I especially like the last line of the article. Public sector unions are holding the country hostage. They ought to be outlawed. They represent an intolerable encroachment upon the integrity of a democratic system of government.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Monday, October 4, 2010
The Non-Debate
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/02/how-the-other-half-thinks/
Krugman is perhaps too kind in this post: the other half by and large does not think. Republicans have been consistently stupid or dishonest on the economic issues we face. Their policy solutions are an invitation to a prolonged slump a la Japan over the last 20 years. On macroeconomics, the democrats have a better approach right now--except insofar as they intend to expand entitlements. But, apparently, the story Krugman has clearly explained on multiple occasions is too counterintuitive for most to grasp.
There may also be some deeper motives at play--deliberately extending the recession to discredit Obama, for example. Or, squeezing government revenues so hard as to force a reconsideration of the whether we can afford an ever-expanding welfare state. Or, waiting for increasing unemployment to lead to an anti-immigration political consensus that will evolve at least far enough to end illegal immigration, preferably all non-strategic immigration. All worthy motives to my mind. But, are they worth the price? Also, can they be this way achieved? The second and third seem unlikely to happen, and they are more important in the long run than Obama's political fortunes. The welfare state strategy may even backfire. FDR invented the welfare state during the Depression.
Krugman is perhaps too kind in this post: the other half by and large does not think. Republicans have been consistently stupid or dishonest on the economic issues we face. Their policy solutions are an invitation to a prolonged slump a la Japan over the last 20 years. On macroeconomics, the democrats have a better approach right now--except insofar as they intend to expand entitlements. But, apparently, the story Krugman has clearly explained on multiple occasions is too counterintuitive for most to grasp.
There may also be some deeper motives at play--deliberately extending the recession to discredit Obama, for example. Or, squeezing government revenues so hard as to force a reconsideration of the whether we can afford an ever-expanding welfare state. Or, waiting for increasing unemployment to lead to an anti-immigration political consensus that will evolve at least far enough to end illegal immigration, preferably all non-strategic immigration. All worthy motives to my mind. But, are they worth the price? Also, can they be this way achieved? The second and third seem unlikely to happen, and they are more important in the long run than Obama's political fortunes. The welfare state strategy may even backfire. FDR invented the welfare state during the Depression.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)