Google+ Followers

Monday, May 18, 2015

Paul Krugman for President

My original post:

Would you vote for him as a PRESIDENTIAL candidtate ???


Not that I always agree with him, but because he is not going to remain silent and voices his beleifs...and he is quite brilliant !!!

W. didn't make the best decision he could with the intelligence. They wanted a war and created the intelligence|By Salon Staff

    Friend's reply:

    HELL NO!!!... and "brilliant" is a relative term. Does he have a high functioning mind, yes. Does he use this capacity in line with objective reality, logic, and facts, not so much. He contradicts himself in order to bend reality to suit his political leanings. I'm opposed to large scale ground campaigns and I disagree with going into Iraq. That said, I have trouble taking anything Krugman says seriously due to his own epic contradictions. When he wrote strictly on economics (years ago) he dealt with facts. When he writes or speaks nowadays, he discards facts and basic economics. He does so not because the laws of economics have changed, but because he can't force 2 plus 2 to equal 5. So he abandons mathematical/economic truths in favor of his ideology. As it relates to your post... does the man have a top secret clearance or is he clairvoyant? If neither, how does he know what specific intelligence Bush used to weigh his decision? To be clear, I disagree with the Iraq war. I prefer the way we are doing things now i.e., drones and Spec Ops. That doesn't change my view that while "brilliant" literally speaking, Krugman is still a shill in the most horrible sense of the word. His is not an error based on ignorance, far worse, his is a purposeful distortion of reality based on bias.

    My response:

    As evidence. Economic Krugman v.s. Political Krugman...

    I find it hard to argue your points of contention and the argument you have laid out, however I will say I think he has changed or evolved and contradictions often fortify this (my) calculated assumption.

    I do not think he needs any special secret clearance to make the points that we were lied to in order to go to war in Iraq, as it has been proven clearly that most of the intelligence was incorrect, otherwise the Republican party would certainly have given us clear examples that indeed would have proven this military action justified, which they clearly have never done.

    I agree with you today, that we should be doing things as we are, through the use of covert ops. and drones, however, I may change my line of thinking as time and situations change, as again I think we should be flexible and evolve.

    When considering minimum wage and the economy, there are clearly several schools of thought or philosophies at work to consider, and although one says that we raise wages for workers and the demand for employees will go down, another states that we raise wages and we have more disposable income in general and therefore buy / sell more products and labor needed will increase and further stimulate economic growth. I could easily choose either side of this argument and what would determine that would be the current state of the economy, and in this day and age I am all for raising minimum wage, as we have in Maryland.

    We have done so over several interevals to be phased in year after year so it is a gradual wage increase, thus giving time for ntboth the economy and the employers time to adjust, as this only makes logical sense, and also leaves the door open to repeal these wage increases if the need should arise if it looks like complete and absolute failure.

    I wrote a piece on minimum wage in my blog (January 20, 2014), and I actually wrote Mr. Krugman, but unfortauntely did not reciecve a response from him, as I dearly had wished for.

    Of serious note to my article, since it was published, Wal-Mart has voluntarily raised the wages of many of its workers!

    I read quite a bit about the pros and cons and I am absolutely sold on the idea that it should be raised. We often (today) read about these (mostly restaurants) businesses being closed in Seattle because of the impact of the wage increases, however very rarely do we read in these articles that these wage increases are phased in and what that exact schedule actually is, and I find that very mis-leading and purposefully undermining increases that need to be made.

    Furthermore, minimum wage, historically speaking, was for entry level employees and really not meant to become a living wage, however that being stated, I think we have moved well past that point today and find that we have so many employees working at this wage that the entire concept or principle of minimum wage has been abused and is almost something that we need to entirely re-think amd even re-phrase.

    Any full time employee should at the very least be able to earn enough money to support themselves alone to the bare minimums of a functioning life. If it is to support children and marriage, then they have made a grave mistake with their family planning and I really do not have much compassion for such poor decisions which we all end up paying for in the inevitable imbalance because of.

    There is too much corporate abuse today where huge companies are making massive fortunes, even record breaking profits, while getting away with absurd wages for their lower level employees while the state and federal government (us) have to pick up the slack, and whatever we learn through this argument, and whatever we disagree on, that is a hard fact that I find both immoral and inarguable.

    Today, we have in place huge measures of austerity that have failed and we have a post war economy struggling to gain its footing once again, but we are making great progress and are indeed in a bull market. Ready for the bubble to burst? ... or will the shifted paradigms we are living under today fortify against that?

    Perhaps this is a little harsh, but I respect the guy because he is "nobody's bitch". He says what he feels and believes today, no matter if it does even go against what he has said in the past. Again, I do not see anything wrong with making a statement today that goes against a statement said by that same person a time ago, as long as fact is not distorted and it is opinion based. Any openminded evolving person would have plenty of contradictions today vs. yesteryear.

    There is a lot more to measure then just... well read my blog post (linked above I think the argument is well laid out there for the most part.)

    As far as Krugman goes, and I have not made any decision about who I will vote for or which party I will support as we prepare for the Presidential election forthcoming, I simply like that I think this man has great integrity and passion and understand economics thoroughly and will not fall prey to being bought off like so many candidates and presidents.

    As far as Iraq goes, WE FUCKED UP !!!, however I would rather we focus on Krugman and the economy, although this all plays out together, so I will state a few details about that.

    My first wife had a Father who was the head of The Center for Army Analysis, now since retired (2013). He very clearly stated to me (in roughly 1998-99 during Clinton's tenure) that overthrowing Iraq would be a foolish mistake, as it would lead to even less stability in the middle east, thus making a volatile region even more volatile. He is also a physicist and still holds the record for being the youngest S.E.S. ever in our government. Point being, he was well qualified and was a man I would listen too. This conversation was brought up upon me questioning why we left after freeing Kuwait. He stated this along with, that we had acheived our specific objectives and to do further would be extremly ill advised. It is a damn shame W. would not follow his Father's footsteps in that regard!

    The article wonders why we even went to war. My very own speculation, as an opinion more then likely shared by others, was that we had reached "Peak Oil" and that to go into Iraq again would help secure the oil fields, promote democracy and free enterprise (bullshit), and oil, oil, oil...what else would we want there? The second conflict in Iraq really seemed more a very personal vendetta and unfinished business by a few top officials, many of whom served in many administrations at many capacities. I respect General Colin Powell, a friend of my Father, for he was openly against conducting a second conflict, which was against popular opinon in The United States so shortly after September 11, 2001.

    So much has changed since then and we responded in such a ludacris way that we have nearly (or already) bankrupted this country. If the blame for 911 falls on terrorists shoulders, their scheme has worked effectivly, and I do not state that lightly or mean to state that it was not a sinister act in any way at all. It was a devastaing blow to our country and the most sinister ruthless attack I have ever seen in my lifetime, and I think most all would agree to that.

    If it was not to blame upon the terrorists, and to be blamed on another group as so many conspiracy theroists suggest (and I state that with my mind focused on my ex-father in law stating that we should always be open minded to throughly explore every angle imaginable, no matter what we think as individuals) then is also worked perfectly as an excuse to build a long list of lies from which we could try to convince the world we needed to go to war over.

    Ultimately, no matter what anyone thinks, since those critical events and days, we have made a series of grave errors and crushed our own economy.

    This is the New, New Deal:

    My publication by The United States Department of Energy in 2010 was one with (future) vision about the Green Era, which we are in today, and the idea there was independence over oil and other nations to boost national security, a way to shift the paradigm of an entire marketplace which would in turn stimulate other markets, and becoming better stewards to the Earth through the acceleration of technology to be quickly implemented so that we could use less resources and become more efficient thus conserving natural resources all the while building this new marketplace here at home and across the world, bolstering education, upgrading infrastructure, offering more and more jobs, etc. and this is happening. I pray that this will be the measure to completely stop all of the austerity and help us all build and/or rebuild this country stronger then ever progressively moving forward and further reine what The American Dream is all about, which must ultimately be higher wages for the mass populace after re-introducing Green Era factories here at home so Americans that want and need to work can.

    I could obviously go on and on on this topic, but the underlining point I am trying my best to convey here is that we are in an entirely different landscape then we were a short time ago and the dividends are starting to be seen in every marketplace! What should follow is a steady influx of new and better paying jobs, no austerity measures, upgrades in infrastructure, a larger mlitary, better legislation against large corporations abusing tax incentives and paying serf like wages, and most importantly, as you stated, less mass engagement in other nations with our military and more special ops and drones strikes as deemed neccesary !

    The point, again, was to shift the entire focus back home where it is direly needed, before we take that last step towards total implosion.

    When the cost of living steadily rises, why do we let minimum wage stagnate fo so very long? That does nothing for the economy. Free enterprise, capitalism, is purposefully designed for the great businesses to stay in business and the poorly run ones to demise, and so some will certainly go out of business. I venture to guess that in the long run when we examine the statistics looking back that the amount of business closings and opening during these phased in minimum wage hikes will be perfectly on par with what it had been beforehand, on average.

    When Krugman made this statement in 1998, "So what are the effects of increasing minimum wages? Any Econ 101 student can tell you the answer: The higher wage reduces the quantity of labor demanded, and hence leads to unemployment.", the unemployment rate was at 4.5 % then and it would bode that it would indeed lead to possibly further unemployment, but that is merely a general statement not considering other important factors. However, today with unemployment at nearly 8%, the idea is that it will stimulate the economy and I think what was left out of this argument in the article you sited is that he has been vehemently against austerity, where this money, if it were back in play in the economy, would indeed boost the economy and raise the demand for labor even at this higher wage more in line with modern times. It simply seems to me there is an imbalance today and that the media takes examples or statements out of context to make their argument look accurate, or even worse then that creatively paints a very inaccurate picture leaving out important details...kind of like a partial truth is still a lie and utilized for convenience of the one telling it to fit their specific agenda.

    Unemployment figures:

    ...of further note to the above link:

    NOTES: Estimates prior to 1940 are based on sources other than direct enumeration. Data prior to 1948 are for persons age 14 and over. Data beginning in 1948 are for persons age 16 and over.
    1. Not strictly comparable with prior years.
    2. Beginning in Jan. 2006, data are not strictly comparable with data for 2005 and earlier years because of the revisions in the population controls used in the household survey.
    Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Web: .

    I would also argue that this is not a law of economics, as you implied, as much as it is more in line with a theory. A law will be, in this case, very finite with no variables, where as a theory will have a considerable number of factors to consider. Perhaps this is a poor example / or site to quote, but it serves the purpose to fortify my previous statement about the four basic laws of economics, which crertainly make logical sense.

    Ultimately, we are in the midst of a paradigm shift and a great balancing act. Gas prices have steadily declined and seem to be at new stable lows, we are becoming a more efficient nation at growth once again, however food prices continue to rise even after the fuel prices have fallen. Why all the unreasonable game playing ? ... GREED. When we continue to raise minimum wage, we will certainly see "price adjustments" elsewhere, and this must certainly be a secret because it is never ever mentioned in the articles that discuss this topic. I would love to see a law that could better control this type of sinister buisness practice, but I doubt that will ever happen. Perhaps we need to implement a "floating" minimum wage based on very specific factors and formulated quarterly so all may be forever apeased.

    If we simply stay on course with the New, New Deal, then we will see great progress come to pass and hopefully be even better able to focus on this great nation. When in Rome, do as the Romans do! ... may not be very good advice when we look at their ultimate demise and shortcomings. We are in the exact same death this and we can quickly identify where we are going wrong, which all should be fairly easy fizes with leadership that is not bought and a President that will lead and stand firm upon the Constituion. This link below is a great yet brief synopsis to examine, please do read it, as well as all the other links herein.

    Would I vote for Krugman if he ran for the office of  President of The United States of America? ...I do not know today, but he would make things very interesting and I trust in his econmic wisdom that he would indeed further help right this once quickly sinking ship with the bilge pumps barely working again. I would certainly be very inclined if I were casting my ballot right this very moment.

    Paul Krugman for President, #Krugman, #KrugmanforPresident, #Krugman4Prez