Krugman, W, malaise, and GOP's American Way. Ole.

[fromderinside]

[h=1]Doubling Down on W http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/28/opinion/doubling-down-on-w.html?_r=0[/h]
Tall Paul, excuse the licence I just want to date myself, myself and Steven Pinker all got our degrees in the same year. Not that isn't the topic. It sets the stage for why I'm presenting this article as evidence that liberals tend to look at trees when they should be looking at either forests or weather.

Krugman's observations are correct with one exception. It only speaks to the republican base. Krugman argues with some evidence that Republican contenders tacking to Bush is evidence leadership in the GOP sees war, MIC, and the American way go together in a dumb show dance. I see it it as leadership putting their moistened collective fingers in the air and finding the breeze evaporates that way.

My view. Collectively, Republicans believe in Strength and Business as the American Way. It's their definition of american Exceptionalism.

That along with a collection of racists, know nothings, and camp followers, pretty much characterizes Trump's support.

I argue these are all linked in a me-first based circle of anxiety of anything not already declared in stone that makes up the modern Republican Party.

I go with spirit of the times rather than great men as impetus for what we see in the presidential aspiration carnival on the right.

Oh, as for the introduction, well, we all got schooled during, "Gosh corrupt republicans can make social law" which lead to the malaise phase of democratic thinking.

There, that and the reference article should be enough to generate a little dust up here.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The problems with the GOP candidates is, they are still expecting what is basically supply-side economic policies will work despite solid evidence from past GOP supply side failures to work that supply-side economics is about as useful as doctrinaire Marxist economic policies. Trump and Bush are simply more of the same on steroids. You don't create an exceptional America based on failed ways of doing politics, economics or foreign policy.

 

[arkirk]

The problems with the GOP candidates is, they are still expecting what is basically supply-side economic policies will work despite solid evidence from past GOP supply side failures to work that supply-side economics is about as useful as doctrinaire Marxist economic policies. Trump and Bush are simply more of the same on steroids. You don't create an exceptional America based on failed ways of doing politics, economics or foreign policy.

Trump definitely is selling supply side drivel peppered with good dose of racism and good old flag waving patriotism. Actually you don't seem to understand...the world is "just fine" for a good few Americans and that drivel has served THEM very well....(they ought be saying thank you but my guess is they will pass.) Perhaps you can tell me just which doctrinaire Marxist economic policies you are talking about...some of them might actually serve some other Americans at least a little better. Be careful in responding that the policies you enumerate only come from Marx.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The problems with the GOP candidates is, they are still expecting what is basically supply-side economic policies will work despite solid evidence from past GOP supply side failures to work that supply-side economics is about as useful as doctrinaire Marxist economic policies. Trump and Bush are simply more of the same on steroids. You don't create an exceptional America based on failed ways of doing politics, economics or foreign policy.

As a Free Marketer, I agree that Supply Side doesn't work. That's why I support the Free Market instead.

 

[fromderinside]

As a Free Marketer, I agree that Supply Side doesn't work. That's why I support the Free Market instead.

Free market is a contradiction in terms. Greed is not good when combined with commerce. Freely trading leads to capital in the hands of the very few in the same way that free exercise of power leads to political domination by the very few. Both are antithetical to the every notion of society in that society is reduced the smallest number holding both power and money. Humans are social beings. Humans are not beings who desire being dominated else there would be no humans, at their core, resist domination to the end. Government is meant to control excess which, for the economy, is to regulate it in ways that increase the breadth of benefits for the most citizens.

My observations were not about whether what republicans believe are viable, they're not, rather it is about from whence the emergence of Double down on W candidate phenomenon arose. It certainly isn't from the minds of the mental midgets running as Krugman's article seems to suggest. Besides W'ism is about trickle down and not about free market so putting a herring in the trail ends any discussion about why republicans are so set on giving their masters, big business and big military, gifts.

Let me suggest Krugman has the right idea about how the economy works, but, he has badly missed how politics work. The public mood of the base is the genesis for the for what those who would lead spout. Gird your loins its a year about trickle and fear versus inclusion and peace. In a good economy good values like getting along and fairness trump fear and greed. I'm putting my money on Democrats.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Thank you for agreeing that free market and supply side are different.

 

[SimpleDon]

The problems with the GOP candidates is, they are still expecting what is basically supply-side economic policies will work despite solid evidence from past GOP supply side failures to work that supply-side economics is about as useful as doctrinaire Marxist economic policies. Trump and Bush are simply more of the same on steroids. You don't create an exceptional America based on failed ways of doing politics, economics or foreign policy.

As a Free Marketer, I agree that Supply Side doesn't work. That's why I support the Free Market instead.

As a free marker you must have seen some evidence that convinced you that the free market can exist. Care to share?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

As a Free Marketer, I agree that Supply Side doesn't work. That's why I support the Free Market instead.

As a free marker you must have seen some evidence that convinced you that the free market can exist. Care to share?

I think he is saying that the free market is all things to all people, and includes social norms. That would mean that if too much power gets into the hands of too few the free market will correct that problem with revolution.

 

[fromderinside]

The problems with the GOP candidates is, they are still expecting what is basically supply-side economic policies will work despite solid evidence from past GOP supply side failures to work that supply-side economics is about as useful as doctrinaire Marxist economic policies. Trump and Bush are simply more of the same on steroids. You don't create an exceptional America based on failed ways of doing politics, economics or foreign policy.

The thing is Trump and Bush aren't anywhere on economics. They are just tuning in on how the base is sending signals. That base is nation phobic and anti-tax as a matter of being anti-federal government. The resulting cacophony signals fear of external threats and personal extreme selfishness and a militancy about and against all who disagree in every case.

Don't fall for their shouting as meaningful. Just take it to the bank these are bunker militarists who want to give the entitled every opportunity to take. Beyond the fact that they'd take election as a signal attempt dismantling everything related to social justice accomplished in the 20th century in which they would fail miserably this is a very fearful crowd.

 

[fromderinside]

As a free marker you must have seen some evidence that convinced you that the free market can exist. Care to share?

I think he is saying that the free market is all things to all people, and includes social norms. That would mean that if too much power gets into the hands of too few the free market will correct that problem with revolution.

That^^^ ... and very scary if it were still a permitted option.

 

[arkirk]

As a Free Marketer, I agree that Supply Side doesn't work. That's why I support the Free Market instead.

Free market is a contradiction in terms. Greed is not good when combined with commerce. Freely trading leads to capital in the hands of the very few in the same way that free exercise of power leads to political domination by the very few. Both are antithetical to the every notion of society in that society is reduced the smallest number holding both power and money. Humans are social beings. Humans are not beings who desire being dominated else there would be no humans, at their core, resist domination to the end. Government is meant to control excess which, for the economy, is to regulate it in ways that increase the breadth of benefits for the most citizens.

My observations were not about whether what republicans believe are viable, they're not, rather it is about from whence the emergence of Double down on W candidate phenomenon arose. It certainly isn't from the minds of the mental midgets running as Krugman's article seems to suggest. Besides W'ism is about trickle down and not about free market so putting a herring in the trail ends any discussion about why republicans are so set on giving their masters, big business and big military, gifts.

Let me suggest Krugman has the right idea about how the economy works, but, he has badly missed how politics work. The public mood of the base is the genesis for the for what those who would lead spout. Gird your loins its a year about trickle and fear versus inclusion and peace. In a good economy good values like getting along and fairness trump fear and greed. I'm putting my money on Democrats.

This public mood of the base is an artificial creation of the media. Even just thinking about what the "base" thinks amounts to gearing yourself to the lowest common denominator and certainly the acceptance it buys will not allow for sufficient leadership to deal with problems our society is facing. I think Krugman understands that and perhaps YOU DON'T.

What's more, the so called "free market" should rightly be called the unregulated and uncontrolable market where our environment gets sold out in every possible way. We had leaders in Paris nodding and agreeing to carbon reduction and we now have a government putting up property all over the country for petroleum development (drilling). Something seems to be telling me our government is two facing us again.

 

[untermensche]

As a Free Marketer, I agree that Supply Side doesn't work. That's why I support the Free Market instead.

Free market is a contradiction in terms....

No kidding.

A fair market is not free and a free market is not fair, those with the most money will always want a "free" market, in other words a market they can dominate.

When will the so-called "Libertarians" realize all they are doing is spewing a wish list for the rich?

 

[SimpleDon]

Thank you for agreeing that free market and supply side are different.

Supply side economics forms the basis of our current economic policies that have produced the unprecedented income inequality that we have now, thirty five years of mediocre growth, massive government debt, a massive infrastructure deficit to leave to our children and the largest recession since the Great Depression.

Free market economics is based on nothing but the hope and faith of a small number of anarchists and other utopian dreamers and describes not how the economy works but how they wish that the economy works.

 

[SimpleDon]

As a free marker you must have seen some evidence that convinced you that the free market can exist. Care to share?

I think he is saying that the free market is all things to all people, and includes social norms. That would mean that if too much power gets into the hands of too few the free market will correct that problem with revolution.

When I hear someone use the term "free market" I assume that they are referring to the concept in economics that the market mechanism in capitalism that regulates prices and allocates resources can be left on its own without regulation and oversight from government to achieve a more stable economy and the maximum amount of social justice possible.

It, like Marxism, is an utopian theory produced in the 19th century by anarchists who believed that the source of our problems in society isn't basic human nature but government. That without government corrupting everything, humans will return to some idyllic state where they don't murder and steal from each other.

And like Marxism, the free market theory has haunted mankind ever since causing untold damage to our economies and other social institutions.

Marxism believes that government imposes capitalism on the people. Free market cultists believe the opposite, that government corrupts the naturally occurring capitalism that would otherwise provide everything possible to everyone.

Needless to say, both are crocks of shit that deny basic human nature and the lessons of human history.

 

[SimpleDon]

The problems with the GOP candidates is, they are still expecting what is basically supply-side economic policies will work despite solid evidence from past GOP supply side failures to work that supply-side economics is about as useful as doctrinaire Marxist economic policies. Trump and Bush are simply more of the same on steroids. You don't create an exceptional America based on failed ways of doing politics, economics or foreign policy.

I don't think that there is anyone left in the Republican party who believes that supply side economics is the way to prosperity for all and that it produces maximum growth and overflowing government coffers. At least anyone whose IQ threatens three digits.

The Republican's fealty to this now thoroughly disproven economic theory and the economic policies that result from it has nothing to do with the results of the policies and everything to do with how it tries to accomplish those results, by redistributing ever increasing amounts of the nation's income to the very rich and away from the poor and the middle class. This is what produces the campaign contributions and the so-called independent PAC's that keep the Republicans in power in the face of otherwise daunting demographics.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Thank you for agreeing that free market and supply side are different.

Supply side economics forms the basis of our current economic policies that have produced the unprecedented income inequality that we have now, thirty five years of mediocre growth, massive government debt, a massive infrastructure deficit to leave to our children and the largest recession since the Great Depression.

Free market economics is based on nothing but the hope and faith of a small number of anarchists and other utopian dreamers and describes not how the economy works but how they wish that the economy works.

Your analysis is flawed, but we agree that free market and supply side are different, so thank you for agreeing that free market and supply side are different.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Supply side economics forms the basis of our current economic policies that have produced the unprecedented income inequality that we have now, thirty five years of mediocre growth, massive government debt, a massive infrastructure deficit to leave to our children and the largest recession since the Great Depression.

Free market economics is based on nothing but the hope and faith of a small number of anarchists and other utopian dreamers and describes not how the economy works but how they wish that the economy works.

Your analysis is flawed, but we agree that free market and supply side are different, so thank you for agreeing that free market and supply side are different.

I think you are going to have to expand more on what you see is the differences. Most people see supply side economics just as giving more money to the rich by giving them tax breaks and then the wealth supposedly flows down.

But I am not sure how the affects of supply side economics would actually be measured.

 

[ksen]

The problems with the GOP candidates is, they are still expecting what is basically supply-side economic policies will work despite solid evidence from past GOP supply side failures to work that supply-side economics is about as useful as doctrinaire Marxist economic policies. Trump and Bush are simply more of the same on steroids. You don't create an exceptional America based on failed ways of doing politics, economics or foreign policy.

As a Free Marketer, I agree that Supply Side doesn't work. That's why I support the Free Market instead.

Supply-siders would argue that they are the ones fighting for the Free Market.

What do you consider a Free Market to be and how does it differ from what supply-siders argue they are for?

http://www.economicshelp.org/macroeconomics/economic-growth/supply-side-policies/
https://la.utexas.edu/users/hcleaver/304L/304Lsupplyside.html
http://fee.org/freeman/a-walk-on-the-supply-side/

 

[ksen]

But I am not sure how the affects of supply side economics would actually be measured.

Well, one thing we can look at is the performance of the economy and the size of the deficit under supply side policies.

Whenever supply side policies are tried we see slower economic growth and bigger deficits.

See Kansas under Brownback as the most recent example.

 

[coloradoatheist]

But I am not sure how the affects of supply side economics would actually be measured.

Well, one thing we can look at is the performance of the economy and the size of the deficit under supply side policies.

Whenever supply side policies are tried we see slower economic growth and bigger deficits.

See Kansas under Brownback as the most recent example.

I agree with you about Kansas. Whacking 1% of the tax rate isn't going to do what is intended. However with it on larger scales it will always be debated on when you need to look the affects and how long.