Skip to comments.
Paul Krugman: The Unconsciousness of a Liberal
NewsBusters ^
| Mark Finkelstein
Posted on 09/19/2007 5:15:55 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-23 next last
To: Behind Liberal Lines; Miss Marple; an amused spectator; netmilsmom; Diogenesis; YaYa123; MEG33; ...
Unconscious Paul Krugman ping to Today show list.
2
posted on
09/19/2007 5:17:24 AM PDT
by
governsleastgovernsbest
(Watching the Today Show since 2002 so you don't have to.)
To: governsleastgovernsbest
The market has extendend the Middle Finger to Times Select.
That is the significant news about the "Old Sagging Gray Whore".
To: governsleastgovernsbest
aficionados of the New York Times. Fishing in the wrong pond, are we?
4
posted on
09/19/2007 5:25:20 AM PDT
by
Izzy Dunne
(Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
To: governsleastgovernsbest
Liberals have a conscience? Are liberals even CONSCIOUS most of the time?
They sleep-walk through their lives as if they were on Ambien all the time.
The sleep aid, Zolpidem, sold under the trade name Ambien, is the best-selling prescribed sleeping pill in the US. It's estimated that over 25 million prescriptions for this drug were filled last year, and usage is growing. Lately it's been linked to some very bizarre behavior.
5
posted on
09/19/2007 5:29:35 AM PDT
by
alloysteel
(As Commander in Chief, who would treat the Secret Service with the most respect?)
To: governsleastgovernsbest
"In a nutshell, Krugman applauds the way income inequality declined under FDR"
That was the era of the Great Depression. It was the same sort of leveler that death is.
6
posted on
09/19/2007 5:35:47 AM PDT
by
Pietro
To: governsleastgovernsbest
Many on FR adopt Krugman's argument, crying about how much money CEOs make compared to their company's janitorial staff, whining about people working in finance making "too much" money, etc.
What the heck is wrong with "income inequality"? Seriously - why should anyone care about this utter nonissue?
7
posted on
09/19/2007 5:42:02 AM PDT
by
wideawake
(Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
To: governsleastgovernsbest
The Great Compression: The middle-class society I grew up in didnt evolve gradually or automatically. It was created, in a remarkably short period of time, by FDR and the New Deal. As the chart shows, income inequality declined drastically from the late 1930s to the mid 1940s, with the rich losing ground while working Americans saw unprecedented gains. Economic historians call what happened the Great Compression, Everybody else calls it the Depression and World War II. I guess that's what he wants the sorry SOS.
BTW, after WWII, the U.S. was about the only place left with an industrial infrastructure. Is Krugman saying we should destroy the infrastructure in the rest of the world for our benefit?
And why isn't he pointing out that the middle class today is much richer than the middle class of 1960? Those who can't see that should watch an old episode of the Honeymooners.
8
posted on
09/19/2007 5:44:57 AM PDT
by
Tribune7
(Michael Moore bought Haliburton)
To: governsleastgovernsbest
Who takes this sleep-walking socialist serious...other than the other same-think sleepwalkers.
It appears Krugman is setting up his blog because that’s where all the compatriot crazies hang out, plus even he recognizes that the NY Times as we know it will likely be gone-zo in the next 12 months
To: governsleastgovernsbest
Mark, thanks for summarizing the wild, wacky far, far left. Your tireless willingness to consume mass quantities of drivel, on my behalf, is most appreciated.
To: Pietro
Freedom and misery for all!!
11
posted on
09/19/2007 5:54:17 AM PDT
by
listenhillary
(millions crippled by the war on poverty....but we won't pull out)
To: Tribune7
Paul “faggot” sludgeman is a communist. Next.
12
posted on
09/19/2007 5:58:56 AM PDT
by
USS Alaska
(Nuke the terrorist savages - In Honor of Standing Wolf)
To: governsleastgovernsbest
I am unaware of a single prediction he has made that has come to pass. If someone knows of one i would be most suprised.
13
posted on
09/19/2007 6:21:42 AM PDT
by
Archon of the East
("universal executive power of the law of nature")
To: governsleastgovernsbest
"life, liberty and pursuit of happiness"Another instance in which people mistakenly think that they are entitled to have everything they want, ideally paid for by the "gubmint", i.e., taxpayers. "Pursuit" merely indicates that they should have the opportunity to achieve happineess.
To: governsleastgovernsbest
FDR- great depression
modern- long expanding neconomy
but I digress
15
posted on
09/19/2007 8:03:08 AM PDT
by
GeronL
To: wideawake
look at Cuba.... Castro- multiple billionaire, everyone else- dirt poor
16
posted on
09/19/2007 8:04:30 AM PDT
by
GeronL
To: GeronL
look at Cuba.... Castro- multiple billionaire, everyone else- dirt poor That isn't a market economy. There is no law in America against poor people increasing their income. Just as there is no law in America guaranteeing the rich their wealth.
17
posted on
09/19/2007 8:06:46 AM PDT
by
wideawake
(Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
To: governsleastgovernsbest
The chart proves America is the land of opportunity.
Those who have worked the hardest, smartest, or have somehow set themselves apart, have out paced most other people.
If you want more in America, you can have it. If you’re content with less, which is perfectly fine, then you’ll probably have less.
18
posted on
09/19/2007 8:12:53 AM PDT
by
ryan71
(I refuse to label anything I post, "sarcasm".)
To: governsleastgovernsbest
I hate to be the skunk at the garden party, but Herrnstein and Murray implicitly predicted this in
The Bell Curve in 1994, when these trends were not so obvious. They called it "cognitive stratification," the tendency toward stickiness across generations in cognitive ability. High-IQ people are much more likely to marry other high-IQ people than before, and the places they are likely to meet (Harvard, say) have much higher cognitive ability than before, because the competition to get in is so much greater. This effect is reinforced if marriage itself raises income independently of parental intelligence, since people with higher IQs are more likely to marry.
It is obviously a controversial theory, and I don't know how much of rising income "inequality" it explains. (Perhaps very little.) The theory requires that the variance in IQ and other cognitive abilities is increasing, and that IQ is a good predictor of income. I don't know the answer to these questions. But that it isn't much discussed is unfortunate.
To: Sgt_Schultze
“Your tireless willingness to consume mass quantities of drivel, on my behalf, is most appreciated.”
You’re very welcome, but really, don’t thank me: the credit goes to my daily Prilosec ;-)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-23 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson