isn't true in the real world (or at least my part of it :-) The problem comes when the government adopts this method of communication for all its policies. It is barely acceptable to have this sort of marketing in election campaigns; it is much less acceptable for important matters like government finances or going to war. For the large minority of Americans who have already bought the Bush product, the fact that he spins his programs and misleads the public doesn't matter; they are getting what they want from Bush, and can look down on those that are fooled by his messages as hopelessly naive. Those who are fooled have a legitimate complaint since the majority of the media is not doing enough to debunk Bush's statements; instead the media uncritically repeats it, making the media an important part of the deception. We need to wake people up and drive home the message that believing Bush's word is not patriotic, it is idiotic. If Bush is going to play the spin game, we also have to play our part and debunk all his statements like we would for any other carefully crafted marketing messages. The rules of the game have changed, Bush is not going to reveal the whole truth in any of his messages and he is going to misrepresent his reasons for pursuing a course of action; maybe there was a time that you could trust the government, but that time is over. Question authority!

Subject: Re: Why Bush gets away with 'lying' From: PJ To: jimsum Date Posted: Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 13:35:43 (EDT) Email Address: psjohn@hotmail.com Message: Of course, Clinton NEVER spun things. Nor did Kennedy or Reagan or Johnson or Gore. Blaming a politician for spinning is like blaming a skunk for stinking. Johnson justified the Vietnam War on the basis of a complete fabrication - the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

Subject: Re: Why Bush gets away with 'lying' From: jimsum To: PJ Date Posted: Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 15:28:42 (EDT) Email Address: jimsum@rogers.com Message: So why does it keep happening? Do Americans like to get tricked into going to war? If Americans are this gullible, I wish someone would harness that force to trick Americans into improving their own lives rather than starting unnecessary wars or giving inequitable tax breaks to the wealthy.

Subject: Re: Why Bush gets away with 'lying' From: PJ To: jimsum Date Posted: Thurs, Jun 26, 2003 at 04:07:11 (EDT) Email Address: psjohn@hotmail.com Message: 'Do Americans like to get tricked into going to war?' Americans (and many foreigners) like having things presented to them as good vs. evil, black and white. Simple, clear-cut decisions. The nature of foreign affairs is that things are not so simple. But the public don't want to hear that. All they want to know is who are the innocent victims, who is the incarnation of evil, and what is clearly the right thing to do? There was a respectable, multi-faceted case for removing Saddam Hussein. You could say that, at some future date, his obvious intention to develop WMDs, and his proven ruthlessness in using them, might prove a threat, and his history of aggression abroad and human rights abuses at home made him particularly evil. You could also say that the fact that he was in breach of 22 separate provisions in 9 UN resolutions including the ceasefire resolution after his last aggression gave legitimacy to any attempt to remove him. But this case is far from overwhelming, and because it consists of more than one part, it's very difficult to get over in 10- or 20-second soundbites. So they seem to have focused on one element - WMDs, and decided to torture the evidence accordingly. I always thought that this was a mistake - better to focus on the human rights abuses, which are absolutely indisputable, despite opposition from China or Syria or Iran, and forget about the United Nations. Anyway, this sort of deceit can have good outcomes. I myself think that Iraq is probably a better place because Saddam isn't in power any more, and at least there is a hope of progress. The chaos we see on our TV screens probably would have happened anyway when he died or was overthrown, but having troops there has limited it. And don't forget Roosevelt's deceit over the rules of engagement of American warships in the Atlantic before America joined World War 2. He gave his destroyers more aggressive orders than he told the American people, but if he hadn't, then fewer U-boats would have been sunk, and Nazi Germany would have been that much closer to victory. Would that have been a good thing?

Subject: Re: Why Bush gets away with 'lying' From: jimsum To: PJ Date Posted: Thurs, Jun 26, 2003 at 11:53:53 (EDT) Email Address: jimsum@rogers.com Message: Your points are well taken, but the way this Iraq thing played out still stinks. If Americans want simple answers and are willing to trust their leaders to lie with good intentions; well fine. In this case, other countries were severely criticized for asking for verifiable reasons that Iraq should be invaded, as opposed to simply trusting Bush. Was the 'Canadian' proposal to spend another month investigating the justification for the war really unreasonable? It sure looks like there was ample reason to doubt the intelligence, and it would have been nice if the U.N. Security Council were able to vote on whether the evidence was compelling. I personally agree that Saddam deserved to be removed, and I might even believe that an immediate war was the only way to do it. But do other countries really have no say in this matter? Invading another country and overthrowing its government is a pretty serious action, and I would think that the international community should frown on that sort of thing. Bush justified it by claiming it was a defensive action; but there is apparently no real evidence that Iraq was a clear and present danger to the U.S. or any other country. I really don't see how this invasion is different than any other, in each case I'm sure the invaders thought they were justified in what they did. I think it is dangerous to say that the chaos in Iraq would have happened anyway. There is no way to know that; and if it isn't true, it is the Iraqi people that are paying for the misjudgment, not the American people. I think the U.S. should pay reparations to the Iraqis to the extent that the chaos the U.S. created in their country was caused to make Americans feel safer; shouldn't the beneficiaries bear some of the costs of reconstruction rather than having the Iraqis pay for it all out of future oil revenues?

Subject: Liquidity Trap in the US. From: David Jordan To: All Date Posted: Tues, Jun 24, 2003 at 19:27:52 (EDT) Email Address: djordan@projectrelativity.com Message: Hey, does anyone know what the fed is up to? I hear they want to reduce rates; but nominal rates are getting pretty damn close to zero. Doesn't this imply that we, too, are getting into Krugman's liquidity trap? In that case, things will be interesting (from an academic perspective, it will be a disaster in real terms)

Subject: Re: Liquidity Trap in the US. From: Alan DiPietro To: David Jordan Date Posted: Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 13:35:46 (EDT) Email Address: admin@novemberfarm.com Message: Hey don't sweat it, the FEd is in the process of re-inflating the economy right now, have been for the last 18 mos. Problem with Japan and the great depressions was the govt actually accelerated the factors that led to 'deflation' If that doesn't cure our ills, then surely electing a democrat in 2004 will. I mean after all the president has EVERYTHING to do withthe economy right?? :-)

Subject: Liquidity Trap in the US. From: David Jordan To: All Date Posted: Tues, Jun 24, 2003 at 19:25:03 (EDT) Email Address: djordan@projectrelativity.com Message: Hey, does anyone know what the fed is up to? I hear they want to reduce rates; but nominal rates are getting pretty damn close to zero. Doesn't this imply that we, too, are getting into Krugman's liquidity trap? In that case, things will be interesting (from an academic perspective, it will be a disaster in real terms)

Subject: Krugman on French TV news From: Eric Shaffner To: All Date Posted: Tues, Jun 24, 2003 at 15:52:53 (EDT) Email Address: erslah@yahoo.com Message: I emailed this to Paul, and I'm posting it here as a curiosity item, mainly. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dr. Krugman, Well, they didn't mention your name, but I'm pretty sure it was you. They said, basically, 'Today a New York Times editoralist said that the scandal over the WMD issue is worse than Watergate.' This was on the 8pm news on the channel France2. So, the French like you, and I assume you'll take that as a compliment ;-p Please keep up the good work. Eric Shaffner Biot, France

Subject: Is the debt really so bad? From: Will To: All Date Posted: Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 03:03:32 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: In Krugman's NYT article he complains a lot about how building up all this debt now will lead to problems in the future. As a non-economist i can't see why. Can't we just raise taxes later? Why will it be a problem?

Subject: Re: Is the debt really so bad? From: Em To: Will Date Posted: Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 14:20:31 (EDT) Email Address: Em@bdol.com Message: http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~hal/people/hal/NYTimes/2003-02-13.html Deficit problems....

Subject: Re: Is the debt really so bad? From: To A Fool To: Will Date Posted: Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 11:12:20 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Thought you were a fool. You surely are a fool!

Subject: Re: Is the debt really so bad? From: bill To: Will Date Posted: Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 17:21:28 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The last time taxes were raised the Democrats began to lose control of the Congress. Who will pay the price next time? Debt cost money to sustain, that is interest payments. Putting off the eventual solution to a debt problem can make the solution that more more costly. Suppose, just suppose, international investors become less willing to hold American debt as the debt continues to grow faster than GDP?

Subject: Re: Is the debt really so bad? From: ronda To: Will Date Posted: Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 11:57:45 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Either taxes will have to be raised or social services cut to handle the accumulating debt. Fine, think about what either a dramatic tax increase or cut in services will mean both in political and economic terms. Right now we are still in tax cutting mode. Republicans are hoping to add to the tax cuts in dramatic fashion. The debt grows no matter how fast the economy grows, the population ages and need for social services grows. We have a problem, unless lowering Social Security and Medicare benefits is what is wished.

Subject: Re: Is the debt really so bad? From: Will To: ronda Date Posted: Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 16:24:55 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I understand why deficits will result in either a cut in services or an increase in taxes, so why can't we just increase taxes more later? Or is that what Krugman is saying is the problem? We will have to increase them so much more later? Also, why is the accumulated debt from these deficits going to be a problem? Is it that interest payments will grow so much? One last thing, How will a large debt affect our ability to borrow (run deficits) in the future?? Sorry if my questions seem silly.

Subject: Re: Is the debt really so bad? From: bob jacobs To: Will Date Posted: Tues, Jun 24, 2003 at 11:46:43 (EDT) Email Address: bobsalsa@comcast.net Message: If the individuals proposing the tax cuts were in favor of social security and medicare then these tax cuts would be baffling indeed. But these people have a long history of opposing such social programs and so the tax cuts are logical and understandable. That is why they are so frightening.

Subject: Re: Is the debt really so bad? From: Mads Keller To: Will Date Posted: Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 09:56:59 (EDT) Email Address: Madskel@worldonline.dk Message: There is no problem as such by having a deficit if the international investors think US is good for it. But they will not have this impression forever if the deficit is not used as if it is intended to be temporary. And as I see it the new tax-cut does not look like a boost to the economy right now. In europe we worry about an aging population so we try to pay down on our debt so when the problem kicks in we have the ability to take out new debt. It is a simple matter of consumption smoothing. But the Bush-cut looks more like a regressiv tax structure change. Something, according to my Introductory Development Economics class http://www.econ.ku.dk/polit/ekstern/udvikling1/ , only makes sence if the contry in question is extremly poor. And then there is the moral problem in a regressiv tax change, but then again im Danish so i am used to a marginal tax of 43% for a student and 63% for the rich

Subject: Re: Is the debt really so bad? From: AD To: Mads Keller Date Posted: Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 11:17:21 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Nice reply. Supply side economics will not work. The economy can grow grow fast enough to absord the deficit created by these past tax cuts.

Subject: A solution ... From: PJ To: AD Date Posted: Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 11:54:12 (EDT) Email Address: psjohn@hotmail.com Message: What about inflation? An economy can always inflate its way out of the debt. In 1945, the US's national debt as a percentage of GDP was 100-120%, or maybe higher (I forget the exact figure). In Britain, the figure was 200 %. This was reduced steadily over the subsequent thirty years of moderate inflation. Inflation erodes the real value of the debt. It is, in fact, often termed the 'inflation tax' for this very reason. Of course the dollar would suffer, but since when have Americans ever given a damn about that?

Subject: Re: A solution ... From: ND To: PJ Date Posted: Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 17:50:53 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The reason, I suspect that inflation was never such a serious worry in recent times is that the dollar has been the dominant reserve currency, and this generated a strong international demand. With the comparatively recent currency crises, a stagnating Japanese economy and a fledging Euro, many saw it as the safe option. Now that the Euro has gained more acceptance, with the hard line anti-inflationary policy of the ECB, it is threatening that role. Inflation effectively penalises all those who plan to save and invest in the country, and also those on less flexible salaries (like many in the public sector, or minimum wage workers). It also effects the ability of the country to borrow on the international markets, as higher rates are demanded for riskier currencies. Not that its a terrible idea-it can help alleviate demand shocks by making spending more attractive than holding cash. Just be sure and use it with due caution!

Subject: Re: A solution ... From: PJ To: ND Date Posted: Tues, Jul 01, 2003 at 06:24:48 (EDT) Email Address: psjohn@hotmail.com Message: 'The reason, I suspect that inflation was never such a serious worry in recent times is that the dollar has been the dominant reserve currency, and this generated a strong international demand. With the comparatively recent currency crises, a stagnating Japanese economy and a fledging Euro, many saw it as the safe option. ' Fine, except that inflation has been even less of a problem in places such as Japan and China WITHOUT reserve currencies of their own to match the dollar. The dollar's recent strength is actually fairly baffling.

Subject: Review of Krugman's book 'Fuzzy Math' From: SZ To: All Date Posted: Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 13:55:47 (EDT) Email Address: zorzopulos@yahoo.com Message: Last night I finally sat down to begin reading Paul Krugman's book 'Fuzzy Math,' an economic analysis of the first Bush tax cut. Three hours laters I had finished it - and I have to start out by saying 'wow'! The argument is an intellectually tour-de-force which has aged remarkably well. It really is troubling to think that this book, published just over 2 years ago (April 2001), got so much right - and yet was so remarkably underestimated what actually occured. Allow we to explain: (1) Krugman never seriously discussed that the actual budget surplus would swing into such a massive deficit. I mentions that it could, but that it would be mostly hidden because of the unfunded social security liabilites. He does venture that the extreme view of supply-side tax cutters could lead to the exact position in which we are today. But he dismissed that scenario was unlikely because it would be too extreme. Uh, I wish that were true... On another down note - Krugamn also notes the dishonesty with which the tax cut was sold. Everything for the selective 'tax families' used on the campaign trails to the infamous '2% return' remark during the first debate with Gore. Unfortunately, again, this dishonesty has, if anything, increased from those lows. The latest round of cuts was so grossly dishonest it truly defies a strong enough descriptor. This book also provides a wonderful guide for non-economist to understand how government budgeting occurs, sources of revenue, and social security. Like Paul's work on the Asian economic meltdown, this book reads like an 'I told you so' that has the good fortune of being written before the events occured. Of course, one wonders if Paul takes any pleasure in having been proven right? Give the books age and subject matter, it is probably easy to find it at a deep discount, and I would encourage you to read it if you haven't done so. The analysis on government spending remains largely correct, and the argument remains sound. It could almost act as a self-defense guide for those who haven't had the time to understand why the economic situation is so much worse than we realize.

Subject: Re: Review of Krugman's book 'Fuzzy Math' From: moen To: SZ Date Posted: Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 16:02:28 (EDT) Email Address: moen@juno Message: Nice critique. I agree completely.

Subject: Japan Trap not working From: Wayne To: All Date Posted: Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 03:03:19 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: For some reason I can't get the audio link of the japan trap to work. Anyone else have this problem? Has it been taken down? http://216.147.107.132/japan/japtrap.mp3

Subject: Re: Japan Trap not working From: Bobby To: Wayne Date Posted: Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 03:50:50 (EDT) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: Whoops. I took off the audio about a year and a half ago. I should take off the links in the Japan section -- I must have forgot to do so before.

Subject: Response to National Review Article From: Paul (Not Krugman) To: All Date Posted: Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 05:23:08 (EDT) Email Address: audavion@yahoo.com Message: Here's what I wrote Donald Luskin in response to his article flaming Paul Krugman.... Hey Don, LAME article. You spent a whole column criticizing the opening paragraph of Paul Krugman's latest op-ed piece without even addressing the argument presented in the article. Krugman is rightfully pointing out that the Bush tax cut has created budget shortfalls in the area of Homeland Security- not to mention Education, repairs to infrastructure, Welfare, military pensions, EPA, IRS etc..... Thus the rich undermine America with their GREED. Just wondering, if you Republicans are so against any form of regulation, taxes or social programs, why don't you just cut the crap and declare yourself militant anarchists? You folks are managing to bankrupt the government to save yourselves a little cash and are destroying all of the functions of government except military and law enforcement, so you can keep what's 'yours'. Oh, by the way, if you're going to question Krugman's journalistic integrity in an Op-Ed piece, maybe you should refrain from calling him 'stupid'. It shows that you lack a bit of journalistic integrity yourself. Cheers, Paul Barrett Libruhl Bedwetter

Subject: Re: Response to National Review Article From: Captain of Crush To: Paul (Not Krugman) Date Posted: Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 08:21:09 (EDT) Email Address: mmenos@hotmail.com Message: we don't even care what luskin says anymore; if you will scroll down the opening page on this website, you will see that even other people who hate krugman don't listen to him.

Subject: Oops, here's the link From: Paul (Not Krugman) To: All Date Posted: Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 04:36:09 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/truthsquad061703.asp

Subject: National Review Article From: Paul (Not Krugman) To: All Date Posted: Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 04:34:57 (EDT) Email Address: audavion@yahoo.com Message: Paul Krugman recently got attacked in the Republican rag, the National Review. They call him 'America's Most Dangerous Liberal Pundit' I'd like to hear what people have to say about the article. www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/truthsquad061703.asp

Subject: A date for the Frontline interview From: OmniDude To: All Date Posted: Tues, Jun 17, 2003 at 06:20:22 (EDT) Email Address: omniman@dulmens.dk Message: FYI, apparently the interview was conducted in the spring of 1999: Frontlines own version www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/crash/interviews/krugman.html

Subject: landsburg From: Captain of Crush To: All Date Posted: Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 15:44:02 (EDT) Email Address: mmenos@hotmail.com Message: has anyone picked up 'fair play?' i just ordered it online; i think it could be pretty good. does landsburg do any theoretical or political work?

Subject: Wonderful, incredible website!! From: Tonya To: All Date Posted: Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 04:21:55 (EDT) Email Address: elmer5547@aol.com Message: I love Paul Krugman, and this site, combined with his official site allows me to get everything I could wish for. There is no one who makes it easier to read and understand what is going on. My first Paul Krugman book was Fuzzy Math (a very easy read), and I have been reading everything possible ever since, thank you!! I have used your valuable articles in many arguments with the Republicans, and I know that I understand this stuff so much better than they do (thanks to you!!)...you do such a valuable service to America, THANK YOU!! Http://www.understandingpolitics.com www.understandingpolitics.com www.understandingpolitics.com/image/front .jpg

Subject: Re: Wonderful, incredible website!! From: Lise To: Tonya Date Posted: Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 12:46:13 (EDT) Email Address: ALise@bdol.com Message: Agreed, agreed, agreed.... Lise

Subject: I Love This Website From: Rona To: All Date Posted: Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 17:17:42 (EDT) Email Address: RL@attbi.com Message: This site is a wonderful resource! We love Paul and Bobby....

Subject: Re: I Love This Website From: Bobby To: Rona Date Posted: Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 02:23:13 (EDT) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: Thanks :)

Subject: The Absolute Crux of It. From: Matt Gethins To: All Date Posted: Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 13:33:34 (EDT) Email Address: gethins@bellsouth.net Message: Our country is based on Reason, not Logic. We are currently oppresed by those that value Logic over Reason. The self centered, do NOT comprehend the dynamic of the individual and the group. They say it is all about the individual, failing to explain how the individuals rights are protected without the group. These charlatans must be deflated. Their Logic has no chance against Reason. When their Logic is confronted with Reason, they invariably devolve into bureacratic jibber jabber. Our current national crisis is caused by self centered logicians. Our Democratic Congressmen are baffled by this, but they need not be. Congressman! You must become Knights Errant of Reason. And crush the infestation Logicians, you have the support of all Reasoning people. Reason promotes hope. Because we use Reason in this country to operate our society we have always generated hope everywhere. Logic terrifies when used to make large decisions. Reason Unifies.

Subject: PK's WNYC interview From: MM To: All Date Posted: Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 22:13:45 (EDT) Email Address: mmosespt@bestweb.net Message: PK was on WNYC Thursday, 6/12 and I cannot use there replay format. Will you be posting it in text or media player form?

Subject: Re: PK's WNYC interview From: Bobby To: MM Date Posted: Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 01:09:44 (EDT) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: I'm sorry but I can't do that. Is this because of Windows XP not allowing Realplayer? I am sure that you can find something on www.download.com that would provide a player that plays real audio files.

Subject: NYT Web Page & Krugman From: Dilbert Dogbert To: All Date Posted: Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 16:37:54 (EDT) Email Address: mhpmd@pacbell.net Message: I get the idea that Krugman's column disapears off the NYT web page very fast. Is this the usual practice by the NYT or just with Krugman? Other columnists seem to hang around for longer. Bobby, thanks for the hard work of maintaining this web site and keeping your temper when responding to posts.

Subject: Re: NYT Web Page & Krugman From: Bobby To: Dilbert Dogbert Date Posted: Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 02:14:00 (EDT) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: Thank you. I don't know what's going on with that -- that is a funny observation though.

Subject: sunday and wednesday/blair hornstine? From: Captain of Crush To: All Date Posted: Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 15:23:54 (EDT) Email Address: mmenos@hotmail.com Message: are you (bobby) going to fix the link to the columns page? also, i would like to hear what people think of blair hornstine.

Subject: Re: sunday and wednesday/blair hornstine? From: Bobby To: Captain of Crush Date Posted: Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 19:27:47 (EDT) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: Do you mean http://www.pkarchive.org/column/column.html That link is fine.

Subject: Re: sunday and wednesday/blair hornstine? From: Captain of Crush To: Bobby Date Posted: Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 21:57:37 (EDT) Email Address: mmenos@hotmail.com Message: don't the columns come out on tuesday and friday, though?

Subject: Re: sunday and wednesday/blair hornstine? From: Bobby To: Captain of Crush Date Posted: Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 23:27:12 (EDT) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: Oh yeah, that's what you mean. I don;t know how to use photoshop where they are made. I might ask my wife to alter the pic -- though a new version might be outmoded since my guess is that NYT might change the days for each column again very soon.

Subject: Should I buy The Great Unraveling? From: Matt Snyder To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Jun 12, 2003 at 17:45:34 (EDT) Email Address: maatthias at yahoo.com Message:

Subject: Re: Should I buy The Great Unraveling? From: Bobby To: Matt Snyder Date Posted: Thurs, Jun 12, 2003 at 17:53:22 (EDT) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: Yes.

Subject: Where will Paul go next? From: Tombo To: All Date Posted: Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 15:00:00 (EDT) Email Address: onlyinmoscow@yahoo.com Message: Howell Raines is gone. Bill Keller's likely to take over at the NYT when the dust settles. Will Keller dump the fabricator Mo Dowd and foaming-at-the-mouth Paul K?

Subject: Re: Where will Paul go next? From: Tombo To: Tombo Date Posted: Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 15:01:28 (EDT) Email Address: onlyinmoscow@yahoo.com Message: Maybe Rolling Stone? Or does PJ O'Rourke have first dibs on the job? Perhaps GQ? People magazine?

Subject: Krugman Videos From: samuel To: All Date Posted: Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 08:17:47 (EDT) Email Address: samuellurie@hotmail.com Message: Hi - Is there something I can do to make the video picture come in clear. The picture is really bad. I am using the latest Windows Media player version 9. Any help would be most appreciated.

Subject: national review From: steve jennings To: All Date Posted: Tues, Jun 10, 2003 at 02:32:40 (EDT) Email Address: jandsjenns@vr-web.de Message: Is what National Review claims true? Was NAFTA a *big* tax cut. IIRC, U.S. tariffs on imports from Mexico in 1993 were 3% of imports, and imports were running at $30 billion a year. That's $1 billion a year--or 2% of the size of the tax increases in the 1993 Clinton deficit-reduction plan that I helped make it through Congress. It should be surprising that the economics peddled by National Review is so awful. Why, in God's name, should this country's flagship conservative magazine be reduced to printing drivel by the likes of Bowyer (who genuinely does not know that the NAFTA tariff cuts were a very small fraction of the 1993 Clinton tax increases), Luskin (who can't be bothered to read a whole February 2003 CEA study using the Macroeconomic Associates model), Moore (who either does not understand the difference between nominal and real dollars, or is doing his best to give the impression of someone who does not understand the difference). Kudlow (who knows that he is a 'monetarist', but has no clue which monetary aggregate the Federal Reserve should be trying to stabilize). There are, after all, lots of very good right-wing economists in this country. Why is National Review reduced to printing oceans of drivel? Why not get some people who are smart, who know some economics, and who can count to write? Rich Clarida. Glenn Hubbard. Bob Topel. Kevin Murphy. Bob Lucas. Larry Christiano. Mark Bils. Virginia Postrel. Steve Postrel. Brink Lindsey. Bob Hall. That's eleven. All vastly, vastly superior to the current crop of clowns--people who think that the recent tax cut will create 500,000 new jobs each and every year for the next decade, who think that a millionaire in 1900 is comparable to a millionaire today, or that NAFTA was a bigger deal for the U.S. economy than the 1993 tax increase. It's a mystery. brad de Long econ161.berkeley.edu/movable_type/

Subject: Re: national review From: Chicago Boy To: steve jennings Date Posted: Tues, Jun 10, 2003 at 16:24:37 (EDT) Email Address: mrwreckingball@budweiser.com Message: That's actually a good point. There's no shortage of right-wing economists, but the good ones very seldom get the ear of your average conservative. It's a tragedy, really.

Subject: For Alex sztuden From: Bobby To: All Date Posted: Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 21:08:55 (EDT) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: I know that the elasticity of HICKSIAN LABOR SUPPLY, NOT MARSHALLIAN is included for the formula for DWL from taxes. When we are discussing *tax* DWL changes from changes of houshold behavior, we must deal of changes of HICKSIAN curves NOT MARSHALLIAN ones. When we are looking for changes due to tax changes of GDP, which is total output, we must look at changes of MARSHALLIAN curves and NOT Hicksian curves. So when we measure the DWL change from a tax change we must look at the elasticity of *HICKSIAN* labor supply (also called compensated labor supply) from an after-tax wage increase (which is about 0) and the elasticity of *HICKSIAN* saving (also called compensated saving curve) from an after-tax rate of return increase (which is about 0), not the elasticities associated with the Marshallian curves. A tax cut that changes Hicksian labor supply and Hicksian saving but has no change of Marshallian labor supply and Marshallian saving creates DWL changes but has *NO* effect on output or output growth. GDP is a measure of *OUTPUT* and NOT OF *SOCIAL SURPLUS* -- DWL changes due to Hicksian changes from a tax increase decrease *SOCIAL SURPLUS*, but if the Marshallian elasticities from these tax changes are zero (which they are), the tax change has *NO CHANGE of OUTPUT* which is the same thing as *NO CHANGE OF GDP* This is a case where changes of DWL are not associated with changes of GDP. Feldstein's E, which is the E you were referring to, is 'elasticity of taxable income with respect to the net-of-tax share.' Krugman said that the DWL change of the $1 tax increase is $.3 (which I think is in fact a mainstream estimate of DWL change due to taxes) and not that E is .3 -- he just never said that E was .3 These are taxes that affect houshold choices, so any elasticities we employ must be Hicksian if we want to see DWL effects and Marshallian if we want to know growth effects. Krugman's passage was verbal example as to why the DWL change of the $1 tax increase is $.3 I really suggest that you reread the passage from Krugman before you unintentionally mischaracterize it again Again, please see George Borjas, Labor Economics regarding labor supply elasticities and see Joe Stiglitz's Public Finance about the Hicksian v. Marshallian comment. Concerning Felstein's notes, he is assuming that Hicksian and Marshallian labor supply are the same. But Feldstein's assumption that Hicksian and Marshallian labor supply are the same is not a realistic one -- only done for the simplicity of his economic class which at the introductory level. His DWL estimates might be correct. But they are completely consistent with zero change of Marshallian labor supply, since it is the a change of Hicksian labor supply that creates DWL changes REGARDLESS OF MARSHALLIAN LABOR SUPPLY CHANGES

Subject: Re: For Alex sztuden From: alex To: Bobby Date Posted: Tues, Jun 10, 2003 at 14:34:38 (EDT) Email Address: sztuden@yahoo.com Message: quote from feldstein, p.13 American Economic Policy in the 1980's: 'With one-third of the labor force out of work [during the Great Depression], there was no need to worry about the willingness of workers to supply labor. The simple Keynesian model that shaped economists' view of the world over the next several decades generally ignored incentives: labor supply was assumed to be a fixed, given quantity; household savings were assumed to depend only on income (and not on the rate of return...)...All this began to change in the 1970s...The common theme in all this research was that labor supply is responsive to incentives.' 'The procedure of revenue estimating by the staffs of the Treasury...was symbolic of the disregard of the behavioural response of taxpayers to changes in tax rates. The revenue effect of any proposed tax change was always calculated on the assumption that it would have no effect on the behaviour of taxpayers and therefore an induced change of behaviour could have no feedback effect on total tax revenue.' Now I ask you- how do you get feedback effects (if a tax cut was for $100 billion, it might only cost $80 billion due to feedback effects) without growing GNP? How can you cut tax rates and not lose the full amount of the cut unless GNP rises as a result of the tax cuts? This has been Feldman's point in his research throughout; his studies of DWL are absolutely not consistent with no output growth or E=0. 2. i will list a few factors of Deadweight losses due to tax increases: 1) reduced participation of the labor force (more people decide to drop out of work and not look for jobs); 2) reduced average work hours per worker (Krugman's example); 3) reduced incentives for investing in self-education, and there are a few more. let's focus on 1) and 2)- both of those numbers are also factors in economic growth. Economic growth is labor times labor's productivity. How is output not affected when the labor force shrinks as a result of increased tax rates? How is growth not affected when workers only want to work 38 hour weeks, not 39 hour weeks. The same factors that drive growth drive DWL calculations! 3. Krugman writes: 'When someone works to earn a dollar, he raises GNP by one dollar; but if he pays a 30% marginal tax rate, he gets to keep only 70 cents for himself. As a result, people tend to work too little.' [read: THEY WILL NO LONGER PRODUCE ONE DOLLAR OF GNP]. Just before, Krugman had stated that a person limits her taxes by working less. Now I ask you- if people work less after a tax increase- how do you make up the missing output? Krugman himself has linked DWL to GNP by stating that the worker will no longer produce one dollar of GNP because of high tax rates. Read the passage again please. Krugman cites feldstein over 10 times in his book and its not unreasonable that he is influenced by Feldstein's work re: labor supply. Tax rates reduce work effort by anywhere from 30 to 100% and this directly affects GNP. The DWL's are not just in subjective surplus losses. Feldstein has explicitly stated that goverment officials should take into account the growth effects of tax cuts when estimating their costs. There is no simplification on his part, only over-complication on your part.

Subject: Re: For Alex sztuden From: alex To: alex Date Posted: Tues, Jun 10, 2003 at 17:51:25 (EDT) Email Address: sztuden@yahoo.com Message: Krugman writes: 'When someone works to earn a dollar, he raises GNP by one dollar; but if he pays a 30% marginal tax rate, he gets to keep only 70 cents for himself. As a result, people tend to work too little.' Right after, Krugman states that DWL is 30 cents per dollar. Please explain to me how when the work week falls from 39 to 38 hours per week (or whatever 'people tend to work too little means') is consistent with zero elasticity. DWL in the case of labor supply shows up in GNP. Don't respond: one is Hicksian, the other is Marshallian- i am claiming that empirically you cannot have 30 cents/dollar DWL without it showing up in loss of output. Empirically, how is E=0 consistent with huge DWL losses resulting from 'people working too little' (Krugman's words).

Subject: Re: For Alex sztuden From: Bobby To: alex Date Posted: Tues, Jun 10, 2003 at 17:07:53 (EDT) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: My point is that the effect of tax cuts upon the labor hours supplied is negligible to nothing -- if it weren't that would indeed have effects upon output since output increases in labor. But the effect upon labor is about 0 since the elasticity of labor supply is about 0 (see Borjas). The elasticity of 0 applies to the market labor supply curve so this includes the choice of those in LF to change their labor hours AND the choice of those not in LF to participate or not. So an after-tax wage increase has a substitution effect that increases labor hours and income effect that decreases labor hours for those in LF. For those not in LF there is only a substitution effect and no income effect so this only increases labor hours for them. The total effect on labor supply is theoretically ambiguous and the empirical consensus is that it is about zero since the elasticity is about 0. Since income effects relative to substitution effects are small for the poor their labor supply might be more elastic so there might be favorable labor supply effects for them, but we are talking about tax cuts for the rich (I thought). Concerning increasing the rate of return to education, a tax cut for the rich must (a) be credible enough so that young people think it will be permanent and thereby increase expected rate of return of education and (b) be large enough to have more than a negigible effect upon the rate of return of human capital. There are better ways to encourage human capital accumulation that this -- like paying kids to do better on standardized tests. Feldstein has a record of believing that tax cuts have large output effects, so I don't dispute that *he* thinks that tax cuts have large output effects. Feldstein therefore must disagree with these Marshallian elasticities that I have discussed, even though Borjas says there is a consensus on labor supply elasticities, and although Feldstein is well respected. The elasticity of about 0 presented by Borjas for labor supply and Nordhaus's elasticity of about 0 for saving elasticity from the after tax interest rate imply no change of labor or capital from tax cuts and hence no change of output (I'm assuming that TFP is exogenous). My point was that there can be large DWL changes due to Hicksian changes from tax increases even though there are no Marshallian changes and hence no output changes. So large DWL changes from tax increases (say $.3 from a $1 tax increase as Krugman says) and no loss of ouput are indeed consistent with each other. Perhaps both DWL changes and output changes are in fact occurring *in Feldstein's research*, but DWL changes can still occur without ouput changes, and the consensus labor supply elasticity of about 0 suggests that Feldstein is wrong. I don't know exactly how Feldstein came to his own DWL estimates for tax increase -- but the DWL is theoretically from Hicksian changes that do in fact occur, and the consensus on labor supply is that there is neglible change of Marshallian labor supply from after tax wage changes. So most economists disagree with him that there are Marshallian changes though do agree that there are Hicksian changes. This Hicksian vs. Marshallian dichotomy is very well-known and important in public finance and is not an over-complication whatsoever, and I suggest that you look into it (Stiglitz's textbook is good). I have seen the $.3 of DWL for $1 of taxes figure before, and it refers to DWL not GDP and that is what Krugman is saying too -- I can assure you of this. The reason why you are misinterpreting Krugman's passage is that you are failing to think about the underlying assumptions of his model. In the passage we are discussing, Krugman is assuming for the sake of the layman reader and simplicity that Hicksian and Marshallian labor supply are the same. When they are the same DWL can occur only if there are Marshallian changes (since they are the same as Hicksian changes), and if there are Marshallian changes there must be changes of GDP. Krugman is actually making two separate points in the passage about taxation, but they look like the same point due to his assumption that Hicksian and Marshallian labor supply are the same. These 2 points are (1) If taxes have Marshallian effects, they have effects upon GDP, but notice that no estimates for the size of these GDP effects are provided (2) Taxes create DWL, which is $.3 for $1 of taxes. What Krugman is showing is a theoretical model to illustrate the two aforementioned concepts not empirical reality -- he never says anything about the empirical size of what happens in the model except that the DWL from $1 of taxes if $.3. He did not say that empirically Marshallian labor supply decreases -- only that this happens hypothetically for the two purposes of the example. What Krugman did not include, since Peddling Prosperity is written for the non-economist, is that, if Hicksian and Marshallian labor supply are not the same, tax cuts might have ZERO MARSHALLIAN effects (and hence no output effects), but they almost always have DWL effects since they almost always have Hicksian effects. Therefore the Marshallian effects of tax changes can be zero while there are large Hicksian changes and changes of DWL. Again, $.3 is DWL for $1 of tax increase (that is a Hicksian effect), while GDP changes are due to Marshallian effects. And the Marshallian effects of a tax change can be zero while the Hicksian/DWL effects can be large. Please take a Public Finance class, and you will see that I am right on this one.

Subject: deadweight losses From: alex sztuden To: Bobby Date Posted: Tues, Jun 10, 2003 at 17:55:33 (EDT) Email Address: sztuden@yahoo.com Message: also, don't say that DWL losses ('people tend to work too little') get offset somehow through the income effect, where people prefer more leisure with rising incomes. you can't do this because DWL calculations already factor in the income effects- otherwise they wouldnt be deadweight losses. also, don't say, other workers pick up the slack of those who tend to work too little. if this were the case, there would be no aggregate deadweight losses- because losses from my working too little would be offset by gains of your picking up the slack. to be clear: how is 'working too little' (followed by Krugman's estimates of 30 cent loss per dollar tax increase) consisent zero elasticity?

Subject: missing word From: alex To: alex sztuden Date Posted: Tues, Jun 10, 2003 at 17:57:31 (EDT) Email Address: sztuden@yahoo.com Message: consistent 'with' zero elasticity?

Subject: The answer is Hicksian again From: Bobby To: alex Date Posted: Tues, Jun 10, 2003 at 18:59:07 (EDT) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: Apologies for editing my second message while you were replying to it. Please reread it. Also sorry about this post being so long. But, if you read the entire thing, I think that you will understand my position. My point has been that you can have DWL changes due to tax changes without any changes of actual labor supply or saving rate or output. This is why: When you do DWL from a tax you measure the household's part of DWL, that is the loss of household's surplus (producer surplus in the labor market), with the change of Hicksian labor supply, and you measure the firm's part of DWL, that is the loss of the firm's surplus (consumer surplus in the labor market), with the change of Marshallian labor supply (the actual change of labor). Then you add the two to get total DWL (see Stiglitz's textbook Economics of the Public Sector P. 531 - 532 for this). Since the elasticity of Marshallian labor supply is zero, the Marshallian change due to an after tax wage change is zero, and hence the firm's part of DWL change from a tax change is zero. Under this (true) assumption, here, the houshold's part of DWL change is total DWL change, and therefore total DWL changes only if Hicksian labor supply changes. In general, when there is a tax change, since the Marshallian elasticities of both labor supply and saving are both zero empirically, there is zero change of actual labor and actual saving rate (and hence zero change of output) and zero change of the firm's part of DWL. But since the Hicksian elasticities of labor supply and saving are always greater than zero there are changes of the household's part of DWL only, since the firm's part of DWL is staying the same. Keep this in mind as you read. But from now on, we will stick to only labor supply and ignore saving. In general, Marshallian labor supply is always more inelastic than Hicksian labor supply if consumption and leisure are normal. Marshallian labor supply includes substitution effects, where an after tax wage increase increases labor supply and income effects where an after tax wage increase decreases labor supply, so Marshallian labor supply curves can be upward sloping, vertical, or backward bending (empirically they are vertical with elasticity of 0). Hicksian labor supply includes only substitution effects of an after tax wage increase and not income effects (remember that utility is held constant for Hicksian labor supply), so *Hicksian labor supply* will always be more elastic than 0. Let's say that the Marshallian elasticity of labor supply is 0, which is true empirically. Therefore there is no change of the firm's part of DWL due to a change of the after tax wage, and there is no change of actual labor supply, since income effects offset the substitution effects exactly. However, there is a change of Hicksian labor supply which only includes substitution effects, and hence there is a change of the household's part of DWL, since household's part of DWL is measured with only Hicksian labor supply not Marshallian labor supply. In fact, since the household's part of DWL is measured with Hicksian labor supply and since Hicksian labor supply is always more elastic than 0, a tax change always changes the household's part of DWL regardless of what the Marshallian labor supply is. Remember that the household's part of DWL from taxes is measured with *Hicksian labor supply* not Marshallian. Therefore, although the Marshallian curve is about vertical empirically (about 0 elasticity), there is indeed always DWL change from a tax change, since we measure the household's part of DWL with Hicksian labor supply which is always more elastic than 0. In reply to your specific comments: "also, don't say that DWL losses ('people tend to work too little') get offset somehow through the income effect, where people prefer more leisure with rising incomes. you can't do this because DWL calculations already factor in the income effects- otherwise they wouldnt be deadweight losses." This is incorrect when we're talking about changes of the household's part of DWL due to tax changes. In reality, as opposed to Krugman's hypothetical example which is just to illustrate theoretical concepts not empirical ones (more on this below), people supply labor "too little" only in a Hicksian sense not Marshallian. Again, Hicksian labor supply only includes substitution effects of wage changes and no income effects. Since household's part of DWL is measured with Hicksian labor supply, and since Marshallian labor supply's elasticity is empirically zero (hence the change of the firm's part of DWL is zero), there are no changes of Marshallian labor supply (and hence no changes of output) and only Hicksian changes due to tax changes. Here the DWL change is *only* for the household's part of DWL, which is always only due to the Hicksian labor supply change, which is the substitution effect and has nothing to do with income effects. 'also, don't say, other workers pick up the slack of those who tend to work too little. if this were the case, there would be no aggregate deadweight losses- because losses from my working too little would be offset by gains of your picking up the slack.' I said that, for the aggregate Marshallian labor supply curve, the decreases of labor hours supplied due to income effect of an after tax wage increase offsets the substitution effect upon labor hours of people in LF and entry of new people into LF, so that there is no change of Marshallian labor hours supplied from an after tax wage increase, and this makes the Marshallian labor supply curve vertical (elasticity of 0) locally. I think that in this previous quotation you are arguing that since Marshallian is vertical there can be no DWL change. But, as I said before, even though Marshallian labor supply is vertical there is still DWL change since we measure the household's part of DWL with Hicksian labor supply not Marshallian, and Hicksian labor supply includes only substitution effects and *ignores* income effects and is therefore more elastic than 0. This offsetting income effect does not affect Hicksian labor supply, only Marshallian, and therefore there is still DWL change (it is only a change of the household's part of DWL since the firm's part is zero) even when Marshallian labor supply is vertical. Again, we measure household's part of DWL with Hicksian labor supply which is more elastic than 0 (less steep than vertical and not affected by the aforementioned offsetting income effects) not with Marshallian which has an elasticity of 0 (vertical and is affected by the aforementioned offsetting income effects). Again, the Marshallian labor supply curve *is* in fact vertical empirically (its elasticity is 0), and there is still DWL change (change of the household's part of DWL) since Hicksian labor supply is more elastic than 0 (less steep than vertical). And again, Hicksian labor supply is more elastic than 0 (less steep than a vertical curve) since Hicksian labor supply only measures substitution effects and not income effects -- and this is true even when Marshallian labor supply is vertical (elasticity of 0). "i am claiming that empirically you cannot have 30 cents/dollar DWL without it showing up in loss of output." Yes you can have $.3 of DWL per dollar of taxes without any change of output -- since the household's part of DWL is measured with Hicksian labor supply change not Marshallian there can be DWL change with no Marshallian labor supply change. You are taking Krugman's hypothetical example, especially when he says "working too little" way too literally. The labor hours in reality do not change, even though they do in the *hypothetical* example. Krugman is assuming, unrealistically for a *hypothetical* example, that Marshallian and Hicksian are the same. Remember that under this assumption, tax changes must have Marshallian effects (since the Marshallian and Hicksian effects are the same under the assumption). This is a *hypothetical* example to *show a theoretical concept* and *not an empirical reality*, and whose assumptions must be considered before we apply it to reality. In reality the assumption that they are the same is unrealistic when we are talking abot labor supply choice. Do not take this assumption literally. Krugman made the assumption so that (1) it would be easier on a reader without economics experience and (2) so that he could conveniently hit two birds with one stone -- ie. Krugman could show that tax changes have two theoretical effects: (a) theoretically (not empirically) tax changes can have Marshallian effects and hence effects on GDP and that (b) tax changes in theory do change DWL. Remember that without the assumption that Hicksian and Marshallian labor supply are the same, the DWL effects can exist without the Marshallian effects since changes of the household's part of DWL is due to Hicksian changes. The example itself says that effect (a) CAN HAPPEN but not HOW LARGE (a) is EMPIRICALLY (in other words, though the size of the Marshallian effect is in fact negligible empirically, Krugman does not say this in the hypothetical example). Concerning effect (b) he says not only that effect (b) CAN HAPPEN but also HOW LARGE it is: DWL is $.3 per dollar of tax increase. Empirically (not in Krugman's hypothetical verbal example) the Marshallian decrease of labor supply is about zero, while there is a Hicksian decrease of labor supply that is greater than zero from a tax increase. *In reality when there is a tax increase households supply labor 'too little' only in a Hicksian sense, not Marshallian.*

Subject: you're right From: alex To: Bobby Date Posted: Thurs, Jun 12, 2003 at 13:30:03 (EDT) Email Address: sztuden@yahoo.com Message: Bobby: You're right. Here's a part of Prof. Feldstein's response to me (pretty much what you said). Although, notice that he doesn't concede that E is 0. 'It is possible that a tax causes a DWL but does not cause a loss of measured GDP. The logic is as follows: Consider a tax on labor income. We can think of it as having an income effect (it makes me poorer which makes me work more) and a substitution effect (it makes work less rewarding which makes me work less). If these just balance, there is no change in my work effort and therefore no change in GDP. But I am worse off because of the substitution effect. It is that which causes the DWL. To see this latter point, note that a lump sum tax would make me poorer and cause me to work more. But it would not cause a DWL because my loss would exactly equal the revenue that the government collects If the govt returned that revenue to me as a lump sum, I would be back to my original position. In contrast, if the government returns the revenue collected by the tax on labor income, I would still be worse off. But the GDP measured effect is not relevant for deciding whether the huge deadweight losses are a serious problem. They are. And of course income and substitution effects may not cancel and GDP may fall. But it need not even when there is a large DWL' Reply Reply & Delete Reply All Forward Next Previous Delete Print Message - 48/202 Move Message To : Copyright © 2002 IceWarp Software. All rights reserved.

Subject: New Message Board From: Bobby To: Bobby Date Posted: Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 20:53:37 (EDT) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: Okay. I put in a new message board since the previous one was erasing past messages. Enjoy! The old message board is here: http://www.hotboards.com/plus/plus.mirage?who=coper10 and I've put a link to it on the Updates page