Can we stop with the Paul Krugman posts already?

[MannyGoldstein]

Last edited Fri Apr 26, 2013, 07:27 AM - Edit history (2)

Look, I get it. Many members of our very-very-big-tent Democratic party are unhappy. While the economy has been excellent for the past four years, it could be even excellent-er. While most bankers are doing way better than ever, we've all heard that a few have only had small pay increases. Yes, we must do better.

But turning to a Firebagger like Krugman is not the way to go. It's not who we are.

Sure, to people less intelligent than me, it seems that Krugman has been accurately predicting everything correctly all along. But now, finally we have PROOF POSITIVE that our little hero of the EmoProgs has been totally wrong all along:

The REALITY is that NOBODY can possibly know what's going on!

BBC: Big Thinkers Still Stumped on Global Economic Crisis

"It's as if a cat has climbed this huge tree - the cat of course is this huge crisis. My view is 'oh my God the cat's going to fall and I don't know what to do'."

...

The trouble for the economics profession is, according to the last of the conference hosts and another Nobel Prize winner, Joseph Stiglitz: "There is no good economic theory that explains why the cat is still up the tree".

...

There were plenty of ideas for sure. But this is how the IMF's chief economist Olivier Blanchard put it at the end of the conference:

"We don't have a sense of our final destination… Where we end I really don't have much of a clue."

So these are the BIG BOYS of economics, people with Nobel prizes who teach at colleges, get paid huge fees for consulting to banks, and that kind of thing. Like it says in the headline, the BIG THINKERS. If they have no idea, than how could Krugman?

Some may ask: "In all cases in the past, depressions were ended by torrential government spending, and never by austerity. All Krugman is saying is that we should do what's always worked in the past, and don't do what's always failed in the past." And that might seem straightforward to simple people who don't have a grasp of really, really complicated things like I do. So I'll answer the question, using simple language that can be understood by these types of people.

You know how God created dinosaur bones and carbon dating to test our faith? To see who believes in Him, vs. who believes that the Earth is millions of years old? That's the reason why Krugman's policies will FAIL. God made all of those previous depressions and their solutions to test our faith in the greatness and soundness of sensible Third Way economic policies.

So... are you with Krugman? Or are you with God? It's time to choose.

Spiritually yours,

Third-Way Manny

[applegrove]

1. The Austerians... I mean Austrians... are already attacking Krugman.

http://www.salon.com/2013/02/19/how_paul_krugman_broke_a_wikipedia_page_on_economics/

[MotherPetrie]

2. I never doubt Krugman's existence, so I'll go with him!

[citizen blues]

116. My sentiment exactly!!!!

The quote from Stiglitz in this post was the only time he was referred to in the full article. However, like Krugman, he writes opinion pieces for the NYT. Below is a link to one he wrote earlier this year on economic inequality.

Inequality Is Holding Back the Recovery

[curlyred]

3. Nope

It's wonderful to gloat a bit.

[KoKo]

4. Stephen Colbert TAKES DOWN Reinhart and Rogoff's AUSTERITY FOREVER Debt Study!

(This is a Hard to Get Video. Don't even know if it will come through on this link...but Colbert fractures the report that the "Austerity Budget/Sequester that has so Captured the Obama and RW that it's a Must Watch for Funny ...the way only Colbert can do it)

Check it out...and I pray that you can download the video!

-------------------------
Tuesday April 23, 2013
Austerity's Spreadsheet Error
Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff's 2010 debt study inspires austerity around the world, but grad student Thomas Herndon debunks the results.


Scroll Down and deal with THE ADD!

http://www.businessinsider.com/stephen-colbert-on-thomas-herndon-and-reinhart-and-rogoff-2013-4

[zeemike]

30. It worked fine for me

And thanks for posting that...with no TV I only get to see Colbert on the net...and he cracks me up.

[mountain grammy]

90. As only Colbert can.. A great take down..

[rhett o rick]

5. I am with Dog all the way. Krugman is a trouble maker. nm

[dawg]

69. But I agree with Krugman ...

[rhett o rick]

78. There is only one Dog that reigns supreme and all others are

mere imposters.

[dawg]

79. The bounty hunter?

[rhett o rick]

80. If he has a son named Jesus. nm

[RoccoR5955]

82. I think he has a cousin named Jesus

He's a gardener for a living.

[rhett o rick]

83. Surrrrrrre. And I suppose he is French. nm

[RoccoR5955]

98. No, he's from south of the US border somewhere. n/t

[dballance]

6. "Firebagger?" "are you with Krugman, or with God? It's time to choose?" Are You Serious?

First of all, the answer to your questions is "no," we should not, cannot stop with the Krugman posts.

Second. Don't you think "Firebagger" and "are you with Krugman, or with God? It's time to choose" are a little over the top for an economics discussion? You're being sarcastic right?

[abq e streeter]

8. Rest assured...."Third Way Manny" is his satiric alter ego

[ozone_man]

7. Blowing ever bigger bubbles

At some point we have to stop and realize what is sustainable and what is not. I thought his book in 2008 "Depression Economics" was good, but he seems to have back tracked on everything since then, such as nationalizing the too big to fail banks. So now they are even bigger and we have gone nowhere. Too big to be prosecuted even. The problem with his present brand of Keynesian economics is that it makes no sense to prop up a corrupt banking system. We must start with a reformed banking system.

[Robyn66]

9. With respect-God has nothing to do with Economics

and Paul Krugman won the Nobel prize in Economics so that gives him credibility in my book.

[dkf]

10. What's missing is CONFIDENCE.

When individuals aren't inspired to start their own business and take risks, there is no job creation engine.

The American people are emotionally spent and exhausted with no energy and no inspiration to tackle big projects. Moreover while the idea of equality is all nice and good, that is not a sentiment that will get you to spend every ounce of energy you have to pursue a very very difficult endeavor.

People who are young and people who are unemployed are supposed to be the ones thinking they can do something on their own. Instead they are falling into permanent unemployment with the middle aged resigned to a dismal future where they scrape by til social security.

[Dragonfli]

16. The thing is that people just don't understand CONFIDENCE and austerity

Austerity works just like any other "enhancement" supplement (quite well )



The thought of spending less to help society and screwing all but the top .01% gives us a sardonic grin to go with our #%ners.

Nothing boosts confidence quite like that, in fact the confidence can be embarrassingly huge sometimes! Krugman is going around trying to dump ice water in our laps in an attempt to ruin everything, fekin emoprog #^ck blocker!

[dkf]

23. Why would government spending inspire people to start a business?

I don't see it.

Maybe government/small business loans or special exemptions, that I can see, but infrastructure or even education? Not really.

[Dragonfli]

36. I never said that, I believe that the less money is spent in an economy

The more people will spend what they have less of, thus increasing demand, thereby driving the need for new suppliers of that increased demand. Therefore austerity inspires confidence in investing in supplying all this new demand and in creating the new businesses required to do so!

It's simple really, if you layoff more federal workers, build less infrastructure and creatively reduce the money available to those lazy elderly earned benefit queens, the more we can reduce what is spent and thus drive the demand that will boost confidence, all the serious people know this.

I say less government spending on stimulus, infrastructure and social programs is the only way to complement less spending by the private sector. Less spending leads to more buying, which in turn leads to confidence in starting my new business to supply all the new demand. I am agreeing with you

[snappyturtle]

103. Government spending increases orders hence more jobs, increased income tax revenue

and more discretionary spending. With less spending the economy dwindles and then they tax us more. The tax increases on the rich brings in far less totally than the extra payroll tax on the rest of us.

[Dragonfli]

106. I was just being facetious but I am not sure I understand what you are saying.

"Government spending increases orders hence more jobs, increased income tax revenue" I get, but I am not sure I understand how more jobs increases discretionary spending.

Another thing to consider is more jobs also means more purchases (employed people have money to spend) and more purchases increases demand that businesses can then supply, leading to them hiring more as well thus amplifying the effect (you should not ignore that bit).

Increased retirement benefits or increased wages anywhere will do the same. There are many more ways than increasing orders that a government can provide stimulus - A WPA established by government to rebuild crumbling bridges and other decaying parts of our infrastructure for instance would employ many people directly and would also serve as an investment in infrastructure that is long overdue (remember those employed people will spend money increasing demand).

I don't understand this bit at all, "With less spending the economy dwindles and then they tax us more. The tax increases on the rich brings in far less totally than the extra payroll tax on the rest of us.". What does the payroll tax have to do with income taxes whether the source of income is investments or labor? The "rest of us" pay both, the rich pay only the slightest of a percentage of their income in payroll taxes, none if they earn money by derivatives gambling or capital gains without collecting a paycheck. Payroll taxes add up, but so does the federal taxes paid by wage earners. I also don't see how payroll taxes increased by more jobs would do anything but increase the solvency of the SS trust fund and yet again destroy the premature declarations that it's going broke (I remember in the eighties and nineties they pretended the fund would be completely gone by 2000 or so)

Increased jobs due to stimulus or increased employment due to rising demand and the need to supply it would increase income tax revenue and help fund discretionary spending. I don't see raising taxes as an answer to a shrinking economy, I do see raising taxes on the upper brackets as being reasonable at any time because they are historically pretty damned low for the upper brackets and supply side tax breaks for the wealthy have been tried for several years and only have managed to increase the deficit.

If you could explain those couple of sentences I am struggling with I would be grateful, for all I know we are in complete agreement but I won't know until I understand you. If I don't understand it is a given that I am to blame for that as much as you, perhaps even more. I do want to understand your point either way

[IrishAyes]

122. Horse feathers

[zeemike]

37. And what kind of business would that be?

Trying to sell shit to people with no money to spend?
You have to question the basic premise of "creating small business" as a solution to our problems.
Unless you can create something of value that is...not just selling at a higher price than you bought it for.

[Fuddnik]

41. First you have to find the money to start it.

[JDPriestly]

60. That's the way our country developed. Land was cheap. Some of it was simply homesteaded.

The government gave it or sold it for very little to people who were willing to farm it. Government divided the land, maintained a system of records so that people could buy and sell and establish their ownership of the land. The government is sovereign, has the right of eminent domain and can take the land back when it wants if it pays fair value.

The railroads were a public/private partnership. The government gave much of the land, and the private investors built the railroads.

The federal parks that Theodore Roosevelt established on public land across America are the basis for an infrastructure of tourist and travel businesses. People come from around the world to see Yellowstone and other great American parks. The parks are infrastructure. Government investment in those parks inspired many people to start businesses in travel, sports equipment and all kinds of associated businesses. Many individuals and companies profit from the infrastructure that the government saved and keeps safe and enjoyable.

Across America, in our parks, our schools, in our public buildings, on our bridges, we use infrastructure that was built by the Roosevelt administration during the Great Depression. We are a richer country because of those investments.

During the Eisenhower era, the government funded and built a highway system that stretches across the country and connects us all. That infrastructure facilitated trade and, like the railroads, brought the country together. Ask trucking businesses whether government spending on infrastructure helped them start their businesses. The answer is obvious.

Our government investments in early computers and in space exploration led to the internet, to new ways to transmit communications and all kinds of private businesses.

Entrepreneurs feed off the discoveries at universities especially the sciences and humanities. Pharmaceutical companies rely on a lot of basic research done in American public universities and by the NIH.

You might be surprised at how many musicians who make lots of money for the corporations that distribute their records learned to play instruments or sing in school music programs. (Pre-Reagan, there was a lot more music in the schools than there is now.) Same for art. Kids discover their talents in schools, and then they use those talents that they discovered at school in their businesses.

The expression, "use it or lose it" applies to the talents of people as well as their muscles and minds. As a society right now, thanks to austerity and the recession that preceded it, we are not using our skills and our abilities and so we are losing them. We really are. That is why the government needs to step in and spend what it must to keep people using their skills and abilities. Because otherwise those skills and abilities will be lost.

And what destroys creativity, what prevents people from starting businesses is partly the hopelessness of the bad economy but also the sense of inadequacy, of not having the skills and abilities they need to succeed in a business. People also, as others have said, are not starting businesses because demand is weak.

You can't start a small business no matter how good your product or services if your customers can't afford to pay you. People who don't have jobs can't afford to spend money to keep new businesses going.

Government spending on infrastructure and education and job creation in infrastructure and education is probably the only way that we can get our economy moving at this time.

We also need to improve our trade balance by putting the brakes on out-of-control imports.

[LongTomH]

92. +1000 Great post!

The great economy we once had was largely built on investment by government.

[mountain grammy]

94. Well said.. I started a small business for the tourists in my area

who visit the NATIONAL park, the NATIONAL forests, and the NATIONAL recreation area. When government invests in infrastructure we also serve workers for contractors hired by the government. Government spending does, in every way, every day, stimulate the economy and small business.

[calimary]

125. Really a TERRIFIC essay, JDPriestly!

You just connected dots all over the place throughout most of the last century. REALLY well-explained. A tour de force!

[dawg]

72. I have had clients with businesses based entirely on winning large government contracts.

Likewise, just going about the business of upgrading our national infrastructure would create tons of new jobs and lead to many, many new businesses being formed.

Instead, this senseless notion of austerity leads us to leave millions of people unemployed, and the crucial maintenance of our infrastructure undone, at a time when there is a huge excess labor pool to do the work, and we can borrow at incredibly low rates in order to finance the improvements.

But no, we'll just let our bridges and highways and port systems continue to degrade because ..... deficits!!

This is short-sighted thinking. You are a very intelligent person, and right about a lot of things, but you are falling just short of seeing the whole picture. And I don't mean that as an insult ... you think exactly the way I did just a few short years ago.

The biggest misconception that you have, is that you still believe money and debt are "real". They are not real. They are accounting fictions - useful in managing trade within an economy, but they do not represent the real wealth of a nation.

The real wealth of the nation is the value of the goods and services produced by it's people each day. The real losses occur on a day that a plant sits idle or a worker sits at home and does not produce. Until a time machine is invented, there is no way to get that lost productivity back.

If we can, by means of manipulating those dollars and debts, get that worker to instead spend his day making something useful for society, we should by all means do so. The wealth of the nation will have been increased by whatever it is that he produces.

[notadmblnd]

124. So if the government is investing in building a new bridge over the Detroit River

You don't think that small businesses will pop up around it? First thing I can think of doing is opening a lunch truck for the construction workers. Those workers might want to live closer to their job, those workers may want bars to drink at or restaurants to eat. Maybe somewhere close they can get a pair o work boots?. Will the crews and companies want gas?


The way I see it, government spending will jumpstart and inspire business.

[Fuddnik]

43. Now what do I use to clean the spatter off of this laptop?

Best reply yet!

[Dragonfli]

47. depends... is it "confidence splatter" ?

Most enzyme stain removers like Shout, Febreeze or some of the pet stain removers should work. However, they require time to break down the proteins and the items must remain moist during that time, this may damage the laptop so be careful how you keep it moist!

[Fuddnik]

88. It's already moist with tea spatter.

Never run into Bob when you have a mouth full of beverage!

[DLnyc]

18. With all due respect, economic stimulus would probably be first on the list

of measures which improve the economy during a downturn. If you want to go with past experience, evidence, logic and that sort of stuff.

[dkf]

24. We tried that, hence $1 trillion deficits during the last 4 years.

There's no emotional boost from it anymore.

[Cali_Democrat]

32. How much of those yearly budget deficits were a result of economic stimulus?

Or were there other drivers to the deficits like tax cuts, wars, defense spending and Medicare?

I know the answer, but I want to know if you're sure that one of the main drivers to those yearly deficits is economic stimulus.

[DLnyc]

34. We didn't really try very hard.

What is needed are large scale jobs programs directly providing employment, as Roosevelt did. What we actually did this time were programs limiting the amount of job losses due to state governments cutting back and then some tax cuts. Now the focus is on deficit reduction. As Krugman repeatedly points out, and as any first-year economics student understands, cutting spending in a recession is a REALLY DUMB IDEA. Also, it is not hard to understand, or demonstrate, that cutting taxes on the super-wealthy has very little effect on overall demand. Clever wording and rhetorical gymnastics don't change these simple realities. Emotional boost sounds wonderful, but without enough stimulus to increase demand, it is just a phrase.

As far as I've been able to follow it, the case for stimulus is straight forward and supported by real evidence while the case for austerity, like most of this thread, is based on a lot of scolding, scary sounding phrases and trumped-up calculations.

With all due respect, I will go with stimulus, which actually works in the real world, and not with austerity, which actually does terrible damage in the real world.

We will probably get an emotional boost once we have much less unemployment and, consequently, much greater demand.

[xtraxritical]

52. You are very right what is needed are large scale jobs programs.

The "stimulus" should not have been loans to financial institutions, TARP. The Shrubs $300 cash to taxpayers was a good idea but not enough.

[dawg]

71. Those deficits were mostly due to falling revenues, not new spending.

They were the natural result of the financial crisis and recession.

[Cali_Democrat]

28. LOL. So how do we increase "confidence" in your opinion?

Just curious.

[neverforget]

33. The Austerity Fairy and

cutting SS and Medicare. Put grandpa and grandma on a strict diet of cat food will instill lots of confidence in pet food production.

[dkf]

39. Obama thinks like a person interested in getting people off the floor into a better circumstance.

What he isn't interested in is the person who is okay and striving to be really successful. He thinks some people have "enough".

I'm sorry it's the drive from being okay to being mega rich that employs people. If you can't get those off their duffs and scare them off with 60% tax rates with national and local taxes, you won't get far. The effort has to be worth it. And it's not the tax rate in itself that is scary...it's the thought that all your extra effort will be taxed away to pay for everyone else who "can't afford to pay taxes" which is almost half the country. If you take Obama seriously you have to wonder what is the point.

Bill Clinton got it. I really think we would be out of this funk if he were President.

Equality does not inspire people to work harder than they've ever worked before. It doesn't grow the innovation economy.

[Cali_Democrat]

45. Sorry maybe I wasn't clear

What specific policies do you think need to be undertaken in order to produce "confidence"?

So far all I got from your post is that people aren't confident because of the way "Obama thinks", but I didn't really see specific policy proposals from you.

Please be specific.

BTW it's interesting you mention Clinton and taxes. Taxes were actually higher under Clinton.

[dkf]

63. Obama has only made it more difficult to start a business by giving us confusing laws...

And years of implementation. The ACA and Dodd Frank still have far to go in terms of specifying how it all works. He has created exactly the wrong atmosphere for a person to dive into entrepreneurship. Some of his laws are crossing my path at work and there is no guidance on how to implement with everyone guessing if their interpretation will be adequate. People who have been doing this for ages are as befuddled as anyone. I pity the newbie trying to decipher it all.

Yes he wants to fix things, so he is well meaning, but he has made it so much more complicated and frustrating.

Then on top of that are his statements that some people make enough money. That doesn't build sentiment that a person will be rewarded for extra effort. It's a downer. Even his attempts to cap retirement funds at $3 million...what incentive is that to build up your retirement?

I wonder sometimes why he is so tone deaf to entrepreneurs and wanna be entrepreneurs. That's no way to grow an economy through innovation.

And the reason Clinton was okay is that you never felt he would increase your taxes because you have enough. He did it across the board, which didn't make people feel targeted.

So wrong words, discouraging attitude toward wealth, and years and years of regulations to implement...no wonder entrepreneurs aren't jumping in.

The policy problems aren't fixable because the Dems would never reverse these laws. We are just going to have to take our lumps and muddle through them.

[dreamnightwind]

81. You should write material

for Third Way Manny, he can use talent like yours. Your post would work perfectly well in one of his posts. Of course it would be funnier if posted under his name.

[whttevrr]

89. Satire, right?

Sometimes it is hard to tell.

[JDPriestly]

61. If everyone agreed with this,

"Equality does not inspire people to work harder than they've ever worked before. It doesn't grow the innovation economy," this would not be a very good place to live. Most people would be living in miserable slums like in India and other third world countries. We'd have an even worse crime and gang problem than we do.

That's a very sick philosophy, and I feel sorry for anyone who has it. Life is not about being richer than someone else. Life is about having good relationships and sharing. Life is about loving others and yourself, not just loving yourself.

[dkf]

62. Enjoying your family is not what grows a business and is not what will kick this economy into gear.

I'm sure there are a ton of unemployed and underemployed people enjoying their families. If having the time to enjoy your family made a great economy this country would be doing very very well. Heck a high unemployment rate is indication of a whole lot of family time.

[Fumesucker]

85. What grows your business is having customers

I've never seen anything else make a business grow.

No customers, no growth. Business is demand driven, not production driven.

[timdog44]

100. Precisely.

And simply said. And easy to understand. If I don't have any money I don't spend it on products.

The problem is people have the idea that our president is trying to take their money away. Of course if you make over $250,000 you are in the top 5% and are well able to afford a higher tax rate. What is the big deal? It is only just in the past few decades that the tax rate on the top 5% has been so low. Maybe if it is an income based on small business, you should pay your employees more. If it is because of high pay jobs, you should be proud to contribute to society because you can afford to. The real problem is the top 1% don't come even close to their fair share and have convinced the well off that their money is being sucked out and given to the "welfare queens". It is a divide and conquer situation. If the top 1% did pay their fair share, and we did not have a monstrous defense budget with wars all over the world, tax rates would settle into a fair place. Jobs could then be created by our government and that would stimulate private sector jobs.

[JDPriestly]

93. Why do you think that middle class people work? To be able to provide for their families,

that's why? That has always been the first priority for everyone.

Only those who don't have children or responsibilities that are associated with having children can't understand that fact. It's love that grows a business and kicks the economy into gear.

It's biological. And it is no coincidence that your best working years are also your biologically reproductive years. The same energy that builds a family builds a business. Some businessmen become overly focused on just making money. That is a neurosis not a healthy, constructive way to build a business.

I would like to remind all DUers that, contrary to the teachings of the right-wing and corporations, the right to private property is not "natural." The right to private property exists by force. If someone steals something from you, you can only get it back by persuasion or by force.

Who or what enforces property rights in our country? The police who are controlled by the government.

In feudal societies, a hierarchical structure of nobility and everybody else controls the government and owns the property. The nobility enforces its own property rights.

Our government is democratic meaning that the people as a whole control it (supposedly). Thus, it is the people as a whole through the government that enforces property rights. Any property you think you own, you own only because the government is willing to enforce your right to that property.

Corporations understand this. That is why they work so hard to control the government. A system in which corporations and businesses control the government and its enforcement capacity including its police power and military, is called "fascist." The NAZIs were a form of fascism.

So, when you work for something and think you own it, ask yourself how you will enforce your ownership rights.

The answer is that you will support a government that enforces your ownership rights and protects them on your behalf.

We think we own businesses and build them and create them. But we can only do that if the government protects our right to own, build and create them.

The Republicans and conservatives in general want to use the government to protect the property and other rights of the rich -- of those who have won the biggest prizes in the game to acquire property.

In feudal societies, the rich, the owners, wisely provided work, shelter and food to those in need. They claimed to do it as a religious obligation. They did it because they feared going to Hell if they didn't. Hell for the rich is no property rights. If the rich fail to take care of the poor, the rich will lose their property rights. That is because when the rich fail to take care of the poor, fail to share, the poor take from the rich. But the only way the rich can enforce their rights is through brute force. The rich, even in a feudal society, need enough physical support from the poor and middle class to be able to enforce their property rights.

So next time that someone tells you that they don't want to pay higher taxes to support people who don't work, ask him whether paying higher taxes to support the poor and the jobless is really such a high price to pay for domestic tranquility that secures the majority of his property rights.

That's what it boils down to. You refuse to share with others; you run a huge risk of losing what you have. The survival of the fittest bit that so appeals to libertarians is not so appealing when you think that a society in which only the "fittest" can survive becomes very brutal very quickly. Ayn Rand is a fraud. She never understood social interaction. I have wondered whether perhaps she was extremely autistic.

[MannyGoldstein]

119. I gotta ask (but you don't have to answer, of course)

What do you do for a living? What are your circumstances?

[Warren Stupidity]

77. Give the top 0.01% an even larger share of the wealth. nt.

[happyslug]

31. The two age groups most likely to start a new business are people in their 20s and people over 65.

Now, 20 year olds starting a business is traditional, but why are people waiting till their turn 65 to start a business? Could it be they then have a steady source of income independent of their business (i.e. Social Security) and health insurance (Medicare)?

Lets look at 20 year olds starting a business, most have older family member their can depend on, they also have the least need for health insurance (until they decide to have children). We like talking about Bill Gates, but his Father was and is one of the top attorneys in Washington State and thus could provide Bill the cushion to fall back on if the business fails. This is true of a lot of people who start businesses, they have family members who can support them if the business fails. These older family members act like Social Security in that they provide a safety net.

People in their 20s also tend to start having a family, but they can delay that a few years and thus NOT need Medical care. Once they have children the need for health insurance becomes clear and for most people health insurance is tied in with their jobs, they are reluctant to give health care up if they decide to start a business. Thus people over 65 becoming eligible for Medicare, no longer need to worry about medical insurance costs and thus like 20 year olds in that regard.

Thus people in their 20s through 60s need their confidence built up, so they can start their own business. The main problems of building up their Confidence is the lack of health insurance AND a lack of a income safety net. When these two problems are addressed, as in the case of people in their 20 without children and people over 65, you have confidence to start a business.

Thus the two things needed is some sort of guarantee income, even for people who have no job (and I do NOT mean unemployment insurance, I mean income even if you QUIT your job without just cause, under Unemployment Insurance if you quit your job except for "Good Cause" and that "Good Cause" must be related to the job you are quitting NOT that you are going to start a business). Such people could then quit their present employment (or if unemployment NOT have to take the first job offered to them, or lose their income) and start their own business if they had other income to pay for basic needs, i.e food and shelter.

In most cases if the person who wants to start a business would also know he or she would have Medical Insurance even if the business fails, you would have more people starting new businesses. People need confidence to start a business and that is related to making sure their have food, housing and medical care for themselves and their children. Unless you are willing to address those three things, food, housing (Both related in Income) and Medical Care you are NOT building up anyone's confidence to even think of starting their own business.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

56. Right you are.

What we need is a Minister of CONFIDENCE. Maybe that guy named Tony.

[tblue37]

64. Not to mention tens of thousands of dollars in debt for

college degrees that won't get them a job in which they can earn enough money to handle basic living expenses much less their loan payments!

[dawg]

70. Here you go ....

CONFIDENCE!

[sendero]

107. No.

.... what is missing is decent paying jobs. Jobs, jobs, jobs. Any economist that doesn't understand this mess is a dolt.

you can't lower everyone's pay and expect things to keep roaring.

[JVS]

108. Confidence is a function of aggregate demand.

[MFrohike]

123. You're sort of right

Confidence really is the key issue for economic growth. Without some kind of confidence that the future will be better than the present, people will be far less willing to spend money and that is destructive to an economy. Your concern is with risk-taking on the supply-side, but that concern is misplaced. Unless people have the money to spend to meet their needs and wants, the best entrepreneur in the world won't make a dime. Demand is the driver, supply is the horse.

The battle over confidence is a battle over who has the primary influence in the economy, government or private industry. The confidence arguments today are nothing but a rehash of the same arguments made in the early 1930s. The basic question is whether or not government can actually inspire confidence in the future through economic policy. American history from 1933 until the 1970s shows that the question is an unequivocal yes. This does not mean that every policy undertaken during that period was right. It means that government, the agent of the people at large, has an important role to play in the economy of our democracy.

I think I see your point on equality. I think you mean that the entrepreneur doesn't set out to level inequalities, he sets out to make money and maybe a name for himself. If that was your point, I'm pretty sure you're right. It's not his role to worry about that. That is the proper role of the federal government.

You may feel emotionally spent and have no energy or inspiration. I don't. I work 60 hours a week, I never sleep enough, and I barely have time to do anything I enjoy, but I haven't lost my capacity for hope. I don't mean hope as a slogan in a lukewarm political campaign, I mean real hope. I don't think our people have lost their capacity to dream big. I think we've been beaten down for decades with plenty of can't do bullshit. All we ever hear is that America can't do this anymore, can't do that anymore, but we always have more to shovel onto the plates of those with plenty. I'm tired of it. We all should be tired of it. America, and Americans, can do whatever the hell we want to do. Even with all the broken promises, outright lies, and idiocy, I hear people talk about what we can do and need to do in this country every day. I don't hear people accept the broken system and criminality of today as right, I hear them call it outrageous and say it needs to be right. Maybe I'm naive, but it sure sounds like people who've lost their patience with the bullshit artists in government who don't work for them and not people who've lost their ability, and need, to believe that we can do better.

[OnyxCollie]

11. !!

[BeyondGeography]

12. Masterful

[Matariki]

14. LOL. Well done.

[SoCalDem]

17. Did you know that you can totally remove the word "Krugman" by going

My account or profile (forget which now) and click the trash can feature

type in "Krugman" and you'll never see another thread with him in it

[ThomThom]

87. thanks that is really good to know

I may do it with Bush

[pennylane100]

19. God told me to go with Krugman

or I will have to go to hell.

[L0oniX]

75. The dog ...erm ...Krugman told me to do it.

[raouldukelives]

20. Every woodchuck finds a nut now & then. And be sure to wear gloves taking cats down from trees. nt

[RainDog]

21. LOL n/t

[Dragonfli]

22. I agree, Milton Friedman is the one and only true God, keynesians are false prophets

Sent by Satan or Stan or whatever that demon's calling himself these days to lead us on a false path to economic hell where we will all burn in the lake of the fires of socialism.

In the name of our lord Milton, get behind me Krugman! For you have no power over the faithful. Amen!

[zeemike]

40. There is but one god and it is Friedman

And Ayn Rand is his prophet...

[Dragonfli]

49. .

I love that you are a better preacher than I am!
You really nailed our faith!

[xtraxritical]

54. So is Greenspan an archangel?

What does that make Andrea Mitchell?

[Dragonfli]

57. “Come, I will show you the judgment of the great prostitute who is seated on many waters,

with whom the kings of the earth have committed sexual immorality, and with the wine of whose sexual immorality the dwellers on earth have become drunk.”

[xtraxritical]

74. The US Congress I presume?

[Zoeisright]

25. No.

[LostOne4Ever]

26. ROFL

10/10

Masterfully done sir. Masterfully done.

[jsr]

27. Krugman needs to shave and get a job

and learn to be sensible.

[Deep13]

29. Krugman. At least he's real. nt

[longship]

35. Here ya go:

Should put third way to rest.

Love ya, Manny. Sorry! Couldn't resist.

[LeftInTX]

48. If he was like this, he would have a massive, cult following.

Maybe we can send him to some type of Hollywood training. Bye, bye Third Way, bye bye Milton Friedman.

[MannyGoldstein]

67. I knew it! Firebagger, EmoProg... AND terrorist! With a beard like Karl Marx.

I think he's Jewish, too, but I can't prove it. Yet.

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. I am tired, glad I read to the end before....

Firing a nasty post off.

[Brimley]

42. PK is the only American economist I put ANY trust in whatsoever!

[Deep13]

46. Robert Reich? nt

[xtraxritical]

55. NAFTA

[pampango]

66. We would have a trade surplus with Canada and Mexico if we did not import so much oil

from both. Something tells me we would still import oil from them even if NAFTA had never happened.

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c2010.html
http://www.ustr.gov/countries-regions/americas/canada
http://www.ustr.gov/countries-regions/americas/mexico

[tpsbmam]

110. Stiglitz? He and Krugman are the only two I read anymore. nt

[Oilwellian]

50. There you go, messing with my dyslexia again

[rhett o rick]

99. A good anti-fungal will take care of that right away. nm

[Spitfire of ATJ]

51. Rec #50

Just so ya know I know.

[idwiyo]

53. K&R thank you Manny! I have to admit my faith was sorely tempted but your post came just in time!

Down with false prophets like Krugman! In with true political and economic geniuses like Margaret Thatcher and Augusto Pinochet! Just think where Chile and UK would be now if only they were allowed to continue with their economic and political experiments!





With renewed faith from the other side of the Pond,

Third Way Idwiyo

[MannyGoldstein]

68. My fear is that Thatcher will only be remembered for her miraculous

Last edited Fri Apr 26, 2013, 10:41 AM - Edit history (1)

military victory over the Argentinian juggernaut.

She was also perhaps the greatest economic thinker since Herbert Hoover, and her influence is writ large across the world stage even today. The little people owe a huge debt to her. No, really, they do. Huge.

[KoKo]

73. lol's you two! Another good one Manny...thanks.

[suffragette]

102. Manny, I believe you meant to spell that as "hugh."

Also, you apparently forgot to include the appropriate tone and symbols of awe when speaking of 1111!111 I'm Series ***Thatcher *** 1111!111 I'm Series.
Do remember to include these in future.

[MannyGoldstein]

115. I'm a Third Wayer, not a Tea Partier! There's a huge difference!

I used to be a Tea Partier until I leaned how to use a spelling and grammar checker.

[snot]

58. Krugman!

[donheld]

59. Oh hell no.

If you don't like them don't read them.

[DLevine]

65. Bravo! nt

[tosh]

76. ...

[sabrina 1]

84. And don't forget to give credit to this guy either, he nailed Krugman and all those leftie

'Firebaggers' for what they are in his brilliant email:

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2011/08/17/ofa-director-attacks-firebagger-lefty-blogosphere-says-paul-krugman-is-a-political-rookie/

OFA Director Attacks “Firebagger Lefty Blogosphere,” says “Paul Krugman is a Political Rookie”

Paul Krugman is a political rookie. At least he is when compared to President Obama. That’s why he unleashed a screed as soon as word came about the debt ceiling compromise between President Obama and Congressional leaders – to, you know, avert an economic 9/11. Joining the ideologue spheres’ pure, fanatic, indomitable hysteria, Krugman declares the deal a disaster – both political and economic – of course providing no evidence for the latter, which I find curious for this Nobel winning economist. He rides the coattails of the simplistic argument that spending cuts – any spending cuts – are bad for a fragile economy, ignoring wholeheartedly his own revious cheerleading for cutting, say, defense spending. But that was back in the day – all the way back in April of this year. [...]

No, the loudest screeching noise you hear coming from Krugman and the ideologue Left is, of course, Medicare. Oh, no, the President is agreeing to a Medicare trigger!!! Oh noes!!! Everybody freak out right now! But let’s look at the deal again, shall we? [...]

Now let’s get to the fun part: the triggers. The more than half-a-trillion in defense and security spending cut “trigger” for the Republicans will hardly earn a mention on the Firebagger Lefty blogosphere. Hell, it’s a trigger supposedly for the Republicans, and of course, there’s always It’sNotEnough-ism to cover it.

[ThomThom]

86. so you have problem with free speech on this site?

time for people to eat some crow
How do you want yours? Rare I guess.

[MannyGoldstein]

96. Of COURSE I'm in favor of free speech!!!

But remember the Third Way credo:

War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.

It even forms a triangle, of sorts. It is truly God's work!

[jsr]

128. Poor ignorant warring slaves strengthen rich people

It's Remedial Economics

[WillyT]

91. LOL !!! - K & R !!! - Perfect !!!

[padruig]

95. I belong ...

I belong to the Temple of KRGTHULU

and I vote !

[Richardo]

97. Ah, the always provocative irony post

It never gets old.

[timdog44]

101. So, I am less intelligent than you are.

Did you forget to use the sarcasm thingy?

[mettamega]

104. more Krugman UNTIL he is listened to by DC politicians

i have no idea where you are coming from - I love Krugman - if I lived near Princeton - I would audit his class

[camartinwv]

105. Krugman is an esteemed professor and a Nobel prize winner. You need to educate yourself.

Paul Robin Krugman (born February 28, 1953) is an American economist, Professor of Economics and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, Centenary Professor at the London School of Economics, and an op-ed columnist for The New York Times.[7][8] In 2008, Krugman won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his contributions to New Trade Theory and New Economic Geography. According to the prize Committee, the prize was given for Krugman's work explaining the patterns of international trade and the geographic concentration of wealth, by examining the effects of economies of scale and of consumer preferences for diverse goods and services

[tpsbmam]

109. Welcome to DU, camartinwv!

You're brand new here so you're not familiar with our MannyGoldstein, DU satirist extraordinaire! He posts wonderful, stinging satires like this one which, if you don't know him, make you want to wring his neck! In essence, the message is Krugman totally rocks "Third Way" policies are disastrous.....really for the world as one looks at all of the economies diving as a result of austerity, among other inane policies being foisted on us by the 1%/corporate-owned governments around the world.


"Third-Way Manny" is his satiric name -- you know for sure it's satire when you see that!

Welcome to DU -- I loved your spirited defense of Krugman, a man who's greatly admired on DU!

[hrmjustin]

118. Welcome to DU my friend!

[Hissyspit]

111. Hee.

[IrishAyes]

112. Sez Who It's Not Who We Are? You're Offering Up A False Choice

Paul Krugman rocks!

Maybe I should ask everyone, "Are you with Manny or with God?" How'd you like that reframe?

[MannyGoldstein]

114. I double-dog dare you

I'm confident that the better MAN will win!

Spiritually yours,

Third-Way Manny

[IrishAyes]

113. And while I'm at it...

If President Obama is always the smartest man in the room - which he IS - then Krugman runs a close second.

You GOP trolls can kiss Greenspan butt all you want. He was and probably still is a Randian, if he's not yet choked on his own bile.

[tclambert]

117. Manny, I'm confused! Choose Krugman OR God? Like they are two different people?

[YOHABLO]

120. This is a ridiculous thread .. I am sorry I even started reading it. Go away Manny.

[robinlynne]

121. manny, i'm glad it was third way manny. i almost slammed you after the first few lines.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

126. ^^THIS^^ I am sick and tired of this one note johnny dumping on our JOB CREATORS!

[on point]

127. Only after the right wing / DLC/ Third way stop pushing their idiocy, repeal the damage they caused

In other words

Only when the whole supplyside economic fraud is repealed, tax rates for the wealthy returned to pre raygun rates, and the 1% begin to pay down their debt they ran up

AND

the idea of deregulation for deregulation is gone

and

regulations have been restored on a number of industries, but especial finance

[CTyankee]

129. Manny, you are a crusader for justice!

So glad you are dismantling the pernicious "third way" (or "no labels&quot meme. I am so tired of finding these republicans in "sheep's" clothing popping up on the talk shows as some kind of "reasonable" alternative to the "extremists on both sides."

Dr. Krugman is a brave soul and one of the few brave ones who stand between us and these evildoers. He keeps on fighting, bless him...

bless you, Manny, too, for taking them down as "third way Manny." You are doing god's work, for sure...