[Billthedrill]

Man, take a week off and the cockroaches multiply, don't they?

One should always be circumspect with criticism of those who "know" America as well as our putative friends at the Guardian, or who take their economic advice from strong-government Keynesian types who feel that the market needs regulation from those whose field of expertise is in coercion and not trade. When one views such commonplaces as "cutting public spending, deregulating, privatising and even cutting capital gains tax" with horror and alarm, it may be suspected that one's name isn't Friedman or Hayek.

The signal failure of the left dating from Marx is the insistence on regarding economic man as political man; this attempt to cast the current geopolitical ambitions of the Bush administration in economic terms is an unusually embarrassing result. It turns out not to be all of one easily digestible and theorizable piece, actually, and the ostensible relations of the Republicans with Eeevil Corporate America (good grief, does the Democratic party have no corporate donors?) turn out not to be particularly related to the attempt to cut off support and funding for Islamist ambitions by invading Afghanistan and Iraq, after all. Such issues are never entirely unrelated given the complexities of the real world, but those complexities are precisely what forcing this into the intellectual model of economic theory attempts to resolve by ignoring. It just won't wash.

[Support Free Republic]

 

	Keep Our Republic Free Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER and say THANKS to Jim Robinson! IT'S IN THE BREAKING NEWS SIDEBAR THANKS!

[GulliverSwift]

Where's the barf alert?

Here's a nice lie from Paulie Boy:
Krugman states quite baldly a truth from which many still shrink: today's conservatives are radical revolutionaries who do not accept the legitimacy of America's current political system and aim to subvert it.

Of course, it's the reverse!
Which side wants to destroy representative gov't and replace it with judicial fiat?

Which side was it that wants to violate the Constitution's provision that says that it alone should be the supreme law of the land?

Which party was it that is deliberately stalling judicial confirmations in an unprecedented manner in order to stop the president from fulfilling his constitutional duty to appoint them?

Which party is it that wants to take away everyone's right to spend money espousing his political views?

[Spruce]

I started a post refuting the articles points but in order to save time and be efficient I think this brief summary will suffice.

What a steaming load of sh*t.

Thank you.

[gaspar]

Do you really think that producing the entire article from the Trotskyite Guardian is worth it? Why not note a Krugman "barf alert"?

[Verginius Rufus]

He read only a few of Krugman's columns in the original? And what language would that have been? Russian?

[navyblue]

I think it was just today here on FR, there was an article where Stiglitz was refuting his previous ideas on the economy.

It was a Reuters article and datelined October 13, 2003.

[exDemMom]

It is a revelatory picture, and it will leave those who don't know America well shaking their heads in disbelief.

Yes. I am definitely shaking my head in disbelief at this point. Is this guy from another planet, or what?

Okay, now going back to try to read the rest of this pap.

[Plutarch]

Britain's political class and commentariat just don't get contemporary America...They should read these two books...

This is so hilarious. The writer chastises everyone else for their lack of insight. The writer's only credential is that he has...(drum roll)...read two books.

The Chinese say, "Beware the man of one book". I guess that should go for Brits of two books.