Subject: Krugman Blows From: Frank To: All Date Posted: Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 19:38:32 (EST) Email Address: frankdeetier@yahoo.com Message: You know, I hope all you low-lifes drink Krugman's Kool-Aid and go down with him, the NYT, and the DNC. It's amazing how none of you offer solutions to ANYTHING. You'd rather make everyone afraid of something than actually fix it. But that's the liberal way. Just shut the f**k up and get a real candidate. The 9 (now 8) losers you have going this year sure won't get it done. Good luck in 2008

Subject: Re: Krugman Blows From: Publius To: Frank Date Posted: Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 03:06:06 (EST) Email Address: -- Message: Seriously, posts like this really reflect do not reflect well on political opponents of Krugman. Frank does a real disservice to the anti-Krugman cause by making those who disagree with Krugman sound ignorant.

Subject: Re: Krugman Blows From: Paul G. Brown To: Frank Date Posted: Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 19:45:15 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hi Frank! I am intrigued by the tone and substance of your ideas and I am interested in subscribing to your newsletter. What's your take on the Federal Deficit?

Subject: Al Gore's Speech From: Jennifer To: All Date Posted: Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 15:43:02 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/16/opinion/16HERB.html?hp 'In preparing this series of speeches, I have noticed a troubling pattern that characterizes the Bush-Cheney administration's approach to almost all issues. In almost every policy area, the administration's consistent goal has been to eliminate any constraints on their exercise of raw power, whether by law, regulation, alliance or treaty.' - Al Gore - Bob Herbert

Subject: I think they're talking about us... From: Jerry To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 15, 2004 at 15:42:08 (EST) Email Address: texcraxyhorse9@yahoo.com Message: Check this out at the link to the Daily Kos. Paul Krugman's army! My vote for uniforms is turtleneck sweaters and tweed jackets with patches on the elbows. Jerry Krugman Wants You! www.dailykos.com/story/2004/1/15/73939/5046

Subject: Re: I think they're talking about us... From: Paul G. Brown To: Jerry Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 15, 2004 at 16:24:40 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: And a copy of the Statistical Abstract under one arm . . . .

Subject: Re: I think they're talking about us... From: Ken To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 10:44:28 (EST) Email Address: kendoran@execpc.com Message: So who put this up? A Google search on 'Krugman's Army' comes up dry. Inquiring minds want to know.

Subject: Re: I think they're talking about us... From: Silas To: Ken Date Posted: Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 12:22:28 (EST) Email Address: silaslynch@aol.com Message: That poster is flat-out awesome! I would pay good $ for one...

Subject: greenspan in germany 1/14/03p From: richard walters To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 15, 2004 at 10:54:21 (EST) Email Address: richardjwalters@netzero.net Message: will someone please ask krugman to explain what greenspan said yesterday at the budesbank. market will determine the sustainability of the current accounts deficit? because of productivity an increase in overall us employment 'must' follow? i don't get it.

Subject: Re: greenspan in germany 1/14/03p From: Brian WIlliams To: richard walters Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 15, 2004 at 17:32:34 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I think Krugman explained this, but in another situation. http://www.pkarchive.org/theory/hotdog.html 'It so happens that I am about to use my hot-dog-and-bun example to talk about technology, jobs, and the future of capitalism...Suppose that our economy initially employs 120 million workers, which corresponds more or less to full employment. It takes two person-days to produce either a hot dog or a bun. (Hey, realism is not the point here.) Assuming that the economy produces what consumers want, it must be producing 30 million hot dogs and 30 million buns each day; 60 million workers will be employed in each sector. Now, suppose that improved technology allows a worker to produce a hot dog in one day rather than two. And suppose that the economy makes use of this increased productivity to increase consumption to 40 million hot dogs with buns a day. This requires some reallocation of labor, with only 40 million workers now producing hot dogs, 80 million producing buns.' The increased productivity will result in continued unemployment for a while, but this is only the adjustment period. Eventually, jobs will just be shuffled around and the economy will be able to produce, with no net effect on jobs. What Krugman is advocating in his columns (I think) is using fiscal policy to help the adjustment process along, in order to get people to these other jobs faster. That's just my take on the situation, someone let me know if I screwed up.

Subject: Re: greenspan in germany 1/14/03p From: DEB To: Brian WIlliams Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 15, 2004 at 23:05:55 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The one thing I can't seem to get, and the article dosn't really answer my question (at least not to where I understand it), how can we be for sure that consumption will increase to meet the new supply?

Subject: Re: greenspan in germany 1/14/03p From: Danny Walker To: DEB Date Posted: Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 10:44:43 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The context of this article is unclear to me so I not sure what point Krugman was making. But, I'll attempt to answer your question. First, we are assumed to be at full employment so you cannot add (in the short run) to the 120 mm workers. If productivity increases so that the 60mm workers can now make 60mm hotdogs, given the current supply and demand schedule for hotdogs, the price of hotdogs will fall so there is a new equilibrium of 60mm hotdogs demanded and supplied. Since hotdog buns are very complimentary product, the demand schedule will shift out causing an increase in the price of buns. This increase will induce producers to make more, which means hiring more and paying more for labor. This extra labor will have to be from the producers of hotdogs (They also want to make more money). As a result, the hotdog manufacturers will have to pay more to retain labor. Eventually, this increase in productivity has lead to an increase in the wage rate and an equilibrium between hotdog and bun output.

Subject: Employment is Poor From: Emma To: Danny Walker Date Posted: Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 13:31:59 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: We are nowhere close to full employment. I will get data later. This labor market 'recovery' really is the weakest of any recession since 1945. We are short millions of jobs, wages have actually fallen since the recession ended in November 2001, and benefits are eroding.

Subject: Re: Employment is Poor From: Danny Walker To: Emma Date Posted: Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 14:25:38 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Emma, yes, I know we are not at full employment. I was simply trying to answer a question from DEB based on an aritcle by Krugman which, for the illustration, assumes full employment... 'Suppose that our economy initially employs 120 million workers, which corresponds more or less to full employment.'

Subject: Employment, Wage, Benefit Problems From: Emma To: Emma Date Posted: Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 14:02:27 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: http://www.morganstanley.com/GEFdata/digests/20040112-mon.html False Recovery Stephen Roach [Morgan Stanley] http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_econindicators_jobspict Weak labor market results in second consecutive year of job loss

Subject: Re: greenspan in germany 1/14/03p From: Danny Walker To: richard walters Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 15, 2004 at 12:19:13 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: >because of productivity an increase in overall us employment 'must' follow? There is a favorite question in priciples. Does the introduction of labor saving technology such as computers cause a reduction in labor demand? Then answer is no. Productivity is enhanced, that is to say the marginal productivity of labor increases. This increase leads to an increase in the demand for labor and an incrase in the wages to labor.

Subject: Productivity and Labor From: Emma To: Danny Walker Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 15, 2004 at 14:35:54 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Productivity sadly may well not lead to more employment or better wages and benefits for general employees. Productivity was fine during the depression. Right now productivity increases are going to profits and to top management, rather than general labor. This has been the case since 2001. Right now the labor market is long into the poorest recovery from any recession since 1945. I hope for a change and fast, but do not yet see a change.

Subject: Productivity From: Emma To: Emma Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 15, 2004 at 15:11:48 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Productivity increases always have the wonderful potential to improve the way we live. The faster the rise in productivity the better, but who gains from more productivity can be and is currently a problem. We need fiscal policy that adds more to job creation, and we need labor to share far more in productivity gains. Right now, the middle class is slowly losing the benefits of higher productivity.

Subject: Re: Productivity From: Danny Walker To: Emma Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 15, 2004 at 15:46:29 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I’m just using basic theory to help clarify Greenspan’s comments. I happen to agree with them and believe employment and wages are poised for an increase. But you may be right in the short run. If the returns on productivity are currently going to the owners of these factors of production, then we should see some amazing earnings reports in the near future which would put upward pressure on the stock markets as well as the employment picture. Additionally, the evidence of the economic profits would induce entry which would also induce hiring and wage increases. Not sure what fiscal policies you are suggesting that would (at this stage of the recovery) improve the labor situation.

Subject: Earnings are Great not Wages From: Emma To: Danny Walker Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 15, 2004 at 15:59:39 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Earnings have been and are great. Last quarter will show the biggest earnings increase in a decade. Returns from productivity are going to stock holders and management, not labor. Paul Krugman has suggested fiscal policy to improve employment and wages and benefits since 2001. Remember, this is the worst labor market recovery since 1945 by a whole lot.

Subject: Re: Earnings are Great not Wages From: RL To: Emma Date Posted: Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 07:56:45 (EST) Email Address: rafaelloring@yahoo.es Message: worst recovery since 45, mmm that is some controversial statement that i believe unnecesarily adds drama to the current situation.

Subject: Worst Labor Recovery Since 1945 From: Emma To: RL Date Posted: Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 13:25:30 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: This is the poorest labor market recovery from a recession since 1945. The statement is indeed true and true by quite a lot. Whether eipnet.org or Brad DeLong at Berkeley or Morgan Stanley the data show a startling labor market weakness in job creation and wages and benefits.

Subject: Krugman on Minnesota Public Radio on 01/12/04 From: ATTENTION ADMIN To: All Date Posted: Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 19:44:00 (EST) Email Address: admin@admin.com Message: For a January 12, 2004 interview with Krugman, go here http://news.mpr.org/programs/midday/ Which way is the economy headed? Economist and New York Times Columnist Paul Krugman, speaking to the Commonwealth Club of California about the future of the U.S. economy. (Midday, 01/12/2004)

Subject: Re: Krugman on Minnesota Public Radio on 01/12/04 From: Bobby To: ATTENTION ADMIN Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 15, 2004 at 07:15:07 (EST) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: Okay. Posted! Thanks for the tip!

Subject: 'Irresponsible fiscal policy' From: Jerry To: All Date Posted: Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 10:42:13 (EST) Email Address: texcrazyhorse9@yahoo.com Message: I'm getting ready to get into Suskind's book IN RE Paul O'Neill spilling his guts. Although O'Neill is already backpeddling on some of his statements regarding Iraq, perhaps as damning in terms of the long term fiscal health of this country was O'Neill and Greenspan's condimnation of the Bush tax cut. Apparently Greenspan objected to further tax cuts as they lacked significant 'triggers' to restart the economy, calling it 'irresponsible fiscal policy.' What do we think about this? I've argued for a while now that the Bush tax cut was not sound policy, even by supply-side standards and that Greenspan, when he endorsed the first round of tax cuts as a way to bleed off surplus, shoulda kept his mouth shut. It's not the Fed's business to dictate tax policy. Has anyone else seen Suskind and what do you think? Jerry

Subject: Why Debt From: Emma To: Jerry Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 15, 2004 at 15:04:48 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: http://www.cbpp.org/1-15-04bud.htm Total Revenues From All Levels Of Government Drop To Lowest Share Of Economy Since 1968 - 1/15/04 New government data show that steep declines in revenues, measured as a share of the economy — especially declines in federal income tax revenues — have been the principal factor behind the return of budget deficits at federal, state and local levels.

Subject: Re: Why Debt From: Jerry To: Emma Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 15, 2004 at 15:39:29 (EST) Email Address: none Message: Yeah, I saw this. There outta be a joke: when is a tax increase not a stimulus? When it bankrupts the economy. Jerry

Subject: Budget Deficit From: Emma To: Jerry Date Posted: Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 17:39:14 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: http://www.cbpp.org/1-7-04bud.htm Is Domestic Spending Exploding? An Assessment of Claims by the Heritage Foundation and Others - 1/14/04 This analysis examines widely reported 'findings' from the Heritage Foundation about federal spending growth; it finds these claims are based on problematic use of data that generates misleading conclusions. Analysis that uses standard, widely accepted methods of examining the budget yields different results, including the finding that federal spending, as a share of the economy, is lower now than in any year from 1975-1996.

Subject: Richard Perle From: yakusa To: All Date Posted: Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 06:11:30 (EST) Email Address: yalusanerd@hotmail.com Message: At last us europeans had a chance to see R.Perle and make up our own minds (having read Moore/Stiglitz et al),being guest on french/german tv and interviewed by a 'real' journalist not fearing to ask all the right/wrong questions however 'anti-american perceived'. Well it was oversimplistic justification all the way concerning war/cronyism/foreign policy. In fact tailor made bs for the masses,never saw what made this guy so influential?

Subject: Re: Richard Perle From: Jerry To: yakusa Date Posted: Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 10:21:34 (EST) Email Address: none Message: Why so influential? He tells people what they wanna hear with a set of credentials that provide gravitas to his message. I don't trust ideologues, either on the right or the left...and I'm a left-leaning person. What Washington needs these days - pardon the color - is a Henry James enema. Pragmatism is what made America great and it's time we got back to that. Jerry

Subject: Whoops From: Jerry To: Jerry Date Posted: Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 17:17:26 (EST) Email Address: none Message: I Henry'ed when I shoulda William'ed. Jerry

Subject: Inflation, inflation, inflation From: Marco To: All Date Posted: Tues, Jan 13, 2004 at 18:22:07 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Why aren't we seeing more talk about inflation? I stand to be corrected, but the annual US consumption is in the trillions of Dollars that is very price sensitive to the exchange rate. In my opinion, the recent slump in the US Dollar has to have a huge impact on the producer price index and the resulting inflation rate. Already Americans get the best deals on earth (on their commodities). In order to tap into the mass market of the US, developing countries give rock-bottom prices. I don't believe that commodity prices are that elastic anymore. It just seems that prices have to go up dramatically. Already the Fed has spoken of 'some inflation', but I would imagine a few percentage points increase. Am I wrong?

Subject: Re: Inflation, inflation, inflation From: SK To: Marco Date Posted: Tues, Jan 13, 2004 at 23:47:19 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The Dollar has depreciated: yes. But only against a few major currencies. The determinants for marginal prices today are the Asian countries (especially China), whose currencies have appreciated much less (Chinese currency is pegged, leading others to maintain similar policies). Import prices are therefore kept low. Yesterday's import price data (up 0.2% vs economist forecast 0.5%) reflects that.

Subject: Re: Inflation, inflation, inflation From: Marco To: SK Date Posted: Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 13:34:07 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Thanks - I was under the impression that the US$ dropped against all of it major trading countries. I am aware that China's currency is pegged to the US Dollar - which in my view places China in a difficult predicament. China had a total trade surplus of only 25 Billion US (meaning it has a very big trade deficit with other countries with floating currencies). China's currency should've dropped (along with the US$) against their major trading partners and in my view should turn that trade surplus into a trade deficit. This (in my view) may force China to review their exchange rate with the US$ and adjust the exchange rate level - causing prices of Chinese goods to go up. I am amazed by that 0.2% increase. Is there a season for stock purchasing an placing of new orders? Could it be that after Christmas new stock orders will be down and we'll see serious upward movements (in that percentage) as we move onto the second and third quarters of the year?

Subject: Watch the Bond Market From: Emma To: Marco Date Posted: Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 15:20:16 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The 10 year treasury is a 4%, telling us inflation is simply no problem.

Subject: Re: Watch the Bond Market From: Marco To: Emma Date Posted: Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 19:59:10 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: No come Emma - tell me more than just that. From my knowlede the bond market is a recourse on inflation. Changes in inflation result in adjustments to the bond market. Not the other way around. Unless you are using the bond rate as an indicator to gain knowledge on movements in inflation (not my original intention).

Subject: Bond Yields 'Anticipate' From: Emma To: Marco Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 15, 2004 at 14:27:31 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The is no better gauge of anticipated inflation than the bond market. Bond investors as a whole are telling us no inflation problem for quite a while. So, too, the Fed. Perhaps they are wrong, but I think not.

Subject: Re: Bond Yields 'Anticipate' From: SK To: Emma Date Posted: Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 00:47:59 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: You are right - though the market can be wrong. Since the summer the increase in bond yields from 3.6% to 4.4% indicated that the market expected inflation to rise in keeping with the falling Dollar. I think the bond market has been taken by surprise by the inflation and import price data. I expect the bond market was reacting more to the GDP growth story rather than inflation.

Subject: Bond Yield Discussion From: Emma To: SK Date Posted: Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 13:29:02 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2004_archives/000031.html The bond market and the Fed with a 1% funds rate are telling us the labor market recovery is sadly not here. The poor labor market is the current key to low bond yields.

Subject: Re: Bond Yields 'Anticipate' From: Jerry To: Emma Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 15, 2004 at 15:57:54 (EST) Email Address: texcrazyhorse9@yahoo.com Message: Yeah, right again, Emma. Inflation is a glint in the eye with bonds sitting where they're at. Besides, what's going to drive inflation? Wages? The crappy dollar? Not this year. Jerry

Subject: Re: Bond Yields 'Anticipate' From: Marco To: Jerry Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 15, 2004 at 16:22:24 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Emma, After having watched the finance news last night - I must retract my previous statement and concede that you are right. Although my economics studies state that the bond market is a method of controlling inflation - I now see that movements in the bond market is also a method of anticipating inflation. Now I am very impressed that inflation is not budging - it goes against everything I imagined. I still cannot understand why the 'crappy dollar' has not resulted in inflation. Perhaps I have under estimated the Dollar value against the US' major trading partners.

Subject: Re: Bond Yields 'Anticipate' From: Danny Wakler To: Marco Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 15, 2004 at 16:50:28 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: One of our largest trading partners, China, pegs their currency to the dollar which mitigates inflation concerns as our currency deprecitates against other less significant partners.

Subject: Little Price Leverage From: Emma To: Danny Wakler Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 15, 2004 at 17:05:20 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Except for oil and gas, drugs and medical equipment, there is simply not much price leverage in the world economy. Lots of global supply, consumers who are resistant to price increases. An odd period. The 10 year treasury yield is below 4%. Go figure.

Subject: Oil From: Jerry To: Emma Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 15, 2004 at 17:32:26 (EST) Email Address: texcrazyhorse9@yahoo.com Message: I'm telling you all - when oil demand begins to exceed supply, now that's gonna be inflation. We've got a few years left...but just a few. Jerry

Subject: Re: Oil From: Marco To: Jerry Date Posted: Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 15:06:57 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Jerry, Intersting theory. Any idea when that will happen and any stats to back the idea?

Subject: Re: Oil From: Jerry To: Marco Date Posted: Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 23:15:14 (EST) Email Address: None Message: Marco - Where's the love, man? Would I leave you fine folks without figures? ;) All you have to do is ask: http://www.iea.org/g8/world/oilsup.htm This is a down and dirty from the IEA. Industry numbers in the US are pretty similar (my Daddy's in the bidness). But I like the chart on this page. That pretty much sums up my prediction. Come 2010 we're gonna be in a world of hurt. I don't think we can make it to 2020 with a demand curve like that. The economy would be in ruins by then. Best, Jerry

Subject: Conservation From: Emma To: Marco Date Posted: Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 15:14:44 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The Administration and Republican leaders in Congress do not care a fig about conservation, and that will surely be a problem in time. Now, the problem is playing to OPEC rather than using conservation as a means to weaken OPEC. Heck, the Chinese understand. Conservation and the environment do not register with these arch conservative Republican folks.

Subject: False Recovery From: Emma To: All Date Posted: Tues, Jan 13, 2004 at 14:28:26 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: http://www.morganstanley.com/GEFdata/digests/20040112-mon.html False Recovery Stephen Roach [Morgan Stanley] The Great American Job Machine has long powered the US business cycle. It drives the income growth that fuels personal consumption. That internally generated fuel is all but absent in the current upturn. The US economy is mired in a jobless recovery the likes of which it has never seen. This has profound implications for the economic outlook, the political climate, trade policies, and the global business cycle. Contrary to popular spin, the US labor market is not on the mend. In the final five months of 2003, a total of only 278,000 new jobs were added by nonfarm businesses — a gain that is easily matched in a single month of a typical hiring-led recovery. Moreover, literally all of the job growth that has occurred over this period has been concentrated in three industry segments — temporary staffing, education, and healthcare — which collectively added 286,000 positions in the final five months of last year. The “animal spirits” of a broad-based hiring-led revival by US businesses are all but absent. Jobs may be rising in America’s low-cost contingent workforce (temps) and in high-cost-areas that are shielded from international competition (health and education), but positions continue to be eliminated in manufacturing, retail trade, and financial and information services....

Subject: Bursting the Bubble From: Emma To: Emma Date Posted: Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 15:41:05 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The Fed began raising short term interest rates in the middle of 1999, though there was no inflation. They finished in May 2000, and the bubble burst. The Fed began to lower rapidly again from January 2001, when it was obvious we were headed for recession. The point is always to prevent a recession from growing ever more serious!

Subject: Re: False Recovery From: Danny Walker To: Emma Date Posted: Tues, Jan 13, 2004 at 15:31:59 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: What if there was a large amount of capital investment (specifically in technology) during the last half of the 90’s? Additionally, let say it took some time for the users of this capital/technology to fully realize its contribution to productivity. What if this realization coincided with a business expansion, such as we are in now? Can this explain growth without jobs?

Subject: Rails and Tech From: Emma To: Danny Walker Date Posted: Tues, Jan 13, 2004 at 16:30:44 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: When the railroads expanded rapidly a after 1850, there was a long period when rail capacity could not be fully used. That presented problems for railroads and rail employment, but not problems for the broad economy. Cheaper rail traffic costs gave rise to booms elsewhere. This employment weakness feels different, going much beyond the technology sector.

Subject: Tech and Investment From: Emma To: Emma Date Posted: Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 15:25:27 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~hal/people/hal/NYTimes/2000-12-14.html What causes these technology-driven investment booms and busts? Why do we always seem to overinvest in new technologies? In the case of railroads and automobiles, the major economic force at work was economies of scale. The primary costs associated with a railroad are the fixed costs -- the costs of servicing the debt incurred in laying the track and buying the rolling stock. In the 1880's, about two-thirds of the total costs of operating a railroad were fixed. When fixed costs are high, large companies have an inherent advantage, since they have a lower total cost per shipment. The railroads recognized this and invested heavily in building capacity. But once the capacity was installed, there was inevitable cutthroat competition for freight. There was no way around the fact that there was just too much rail stock relative to demand. Companies went bankrupt, wiping out their obligation to make debt payments, leading to even more aggressive pricing. The industry sank into a slump from which it took decades to recover. The automobile story involved a different kind of competitive dynamics. The entrepreneurs who entered the industry in the 1900's were mostly small operators -- carriage makers, bicycle makers and the like -- who were enthusiastic about the new technology of the horseless carriage. Some operators specialized in parts supply and some in assembly, but their fortunes were intimately intertwined since so many supplies were custom made.

Subject: Re: Tech and Investment From: Emma To: Emma Date Posted: Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 15:28:02 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hal Varian - Dean of the School of Management at Berkeley What is to be learned from these episodes? The railroad boom and bust arose because there were large fixed costs and a commodity product -- freight transportation. Since there were many providers, price wars were all too likely. The cost structure of this industry bears a remarkable resemblance to long-haul fiber optics. The big fixed cost comes from laying the fiber, with operating expenses being relatively small. This is a recipe for price wars, and, indeed, the cost of long-distance telephony -- especially in negotiated contracts for large businesses -- has been plummeting. Automobiles, on the other hand, were a highly differentiated product. ... Economists have pondered the technology boom-and-bust cycle for years. Joseph Schumpeter called it ''creative destruction'' and thought of it as one of the primary drivers of capitalism. Overinvestment may seem wasteful, but then it's always easy to identify winners once the race is over. Who would have thought that a business model built on aggregating garage sales and flea markets would turn out to be successful? Yet eBay is one of the few profitable dot-coms. There's no substitute for experimentation -- with business models as well as with technology. One of the great strengths of American-style capitalism is its ability to finance crazy ideas -- because every now and then, those ideas have a very, very big payoff.

Subject: Re: Tech and Investment From: Jerry To: Emma Date Posted: Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 16:56:41 (EST) Email Address: texcrazyhorse9@yahoo.com Message: Emma - I think what has troubled me most about this recent boom-bust cycle is how ready people were to embrace it with religious fervor. People talked about the emerging tech sector as 'the new economy' as if the creation of one new industry would some how revamp the economy holistically. We were told not to worry about the export of industrial jobs overseas, as tech would fill the gap and in a new way. I think of it as the Atkins diet approach: something that seems to be good for you, you like it when you're on it, you get results, but all the while the premise on which the thing is based is a little fishy and in the end you're probably doing yourself more harm than good. But, just like tech everybody has to get on the bandwagon or be left behind. Naysayers are not believed and traditional 'experts' become cheerleaders. I think the tech economy of the 1990's had as much to do with mass hysteria as sound economics. Jerry

Subject: Loving a Bubble From: Emma To: Jerry Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 15, 2004 at 14:29:51 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Agreed. What makes bubbles bubbles is allowing ourselves to be convinced the time is different and asset values can and will climb forever.

Subject: Re: Loving a Bubble From: SK To: Emma Date Posted: Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 01:07:36 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: But what happens if you dont allow the bubble to bust? The overinvestment/innovation story really works if only the best technologies and companies survive. What happens if you allow the poorer/failed companies and technologies to live through accomodative policies? Look at Japan in the 90's or the US now...

Subject: Re: Loving a Bubble From: WRS To: SK Date Posted: Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 13:48:36 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: SK, you make here a strong point that is rarely mentioned in conventional discussion of the economy. What are the risks to monetary accomodation? Are low rates keeping deadwood alive? And if so, at what price?

Subject: Re: Rails and Tech From: Emma To: Emma Date Posted: Tues, Jan 13, 2004 at 16:37:48 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The question of whether there was too much capacity creation in the technology sector and too much remaining capacity is important. Excess rail capacity, if I remember correctly took almost 20 years to be fully utilized. So, fiber optic capacity could take years more to be fully utilized. Still, the employment and wage and benefit problem is broader in scope.

Subject: Re: Rails and Tech From: Danny Walker To: Emma Date Posted: Tues, Jan 13, 2004 at 17:26:10 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I would consider rails and fiber-optics to be infrastructure. If the broad insustrial base can use them, that's good. But their existence in advance of utilization does not harm the current job situation. I believe the investment in capital and technology is extremely broad. Health care, finance, manufacturing, transportaion, you name it. When this capital's productivity is fully realized (now maybe) then fewer labor inputs are required to accomadate an expansion. BUT, new technology and capital increases the marginal product of workers, increasing the demand for labor and therefore increasing wages and employment, in the long-run. Let's hope the run just isn't too long.

Subject: Re: Rails and Tech From: Jerry To: Emma Date Posted: Tues, Jan 13, 2004 at 17:08:42 (EST) Email Address: texcrazyhorse9@yahoo.com Message: Well, there are some big differences between rails and tech. Rail lines were built on the backs of heavy duty corporate welfare. For instance, according to Thomas Lloyd Miller's THE PUBLIC LANDS OF TEXAS, the state of Texas gave away a huge percentage of its public lands to rail companies in exchange for corporate investment in the infrastructure. Texas today only holds about 3% of its lands as public. That's massive underwriting on the part of the G and I don't see anything like that going on these days or in the '90s. It would have been pretty hard for rail companies to fail, but they did, and in droves. There were several panics in the late 19th century that caused America to fundamentally restructure how the economy works. That probably needs to happen again, but I don't see that coming. Today, we are not dealing with a closed system. Globalization has made it easy for companies to sell product made overseas to companies here in the US...rail companies couldn't do that because, well, the rail lines had to be in the US. Tech can do it easy. Really and truly, so long as the G continues to think in the supply side paradigm we're just going to stumble along. We're in an ecnomics dark age. The solution to the problem is economics 101: pay down the debt, sound fiscal policy, continued low interest rates, and raise wages with some genuine investment in jobs. But that would require Bush to reverse himself on the fundamental economic principles that got him into office. Jerry

Subject: Paul Krugman on Democracy Now! From: Kenneth Fair To: All Date Posted: Tues, Jan 13, 2004 at 11:31:42 (EST) Email Address: kenfair@earthling.net Message: Democracy Now! hosted a debate between Richard Perle and Paul Krugman. The broadcast can be heard at the links below. Democracy Now! show www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/13/156244

Subject: Re: Paul Krugman on Democracy Now! From: Michael March To: Kenneth Fair Date Posted: Tues, Jan 13, 2004 at 19:57:07 (EST) Email Address: march@nospam.indirect.com Message: Arg.. I wish he would of read the Evil One's book before the show.

Subject: Krugman on Jan 13, 2004 - Incoming!!!!! From: Paul G. Brown To: All Date Posted: Tues, Jan 13, 2004 at 00:40:21 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Our man is now now longer an economist who writes political journalism. He's a fully formed Tom Paine who happens to know a thing or two about trade theory. Expect a new batch of trolls; loud, angry, probably slightly drunk trolls.

Subject: interesting book about rich cheats From: Ethan To: All Date Posted: Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 15:17:12 (EST) Email Address: ejz23@yahoo.com Message: I encourage people that have some time to listen to this man who was on an NPR show called Fresh air. Go to Wednesday, January 07, 2004 his name is David Cay Johnston he write about taxes for the New York times. read the bottom paragraph I got from the website: 'He won a Pulitzer Prize in 2001 for his investigative reporting in The New York Times. His new book is Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich -- and Cheat Everybody Else. Johnston was hired by the Times to cover taxes and he approached it like an ongoing investigation. In his new book he writes, 'I was especially surprised to find that some of the biggest tax breaks for the rich are not even in the tax code, and that the IRS was completely unaware of many widely used tax fraud schemes. But what surprised me more than anything was the realization that our tax system now levies the poor, the middle class and even the upper middle class to subsidize the rich.' freshair.npr.org freshair.npr.org

Subject: Employment Problem From: Emma To: All Date Posted: Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 13:13:00 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The employment problem we now have is especially important because there has been a decided shift in responsibility for family well-being away from corporate employers and to the family. Families are responsible for providing the security and contentment nets they will need. That means saving enough, properly handling personal investment, and hoping against hope that a family member is not caught by a job loss lasting a long term period. Workers are more dependent on wage and benefit increases, but wage and benefit increases are becoming harder to get other than for those at the top of the income scale. Notice that the poor job creation number in December was coupled with revisions down in job creation in October and November. We are putting workers under an increasing strain, the effects of which will not become obvious in the near future but are going to be harsh in time.

Subject: Re: Employment Problem From: SK To: Emma Date Posted: Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 04:20:18 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Are American families saving enough? The Personal Savings rate of Americans has been falling from close to 10% of the GDP in the 80's and early 90's to about 2% of GDP. If people start to save for a rainy day it would mean less consumption - which is the cornerstone of the current growth. The Greenspan policy of reducing interest rates is to convince consumers to spend rather than save. What happens as consumers begin to save? The durables and housing sector would be first hit. This would probably bring on a recession. Coupled with the falling Dollar (possibly even against China) - an inflationary policy - this would lead to every economist's nightmare - stagflation. A loss of confidence in the US economic growth and the Dollar could lead to foreigners pulling out funds from the US. As someone put it (I forgot who): the US trade deficit and external borrowing is the World's Greatest Vendor Financing Deal.

Subject: Re: Employment Problem From: Brian Williams To: SK Date Posted: Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 19:19:29 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Well, this sounds kinda funny. Why would a decrease in consumption result in inflation? Wouldn't A decrease in consumption would contract aggregate demand, and in the long run lead to a decrease in prices? Also, wouldn't an increase in savings result in economic growth? I would reckon that an increase in savings would lead to an increase in the supply of loanable funds, lowering the interest rate and increasing domestic investment. That's what I would figure, but I don't know. What do you guys think?

Subject: Re: Employment Problem From: Paul G. Brown To: Brian Williams Date Posted: Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 20:10:20 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I think the argument was that it is the weakening of the US Dollar exchange rate that would have an inflationary effect. And further, that this inflation, combined with low jobs growth, means a return to stagflation. Falling exchange rates almost certainly have some impact on inflation. The US imports some goods that lack domestic substitutes: energy is a biggie, clothing from overseas manufacturers is another. As demand for these goods is pretty inelastic--can't do without our gas, or our pants[*]--we will buy them at higher prices and pass the price increase on. So falling exchange rate changes have some inflationary effect. But this is just one of a large number of factors to consider. Inflation drives demand because holding money overnight is a dumb thing to do when it will buy less tomorrow. On the other hand, historically low exchange rates diminish the lustre of the US as somewhere to invest because of the exchange rate risk. Blah, blah, blah . . . And on your point about increased savings leading to investment: while available capital is necessary for investment, it isn't sufficient. You can have all the cash in the world but if no one is buying anything there is no point in using any of it to build things for them. Domestic savings is good to the extent that it reduces the demand for foreign money. Forecasting is *really* hard. Most professional economists that I know of limit themselves to explaining what is going on (Prof. DeLong's affection for the timeseries), to glorified accounting (our Prof. Krugman's 'Just how you gonna pay for that, bud?'), or else to wondering what just happened (Luskin). [*] And on occasions, the former in the later. (My daughter's joke.)

Subject: Re: Employment Problem From: Brian Williams To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 21:47:02 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: 'And on your point about increased savings leading to investment: while available capital is necessary for investment, it isn't sufficient. You can have all the cash in the world but if no one is buying anything there is no point in using any of it to build things for them.' Well, I'm not sure about that, I mean wouldn't investment have to increase if the supply of loanable funds increase, if we assume a downward sloping demand curve for loanable funds? 'Domestic savings is good to the extent that it reduces the demand for foreign money.' Why is that?

Subject: Re: Employment Problem From: Paul G. Brown To: Brian Williams Date Posted: Tues, Jan 13, 2004 at 01:08:21 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: > Well, I'm not sure about that, I mean wouldn't investment have to > increase if the supply of loanable funds increase, if we assume a > downward sloping demand curve for loanable funds? Drawing a line on a piece of paper is one thing, but understanding the assumptions about that line is quite another. The assumption that the 'downward sloping demand curve' for money is all that counts is the conceptual problem. Demand curves are funny things. They shift. They vanish. Demands curve for buggy-whips, lead paint, and Beta Format Video players for example, simply evaporated. If a new good or service appears on the market an entire demand curve can shift down: consumers will choose to buy less of the good at all price levels. In the case of the demand for money the point is that there are many ways to use money. Money, unlike any other good or service, is a supplementary good for *anything*. Instead of investing it in job creation, you might instead elect to put it into T-bills, or send it overseas, or blow it on the back catalog of Patrick O'Brien's novels. As a captain of industry (or as a rational economic agent) you are obliged to maximize your return to shareholders (or yourself). Given the choice, would you choose to invest $1B in a) new plant and equipment when there were no customers asking to buy what that plant would produce (particularly if you could meet moderate increases in demand by ramping up work at existing factories and there was a risk that you could lose the entire investment because of a technology advance) or b) sock it away for 180 days with a 4.5% guaranteed return in European central bank bonds? > 'Domestic savings is good to the extent that it reduces the demand > for foreign money.' > Why is that? This is an opinion. I hold the opinion because a) I heard it from someone I respect, b) I observe that individuals are more likely to make more prudent investment decisions when it involves their money than when it involves other people's, and c) because foreign investment shows up on the capital account meaning foreign creditors will need to push on the current account. (ie. they will need to sell stuff to you to get the currency to invest). This means that they distort the market for goods and services to get money. I have no citations to back this up, and am happy to be corrected on the issue. To falsify the opinion find an economy that thrived over the long haul (more than 25 years) while importing more than half of its investment capital. Or determine the correlation between long run capital account surplus and economic growth/wider measures of utility.

Subject: Re: Employment Problem From: ej To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Tues, Jan 13, 2004 at 01:29:07 (EST) Email Address: none Message: Excellent points! The Laffer Curve suffers from some of the same problems. People respond differently to simple raw Benjamins than they do to goods and sevices. There are other things in play to make people handle their money in certain ways. My thoughts are that the climate of fear instigated by 911 have made folks skeptical across the board and they remain iffy about how they invest and borrow. Same can be said for ENRON. I would have liked to have seen the demand curve for duct tape this time last year! And that Patrick O'Brian catalog is a good place to put your capital: that's about $210.00. But it'll keep you at home, in your chair, and not out spending your hard earnings on junk at the KOHLS. Jerry

Subject: Re: Employment Problem From: Marco To: ej Date Posted: Tues, Jan 13, 2004 at 14:37:26 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I'm new to this board, but would like to start off by commending you guys. Very impressive opinions. I would like to make a question on the issue of savings having gone down from 10% of GDP to 2% of GDP. Why? Yes I can imagine that as interest rates have gone down, so the attraction to saving money and making some extra on the interest. But if I look at the over whelming majority of Americans - the attraction to making money on interest may not be such a big attraction. If I look at my monthly income (after tax and deductions) - even at say a 8% interest rate, there is a whole lot of money to be made. I would have seen it in a very different light: If one considers that job security has decreasd so dramatically, I would imagine more an more people wanting to 'save for a rainy day'. Thus I would imagine more people saving their income and in turn the savings rate would go up. Obviously I am mistaken as the savings rate has gone down. So again I ask why?

Subject: Re: Employment Problem From: Jerry To: Marco Date Posted: Tues, Jan 13, 2004 at 17:17:43 (EST) Email Address: texcrazyhorse9@yahoo.com Message: Marco - I don't have any sources to back this up, but here's an educated guess: decrease in 'real' wages. Since the 1970's real wages have dropped dramatically, with the bulk of that drop taking place under Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and now, in a quite serious fashion, with the second Bush. So it takes more ready capital for a family of four to maintain or advance their lifestyle. My grandparents had a house keeper and a single family income and managed to own a new house and two new cars on factory foreman wages. Can any of us do that? I didn't think so. So people have this need to keep up with the Jones' (or at least as good as their parents) so they spend more than they really should. The decrease in real wages and the shifting of wealth from the bottom 90% to the top 10% are the two things about the direction our economy has been taking since 1980. I'm a level-headed guy but this really scares me...at what point do our real dollars become more valuable again? If real wages continue to decline, any little bubble in the system could prove quite dangerous...in this I'm thinking about the year 2010 or so when demand for oil begins to exceed supply. That is big trouble for all sectors of the economy. The Fed has fought the decrease in wage values by stemming inflation...but inflation will be hard to control when petroleum prices begin to skyrocket. Jerry

Subject: Re: Employment Problem From: Marco To: Jerry Date Posted: Tues, Jan 13, 2004 at 18:12:34 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Jerry, Thank you for your reply. Let me see if I get this right using my own words. The biggest reason for the decline in savings is the direct link to the decline in household incomes coupled with a an increasing spending culture (keeping up with the Jones'). So in the face of instability in job security, the majority of people's marginal propensity to spend has actually increased. That spooks me. There is a rush of thoughts going through my mind right now. I'm going to have to think about this for a while - perhaps even visit my old economics text books.

Subject: Re: Employment Problem From: SK To: Marco Date Posted: Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 00:58:12 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The marginal propensity to spend has been rising as the confidence in American economy has grown. Especially in the 90's. This is probably why the consumer has continued to spend despite lower real income. It would appear that despite the job losses the average consumer hasn't tightened his/her belt. If/when confidence turns, this could become real ugly, real fast.

Subject: LAST POST WAS FROM ME - EOM From: Jerry To: ej Date Posted: Tues, Jan 13, 2004 at 01:30:25 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message:

Subject: Re: Employment Problem From: Jerry To: SK Date Posted: Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 12:57:02 (EST) Email Address: texcrazyhorse9@yahoo.com Message: Well, this is really the viscious cycle, isn't it? What's good for the economy is not what's good for the average citizen. I'm one of those jokers that economists claim to fear: I'm pretty well outta debt, except my home. Plus the home I bought was actually LESS than I can afford. And when I buy on credit I almost always aim for an interest free deal and then pay it off early. So when you have an upper-middle income and live below your means, you're not the kind of person that contributes well to this kind of 'Peter Principle' economy. Can we avoid stagflation? Well, yeah, but it's a helluva lot harder than what we're doing right now. We need to think about the labor maket - alot. When was the last time a President was committed to full employment? Yeah. Or high wages for everyone? A tight labor market drives inflation, but it can beat stagflation. Runaway inflation in a tight labor market can be managed through strict monetary policy. But if we are progressively taxing...and at an appropriate level, the government can roll back its own debt and fund entitlements at the same time. A rainy day fund can be established for a more freewheeling fiscal policy during down times. Rolling back that debt means more money for everyone down the road and a sensible level of tax relief when we can afford it. Progressive taxation means working people can keep more of their higher wages...so they can save AND spend. And a booming economy means the rich still get richer even if they pay a little bit more in taxes. 'Rising tides raise all boats.' The problem with supply side is that it's bassackwards. It puts money in the hands of producers, while creating a fiscal/monetary policy that deprives the working/middle class of real capital and forces them into deep personal debt. Say's Law is a miserable failure...Thomas Malthus figured this one out, but it still seems to serve as the basis for a lot of prevailing economic theory. This is why I'm a Bear on the DOW and a Bull on the economy. The USA has the highest productivity in the history of the universe. If you give Americans real dollars in the form of wages our economy will run like crazy. But that may not be good for your average DOW component as the labor market tightens. Slow and steady wins the race. Don't invest like your a venture capitalist when you work at WAL-MART. Jerry

Subject: Sources? From: WRS To: Jerry Date Posted: Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 14:14:07 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Interesting post, Jerry. What reading (books, papers) would you recommend to support your point of view on supply side economics, especially as it relates to the weird recovery we're going through now.

Subject: 'Recovery' From: Jerry To: WRS Date Posted: Tues, Jan 13, 2004 at 01:18:59 (EST) Email Address: texcrazyhorse@yahoo.com Message: Oh, and let's write recovery like this for a while: 'recovery.' It is weird because it isn't all there. 4Q numbers heavily favored the rich (I mean did you buy anything for Gramma at Saks this Christmas?) This isn't the result of the tax refunds: we got six hunnderd bucks and a lower percentage on the rate at my house. Property taxes went up. The difference for me (and the wife and I are in a higer bracket) was enough to buy one extra trip to our favorite Mexican food place a week. I'm blaming Bush for the fact that I'm not loosing any more weight! So the jury is out on this deal. Let's look at '04 3Q and 4Q. If it goes Demo (and by that I mean Dean or Clark) there could be some enthusiasm to get a good Christmas. Changing horses always brings a second wind, even if the rider doesn't quite fit the saddle. It worked a bit for Clinton even though he was late delivering his economics package - he had a decent first 4Q. Right now I see some overworked folks, dubious employment numbers, some profit taking, and some held breaths. Even the smart Bulls are getting nervous about that debt...not a good time to be messing around when we don't know where the dollar is headed. Wait til next year for either a good recovery or some seriously bad news. Jerry

Subject: Re: Sources? From: Jerry To: WRS Date Posted: Tues, Jan 13, 2004 at 00:49:49 (EST) Email Address: texcrazyhorse9@yahoo.com Message: Well, there's an ample library of books to check, without getting in too deep (kickin' the math.) PK's GREAT UNRAVELING is a good place to start because it deals with the recent economy. He mentions supply side quite bit, but doesn't address it in a chapter per se. Better is PK's 1994 PEDDLING PROSPERITTY. I would also strongly recommend David Stockman's THE TRIUMPH OF POLITICS: WHY THE REAGAN REVOLUTION FAILED. This dismantles Reaganomics pretty handily, but doesn't really apply to the current problem. Thomas Sowell - a true genius - did his dissertation on Say's Law, the founddation of supply side theory. Check it out. Sowell's book on Reagan (something about the ANNOINTED) is very good, but some of the economics is outta date...I don't always buy his Laffer Curve jive. And of course, there's those fine folks at the online Supply Side University: http://www.wanniski.com/ssu.asp. Keeping you entertained since 1997! It is a fun site if you're a big geek like me, but the idea that sociopolitics can only be understood via supply side, and vice versa, is what we used to call 'circular logic' in my day. Ideas on how to manage a portfolio are my own. I did pretty well in the downturn and am doing better now. I'm a Bear on the DOW and a Bull on the economy. I never bet against the economy and I treat the DOW like a used car salesman from Shreveport. I'm not an economist, but a real life historian - my specialty is cultural history, and economics is a part of that. I actually studied economics as an undergrad in Dick Armey's department, the only place where supply side was really taught devoid of politics in the old days: the University of North Texas. I walked out more devoted to Keynes than ever. The experience was like David Copperfield trying to tell me, 'no, Jerry, I really did just pull a rabbit out of your ear...would you like to buy some stock.' Supply side is not all bad, but for guys like Snow it's a religion...and that dispicable Larry Kudlow. O'Neill was nutty but I could live with him. Rubin was brilliant at times: the guy who had his hand up Greenspan's jacket. Notice old Greeny isn't quite as sharp as he used to be. The above are popular reads and easy to get. I can recommend some good stuff if you have ready access to a university library. Jerry

Subject: Re: Sources? From: WRS To: Jerry Date Posted: Tues, Jan 13, 2004 at 09:22:05 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Thanks for the tips, Jerry. Although I like this board as a window on different views, I am not a big fan of PK's. He's a good writer, but I don't buy his 'sky is falling and it's all Bush's fault because the rich are out to screw everyone' rhetoric. I think this year will tell us a lot about supply side theory, and I want to gain a better grasp of various economic theories in an effort to understand what's happening as the economy unfolds. Your message is helpful, and, yes, I have access to a great library if you want to recommend more titles.

Subject: Supply Side From: Emma To: WRS Date Posted: Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 14:28:57 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Supply side economics holds that spending money or lowering taxes to spur growth will produce enough extra tax revenue as growth advances to pay for the stimulus. That did not work during the 1980s and can not work now. Growth will hopefully continue at a rapid rate this year, but tax rates have been lowered sufficiently that rapid growth will not stop the deficit from rising for years to come. A constant deficit can be funded easily, but a growing deficit in an aging economy is a serious problem.

Subject: Re: Supply Side From: Marco To: Emma Date Posted: Tues, Jan 13, 2004 at 18:39:26 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: In one of Paul Krugman's books and in subsequent articles, he shows clearly that the Supply Side Economic theory does not hold water and was shown beyond a doubt to be flawed during the Clinton era. Why is it that the current administration has returned to this theory when there appears to be clear evidence of its flaw?

Subject: Re: Supply Side From: Paul G. Brown To: Marco Date Posted: Tues, Jan 13, 2004 at 21:27:39 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: That an idea or theory has zero explainatory or predictive power doesn't mean people reject it. Most folk work towards arriving at a world view that is internally consistent. This means that as long as their beliefs hang together, it doesn't matter that these same ideas don't tell them much about anyone else's world view. In a world view which holds that government is inherently bad, ideas like supply side economic models are attractive because they confirm the initial prejudice. When the model doesn't work in practice a phenomenon psychologists call 'cognitive dissonance' sets in. Confronted with a choice between accepting that my ideas are wrong or else that there is something wrong in the evidence, most people reject the evidence. (Also, note that rejecting the evidence is usually the right thing to do. Think about how many illusions, sleights of hand, etc you're confronted with and 'see through' immediately.) And that's why I believe that the NFL's referees are conspiring against the San Francisco 49ers.

Subject: Re: Supply Side From: Marco To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 14:05:30 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hahaha... thanks. But uhmm can you perhaps explain a little more on this topic. I'm still not clear on this concept of 'cognitive dissonance'. I would like to believe that there are (in most cases) clear truths. Is it possible that Supply Side Economics has enough truth to it - that makes it acceptable - in which case Paul Krugman has not made a strong enough case? Are we 'team playing' when taking sides on an issue - or is there a 'truth' as to which issue is correct?

Subject: Re: Supply Side From: Jerry To: Marco Date Posted: Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 17:10:13 (EST) Email Address: texcrazyhorse9@yahoo.com Message: Marco - Well, is economics a hard science or a social science? Or something else? It's certainly not something like physics in which data can be compounded into a series of objectively predictible results. However, it is a science much like anthropology and sociology in that it uses the scientific method as the basis for its approach on analysis. So 'Truth' with a capital 'T' isn't even in play here. What you're looking at is trends and analyses of past trends that provides insight into how to set future policy, advise clients, etc. The big boys at places like Goldman Sachs have done a good job on this kinda thing and PK does a damn good job...that's why he's a lighting rod for so many supply-siders, e.g. Asia. The problem with supply-side is that in the era of Reagan it became a religion - something that had to be embraced with faith even when evidence pointed to the fact it didn't always work. The thing is that some times supply-side policy does work, but it's not the cure all that some folks think it is. Supply-side adjustments can be made as a part of overall economic policy. When you go to fix a car you use a whole big bag of tools. Well, imagine trying to repair a car with only one tool, and imagine that that tool is a hammer, one of the least subtle devices in your tool kit. Essentially that's the fix we're in, but so many wonks are so heavily invested in the 'Truth' of supply-side that they fail to realize that it's just another tool in their repair kit. Jerry

Subject: Re: Supply Side From: Paul G. Brown To: Marco Date Posted: Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 16:02:24 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Very, very good questions, but a bit off-topic for a Krugman page. Try reading a bit on Cognitive Dissonance And when thinking about how ideas evolve,Thoman Kuhn is useful. But afterall, as Oscar wrote, 'The truth is rarely pure and never simple.'

Subject: Re: Supply Side From: Marco To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 20:12:22 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Jerry, Thanks - now that is a good example you have given me. Makes me think about how I see economics. I have a science degree with an economics component. I guess I'm more scientific about matters and would tend to bang my hand on the table saying there has to be a truth here. But you put it well in the explanation. Reading Paul Krugman (coming back to the original topic) I was lead to believe (perhaps by my own impression) that Supply Side was pretty much a fools paradise and hence harped on that 'truth issue'. Instead you have given some balance to this topic - have you ever sat and debated whether Paul Krugman hasn't 'over-cooked' his argument against Supply Side?

Subject: Washington Post briefing books From: Julian Elson To: All Date Posted: Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 00:03:33 (EST) Email Address: jelson@uchicago.edu Message: Hi. I recently got The Age of Diminished Expectations, having enjoyed The Accidental Theorist, Peddling Prosperity, and The Return of Depression Economics (I'm holding off on The Great Unravelling until it comes out on paperback. Anyway, in the front of The Age of Diminished Expectations, Krugman says that this was to be part of a series of books published by the Washington Post Company from experts on issues such as economics, environmental science, national defense, etc. Does anyone here know if the other books were published? I consider myself better informed than the average aardvark on economics, but I feel like I know nothing at all about, say, environmental science. I'd like to know more. Some quick-and-sloppy Googling has been fruitless. (note: I don't know if HTML works in this forum, and there's no preview button that I can find. If it doesn't, sorry about those s and such.)

Subject: Re: Washington Post briefing books From: Bobby To: Julian Elson Date Posted: Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 17:27:14 (EST) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: I don't know. I'll find out though.

Subject: Will derivates trading last ? From: Venu To: All Date Posted: Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 20:40:05 (EST) Email Address: venuphilip@hotmail.com Message: It has been great reading your book on the Return of Dipression Economics

Subject: Bush's Immigration Plan From: Charlie To: All Date Posted: Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 13:01:00 (EST) Email Address: RedCharlie@hotmail.com Message: I haven't heard much on the Social Security side of Bush's immigration plan. As I understand it, guest workers will get SS credit for working in Mexico. But I assume the '8 million' illegals who are recognized (plus future guest workers) would pay into US Social Security while they work in the US. So, is the result good or bad for SS? Do the US Social Security system get saddled with more enormous obligations when it is already bust? But I also assume that the avg age of illegals is under that of Baby Boomers, so they will actually be paying in during the Baby Boomer retirement crisis, so maybe it helps. I'm just really curious if anybody has thought about this. Thanx

Subject: Re: Bush's Immigration Plan From: Jerry To: Charlie Date Posted: Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 18:06:59 (EST) Email Address: texcrazyhorse9@yahoo.com Message: Interesting. Hadn't thought about it this way. I've been angry at this plan because it seems to create a permanent underclass of registered immigrants beholden to their pay masters. Remember the Bracers from back in the '40's and '50's? They paid into a retirement plan as well and never collected. Besides, why would American companies want to participate in this program at all? They're already getting cheap illegal labor, now. That labor source will still be around even with the program in place: why complicate your life and raise your overhead by getting involved? Here's what I think - pure electioneering. Put out a plan you know is doomed to fail to make yourself look good in front of the Hispanic voters and let Congress flush this turd. Nobody will pass on this thing til November and when it fails, well, the votes are cast. There's the added benefit that the Demos will have to oppose the plan making them APPEAR anti-Hispanic. This thing is election year politics just like the moon mission. Jerry

Subject: Re: Bush's Immigration Plan From: Auros To: Jerry Date Posted: Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 19:00:23 (EST) Email Address: rmharman@auros.org Message: Well, the Dems could instead cut a deal with Repubs who oppose it ti keep it bottled up in committee 'under discussion', while making positive noises about how they think it's 'good, but not enough.'

Subject: Re: Bush's Immigration Plan From: PJ To: Jerry Date Posted: Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 18:25:24 (EST) Email Address: psjohn@hotmail.com Message: 'Besides, why would American companies want to participate in this program at all?' Really simple. At the moment, they are liable to a fine of $10,000/employee if they are caught employing illegals. I doubt Congress will 'flush this turd' - they don't want Bush defeated and many of them want Hispanic votes too.

Subject: Re: Bush's Immigration Plan From: Jerry To: PJ Date Posted: Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 18:32:35 (EST) Email Address: texcrazyhorse9@yahoo.com Message: Yes, but have you seen the INS budget lately? The American economy runs on illegal labor and it is quite easy to dodge the Green Van. Companies have very little to fear in terms of enforcement. Mild enforcement allows the companies to keep the wages low. Heavy enforcement would end the flow of illegal aliens. Companies can't afford the latter, the former is actually in their benefit. Again, part of the reason the Bracero program went away was because illegals were cheaper. Part of the reason why Cesar Chavez began organizing unions was to stem the tide of illegal immigration...or at least control it. Mark my words, this thing is DOA. Jerry

Subject: Employment Numbers From: Juliet To: All Date Posted: Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:39:18 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: OK, 1,000 jobs added to payrolls last month. Here is a question for the office chair economists out there. With all of the reports coming out about the deficit, and the lack of job creation, Hypothetically speaking: What would happen to the US and Global economy if the US were to very soon suffer another recession? What would be our options to spark our economy? I am just curious. I would appreciate any theories. Thanks

Subject: Re: Employment Numbers From: Danny Boy To: Juliet Date Posted: Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:09:59 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: OK, 1,000 jobs added to payrolls last month. Here is a question for the office chair economists out there. With all of the reports coming out about the deficit, and the lack of job creation, Hypothetically speaking: What would happen to the US and Global economy if the US were to very soon suffer another recession? What would be our options to spark our economy? I am just curious. I would appreciate any theories. Thanks --- I think the recession in the U.S. does not hurt so much the industrial economy,becausee American people do not buy so many goods from the rest of the world. For example, Reading newspapers and watchig the news sounds that they buy Japanese goods a lot,but only 3% of its GDP. The job creation in the U.S does not go well right now. I think,however,Americans will do well in the end and the U.S economy will pick up again. ps What most amazed me about The U.S economy was that not only the high prductivity but also the job creation in the 70s .You are really great.

Subject: Ref: What Can Happen? From: ..David E To: Danny Boy Date Posted: Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 16:05:46 (EST) Email Address: daveellis_39@hotmail.com Message: First, there is the question of whether we really made it out of the recession. Its an unusual situation, millions of jobs lost, and still GDP is climbing. The return of jobs used to be a requirement for deciding the end of recession. Maybe the GDP climb is an artifact of Greenspan's extraordinary pushes to restart the economy. But to answer your question there are two things that can happen. One is that Greenspan's efforts to restart the economy succeed and new jobs are created. The other is that we slide into a depression. The balance is razor thin. The theoretical tipping point is when deflation starts. Some folks think that CPI is overstated by almost 2%. If that is true, or some producers get desperate and start lowering prices we will slip into the liquidity trap. This is the closest we have been to the tipping point in 70 years, so I am hoping that Greenspan's efforts will restart our economic engine and that a flood of jobs will happen.

Subject: Re: Employment Numbers From: WRS To: Danny Boy Date Posted: Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 14:16:34 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Good question. Sad to say, I think the US and the rest of the world would be in deep trouble in the event of another recession. That is unlikely, but you're right: there is little recourse for the Fed or fed government to stimulate further growth. World growth depends on the US at this point, so let's hope that doesn't happen.

Subject: Growth From: Emma To: WRS Date Posted: Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 13:27:15 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: There is enough momentum and tax stimulus coming that growth should be decent at least through the first half of 2004. The problem is that growth will need to be fast enough to cause employers to add about 200,000 to 250,000 jobs a month. Right now I do not think that will happen. Much of the tax stimulus is not being spent, and productivity is high enough that employers generally do not need to add workers to meet demand.

Subject: Re: Employment Numbers From: Jerry To: Juliet Date Posted: Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 10:42:16 (EST) Email Address: texcrazyhorse9@yahoo.com Message: Well, Juliet, the IMF is already concerned about the ballooning US national debt. The thought of a major US recession, I am sure, would also send shivers down their spines. Monetary policy is probably not going to get us out of this one, although I don't think a major downturn is inevitable, at least not for a few years. (I would argue that the 'Great Unraveling' will ultimately be driven by a massive upturn in the price of oil as supply exceeds demand around the year 2010.) But these employment numbers stink. A jobless, debt-heavy recovery is no recovery at all. Fourth quarter earnings and sales numbers indicate that the higher income levels are doing quite well. I would insist upon an immediate hike in upper level income tax and a phased-in increase in the lower levels to 'Clinton' rates as subsequent economic improvement warrants. Revenue would be redistributed toward debt reduction and grants to state governments to shore up services and reduce the local tax burden on the middle class. Money would also be directly targeted at some limited, direct economic stimulus. Not because the infusion of cash would work, per se, but because it would build confidence that the government is doing something. Aside from that, the prime rate must remain low and something must be done to end the 911-inspired 'climate of fear' that is hanging over our economic heads like a storm cloud. Cheers, Jerry

Subject: Re: Employment Numbers From: WRS To: Jerry Date Posted: Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 13:05:29 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Interesting view, Jerry. But I don't see the wisdom in reading too much into one month's numbers. The pattern of employment growth is consistent and the unemployment rate is down. Granted, the recovery so far is lame, in regard to employment. We will probably have enough time to assess by November, at which point folks will be able to cast their lot with the plan you've outlined or the supply side approach pursued by Bush et al. Too often, I thinks folks react to the short term, demanding immediate gratification and neglecting the importance of time in the equation.

Subject: Re: Employment Numbers From: Jerry To: WRS Date Posted: Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 16:45:07 (EST) Email Address: texcrazyhorse9@yahoo.com Message: WRS - Interesting, but a couple of things to consider. I really base my 'plan' for fiscal policy on a longer trend. According to the traditional interpretation of recession, this one has been fairly mild. We've experienced only a few quarters of actual economic shrinkage. However, it's clear that things are pretty sour right now. The lack of jobs gives me the greatest concern. I don't put a lot of stock in the employment numbers, because they don't take into account people that are marginally employed, under employed, or have fallen off the unemployment rolls altogether. I suspect a lot of folks garnered seasonal employment in December so I expect to see a slight rise in the unemployement numbers next month. I hope not, though... My basic problem with supply side policy is that is really seems to only work in a 'closed system.' Trickle down really requires that the monies in question make their way to the people on the bottom of the given system. So much industry has been exported out of the U.S. economy or 'cheapened down' through underfunded outsourcing that the money doesn't get where it's supposed to go so that it can recycle itself through the economy. Here's a small scale example. Joe Bazillions get's a hefty tax break and spends his new dividend on a Saab. Jim Sixpack gets a new job and spends his dividend on a Chevy. This is really a silly example, but it illustrates how the closed system approach works. For small 'stake holders' it's a lot harder for them to export their cash overseas (or for that matter to horde it). But I don't wanna get too deeply into the supply side debate. I could postulate at length on why I think the wheels have fallen off the wagon...despite Larry Kudlow's passion and Dick Armey's book, supply side is more political than ecnomic because in the kind of economy we have the money can't get where it needs to go. So I would never base any kind of fiscal policy on one's numbers...I think the trend is in place and if we're unable to address both debt reduction and viable stimulus pretty quick devalued currency and entitlement spending (plus, God, more tax cuts) might make it a little harder for us to bounce back after next Christmas. And just so you don't think I'm a hack, I'll tell you where I do think supply side works: some types of research. Especially in the arts and sciences. Researchers and artists take a big risk in producing their initial product. If the 'G' hadn't invested in lots of types of medical research, think how many companies wouldn't exist, how few jobs would have been created, etc... Cheers, Jerry

Subject: Fiscal Policy Failure From: Emma To: WRS Date Posted: Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 14:02:14 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The recession ended November 2001. We are 25 months on the worst jobs and wages and benefits recovery path in 50 years. The fiscal policy of George Bush has been a labor horror. Gains for the wealthiest at the expense of the middle or working class. We have a serious labor problem and no policy to deal with the problem. Tax cuts for the wealthiest and a smidge for the rest is not the answer.

Subject: Re: Employment Numbers From: Emma To: WRS Date Posted: Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 14:01:59 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The recession ended November 2001. We are 25 months on the worst jobs and wages and benefits recovery path in 50 years. The fiscal policy of George Bush has been a labor horror. Gains for the wealthiest at the expense of the middle or working class. We have a serious labor problem and no policy to deal with the problem. Tax cuts for the wealthiest and a smidge for the rest is not the answer.

Subject: Re: Employment Numbers From: Jerry To: Jerry Date Posted: Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:02:12 (EST) Email Address: texcrazyhorse9@yahoo.com Message:

Subject: Re: Employment Numbers From: Jerry To: Jerry Date Posted: Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:04:09 (EST) Email Address: texcrazyhorse9@yahoo.com Message: On oil: that's as DEMAND exceeds SUPPLY...first...cup...of...coffee

Subject: Re: Employment Numbers From: Juliet To: Jerry Date Posted: Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 10:56:12 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Thanks Jerry. Nice observations and very informative. Anyone else? Emma? Mr. Brown?

Subject: Re: Employment Numbers From: Paul G. Brown To: Juliet Date Posted: Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:59:07 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I've been thinking about the issue of a jobless recovery in the US and what it means for all of us, and a possibility worries me. This is not a prediction mind you: it's a 'worst case what if'. Reading Rubin's book its revealing how much his thought process followed what math geeks like me call 'minmax reasoning'. What follows is a description of a possible, truly nasty min. An unprecidented era of globalization is upon us. US jobs -- yesterday blue collar, today technical jobs, and tomorrow a wider swath of white collar jobs -- are being moved to parts of the world where labor costs are lower. Fair enough. In the long run this will contain or even reduce our cost of living, free up capital for other purposes, and lift these nations out of a cycle of poverty and dependency. But it seems to me that there's a short to medium term gap created in the process and if we fall into this gap it might mean big trouble. The question I want to know the answer to is, 'Who's going to buy these cheaper goods?' If a significant percentage of US workers leave the work force, from where will come the income to permit the consumption? The value proposition for off-shore factories depends on selling their manufactured goods at US price levels to cover the costs of transportation. Once the industries that will drive the new economy come on-line the answer is pretty obvious. But in between, there is the potential for a downward spiral with even the cheapest of imported goods not finding a market at the same time as the US economy endures the truly awful of the kind of financial crisis the IMF worries about. No consumption. Huge debts and a financial crisis limiting government fiscal policy flexibility. I mean, its a pretty dire picture. And a sensible policy response would be to try immediately to foster the new economy as soon as possible through publc investment: use capital from 'old industry' reserviors (ie. the idle rich - Paris Hilton, put down the shoes and pay attention! I'm talkin' to you!) to seed new industries so as to develop a comparative advantage there.

Subject: PAUL BROWN HELP ME OUT From: Juliet To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 13:42:55 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Paul if you don't immediately address WJ's comments on this thread, I may go mad. Our recovery now is into what? it's 25, 26th month. Maybe it's 22. But surely if tax cuts were going to help bolster our economy, wouldn't we have seen some relief in the job market by now? How long should we expect to have to wait? What happened to all of that money that the rich folks were supposed to invest in creating new business and job opportunities for us poor folks? I know he's all wrong. Please tell him why.

Subject: Re: PAUL BROWN HELP ME OUT From: WRS To: Juliet Date Posted: Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 14:24:29 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I don't want to upset anyone, but only point out that change takes time and that perhaps one month's data does not mean the sky is falling. This is a weird recovery with businesses finding new ways to make and do things that requires less unskilled labor. The process will continue regardless of who's in the White House. And in my humble opinion throwing taxpayer money at state governments to hire unskilled people is not the answer. At the risk of digressing, what's the basis for determining who qualifies as rich and poor? A nurse and cop make $120,000 combined. Are they rich?

Subject: Re: PAUL BROWN HELP ME OUT From: Charlie To: WRS Date Posted: Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 17:15:32 (EST) Email Address: RedCharlie@hotmail.com Message: mmm, I think the immediate problem is not needing a WPA or other make work programs, but that no fed help is forthcoming for state and local govt's that are in fiscal distress. I.e. state and local govt's need help to preserve existing jobs (teachers, cops, firemen, etc) rather than to create job programs. Sure a cop and a nurse may make a combined $120K, but what if the cop gets laid off due to local budget cuts? (They are definitely middle class; but their 'security' would depend on how much debt they carry and the cost of living in their region of the nation) Also the 'increase productivity' vs 'hiring workers' is something of a psychological problem, isn't it? As long as business are fearful of recession, they'll stall on hiring. But I've read somewhere that about 70% of the economy stems from consumer spending, which leads me to think that as long as payrolls stagnate, a sustainable upward movement in consumer spending is hard to come by. So businesses stay fearful. A vicious circle. So sure, things tend to stay the same. But isn't that also a good argument for trying something--like fiscal stimuli--to get us out of the rut? And aren't tax cuts for the rich particularly poor fiscal stimuli when needing to increase consumer spending (i.e. to increase overall demand)? All this to say that sometimes patience is not called for. 'Moderation in all things, and moderation in that' -W.S.

Subject: Skilled or Unskilled From: Emma To: WRS Date Posted: Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 14:58:55 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: 'Since the recovery began, factory employment is down by 1.3 million.' epi.org Much of the employment problem involves people with well honed skills from factory to technology specialists. Though young people have fared well, older workers who have lost jobs have had a most difficult time no matter the skill level. Long term job losses are severe. Of course, high skill levels are more desirable but the jobs problem is more far reaching. A family with a secure income of $120,000 is middle class, though above the median family in income.

Subject: Response to WRS From: Juliet To: WRS Date Posted: Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 14:53:13 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: And in my humble opinion throwing taxpayer money at state governments to hire unskilled people is not the answer. Okay, help me out here EVERYONE. What little I know about history, I am failry confident of this. The end of the depression came about in part because someone was smart enough to do exactly what I suggested, and exactly what Mr. Krugman has said. FDR created work programs. I think he built bridges and did all sorts of things. The very thing you suggest won't work, in fact did. And you embellished a bit on my post. I never mentioned hiring unskilled labor. I just said create jobs. Those jobs don't have to be unskilled to be effective. And the basis for defining classes, working, middle, upper middle, can be found in sociology textbooks. I can't remember but I believe that the nurse and cop fall into middle class as defined by the textbooks, but people have a misconception about their class. Many working class believe they are middle class. Other sciences may define classes using different criteria.

Subject: Re: FDR and Recovery From: Jerry To: Juliet Date Posted: Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 17:58:16 (EST) Email Address: texcrazyhorse9@yahoo.com Message: The FDR situation you bring up is valid, but in a different way than you might think! Really and truly, right down at the wire, it was World War II that ended the Great Depression. It dried up the labor surplus and created massive government spending and stimulated industrial growth almost overnight. America was on the road to recovery under FDR - WWII sped things up. However, Roosevelt's master stroke was not so much the programs, but the 'chatter.' FDR talked the economy up, he made you feel like the government was in the game and that they would insure that the nation was being pulled up by the bootstraps. The Depression was a good guise for getting government money into places otherwise forgotten - like the TVA. The bank holiday, the 'only thing we have to fear,' speech was all about making America feel that our noble experiment in democracy was not and could not be a failure. So when war came, it came to an empowered nation, not a broken nation the way many in the German literati liked to think. FDR was a genius. Maybe not an econmic genius, but a political mind the likes of which this nation has never before or since experienced. So his solution to the Depression was more than merely economic - a lot of it was psychological. FDR 'played the coaches.' This is what bothers me about Bush. All this 'orange alert' let's get to war ASAP stuff, in the modern economy is NOT what we need. The military-industrial complex is much different today in that war does not breed stimulus they way it once did. Every action the Administration takes seems to talk down the economy, not talk it up. It seems to encourage debt - both public and private - without any end to the means. Debt spending only works as stimulus when backed by a strong fiscal policy. This is just the strangest bunch I've ever seen. I can't figure them out unless, well, they really don't know what they're doing. And maybe if they're really listening to people like Kudlow and Ben Stein, they don't. Jerry

Subject: Juliet From: Emma To: Juliet Date Posted: Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 16:28:02 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Think about what it meant for employment and regional growth to develop the TVA. Rural electrification, the WPA, the CCC. Franklin Roosevelt reversed the austerity of Herbert Hoover and we began to spend our way out of the depression with spending programs aimed precisely at putting people to work. The burst in employment did end the deppression, but there was a setback in 1937-1938 when the Federal Reserve prematurely began to raise interest rates. The New Deal was a success that really built our American middle class.

Subject: Thanks Emma From: Juliet To: Emma Date Posted: Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 18:17:49 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Thanks again for the info Emma.

Subject: We Do Have a Jobs Problem From: Emma To: Juliet Date Posted: Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 13:46:15 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The employment report was awful. This is the weakest recovery in employment in 50 years, the worst job market in a recovery 50 years for both job counts and wage and benefit improvement or maintenence. We should be quite quite worried!

Subject: Jobs Data From: Emma To: Emma Date Posted: Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 13:55:54 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_econindicators_jobspict Payrolls fell last year by 331,000 (-0.3%) and by 1.5 million (-1.1%) in 2002. The last time payrolls declined for two consecutive years was in 1944-45. In historical terms, this is very weak job growth for the current stage of recovery, more than two years after than expansion began in November 2001. This far into the last recovery, an average of over 200,000 jobs were being added per month. Last month's decline in the labor force was likely driven by this dramatic mismatch between job creation and the number of people who need jobs. The labor force exodus has been particularly sharp for minorities, especially since the recovery began in November 2001. Since then, the overall drop in labor force participation has been 0.7 percentage points overall, and the same number for whites. But for African-Americans and Hispanics, the drop has been 1.4 and 1.6 percentage points, respectively. On a year-over-year basis, wages grew 2%, about the rate of inflation. But over the fourth quarter, they grew at an annual rate of 1%, leading to diminished buying power among many in the workforce.

Subject: Re: PAUL BROWN HELP ME OUT From: Juliet To: Juliet Date Posted: Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 13:44:36 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Sorry, it's WR, not WJ. (WRS) I am so confused my short term memory lapsed.

Subject: Additional Thoughts From: Juliet To: Juliet Date Posted: Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 14:01:33 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: One last thing and then I will stop. I guess what I as wondering on my first post is this: If we go into another recession, God Forbid, where will the money come from to lift us out of it? PK is fond of saying that if he had $500 billion or whatever the deficit is, he could have created millions of jobs. So here we are saddled with this huge deficit, and still no job creation. In the event that we should slip into another recession, we have no where to go, because in essense, Bush squandered our future giving us no room to move, no place to go. If in fact, we were not saddled with debt from spending and tax cuts, we could create agencies and then throw money at them, give money to state government and let them create jobs. (Work Programs like PK has suggested all along) But we can't now. Can we? When the IMF came out with their report, the Bushies called it an alarmist report and stated Bush's intention to halve the federal deficit by 2005, and although I am not 100 percent positive of it, I am betting he meant that part of this miracle would come from the economy growing us out of the deficit. But that hardly seems likely to happen.

Subject: We Can Still Use Fiscal Policy From: Emma To: Juliet Date Posted: Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 14:22:39 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: 'I guess what I as wondering on my first post is this: If we go into another recession, God Forbid, where will the money come from to lift us out of it?' Well, the money is always there. The debt can always be increased. The problem is we have wasted much of the fiscal policy stimulus of the last 3 years. We have a severe deficit, and if the economy weakens the deficit problem will worsen, but we can still spend our way out of another period of poor growth.

Subject: Re: We Can Still Use Fiscal Policy From: SK To: Emma Date Posted: Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 04:53:25 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Just like Japan!

Subject: Re: We Can Still Use Fiscal Policy From: Jerry To: SK Date Posted: Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 13:35:06 (EST) Email Address: texcrazyhorse9@yahoo.com Message: No...just like the USA, everytime there's been a panic or correction in this country. Pay down debt rainy day fund = liberal fiscal policy when you need it. Jerry

Subject: Well Done! From: Emma To: Emma Date Posted: Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 14:23:53 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Thanks Juliet!

Subject: No, thank you Emma From: Juliet To: Emma Date Posted: Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 14:39:24 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Thanks Emma and thank you for your reply. I am no economist and struggle to understand the complexities of this situation. I rely on both you and Paul B. to help me make sense of it all.

Subject: A MUST READ REPORT From: Juliet To: All Date Posted: Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:10:15 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The findings of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace on WMD and Iraq are out. You can find the report on the website. Most of the their conclusions can be found in findings and recommendations section. It's 15 pages long but I would suggest everyone read it. Their conclusions are highly critical of the Bush Administration and of their intelligence. If Bill Clinton had been accused of this, the word impeachment would now be thrown around like a football on every news and radio channel and every newspaper. Go read it and please discuss this important report.

Subject: Seriously Y'all, Read This From: Juliet To: Juliet Date Posted: Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 15:17:56 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace WMD and Iraq. Good stuff. Infuriating stuff damning stuff Brad Delong has something about it on his website, and yes, he did use the word 'impeach.'

Subject: Re: A MUST READ REPORT From: Jerry To: Juliet Date Posted: Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 10:54:31 (EST) Email Address: texcrazyhorse9@yahoo.com Message: You know, this is the biggest news story since Iran-Contra and probably more of a big deal in terms of impact on the average American than Watergate. As Rudyard Kipling once said, 'If anyone questions why we died, tell them it was because our fathers lied.' The real kicker to the whole Endowment report was not only did they affirm there were no weapons, they made it clear that the containment policy was working. Jerry

Subject: Re: A MUST READ REPORT From: Juliet To: Jerry Date Posted: Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:01:50 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I know Jerry. I am beside myself. I just can't understand the apathy of the American people. It is so unlike us. Have we been beaten down so much, we don't know how to fight anymore or is this generation so complacent and uninformed, that they just don't understand the implications of four more years of this dishonest, power-hungry, incompetent group???? It's really startling, the report from CENP. It is infuriating and yet, nothing, not one thing from our fine media. Our Press is destroying democracy. There is no other way to say it. And Americans are allowing it. I am still scratching my head while trying to keep my hand away from the hot steam escaping from my ears. Thanks for reading and commenting Jerry. Hope more people do the same.

Subject: Re: A MUST READ REPORT From: Jerry To: Juliet Date Posted: Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:59:19 (EST) Email Address: texcrazyhorse9@yahoo.com Message: Actually, I think the issue is a little more complex than that. I think it really has to do with the current state of American hegemony. For some reason we don't trust politicians as a rule, on the LITTLE things, but we have to believe that on the big stuff they do what is right. Even those who were willing to hang Nixon high for Watergate have been limited in their critique of say, Kissenger's criminal foreign policy. As a function of American democracy we HAVE to believe that politics ends when lives are at stake - but nothing is further from the truth. I have a co-worker who's a 'military brat' that told me a year ago, 'I don't trust Bush on a lot of things, but I can't believe he'd put our troops in harm's way if there's nothing in Iraq.' This guy is very smart and normally a contrarian. But think about what it would do to those folks who have an almost religious faith in our democracy if they began to believe that the whole thing was smoke and mirrors - that presidents, who have almost dictatorial military powers, send our best and brightest off to die to enhance their own poll numbers or to advance a personal agenda. I think it's just easier for people to believe that politics stop when the bullets start. Jerry

Subject: BBC :'US deficit may pose 'global risk'' From: Ayn Rant To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 08, 2004 at 21:58:58 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: 'Excessive fiscal deficits in the US could hurt the long-term sustainability of the American and global economies, the International Monetary Fund warned.' Noting the dollar's recent slide against the euro, UK pound, and yen, the IMF said an unrestrained drop could have serious consequences at home and abroad. 'The IMF report said the dollar has been affected by the mushrooming US current account and budget deficits.' ''Although the dollar's adjustment could occur gradually over an extended period, the possible global risks of a disorderly exchange rate adjustment, especially to financial markets, cannot be ignored,' the IMF said.' 'It also said the deficits could deter private investment within the US, impede long-term productivity growth, and endanger the vitality of social security and Medicare programs.' BBC News/Business news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3377795.stm

Subject: Re: BBC :'US deficit may pose 'global risk'' From: Juliet To: Ayn Rant Date Posted: Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 07:12:49 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I read this as well Ayn. Bush's response: They are wrong. Bush has promised to cut the deficit in half by 2005 I think is what they said. Another response: It's an 'alarmist' report. Once Bush denied the report: media acceptance, then silence.

Subject: This situation is not without humor From: Ayn Rant To: Juliet Date Posted: Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 13:50:24 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: It is amusing to think of the clammy palms and queasy stomaches among sane, business-oriented Republicans (e.g., James Baker) who knew better but helped heave Shrubya into the Oval Office anyway.

Subject: Asian USD purchases From: Auros To: All Date Posted: Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 14:00:43 (EST) Email Address: rmharman@auros.org Message: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57440-2004Jan5.html According to Peter Garber of Deutsche Bank, the ongoing support of the dollar by the Chinese is largely about export-led growth, to lower unemployment and underemployment among the portion of their population still trying to emerge from third-world conditions. A less charitable (and free-trade-favoring) man than myself might interpret this as 'they're literally buying our jobs'. I'm not quite that upset about it, but it still does make me wonder whether this means that instead of having a big dollar slide in a year or two (something that seems like it ought to have happened a year ago, actually), we're really going to see a HUGE dollar slide in ten or twenty years, when it would be simultaneous with the retirement of the Boomers. Talk about a meltdown... The US would be turned into a third-world nation overnight. Auros.org www.auros.org

Subject: The Dollar From: Emma To: Auros Date Posted: Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 16:45:07 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The Chinese have long pegged the Yuan to the dollar. As long as American economic policy stimulates enough jobs, there should be no problem with additional imports from China or India or Vietnam.... We are not spurring enough job growth, and there is a tendency to blame the Chinese for a policy that has long persisted and was no problem during the presidency of Bill Clinton. Suppose the dollar continues to lose value. Why should this harm our economy? Suppose the dollar holds the value. Should we worry? I think the value of the dollar is far less important than sound economic policy that limits the growth of our deficit while still stimulating job creation.

Subject: Re: The Dollar From: SK To: Emma Date Posted: Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 04:29:15 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Asian Dollar puchases are spurred by the fact that no one wants their currency appreciate relative to Chinese Yuan. This has been beneficial to the US in some sense. Despite the 'falling' Dollar, there is no inflation in the US. This is because marginal prices are being determined by the Asian producers who are keeping prices relatively fixed in Dollar terms (since their own currencies are 'pegged' to the Dollar). As long as there is balanced growth (economic growth, employment growth, savings) there is no real worry what the Dollar value is. However if there are imbalances - current account deficit, low savings rate, huge fiscal deficit, higher than average consumption - the Dollar value can have a significant impact on the real economy. Much of the growth is possible because other countries are willing to buy US Treasuries and feed the fiscal and current account deficits. If the confidence in the Dollar falters for the long term, you could see a more dramatic fall for the Dollar and a recession. It is possible that the growth following that recession could be job creating without a lot of the excesses of today.

Subject: Re: The Dollar From: Auros To: Emma Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 08, 2004 at 16:59:22 (EST) Email Address: rmharman@auros.org Message: My concern about the value of the dollar is largely linked to the deficit issue. A significant portion of the federal debt is held by foreign countries. What happens if suddenly dollars ain't worth so much in foreign markets. It suddenly becomes terribly difficult to roll over debt from expiring bonds, no? Obviously I agree with your prescription of 'sound economic policy that limits the growth of our deficit while still stimulating job creation', hence my caveat about how the prediction of a catastrophic slide is void in case we actually get that. But under the circumstances, does the potential dollar slide _not_ seem worrisome to you?

Subject: Traders From: Emma To: Auros Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 08, 2004 at 17:33:10 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: When a French or Spanish trader accepts dollars the trader converts to Euros. The European Central Bank holds the dollars, and the trader can spend Euros.

Subject: Re: Traders From: SK To: Emma Date Posted: Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 04:40:00 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Just to clarify: the ECB does not have to buy the Dollars from the trader. Normally the central bank intervenes only to signal a change in policy or support the currency. Otherwise, the trader (or someone else who has bought the Dollars from him) will have to hold the Dollars in that form. Normally this ends up round tripping back to the US to be invested in stocks/bonds/real estate/hollywood studios/etc. Note how the current account transaction that put the Dollars in the traders hands has got converted into a capital/financial account transaction on the return trip.

Subject: Foreign Reserves From: Emma To: Auros Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 08, 2004 at 17:29:33 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The dollar debt is largely held by foreign central banks, and there is no reason for a central bank to trade foreign currency for profit or to ward off losses. Central banks can create money. A bigger worry is private foreign business people becoming more reluctant to invest in Amerca. Still, I think there is little cause for concern if the dollar continues to lose value against the Euro.

Subject: taxes From: jzmarg To: Emma Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 08, 2004 at 14:59:58 (EST) Email Address: jzmarg@aol.com Message:

Subject: Who is Horatio Alger? From: Yann To: All Date Posted: Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 04:30:49 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hi. I've just read the PK paper entitled 'The Death of Horatio Alger'. Interesting. But I am French (sorry) and I don't know Horatio Alger. Who is he? Why does PK choose this title? Could you help me? Thanks.

Subject: Re: Who is Horatio Alger? From: Ethan To: Yann Date Posted: Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:15:18 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hi. I've just read the PK paper entitled 'The Death of Horatio Alger'. Interesting. But I am French (sorry) and I don't know Horatio Alger. Who is he? Why does PK choose this title? Could you help me? Thanks. --- http://www.washburn.edu/sobu/broach/algerFAQ.html You know I was wondering that myself so when I saw your post I looked it up. This website has a good FAQ about him. He was a writer that often wrote about people that made it to the top through hard work and determination. If you read the webpage it will help you understand what Paul was getting at.

Subject: Krugman vs. Norqhuist ?? From: Todd To: All Date Posted: Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 01:02:04 (EST) Email Address: xxxnoquarterxxx@aol.com Message: Why the hell did Paul wus out and not debate old Grover? He could have hammered him on some of the stupid shit he was bound to say, or not say…like Grover immediately dodging the opening question to him about the deficit by talking about something unrelated. Another direct question about job creation not keeping up with population growth—the Grov dodged that too. Cmon Paul, it doesn’t get any easier than when an opponent presents his ass for a well-deserved kicking.

Subject: A Related Exchange: From: Paul G. Brown To: Todd Date Posted: Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 16:15:35 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: From: NPR's Fresh Air When: October 2, 2003 Full transcript re-posted here. --BEGIN-- GROSS: When Paul Krugman was on FRESH AIR last month, The New York Times economics columnist, he described the Bush administration as revolutionaries because of all the things they wanted to change in America, including the cutting of taxes and the cutting of many government programs. Do you think of yourself as a revolutionary? Mr. NORQUIST: Well, the good thing about being an American conservative is that you can be both traditionalist and revolutionary, because European conservatives are people who think that everybody on this side of the river is a good guy and everybody on that side of the river is a bad guy, or that my religion's better than your religion or we like the king or something stupid like that. American conservativism harkens back to our American tradition, which is one of armed resistance in central government. --END-- There it is. Norquist sees himself as a revolutionary: as a force for radical change in the United States. Oh - and one for Sid B. In this interview Norquist says that taxation is morally equivalent to the holocaust. He defends this statement, repeatedly. Is Norquist anti-semetic? I don't think so. But do you?

Subject: Re: Krugman vs. Norqhuist ?? From: Ayn Rant To: Todd Date Posted: Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 15:56:54 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Winston Churchill never directly refuted claims made by Nazi propaganda. He reasoned that to do so would give it the appearance of a legitimate participant in a legitimate debate. I can't speak for Krugman, but the same principle applies. You have to pick your battles. Actually, some good questions to ask Norquist would be: Why do you lobby for Islamist terrorist front groups like the American Muslim Council? and: Would you care to divulge how much money you have received from Saudi Arabia for your lobbying firm and your organization, the Islamic Institute? These allegations come from David Horowitz's Front Page Magazine (frontpagemag.com), and Frank Gaffney's Center for Security Policy (security-policy.org), both notorious left-wing groups. ;.)

Subject: Re: Krugman vs. Norqhuist ?? From: Jerry To: Ayn Rant Date Posted: Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 18:27:00 (EST) Email Address: texcrazyhorse9@yahoo.com Message: Ayn - You are right on this, I'm sure. Norquist and PK are in a different league. Krugman will eventually win the Nobel Prize for his theories on trade. To sit down with Grover in a legitiment debate is quite different from challenging him in writing. It would elevate Norquist and diminish PK. Plus, Grover's understanding of economic theory is so juvenile (as demonstrated almost every time his mouth opens) Krugman would embarass himself trying to make valid arguments. He got into a thing like this with Ben Stein a few years ago and it was a joke. Ben Stein is not his father and PK found this out pretty quick...Stein's understanding of economics was so useless that they really couldn't debate each other. This was all in writing but had they brought it to the table, it would have looked silly. This also happened to PK when he squared off against Larry Kudlow on that 'economics' TV thing Kudlow is on. You don't send an electrician to debate Linus frickin' Pauling. Jerry

Subject: Re: Krugman vs. Norqhuist ?? From: Neal Martin To: Todd Date Posted: Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 03:25:50 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Todd, can you elaborate on the circumstances?

Subject: Re: Krugman vs. Norqhuist ?? From: Todd To: Neal Martin Date Posted: Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 13:14:15 (EST) Email Address: xxxnoquarterxxx@aol.com Message: well no, all it said on the show was Krugman declined to talk w/ Norqhuist, but Norqhuist was fine w/ it.

Subject: Employment Worry From: Emma To: All Date Posted: Tues, Jan 06, 2004 at 15:06:24 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Discussion of Paul Krugman's worry about American employment - http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2003_archives/002989.html The Slime Machine at Work Again Daniel Drezner screams and leaps, fangs bared, for Paul Krugman's jugular. However, he trips over a tree root and falls off a cliff:

Subject: Lecture Notes not working From: User To: All Date Posted: Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 14:19:40 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Krugman's lecture notes from Princeton's billboard aren't working. Is it a problem with the link or have they been deleted?

Subject: Re: Lecture Notes not working From: Bobby To: User Date Posted: Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 15:06:42 (EST) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: There are instructions on how to view them right on the page that links to them. It shows how to get past the 'access denied' screen. I followed them and found the notes. Unfortunately, I think Princeton did erase Krugman's Spring.02 notes and before.

Subject: Re: Lecture Notes not working From: User To: Bobby Date Posted: Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 15:09:59 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Okay, the '02 notes were the ones I was trying to get. Thanks for the reply.

Subject: krugman on the diane rehm show From: jonah gelbach To: All Date Posted: Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 10:23:35 (EST) Email Address: gelbach@glue.umd.edu Message: pk is on the diane rehm show on npr right now (10 am, jan 5). grover norquist is coming on after; apparently they chose not to be on at the same time.....

Subject: NYTimes - PKArchive For Me From: Emma To: Adam Nathan Date Posted: Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 13:41:55 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I'll stick with the New York Times and the terrific PKArchive.

Subject: Re: NYTimes - PKArchive For Me From: Danny Walker To: Emma Date Posted: Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 19:54:16 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: As opposed to...? Again, the point?

Subject: Re: NYTimes - PKArchive For Me From: Bobby To: Danny Walker Date Posted: Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 01:51:38 (EST) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: Emma was writing in response to an advertisement for a site that shows Op-Eds. I erased the ad.

Subject: Re: NYTimes - PKArchive For Me From: Danny Walker To: Bobby Date Posted: Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 12:25:48 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: My bad.

Subject: PK: Howard Dean is above criticism From: Sid Bachrach To: All Date Posted: Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 13:11:14 (EST) Email Address: sidb23@juno.com Message: Mr. Krugman wrote a column the other day saying Democratic candidates must not criticize poor Howard. If Lieberman and Gephardt criticize Mr. Dean for saying that he 'presumes Osama Ben Laden to be innocent' (Osama confessed but so what according to Dean), then Mr. Krugman says that is just so unfair. When Mr. Lieberman dared to criticize St. Howard's view of Sadaam Hussein, Mr. Krugman said Lieberman is 'beyond the pale'. If Mr. Dean has such an eggshell skull and can't take criticism (he already went whining to Terry McCauliffe) and Mr. Krugman wants to censor criticism of St. Howard, then wait to the Bush team get revved up. Democracy means being able to say anything you want about Mr. Dean, even if upsets PK's sensibilities.

Subject: Re: PK: Howard Dean is above criticism From: Ayn Rant To: Sid Bachrach Date Posted: Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 18:05:20 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Well yes, people sre free to say whatever they want, including lies. People who object to smears are also free to voice their objections. Or is free speech only for Republicans? Given Mr. Bachrach's shameless attempt to tag Paul Krugman as an anti-semite on this board, smearing people is a tactic he knows well.

Subject: Loon Warning From: Jennifer To: Sid Bachrach Date Posted: Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 13:50:57 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Sid is a loon who just seeks attention.

Subject: Who is Sid Vicious From: Jennifer To: Jennifer Date Posted: Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 14:42:05 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Sid is a right wing radical who takes delight in repeatedly savaging Paul Krugman and any other public figure who is in turn not a right wing radical. Today it is Krugman, today it is Dean, today it is Lieberman. There is never a fair statement from Sid Vicious. Just figure out how to slander whoever might ever so slightly differ. Politeness only encourages Sid and fools others who bother to read Sid's srings of lies. Sid is indeed a vicious loon. I should not care to be in the same room with sucha person.

Subject: Re: Who is Sid Vicious From: Don Camillo To: Jennifer Date Posted: Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 18:19:49 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Right, 'coz I do personnally love the 'Sex Pistols'!, and still BTW: 'Save the Queen', He he;-)

Subject: Moron Warning From: Danny Walker To: Jennifer Date Posted: Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 18:18:22 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: If you have something to say, say it. Your one-liner insults are a clear indication of your inability to think clearly.

Subject: Re: Moron Warning From: Mama Troll To: Danny Walker Date Posted: Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 07:46:47 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Well put Danny. Your two-line insult is a herald of your cognitive clarity. Now please come home to Mama Troll it's getting late

Subject: Re: PK: Howard Dean is above criticism From: Neal Martin To: Sid Bachrach Date Posted: Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 22:53:20 (EST) Email Address: ndm@nealmartin.org Message: Sid, do yourself a favor and read the article. PK didn't say Democratic candidates must not criticize Dean. PK's article didn't comment at all about Dean's innocent-until-proven-guilty remark, nor was your quote (who knows where you got it from) what Dean said. And if you can't distinguish between 'a Democrat shouldn't say anything that could be construed as a statement that Mr. Bush is preferable to his rival' and 'Democratic candidates must not criticize poor Howard' then you're not worth our time.

Subject: Re: PK: Howard Dean is above criticism From: Sid Bachrach To: Neal Martin Date Posted: Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 23:57:49 (EST) Email Address: sidb23@juno.com Message: Howard Dean has been savaging his Democratic rivals from day 1 and now PK thinks that other candidates should roll over. Mr. Dean has said alot of dumb things such as his statement that Osama Ben Laden should be presumed innocent. So it is perfectly fair for Joe Lieberman and John Kerry to pose this question to Mr. Dean: If you give Ben Laden the presumption of innocence, that means you would instruct the military not to assassinate him if he can be killed in a missile strike. Is that your position Howard? Given his position about Ben Laden's presumption of innocence, Dean must answer, and does answer, that he is against killing Ben Laden, no matter what the circumstances. So of course Lieberman and Kerry are right to call Dean on the carpet for Dean's willingness to coddle Ben Laden. And they are right to question Dean's fitness to be commander in chief. So why PK, an advocate of free speech, think it's important for Lieberman and Kerry to be muzzled while Dean prepares to lose all 50 states. And we all know that Dean will be trounced everywhere but the upper west side of Manhatten and in Berkeley if he is the nominee.

Subject: Re: PK: Howard Dean is above criticism From: Neal Martin To: Sid Bachrach Date Posted: Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 01:07:56 (EST) Email Address: ndm@nealmartin.org Message: wow. Your skills of interpretation and argument are appalling. Three things: 1) You're convinced that Paul Krugman is endorsing Dean. This isn't the case. Krugman hasn't endorsed anybody. 2) Dean never 'coddled' Bin Laden. Spare us your tiresome hyperbolic smears. What Dean said was despite his personal conviction that Bin Laden was guilty it was up to a jury to decide. He has since clarified his stance: 'When we capture Osama bin Laden, he will be brought to justice and treated in the same manner that President Bush is recommending for Saddam Hussein.' So Sid, do you believe that the trial process we are preparing for Saddam to be superflous? Would our interests have been better served by an early execution? 3) You say 'it is perfectly fair for Joe Lieberman ... to pose this question to Mr. Dean: If you give Ben Laden the presumption of innocence, that means you would instruct the military not to assassinate him if he can be killed in a missile strike. Is that your position Howard?' I agree that the question you pose is fair. (It's also one that Dean has readily answered, but it'd be fair even if he hadn't). Krugman's article (you really should read it sometime) doesn't contest those sorts of questions. What in the article makes you think PK would regard that question as 'unfair'?

Subject: There is No Truth to Sid From: Jennifer To: Neal Martin Date Posted: Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 13:45:59 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: There is sadly never any truth to Sid Bach.

Subject: The Economy will Recover . . . From: Paul G. Brown To: All Date Posted: Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 15:28:00 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Looked at through the prism of GDP numbers, some degree of economic growth is almost inevitable. The basic reasons for this are a) exchange rates falling, b) the recent omnibus omnibus spending bill, and c) population growth. Now, GDP is a measure of economic activity, not a measure of social utility. If you wanted to game GDP growth then a policy of simply printing more money would let you make your target number, whatever it was (although the consequent inflation would erode any real gains). I am going to bet on spectacular GDP growth in 2004. Look: reserve interest rates as low as they can limbo, the US will experience increasing competitiveness in its export markets, and there will be about $100 billion in additional discretionary spending. It's gonna be a bumper year, everyone! But at what cost? How many jobs are we going to create in the process? The criticism of Bush-e-nomics is not that it won't lead to GDP growth (although its been fairly disappointing on this front so far). Rather, the problem is that Bush-e-nomics is incoherent. Just what the hell are they trying to do? Stimulate demand? (Tax cuts to lower income brackets would be more effective.) Improve investment climate? (Corporate tax breaks for R&D and I-40 deductions for education and re-training would be a better bet.) Improve national infrastructure? (Spending on roads, bridges, environmental clean-up and education, rather than many of the truly wierd things in the omnibus bill.) Instead we have massive structural deficits created by tax cuts given largely to the wealthiest, and a social security / medicare bill coming due. In the absence of any explaination, Krugman (and others: the UK Financial Times, the Economist) are left with the impression that something else is going on.

Subject: The Deficit Will Grow From: Emma To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 15:33:37 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Along with Paul Brown, I am confident there will be about 4% growth these 6 months and hopefully these 12 months. But, even if GDP growth is faster it will not be fast enough to cut the deficit. The George Bush tax cuts have left a government revenue shortfall that can not be made up by faster growth. Also, there is not even close to enough ways to cut spending to cut the growing deficit. Defense spending and essential social benefit programs insure there will be a growing deficit. The tax cuts has spurred the economy, but the design of the cuts in favor of the wealthiest has left us a fierce deficit problem that can only grow.

Subject: Re: The Deficit Will Grow From: Danny Walker To: Emma Date Posted: Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 20:32:05 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: >The tax cuts has spurred the economy, but the design of the cuts in favor of the wealthiest has left us a fierce deficit problem that can only grow. Emma - Why are the tax cuts in favor of the wealthy? They were across the board. You pay more, you get more of YOUR money back. Are you suggesting that there should have been simply a transfer of income from the wealthy to the less wealthy? I think that's what you are saying. And, under those conditions, I think that (temporarily) the GDP boost may have been larger than we are currently experiencing. But, I don't believe that would have ANY beneficial effect on the defecit. Just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Subject: Impact of Tax Cut From: Emma To: Emma Date Posted: Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 16:40:14 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: About one third of the 2003 tax cut was spent, the rest being used to pay down debt or saved. November 30, 2003 As Stimulus, Tax Cuts May Soon Go Awry By LOUIS UCHITELLE - New York Times

Subject: Re: The Economy will Recover . . . From: WRS To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 23:11:46 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Let's look at what caused the fiscal deficits. The recession and the bear stock market (2001-2002) are the main culprits. Tax cuts added to the deficit but are not the sole cause, contrary to PK's suggestions. And there would be no recovery to date without tax cuts. With the economy and markets recovering, it seems reasonable to assume that tax revenue also will increase and deficits will ease if not shrink. Is it far fetched to pursue a strategy of juicing consumer spending to pull the economy out of a rut? Yes, some bills are coming due (on the household and fiscal side), but I think we'll have a better chance of paying them with a full steam of growth moving ahead.

Subject: Re: The Economy will Recover . . . From: Paul G. Brown To: WRS Date Posted: Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 00:19:42 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Y'know - your argument would carry a lot more weight if it was accompanied by a little bit of data and a little math. But then, when we actually look at the data and do the math, your conclusion runs into some difficulties. > Let's look at what caused the fiscal deficits. The recession and > the bear stock market (2001-2002) are the main culprits. a) According to the Bureau of Economic Accounts GDP has been growing, slowly, since Q4, 2001. Over any 12 month period the economy never actually contracted (again, in terms of GDP numbers). According to the CBO in 2001 Federal revenue fell by a mere $34 billion. Yet in 2002 federal (a period during which the economy grew by 2.2%) federal revenue fell by $138 billion. b) Was it the collapse of the bull market? Well, the biggest decline in federal revenue during 2001 was taxation on corporate earnings, which, overall, can scarcely be attributed to a falling DOW. No: in fact relatively few Americans derive lots of income from capital gains. And the biggest fall in 2002 was in the income tax revenues, by which time the DOW had started to recover (IIRC). > Tax cuts added to the deficit but are not the sole cause, contrary > to PK's suggestions. In fact, PK wrote: ' Nothing in our national experience prepared us for the spectacle of a government launching a war, increasing farm subsidies and establishing an expensive new Medicare entitlement — and not only failing to come up with a plan to pay for all this spending in the face of budget deficits, but cutting taxes at the same time. ' So, it's not just the tax cuts. Its the explosion in spending *at the same time* as the tax cuts. Have a look at those CBO numbers for spending! Even David flaming Brooks at the NYT has figured it out. > With the economy and markets recovering, it seems reasonable to > assume that tax revenue also will increase and deficits will ease > if not shrink. Have you been following anything that's been said about this issue? (And note that this little piece was written *before* the Medicare expansion bill and the Omnibus spending bill were passed). Even the Wall Street Journal has basically said we have a long term fiscal train wreck on our hands. The tax cuts are so large and the spending commitments in social security and medicare such that any reasonable growth rate doesn't get us out of the red. > Is it far fetched to pursue a strategy of juicing > consumer spending to pull the economy out of a rut? Yes, some bills > are coming due (on the household and fiscal side), but I think > we'll have a better chance of paying them with a full steam of > growth moving ahead. At this point some sense kicks in. But the point K is making is that not all tax cuts and not all spending bills are bad. Its that the package of policies being pursued by the Bush administration just doesn't add up. Something's gotta give.

Subject: Re: The Economy will Recover . . . From: WRS To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 11:37:16 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Please allow me to clarify my points based on your well-reasoned response. The recession caused the reductions in tax revenue in the sense that it conincided with an extremely hard period for companies (and workers) when profits fell and payrolls were slahsed. Moreover, the cutbacks continued well after the end of recession into 2003. So hard times in the business sector cost revenue, along with reductions in capital gains due to the corresponding collapse of stock prices. You and PK are right about the timing. Many bad things happened at once. But that's called tough times. While Bush is not without blame, the economy started to tank before he got into office. Blaming him for all ills is juvenile. And I think there's a strong case that the 2003 tax stimulus was very well timed and helped the economy in 2003 and probably this year. My point is that tax revenues will be helped by a growing economy. Quibbling over whether 'too many rich people' got a tax break obscures the broader issue of the economic recovery underway. I question whether PK or anyone else has a handle on how people from different income groups will spend their tax money. But I digress... As for the breakdown of federal spending, I concede flaws in Bush priorities. But then that's politics...

Subject: Supply Side Hooey From: Emma To: WRS Date Posted: Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 15:38:50 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: 'My point is that tax revenues will be helped by a growing economy. 'Quibbling over whether 'too many rich people' got a tax break obscures the broader issue of the economic recovery underway. I question whether PK or anyone else has a handle on how people from different income groups will spend their tax money.' Supply side economics is hooey. Revenue will not grow enough to limit the growth of the deficit. The extreme tilt of the tax cuts to the rich is precisely the problem in deficit creation. We know precisely how different income groups send income.

Subject: Re: Supply Side Hooey From: WRS To: Emma Date Posted: Tues, Jan 06, 2004 at 15:44:41 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Emma: I'd like to know where to find this detailed information on who is spending tax relief money and where the money is going? Who is doing the painstaking work of tracking this? Is this information reliable, necessary or relevant? Heck, I can't even remember what I did with my tax check. There seems to be a lot of confusion and disagreement about this information, so is smart to shape policy according to this data. Afterall, it's our money to begin with. Seems like the folks who made it should get to keep it.

Subject: Re: Supply Side Hooey From: Gnao To: WRS Date Posted: Tues, Jan 06, 2004 at 17:20:03 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Emma is simply enlightened.

Subject: Re: Supply Side Hooey From: WRS To: Gnao Date Posted: Tues, Jan 06, 2004 at 17:23:13 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Maybe so. But that doesn't explain where the data comes from. How does she, PK or anyone else know 'precisely' how people spend their money from tax relief?

Subject: Re: Supply Side Hooey From: Paul G. Brown To: WRS Date Posted: Tues, Jan 06, 2004 at 18:47:56 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Just Google ('Income Consumption United States Table') and whack the 'I Feel Lucky' button. That table is a very high level aggregate. What it shows what the nation's Marginal Propensity to Consume has been at 10 year intervals since 1950. And if you visit the Bureau of Economic of Economic Analysis web site you'll find a wealth of data, including detailed breakdowns of recent quarters. This reveals, quite precisely, 'how people spend their money from tax relief'. The BEA information is derived (as I understand it) from analysis of IRS tax returns. Unfortunately, the BEA doesn't break the data out by income level. I can't find anything on the Web to cite in support of the proposition that 'marginal propensity to consume falls as income rises', but it's a relationship given in every economics textbook I've read, its repeated in the subject lecture notes that are pasted here and there, and when someone asks the contrary question they are usually told something like 'lots of studies support this: go visit your library'.

Subject: Re: Supply Side Hooey From: Paul G. Brown To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Tues, Jan 06, 2004 at 19:23:52 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: D'oh! That table, of course, reports Average Propensity to Consume. But as APC is less than 1.0, it follows that MPC is also < 1.0.

Subject: Re: Supply Side Hooey From: WRS To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Tues, Jan 06, 2004 at 20:54:44 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Thanks, Paul. I will duly research this issue along these lines before cluttering this board with further supply side hooey.

Subject: Re: Supply Side Hooey From: Gnao To: WRS Date Posted: Tues, Jan 06, 2004 at 18:01:04 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Ask Conorcet, Adam Smith, Keynes etc. etc..No!Better,take a look at history and thus analyse in an empirical manner the function of human behavior.

Subject: Projecting From: Emma To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 18:47:00 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Remember, we will have more of a tax cut stimulus through June. The guess is much the same. About 4% GDP growth, same for productivity, less than 2% inflation, monthly job growth 125,000. S&P up about 10%. The 10 year treasury steady about 4.5%. The biggest problem could be a rise in interest rates. The biggest help will be continued 7 to 9% GDP growth in China. Then, then, then there is the labor market. Too little growth in labor demand, too little wage pressure. Labor still not sharing nearly enough in productivity increases.

Subject: Investment in America From: Emma To: Emma Date Posted: Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 19:40:00 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: There has in fact been a decline since 2001 in foreign direct investment in America. Why is not clear, buit there are lots of opportunites in other economies to take advantage of. This could however be a long term problem, since we save so little. Also, Paul Krugman's 'Gilded Age' article is on Brad DeLong's blog.

Subject: Who Gains From: Emma To: Emma Date Posted: Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 09:00:02 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Month on month, the theme has been fair to high growth, high productivity, high profits. The returns to growth and productivity are going to management and earnings. There is little price pressure because there is no wage pressure. So, we have a fine stock market and the pressures on middle class families slowly grow in a subtle way. Stock analysts are almost all happy, many economists are worried unless they are Republicans.

Subject: Women and Retirees From: Emma To: Emma Date Posted: Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 09:43:24 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: In particular, I am wondering how working women are faring just now and how retired women and men are faring. The sluggish wages and health care benefit cuts may be especially tough on women as heads of households. Are retirees generally comfortable with income streams or are they spending down assets especially homes to live comfortably? There is an expectation the baby boomers will move comfortably to retirement, but I wonder and worry if there has been enough saving.

Subject: Deficits From: Emma To: All Date Posted: Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 07:48:08 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: America has a low and falling private saving rate and a large and rising public deficit. This means that capital must be imported from other countries. Well, we are importing capital from Asia and Europe as they extend credit to us to allow for our consumption of imports. As long as other countries are willing to extend credit at a given dollar exchange rate, the dollar value will be stable. So, the dollar is stable against most Asian currencies. The dollar is completely stable against China's currency, since China is content to extend us credit as we buy Chinese products. The dollar is losing value against the Euro and Canadian and Australian dollars. The selected loss in dollar value if orderly can continue quite some time with no ill effects. Variable exchange rates do vary. The problem is we have fiscal policy that has assured us a severe deficit problem in future, and that deficit problem may in time lead others to be far more reluctant to extent credit to us at current dollar values. The problem is not trade, the problem is low private saving and a severe public deficit.

Subject: Re: Deficits From: Brian Williams To: Emma Date Posted: Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 14:06:49 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: So why are Euro countries no longer willing to lend capital to the US?

Subject: Re: Deficits From: Paul G. Brown To: Brian Williams Date Posted: Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 15:34:24 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: So why are Euro countries no longer willing to lend capital to the US? --- Got any evidence to back that up? A citation? A dead-tree article? The statement smells funny to me. Countries (nation states and their reserve banks) don't generally lend each other money directly. Reserve banks may choose to hold foreign exchange in T-bills but cash is more usual. Are you refering to lines of credit from private institutions? Banks etc? Clarification, please . . .

Subject: Re: Deficits From: Brian Williams To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 16:47:17 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: It wasn't a statement, it was a question. It seemed to me that Emma was implying that Euro countries are less willing to extend capital to the US, since the dollar is losing value against the Euro. So I was asking why. Also, I don't know if you saw in my thread on Trade Deficits and Exchange Rates, but I asked if you could give me some additional readings. I would really appreciate it.

Subject: Euro From: Emma To: Brian Williams Date Posted: Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 18:34:50 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Thinking.... Remember that the Treasury has tried off and on to talk down the dollar. Since Asian economies, especially China and the tigers, have long sought stable rates against the dollar to protect trade, they and Japan have repeatedly bought dollars. Europe, Canada and Australia have not been buying dollars. In the cases of Canada and Australia, trade is more natural resources and there is no reason to protect trade in raw resources since we need them. Europe has less trade with America. Europe may complain about a strong Euro, but why should they do more than complain? So the Euro stronger, the dollar weaker. So Europeans lend to us but on more favoravble terms. What is wrong here? Interesting.

Subject: Re: Euro From: Bernadette To: Emma Date Posted: Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 20:54:13 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Emma, you're good, really good!

Subject: Thank you. From: Emma To: Bernadette Date Posted: Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 09:01:57 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The Blog gives us a chance to think aloud, so we know what it is we are thinking.

Subject: So called boom. More to follow? From: WRS To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 01, 2004 at 19:57:08 (EST) Email Address: williamrsmith@comcast.net Message: Krugman did a clever job of spinning good news into bad in 'our so called boom.' It will be interesting to see how Krugman reacts if GDP continues to grow and unemployment falls in 2004.

Subject: Please Read Fairly From: Emma To: WRS Date Posted: Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 12:15:39 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Why not read fairly? There is good news when economic growth is fast and productivity is high. There is good news when corporate earnings are fine. There is bad news when labor is not being helped by fast growth and high productivity and fine earnings. Perhaps the job market will rapidly improve and wages will meaningfully increase. We surely should hope so. But, so far this recovery since November 2001 has been easily the worst for labor in more than 50 years. Please try to read fairly. Simply sniping at PK is insulting and foolish.

Subject: More Troll Morons From: Troll To: WRS Date Posted: Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 07:26:06 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: More troll morons.

Subject: Re: So called boom. More to follow? From: Danny Walker To: WRS Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 01, 2004 at 20:51:39 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Krugman has definitley painted himself in a corner here. I figure he's getting the controversy dollars while the getting is good. There are two main points in his latest article. 1) Profits are higher. 2) Workers are not sharing in the latest expansion. 1) Yes, it seems profits are higher. As someone said in a post previously, the middle class gets squeezed and the corporations get rich. Didn't we learn from principles that if ecomonic profits exist, as Krugman is pointing out, then new entry will cause emplyoment to increase and profits to moderate? 2) Productivity gains? maybe so. More likely off-shore employment. I work in an affective industry - software development. If someone in India wants to do my job for half the wage, fine. Consumers will get software cheaper and I'll go do something more fun. We all win.

Subject: Yes. There iks a problem. From: Emma To: Danny Walker Date Posted: Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 12:33:44 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: 'Krugman has definitley painted himself in a corner here. I figure he's getting the controversy dollars while the getting is good.' Please. 'I work in an affective industry - software development. If someone in India wants to do my job for half the wage, fine. Consumers will get software cheaper and I'll go do something more fun. We all win.' This makes no sense at all, unless a job means nothing to you. PK is always trying to suggests ways to help those who need help.

Subject: Re: Yes. There iks a problem. From: Danny Walker To: Emma Date Posted: Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 12:11:58 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: 'Please'... Painted in corner, maybe so. Getting controversy dollars? Well, I am guilty of speculating on Krugman's motive's here. I have no idea what his motives are. Comparative advantage and international trade makes no sense to you? Should we have tried to protect the television industry because jobs were being lost overseas?

Subject: More Troll Morons From: Troll To: Danny Walker Date Posted: Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 07:28:32 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Could you be more of a moron?

Subject: Re: More Troll Morons From: WRS To: Troll Date Posted: Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 11:42:20 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Is this 'troll' response fair? I was under the impression that this board was open to different viewpoints of a reasonable nature. If there is no tolerance for free exchange of ideas, please explain the thought restrictions that apply. Thanks.

Subject: Re: More Troll Morons From: ...David To: WRS Date Posted: Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 11:54:23 (EST) Email Address: daveellis_39@hotmail.com Message: I think so, you seem like a troll to me. Look at this thing as if you were one of the three million that lost his job since Bush took office. Your unemployment has run out, and the rich have gotten tremendous tax cuts. Remember the tax cut was promised to add 300,000 jobs a month? Only 300,000 jobs in the last 5 months. And you want to call that success? You are a troll.

Subject: Re: More Troll Morons From: Danny Walker To: ...David Date Posted: Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 12:15:57 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: At least we have established that, on this board, troll means one who holds and expresses a dissenting opinion.

Subject: Re: More Troll Morons From: Danny Walker To: ...David Date Posted: Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 12:15:32 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: At least we have established that, on this board, troll means one who holds and expresses a dissenting opinion.

Subject: Is everything Bush's fault? From: WRS To: ...David Date Posted: Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 14:02:23 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Since I am not a sworn member of the PK fan club, I guess that makes me a troll. Nevertheless, I find some arguments here worthwhile, so thanks for indulging me. Actually, I did lose a job after Bush was elected. But I didn't blame the president. Instead, I found another job and as it turns out am among the gainfully employed who benefited from the tax cut. Must everyone who suffers hardship blame Bush, or does personal responsibility play a role? The jury is still out on the economic recovery. PK will have a difficult tune to sing if the numbers keep improving. But I'm sure he can count on support from the chorus.

Subject: Tax Cuts Help From: Emma To: WRS Date Posted: Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 18:56:12 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Yes. The tax cuts help. Yes. Economic growth has picked up. Yes. We want growth to continue to be above 4%. We want you to have a fine job, and for there to be 250,000 jobs created a month. We have been in recovery for 25 months now. The point is the recovery is going to leave us at least with a crippling public deficit, and we have not seen a meaningful recovery in the labor market yet. Fiscal policy under George Bush has been as poor as I can imagine. This is fiscal policy for the rich rich rich. Trickle down is not enough and will not be enough.

Subject: The Worry From: Emma To: ...David Date Posted: Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 12:22:57 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The worry is that the fiscal policy we have used even though spurring fast growth finally, will not produce enough demand to begin to add 200,000 to 300,000 jobs a month and get us back to 2000. We have not geared fical policy to producing jobs, but a paid a fierce cost in lost tax revenue from the wealthiest households.

Subject: Story of a Bubble From: Emma To: All Date Posted: Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 15:58:01 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16878 The Story of a Bubble By William D. Nordhaus The 1990s were a unique period when virtually all national economic affairs went well. Unemployment fell to low levels not seen in a generation, inflation was contained, and the stock market reached record highs. In contrast, during the period after September 11, 2001, almost everything turned sour. What was the economic miracle of the 1990s, and what were its sources? And when the stock market, investment, and employment declined, did the fault lie in the stars or in ourselves?

Subject: Story of a Bubblehead From: RSmith To: Emma Date Posted: Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 16:23:04 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Do you have a point to make here? Didn't think so.

Subject: Re: Story of a Bubblehead From: Bobby To: RSmith Date Posted: Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 17:29:24 (EST) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: Emma, this is a very fine article about the 1990s by Nordhaus, who is Krugman's mentor and who I'll be taking a class from next semester. Thank you. RSmith, please keep rudeness like your previous message to yourself if you want to stay on this board. There's no reason for that kind of comment.

Subject: Thanks From: Emma To: Bobby Date Posted: Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 07:32:09 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Excellent article, excellent teacher.

Subject: Selective Policing From: RSmith To: Bobby Date Posted: Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 18:11:11 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: You - RSmith, please keep rudeness like your previous message to yourself if you want to stay on this board. There's no reason for that kind of comment. Earlier poster - I don't have time for your garbage today, Danny 'Troll' Walker... So go troll elsewhere. People with brains in their heads have no time for you. Bobby - why don't you just put a sign out front indicating that opposing opinions are not welcome. Really, it's OK. It would save a lot of wasted time.

Subject: Re: Selective Policing From: Bobby To: RSmith Date Posted: Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 19:39:26 (EST) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: Your post wasn't an opposing opinion to anything. Emma did not write an opinion on anything, only a link to Nordhaus' piece and a snippet from it. Yours was a wanton attack on someone who didn't even say anything.

Subject: Re: Selective Policing From: RSmith To: Bobby Date Posted: Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 19:58:55 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: So, wanton attacks are OK if something is said? You really have no problem with the personal attack below? This is totally acceptable to you??? By the way, this comment was from 'Juliet'. 'Emma' wasted no time in endorsing it. 'I don't have time for your garbage today, Danny 'Troll' Walker... So go troll elsewhere. People with brains in their heads have no time for you.'

Subject: Re: Selective Policing From: Bobby To: RSmith Date Posted: Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 21:53:26 (EST) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: If there is some semblance of response to an actual argument that someone is making I'll tolerate it, whether it's ad hominem or not. Just attacking someone as a bubblehead, who hasn't said anything, out of the blue is just pointless meanness. I am very lenient as moderators go, and, aside from one person that I had to kick off for making personal attacks (it got so out of hand that I felt he was just degrading the entire board discussion), I haven't censored anyone else. It is not that hard not to be expelled from this board. Happy New Year!

Subject: Re: Very Selective Policing From: RSmith To: Bobby Date Posted: Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 22:22:59 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: But again, this 'semblance' of a response to a post by Walker is something that you consider compeltely tolerably? Why is this attack not personal and unacceptable??? Best Wishes in '04 as well. 'I don't have time for your garbage today, Danny 'Troll' Walker... So go troll elsewhere. People with brains in their heads have no time for you.'

Subject: Trade Deficit and Exchange Rate From: Brian Williams To: All Date Posted: Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 14:06:26 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I was reading an article by Paul Krugman a few years ago (that seems to still have relevance), but it stumped me pretty early. In the article, 'A dollar crisis', Krugman says... 'The basic reason for believing that the dollar is overvalued is, of course, that the United States is running very large current account deficits, and that the possessors of other major currencies - especially the yen - are correspondingly running large current surpluses.' http://www.pkarchive.org/trade/dollar.html The thing I can't really understand is how the trade deficit would determine exchange rates. Could someone help me out?

Subject: Someone help me here. From: Danny Walker To: Brian Williams Date Posted: Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 14:43:05 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I'm just guessing... Foreign investment finances current account deficits??

Subject: Doh From: Troll Trolling To: Danny Walker Date Posted: Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 15:00:23 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Trolls can not be helped.

Subject: Re: Doh From: Brian Williams To: Troll Trolling Date Posted: Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 18:24:06 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: But maybe I can :-D The best I can figure that a trade deficit would determine exchange rates is that it's suppose to be a sign of low foreign demand for dollars, so the price of dollars should be lower. But, isn't a deficit on the current account matched by a surplus on the capital account? So, it shouldn't give any information on total demand for the dollar. But, Krugman obviously knows a lot more about this than I do. So I'm sure I'm missing something somewhere. If anyone knows what, I would REALLY appreciate it. THANKS! :-D

Subject: Re: Doh From: Paul G. Brown To: Brian Williams Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 01, 2004 at 16:25:37 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Working without a net. Feeding trolls (am I?) But hey! It's a new year! Why can't we all just get along. The 'standard' economic model used to analyse trade situations is due to one David Ricardo and is based on a notion of comparative advantage (as distinct from 'competitive advantage' - Krugman has written extensively on the confusion of these two terms). The basic idea is that nations will tend to specialize in export industries where they are have an productivity advantage over nations buying the goods. In the long run then, the net value of a nation's exports and imports will trend to zero. It will export what it needs in order to import what it needs. What happens when one nation is at a systematic disadvantage in its productivity? One popular theory (which I believe is the one Krugman is referencing) holds that over the long run exchange rates will adjust to reflect this [dis]advantage, returning net trade to zero. So when the US economy (for example) is running a huge trade deficit, it is an indication that its currency is 'over-valued' (ie. the US apparently has lower overall productivity than its balance of trade warrants). Currency devaluations make a nation's exports more competitive, reduce the competitiveness of imports, thereby acting to reduce net trade to zero. Why don't rates adjust more quickly than they do? Well, there are lots of short term factors that have an effect on the balance of trade and the exchange rate: overseas investment in the US (which shows up in the capital account, which as you say must cancel the current account), countries seeking to manage their exchange rates for domestic political reasons, market distortions due to trade barriers and subsidies, interest rates, etc. Hope this helps.

Subject: Readings From: Brian Williams To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 01, 2004 at 22:43:46 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Well, I think I understand what you're saying. Do you know of a good place I could go to read more on the subject? Maybe a good textbook? I've tried Krugman's introductory text, but it didn't help me much (at least with this question).

Subject: Re: Readings From: Paul G. Brown To: Brian Williams Date Posted: Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 17:27:00 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Arrr.... Actually, Google. I kid you not. It's an incredible tool. Take the terminology from the Krugman text (the words used, like Balance of Trade, Balance of Payments, Ricardo, blah blah blah) and pound 'em at Google. Getting the most out of the Internet requires a different approach to researching than you might be used to. What Google gives you is lots and lots of shreds of information. It isn't very systematic but if you read enough of it, a fairly coherent and nuanced picture emerges. You also get a feel for the common mistakes made when talking about something. I'm also a big fan of The Economist's publications. They are good 'dictionary' resources. Oh. And Paul Krugman's _Pop_Internationalism_ on the specifics of international trade. Hope this helps!

Subject: Re: Doh From: Danny Walker To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 01, 2004 at 17:51:30 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Thanks for the snack!!

Subject: Troll Here From: Danny Walker To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 01, 2004 at 17:36:00 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Paul, Thanks for wading in on this one. I was digging through my Krugman and Obstfeld text 'International Economics', in addtiton to the standard Mankiw book and have yet to come up with a satisfatory response. I guess I'm a little confused about the term 'overvalued' from the Krugman piece. Does he mean there is downward pressure on the dollar given the balance of trade? Not sure when that article was written, but the buck has certainly slid lately.

Subject: Re: Troll Here From: Paul G. Brown To: Danny Walker Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 01, 2004 at 19:07:46 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Be a bit careful. While this relationship between balance of trade and exchange rates has long been posited I remember reading somewhere that it's rare to observe the beast 'in the wild'. (I think that a degree of skepticism about this point can be seen in Krugman's use of 'of course'.) But according to this model, the trade deficit *implies* that the US dollar is 'overvalued'. That is, when someone buys US dollars, they are paying too much for them. But the US dollar might be overvalued for very good reasons. For example, US treasuries are in high demand because they have very small institutional risk and the exchange rate risk is small because the exchange rate has been historically pretty involatile. Like I said, there's a lot more to this picture than just the balance of trade. But one conventional argument that the dollar is 'overvalued' is made from the trade point of view.

Subject: Paul on WNYC 12/31/03 From: EZ To: All Date Posted: Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 10:12:47 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Paul is going to be on WNYC.org the public radio station in NY City, he is going to be talking about his last column. www.wnyc.org

Subject: Free Paul Krugman From: Danny Walker To: All Date Posted: Tues, Dec 30, 2003 at 14:11:53 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: According to Amazon, folks who purchased 'The Great Unraveling' also had a propensity for the following books. Cleary, this polorization cannot be a good thing. Free Paul Krugman! Bushwhacked : Life in George W. Bush's America by Molly Ivins (Author), Lou Dubose (Author) (Hardcover) Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth by Joe Conason (Author) (Hardcover) Dude, Where's My Country? by Michael Moore (Author) (Hardcover) Thieves in High Places: They've Stolen Our Country--And Its Time to Take It Back by Jim Hightower (Hardcover) The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception by David Corn (Author) (Hardcover)

Subject: Re: Get Lost Troll From: Juliet To: Danny Walker Date Posted: Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 13:37:18 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Damn, those are some smart people. I don't have time for your garbage today, Danny 'Troll' Walker. I just read PK's article in the Nation and realized that the person who might one day cure cancer may never have the opportunity. Why? Because she may be a member of a poor socioeconomic family who can't rise out of their poverty. Consequently, she may never be able to attend college, and will probably end up working for a discount retailer, all because of our current government's policies. So go troll elsewhere. People with brains in their heads have no time for you.

Subject: Thanks Juliet From: Emma To: Juliet Date Posted: Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 14:02:41 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Well settled.

Subject: PK is most emailed NYTimes columnist From: Neal Martin To: All Date Posted: Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 20:49:25 (EST) Email Address: ndm@nealmartin.org Message: Counting down the end of 2003 NYTimes has a feature about their most emailed articles. 6 of the top ten most fowarded opinion articles were penned by PK including number two. (He was beat out for the number one spot by Jimmy Carter). NYTimes Slideshow of Most Emailed Opinion Articles www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2003/12/24/technology/20031228MOST_OP_2.html

Subject: Re: PK is most emailed NYTimes columnist From: Danny Walker To: Neal Martin Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 01, 2004 at 19:52:49 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Krugman has become polorized. His articles incite reaction and that is what he is being payed for from the NYT. He is no different from Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly in that regard. Except, of course, if he wanted to talk some serious ecomonic theory (which I used to enjoy) he could. But his NYT fan club would not find that interesting or more likely comprehensible. Maybe one day, we'll get him back.

Subject: PK is Brilliant From: Jennifer To: Neal Martin Date Posted: Tues, Dec 30, 2003 at 12:56:25 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Dear Paul Krugman, Thank you so very much. Jennifer

Subject: Re: PK is Brilliant From: sid bachrach To: Jennifer Date Posted: Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 00:39:21 (EST) Email Address: sidb23@juno.com Message: Paul Krugman is an interesting read and he makes clever analogies like the one today about the improving economy and the reality craze on TV. But when he minimized the virulently antiSemitic and racist remarks by Malaysian exPresident Mohammad, that was not really very brilliant. It was a column that I suspect Mr. Krugman, in his heart of hearts, would like to take back. If you read Mr. Krrugman's column back to back with Pat Buchanan's column, you would not have known which was which. Buchanan has written that American and Israeli policies create terrorism and in his column, Mr. Krugman implied hat US and Israeli policies drove Mohammad to antiSemitism. The column failed on two grounds: First, there should be no serach for 'root causes' when dealing with racists. Second, Mohammad is a man of about 80 years and had been a virulent antiSemite since the time when George W. Bush was in diapers. Mohammad didn't make any sudden change. I think that in his heart, Mr. Krugman knows that the column he wrote was very weak.

Subject: Troll Here From: Troll Here To: sid bachrach Date Posted: Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 12:36:20 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Do not feed the troll.

Subject: Re: Troll Here From: Danny Walker To: Troll Here Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 01, 2004 at 20:11:22 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I'm going to take a wild guess on your age -- 15 ?? This is not a personal attack. I don't know whow 'Troll Here' is. They are obviously afraid to reveal their identity.

Subject: invade democracies? From: Maurits To: All Date Posted: Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 12:15:58 (EST) Email Address: maurits.pino@skynet.be Message: In the past week I read the great unravelling; early on I remember reading that PK jokes that the Bush administration might be invading democracies next. However, in can't find back where he said this. Does anyone remember? Thanks!

Subject: France? From: Terri To: Maurits Date Posted: Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 14:32:59 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Could it be France?

Subject: Re: France? From: danny To: Terri Date Posted: Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 19:22:30 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Already been done. I'm pretty sure Krugman had us marching through Ottawa, Canada by late spring, though.

Subject: Oh, Canada From: Terri To: danny Date Posted: Tues, Dec 30, 2003 at 13:37:25 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Ottawa is nice in spring.

Subject: Cecil Adams' Straight Dope on Gilded Age From: Jonah Winters To: All Date Posted: Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 04:13:40 (EST) Email Address: jonah AT winterswebworks.com Message: The Straight Dope analyzes Krugman's statement that we're returning to the income inequalities of the Gilded Age: www.straightdope.com/columns/031219.html. I hope to see a Krugman response! (Sorry for hitting 'return' and posting earlier message before composing it.)

Subject: Re: Cecil Adams' Straight Dope on Gilded Age From: Paul G. Brown To: Jonah Winters Date Posted: Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 15:10:42 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Well, I ain't Krugman. But I've had my coffee this morning, so I'll have a slap at it. In a nutshell - Cecil's right (as usual), although Krugman's point stands. Google informs us that the period of 'The Gilded Age' in the United States is variously held to have existed between 1865-1900[1], 1890-1914[2], and 1878-1889[3]. I couldn't find anyone who moves the chains as far as Krugman does, out to 1929. Also, Krugman's essay in The Nation explicitly references Horatio Alger [1832-1899] (http://www.washburn.edu/sobu/broach/algerFAQ.html) which would tend to date Krugman's Gilded Age earlier and more conventionally. But this dating rather undermines his rhetoric as the data he cites (see below) says nothing about the 19th century. The Progressive Movement (Pres. Teddy Roosevelt (1901-1909) etc), and the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution in 1913 (making income tax constitutional), the Sherman Act (1911) and the Clayton Act (1914) were a reaction to the excesses of the Gilded Age. Now, the Piketty and Saez paper (http://papers.nber.org/papers/w8467) Krugman cites only covers the period 1913 to 1998. Rightly speaking then, we might say that income inequality is returning to levels not seen since the Jazz Age. Trouble is, this statement might be confused with the noisy discussion about music and property rights being conducted over in the other corner . . . Also, in Krugman's defence, he isn't the only one making the 'Gilded Age' comparisons. http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/07/03/stiglitz/ and his piece was about a trend, and 'returning', not a categorical statement like 'has returned'. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horatio_Alger,_Jr [2] http://www.emayzine.com/lectures/Gilded~1.htm [3] http://www.americaslibrary.gov/cgi-bin/page.cgi/jb/gilded PS: You misspelled 'composting'.

Subject: Back to the Future From: Emma To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 13:21:11 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Nice post. Ameirca's middle class society develops from the New Deal, thorugh the GI Bill, to the Great Society. From Roosevelt to Johnson you build middle class America. Radical Republicans are doing all they can to undo the Great Society and New Deal, and set us back to a highly wealth an income concentrated society. Back to the days before the New Deal, in terms of the economy or environment or else....

Subject: Radical Republicans From: Emma To: Emma Date Posted: Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 13:33:47 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/28/opinion/28SUN1.html The Republicans' newly acquired activism, however, has very clear limits. The modern party's key allegiance is to corporate America, and its tolerance for intrusive federal government ends when big business is involved. If there is a consistent center to the domestic philosophy of the current administration, it is the idea that business is best left alone. The White House and Congress have chipped away at environmental protections that interfere with business interests on everything from clean air to use of federal lands. The administration is determined to deliver on corporate America's goal of cutting overtime pay for white-collar workers. At the same time, it has been tepid in asserting greater federal vigilance over the developing scandal of workplace safety. Republicans have always enjoyed their reputation as the champions of business. The difference now is that they no longer couple their business-friendly attitudes with tight-fistedness. Discretionary spending has jumped 27 percent in the last two years; budget hawks complain Congressional pork is up more than 40 percent. Some of that money has gone to buy the allegiance of wavering party members in the closely divided House and Senate, but much of it is directly tied to the demands of big business. Agriculture subsidies to corporate farms have swollen to new heights, while energy policy has been reduced to a miserable grab bag of special benefits for the oil, gas and coal companies. The last Bush energy bill, which passed the House but died in the Senate, seems likely to be remembered most for the now-famous subsidy for an energy-efficient Hooters restaurant in Louisiana.

Subject: Cecil Adams' Straight Dope on Gilded Age From: Jonah Winters To: All Date Posted: Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 04:12:12 (EST) Email Address: jonah AT winterswebworks.com Message:

Subject: Tax-Exempt Savings From: Emma To: All Date Posted: Sat, Dec 27, 2003 at 10:28:36 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Paul Krugman - 12/26/03 One key proposal in the State of the Union address will, we hear, be the creation of new types of tax-exempt savings accounts. The proposal will come wrapped in fine phrases about an 'ownership society.' But serious journalists should tell us how the plan would work, who would benefit and who would lose. An early version of the plan was floated almost a year ago, and carefully analyzed in the journal Tax Notes. So there's no excuse for failing to report that the plan would probably reduce, not increase, national savings; that it would have large long-run budget costs; and that its benefits would go mainly to the wealthiest few percent of the population.

Subject: Re: Tax-Exempt Savings From: Jennifer To: Emma Date Posted: Sat, Dec 27, 2003 at 12:18:42 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Better not count on much of the media to explain another tax gift to the wealthy. The others were not explained, by more than a few wonderful Paul Krugmans.

Subject: A Caste Society From: Jennifer To: All Date Posted: Fri, Dec 26, 2003 at 07:58:15 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17452 Suppose that you actually liked a caste society, and you were seeking ways to use your control of the government to further entrench the advantages of the haves against the have-nots. What would you do? One thing you would definitely do is get rid of the estate tax, so that large fortunes can be passed on to the next generation. More broadly, you would seek to reduce tax rates both on corporate profits and on unearned income such as dividends and capital gains, so that those with large accumulated or inherited wealth could more easily accumulate even more. You'd also try to create tax shelters mainly useful for the rich. And more broadly still, you'd try to reduce tax rates on people with high incomes, shifting the burden to the payroll tax and other revenue sources that bear most heavily on people with lower incomes. Meanwhile, on the spending side, you'd cut back on healthcare for the poor, on the quality of public education and on state aid for higher education. This would make it more difficult for people with low incomes to climb out of their difficulties and acquire the education essential to upward mobility in the modern economy. And just to close off as many routes to upward mobility as possible, you'd do everything possible to break the power of unions, and you'd privatize government functions so that well-paid civil servants could be replaced with poorly paid private employees. It all sounds sort of familiar, doesn't it?

Subject: Budget Office Worries From: Emma To: All Date Posted: Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 15:19:25 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Brad DeLong and ArgMax - Long-run Fiscal Condition of the US: This Congressional Budget Office report looks at a range of possible paths for federal spending and revenues over the next 50 years and combines them into various hypothetical scenarios. Analysis of those scenarios suggests the following conclusions: [...] Unless taxation reaches levels that are unprecedented in the United States, current spending policies will probably be financially unsustainable over the next 50 years. An ever-growing burden of federal debt held by the public would have a corrosive and potentially contractionary effect on the economy. [...] If taxation is restricted to the levels that prevailed in the past, the growth of entitlement spending will have to be substantially reduced. Restricting the growth of outlays for defense, education, transportation, and other discretionary programs would not be enough to ensure fiscal sustainability. Likewise, economic growth alone is unlikely to bring the nation's long-term fiscal position into balance. Moreover, issuing ever-larger amounts of debt or dramatically raising tax rates could significantly reduce growth...

Subject: Current Policies From: jd To: Emma Date Posted: Fri, Dec 26, 2003 at 05:52:46 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The problem with current economic policies is that they are designed to add to the capital returns and favor the most wealthy at the expense of the middle class. The reduction of taxes on capital gains and dividends alone creates a huge income and wealth shift away from the middle class. Instead of bolstering labor, bolstering the middle class, we have policy after policy that is designed to create more income and wealth divergence.

Subject: Paul Krugman is Correct From: jd To: jd Date Posted: Fri, Dec 26, 2003 at 06:00:26 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Paul Krugman is correctly pointing out that the tax cuts are designed for a long range shift in income and wealth to the most wealthy. The stimulus effect has been smaller than with a middle class tax cut, the budget effects are a disaster, and the labor market is simply steady 24 months into the 'recovery.'

Subject: Perfect! From: Bernadette To: All Date Posted: Tues, Dec 23, 2003 at 21:19:47 (EST) Email Address: blo@hotmail.com Message: http://www.ft.com/??? America's disastrous energy plan BY JEFFREY SACHS OF the many factors that went into the Bush administration’s decision to attack and occupy Iraq, one of the most important was the long-held view of R. Cheney, the vice-president, that America’s power was threatened by the potential loss of control over Middle East oil. In August 2002, Mr Cheney declared that “armed with an arsenal of these weapons of terror, and seated atop 10 per cent of the world’s oil reserves, Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of a great portion of the world’s energy supplies, directly threaten America’s friends through the region and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail”. Mr Cheney’s focus on Middle East oil supplies dates back at least 30 years, since he was chief of staff to President Gerald Ford following the first Arab oil embargo. But this long-standing vision of using military might to secure US energy needs has been as erroneous as his assumptions about Iraq’s WMD. At the root of this approach has been arithmetic of global oil supplies. US oil production peaked in the early 1970’s, leading to a long-term rise in US dependence on imported oil. This year the US will have imported about 11m barrels of petroleum a day and main-stream forecasts project a growth of imports to about 20m barrels a day by 2025.Moreover, global competition for worldwide oil supplies is projected to grow markedly, especially with China’s emergence as a huge oil importer. Despite discoveries of new reserves elsewhere, petroleum supplies from the Middle East and the nearby Caspian Sea region are expected to become even more pivotal in the coming decades, accounting for two-thirds or more of the world’s petroleum reserves in 2025. With oil supplies and production increasingly concentrated in the Middle East, and with growing competition from other oil importers, Mr Cheney and associates believe the US has a long term strategic need to secure military pre-eminence in the region. This sentiment helped fuel the invasion of Iraq. Yet the vice-president’s view of US energy security is dead wrong, in terms of both energy economics and geopolitics. The energy economics mistake is to confuse petroleum and energy. There is indeed a petroleum bottleneck looming in the coming decades – but no energy bottleneck if we think ahead of the curve. That means using energy more efficiently, as well as seeking out new sources. It’s a basic lesson of chemistry that the energy needs we meet today with petroleum can be met by other hydro-carbons, including natural gas, coal, tar sands and oil shale, for which there are centuries’ worth of supplies, and environmentally sound methods of production available today or within economic reach. Petroleum has a cost advantage as a liquid fuel but the cost of making synthetic petroleum from coal or tar sands is modest and likely to fall substantially if carried out on a large scale and with appropriate research and development .If we move increasingly to a hydrogen-based economy, oil’s advantages over other hydro-carbon feed stocks become negligible. The alleged cost advantages of petroleum over synthetic petroleum have probably already disappeared when we recognise the US is paying a fortune in finances and blood for Middle East oil that is not counted in the price at the pump. The dollar costs of US military operations in the Middle East attributable to policing the energy flows are tens of billions a year, if not $100bn or more .This amounts to a hidden subsidy to oil use of $10 or more per barrel exported from the region. Mr Cheney’s geopolitical miscalculation is equally bad. As defence secretary in the Bush administration , Mr Cheney initiated the deployment of US troops to Saudi Arabia, which then lasted more than a decade and fuelled the grievances that helped spawn al-Queda.In Mr Cheney’s current strategy, the US has moved into Iraq on an open-ended basis. Perhaps the main reason the US does not want to turn matters over the United Nations is not political unilateralism but the core strategy of stationing troops in Iraq to secure long-term access to Middle East oil. Indeed, one of the reasons for moving the US military into Iraq was the need to move out an increasingly unstable Saudi Arabia. The fundamental miscalculation, however, is the same one that contributed to the fall of the Shah in Iran, the tottering of Saudi Arabia, the wide popularity among Arab youth of al-Qaeda and the chaos in Iraq. The US cannot secure oil supplies in the Middle East by means of a military occupation .We are in 2003, not in 1903.The age of imperialism is past. Nationalism in the Middle East is as fervent as anywhere else in the world, which is understandable given the amount of meddling by the great powers in the 20th century. Each time America embraces a Middle East regime, the regime loses legitimacy. The US is playing out Mr Cheney’s fantastical vision of national security – one in which a future struggle over scarce and vital petroleum resources must be won by force of arms. It should be replaced by a level-headed and internationally co-operative strategy of economising on petroleum demand and developing energy alternatives that are cost-effective and environmentally sound. Mr Cheney’s view is technologically naive and politically disastrous. And yet it has become a strategy of the world’s most powerful country.

Subject: Energy From: Jennifer To: Bernadette Date Posted: Sat, Dec 27, 2003 at 09:53:12 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: 'The alleged cost advantages of petroleum over synthetic petroleum have probably already disappeared when we recognise the US is paying a fortune in finances and blood for Middle East oil that is not counted in the price at the pump. The dollar costs of US military operations in the Middle East attributable to policing the energy flows are tens of billions a year, if not $100bn or more .This amounts to a hidden subsidy to oil use of $10 or more per barrel exported from the region.' Remember also that oil and gas are readily available from Africa, South America and Russia. We are not dependent on the Middle East, and the Middle East will not cut energy supplies to the world. We have the most absurd energy ideas. But, energy lobbies are very very powerful and intransigent.

Subject: Tragic Cost From: Lise To: Jennifer Date Posted: Sat, Dec 27, 2003 at 12:38:55 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Fatalities American soldiers 336 British soldiers 20 Coalition soldiers 37 --- 393 Since May 2 American 475 British 53 Coalition 37 --- 565 Since March 20 Wounded American soldiers ~2679 Since March 20 Note: American forces have fallen to 130,000 British forces have risen to 12,000 Coalition forces have risen to 12,000

Subject: Re: Perfect! From: WRS To: Bernadette Date Posted: Sat, Dec 27, 2003 at 09:17:35 (EST) Email Address: williamrsmith@comcast.net Message: This article about US policy in the Middle East would have been much more convincing had it addressed the danger of terrorism. Bush, however, should do more to encourage energy conservation.

Subject: Yes, perfect! From: jd To: WRS Date Posted: Sat, Dec 27, 2003 at 12:14:57 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Iraq was completely contained by America and had no WMDs before the war.

Subject: Important Article From: jd To: Bernadette Date Posted: Fri, Dec 26, 2003 at 05:52:31 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Thanks for the post of this important article. We seem to have so little understanding of the strength of our more optimisitc heritage.

Subject: Profits Not Wages From: Emma To: All Date Posted: Tues, Dec 23, 2003 at 15:41:28 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/21/business/21view.html A Recovery for Profits, but Not for Workers By LOUIS UCHITELLE THIS economic recovery is distinctly unkind to workers. Output is clearly rising, and, normally, that would feed into both corporate profits and labor income. But while profits have shot up as a percentage of national income, reaching their highest level since the mid-1960's, labor's share is shrinking. Not since World War II has the distribution been so lopsided in the aftermath of a recession. Profits, it turns out, never stopped rising as a share of national income all through the 2001 recession and the months afterward of weak economic growth. That did not change even as the recovery kicked in strongly last summer and hiring resumed. New data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis erases all doubt on this point. The reasons for labor's poor showing are not hard to spot. The employment rolls are still smaller, by 2.4 million jobs, than they were at the recession's start in March 2001. Those who are employed are also feeling the squeeze, particularly the 85 million people who hold office or factory jobs below the rank of supervisor or manager. Their average hourly wage, $15.46, is up only 3 cents since July, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That wage is rising at an annual rate of less than 2 percent, barely enough to keep up with inflation, mild as it now is. 'We have never seen in the 40 years that we have this hourly wage survey, wage growth that has been this slow,'' said Dean Baker, an economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research....

Subject: Re: Profits Not Wages From: Danny Walker To: Emma Date Posted: Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 11:19:05 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I’m not quite sure what your point is here. Do you agree with this article? Do you have your own opinion as the reasons for slow job recovery? Do you think it is because of current government policy. It’s more interesting to debate the issues one on one rather than having to rely on op-ed articles that simply support your point of view. I have a good friend who is staunchly anti-Bush. Although not a particular fan of W myself, I will often engage him from the conservative side. But after a while, his responses become one-liners with links to several articles from the usual suspects in support of his position. I’ll respond in kind and the debate quickly fizzles out. But about the article you posted, at least let’s get the facts straight. W inherited the recession from Clinton. It did not start in March of 2001. This is according to a Reuters report earlier this month citing the NBER and the Commerce Dept: “The National Bureau of Economic Research has already ruled the downturn began in March 2001 and ended in November that year. But changes to data by the Commerce Department now show the economy first contracted in the third quarter of 2000, rather than the first quarter of 2001… Until now, statisticians at Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis believed the economy did not start shrinking until early 2001. But extensive revisions dating back to 1929, incorporating both improved statistics and changes to definitions, revealed a contraction in gross domestic product, or GDP, in the July-to-September quarter of 2000”.

Subject: Conservative Debt From: jd To: Danny Walker Date Posted: Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 15:17:52 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Debate fizzles because you are a 'conservative' who pays no attention to economics. George Bush has given us the worst fiscal policy since Herbert Hoover, and HH at least understood what debt was about.

Subject: Re: Conservative Debt From: Danny Walker To: jd Date Posted: Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 15:53:57 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Actually, you nothing about me. And if you know so much about economics, please enlighten me about the current policies you find so abhorent.

Subject: Profits Not Wages From: Emma To: Danny Walker Date Posted: Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 12:02:11 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Of course, I agree. This is what is happening, a transfer of wealth from labor to owners. The middle class is slowly being squeezed.

Subject: The Tax Cuts From: Emma To: Emma Date Posted: Tues, Dec 23, 2003 at 17:32:23 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/30/business/yourmoney/30view.html? As Stimulus, Tax Cuts May Soon Go Awry By LOUIS UCHITELLE LAUDING the Bush tax cuts isn't easy. They have turned a comfortable budget surplus into a constraining deficit, and they are enriching the wealthy far more than families with only five-figure incomes. The one mitigating factor is stimulus. The tax cuts are helping to revive the economy by putting more spending money into people's pockets. But even that will soon backfire. The stimulus is at its peak right now. During the fiscal year that ended on Sept. 30, the nation's taxpayers pocketed $117 billion, mainly from rebates and from reductions in paycheck withholding as lower tax rates went into effect. That $117 billion, which is the portion of the tax cut going only to individuals and not to companies, rises to $200 billion in the current fiscal year, the Congressional Budget Office reports. Most of the windfall from both fiscal years is packed into the 12 months that started last summer and will end next summer. Not surprisingly, this front-loading of the tax cuts coincides with the improving economy. But then the payout declines gradually, snuffing out the stimulus - unless there is another big tax cut. Or as Chris Varvares, president of Macroeconomic Advisers, put it, 'We have reduced the scope of using fiscal policy to cushion the economy in the next downturn.'' ...

Subject: Facts are always boring From: Ayn Rant To: All Date Posted: Tues, Dec 23, 2003 at 13:29:39 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I too, wish that Krugman would get back to his technical work. (He has had a good deal to do with the revival of economic geography as a field of study. It was once as static as botany.) Unfortunately, a knowledgable (and honest) economist can no more ignore the Bush administration's economic 'policies' and the atrocious, bare-faced falsehoods used to sell them than a drowning man can ignore water. To put things in mainstream terms; suppose the administration constantly and consistantly claimed that elephants hatch from acorns. If you were a zoologist (regardless of political leanings); what would you think? Suppose in response to your reasoned explanation of the truth, the administration and it's ideological camp followers besmirched your character, either ignoring the issue or repeating some already-refuted twaddle? And then, in reponse to your protests of all this, claim that you're getting partisan and shrill? But enough; too many people are bored by reality and want nothing more than to get back to their PlayStations, Cheez Doodles, and beer. Sorry if I taxed anyone's attention span.

Subject: Facts are Essential From: Emma To: Ayn Rant Date Posted: Fri, Dec 26, 2003 at 07:49:21 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17452 'Now they're back. According to estimates by the economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez – confirmed by data from the Congressional Budget Office – between 1973 and 2000 the average real income of the bottom 90 percent of American taxpayers actually fell by 7 percent. Meanwhile, the income of the top 1 percent rose by 148 percent, the income of the top 0.1 percent rose by 343 percent and the income of the top 0.01 percent rose 599 percent. (Those numbers exclude capital gains, so they're not an artifact of the stock-market bubble.) The distribution of income in the United States has gone right back to Gilded Age levels of inequality.'

Subject: Re: Facts are always boring From: Danny Walker To: Ayn Rant Date Posted: Tues, Dec 23, 2003 at 20:09:03 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Twaddle?? And stay away from my cheese doodles and beer.

Subject: Krugman is boring From: DW To: All Date Posted: Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 09:31:35 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Anybody out there feel the way I do that Krugman has gotten boring since his new anti-Bush gig with the NYT? Although left leaning, his analysis used to pretty interesting and non-partisan. Now it's entirely polarized.

Subject: Re: Krugman is boring From: WRS To: DW Date Posted: Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 16:23:15 (EST) Email Address: williamrsmith@comcast.net Message: As a newcomer, I suppose I could be viewed as a troll. I hope my views are not unwelcome if they do not happen to qualify as fan-club material. I think the debates here are quality and interesting. But in regard to this original post -- that Krugman is boring -- I think that Paul's strident views are highly questionable on the basis of facts and extremely risky in terms of his credibility. Mr. Krugman is asking for trouble when he goes out on a limb predicting that doom will occur due to tax cuts. Ample evidence so far indicates the tax cuts did fuel the economy and that the economy is recovering rapidly. Yes, our economy may unravel some day. But then again it might not. Strident views may sell books, but they won't earn credibility among millions of employed Americans who welcome tax relief and seek greater prosperity and higher returns for their personal investments.

Subject: Can Not Help Being a Troll From: William Troll To: WRS Date Posted: Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 16:34:02 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Wish I were not so stupid, but I can not help it. Trolls are always stupid.

Subject: Re: Can Not Help Being a Troll From: gnao To: William Troll Date Posted: Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 17:51:23 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Why do Phd.'s in economy exist?(I studied my whole life to be at the end wrong,right?)

Subject: Trolls Afoot From: We Is Trolls To: DW Date Posted: Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 15:28:58 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Do not feed the trolls. Note 'Peer Gynt' for more on the looney ugliness of trolls.

Subject: The Boor is You From: Jennifer To: DW Date Posted: Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 15:26:26 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Another Troll....

Subject: Re: The Boor is You From: DW To: Jennifer Date Posted: Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 17:29:38 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I have to admit that I don't know what a troll is. I 'm a rather infrequent visitor to this board, or any other for that matter. But I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that a troll is anyone who does not hold your opinion...

Subject: Re: Krugman is boring From: Ethan To: DW Date Posted: Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 13:47:24 (EST) Email Address: ejz23@yahoo.com Message: I admit that I did not read Krugman before he was a NY Times columnist so I cannot say if he got more boring. I think that Krugman in his preface to his latest book wrote why he took this 'anti-Bush' stance. His stated reason was because no one else was doing it in politics or journalism. The new very radical agenda of the Republicans was being glossed over as just a temporary change after 9/11. If you read articles before 9/11 Krugman admits it was less serious since he thought that the economy and government policies were more or less on track. But after 9/11 you have legislation going in with out a serious analysis and you have a President that will tell you anything to get it passed. I don’t read Krugman for fun and interesting articles (that is just a side benefit); I read Krugman because of his analysis. Thank goodness someone is doing it.

Subject: Re: Krugman is boring From: WRS To: DW Date Posted: Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 12:07:38 (EST) Email Address: williamrsmith@comcast.net Message: I concur. Krugman seems to want it both ways, to be recognized as an impartial and credible commentator-textbook writer while having the freedom to vent emotional anti-Bush vitriol without balance or reasonable perspective. My advice to Paul is pick one and go for it. But you can't have both without paying for it.

Subject: Re: Krugman is boring From: Paul G. Brown To: WRS Date Posted: Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 19:27:21 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I concur. Krugman seems to want it both ways, to be recognized as an impartial and credible commentator-textbook writer while having the freedom to vent emotional anti-Bush vitriol without balance or reasonable perspective. My advice to Paul is pick one and go for it. But you can't have both without paying for it. --- Would you be so kind as to cite something Krugman has written that, in your opinion, qualifies as 'emotional anti-Bush vitriol'? The standards in this regard are other pundits published in mainstream media: Rush Limbaugh - 'Liberalism poisons the soul and destroys character.' (Jul 1993) Charles Krauthhammer, Washington Post - 'I’m a psychiatrist. I don’t usually practice on camera. But this is the edge of looniness... [Gore] could use a little help.' (on Fox News Sunday, December 1, 2002). Anne Coulter - 'My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building'. (New York Observer interview.) Has Krugman anywhere accused the Bush administration or any of its varied staff of having poisoned souls and destroyed character, or of being insane, or of deserving to be bombed? Would you care to explain why the possession of a technical qualification disqualifies you from holding strong opinions? By your reasoning, I would conclude that it's only OK to hold strong opinions about subjects you know nothing about, which seems, well, wierd.

Subject: Re: Krugman is boring From: WRS To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 22:49:32 (EST) Email Address: williamrsmith@comcast.net Message: Paul: Thanks for the thoughtful replies. I don't really have time to cite specific Krugman passages, but don't think that quotes from Limbaugh, Coulter are relevant. They are entertainers and I'm not talking about them. Krugman as billing himself as a Nobel-caliber economist heavyweight, but wants to play in the circus with Franken and the above characters to cash in on book sales. Strong opinions are fine, but Krugman will get bruised by venturing in the mud pit. And he seems to me (a non-economist) to play fast and loose with facts to make his points. Also, his comments from mid2003 that the tax cut doesn't stimulate the economy are already suspect, if not dead wrong. I have not seen him own up to this inaccurate forecasting, which only serves to cast more doubt on the long term gloom and doom that he predicts. As for anti-Bush vitriol, let's just say it is thinly veiled. There's nothing wrong with bashing Republicans, but don't try to claim your guy is an impartial observer who's above the fray. Mr. Krugman is definately in it -- and is being handsomely compensated.

Subject: Re: Krugman is boring From: Mads K To: WRS Date Posted: Tues, Dec 23, 2003 at 00:33:39 (EST) Email Address: Madskel@worldonline.dk Message: I dont get the whole troll calling thing. It seems stupid. The problem with the taxcut is that it, by economic theori, goes to the wrong people. The people with money does not use the taxbreak to the same degree as the poor. To much to the wrong people instead of a cheeper model with the money to the poor.

Subject: Re: Krugman is boring From: WRS To: Mads K Date Posted: Tues, Dec 23, 2003 at 13:30:10 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: By what theory are the folks with decent paying jobs the 'wrong people?' Aside from the difficult game of determining who qualified or is able to 'use the money' from the taxbreak, you face a conundrum with your argument that the poor -- however you define them -- pay little or no taxes at present. It sounds like what you are proposing is a wealth transfer from people with jobs who make money to those who don't. I'm doubtful that approach will improve the nation's economic problems. I agree with you about the troll business and don't understand it.

Subject: Re: Krugman is boring From: Mads K To: WRS Date Posted: Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 04:24:14 (EST) Email Address: Madskel@worldonline.dk Message: My point is that if one wants to stimulate the economy by taxcut, then one should look at the marginal consumption. It is a fact that poor people spend more of the last dollar/krone than everybody else. Yes the taxcut helpt the economy but it was not the optimal solution.

Subject: Re: Krugman is boring From: Paul G. Brown To: WRS Date Posted: Tues, Dec 23, 2003 at 15:08:45 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: By what theory are the folks with decent paying jobs the 'wrong people?' --- Keep in mind that the objective of fiscal policy is to ensure that everyone who wants a job can get a job, and that overall our standard of living improves. Over the last three years there has been a gap between our economy's potential output (what it was capable of producing) and its actual levels of production. http://www.economist.com/research/Economics/alphabetic.cfm?TERM=OUTPUT GAP http://www.pkarchive.org/column/081602.html In other words, our economy could make and provide more goods and services than it could afford to buy. Closing this gap requires that we increase demand thereby encouraging investment and increasing production. In fiscal policy there are basically ways to do this; cut taxes, or increase government spending. Tax cuts was the choosen policy (entirely reasonable: increasing spending has its own set of advantages and disadvantages) though it must be npointed out that we have seen a *lot* of additional spending by the Republican Congress. Now, if you give someone an unexpected $10 in the form of a tax cut, they will either save it, or spend it. People with higher incomes tend to save a larger portion of the $10 than people on lower incomes. So, given that the goal of handing out the $10 is to increase demand, folk with higher incomes are the 'wrong people' to give the money to. 'Wrong people' is not a judgement of merit or morality. And there appears to be little 'wealth transfer' effect in short term tax relief for lower income brackets. These folk turn around and immediately spend the extra money on goods and services, which benefits the owners of companies that provide these things. Clinton increased marginal rates at the top end in the early 1990s and yet, during the subsequent decade, the top decile of income earners accounted for an increased percentage of overall income. http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/dinctabs.html (This takes a little digging and work with a spreadsheet, as this is the raw data.) http://www.dac.neu.edu/economics/library/research/kamran1.pdf (This one has a bit of math, but argues for a related conclusion over a much longer time-frame: namely that 'income equalization' promotes overall economic growth!) Regarding Trolls: on the Internet, a 'troll' is an anonymous poster or correspondent who seeks to provoke a response rather than further a discussion. Controversial topics--like Krugman--are cat-nip to trolls. And I'm partial to responding to 'em. :-) Hope this helps.

Subject: Re: Krugman is boring From: WRS To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Tues, Dec 23, 2003 at 16:09:45 (EST) Email Address: williamrsmith@comcast.net Message: Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I can see the logic to tax targeting as a desirable policy, although you will have a hard time persuading me and many other taxpayers that people who never paid income tax in the first place should get the relief instead. I disagree with the premise that the government is 'giving' money away in the form of a tax cut. Maybe we're wrong, but many of us are under the impression that it's our money in the first place that the government has taken through taxation. In any event I fail to see why fiscal policy should be driven by who economists think is most likely to spend tax relief proceeds. Why should we trust their models, and shouldn't it matter who the money belonged to in the first place? In any event, it looks like the 2003 tax cuts added plenty of pop for the economy, despite Mr. Krugman's predictions. A lot of good discussion takes place here. Thanks for tolerating me.

Subject: Re: Krugman is boring From: Paul G. Brown To: WRS Date Posted: Tues, Dec 23, 2003 at 17:43:55 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: WRS: > I can see the logic to tax targeting as a desirable policy, > although you will have a hard time persuading me and many other > taxpayers that people who never paid income tax in the first place > should get the relief instead. One argument is that 'we're all in this together'. Economists have been giving moralists a hard time lately. There is this line of reasoning which says that people respond primarily to their needs for food, clothing and shelter, and only secondarily to the dictates of their better nature. If you give people no incentive to work, or if you give them less incentive to work than to disobey the law (or to malinger) they'll behave according to their economic reality. I look on it as a pragmatic concesion to living in the real world rather than the world as it ought to be. I've come to the conclusion that its better for *me* if there are incentives for the poorest among us to work harder and earn more. Cut taxes on the lowest tax bracket today and/or increase spending on education and you pay less later for prisons, hospitals and police while creating a larger pool of people who can afford my (meagre) talents. WS: > In any event I fail to see why fiscal policy should be driven by > who economists think is most likely to spend tax relief proceeds. > Why should we trust their models, and shouldn't it matter who the > money belonged to in the first place? In any event, it looks like > the 2003 tax cuts added plenty of pop for the economy, despite Mr. > Krugman's predictions. I don't think that this is what economists 'believe' in a vacuum. Since it was defined by Keynes, MPC has been studied pretty hard over the years. If I recall correctly Keynes got the details wrong and our modern understanding of these ideas owes a lot to Milton Friedman and his 'Permanent Income Hypothesis'. http://www.digitaleconomist.com/pih_4020.html And second, what Krugman actually said in August was: 'The best guess is that growth in the second half of the year will be faster than in the first half, possibly high enough to create some jobs, but not high enough to make jobs easier to find. In other words, in terms of what matters most, the economy will continue to deteriorate.' http://www.pkarchive.org/column/081503.html What we have is what Krugman predicted: faster growth in the second half than the first half, but not enough to close the output gap or make a big dent in unemployment.

Subject: Re: Krugman is boring From: WRS To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 10:21:43 (EST) Email Address: williamrsmith@comcast.net Message: Mr. Brown: Thanks for the reply. Mr. Krugman has said a lot about the tax cut in addition to what you quote, including rants on TV to the effect that it will never stimulate the economy because the rich will just horde the cash. I have pasted a bit from a Krugman column this summer, in which he lambasts Greenspan for predicting tax cuts will spur a recovery. Looking back, Greenspan was on the mark and the economy has unfolded almost exactly according to script. You point about tax targeting is well taken and I will research further following your suggestions. But I think Krugman should directly explain the rapid economic growth we're having in light of his chicken little predictions from this summer. In order to save credibility, he must explain the recovery in honest terms (conceding real improvement), rather than relying on you folks to run interference for him. From Krugman column: 'There is very little evidence in the data for a strong recovery ready to break out. As far as I can make out, Mr. Greenspan's optimism is entirely based on models predicting that tax cuts and low interest rates will get the economy moving. But that's what the models said last year, too: the report that accompanied his July 2002 testimony predicted an unemployment rate of 5.25 to 5.5 percent by late 2003 (the rate is now 6.4 percent). Maybe tax cuts mainly for the affluent aren't as effective as the models say.' Maybe Krugman's forecasting isn't as effective as he would like to think. What say, ye, Mr. Krugman?

Subject: Re: Krugman is boring From: Paul G. Brown To: WRS Date Posted: Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 13:52:48 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: WRS: > including rants on TV to the effect that it will never stimulate > the economy because the rich will just horde the cash. I don't own a television. (I'm even uneasy about buttons.) But transcripts of commentator's appearances on TV are frequently posted on a program's web site. Can you find and post a link to one of these rants? What you've described Krugman as saying is contrary to what he's said elsewhere (see my article citation) and if you can catch him saying this then you've caught him in an inconsistency. WS: > from a Krugman column this summer, in which he lambasts Greenspan > for predicting tax cuts will spur a recovery. That column can be found in full at: http://www.pkarchive.org/column/072503.html Krugman does indeed 'lambast Greenspan' as you say. But read the column! In July 2003, he's taking Mr Greenspan to task over testimony he gave before congress in July 2002, and for his support of the original Bush tax cut two years prior in 2001. Krugman points out that Mr Greenspan -- a man for whom I have tremendous respect -- had been predicting an immanent recovery for the previous two years. And by your argument WRS, Krugman et al have been predicting otherwise. There has to be a recovery eventually. Stuff wears out and must be replaced. And as I noted Krugman 'predicted' our current economic situation as well as anyone: higher growth in the second half of 2003 than in the first half, but not enough to grow jobs. WRS: > Maybe Krugman's forecasting isn't as effective as he would like > to think. What say, ye, Mr. Krugman? Well, based on the record *you* have compiled WRS, we have Greenspan predicting a recovery in 2001 and 2002 and 2003. He was wrong twice. Krugman predicted no recovery in 2001 and 2002, and growth without jobs in the last half of 2003. He's been right all three times.

Subject: Re: Krugman is boring From: WRS To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Thurs, Dec 25, 2003 at 22:27:20 (EST) Email Address: williamrsmith@comcast.net Message: PK's comments on the tax cut in May 2003 are below. Seems off base in hindsight, but you be the judge. PK is accountable for his predictions that the tax cut is a disaster and that the jobless recovery will continue. We'll see how 2004 shakes, but he would do himself a favor to own up to his prior views. Merry Christmas... PK: 'Because the direct effect is very small. Very little of this tax cut arrives in the hands of people who are likely to spend it. Very little of it arises in the next year or two when we actually might need some job creation…This is not a temporary stimulative tax cut. It's a permanent tax cut. It's intended -- it does very little for the economy now. It provides -- it saps revenue into the indefinite future...'

Subject: Paul Krugman is Correct From: jd To: WRS Date Posted: Fri, Dec 26, 2003 at 05:59:40 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Paul Krugman is correctly pointing out that the tax cuts are designed for a long range shift in income and wealth to the most wealthy. The stimulus effect has been smaller than with a middle class tax cut, the budget effects are a disaster, and the labor market is simply steady 24 months into the 'recovery.'

Subject: WRS is Boooring From: WRS is a Troll To: WRS Date Posted: Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 16:35:13 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hi Troll.

Subject: Re: Krugman is boring From: jzmarg To: WRS Date Posted: Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 14:05:52 (EST) Email Address: jzmarg@aol.com Message: Thank you for sharing. Your perspective is appreciated. Now go back and get more instructions from Robert Novack.

Subject: A modest suggestion. Dean's........ From: mike To: All Date Posted: Sat, Dec 20, 2003 at 18:07:53 (EST) Email Address: mike5223@hotmail.com Message: Clark is an egoistic alpha male and would make a poor veep (unlike Gore). So I propose Dean's running mate should be: Krugman This would perfectly set him up for 2008. We need a leader with real intellect, courage and honesty. Who is with me!!!

Subject: Re: A modest suggestion. Dean's........ From: Paul G. Brown To: mike Date Posted: Sun, Dec 21, 2003 at 00:43:39 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Clark is an egoistic alpha male and would make a poor veep (unlike Gore). So I propose Dean's running mate should be: Krugman This would perfectly set him up for 2008. We need a leader with real intellect, courage and honesty. Who is with me!!! --- Whatever Clark's failings (and I cite a biggie here) I'm not convinced that Krugman is VP timber. Someone (Johnson?) said famously, when being briefed as to the intellectual calibre of cabinet secretaries in the Kennedy Administration (McNamara, etc), 'Well Sir, I would feel a lot better if even one of 'em had run for Sheriff, even once.' Clark's life has been lived in a command structure environment. I worry about his abilities to operate in a political environment of deal cutting. (On the other hand, the modern military is pretty darn political, I hear.) We need our truth tellers. Krugman is one of them. But we also need politicians and leaders who are capable of striking the best balance among a number of equally unpleasant alternatives, and indulging in an occasionaly half-truth. What's troubling is when blatant lies become an everyday event.

Subject: Re: A modest suggestion. Dean's........ From: mike To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Sun, Dec 21, 2003 at 01:55:38 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: err..I wrote this half in jest..lol

Subject: Re: A modest suggestion. Dean's........ From: Paul G. Brown To: mike Date Posted: Sun, Dec 21, 2003 at 21:38:11 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: err..I wrote this half in jest..lol --- Oh. Sorry. Someone told me that Sept 11 killed irony. I guess I believed them. Hey! Maybe they were being ironic?! Oops. Now I have vertigo . . .

Subject: Krugman in The Nation . . . . From: Paul G. Brown To: All Date Posted: Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 12:41:41 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Quoting extensively from that 'objectively communist' rag Business Week, and generally getting extra shrill all over the place. http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040105&s=krugman

Subject: American Dreaming From: Emma To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 14:59:21 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: January 5, 2003 The Death of Horatio Alger By PAUL KRUGMAN - Nation The other day I found myself reading a leftist rag that made outrageous claims about America. It said that we are becoming a society in which the poor tend to stay poor, no matter how hard they work; in which sons are much more likely to inherit the socioeconomic status of their father than they were a generation ago. The name of the leftist rag? Business Week, which published an article titled 'Waking Up From the American Dream.' The article summarizes recent research showing that social mobility in the United States (which was never as high as legend had it) has declined considerably over the past few decades. If you put that research together with other research that shows a drastic increase in income and wealth inequality, you reach an uncomfortable conclusion: America looks more and more like a class-ridden society. And guess what? Our political leaders are doing everything they can to fortify class inequality, while denouncing anyone who complains--or even points out what is happening--as a practitioner of 'class warfare.' Let's talk first about the facts on income distribution. Thirty years ago we were a relatively middle-class nation. It had not always been thus: Gilded Age America was a highly unequal society, and it stayed that way through the 1920s. During the 1930s and '40s, however, America experienced what the economic historians Claudia Goldin and Robert Margo have dubbed the Great Compression: a drastic narrowing of income gaps, probably as a result of New Deal policies. And the new economic order persisted for more than a generation: Strong unions; taxes on inherited wealth, corporate profits and high incomes; close public scrutiny of corporate management--all helped to keep income gaps relatively small. The economy was hardly egalitarian, but a generation ago the gross inequalities of the 1920s seemed very distant. Now they're back. According to estimates by the economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez--confirmed by data from the Congressional Budget Office--between 1973 and 2000 the average real income of the bottom 90 percent of American taxpayers actually fell by 7 percent. Meanwhile, the income of the top 1 percent rose by 148 percent, the income of the top 0.1 percent rose by 343 percent and the income of the top 0.01 percent rose 599 percent. (Those numbers exclude capital gains, so they're not an artifact of the stock-market bubble.) The distribution of income in the United States has gone right back to Gilded Age levels of inequality. Never mind, say the apologists, who churn out papers with titles like that of a 2001 Heritage Foundation piece, 'Income Mobility and the Fallacy of Class-Warfare Arguments.' America, they say, isn't a caste society--people with high incomes this year may have low incomes next year and vice versa, and the route to wealth is open to all. That's where those commies at Business Week come in: As they point out (and as economists and sociologists have been pointing out for some time), America actually is more of a caste society than we like to think. And the caste lines have lately become a lot more rigid. The myth of income mobility has always exceeded the reality: As a general rule, once they've reached their 30s, people don't move up and down the income ladder very much. Conservatives often cite studies like a 1992 report by Glenn Hubbard, a Treasury official under the elder Bush who later became chief economic adviser to the younger Bush, that purport to show large numbers of Americans moving from low-wage to high-wage jobs during their working lives. But what these studies measure, as the economist Kevin Murphy put it, is mainly 'the guy who works in the college bookstore and has a real job by his early 30s.' Serious studies that exclude this sort of pseudo-mobility show that inequality in average incomes over long periods isn't much smaller than inequality in annual incomes. It is true, however, that America was once a place of substantial intergenerational mobility: Sons often did much better than their fathers. A classic 1978 survey found that among adult men whose fathers were in the bottom 25 percent of the population as ranked by social and economic status, 23 percent had made it into the top 25 percent. In other words, during the first thirty years or so after World War II, the American dream of upward mobility was a real experience for many people. Now for the shocker: The Business Week piece cites a new survey of today's adult men, which finds that this number has dropped to only 10 percent. That is, over the past generation upward mobility has fallen drastically. Very few children of the lower class are making their way to even moderate affluence. This goes along with other studies indicating that rags-to-riches stories have become vanishingly rare, and that the correlation between fathers' and sons' incomes has risen in recent decades. In modern America, it seems, you're quite likely to stay in the social and economic class into which you were born. Business Week attributes this to the 'Wal-Martization' of the economy, the proliferation of dead-end, low-wage jobs and the disappearance of jobs that provide entry to the middle class. That's surely part of the explanation. But public policy plays a role--and will, if present trends continue, play an even bigger role in the future. Put it this way: Suppose that you actually liked a caste society, and you were seeking ways to use your control of the government to further entrench the advantages of the haves against the have-nots. What would you do? One thing you would definitely do is get rid of the estate tax, so that large fortunes can be passed on to the next generation. More broadly, you would seek to reduce tax rates both on corporate profits and on unearned income such as dividends and capital gains, so that those with large accumulated or inherited wealth could more easily accumulate even more. You'd also try to create tax shelters mainly useful for the rich. And more broadly still, you'd try to reduce tax rates on people with high incomes, shifting the burden to the payroll tax and other revenue sources that bear most heavily on people with lower incomes. Meanwhile, on the spending side, you'd cut back on healthcare for the poor, on the quality of public education and on state aid for higher education. This would make it more difficult for people with low incomes to climb out of their difficulties and acquire the education essential to upward mobility in the modern economy. And just to close off as many routes to upward mobility as possible, you'd do everything possible to break the power of unions, and you'd privatize government functions so that well-paid civil servants could be replaced with poorly paid private employees. It all sounds sort of familiar, doesn't it? Where is this taking us? Thomas Piketty, whose work with Saez has transformed our understanding of income distribution, warns that current policies will eventually create 'a class of rentiers in the U.S., whereby a small group of wealthy but untalented children controls vast segments of the US economy and penniless, talented children simply can't compete.' If he's right--and I fear that he is--we will end up suffering not only from injustice, but from a vast waste of human potential. Goodbye, Horatio Alger. And goodbye, American Dream.

Subject: Clark and Dean and Bobby From: Emma To: All Date Posted: Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 16:28:03 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Dear Bobby Please ask General Clark not to bash Howard Dean. That only helps George Bush and the Republicans. I like both General Clark and Dr. Dean, and know that Democrats have to support each other! Emma

Subject: Re: Clark and Dean and Bobby From: Bobby To: Emma Date Posted: Thurs, Dec 18, 2003 at 11:51:38 (EST) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: Er, I didn't think he was. John Kerry is the one doing the scorched-earth thing on Dean, Lieberman too. Kerry's effectively questioning Dean's patriotism with that Osama-Dean ad, and Lieberman's comments about Dean and capturing Saddam Hussein were also incredibly offensive. That is indeed bashing. Whatever Clark is doing against Dean (and I don't know any real specifics), it doesn't qualify as bashing, and is definitely not as offensive as Kerry and Lieberman's tactics.

Subject: Thanks From: Emma To: Bobby Date Posted: Thurs, Dec 18, 2003 at 14:41:30 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Remember, Republicans are united and support their candidates to an astonishing degree. Democrats have to learn. General Clark has been saying the Dr. Dean is not electable. Nonsense, and only helpful to George Bush. But, I like General Clark as well as Dr. Dean.

Subject: Re: Clark and Dean and Bobby From: Piranha To: Emma Date Posted: Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 19:10:21 (EST) Email Address: march28th2003@yahoo.com Message: At the end of the day, both want to be president - no one will stop bashing each other.

Subject: Dean Has Not Bashed From: Emma To: Piranha Date Posted: Thurs, Dec 18, 2003 at 14:42:51 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Republicans are united, Democrats had better learn to be!

Subject: Re: Clark From: Ethan To: Emma Date Posted: Thurs, Dec 18, 2003 at 17:08:02 (EST) Email Address: ejz23@yahoo.com Message: Does it bother any Democrates that Clark voted for George Bush 1 and 2 and Reagen for president? Is he really a democrat?

Subject: Re: Clark From: Paul G. Brown To: Ethan Date Posted: Thurs, Dec 18, 2003 at 18:00:12 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Does it bother any Democrates that Clark voted for George Bush 1 and 2 and Reagen for president? Is he really a democrat? --- Yeah. And more than slightly. (And that's 'Democrats' and 'Reagan', BTW). But then I console myself with the old-fashioned notion that politics is about ideas and values and is not (in spite of the media's best efforts) just a rivalry between two sports team. Apart from one or two minor things that seem more like personality quirks than statements of principle (Clark would sign though not campaign for a constitutional amendment banning flag burning, for example) I don't see much in his positions on the issues that places him outside the Democratic Party's mainstream. But then, Bush II told us all that he was a 'fiscal conservative' who looked favorably on a 'strict constructionist' legal philosophy. What really frustrates me is that there seems to be a substantial policy debate going on in the Democrat side of the aisle. Dean and Kucinich have proposals that amount to Universal Health Care /Socialized Medicine. Leiberman, Kerry and Gephardt are running as pragmatists on foreign policy against Clark and Dean (though I'm not sure who's the real realist). Candidates are talking about trade and economic development and everyone's falling over themselves objecting to the Bush Administration's stance on environmental issues while jostling each other on specifics (Carbon Tax?). It's a healthy, nuanced debate. But it's being covered like it was a pack of Paris Hilton clones deciding who gets to use the Range Rover tonight. Running a nasty ad gets you attention. A tempered speech articulating a vision of US internationlism that is mindful of the limits of military power doesn't.

Subject: We Need a Better Press From: Jennifer To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 14:57:33 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The press needs to attend to the issues being raised by the candidates, and not merely to the 'horse race.'

Subject: Re: We Need a Better Press From: Juliet To: Jennifer Date Posted: Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 10:57:37 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: We do indeed need better media, but how do we get that? Especially since Murdoch was just allowed to buy Direct TV. A novel idea: turn off the TV. Or better yet, don't own one, like P. Brown. If all else fails, we could email news media everytime they fail to report a story or report it inaccurately. But until Americans get fed up enough to hit news programs in their pocketbook (boycott advertisers), it's not going to change. The true problem is that many Americans still believe that what they see on television is legitimate reporting. And some even believe that the media is left-leaning, meaning that they might be inclined to take everything they see, which is already conservative and turn it another notch to the right. (Scary) I am pretty much convinced that most of what I see on the news is lies. Therefore, if the right-wing media, in their frenzy, are reporting that George W. Bush will win the next election because he has more support, then I believe that Bush Love could be pure fabrication. (How accurate are polls? Just throwing it out there) The same can be said for the economic recovery. My quesiton is: If the economy is in recovery, why does it feel like, to the average person, that we are still deeply mired in recession? Of course, even if nothing the media says is true, or just plain propaganda, there are many out there buying into it. It's up to people who get their news from alternative sources to educate others. I do my part all the time. You didn't want to be at my house on Christmas. (Thank God all of my family, except for one stubborn in-law, are Democrats.)

Subject: Bush, Krugman, and economy From: Ethan To: All Date Posted: Tues, Dec 16, 2003 at 10:37:24 (EST) Email Address: ejz23@yahoo.com Message: This link is a post by Krugman in April before the Tax cut went through. I think it is a great point how this current surge was predicted, but it will level off and offer no net gain. what do you all think? It's prefectly done for a President that just wants to get elected again, but very bad for the people that have to live in this country. http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/fiscal.html

Subject: An Economic Weakening From: emma To: Ethan Date Posted: Tues, Dec 16, 2003 at 14:53:48 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: We are adding up debt at the expense of the middle class. The effects on income and wealth are to increase inequality. The effect of current fiscal policy will be to gradually lessen our economic well-being.

Subject: Re: An Economic Weakening From: Danny Boy To: emma Date Posted: Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 01:56:23 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: We are adding up debt at the expense of the middle class. The effects on income and wealth are to increase inequality. The effect of current fiscal policy will be to gradually lessen our economic well-being. --- It is sad that the middle class and low class suffer. After all they make ,in my opinion,America a great country. Does Mr.Bush and the rich really thank those who go to war.

Subject: Re: An Economic Weakening From: WRS To: Danny Boy Date Posted: Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 12:15:27 (EST) Email Address: williamrsmith@comcast.net Message: I work hard and have a decent (but not great) income, enough to support a family of five. I pay a lot in federal-state-local taxes and welcome the chance to keep more of my money due to the Bush tax cut. Why is this bad?

Subject: Re: An Economic Weakening From: Paul G. Brown To: WRS Date Posted: Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 16:00:54 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I work hard and have a decent (but not great) income, enough to support a family of five. I pay a lot in federal-state-local taxes and welcome the chance to keep more of my money due to the Bush tax cut. Why is this bad? --- Civics 101. You, and your family, receive an enormous number of services from the state. Some services are more visible than others. They range from the roads you drive on, to the court system you rely on to settle your civic disputes, to the money spent on police and the military to protect you and your property. But the US Government is, looked at rightly, really a large insurance business -- medical and retirement insurance -- with a small side business in the military and public infrastructure. Government also provides other, more subtle services. It is a stabilizing influence on the economy: no dramatic swings in economic progress of the kind that typified the 'Gilded Age'. This encourages investors to invest money in ways that produce lower and less volatile returns over a longer period instead of speculation that has higher risk but higher return. As a parent of three, I'm sure you appreciate how wonderful a boring but guaranteed return is! At the moment we are collectively not paying for these services. The US Government's fiscal position -- tax revenue in, spending out -- is such that every year it is required to borrow more and more money to provide these services. This is partly because it is spending like a 'sailor on a port-call bender', but largely because the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress have passed what they themselves call 'the biggest tax cut in US history'. Now, eventually, the bill for those services is going to fall due. What Krugman (and his acolytes, like many on this site) says is that by looking only at the tax cut you're being hood-winked. Actually I think we would all agree that short term tax relief (read: reduction in the marginal income tax rates or theshholds in the low to middle brackets) is a good thing. But when you look at the overall structure of the tax cuts and listen to what the President's advisers (Grover Norquist) write and say about their goals, a different picture emerges. They believe that the US Government occupies too much economic space, and needs to be dramatically shrunk. This is a thoroughly reasonable position and you can debate its merits. It suggests, for example, a lot of the services you and your family rely upon are unwarranted. Social security and medicare do distort the market. Public education does reduce the market value of more talented teachers. None of this has been debated, however. In a democracy, we all talk plainly about our ideas, debate them, vote, and decide. Krugman's perspective (so far as I can tell) is that he's raising his voice in opposition to what he perceives as the Bush Administration's real agenda, which he is simultaneously responsible for revealing. So why is your enjoyment of the Bush Tax Cut bad? By itself, it isn't. Krugman has written that the tax cut is having some stimulatory effect, but also that this effect is small and an incredibly expensive way of creating jobs. So what's firstly bad is that the Bush Administration's overall, long run fiscal policy is ruinious. Things that can't go on forever, don't. Which leads to the second 'bad thing'. None of this is being debated or even acknowledged, which is very, very bad for the long term health of a liberal democracy like ours. Hope this helps.

Subject: Re: An Economic Weakening From: DW To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Tues, Dec 23, 2003 at 15:11:44 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Econ 101. You are right about one thing, my family and I do receive an enormous number of services from the government, which is a pretty clear indication that the government does occupy too much economic space. Also, your view of the US Government as a large insurance company with a small side in defense, infrastructure, education, etc. pretty much sums up the “tax and spend” policies of the left (democrats). But back to basic economics. Take, for example, the following equation: GDP = C plus I(r) plus G plus NX. If you believe this and you also believe that C (consumer spending) is by far the largest contributor to GDP, then why would you believe that G (Government spending) is better suited for stimulating the economy? Would you rather have $1000 to spend or invest (let’s see, clothes for the kids, braces for your daughter, new tires for the car, tuition next semester) or let the government buy a hammer for that amount? I know what my choice would be. I think it’s obvious that consumer spending is by far more important than government spending and, more importantly, much more efficient. Krugman concedes that our economy is/was in a position to benefit from fiscal intervention. Interest rates are historically low which limits any policies the monetarists might choose. His only criticism is that the jobs created might be temporary. Maybe, maybe not. Those that need and get these jobs will probably not be complaining. But the long run aggregate supply curve, although vertical and insensitive to changes in price, doesn’t just sit there. It moves outward as the economy expands. Was the theoretical LRAS in the same position now as ten years ago? No. If history is any indication, the LRAS will be far from its current position ten years from now. Hopefully to the right.

Subject: Re: An Economic Weakening From: Paul G. Brown To: DW Date Posted: Tues, Dec 23, 2003 at 16:52:50 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: [ snip ] DW: > Also, your view of the US Government as a large insurance company > with a small side in defense, infrastructure, education, etc. > pretty much sums up the “tax and spend” policies of the left > (democrats) Oh. I was just trying to make a couple of statements of fact. If you disagree with the form that modern US Government takes, that's OK. But you're not making much of an argument here, DW. Just an assertion. I mean, it is another fact that the % of GDP due to Government spending fell under Clinton but was unchanged under Reagan and grew under Bush I and now (dramatically) Bush II, which contradicts your partisan conclusion. http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#table2 DW: > But back to basic economics. Take, for example, the following > equation: GDP = C plus I(r) plus G plus NX. If you believe this > and you also believe that C (consumer spending) is by far the > largest contributor to GDP, then why would you believe that G > (Government spending) is better suited for stimulating the economy? In the present circumstances I am in favor of increasing C through tax cuts for all the reasons you give! Doing so is a thoroughly respectable economic doctrine. But not all changes to the tax code will increase C by the same amount (bang for buck). Read my reply in another thread about differences in marginal propensity to save and spend in different income brackets. I take issue firstly with the structure of the Bush tax cuts, and secondly with their size. But (like most real economists, I think) I am also mindful that there are limits to markets; that they don't fulfill all human needs, that they are prone to failure, that they depend for their efficiency on transparency. For all of these things you need some manifestation of social will (a troubling concept, but bear with it for a moment) to fill the gaps and oil the machinery. [ snip ] DW: > But the long run aggregate supply curve, although vertical and > insensitive to changes in price, doesn’t just sit there. It moves > outward as the economy expands. Was the theoretical LRAS in the > same position now as ten years ago? No. If history is any > indication, the LRAS will be far from its current position ten > years from now. Hopefully to the right. In the long run, we're all dead. Second, given your explaination of why LRAS moves, what happens if the economy does *not* expand? And third, hope is not a plan. Your reasoning is circular. From the fact that LRAS generally trends rightward (due to improvements in productivity and increases in population) it does not follow that it will always proceed right (it won't in times of economic stagnation), or that it will move quickly enough to hold many of those jobs, or that it will shift to the greatest extent possible! Nor does hand waving about LRAS change the fact that people are unemployed and suffering right now. Looking at LRAS does help when reasoning about alternative policy approaches. Your reasoning therefore becomes an argument for government investment in public infrastructure which will both stimulate C directly by creating short term jobs and by improving overall productivity. And you haven't acknowledged the central point that Krugman and other critics of the administration--from the left and the right--are making. The US Governmnent fiscal position is in a massive structural deficit. I'm a fiscal conservative. I don't see any evidence that structural deficits have any long term economic or social utility and I'm only prepared to support budget deficits as part of an overall plan. Looking at it, the only plan we can see is the one Grover Norquist is talking about. So, let's talk about it!

Subject: Re: An Economic Weakening From: Danny Walker To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 09:52:39 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: >Oh. I was just trying to make a couple of statements of fact. If you disagree with the form that >modern US Government takes, that's OK. But you're not making much of an argument here, >DW. Just an assertion. I mean, it is another fact that the % of GDP due to Government spending >fell under Clinton but was unchanged under Reagan and grew under Bush I and now >(dramatically) Bush II, which contradicts your partisan conclusion. Statement of fact – no dispute there. But I think your words were “looked at rightly”, which is a normative statement. We can certainly disagree here. Just for the record, I am not here to defend Bush. Just to learn. But Bush I had Gulf war I, Clinton dismantled the military, and now Bush II is dealing with WWIII with military fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan. You may disagree with the policies, but these are facts and help to explain deficits. >In the present circumstances I am in favor of increasing C through tax cuts for all the reasons >you give! Doing so is a thoroughly respectable economic doctrine. But not all changes to the tax >code will increase C by the same amount (bang for buck). Read my reply in another thread >about differences in marginal propensity to save and spend in different income brackets. I take >issue firstly with the structure of the Bush tax cuts, and secondly with their size. I don’t know the figure, but I would guess that the MPC for people at least up to the 50% income level is 1. I have a fairly decent income, and I can tell you that my MPC has been 1 lately. Spending does have a multiplier effect, but investment also allows for the addition to and replenishment of capital. This helps GNP in the longer run which is what Krugman was specifically saying would not be accomplished under the Bush plan. I think you are arguing for a redistribution of wealth. But I would be willing to bet that if you gave 75% of the income of the top 10% earners to the bottom 30% of earners, the wealth would be right back in the hands of the top 10% earners in a couple of years. >In the long run, we're all dead. Second, given your explanation of why LRAS moves, what >happens if the economy does *not* expand? And third, hope is not a plan. I was going to use the dead cliché. It helped to make my point. Hope was said “tongue in check”. I am for the current plan. >Your reasoning is circular. From the fact that LRAS generally trends rightward (due to >improvements in productivity and increases in population) it does not follow that it will always >proceed right (it won't in times of economic stagnation), or that it will move quickly enough to >hold many of those jobs, or that it will shift to the greatest extent possible! Nor does hand >waving about LRAS change the fact that people are unemployed and suffering right now. Right. People are unemployed and suffering now. That’s why I am for the tax cuts. If we are below full employment of inputs to production, then why is there had waving about the LRAS? >And you haven't acknowledged the central point that Krugman and other critics of the >administration--from the left and the right--are making. The US Government fiscal position is in >a massive structural deficit. I'm a fiscal conservative. I don't see any evidence that structural >deficits have any long term economic or social utility and I'm only prepared to support budget >deficits as part of an overall plan. We do have a large deficit now. No one likes it. But you don’t try to balance the budget in times or recession or war. Am I wrong here?

Subject: Re: Clinton Dismantled the miliatry From: Juliet To: Danny Walker Date Posted: Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 11:25:57 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: (Snip) 'Clinton dismantled the military.' From Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them. Franken at the White House Coreepondents Dinner. To Paul Wolfowitz. 'Hi, Dr. Wolfowtitz. Hey the Clinton military did a great job in Iraq, didn't it?' He looked at me for a couple seconds, then said. 'Fuck you.' Which I thought was funny. I think he was 'kidding on the square,' a phrase I hope will catch on. It means kidding, but also really meaning it. People do it all the time. . . Then Wolfoqitz and I had a short argument. 'The Cinton military never could have done this war,' he said. 'Well, maybe they wouldn't have, but they could have.' This is a completely different military, he said. Then he talked about the influx of money since Bush's defense budget kicked in. (It kicked in during October of 2002.) I said, 'Let me ask you. Did you guys actually make any of the machines that have been used in Iraq? That got him all pissed off again. So he got into how they've reorganzied the military, and technical arguments on how they've changed the command structure. I mean, he is the deputy secretary of defense, and I have to admit he lost me. But, of course, he was wrong. I was right. Chapter 28 Bush Can't Lose with Clinton's Military. Nine months after Bush took office, we went to war against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. The Soviets couldn't conquer Afghanistan. Neither could the British in 1919. But somehow, we did it in a few weeks. With no new funding (the first Bush defense budget went into effect on October 1, 2002), Donald Rumsfeld had taken our 'gutted' military and, with a little string and some bailing wire, turned it into the greatest fighting force in the history of the planet. The man is a fucking genius. Or maybe Afghanistan (and then Iraq) was payoff for the 'revolution in military affairs' in which Clinton invested so heavily.

Subject: Re: Clinton Dismantled the miliatry From: Danny Walker To: Juliet Date Posted: Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 19:31:39 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Nice piece of fiction to support your argument (I'll just assume anything you post without comment is in support of its content). But how could you resist, when said with such style?

Subject: Clinton and the Military From: Paul G. Brown To: Danny Walker Date Posted: Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 19:50:33 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: OK. We're pretty wildly off-topic here (has Krugman said anything about military policy - not that I recall). As a penalty, I suggest that we all go away and read David Halberstam's excellent _War_in_a_Time_of_Peace: _Bush,_Clinton,_and_the_Generals_, then review just how much of Bush II's additional military spending was to go towards 'conventional' weapon systems of the kind useful in Serbia, Afghanistan or Iraq (or Rwanda) as opposed to the missile shield (which Halberstam labels a 'high tech Maginot line') and 'tactical nukes'.

Subject: Re: An Economic Weakening From: Paul G. Brown To: Danny Walker Date Posted: Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 17:23:25 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: DW (Danny Walker): > Spending does have a multiplier effect, [1] but investment also > allows for the addition to and replenishment of capital. This > helps GNP in the longer run [2] which is what Krugman was > specifically saying would not be accomplished under the Bush plan. > I think you are arguing for a redistribution of wealth. But I > [3] would be willing to bet that if you gave 75% of the income of > the top 10% earners to the bottom 30% > of earners, the wealth > would be right back in the hands of the top > 10% earners in a couple of years. Let's take this apart: [1] Investment: Businesses invest when they have some reasonable expectations of return. We are currently in a prolonged recession and there is a gap between what the economy is capable of producing and what it is actually producing. Consequently, there is no motivation to invest. Think about it. Would you invest in additional plant or production facilities when you saw no increase in demand, or if you could meet an increase in demand with what you already have? [2] No. Krugman was not making any statement about tax cuts and investment. He has elsewhere written about something called the 'Liquidity Trap' and investment, but that's more about monetary policy. http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/trioshrt.html And long ago (1992) about how conservatives and liberals frame the discussion of investment and fiscal policy. http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/IdeologyInvestment.html Krugman's point is that the tax cuts weren't structured in a way that will stimulate demand. His further argument is that the Bush Administration have set a fiscal policy course that includes a structural deficit. As this debt accumulates the US government will need to suck in more and more money to finance its operations and will need to devote larger and larger portions of expenditure to service the debt. [3] Your argument to the effect that wealth redistribution efforts would be long-run ineffective I find compelling. So do others. A recent study (reported on here: http://www.globalideasbank.org/showidea.php?idea=2574 ) suggests that unequal wealth distribution is more or less a law of nature in capitalist economies. Note however, that it doesn't follow that the same individuals get the money each time. Wealth redistribution might happen as talent is rewarded. But what's peculiar about your argument is this; if a policy that was designed to cause wealth redistribution is futile in the long run, what's the harm of pursuing the policy in the short run, particularly when it has a beneficial overall effect? You seem to be making a case *for* a policy of short run tax cuts for low to middle income earners which is what Krugman et al are saying! DW: > We do have a large deficit now. No one likes it. But you don’t > try to balance the budget in times or recession or war. Am I > wrong here? Short run vs long run distinction. Its fine to run a cyclic (short run) deficit in times of war or economic constraint. What's bad is running a *structural* deficit. Given any reasonable rates of economic growth there is no way we can grow our way out of this. And it isn't just shrill leftists who are saying this. Have a look at this report from the Congressional Budget Office. ftp://ftp.cbo.gov/49xx/doc4916/Report.pdf

Subject: Re: An Economic Weakening From: Danny Walker To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 17:58:02 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Paul, thanks for your considered response. >1] Investment: Businesses invest when they have some reasonable >expectations of return. We are currently in a prolonged recession >and there is a gap between what the economy is capable of producing >and what it is actually producing. Consequently, there is no >motivation to invest. Think about it. Would you invest in additional >plant or production facilities when you saw no increase in demand, >or if you could meet an increase in demand with what you already >have? But, aren't we exiting the recession? Largest one month increase in about 20 years just recently. Under these cirmustances, the wealthy, with a low MPC would be providing capital for investment from their tax refunds. Tell me if I'm wrong here. >But what's peculiar about your argument is this; if a policy that >was designed to cause wealth redistribution is futile in the long >run, what's the harm of pursuing the policy in the short run, >particularly when it has a beneficial overall effect? You seem to be >making a case *for* a policy of short run tax cuts for low to middle >income earners which is what Krugman et al are saying! I don't necessarily disagree. I'm a little afraid of what kind of precedence this might set though.

Subject: Re: An Economic Weakening From: Danny Waker (fka DW) To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Tues, Dec 23, 2003 at 18:22:00 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Paul, Let me get back to you on this one. I'm here to learn. DW

Subject: Re: An Economic Weakening From: Auros To: WRS Date Posted: Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 15:55:37 (EST) Email Address: rmharman@auros.org Message: I work hard and have a decent (but not great) income, enough to support a family of five. I pay a lot in federal-state-local taxes and welcome the chance to keep more of my money due to the Bush tax cut. Why is this bad? --- Three answers, one addressing your immediate condition, one the long-term state of the nation, and one the basic morality of the way the cuts have been weighted. In the short term, the gains you get from a cut in your federal income taxes will probably be eliminated, and then some, by corresponding hikes in state fees and taxes (property, sales, income) or cuts in services (public education, public subsidies of local clinics, etc). In the long term, the deficits run up by the cuts at the top may imperil the stability of the whole economy. When the Boomers start retiring and looking for handouts from Social Security and Medicare, there just won't be enough money for them. Personally, as a 26-year-old professional, I rather resent the FICA payroll tax -- at the rate we're going, I can't expect to ever see a penny of that money back, because today's 50-year-olds will consume all funds currently allocated for SS and Medicare, and then some. Additionally, the cuts in services to the lower and middle classes far outweigh any tax cuts such people have received. The service cuts weaken our society as a whole. When the poor can't get a decent education (and eventually a job), and access to services like healthcare, we end up with higher crime rates and larger expenses in terms of emergency care (unless we're ready to start turning people away to die like dogs in the street).

Subject: Re: An Economic Weakening From: Juliet To: Auros Date Posted: Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 11:37:37 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: (unless we're ready to start turning people away to die like dogs in the street) I find it hard to believe that neo-cons running our government care one way or another. In fact, they probably can't wait.

Subject: Keynesianism From: free colin To: All Date Posted: Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 02:09:21 (EST) Email Address: freecolin@freedom.com Message: I want everyone's (informed) opinion about the following quote from a column by Robert Samuelson: 'The second blunder was the recent Great Inflation, when the Fed flooded the economy with too much money. From 1961 to 1980, inflation jumped from 1 percent to 13.5 percent. The Fed embraced mistaken Keynesian doctrines that the aggressive easing of credit could cut unemployment.'

Subject: Butter and Guns From: Emma To: free colin Date Posted: Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 13:44:35 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: My sense was that the Fed felt it had to allow for financing the war in Vietnam while not limiting domestic consumption. We wanted guns and butter or butter and guns. The Vietnam War would have been even more of a political problem had we raised taxes or cut domestic spending to pay for it.

Subject: More Butter and Guns From: Emma To: Emma Date Posted: Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 17:24:40 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Now we have cut cut cut taxes to stimulate the economy as well as fund a war and add to general defense spending. Fed policy seems fine, and there is no threat of inflation, but fiscal policy is going to be a most severe problem. We are private saving short and the public deficit will grow and grow, and income and wealth inequality have to be growing as well given this fiscal policy.

Subject: The answer about ... From: i To: All Date Posted: Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 17:54:36 (EST) Email Address: iam@hotmail.com Message: 'KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia (Reuters) -- Malaysia says it will sign a deal on Thursday to buy six Airbus A380 planes valued at $1.5 billion, giving a fresh impetus to the European firm's superjumbo jet program.' Hasta la vista.

Subject: What is the Point??? From: Terri To: i Date Posted: Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 13:39:31 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message:

Subject: Re: The answer about ... From: Danny Boy To: i Date Posted: Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 20:17:57 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: 'KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia (Reuters) -- Malaysia says it will sign a deal on Thursday to buy six Airbus A380 planes valued at $1.5 billion, giving a fresh impetus to the European firm's superjumbo jet program.' Hasta la vista. --- The U.S. exports only the ten percent of its GOP,so the $ 1.5 deal does not hurt American economy.

Subject: Re: The answer about ... From: i To: Danny Boy Date Posted: Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 21:00:33 (EST) Email Address: iam@hotmail.com Message: Right, but I am referring to Krugman's column concerning Mahathir's behavior.(Not talking about numbers=money but about human knowledge)

Subject: Re: The answer about ... From: Danny Boy To: i Date Posted: Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 20:47:14 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Right, but I am referring to Krugman's column concerning Mahathir's behavior.(Not talking about numbers=money but about human knowledge) --- Sorry. My English skill is so poor that I am always misunderstanding what native speaker means.But fogive me,I am from a foreign country.

Subject: Independent tax-setting board? From: Erik Rauch To: All Date Posted: Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 17:24:46 (EST) Email Address: erauch@ai.mit.edu Message: Economists for a long time have argued that it would be a good idea to respond to the business cycle by raising taxes during boom times, and lower them during recessions, but this is considered difficult to do in practice. Why not set up a 'tax board', modelled on the Federal Reserve, that has the authority to set taxes within some range around a base value? The legislature would, say, set a basic corporate tax rate of 30%. The board could set the actual rate to be within, say, 10% of this, going down to 20% at the bottom of a recession or up to 40% during the peak of a boom. Sure, you could argue that it would be hard to have such a board be independent, but that's what people said for decades about the idea of an independant central bank setting interest rates, and we now have several of them. Of course this makes revenues less easy to predict, but if it works, it would dampen the business cycle, which would offset this unpredictability.

Subject: Constitutionally Impossible From: Emma To: Erik Rauch Date Posted: Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 17:25:47 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Congress can not cede it functions.

Subject: Re: Constitutionally sound From: Erik Rauch To: Emma Date Posted: Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 17:50:58 (EST) Email Address: erauch@ai.mit.edu Message: Congress would not be ceding its power to tax. The authority would stay with it - it is merely delegating the adjustment of the tax rate in within a fixed range.

Subject: apology for the duplicate posts From: Erik Rauch To: Erik Rauch Date Posted: Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 17:27:42 (EST) Email Address: erauch@ai.mit.edu Message: I apologize for the duplicate posts, which are due to the incorrect use of the back button on my browser.

Subject: A Will to Win! From: Jennifer To: All Date Posted: Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 17:40:16 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/12/opinion/12HERB.html No Will to Win? By BOB HERBERT Ready, aim. . . . The Democratic Party's circular firing squad has assembled. Everybody's angry with everybody else. Joe Lieberman is trying to extricate the knife that, in his view, Al Gore deposited in his back. Al Sharpton is accusing Mr. Gore of engaging in the kind of 'bossism' that belongs 'in the other party.' The Gore and Clinton families are morphing into the Hatfields and the McCoys. And the runaway Dean machine, which has shown an impressive ability to amass campaign cash and early primary support, is now generating prodigious amounts of fear and loathing as well. Those cackles of glee you hear in the background are coming from the White House....

Subject: PK and Bob Herbert! From: Jennifer To: All Date Posted: Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 17:38:13 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Missed PK. Great team PK and Bob Herbert.

Subject: Some Insightful Socio-Economic Analysis . . From: Paul G. Brown To: All Date Posted: Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 13:16:47 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: albeit potentially offensive. http://www.theonion.com/3948/news1.html

Subject: Why does Paul have to take time off? From: Juliet To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Dec 11, 2003 at 11:28:20 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I hate when Paul K. is on vacation. I am like an addict who requires a fix. Damn you Paul!!! Just kidding on the square.

Subject: Why is US productivity improving? From: Michael Leahy To: All Date Posted: Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 14:45:38 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: For some time now US productivity has been improving at an amazing rate, but it is unclear to me what this means. For years the Economist newspaper has speculated that the the dramatic US productivity gains are due to US businesses finally learning to utilize computers to improve productivity. In a recent Bill Moyers NOW piece the speculation was that employees were working harder due to fear of job losses or management coercion. Some speculate that the US companies are introducing more productive methods such as the Toyota Production System, or Lean Manufacturing. Others are foolish enough to suggest that steaming piles of Enterprise Resource Planning software like Oracle, SAP, or Peoplesoft actually improve productivity. My suspicion is that the bulk of the US productivity improvements are due to major US companies reducing the US labor inputs in their products or services by outsourcing either locally or more probably abroad. Has anyone done a competent job of determining how the recent US productivity gains should be apportioned?

Subject: Re: Why is US productivity improving? From: Ethan To: Michael Leahy Date Posted: Thurs, Dec 11, 2003 at 10:05:08 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: My belief, because of some reading I have done on this, is since we have not changed the way we calculate productivity in several decades we do not know how to calculate it in our increasingly service based economy.

Subject: Re: Why is US productivity improving? From: Michael Leahy To: Ethan Date Posted: Thurs, Dec 11, 2003 at 13:44:07 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: This may well be true, but the Bureau of Labor Statistics that comes up with the productivity numbers also separates productivity improvements by sector. Thus improvements in manufacturing productivity should not be influenced by the trend toward a service based economy. The URL for the BLS is: http://www.bls.gov/ and the link to their productivity data is near the center of the web page. While I doubt that Oswald killed Kennedy by himself, I don't think that the BLS could seriously fudge the numbers without someone like PK eviscerating them.

Subject: Re: Why is US productivity improving? From: ..David E To: Michael Leahy Date Posted: Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 14:52:28 (EST) Email Address: daveellis_39@hotmail.com Message: That is strange, I believe Oswald did it alone, but I am worried about the productivity numbers. The thing that bothers me the most, is that the value of computers is adjusted - the BLS thinks if the computer is 3 times faster, they should value the computer at 3 times what the market does.

Subject: Re: Why is US productivity improving? From: Danny Boy To: Michael Leahy Date Posted: Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 22:35:06 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: No one knows why productivity improves.

Subject: Re: Why is US productivity improving? From: Michael Leahy To: Danny Boy Date Posted: Thurs, Dec 11, 2003 at 13:45:30 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: No one knows how to make women happy either, but it is a reasonable topic for speculation.

Subject: Re: Why is US productivity improving? From: Danny Boy To: Michael Leahy Date Posted: Thurs, Dec 11, 2003 at 19:35:41 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: No one knows how to make women happy either, but it is a reasonable topic for speculation. --- I think American workers are great at increasing their productivity.

Subject: Brad DeLong Discusses From: Emma To: Michael Leahy Date Posted: Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 14:55:10 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Read discussions on productiviety on Brad DeLong's fine Blog.

Subject: Re: Brad DeLong Discusses From: i To: Emma Date Posted: Thurs, Dec 11, 2003 at 16:09:25 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Productivity as Y=f(R)?Yes!Demand?Foresee, within a still? 'Globalised Economy' Hyper-Inflation.

Subject: Re: Brad DeLong Discusses From: i To: i Date Posted: Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 13:24:12 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: For t0=f(http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1037984/posts) having as possible consequence Ms = overload!

Subject: Re: Brad DeLong Discusses From: Michael Leahy To: Emma Date Posted: Thurs, Dec 11, 2003 at 16:06:31 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Thank you for the recommendation! Dr. DeLong has an excellent blog, with much fairly reasonable discussion of the recent productivity improvements. I still wish that PK would give the Teflon Texan a week off and write about the underlying drivers of the productivity improvements and their ramifications for US employment.

Subject: More on Productivity Needed From: Emma To: Michael Leahy Date Posted: Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 14:10:05 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Yes, we need to look more closely at the productivity data.

Subject: Krugman should be...in 2004 From: mike To: All Date Posted: Tues, Dec 09, 2003 at 11:57:11 (EST) Email Address: m253223@yahoo.com Message: Dean should win so that Krugman appointed to be the President's National Economic Advisor--who is with me?

Subject: Re: Krugman should be...in 2004 From: Bobby To: mike Date Posted: Tues, Dec 09, 2003 at 12:22:53 (EST) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: I think that Krugman has far more power and can do far more good being at the NYT. I wouldn't want to see Krugman reduced to helping the present's kid with her homework, as Joe Stiglitz was during the Clinton administration. Krugman was on the staff of the CEA during the early Reagan years, and I get the sense that he was frustrated even then by the idiocy and economic ignorance of the politicians and political hacks who are really in charge. I'm really not so sure how much influence the CEA has anymore or would have even in a Democratic administration. Even if Krugman were actually elected the Senate or House, I'm not even sure if the good he'd do there is more than what he does at the NYT.

Subject: PK With the NYT Forever From: Jennifer To: Bobby Date Posted: Tues, Dec 09, 2003 at 14:19:47 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Paul Krugman needs to write for the NYTimes forever-more. There will be a day when PK is widely regarded as the finist columnist of the era.

Subject: Re: PK With the NYT Forever From: Austin To: Jennifer Date Posted: Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 23:15:12 (EST) Email Address: austinstoneman@aol.com Message: Not just Economic Advisor...TREASURY SECRETARY of the Dean administration. There will be a day when PK is widely regarded as the finest treasury secretary...ever! Plus, who fits the tone of Dean's campaign as perfectly as Krugman...besides, PK's been itching to get back into government...

Subject: Re: PK With the NYT Forever From: Paul G. Brown To: Austin Date Posted: Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 23:58:54 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Not just Economic Advisor...TREASURY SECRETARY of the Dean administration. --- I'm not sure that Krugman would accept, or would even be offered, the job. Dr Dean's populism encompasses a rejection or at least a watering down of free trade. http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_speech_economy_morejobsforamerica Search within the speech for his elliptical comments on trade.

Subject: Re: PK With the NYT Forever From: Auros To: Jennifer Date Posted: Tues, Dec 09, 2003 at 16:33:36 (EST) Email Address: rmharman@auros.org Message: I dunno. I think maybe taking a year or three off to consult for a president -- IF that president was somebody who would actually listen, as Clinton listened to Rubin -- might well be good. OTOH, considering how reviled he is by the Murdoch Machine already, it might be bad for a (Dean? Clark?) presidency to tap Krugman. Better to go for somebody like DeLong, who basically would give the same advice, but is not so politically charged. (Or, heck, get Rubin back. He's still around, after all... I just heard him on the radio the other day, talking about how the term 'Rubinomics' was originally coined as derogatory, and how mystified he is by the idea that a basic point of econ theory that was already in every textbook has ended up being attributed to him.)

Subject: Re: PK With the NYT Forever From: Sid Bachrac To: Auros Date Posted: Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 15:47:42 (EST) Email Address: sidb23@juno.com Message: JFK brought in an economist from Yale University named James Tobin. I believe he is still around, though retired. He was the author if the famous JFK tax cut and quite a remarkable man.

Subject: Re: PK With the NYT Forever From: Bobby To: Sid Bachrac Date Posted: Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 22:49:18 (EST) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: I actually went to James Tobin's memorial service in 2002 after he died. Below is the url for an article he wrote about the Bush tax cut if you want to know his views: http://cowles.econ.yale.edu/news/tobin/jt_01_tp_perspective.htm

Subject: Re: PK With the NYT Forever From: Paul G. Brown To: Sid Bachrac Date Posted: Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 16:29:57 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: JFK brought in an economist from Yale University named James Tobin. I believe he is still around, though retired. He was the author if the famous JFK tax cut and quite a remarkable man. --- Err, Sid: http://www.pkarchive.org/column/031202.html

Subject: RIP Mr. Tobin From: Juliet To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 07:59:53 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Now we know what all of us suspected. Sid comments on things he does not read. That is why we should take his comments for what they are. (Garbage?) If he read Krugman, in order to discuss him intelligently, Sid would know that Krugman wrote a column on Tobin, for which he was criticized, (Get Krugman! Get Krugman!) after Tobin passed away. But Paul Brown's response was less wordy and much more impactful. I just couldn't help myself. RIP Mr. Tobin

Subject: James Tobin Autobiography From: Emma To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 17:12:35 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: http://www.nobel.se/economics/laureates/1981/tobin-autobio.html

Subject: Robert Rubin From: Emma To: Auros Date Posted: Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 14:53:37 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Robert Rubin was a wonder as Treasury Secretary. The book is terrific.

Subject: Medicare From: Jennifer To: All Date Posted: Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 13:56:18 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/08/opinion/08HERB.html Stalking the Giant Chicken Coop By BOB HERBERT On July 30, 1965, Lyndon Johnson flew to Independence, Mo., and in the presence of a smiling Harry Truman, signed the bill that created Medicare. 'No longer will older Americans be denied the healing miracle of modern medicine,' said Johnson. The growls of opposition in the background were muted. Medicare was a desperately needed program, and it grew to be a wildly popular one. But conservatives were outraged by it. Socialized medicine, they snarled. Un-American. Truman had proposed a health care program for the elderly back in the 40's. It went nowhere. Jack Kennedy pushed it in the early 60's. Same result. It took Johnson's legislative genius and his enormous mandate from the 1964 presidential election to bring the program into being. And even then it wasn't easy. Johnson's biographer, Robert Dallek, recalled that Ronald Reagan 'saw Medicare as the advance wave of socialism, which would `invade every area of freedom in this country.' ' 'Reagan,' wrote Mr. Dallek, 'predicted that Medicare would compel Americans to spend their `sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was like in America when men were free.' ' Newt Gingrich ranted against Medicare in the 1990's, comparing its operations to 'centralized command bureaucracies' in Moscow. And George W. Bush tried to fashion a prescription drug benefit that would require senior citizens to leave the traditional Medicare program before they could get the benefit....

Subject: Miserable Failure From: Piranha To: All Date Posted: Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 19:57:20 (EST) Email Address: marsh28th2003@yahoo.com Message: Hi, Most of you may have heard of this already, but try this search on Google. Type 'Miserable failure' and hit 'I'm feeling lucky'. The result is funny! Miserable Failure www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=miserable failure&btnG=Google Search

Subject: Focus of Site From: Ricky To: All Date Posted: Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 12:36:36 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: To Bobby, Thanks for all of your hardwork on keeping up with the page, its a terrific resource. I've been reading for a while and remember when you took over the post. I've noticed that in the recent past, the focus has dramatically shifted from covering Krugman's writings to covering the blogging war between Krugman and Luskin. While its ok for there to be some mention of Krugman's critics, why dignify such absurdity with so much attention? I think a movement to focus less on Luskin and more on Krugman would be worthwhile and much more productive. A movement from personal politics to economics and public politics would be nice to see. Having said that one criticism, I really appreciate the constant updates and posts of video, etc. Yours, Ricky

Subject: Worser and Worser From: jd To: All Date Posted: Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 14:47:48 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: December 7, 2003 New Medicare Bill Bars Extra Insurance for Drugs By ROBERT PEAR - NYTimes Medicare beneficiaries will not be allowed to buy insurance to cover their share of prescription drug costs under the new Medicare bill to be signed on Monday by President Bush, the legislation says. Millions of Medicare beneficiaries have bought private insurance to fill gaps in Medicare. But a little-noticed provision of the legislation prohibits the sale of any Medigap policy that would help pay drug costs after Jan. 1, 2006, when the new Medicare drug benefit becomes available....

Subject: Re: Worser and Worser From: Jim To: jd Date Posted: Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 21:09:07 (EST) Email Address: jzmarg@earthlink.net Message: C span covered an hour and half press conference at John Podesta's new thinktank in which three experts on the effects of the medicare bill, Judy Feder, Dean of the Georgetown U. Public Policy Institute, Dr. Bob Berensen of the URban Policy Institute and a woman associated with Podesta's think tank demonstrated how the new law subtlely directs current medicare clients to private plans and how this works against their interest. The passage of the bill, both in how it was done and in what its consequences are is outrageous and the bill ic certain to be revisted.

Subject: Re: Mission Accomplished! From: Juliet To: Jim Date Posted: Thurs, Dec 11, 2003 at 11:36:06 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: 'the bill is certain to be revised.' HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. . . nope, not done. HAHAHHAHAA No offense, Jim, but have you been paying attention? The bill may be revised if Bush does not win the election. But the policy of this anti-progressive administration has been, 'What? us admit to mistakes? NEVER!' I have little faith that the train-wreck of the bill will be revised unless sanity is restored in the White House. After all, the bill was intended to be a dismal failure in order to fully privatize medicare. Mission Accomplished! Do I see another banner in the future??

Subject: Dollar's fall From: Ethan To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Dec 04, 2003 at 22:06:46 (EST) Email Address: ejz23@yahoo.com Message: I was wondering about something. Are there any negative concequenses from the dollar's slide in value and the surge in the Euro? Beside having a more expensive vacation in europe. During the clinton years they seemed to want a strong dollar policy and it worked.

Subject: Dollar and Economci Weakening From: Emma To: Ethan Date Posted: Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 14:59:16 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: There has been a decline in foreign direct investment in America these last 3 years. The decline in such investment reflects a weakening of American competitiveness that is also reflected by the dollar weakness. Warren Buffett has just remarked that the decline in American competitiveness may be secular. We have awful macro policy and the weakness of the dollar appears a result.

Subject: Re: Dollar's fall From: Someone To: Ethan Date Posted: Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 06:09:00 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I was wondering about something. Are there any negative concequenses from the dollar's slide in value and the surge in the Euro? Beside having a more expensive vacation in europe. During the clinton years they seemed to want a strong dollar policy and it worked. --- Inflation in the domestic economy, especially if input imports are important.

Subject: Productivity? From: Emma To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Dec 04, 2003 at 13:59:18 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/30/opinion/30ROAC.html The Productivity Paradox By STEPHEN S. ROACH Despite the economy's stunning 8.2 percent surge in the third quarter, the staying power of this economic recovery remains a matter of debate. But there is one aspect of the economy on which agreement is nearly unanimous: America's miraculous productivity. In the third quarter, productivity grew by 8.1 percent in the nonfarm business sector — a figure likely to be revised upwards — and it has grown at an average rate of 5.4 percent in the last two years. This surge is not simply a byproduct of the business cycle, even accounting for the usual uptick in productivity after a recession. In the first two years of the six most recent recoveries, productivity gains averaged only 3.5 percent. The favored explanation is that improved productivity is yet another benefit of the so-called New Economy. American business has reinvented itself. Manufacturing and services companies have figured out how to get more from less. By using information technologies, they can squeeze ever increasing value out of the average worker. It's a great story, and if correct, it could lead to a new and lasting prosperity in the United States. But it may be wide of the mark....

Subject: Productivity and Jobs From: Emma To: Emma Date Posted: Thurs, Dec 04, 2003 at 14:03:32 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Remember, we need about 150,000 jobs created a month to stay even with population growth. We will know soon if growth is fast enough to lead to such job creation given the strong productivity numbers. The problem is not productivity, but may be demand still is not strong enough to tax capacity.

Subject: Economic numbers From: Lawrence Parker To: All Date Posted: Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 12:10:08 (EST) Email Address: lparker@arlobraun.com Message: Does anyone suspect that the Bush Commerce and Labor Departments have been cooking the latest economic numbers to make us think the economy is doing better than it is? Karl Rove and the other masterminds were tired of all the negative news and have no scruples about lying to the American people, so why not make up economic numbers? How are these numbers arrived at anyway? Is anybody checking their work? Not that I don't want us to be doing better - except that the Bushies will take credit for it - but I'm suspicious.

Subject: Re: Economic numbers From: Paul G. Brown To: Lawrence Parker Date Posted: Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 13:07:48 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Does anyone suspect that the Bush Commerce and Labor Departments have been cooking the latest economic numbers to make us think the economy is doing better than it is? --- I think that the Bushies are responsible for a lot of lies and distortions, but as these numbers are generated by the bureaucractic machinery I'm inclined to take them at face value. The existance of the recovery is also corroborated by non-government indices like the Chicago Purchasing Managers Index etc (have a look at http://www.economic-indicators.com/). And we all ought to look at it as a good thing: the employment situation is really bad right now, people are suffering out there, and economic growth is a necessary condition for employment growth. Mind you, it shouldn't come as a surprise. Current economic policy is just about the equivalent of putting adrenalin drips into the patient's arms, legs, neck and other, less comfortable parts of their anatomy and then applying random electric shocks. Interest rates at 'free money' levels, 15% increase in discretionary spending (http://policy.house.gov/spending/), THE TAX CUTS, exchange rates changing to include terms of trade. I mean, if there weren't signs of life, it would be a staggering indictment of the orthodox view of how the economy works. But at what cost? Economic growth is good, but there is a big difference between government subsidies of champagne purchases and, say, creating the 10 new world-class public universities the US is going to need as its second generation immigrant population wants its college degree. As Krugman points out, fiscal policy is being conducted in the shadow of those massive structural deficits, and the 'pork barrelling' spending is not being directed towards public infrastructure; like education, energy diversification research, environmental clean-up.

Subject: Profits - Wages - Benefits From: Emma To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 15:48:32 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots Fast growth for profits, slow growth for wages and benefits The Commerce Department reported last week that U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) grew 8.2% in the third quarter of 2003, an extraordinarily rapid rate of growth. However, any enthusiasm sparked by this report should be tempered by the fact that this growth has been extremely unbalanced; in short, corporate profits have soared while wages and benefits have lagged....

Subject: Re: Profits - Wages - Benefits From: Juliet To: Emma Date Posted: Thurs, Dec 11, 2003 at 11:24:47 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: And it makes one wonder with all the corporate corrupiton, if those earnings are real or merely a mirage. In addition, with all of the breaks the Bushies are giving Corporations, is it any wonder that they are the ones making the big bucks?

Subject: Re: Profits - Wages - Benefits From: Jonathan To: Emma Date Posted: Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 23:20:54 (EST) Email Address: jonathan@lyingsocialistweasels.com Message: So, is the large increase in productivity in November good news or bad? Doesn't such a huge jump in productivity have a negative impact on job growth?

Subject: Re: Profits - Wages - Benefits From: Paul G. Brown To: Jonathan Date Posted: Thurs, Dec 04, 2003 at 00:21:02 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: So, is the large increase in productivity in November good news or bad? Doesn't such a huge jump in productivity have a negative impact on job growth? --- It puzzled me too. Turns out that there is considerable controversy about productivity and how it is measured in today's economy. When we were -- or rather, when great-great-great-granddad was -- chained to the cotton gin you simply took the value of the cotton produced and divided it by the number of hours spent slaving away over a hot loom and viola! productivity. A faster loom, same hours, more cotton, better productivity. But in an economy that is largely services based its much harder. The Sept 13-19 Economist had a piece on this. Consider how you measure the productivity of a barber. First week in August no one gets a haircut. So the barber spends his or her day catching up on their back issues of The New York Review of Books. Then suddenly lots of people want hair cuts. In both cases the barber spends the same time at the shop. Yet it would appear, based on how we measure productivity, that our barber suddenly got very much more productive indeed. So changes in the 'productivity' measure might, on the one hand, mean that blue-collar workers are magically getting more efficient (not clear how) in which case the prospects for job growth is stunted. But it might also mean that our service sector workers are setting aside their TV guides, firing up Microsoft Office, and getting down to work. Krugman has a lot to say about the importance of productivity with respect to trade. (Struggling to keep it 'on topic' here). KR P 'who just figured out the text wrapping thing' b

Subject: Re: Profits - Wages - Benefits From: Auros To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 18:39:20 (EST) Email Address: rmharman@auros.org Message: Slate's 'Explainer' column on how productivity is measured: http://slate.msn.com/id/2091928/

Subject: bush gives B.Gates a tax break-arg From: Mike To: All Date Posted: Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 08:15:55 (EST) Email Address: n4632@yahoo.com Message: Fortune: 'Microsoft recently announced a bigger dividend. You personally, as a big shareholder, get a big chunk of that, and now a change in tax law means your taxes on that will be lower. I¡¯m curious how you feel about the government¡¯s giving you that break. Bill Gates: 'I don¡¯t consider myself an expert on tax policy. I certainly wasn¡¯t lobbying for taxes to be changed up or down. I pay a lot of taxes every year. I pay enough that the numbers don¡¯t fit on the normal IRS computer system.'

Subject: Bill Gates' Father From: Emma To: Mike Date Posted: Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 15:50:44 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Bill Gates' father has worked hard against the tax cut bills since 2001. So too, Warren Buffett. To no avail.

Subject: Re: Bill Gates' Father From: Sid Bachrach To: Emma Date Posted: Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 20:28:57 (EST) Email Address: sidb23@juno.com Message: Janet Reno, who never spent one day of her life in the private sector, and never had to meet a payroll, thought it would be a nify idea to put Microsoft out of business. When Ms. Reno was reminded that putting Microsoft out of business would cause unemployment to thousands of employees, Ms. Reno was dumbfounded. Ms. Reno thought that Microsoft and Bill Gates were immoral because they were successful. To Reno, success in the private sector equates with moral rot. The only growth that was ever acceptable to Ms. Reno was an increase in government employees, government programs etc.

Subject: Janet Reno to a Troll From: Jennifer To: Sid Bachrach Date Posted: Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 16:39:11 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: 'Janet Reno attended public school in Dade County, Florida, where she was a debating champion at Coral Gables High School. In 1956 Janet Reno enrolled at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, where she majored in chemistry, became president of the Women's Self Government Association, and earned her room and board. In 1960 Janet Reno enrolled at Harvard Law School, one of only sixteen women in a class of more than 500 students. She received her LL.B. from Harvard three years later. Despite her Harvard degree, she had difficulty obtaining work as a lawyer because she was a woman. In 1971Janet Reno was named staff director of the Judiciary Committee of the Florida House of Representatives. She helped revise the Florida court system. In 1973 she accepted a position with the Dade County State's Attorney's Office. She left the state's attorney's office in 1976 to become a partner in a private law firm. In 1978, Reno was appointed State Attorney General for Dade County. She was elected to the Office of State Attorney in November 1978 and was returned to office by the voters four more times.'

Subject: To a Troll From: SD is a Troll To: Jennifer Date Posted: Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 16:40:31 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Duh.

Subject: Re: Bill Gates' Father From: Bobby To: Sid Bachrach Date Posted: Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 14:48:53 (EST) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: Janet Reno was indeed a partner in a private law firm between 1976 and 1978.

Subject: Blah Troll Blah From: Typical Troll To: Sid Bachrach Date Posted: Thurs, Dec 04, 2003 at 14:04:44 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Blah blah blah....

Subject: I am an Idiot Troll From: SB Troll To: Typical Troll Date Posted: Thurs, Dec 04, 2003 at 14:06:36 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Duh.

Subject: Reno and Waco From: Sid Bachrach To: SB Troll Date Posted: Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 17:59:20 (EST) Email Address: sidb23@juno.com Message: Had George W. Bush, or his father, presided over the debacle at Waco, the media would have accused them of attempting to destroy religious freedom, of murdering children and denying basic human rights. Attorney General Ashbrook has been crucified in the media and by law professors, simply because he threw some terrorists in the feceral pen before they could commit another 9/11. Yet these same media 'experts' and the same law professors gave Ms. Reno a free pass on Waco. Now I happen to believe that Ms. Reno acted properly at Waco. Koresh started the fire. He is to blame. But the bigger point is that so many writers on this message board and in the media have a double standard. If something was done by Ashbrook, either Clinton or Reno, it is always understandable and justified. When it is done by either Bush or Ashbrrok, there is never an innocent explanation or a justifiable position. And I say this as a centrist Democrat.

Subject: Re: Reno and Waco From: Auros To: Sid Bachrach Date Posted: Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 18:28:44 (EST) Email Address: rmharman@auros.org Message: The concept that Bush is slammed by the media while Clinton got a free pass is so ludicrous as to require little comment. Conservatives are STILL going on about Clinton-centric conspiracies -- there was a whole gang of people convinced that Hillary was going to enter the race for the Dem nomination for '04, and that Clark was a stalking horse for her... Also, you apparently don't even know the name of the Attorney General.

Subject: Re: Sid mispelled Waco, it's Whacko From: Juliet To: Auros Date Posted: Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 07:52:52 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Agreed. The idea that Clinton received a free pass on anything is beyond ludicrous. As Krugman points out, the government spent over $70 million dollars to investigate a little losing land deal that came to be known as Whitewater, while the current President of the US, hid gains from insider trading for 32 weeks, an amount four times higher than what they are crucifying Martha Stewart for. The SEC found wrong doing but of course, nothing was ever done and I have never heard that discussed in our 'liberal-biased' media. So go sell your crazy someplace else Sid.

Subject: St. Louis appearance From: Todd H. Kuethe To: All Date Posted: Tues, Dec 02, 2003 at 15:54:04 (EST) Email Address: kuethe@siu.edu Message: Does anyone know the time or place of the St. Louis appearance for the Women's Democratic Forum. I called and left a message, but I am anxiously awaiting more info. Anyone with any more info please let me know.

Subject: Paul Brown is hot! From: Juliet To: All Date Posted: Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 08:07:17 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Is it me or does Paul Brown's knowledge of fiscal matters and economics turn anyone else on? I am thinking seriously about marrying an economist. OK. Maybe it is just me. But Paul Brown is sexy as hell!!! Hey Paul, are you taken?

Subject: Juliet is a Troll! From: Paul G. Brown To: Juliet Date Posted: Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 13:47:04 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Is it me or does Paul Brown's knowledge of fiscal matters and economics turn anyone else on? --- Just kidding. I'm an exceptionally ordinary, married, father of a toddler. And everything I know of contemporary economics is brought to you by Google.

Subject: LOL From: Juliet To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 18:08:12 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Great!! A decent, sweet family guy to boot. I truly may never recover!

Subject: Oh Well From: Emma To: Juliet Date Posted: Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 14:30:31 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Sigh.

Subject: Sure.... From: Emma To: Juliet Date Posted: Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 10:00:02 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: You go girl.

Subject: Re: Sure.... From: hume To: Emma Date Posted: Tues, Dec 02, 2003 at 23:38:10 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: this is a weird thread. it makes me uncomfortable. this is an economics message board. amorous overtures are bad; emotions are bad. please stop being all girly. more numbers, more well-constructed arguments backed up by evidence, more mention of statistical abstract, more links to the brookings institution. emotions, cannot compute, illogical, system breakdown . . .

Subject: Hume is cute, too From: Juliet To: hume Date Posted: Thurs, Dec 11, 2003 at 11:08:35 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Sorry if I made you uncomfortable hume, but can you imagine how Paul must feel?? In addition, I reserve the right to enjoy a little levity. If I have to put up with the Bush Administration and be serious all the time, I may go insane. But let's be realistic, I can't really help myself, because Paul Brown is hot!!!

Subject: Protection against decline in dollar From: David To: All Date Posted: Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 06:02:12 (EST) Email Address: Davidrrls@yahoo.com Message: The US dollar has been heading towards a severe fall for years (due to the perennial balance of trade deficit, which only gets worse year by year and has no prospect of ever becoming better - until the inevitable painful imposition of reality in what is called in economic terms, a 'major correction'). But since the advent of the Bush administration we have to add to this background the most irresponsible financial lunacy since the 1920's. Add to that a go-it-alone foreign policy which itself promises to over-extend and eventually bankrupt the country and the threat of more large scale terrorist attacks - quite possibly far worse than 9/11 - and it is no suprise that the dollar has fallen 30% or more against foreign currencies. I anticipated this nearly 2 years ago, but being economically untutored I didn't know what I could do to preserve the small savings I have. It seemed to me that all the other major currencies also had problems: Europe had its problems and Japan obviously. I thought maybe Canada, but Canada also has a very high national debt. Australia? I have no idea of their financial situation, though it looked better to me than that of the US under Bush. In the meantime while I've been standing indecisively by, the dollar continues to fall, deficits escalate, the consequences, financial and otherwise of our foreign adventures loom threateningly - and in all the financial columns I have read there is no discussion of the threat of a severe devaluation of our currency or what, if anything, a person can do about it. Can anyone direct me to a financial discussion forum where such issues are discussed? I thought that anyone who reads Paul Krugman's articles should certainly appreciate this situation and might be able to direct me somewhere. David

Subject: Shorting long-term bonds From: David To: David Date Posted: Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 04:18:14 (EST) Email Address: Davidrrls@yahoo.com Message:

Subject: Shorting bonds From: Emma To: David Date Posted: Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 14:28:44 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Short only if you are confident job growth will be above 125,000 - 150,000 a month for several months to come. The Fed will only raise rates when sure the job market is becoming healthy. The market will anticipate the Fed. A 5% 10 year treasury would not suprise me in the coming months, nor would a 4.5% or 4.25% rate.

Subject: A link From: David E To: David Date Posted: Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 14:17:36 (EST) Email Address: daveellis_39@hotmail.com Message: Morningstar has a free investor bulletin board. There is a lot of talent there. And some discussion of how to invest in foreign currency. An interesting idea is CD deposits in foreign currency with an FDIC bank. Everbank.com will purchase foreign funds for you to hold in their bank. Its insured, so say, the $10,000 New Zealand dollars you will buy is guaranteed, but the gain or loss in the relative value to the US dollar belongs to you. This is what Templeton, Buffet, and Soros have done, invested in foreign currency. here is one thread that matches your interest http://socialize.morningstar.com/NewSocialize/asp/FullConv.asp?forumId=F100000065&convId=95790 Here is one thread http://socialize.morningstar.com/NewSocialize/asp/FullConv.asp?forumId=F100000065&convId=95790

Subject: Dollars and Debt From: jd To: David Date Posted: Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 10:14:50 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: We are in quite a difficult long term economic bind because of the needlessly growing public debt and low rate of private savings, but short term there is no reason to expect problems to show. Debt can be extended far longer than might seem evident from the data itself. The decline of the dollar is not a serious problem yet. The decline is mainly against the Euro, Canadian and Australian dollars. PK is right about the sorry fiscal policy, but resultant problems are likely to emerge gradually. Must look at Canadian data, but I did not 'think' debt in Canada is much of a threat. Japan's public debt is balanced by private savings to a significant degree. Europe debt is not all that much of a problem, slow growth is the European problem. Australia is fine.

Subject: Re: Dollars and Debt From: Paul G. Brown To: jd Date Posted: Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 15:04:24 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The decline of the dollar is not a serious problem yet. The decline is mainly against the Euro, Canadian and Australian dollars. --- The decline of the $US might not be a problem at all. It would have, in the short term, a stimulatory effect on the US economy because it reduces the price and thereby increased market demand for many US exports. And at least the classic model for estimating what 'e' ought to be would suggests a weakening of the $US against the EU. US interest rates are *really* low right now (so are Japanese rates) relative to European interest rates. So capital is moved from $US to EU, and the exchange rate is reflecting this reduced demand for $US. And if I follow Krugman's recent arguments correctly, his concern is about a 'fiscal crisis' as US government debt grows in an unsustainable way, and finally, very suddenly, in a manner typical of international financial crises, the money markets refuse to buy $US. And his further conjecture is that this is what elements of the Bush administration are trying to engineer, in order to force a reduction in the size of the US Federal Government.

Subject: Agreed From: Emma To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 14:29:46 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Agreed.

Subject: Liquidity trap - is it close? From: David E To: All Date Posted: Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 17:33:18 (EST) Email Address: daveellis_39@hotmail.com Message: Link- http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid={F1B1B20B-EBDE-435F-8349-A19E26DBB945}&siteid=google&dist=google I truly hope that all of those who 'pooh-pood' the 'liquidity trap' do not get a lesson in economics. This lesson is certainly one that I do not want to experience. But evidently the money supply has been shrinking since mid-September. Some pundits are saying that maybe Greenspan's pump has sprung a leak, and the supply of money has fallen. What a time to have the worst president ever, backed up by the weakest economic council ever, in charge. 'Where has all the money gone? By Dr. Irwin Kellner, CBS MarketWatch.com HEMPSTEAD, N.Y. (CBS.MW) -- The Federal Reserve may believe that it's keeping monetary policy accommodative, but if you look at the drop in the nation's money supply lately, the central bank may not be as easy as it thinks. There's a school of economic thought that considers a decline in the money supply -- such as the one that's been taking place over the past two months -- a sign that the Fed is tightening monetary policy. Known as monetarists, these economists believe that the Fed has total control over the country's money supply and that if it falls, it's because the Fed wants it to. I'm not so sure about this, as I will explain below. They also think that a shrinking money supply -- intended or not -- has a major effect on the economy and the financial markets if it lasts long enough. Here, you'll find no disagreement from most economists, including me.'

Subject: Re: Liquidity trap - is it close? From: Auros To: David E Date Posted: Tues, Dec 02, 2003 at 14:56:01 (EST) Email Address: rmharman@auros.org Message: I don't suppose you'd copy-paste the rest of the article, for those who don't have memberships?

Subject: Entire Post From: David E To: Auros Date Posted: Tues, Dec 02, 2003 at 18:04:08 (EST) Email Address: daveellis_39@HOTMAIL.COM Message: (CBS doesnt charge for its memberships, but here is the entire article) Where has all the money gone? Commentary: Trends suggest possible U.S. liquidity trap By Dr. Irwin Kellner, CBS MarketWatch.com Last Update: 9:28 AM ET Nov. 18, 2003 HEMPSTEAD, N.Y. (CBS.MW) -- The Federal Reserve may believe that it's keeping monetary policy accommodative, but if you look at the drop in the nation's money supply lately, the central bank may not be as easy as it thinks. CBS MARKETWATCH COMMENTARY THOM CALANDRA (WEEKDAYS) Metals melt-up leads asset managers to emerging winners TOMI KILGORE (MONDAYS) Commentary: Keep it simple BAMBI FRANCISCO (TUESDAYS) Traditional retailers step up online strategies MIKE TARSALA (WEDNESDAYS) Revenue issue hangs over PeopleSoft's defense (CORRECT) DAVID CALLAWAY (THURSDAYS) Terror fears still stalk the dollar JON FRIEDMAN (FRIDAYS) Ed Schultz is talk radio's `Great Liberal Hope' Free! Sign up here to receive our Midday Market Report e-Newsletter! TRACK THESE TOPICS My Portfolio Alerts Column: Irwin Kellner Create Get Breaking News sent directly to your inbox Create A Portfolio | Create An Alert There's a school of economic thought that considers a decline in the money supply -- such as the one that's been taking place over the past two months -- a sign that the Fed is tightening monetary policy. Known as monetarists, these economists believe that the Fed has total control over the country's money supply and that if it falls, it's because the Fed wants it to. I'm not so sure about this, as I will explain below. They also think that a shrinking money supply -- intended or not -- has a major effect on the economy and the financial markets if it lasts long enough. Here, you'll find no disagreement from most economists, including me. After rising continuously during the first eight months of this year, the major versions of the money supply have been contracting ever since. M2, which consists of cash, checking and most consumer deposits, has been shrinking since the middle of September; its 13-week rate of change has gone negative for the first time since 1995. M3, which adds large time deposits, eurodollars and other items, and even MZM, which includes all kinds of accounts on which checks can be written, also are shrinking, having abruptly changed direction in the past two months. If this decline in the money supply were to continue, it could restrain economic activity -- not to mention pull the stock market down. Indeed, the recent slowing in consumer spending and the pullback in stock prices may very well be the first signs that the economy is becoming parched for liquidity. Reasons why So what's to account for why the money supply falling at a time when the Fed has pushed short-term interest rates down to 45-year lows and maintains loud and clear that it is pursuing an accommodative monetary policy? The first thing that comes to mind is that the Fed doesn't have total control over the money supply, so its decline may be a reflection, rather than a cause, of a weakening in economic activity. Keep in mind that in our dynamic, free-market economy, the Fed can influence the supply of money, or its price (interest rates). It can't do both at the same time, however. In recent years, the Fed has clearly chosen to manipulate the price of money. Witness its emphasis on the federal funds rate, assuming that the money supply will respond accordingly. It's also worth keeping in mind that the Fed is only one of four players that influence the nation's money stock. The others are business, consumers and government. The central bank can provide the raw material to the others, in the form of the monetary base, but if the banks don't want to lend and consumers and business don't want to borrow, the money supply will shrink. This may be what's happening now. The monetary base is still growing, but the banks have turned more cautious about lending -- especially to debt-strapped consumers. The recent decline in mortgage refinancings is a factor, too. As for companies, they aren't borrowing much from their banks these days, either, for a couple of reasons. For one thing, they're generating lots of cash internally, since profits are soaring. For another, they're trying to keep inventories low, while the nascent rise in capital spending is being financed through the bond markets. So could this be another liquidity trap, such as the Fed encountered in the 1930s? Time will tell, in the meantime, keep your eye on the money supply. Dr. Irwin Kellner, chief economist for CBS.MarketWatch.com, is the Weller professor of economics at Hofstra University and chief economist of North Fork Bank.

Subject: Interesting From: Emma To: David E Date Posted: Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 10:18:48 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Interesting, but my guess is changes in money supply growth are much less important than in the 1980s. Still, the changes in money supply about the turn to 2000 and after interest me.

Subject: PK on Development From: Lise To: All Date Posted: Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 08:58:57 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: PK on development and trade is most important.

Subject: Love You Bobby From: Lise To: All Date Posted: Tues, Nov 25, 2003 at 12:43:14 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The PK archive is a trememdous reasource and as much a comfort. When I think there is only madness about, there is Paul Krugman and I know there is sanity. What 'Bobby' has done is deeply appreciated.

Subject: Re: Love You Bobby From: Bobby To: Lise Date Posted: Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 00:21:31 (EST) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: Thanks Lise. :)

Subject: Greenspan after PK From: cat To: All Date Posted: Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 06:45:39 (EST) Email Address: cat@mice.rat Message: As PK often says, 'conspiracy theories of the past are nowadays conventional wisdom'. I just read an article by Alan Greenspan giving serious warning about the huge deficit, the soon retiring baby boomers, the need for policies that address the deficit, and just everything PK was saying months ago, when everyone was calling him a paranoid. Hey Luskin, will you still say these W arnings are Bu**sh**? Link to the article (in spanish) www.cincodias.com/articulo.html?xref=20031124cdscdiopi_5&type=Tes&anchor=cdsopi

Subject: Greenspan after PK From: Emma To: cat Date Posted: Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 17:06:05 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Paul Krugman is and will be right about issue after issue. Wish he were not right, because we are setting in place terrible economic policies, but right he is.

Subject: Re: PK and California From: Sid Bachrach To: Emma Date Posted: Tues, Nov 25, 2003 at 23:11:55 (EST) Email Address: sidb23@juno.com Message: Mr. Krugman has his good points but let's remember that he loved Gray Davis and Gray Davis singlehandedly turned California into an economic basketcase.

Subject: Re: PK and California From: Paul G. Brown To: Sid Bachrach Date Posted: Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 15:16:37 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Mr. Krugman has his good points but let's remember that he loved Gray Davis and Gray Davis singlehandedly turned California into an economic basketcase. --- Hey Sid! 1. Got a citation or a quote on the 'Krugman loved Gray Davis' conjecture? (What did he say, and where and when did he say it?) 2. What's your evidence for 'Gray Davis singlehandedly turned California into an economic basketcase.'? (And be forewarned, as a California resident, I've done a bit of rummaging through the data in this question. A case can be made for your opinion, but I'm wondering if you can make it.)

Subject: California Questions? From: Emma To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 16:25:03 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Paul I think Gray Davis was sure not a smart Governor in the final year, but I do not think he created significant problems for California nor do I think California's fiscal problems are dire. What am I missing? No matter the answers, Sid is a troll. Emma

Subject: Re: California Questions? From: Paul G. Brown To: Emma Date Posted: Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 18:07:10 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: ... but I do not think he created significant problems for California nor do I think California's fiscal problems are dire. What am I missing? --- Well, there are degrees of dire. I'd say that the $38 Billion projected deficit was 'dire' because it necessitated either increasing taxes at a low point in the economic cycle or else reducing services at a time when people were suffering. The chickens are coming home to roost: the Governorator's proposal today is to cut ~$2B from services this year & next, and to use a bond issue to push payment into the future. ('Lord! Make me fiscally responsible! But not yet . . .') Davis' (et al - cuplability(sp?) extends over both sides of the legislature) error was to mistake a short term revenue spike for a structural change. So, California reduced income taxes. Have a look at the data on: http://www.taxfoundation.org/individualincometaxrates02.html or the record on Budget/Economy: http://kcal9.com/politics/politicsla_story_241173208.html What happened was that the cuts narrowed the revenue base. The top marginal rate remains unchanged at 9.3%, but at look at the way the burden is distributed. Between the end of 1999 and the end of 2002 the income level at which the top rate kicks in increased from $35,828 to $38,291, a 7% increase in two years. Not a problem when everyone's employed and making lots of capital gains. But a big problem if a large number of folk with very high incomes suddenly go pear-shaped, which is precisely what happened. Have a look at: http://kcal9.com/politics/politicsla_story_241173208.html By 2001, Capital Gains and Stock Options taxes were accounting for ~24% of California's revenue. By the end of 2001, it was back to ~12%. So does GD bear responsibility? Sure, I think. Some. He ought not have cut income taxes in the way he did if he was simultaneously increasing expenditure. And it looks like I've done Sid's homework assignment for him. . . .

Subject: Re: California Questions? From: sid bachrach To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 27, 2003 at 23:19:36 (EST) Email Address: sidb23@juno.com Message: good points by Paul. Saved me on the research! I would add one other point to the above post. Gray Davis expanded workers compensation benefits to the point where it was simply not possible for California businesses to be competitive. The benefits paid, for both real and imaginary workplace injuries, were made so expansive in California under Governor Davis that California businesses had no choice but to relocate. And none of these businesses wanted to relocate. Governor Davis left them with no choice. Although initially Governor Davis resisted the labor union lobbyists, he later caved and expanded workers compensation benefits wildly. Sure, he would give a few rhetorical bones to the business community but he allowed workers compensation benefits for umprovable things like 'stress' and 'emotional harm'. Then he appointed commissioners to hear Workers compensation cases that would rule against business 100% of the time. What Governor Davis did not understand was that without employers you do not have employees. In the end, California residents resented the public sector labor union control over all labor matters and recalled Mr. Davis.

Subject: Re: California Questions? From: Auros To: sid bachrach Date Posted: Tues, Dec 02, 2003 at 14:49:02 (EST) Email Address: rmharman@auros.org Message: Actually, it wasn't Gray that created the workers' comp problem. It's possible that he could've done more to fight the leg on this issue, but it might've cost him the '02 election by cutting his backing from the state employees' union. While it might be nice if more politicians were willing to make decisions that cost them elections, it's hardly fair to _expect_ that sort of thing. We need to reform the system, so that there aren't so many incentives against having a backbone. From Daniel Weintraub (who was, mind you, no fan of Davis)... http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/columns/weintraub/story/7198597p-8145436c.html Morgenstern said he took the issue to Davis and warned him it could be 1979 all over again. That year, when Davis was chief of staff to Gov. Jerry Brown and Morgenstern was personnel director, Brown had refused to negotiate a pay raise for state employees, only to see the Legislature send one to his desk. Brown vetoed it and the Legislature overrode his veto. Then he vetoed the money out of the budget and they overrode that, too. 'I told the governor, 'This bill is going to be on your desk,' ' Morgenstern said. ' 'You have two choices. You can let me negotiate and try to cut the costs down. Or you can deal with this bill that going's to come to you with probably close to a unanimous legislative vote and the whole PERS board behind it.' He said go negotiate.'

Subject: Workers Compensation From: Emma To: sid bachrach Date Posted: Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 08:54:39 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Worker's Compensation in California appears quite problem in comparison with reasonable states like Washington or Massachusetts or New Jersey or Oregon, but there is NO statistical evidence California businesses could not be competitive and so left the state. California did not fare more poorly than comparable states since 2000. Was Gray Davis the problem on compensation? I do not know, and only heard complaints about the need for compensation reform. Are unions out of control in California? Nonsense. Ask the grocery workers. Unions are struggling through the country. Gray Davis is gone. Fine. Now, we will watch AS shift and expand debt to the future. As for reform, we will see.

Subject: Re: California Questions? From: Paul G. Brown To: sid bachrach Date Posted: Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 00:07:21 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I would add one other point to the above post. Gray Davis expanded workers compensation benefits to the point where it was simply not possible for California businesses to be competitive. --- Sid - Davis did nothing of the sort. http://www.insurance.ca.gov/RRD/RSU/WorkersCompOverviewJune2003.pdf and if you want to see what the Republicans are saying: http://republican.assembly.ca.gov/Members/5_Bates/includes/CAWorkersComp.pdf The 'problem' is that insurance premiums for workers compensation insurance have increased. Interestingly, the rates of workers comp claims have fallen: what has increased dramatically is the per-claim payout. This increase is due to several factors; increasing medical costs generally, the collapse of a number of insurance carriers that sought to increase market share through lower premiums, and a shift towards using workers compensation to supplement lower and lower levels of medical coverage. Another factor increasing costs is the underfunding of the legal infrastructure set up to adjudicate workers comp claims. Davis proposed a raft of reforms built on a platform of largely Republican ideas (see the Republican paper). But he and the legislature had, well, other things to think about. I expect the Governator will pick up some melange of these proposals and something will be hashed out. And as for the evidence that jobs are leaving the state, that's certainly true, but if you're following the news the jobs are leaving the state for overseas, not another US state with a more competitive workers compensation system. Workers comp insurance costs Californian employees about $6 for every $100 of wages, while it costs about $2 or $3 per $100 in other states. I got these figures from a decidely pro-business source: http://www.ncpa.org/iss/eco/2003/pd081803c.html Yet an Indian programmer or a Chinese assembly line worker costs 1/3 to 1/10 of a Californian. If anything, more jobs are leaving the state as a consequence of a free market in jobs than workers comp. In other words, Krugman bears more responsibility for this than Davis! :-)

Subject: Paul Brown and Compensation From: Emma To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 09:05:27 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: - The 'problem' is that insurance premiums for workers compensation insurance have increased. Interestingly, the rates of workers comp claims have fallen: what has increased dramatically is the per-claim payout. This increase is due to several factors; increasing medical costs generally, the collapse of a number of insurance carriers that sought to increase market share through lower premiums, and a shift towards using workers compensation to supplement lower and lower levels of medical coverage. Another factor increasing costs is the underfunding of the legal infrastructure set up to adjudicate workers comp claims. - Most important points. California as Texas has a most severe problem with lack of medical insurance for workers. This lack of medical coverage has spread costs elsewhere. The strike-lockout of grocery workers to protect medical benefits and wages shows the pressure on low and middle level wage workers in the state.

Subject: Do Read Paul Brown From: Emma To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 08:57:09 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Another perfect post. Nice indeed. Thanks for the lessons.

Subject: Re: Do Read Paul Brown From: Sid Bachrach To: Emma Date Posted: Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 12:08:15 (EST) Email Address: sidb23@juno.com Message: Governor Davis did two disatrous things on his way out of office. First he signed a bill that he had twice vetoed in his centrist days. The first bill he signed allows police officers from the age of 50 to 55 to stay on the job and collect their full salaries while also collecting 90% of their pensions. In short, they get two fat salaries for one job. Governor David caved into yet another public sector job and of course to make up this new need for money for public employees, things like sales taxes, most borne by the working poor, must rise. And then Governor Davis said that twon council can not override the salary arbitration decisions of arbitrators all handpicked by Governor Davis. These arbitrators in California have a history of ruling 100% of the time in favor of municipal unions in disputes with Ca. cities and towns. So municipal unions in California have no incentive to negotiate realistic contracts with Ca. towns and cities. They just insist upon arbitratiton and get everything they want. And then there is the infamous labor contract that Mr. Davis handed to the prison guards. The prison guards unions publicly laughed about how they rolled over Davis like a steamroller. It is this abject surrender of the state of California to publi sector labor unions, combined with adding more types of claims to workers compensation cases that have ruined California's economy. It is no wonder that so many people in Nevada wanted Gray Davis to stay in office. Mr. Davis created more jobs for Nevadans than any governor in Nevada could ever dream of creating.

Subject: Well Answered From: Emma To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 27, 2003 at 17:57:23 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Thanks for the lessons here. This explains a lot that has troubled me. My take also was that the major mistake was in thinking a short term revenue increase during the Clinton years could be counted on thereafter. Well done. ('Lord! Make me fiscally responsible! But not yet . . .') - Yes. There is our credo.

Subject: I also hate California From: I am Sid Troll To: Sid Bachrach Date Posted: Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 15:11:15 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Keep tolling fool.

Subject: Troll Trolling From: I am Sid Troll To: Sid Bachrach Date Posted: Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 15:08:36 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: 'Gray Davis singlehandedly turned California into an economic basketcase.' Singlehandedly! Actually California is fine. What a fool you are. Keep trolling, fool.

Subject: What's up with the colors? From: dazzled To: All Date Posted: Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 13:09:09 (EST) Email Address: zzi@att.net Message: I'm an occassional visitor to this site. It's great except for one thing: the color scheme. What is it with the blue links on a green-blue background. It's extremely taxing on the eyes. Maybe I'm color-blind or something, but I find it very hard to read. Does anyone know how I can set browser settings in internet explorer to get something more readable. I thought I'd bring it up since the previous thread was on the topic of shrill book covers. But otherwise, this is an excellent site. Great service. Thanks.

Subject: Re: What's up with the colors? From: Bobby To: dazzled Date Posted: Sun, Nov 23, 2003 at 01:55:03 (EST) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: Okay, done. The color scheme is changed. Ugly, but more readable

Subject: Re: What's up with the colors? From: Bobby To: dazzled Date Posted: Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 17:05:40 (EST) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: Look, I've tried before to change it, and it was quite difficult. I'm still trying to put in any articles that aren't here. I'm also trying to redo the slate articles, since my predecessor here didn't put in any of the links on the original articles. I'll do something about on the color though soon.

Subject: Brad de Long's reply to The Economist From: Economist Reader To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 20, 2003 at 16:38:24 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The Economist has published the following letter from Brad de Long this week, commenting about their article on Krugman last week. It could hardly have been better written. === Krugman's quite right SIR – So Paul Krugman is a partisan hack (Face value, November 15th)? Did you not have the time to find out what Mr Krugman has also written about prominent Democrats like Robert Kuttner, Lester Thurow or Robert Reich? Mr Kuttner, proprietor of the American Prospect, believes that Mr Krugman is a right-wing mole: “far more charitable to very conservative fellow economists [like] Milton Friedman, Robert Lucas, Martin Feldstein...than to fellow liberals...whom he dismisses as pseudo-economists and mere ‘policy entrepreneurs'.” Mr Krugman wages, and always has waged, intellectual thermonuclear war against all whom he regards as denizens of the pit and carriers of error. He's usually right (80% of the time?); he's sometimes wrong. The interesting question—which you did not pose—is what has the Bush administration done over the past three years to draw such a concentration of Mr Krugman's intellectual fire? It is odd that you name only one critic, lyinginponds.com, but mention unnamed “people” and “critics” who “cannot all be easily dismissed”, “game theorists” who were “not convince[d]”, “fellow economists, jealous”. Perhaps this is because laudably you do not want to give public prominence to unbalanced loons. J. Bradford DeLong Berkeley, California http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2227247 www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2227247

Subject: Re: Brad de Long's reply to The Economist From: WER To: Economist Reader Date Posted: Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 05:48:14 (EST) Email Address: DERN Message: Well, to be honest, the Economist's article was looking almost exclusively focused on Krugman's time as a columnist fot NYT. And during his time there he hasn't taken as many cracks at folks like Reich as he used to.

Subject: Re: Brad de Long's reply to The Economist From: Bobby To: WER Date Posted: Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 06:02:06 (EST) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: The folks like Reich are thoroughly irrelevant to anything going on today -- they have no influence on the agenda. Criticizing them would be like a conservative railing against social workers for their political beliefs. Frankly, if Robert Reich or Ira Magaziner still did have power, it would be way way better than what we have now. Krugman even says that the Bushies make him miss Reagan! In general, Democrats in the public sphere have been completely immasculated since Clinton left office, with the rare exceptions of Krugman, Howard Dean, a handful of people on the internet, and a few others. Criticizing the Democrats serves no purpose whatsoever, that is unless that criticism is meant to tell them to get some kind of backbone or to help them on actually taking back at least one branch of the federal government.

Subject: Re: Brad de Long's reply to The Economist From: John boromer To: Bobby Date Posted: Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 05:48:08 (EST) Email Address: jboromer@iwu.edu Message: I just wanted to let everyone know that the latest recently observed 'smear campaign' against pk grabbed my attention and made me read a whole bunch of his articles. in other words, any publicity really is good publicity. Keep it real.

Subject: UK book cover From: Krugmaniac To: All Date Posted: Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 14:05:44 (EST) Email Address: excitemailadd@yahoo.com Message: What do folks here think of the The Great Unravelling's UK book cover? Amazon UK www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0713997435/qid=1069217021/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_3_1/026-6032958-6570013 images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/0713997435.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Subject: How the Cover Came to Be From: Randall To: Krugmaniac Date Posted: Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 15:17:55 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/23/weekinreview/23BIGP.html Stuart Proffitt, who published the British edition for the Allen Lane imprint of Penguin Press, said he chose the cover because it seemed appropriate to the book's potential readers in Britain, where Mr. Krugman's name is less known and Mr. Bush is less popular than in the United States.... The cover images of Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney were borrowed from puppets carried by protesters outside the World Economic Forum in New York in 2002. Mr. Krugman said that he took part in the forum and does not share the protesters' views. He noted that his columns have defended free trade and argued that the administration's war in Iraq was not about oil. 'It is a marketing thing, not a statement,' he said. 'I should have taken a look at that and said, `What are you doing marketing me as if I am Michael Moore? This is silly.' ' Incivility is one thing, he said, but the book cover 'may be undignified, which would be a reason to object.'

Subject: Re: UK book cover From: doktorprofessor To: Krugmaniac Date Posted: Tues, Nov 25, 2003 at 14:53:32 (EST) Email Address: nospam@nospam.org Message: Shrill, partisan, nothing to do with Economics - fits what Krugman has become to a T.

Subject: Content Still Terrific From: Emma To: Krugmaniac Date Posted: Tues, Nov 25, 2003 at 12:47:30 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The content is what counts and what annoys the radical rightees who fear all discourse [let alone criticism] they can not control.

Subject: Content is What Counts From: jenifer To: Krugmaniac Date Posted: Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 17:04:02 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: All that counts is the content. We must watch for trolls, darn!

Subject: Re: UK book cover From: Booby To: Krugmaniac Date Posted: Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 15:22:17 (EST) Email Address: noemail@noemail.com Message: Krugman is a crank. This book destroys what is left of his credibility.

Subject: Troll Here From: Troll Here To: Booby Date Posted: Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 17:01:48 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message:

Subject: Darn Poor Cover From: Emma To: Krugmaniac Date Posted: Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 14:47:29 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: PK probably has no influence on the cover since the rights are sold from the American publisher to the British publisher. The American publisher probably has no influence. But, the cover will detract from a most important book. The cover is ugly and pointless.

Subject: Re: UK book cover From: Juliet To: Krugmaniac Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 20, 2003 at 15:27:03 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: It's clearly a marketing tool used to sell the book to the Brits. Notice that they removed: Losing our way in the New Century. The Brits love a good thrashing. So while Americans may not like it, me included, it's not geared towards our sensibilites. That's why we get the serious, albeit plain cover.

Subject: Poor Choice From: Jenifer To: Krugmaniac Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 20, 2003 at 13:10:20 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Though I dearly love PK, I would not wish to be seen buying or reading a book with such a cover and would not wish such a cover in my bookcase. Disappointing!

Subject: Awful Cover From: AJ To: Krugmaniac Date Posted: Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 15:03:34 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Awful cover.

Subject: Re: Awful Cover From: justin To: AJ Date Posted: Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 17:37:23 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Politically incorrect

Subject: Re: Awful Cover From: Bobby To: AJ Date Posted: Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 16:12:33 (EST) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: What I find odd is that it took so long for Donald Luskin to find out about it -- I knew about it back in August or so. I was waiting for people to attack this book cover, but the attack didn't come. From what I see, Luskin only noticed it in a post written today. I think it really says something about his competence as a supposed journalist, whose focus is Krugman, that it took him so damn long.

Subject: Re: Awful Cover From: Ken Doran To: Bobby Date Posted: Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 13:25:38 (EST) Email Address: kendoran@execpc.com Message: I think an American can buy the British cover version simply by ordering from the amazon.uk link that you have posted. This is technically a different item from the American version, and I don't think they will substitute. Can't absolutely swear to it, however.

Subject: Re: Awful Cover From: Bobby To: Ken Doran Date Posted: Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 17:07:58 (EST) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: That's exactly what I'm scared of. I'm not going to tell people that such-and-such a link is where to buy it until I'm dead sure

Subject: Re: Awful Cover From: Ken Doran To: Bobby Date Posted: Sun, Nov 23, 2003 at 00:57:10 (EST) Email Address: kendoran@execpc.com Message: Are you doing a test purchase?

Subject: Re: Awful Cover From: Bobby To: Ken Doran Date Posted: Sun, Nov 23, 2003 at 01:47:51 (EST) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: I'm not, but the people at Monteiro are checking it out and will hopefully get back to me soon.

Subject: Re: Awful Cover From: Paul G. Brown To: Bobby Date Posted: Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 16:46:56 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: What I find odd is that it took so long for Donald Luskin to find out about it -- I knew about it back in August or so. --- Luskin should approve whole-heartedly, damnit. A book cover is a marketing tool. This one is designed to maximize the book's market appeal. Folk who know about Krugman independent of the book will buy it or spurn it regardless of the cover (even if the book was a haloed George W. Bush icon). So the imagery is designed to appeal to a class of book buyer in the mood for a little Bush-whacking. I mean, that's what market capitalism is all about: create something, appeal to people who might want it, and then sell it to them. Seems to me Luskin's advice would keep anyone who took him seriously poor and stupid. Oh.. wait a minute ...

Subject: Re: Awful Cover From: Auros To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 14:34:28 (EST) Email Address: rmharman@auros.org Message: I mean, that's what market capitalism is all about: create something, appeal to people who might want it, and then sell it to them. --- Well, right, but the modern breed of conservative only likes markets as long as they make their own buddies rich. *g* I do think that the cover is kind of distasteful, and I'm curious to hear from Krugman himself, on what he thinks. The columns are scathing, of course, but always grounded in checkable facts; the cover is just inflammatory. Also, Bobby, I'm fairly certain that the picture of bush _is_ intended to look like Frankenstein's Monster, the implication being that Bush was 'created' by Enron, and other such corporate powers.

Subject: Re: Awful Cover From: Bobby To: Auros Date Posted: Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 21:29:27 (EST) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: Fine, but this is a trivial distinction. My question is, if he's Frankenstein, where are the bolts in his neck? How 'bout the flat top?

Subject: Re: Awful Cover From: Auros To: Auros Date Posted: Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 14:59:55 (EST) Email Address: rmharman@auros.org Message: Aha! Ask, and ye shall receive... http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/23/weekinreview/23BIGP.html?tntemail0 The cover images of Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney were borrowed from puppets carried by protesters outside the World Economic Forum in New York in 2002. Mr. Krugman said that he took part in the forum and does not share the protesters' views. He noted that his columns have defended free trade and argued that the administration's war in Iraq was not about oil. 'It is a marketing thing, not a statement,' he said. 'I should have taken a look at that and said, `What are you doing marketing me as if I am Michael Moore? This is silly.' ' Incivility is one thing, he said, but the book cover 'may be undignified, which would be a reason to object.'

Subject: Explaining From: Emma To: Auros Date Posted: Tues, Nov 25, 2003 at 12:50:17 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Thanks for explaining - - The cover images of Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney were borrowed from puppets carried by protesters outside the World Economic Forum in New York in 2002. Mr. Krugman said that he took part in the forum and does not share the protesters' views. He noted that his columns have defended free trade and argued that the administration's war in Iraq was not about oil. 'It is a marketing thing, not a statement,' he said. 'I should have taken a look at that and said, `What are you doing marketing me as if I am Michael Moore? This is silly.' ' Incivility is one thing, he said, but the book cover 'may be undignified, which would be a reason to object.' -

Subject: Medicare Drug Bill Analysis From: Emma To: All Date Posted: Tues, Nov 18, 2003 at 16:25:33 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: http://www.cbpp.org/11-18-03health2.htm The conference agreement on the Medicare drug bill would cost an estimated $400 billion over ten years, and much larger amounts in succeeding decades as drug prices continue to rise. Because the legislation is not “paid for,” it would substantially worsen the nation’s long-term fiscal problems, which already threaten to be the most serious in the nation’s history. This raises a fundamental question: is the legislation sound enough policy to justify substantially worsening an already grim long-term fiscal outlook? Examination of the legislation strongly suggests the answer is no....

Subject: Re: Medicare Drug Bill Analysis From: Juliet To: Emma Date Posted: Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 08:18:21 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: But of course, isn't that point? I read somewhere there is a provision in place that if the program becomes too expensive to continue, it can be done away with. Bye Bye Medicare. And the GOP gets their way again. Our country cannot take much more of these compassionate conservatives.

Subject: Medicare Travesty From: Emma To: All Date Posted: Tues, Nov 18, 2003 at 12:56:39 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: cbpp.org Medicare Agreement Could Cause Hardship for Many Poor Seniors and Disabled People and Make Them Worse Off than Under Current Law - 11/18/03 The Medicare conference agreement would leave a substantial number of the 6.4 million dual eligibles -- low-income Medicare beneficiaries who are also eligible for Medicaid -- worse off by requiring them to pay significantly higher co-payments for prescription drugs than they do now and removing access to certain drugs they currently receive.

Subject: Medicare Backlash? From: Juliet To: Emma Date Posted: Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 08:26:25 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Our only hope is that the backlash of the GOP adopting this bill will be that outraged Seniors, who do vote, will vote out Republicans in Congress and the White House. Since the bill won't take effect until 2006, Seniors may still be simmering over the bill by election time. Let's keep our fingers crossed.

Subject: Medicare Travesty CBPP From: Emma To: Emma Date Posted: Tues, Nov 18, 2003 at 12:57:28 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: http://www.cbpp.org/11-18-03health.htm

Subject: AARP Seeks Feedback From: Juliet To: All Date Posted: Tues, Nov 18, 2003 at 10:27:55 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The AARP message board is full of unhappy people wondering why the AARP would support the prescription legislation. If you want to express your opinion on their endorsement you can email them at community@aarp.org or phone them at 1 800 424-3410

Subject: Awful AARP Stance From: Jenifer To: Juliet Date Posted: Tues, Nov 18, 2003 at 12:38:44 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The AARP stance on the Medicare drug plan will lead to just the problems Paul Krugman described. AARP will be allowing the privatizing of Medicare and in a decade a shredding of middle benefts. Darn Darn Darn!!!

Subject: Take a gander at AARP message board From: Juliet To: Jenifer Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 20, 2003 at 15:31:25 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hey Jenifer, Have you gone over and looked at their message board? I looked several days ago and it was filled with angry people, although many of them were directed to go there by Atrios. But I went over again just today and more and more messages have flooded the board. I don't think they are all weblog junkies. People truly are outraged that their CEO would sell them out on a bill that he says is 'imperfect' but better than nothing, when in this case, it's so clearly not.

Subject: Brooks & Krugman From: Paul G. Brown To: All Date Posted: Tues, Nov 18, 2003 at 00:32:53 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: It's not Brooks verses Krugman. But the two do present a fascinating contrast in style, ideas and temperament. Brooks' latest column is about democrats (lower case significant) and women's magazines. Smiling women's magazines are classless; unsmiling ones are elitist. The smiling ones are doing well. This is because we're basically a classless, democratic society. Brook's concludes: 'Alexis de Tocqueville wrote a rather important book on how, in America, the democratic personality supplants the aristocratic personality. The democrat smashes hierarchies. The democrat is interested in everyday happiness, not lofty excellence. The democrat simply does not acknowledge the existence of social class. Nobody is above me and nobody is below me. We are all equal, and we are all Lucky.' (Case is supposd to mean something here, but its all too subtle for me. A cigarette, perhaps?) (BTW: 'Tocqueville wrote a rather important book'? How very twee! Someone get Peggy Noonan to brief Mr Brooks on the resurrection of the manly man.) Krugman meanwhile, lays out some facts. Small to medium investors in mutual funds have been systematically cheated (read: had their money stolen) by fund managers who favored large, rich, investors. And that's how things really work in these 'classless' United States, in spite of what Brooks--basing his insight on magazine covers--believes. It's a fascinating contrast. I look forward to watching it evolve.

Subject: David Brooks and Morals From: Terri To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Tues, Nov 18, 2003 at 12:51:13 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/04/opinion/04BROO.html?ex=1069045200&en=9596f8817000f46a&ei=5070 November 11, 2003 Avoid War Crimes To the Editor: In 'A Burden Too Heavy to Put Down' (column, Nov. 4), David Brooks writes, 'Inevitably, there will be atrocities' committed by our forces in Iraq. Did he forget to add that they must be prosecuted? War crimes are indeed more likely if influential commentators foreshadow impunity for perpetrators of the 'brutal measures our own troops will have to adopt.' The choice is not between committing war crimes and retreating 'into the paradise of our own innocence.' A third option is for the United States to strive to avoid complicity. It is untrue that 'we have to take morally hazardous action.' Those who choose it, or urge others to, cannot evade or distribute responsibility by asserting that 'we live in a fallen world.' BEN KIERNAN New Haven, Nov. 4, 2003 The writer is director of the Genocide Studies Program at Yale University.

Subject: Re: Brooks & Krugman From: Publius To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Tues, Nov 18, 2003 at 04:13:25 (EST) Email Address: austinstoneman@aol.com Message: Yeah, David Brooks can stick his 'cultural criticism' up his effete white butt. I find it sickening when people like Brooks try to locate political meaning from culture and mores and TV shows and magazines. These types of generalizations are devoid of intellectual content, overbroad, and offensive, because they crudely stereotype how groups of people live. Imagine if Brooks wrote about African-Americans (or, god forbid, gays!) the way he writes about 'elites.' The worst offender in this regard is 'Queen Andrew' Sullivan, who actually used the term 'Starbucks Metrosexual Elite' to describe the Howard Dean campaign the other day. He is also fond of the term 'South Park Republicans,' a nonsensical phrase inasmuch as Trey Parker and Matt Stone are far-lefties and any conservative political meaning from their show is pure coincidence or interpretation.

Subject: Re: Brooks & Krugman From: Juliet To: Publius Date Posted: Tues, Nov 18, 2003 at 10:21:40 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: smiling magazine: Woman, usually in a turtle neck or high necked blouse, sweater. Wholesome, probably goes to church. Classless, Democratic. Unsmiling magazine: Model usually showing boobies or part of boobies, looks kind of Trampy, a bar fly and or, a high priced call girl. Elitist, Republican? I thought the GOP stood for wholesomeness, godliness, not boobies. Shrug.

Subject: Shrug From: JD To: Juliet Date Posted: Tues, Nov 18, 2003 at 14:06:47 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Perfect, Juliet

Subject: David Brooks Has No Class From: Emma To: Juliet Date Posted: Tues, Nov 18, 2003 at 12:45:25 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: David Brooks drips arrogance and disdain for all but some imagined wealthy male WASP ideal. Yuch.

Subject: Re: David Brooks Has No Class From: sid bachrach To: Emma Date Posted: Tues, Nov 18, 2003 at 16:48:57 (EST) Email Address: sidb23@juno.com Message: That is probably true about Brooks and I have no use for the country club, horse farm set. These are clowns who think their prep school education somehow makes them superior to everyone else. I am sure Brooks never went bowling or to a NASCAR race in his life and would be sickened by the people there. But paradoxically, thw whole staff at the NY Times, while liberal, drip with disdain for everyone else. Anthony Lewis was exhibit A. At least Krugman is not a snob.

Subject: There is Bob Herbert From: Ari To: sid bachrach Date Posted: Tues, Nov 18, 2003 at 17:35:23 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Remember there is always Bob Herbert, a fine earthy columnist to go with PK!

Subject: Re: There is Bob Herbert From: Sid Bachrach To: Ari Date Posted: Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 14:40:20 (EST) Email Address: sidb23@juno.com Message: I always liked Bob Herebert for two reasons. First, he is an unabashed New York Jets fan and for those of us who follow gang green, we know how difficult that is. Second, he is the only columnist to take on Al Sharpton. While most columnists cower in fear of Sharpton, Mr. Herbert wrote some brilliant columns that exposed Sharpton for what he is. Mr. Herbert told some unpleasant truths about Sharpton, such as his role in fomenting an arson fire that killed many South American immigrants and his defaming of some public officials in the Brawley case. In contrast to Mr. Herbert's intellectual integrity,Senator Joe Lieberman, who should know better, said he feels like 'saying Amen after I hear Reverend Sharpton speak'. Truly pathetic on Lieberman's part.

Subject: Re: There is Bob Herbert From: Juliet To: Sid Bachrach Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 20, 2003 at 15:52:23 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Come on Sid, admit it! You're starting to like us Paul Krugman loonies just a little. Don't deny it, you know you are. = )

Subject: Re: There is Bob Herbert From: Paul G. Brown To: Juliet Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 20, 2003 at 16:17:54 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Come on Sid, admit it! You're starting to like us Paul Krugman loonies just a little. Don't deny it, you know you are. = ) --- Oochy-coochy-coo, Sid! ;-)

Subject: Dangers of Excusing Bigotry From: Sid Bachrach To: All Date Posted: Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 18:07:04 (EST) Email Address: sidb23@juno.com Message: The double homicide bombing at the Istanbul synagogues shows how dangerous it is for columnists to excuse away antiSemitic or bigoted comments by people like Matthair Mohammed. It is entirely possible that the criminals who committed this deed and their handlers were influenced by Mohammed's speech or countless similar speeches that had entered the fevered brains of these murderers. It proves, once and for all, that words have consequences. Hopefully, this will lead Mr. Krugman and others to condemn racist words from Islamic extermists without saying that they are really the products of Bush and Sharon. Whatever one thinks of the policies of Bush or Sharon, these policies can not and do not lead scoundrels like Muhammed to say that Jews run the world or Jews run the banks or Jews strangle the world economy. Please, Mr. Krugman, do not tell me that people like Muhammed are merely playing to their domestic constituencies. It insults the people of Malaysia to say that they all want the red meat of antiSemitism. If any good comes out of the despicable Istanbul murders, maybe it will that certain columnists will be less tolerant of antisemitism and less willing to blame Bush and Sharon for the racism of others.

Subject: There was no Excuse of Bigotry From: Emma To: Sid Bachrach Date Posted: Tues, Nov 18, 2003 at 13:00:57 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: There was no excuse of bigotry! Never was, never will be.

Subject: I Can not Help Being a Troll From: I am Sid Troll To: Sid Bachrach Date Posted: Tues, Nov 18, 2003 at 12:42:07 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I am also hateful as hateful can be.

Subject: Just Makes Stuff Up From: Ari To: I am Sid Troll Date Posted: Tues, Nov 18, 2003 at 14:48:36 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: 'It insults the people of Malaysia to say that they all want the red meat of antiSemitism.' This is Sid and no text I ever read. Rubbish!

Subject: I am a Troll of Trolls From: Sid Troll To: Sid Bachrach Date Posted: Tues, Nov 18, 2003 at 12:40:31 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Do not feed the looney troll.

Subject: Re: Dangers of Excusing Bigotry From: Brutus To: Sid Bachrach Date Posted: Tues, Nov 18, 2003 at 04:21:09 (EST) Email Address: slipknot@hotfail.com Message: Yeah, I hear the terrorists were inspired by Krugman's columns when they committed their horrific deeds in Istanbul. Krugman is constantly agitating for anti-semetic violence in his columns, especially the Mahatir one, and I guess that bothers me sometimes. Good, logical post, Sid, nice reasoning.

Subject: Re: Dangers of Excusing Bigotry From: Juliet To: Brutus Date Posted: Tues, Nov 18, 2003 at 10:23:33 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Whenever Sid tries to reason, he always comes up dreadfully short. Nuff said.

Subject: Re: Missing the Point From: Sid Bachrach To: Juliet Date Posted: Tues, Nov 18, 2003 at 11:54:09 (EST) Email Address: sidb23@juno.com Message: You guys are all missing the point! I never once said that Mr. Krugman endorsed the views of Mohammed. Quite the contrary! My point was very simple: It was not one of Mr. Krugman's finer moments when he came up with excuses for Mohammed's statements about Jews and said that we should try to understand why Mohammed said what he said. Mr. Krugman suggested that these remarks for only for domestic consumption. Baloney! We expect leaders to rise above the raw bigotry of citizens and try to teach the citizens that bigotry is a dead end. So instead of using the tired old 'domestic consumption' excuse, Mr. Krugman should have said: 'Mohammed can not cal himself a leader unless he tells his countryment that bigotry is wrong'. Second, Mr. Krugman suggested that Bush and Sharon were somehow responsible for leading the Muslim world to antiSemitism. One should never try to blame others for the sin of bigotry and racism. A racist is a racist because he or she chose to become one. It has nothing to do with Bush or Sharon or Reagan. Finally, words have consequences. The murderers at the Istanbul synagoges were no doubt influenced by thousands of hate filled speeches coming from the likes of Mohammed. The people who listen to this poison in the Islamic world are largely uneducated and learn only from the madrasses. So they essentially a blank slate waiting to be written on. And that is the danger from the virulent speeches from people like Matthair Mohammed. When Mohammed calls for Muslims to take action against their 'opressors' (read JEWS!), poisonous results can happen. And that is what Mr. Krugman totally missed in his column in which the only adjective he used to describe Mohammed was 'clever'. Bigotry is wrong. Period. End of sentence.

Subject: You're the one missing the point From: Auros To: Sid Bachrach Date Posted: Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 15:13:09 (EST) Email Address: rmharman@auros.org Message: If the alternative to Mahathir would be worse -- and Iran-style religious gov't that would directly support terrorists -- and Mahathir's anti-Semitic comments are necessary for him to maintain some level of popularity / political control; then we may condemn the sentiment, and even condemn the man if he actually believes such things. Krugman's point, however, was that it would be stupid to regard the remarks as unexpected, and that the facts about the Muslim world revealed by the necessity of such remarks are far more distressing than the remarks themselves. Krugman at no time said he considered the remarks OK or excusable. He was making a more subtle point that conservatives are trying to ignore, seeing yet another chance to slam PK.

Subject: Getting the Point From: Emma To: Sid Bachrach Date Posted: Tues, Nov 18, 2003 at 13:04:28 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Try reading Paul Krugman and Thomas Friedman and thinking. There was never an excuse for bigotry, so stop being a troll if you possibly can.

Subject: Re: Getting the Point From: Sid Bachrach To: Emma Date Posted: Tues, Nov 18, 2003 at 16:40:05 (EST) Email Address: sidb23@juno.com Message: At least Mr. Krugman, while sometimes misguided, does not see himself as the savior of the world as does Tom Friedman. Friedman once wrote a column saying Israel should unilaterally withdraw to the 1967 borders because a Saudi official told HIM that if Israel did this, there would be peace. Friedman wanted Israel to make major policy changes based on what a Saudi diplomat told him. I can imagine Barak and Sharon sitting together saying: 'Gee we should make all these policy changes because Tom Friedman says it is a good idea'. What a laugh. Mr. Friedman's credo in life is: 'I work for the New York Times. Therefore I am smarter than anyone else and kow all there is to know'.

Subject: Re: Getting the Point From: Ari To: Sid Bachrach Date Posted: Tues, Nov 18, 2003 at 17:32:20 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: There must be a Palestinian state along side Israel for there to be a peace. Barak wished for a Palestinian state, and Clinton pushed and pushed but Arafat walked away from Barak.

Subject: from member of Veterans for Peace From: Roland Van Deusen To: All Date Posted: Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 13:09:54 (EST) Email Address: vandeusenn@aol.com Message: Franken's book says Bush ignored for 8 months before 9/11, every antiterror step taken since 9/11,dismissing prevention as 'Clinton plan. We need Star Wars' until too late on 9/11. So wouldn't Bush be indictable as accessory before the fact to 3000 counts of criminally negligent homocide on 9/11? Might you file a class action on behalf of 9/11 families, or do you and Franken, Moore, etc. need Bush around as material for your next books? RSVP

Subject: Medicare Needs Protection From: Terri To: All Date Posted: Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 17:36:07 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: PK on the proposed Medicare drug assistance bill is absolutely accurate and just as scary!

Subject: Emailed Congress From: David E To: Terri Date Posted: Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 11:33:18 (EST) Email Address: daveellis_39@hotmail.com Message: Told them what I thought of the repuglican proposal. Thank god my represenatives are all democrats, and I thanked them for their support.

Subject: Fine Idea From: Terri To: David E Date Posted: Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 18:40:01 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Did the Same!

Subject: Article on Krugman in The Economist From: Economist Reader To: All Date Posted: Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 08:32:18 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Check out the article on Krugman in the latest Economist. It is titled 'The one-handed economist' and as expected attacks Krugman for his 'partisan' columns. Those of you who read the economist could see this one coming a while ago (was it Lexington who mentioned him in one of his articles?). The buffoons who are running the paper give more and more the impression that they are writing under-researched and ideologically motivated rushed essays. I mourn the great paper it used to be before... the Bush presidency, funnily enough! It was conservative, but it did not have the bullshit of today and the willingness to prosternate itself before Bush Inc. They make one specific charge about the lump of labour fallacy claim of Krugman I have not been able to research yet, but the rest is very weak. In this particular piece they make a confusion between what Krugman distinguished as even-handedness and objectiveness, which are not the same thing. The article fails to recognise that the true radicals are comfortably sitting in the present administration. http://www.economist.com/people/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2208841 www.economist.com/people/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2208841

Subject: Re: Article on Krugman in The Economist From: Susan D. To: Economist Reader Date Posted: Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 11:14:19 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I emailed the Economist and told them that they were focusing too much emphasis on how Krugman signs his voter registration card and not enough on whether he was correct.

Subject: Krugman is Right not Economist From: Jenifer To: Susan D. Date Posted: Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 13:20:04 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The point is that Paul Krugman is and has been correct on issue after issue. Where the heck was the Economist on issue after issue, between chasing after George Bush as the fiscal wonder prince or chasing after WMDs in Iraq.

Subject: Re: Article on Krugman in The Economist From: Paul G. Brown To: Economist Reader Date Posted: Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 13:38:22 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: In their defence, The Economist's last edition was blunt in its assessment of the Bush economic legacy. Structural deficit, increased government spending, no plan to pay for the social safety net, bad, bad bad. They didn't (couldn't/wouldn't) make explicit the Krugman thesis that these are not 'bugs' in the Bush plan but rather 'features'. However their overall conclusions were very, very negative and concurred with many of the analytic points made by our man. Given their subscriber base, the safest thing for The Economist to do is tar Krugman as 'partisan' while basically agreeing with his arguments. It's also been instructive to watch The Economist wrestle with environmental questions. For years they held firm to the opinion that all this 'ozone hole', 'species depletion' and 'global warming' stuff was a bunch of hippie clap-trap. Now (Nov 2003) they're complaining that the International Panel on Climate Change--a body with a basically scientific agenda--doesn't have enough economists!

Subject: The Economist From: Emma To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 16:11:09 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Yuch! Economist supported George Bush, what more should be added.

Subject: Re: The Economist From: Paul G. Brown To: Emma Date Posted: Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 16:53:05 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Yuch! Economist supported George Bush, what more should be added. --- Yup. But I think they may be changing their minds. The Economist prides itself on its analytic acumen, and its independence. And for the most part their reportage of the numbers and their reasoning is pretty pursuasive: they're the best source I know for reporting on international trade and developing economy issues. Their views on international trade, for example, are *very* close to Krugman's. But on Bush, the business press in Europe--the Financial Times chiefly--have been in an active class traitor mode for the last year or so. Even the Economist, when it comes to faux-capitalists like Italy's Berlusconi, has gone after their targets with both barrels. The business press in general, once you factor in their late capitalist mind-set, tend to view the world through clearer eyes than much other media.

Subject: Re: The Economist From: Emma To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 17:33:35 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: OK Paul Brown, well argued. I read the Economist as well, but I can not stand this cheap criticism of PK. Do your homework Economist! PK is doing the homework!

Subject: Re: The Economist From: hume To: Emma Date Posted: Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 22:32:29 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I'm a Krugman fan, but there's no need for sycophantry. The Economist article wasn't all that harsh: he rarely takes Democrats to task. Moreover, it is true that Krugman has strayed from his initial role as economic popularizer. He is now more of a political pundit, albeit, perhaps the most trenchant one around. Still, I wish he would revert back to the Krugman who wrote The Age of Diminished Expecations, The Accidental Theorist, and Peddling Prosperity. The guy who could make the 'dismal science' accessible, interesting, even beautiful for non-economists like me. Is Krugman wrong about political matters? Rarely. Is he unnecessarily 'shrill' as Brad DeLong jokingly labels him? Well, sometimes. Does he have an inflated sense of mission? I don't think so, but his self-confidence borders on the quixotic. It's not wrong to point out Krugman's small foibles. As fans it's our duty to be truthful and accede to shortcomings. It's the Economist's duty to call it like it sees it. Has Krugman sold out or cheapened his integrity? Absolutely not. The Economist doesn't make that claim, because it is untenable. On most of the other counts I don't believe it’s terribly off.

Subject: Re: The Economist From: Bd-Piranha To: Emma Date Posted: Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 01:35:05 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I am a Krugman fan, and I think the Economist made a very fair critique of PK. You have to remember that an ordinary reader of economic issues, one will feel that PK has changed his profession from being a full-time economist to a full-time journalist. That is bound to disapoint some economists (or followers of economic issues). It is within their rights to express such dissapointment.

Subject: Re: The Economist From: Austin Stoneman To: Bd-Piranha Date Posted: Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 03:19:42 (EST) Email Address: austinstoneman@aol.com Message: And I am within my rights to express my disappointment at your mispelling of the word 'disappointment.' Don't worry, though, those bookworms at Fox News made this same spelling error on one of their broadcasts. Oh, and all the Krugman critics should remember what Disraeli said: 'It is much easier to be critical than to be correct.'

Subject: Re: The Economist From: Paul G. Brown To: Austin Stoneman Date Posted: Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 22:00:18 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I wish to express my disappointment at your misspelling of 'misspelling'.

Subject: Nicely Argued From: Emma To: Bd-Piranha Date Posted: Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 18:44:55 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Nicely argued, but economics must be broad enough for a Paul Krugman and Brad DeLong and Jeffrey Sachs and Stephen Roach and Bill Gross and even an Eliot Spitzer.

Subject: What can he be thinking? From: Donald Luskin is a... To: All Date Posted: Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 08:23:06 (EST) Email Address: austinstoneman@aol,com Message: Luskin says, “I’ve been writing a book. It’s not about Krugman, but he in a single symbol brilliantly exemplifies the conspiracy to keep you poor and stupid, which is the name of my book.” What the f*** is he talking about? What kind of crack is he smoking? How is Krugman, uber-capitalist, trying to keep anyone 'poor and stupid'? How could columns criticizing the Bush administration conceivably be part of a plan to keep people from earning money? What is he thinking? This is such a crackpot idea, that Krugman is part of a conspiracy to keep people poor and stupid. He should seriously have his head examined for saying something so goddamn stupid! And for the record, Luskin has done infinetely more to keep people poor, if not stupid, by losing almost all of his investors money in his aborted career as an online mutual fund manager. Now, he tries to keep people 'stupid' by writing a moronic weblog.

Subject: Luskin in need of help and thesaurus From: Susan D. To: Donald Luskin is a... Date Posted: Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 10:51:16 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I went to Luskin's website today to see what the freak was up to. He's been silent since he and Atrois produced a joint letter of truce over the whole crazy stalker issue, so I wanted to see if the NRO had fired him or something. By the way, I didn't see anything too recent on their site. Last thing I saw was Oct. 22, but I might not have looked well enough. Then I went to his incoherent website and read for awhile. But after he pointed out once again that some item was hilarious (only for me to look at the item and scratch my head) I HAD to email him. My email said: Hey dude. The stuff that you say on your website is hilarious is not even remotely funny. What's the deal? My mental image of you is one of sitting at your desk, wringing you hands and cackling like a madman. Get a grip or they will be taking you away to a nice padded cell. Not everything is hilarious. Get a thesaurus. (I couldn't resist)

Subject: Krugman's Predictions: Mickey Kaus From: Paul G. Brown To: All Date Posted: Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 21:51:35 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: This needs discussion: http://slate.msn.com/id/2091074/ First, let's spend a little time on each of the quotes. Kaus has been obliged to conceed that one of his early 'winners' was, well, more ambiguous than he claimed. And Kaus' 'winner' is a quote from February; 7 months ago. Since then there has been exactly one quarter of exceptionally strong growth but only modest improvement in other metrics. It is, as yet, way too early to say much about the enduring strength of the current recovery. So if Q3 2003 proves to be a mirage that's a bad thing, but the critic's keenness to lambast Krugman ought not be forgotten. Also, the choice of 'best' conceeds that Krugman hasn't said a thing wrong about our macro-economic prospects for six months. Second, what about the predictions/analysis Krugman has gotten right? We all get it wrong. A more useful question to ask is, how good overall? For example, from NYT February 2.22.02; 'Both the administration and many business leaders have taken a modest improvement in economic indicators as proof that the economy is poised for full recovery. They could be right — but don't count on it.' The Bushies and several conservative commentators were declaring victory. Our man was more reticent. And as he says later in the piece, 'any economist who honestly keeps track of his own forecasting record quickly learns to be humble.' But it has been 18 months since then. Where was their recovery?

Subject: Re: Krugman's Predictions: Mickey Kaus From: Susan D. To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 10:55:00 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Nice observations Paul.

Subject: Financial Wrongdoing From: Emma To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 13, 2003 at 13:44:25 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Wall Street Journal - 11/13/03 MIT economic historian Peter Temin is underwhelmed by the response to business wrongdoing. 'There was clearly malfeasance in the private economy, but there has been surprisingly little outrage relative to the problem.' The SEC and Mr. Spitzer, he says, are merely 'growling around the edges and getting a few sacrificial lambs.'

Subject: Financial Redress From: Emma To: Emma Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 13, 2003 at 13:46:55 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Paul Krugman's concern with corporate wrongdoing was proper from the onset and has been far far too little noted to date. The mutual fund wrongdoing has harmed American families saving for retirement in profound ways and is little noticed given the seriousness.

Subject: Re: Financial Redress From: Check the numbers To: Emma Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 13, 2003 at 22:15:15 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: 'The mutual fund wrongdoing has harmed American families saving for retirement in profound ways and is little noticed given the seriousness' if you look at the numbers, investors did not lose that much money overall. In many cases, the shares being times usually made up less than 1% of the total funds assets. Basically its not even a penny on a dollar. The main issue is one of integrity in markets, and specifically the mutual fund industry. It just goes to show how big investors seem to find a way to get an advantage, even in an industry that is supposed to treat everyone as equals.

Subject: Predictions From: Terri To: Emma Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 13, 2003 at 15:25:37 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The problem for us is that while the timing of Paul Krugman's predictions can never be clear, we are heading for the most serious budget problems. Alan Greenspan had made a similar prediction. The question is whether we are going to preserve the wonderful fruits of the New Deal and Great Society, Social Security and Medicare. This Administration has played havoc with the middle class as we shall in time understand. Emma is also correct.

Subject: Book reviews by Dr. Krugman From: Albert Cheng To: All Date Posted: Tues, Nov 11, 2003 at 05:41:02 (EST) Email Address: chengahbut@yahoo.com Message: On the upcoming issue of The NY Review of books, Dr. Krugman's reviews of two books critical of the right wing & Bush administration respectively: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16790

Subject: Re: Book reviews by Dr. Krugman From: Paul To: Albert Cheng Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 20, 2003 at 12:18:38 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Anyone notice that PK missed the fact that Eugene Scalia, 'the godfather of the anti-ergonomics movement,' resigned his position at Labor 10 months ago?

Subject: Reviews by Dr. Krugman From: Emma To: Albert Cheng Date Posted: Tues, Nov 11, 2003 at 13:43:13 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Thanks, would have missed the fine review were it not for you and Bobby. By the way, to the following poster, Dr = Phd = Dr. Duh.

Subject: Re: Book reviews by Dr. Krugman From: jenny To: Albert Cheng Date Posted: Tues, Nov 11, 2003 at 13:34:08 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: He's a doctor and an economist! What can't this guy do!?!? What kind of doctor is he by the way? Chiropractor or podiatrist don't count.

Subject: Phd = Dr From: Emma To: jenny Date Posted: Tues, Nov 11, 2003 at 13:44:08 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Phd = Dr = Phd = Dr. Duh....

Subject: Re: Phd = Dr From: Gnao To: Emma Date Posted: Tues, Nov 11, 2003 at 14:37:05 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Anyway, Dr, Phd, etc. etc. etc., what is at the end a doctor's task?Why get the title 'doctor'?That is,I think, the point.

Subject: Re: Book reviews by Dr. Krugman From: Bobby To: Albert Cheng Date Posted: Tues, Nov 11, 2003 at 08:54:02 (EST) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: Thank you. However, I put it in the American economy Section more than a week ago!

Subject: I get proven right From: Ayn Rant To: All Date Posted: Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 18:48:06 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: My message in the Guestbook predicted that Bush administration boosters would trivialize anti-Semitism by imputing it to administration critics. Looks like this prophecy came in right on the money. Turning to Mr. Bachrach's post, he claims that Krugman called Prime Minister Mohammed's remarks ''understandable'',also writing that 'Krugman said he did not aprove of the remarks (big condemnation there, Paul!)'. Ignoring Mr. Bachrach's clumsy sarcasm, my own reading of Krugman's essay turns up the words,'inexcusable', 'offensive' and 'hateful' used as adjectives to describe the Prime Minister's remarks. The word 'understand' (not 'understandable') was used in the sentence, 'And to understand why he made those remarks is to realize how badly things are going for U.S. foreign policy.' Must I point out that to understand something is not necessarily in any way to approve it? (During the McCarthy era, someone asked a university president in an accusing tone, 'Do you study Communism in your school?' 'Yes, and we study cancer in the medical school.' the president replied.) But enough pretense that these kinds of distortions are innocent mistakes. The people who smear Krugman (and other critics) by innuendo, implication, and imputation of anti-Semitism are as reprehensible as those who make baseless charges of racism. They should be barred from this forum.

Subject: I get proven right - Yes From: Terri To: Ayn Rant Date Posted: Tues, Nov 11, 2003 at 13:38:37 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Important points.

Subject: Seeking Krugman article in Rolling Stone From: truth seeker To: All Date Posted: Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 18:27:59 (EST) Email Address: truth2112@hotmail.com Message: Hi, ....I'm seeking to locate a link or URL for a specific Paul Krugman piece that was written for Rolling Stone Magazine, October 2, 2003, [print edition,] titled, 'How Bush Gets Away With It.' It's a great article and I'd like to share it with others over the net, but I curiously did not find it on Rolling Stone's own Archives site. hmmmm. Any suggestions?

Subject: Mahathir and Friedman From: Emma To: All Date Posted: Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 11:59:19 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Tomas Friedman - NYTimes 11/9/03 'If President Bush wants to get a better handle on the problems he's facing in Iraq and the West Bank, I suggest he study the speech made Oct. 16 by Malaysia's departing prime minister, Mahathir Mohamad, to a conclave of Muslim leaders. Most of that speech was a brutally frank look into the causes of the Muslim world's decline. Though it was also laced with shameful anti-Jewish slurs, it was still revealing. Five times he referred to Muslims as humiliated. If I've learned one thing covering world affairs, it's this: The single most underappreciated force in international relations is humiliation.'

Subject: Mahathir and Friedman From: Emma To: Emma Date Posted: Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 12:03:58 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Interesting how many Israeli and American and European Jewish analysts have adopted a similar approach to understanding the full speech by Mahathir, rather than just the anti-Semitic mask of the text. The speech was anti-Semitic, but there was a sharp condemnation of Islamic social and political extremism in the speech.

Subject: Hey, you got the Portland video, cool ! From: Trillian To: All Date Posted: Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 09:50:29 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hiya Bobby - just dropped by to see if there was anything new up, and, hey, whaddyaknow? You got the video of the Portland lecture I missed! VERY COOL ! Your dedication to this site is very appreciated, btw.

Subject: Re: Hey, you got the Portland video, cool ! From: Bobby To: Trillian Date Posted: Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 10:15:11 (EST) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: I was amazed when I actually found it -- what a coincidence that that that very speech turned out to be available! Hopefully philosopherseed.org will keep it there for a while. . . .

Subject: Krugman proven wrong on Malaysian PM From: Sid Bachrach To: All Date Posted: Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 11:52:37 (EST) Email Address: sidb23@juno.com Message: Paul Krugman recently said that the remarks of Malaysian PM Matathair Mohammed in which Mohammed claimed that Jews rules the world and had others do their dirty work was 'understandable'. Krugman said he did not aprrove of the remarks (big condemnation there, Paul!) but that the remarks should be understood as an Islamic response to Bush and Sharon policies. In the Krugman world, Mohammed was a gentle soul who became so frustrated by Bush and Sharon that Mohammed slid into bigotry. The Wall Street Journal did a long article on Islamic fundamentalism on Friday that totally rebuts the Krugman theory. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism and the racism that always comes with it are largely the products of internal Malaysian politics and culture and involve lots of things to do with modernity and the end of traditions rather than feeling about the State of Israel. ALthough Krugman may be obsessed with Bush and Sharon and Israel, few people in Malaysia have such interest. The antisemtism which seems to surprise Krugman has been around for generations. It has litle do with day to day Bush policies. But for Krugman, who thinks everyone spends their days debating theory while sipping tea in the faculty garden like he does, everyone thinks just like him.

Subject: Do Not Feed the Troll From: Jennifer To: Sid Bachrach Date Posted: Tues, Nov 11, 2003 at 15:51:12 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Do not feed the troll.

Subject: I get proven right From: Ayn Rant To: Sid Bachrach Date Posted: Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 18:43:08 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: My message in the Guestbook predicted that Bush administration boosters would trivialize anti-Semitism by imputing it to administration critics. Looks like this prophecy came in right on the money. Turning to Mr. Bachrach's post, he claims that Krugman called Prime Minister Mohammed's remarks ''understandable'',also writing that 'Krugman said he did not aprove of the remarks (big condemnation there, Paul!)'. Ignoring Mr. Bachrach's clumsy sarcasm, my own reading of Krugman's essay turns up the words,'inexcusable', 'offensive' and 'hateful' used as adjectives to describe the Prime Minister's remarks. The word 'understand' (not 'understandable') was used in the sentence, 'And to understand why he made those remarks is to realize how badly things are going for U.S. foreign policy.' Must I point out that to understand something is not necessarily in any way to approve it? (During the McCarthy era, someone asked a university president in an accusing tone, 'Do you study Communism in your school?' 'Yes, and we study cancer in the medical school.' the president replied.) But enough pretense that these kind of distortions are innocent mistakes. The people who smear Krugman (and other critics) by innuendo, implication, and imputation of anti-Semitism are as reprehensible as those who make baseless charges of racism. They should be barred from this forum.

Subject: Krugman proven Wonderful From: Terri To: Sid Bachrach Date Posted: Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 14:00:39 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Last week, the Israeli Defense Force Chief of Staff chose to publicly criticize the tactics of the Sharon Administration. As a result the Defense Force presence in the West Bank has been reduced this week. Perhaps there may even be some move to detente. Criticism of Governments in a democracy is essential to fostering re-evaluation of policy. How nice it would be if Paul Krugman could get some of the radical right in America to re-evaluate policy of any kind. However, they prefer to attack any and all criticism.

Subject: Proven Not Proven From: Emma To: Sid Bachrach Date Posted: Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 13:14:16 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Wall Street Journal proves Paul Krugman wrong. Fine. Except that Paul Krugman interpreted the speech precisely as a number of conservative columnists in Israel. So they are wrong. Fine. I leanred a lot from the column, however. Hope you learned to, even though Paul Krugman is PROVEN wrong wrong wrong.

Subject: Re: Time for Paul to admit he was wrong From: sid bachrach To: Emma Date Posted: Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 23:57:29 (EST) Email Address: sidb23@juno.com Message: Mr. Krugman should just admit that it was silly to say that Bush and Sharon turned Mohammed into an antisemite. Mohammed was all that and more decades before Bush and Sharon were in office. SOmehow, Mr. Krugman has a soft spot for Mohammed. It is time for Mr. Krugman to stop writing about how 'clever' Mr. Mohammed is (Mr. Krugman's words and once and for all to condemn Mr. Mohammed. For some reason, Mr. Krugman is simply unable to condemn Mohammed. Paul it is time for you tto come clean.

Subject: Sid Moron Bachrach From: Terri To: sid bachrach Date Posted: Tues, Nov 11, 2003 at 15:49:51 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: You are a moron troll.

Subject: Sid Troll Bach From: Sid the Troll To: sid bachrach Date Posted: Tues, Nov 11, 2003 at 14:55:24 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I am a troll and must lie about PK. Sorry, I can not help lying about anything and everything.

Subject: Re: Time for Paul to admit he was wrong From: Paul G. Brown To: sid bachrach Date Posted: Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 15:06:16 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Mr. Krugman should just admit that it was silly to say that Bush and Sharon turned Mohammed into an antisemite. --- If Krugman had actually said this, it would have indeed been a silly thing to say. But he did not say this, Sid, as has been repeatedly explained to you. You are knowingly uttering a falsehood. You are a liar, Sid. And your repeated efforts to misrepresent Krugman have me on the verge of labeling you a crypto-anti-semite. By blasting anti-semitism where it is not you are leaving it to flourish where it really can be found.

Subject: Re: Time for Paul to admit he was wrong From: Sid Bachrach To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 18:46:36 (EST) Email Address: sidb23@juno.com Message: Bigotry has to be confronted, whereever it lurks its ugly head/. It should not be explained away or rationalized. Incredibly, Mr. Krugman's column sounded like a Pat Buchanan column. Buchanan wrote that Hitler only did those awful things because the British and French and the US imposed such terrible terms on poor Germany and poor Adlof. And then along comes Matthair Mohammed, the spritual heir of Adolf Hitler. His speech had all the same themes as Hitler in the 1930s: Jews control the media, Jews squeeze the wworld, Jews plot against others, etc. It was the same speech Hitler gave 65 years ago. The only difference was the language and audience. Mr. Krugman should have seen the poisonous and dangerous quality of the speech. Instead, Mr. Krugman was all wrapped up in the 'root causes' of why Mr. Mohammed had been driven to all this. My point is that when you have a bigot as an enemy and the bigot dehumanizes an antire religioius or ethnic group, you must confront the bigot head on before it is too late. In Buchana's case, he thinks Hitler was the good guy. In Krugman's case, he downplays the bigotry, and says 'Oh well, Mohammed was playing to his domestic audience'. What Mr. Krugman should have said (and I think he knows this but won't admit i)is that Mohammed is my enemy and an enemy of anyone who opposes bigotry and racism. Why he won't say this is anyone's guess. But Mr. Krugman should just admit that he was insenssitive and move on.

Subject: Lying Again From: Sid the Troll To: Sid Bachrach Date Posted: Tues, Nov 11, 2003 at 14:56:39 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Sorry, I can not help lying.

Subject: Re: Time for Paul to admit he was wrong From: David E To: Sid Bachrach Date Posted: Tues, Nov 11, 2003 at 13:44:57 (EST) Email Address: daveellis_39@hotmail.com Message: Sid, you are a troll. You have ignored my previous request to document the trash that you write. You are not worthy of consideration. Do not feed this troll.

Subject: Re: Time for Paul to admit he was wrong From: Sid Bachrach To: David E Date Posted: Tues, Nov 11, 2003 at 20:02:25 (EST) Email Address: sidb23@juno.com Message: No one can point to any personal criticism that I have made of Professor Krugman. There has been none. I have simply criticized ONE column that Professor Krugman wrote. There was absolutely no critism of Professor Krugman as a person. Frankly, I doubt Professor Krugman would mind the critique at all. But on the larger point, can anyone seriously contend that if a Christian leader makes a virulent attack on Muslims, Dr. Krugman or others would write a column saying we should attempt to understand the context of the antiMuslim speech? When Billy Graham Jr. made a vitriolic speech about Muslims, did Dr. Krugman or others say we should try to understand the context of Dr. Graham's speech? Of course not. It would have been silly. Similarly, it was rather puerile for Dr. Krugman to say we should understand the context of Mohammad's speech about Jews. Bigotry must be fought relentlessly, even if it come from Muslims. Bigotry is bigotry is bigotry.

Subject: Re: Time for Paul to admit he was wrong From: Bernadette To: David E Date Posted: Tues, Nov 11, 2003 at 14:39:24 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: PK., cannot be wrong.He is too strong.

Subject: Flags Versus Dollars From: Jennifer To: All Date Posted: Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 16:55:44 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Today's column is simply superb! Bravo Paul Krugman.

Subject: trade- the Anti-Corn Law League From: Matthew Bristow To: Jennifer Date Posted: Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 05:21:51 (EST) Email Address: matthew.bristow@britishcouncil.org.hk Message: I don't know if this will interest you, but in Britain free trade was always a populist cause while protectionism was unpopular. In 1906 the conservatives had one of the biggest defeats ever after trying to introduce a protectionist scheme which they called 'imperial preference' or 'empire free trade'. The liberals fought this with a populist 'big loaf, little loaf' campaign, and it ended two decades of conservative government in the UK and turned a conservative majority of about 200 into a liberal majority of around 250. In the 1830s and 40s there was a large popular movement called the anti-corn law league based in the industrial towns. When the Napoleonic wars ended the government put a tariff on imported corn (at that time it mostly came from the US). While the legislation was being passed they had to put troops around parliament to defend it from a mob. I am sure that free trade could become a popular issue today, if people were made aware of the extraordinary cost of the EU's common agricultural policy.

Subject: Freer Trade From: Emma To: Matthew Bristow Date Posted: Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 11:55:16 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Excellent approach. The need is to make the 'costs' of trade restriction evident, and also to directly address how job losses as a result of trade opening will be compensated. Steel workers who are threatened by trade must be protected against crippling job loss. we need to make clear how to address steel workers and steel consumers who will benefit by freer trade.

Subject: Re: trade- the Anti-Corn Law League From: Matthew Bristow To: Matthew Bristow Date Posted: Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 06:17:42 (EST) Email Address: matthew.bristow@britishcouncil.org.hk Message: Should have said two decades of conservative domination of government, not two decades of conservative government. A thousand apologies. I just get so excited when I am talking about tariff reform.

Subject: European Trade Restraints From: Emma To: Matthew Bristow Date Posted: Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 11:58:02 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Remember there are all sorts of restraints against agricultural trade in Europe. That the restraints hurt Africans has little resonance in Europe. We must add the resonance.

Subject: Re: Flags Versus Dollars From: Paul G. Brown To: Jennifer Date Posted: Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 15:50:24 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I agree. Dean is trying to build a brand around a 'Jim Hightower' style of popular progressivism. And like I said before, that flag is a potent symbol of many things; many of them dark, some of them bloody, but a few of them admirable. But a note of caution: trade, and especially free trade, is a issue that might align southerners of any stripe behind a protectionist candidate. It's hard to say that free trade is in the immediate economic interest of the poor and middle-class. I don't see how to present the pro free trade argument in an appealing way.

Subject: Trade From: Emma To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 18:38:33 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Brad DeLong has many interesting posts on trade. What a difficult political and economic issue.

Subject: Trade and Trade From: JD To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 17:58:14 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Do I ever agree. How do you 'properly' explain to a North Carolina textile worker, that trade with Vietnam or China will make America and those countries better off? The problem is my job is at stake. My job! What a difficult problem.

Subject: www.poorandstupid.com/ From: cheetah To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 06, 2003 at 20:11:46 (EST) Email Address: mill305@netscape.net Message: I am a big fan of Krugman and yet I'm new to Luskin's web site: http://www.poorandstupid.com/chronicle.asp Can someone help explain if Mr. Luskin is in fact making good, valid points, which would then make me question my direhard belief in Mr. Krugman. Or is Luskin just another right-wing crank that's looking to sink a bright liberal mind?

Subject: Luskin is better at tennis. From: Matthew Bristow To: cheetah Date Posted: Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 05:53:22 (EST) Email Address: matthew.bristow@britishcouncil.org.hk Message: Who is better, Krugman or Luskin? Depends what you mean, Mr Cheetah. Krugman certainly knows more about economics, but Luskin is better at tennis. And when the economic analysis stops and the fists start flying, my money would be on Luskin. Sure, Krugman knows a trick or two, and would probably try to box clever. But Luskin fights dirty.

Subject: Tennis or Economics From: Ari To: Matthew Bristow Date Posted: Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 13:16:00 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Nice.

Subject: happily smart and honest From: Emma To: cheetah Date Posted: Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 15:39:42 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Simply read Paul Krugman and Donald Luskin and you will quickly quickly know who can be happily trusted issue on issue on issue.

Subject: More Stupid and Nasty From: Ari To: cheetah Date Posted: Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 14:56:27 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The guy is stupid and nasty as stupid and nasty can be. These guys even when smart simply can not help lying. [I am being generous.]

Subject: Re: www.poorandstupid.com/ From: R. Davis To: cheetah Date Posted: Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 04:35:25 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I agree with Mr. Brown that you need to gather together as much information on the subject as possible and decide for yourself. My own impression is that Luskin is simply ideologically opposed to Krugman and has made it his mission to discredit him in whatever way possible. If Krugman makes a big mistake and Luskin catches it, he will gleefully point it out. Otherwise he will nitpick, insinuate, misinterpret, and tell half-truths. As such, I think he is best at simply riling up a small group of 'true-believers'. If you want to see some of them, go to www.freerepublic.com and search for the word Krugman (hitting the Find key). In summary, Krugman does occassionally make a mistake and Luskin does occassionally make a valid point. But, in my opinion, it's not worth the trouble of trying to separate them from all of Luskin's own errors and half-truths. You would do better to fact-check Krugman's articles yourself. To get a more detailed idea of my view of Luskin's articles, see the analyses of four of this articles that I posted at http://home.netcom.com/~rdavis2/luskin.html .

Subject: Re: www.poorandstupid.com/ From: Paul G. Brown To: cheetah Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 06, 2003 at 21:05:33 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I am a big fan of Krugman and yet I'm new to Luskin's web site: http://www.poorandstupid.com/chronicle.asp --- Why not compare and contrast the two yourself, and arrive at your own conclusions? See if you can figure out, for example, exactly what it is that Luskin is saying (frequently the hardest part, in my experience). What are his assumptions, facts, arguments and conclusions, etc. Then see if you can verify (or falsify) his facts, see if his line of reasoning holds water. Does Luskin cite his sources? Are they primary or secondary sources (census, GAO and so on are primary sources, reports from AEI and the Cato Institute are not). When you check on his sources, how selectively does he use them? Pay careful attention to the way he uses numbers: millions and billions and trillions are very different things, what 'average' does he mean. In other words grade him. Grade Krugman, too. It's not really very hard. Google is an amazing resource. Then come to your own conclusions about what an innumerate, incompetent, intellectually sterile, flunked and failed undergraduate bum he is (or isn't).

Subject: Urgent Plea, Contact News Organizations From: Susan D. To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 06, 2003 at 09:37:42 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I urge everyone to contact television news channels via email or by phone and demand that they cover the story that Bagdad made overtures to Washington before the war began to avert the war, but according to Richard Perle, Washington never responded. Among the things that Hussien said he would do is allow 1,000 inspectors into the country to look for WMD. This is the story Americans need to hear. Not as Fox is showing right now, more about the Senate Intel Memo, the cross dressing Millionaire, nor two baby bears being burnt in the CA fires. I am watching it now, still more Senate Intel stuff, but no story that states that we might have averted the war altogether. It seems to me that if Saddam was that frigtened of a war, we might have also pressured him to treat his people better. And he also said that he would be willing to hold an election. I know it wouldn't have amounted to anything, but one thing is clear. WE DID NOT HAVE TO GO TO WAR.

Subject: Re: Urgent Plea, Contact News Organizations From: AS To: Susan D. Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 06, 2003 at 17:12:09 (EST) Email Address: ANON@ANON.COM Message: Calm down, Jeez! Some unknown Lebanese businessman comes to Perle with some nebulous tip and this means we should not have gone to war? It was probably just a tactic from Saddam to buy time and distract us from the mission, Saddam broke many promises and had ample time to back down. This is absurd...

Subject: Re: Urgent Plea, Contact News Organizations From: Van To: AS Date Posted: Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 07:56:39 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: You must work for the media, because if this story was the other way around and actually looked good for the administration, ie. the economy, Dean's slip up, CBS's caving of the Reagan movie, it would be all over the news and you couldn't get away from it. I actually heard a CNN anouncer tell the Newsweek reporter, who broke the story, that since the story was from a Lebanese business man who wasn't credible, it had no traction. I heard the businessman speak, and he was pretty credible to me. I think they should have at least reported it more widely. But it made the administration look bad, so fat chance of that. Yet we are still hearing about the Dean comment, the Reagan movie, and the brighter outlook of the economy and the dismal, yet they claim outstanding, rise in payroll numbers. When people don't demand to hear a more balanced news program, it ain't going to happen.

Subject: Casualties From: Lise To: Susan D. Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 06, 2003 at 13:24:25 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Fatalities American soldiers 242 British soldiers 20 Coalition soldiers 6 --- 268 Since May 2 American 381 British 53 Coalition 6 --- 440 Since March 20 Wounded American soldiers ~2198 Since March 20 Note: American forces have fallen to 130,000 British forces have risen to 11,000

Subject: Nation Building From: Terri To: Lise Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 06, 2003 at 14:33:59 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/06/international/middleeast/06CND-PREX.html?hp Bush Casts Iraq Effort in Terms of Long Cold War Struggle By DAVID STOUT The president also said America must be committed to promoting democracy in the Middle East 'for decades to come.'

Subject: Call It Krugmanfreude From: R. Davis To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 06, 2003 at 03:55:48 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: In his November 3rd column titled 'Call It Krugmanfreude', Donald Luskin addressed Paul Krugman's New York Times column of October 31st titled 'A Big Quarter'. Once again, Luskin's column is full of inaccuracies and half-truths. This wouldn't be quite so bad if it weren't that the main point of his column is to accuse Krugman of the same. In any case, I've posted a critique of Luskin's column at http://home.netcom.com/~rdavis2/luskin4.html Response home.netcom.com/~rdavis2/luskin4.html

Subject: Call It Krugmanfreude From: Jenn To: R. Davis Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 06, 2003 at 13:32:26 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Thanks! Note that Alan Greenspan spoke of the accumulating deficit today, and sounded just like Paul Krugman....

Subject: Re: Call It Krugmanfreude From: Sid bachrach To: Jenn Date Posted: Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 21:13:49 (EST) Email Address: sidb23@juno.com Message: Mr. Krugman points out the problems caused by deficits. Yet there is no social program that Mr. Krugman wishes to eliminate. There is no federal 'entitlement' that Mr. Krugman wishes to cut or eliminate. There are no government agencies Mr. Krugman wishes to eliminate. In Mr. Krugman's world, there is no waste in government. It is like someone pointing out all the symptoms caused by drug addiction yet favoring legalization of heroin et al. Anyone who goes to the local Post Office can find ways to eliminate government waste. Will we ever live long enough to see an article by Mr. Krugman that begins by saying: 'I have found ways to cut government spending'?

Subject: Re: Call It Krugmanfreude From: R. Davis To: Jenn Date Posted: Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 04:37:27 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Thanks for the information about Greenspan! I had missed that but went and saw the stories on Yahoo.

Subject: Moral Hazard in South Korea From: Jennifer To: All Date Posted: Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 13:40:51 (EST) Email Address: jennlee@ucla.edu Message: I was wondering how moral hazard played a role in the South Korean economic crisis of 1997. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. I am doing research in this area for a class I;m taking. If there is any good literature which I could look into, please let me know!

Subject: Re: Moral Hazard in South Korea From: Emma To: Jennifer Date Posted: Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 15:30:22 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The fear of moral hazard likely made the IMF tougher on South Korea during the crisis than was warranted. However, South Korea had to break the corrupt conglomerate system to spur further development, and the IMF was right to push for this. See - George Stiglitz

Subject: Why is America richer than Canada? From: Matthew Bristow To: All Date Posted: Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 11:56:01 (EST) Email Address: matthew.bristow@britishcouncil.org.hk Message: Why is the average American richer than the average Canadian? What is the orthodox economic explanation for that?

Subject: Why is America richer than Canada? From: Emma To: Matthew Bristow Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 06, 2003 at 13:30:07 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: 'Mean GDP per capita is higher in the United States than it is in Canada, both in dollar terms and measured by PPP, which seems to me to require explaining.' The question is important and interesting, and requires thought now that you have defined the problem. What about MEDIAN PPP by the way? Canada has less income and wealth inequality than America, but also a lower per capita GDP and PPP. Why??? Thinking.

Subject: from From: jenny To: Matthew Bristow Date Posted: Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 23:33:11 (EST) Email Address: theblock@yahoo.com Message: it's cause of the ching ching and the bling bling.

Subject: Re: Why is America richer than Canada? From: Gnao To: Matthew Bristow Date Posted: Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 17:42:14 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: First what does it mean 2 be richer than...?I would rather prefer to ask the question 'Who is happier?' Second Heckscher-Ohlin model Third totally different social approach, everybody has got medicare and medicaid:(difference 25% USA- 38% Canada)

Subject: Re: Why is America richer than Canada? From: Paul G. Brown To: Matthew Bristow Date Posted: Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 15:31:24 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Why is the average American richer than the average Canadian? What is the orthodox economic explanation for that? --- The 'average American' (by which I assume you mean the average United States resident) is not richer than the average Canadian, so your question makes no sense. Mean income in the United States exceeds mean income in Canada, but that's a very different fact. If, as Krugman puts it, when Bill Gates walks into a bar, the average drinker gets not one jot richer, but the bar's average income goes mighty high indeed. According to the CIA Factbook, Canada's GDP distributed evenly over its population is $US29,400 per person while residents of the US would recieve $US37,600. A big difference. (Note: dollar amounts expressed in terms of purchasing power parity.) http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ But if you take a look at how the income in the two countries is distributed, a rather different picture emerges. 10% of Canadian income goes to the top 3% of households, while 10% of income in the US goes to 2%. More dramatically, the bottom 10% of income in Canada is distributed over 24% of households while in the US the number is 31%. The Gini Index--which reflects income inequelity--value confirms the observation. And if you're still not convinced: http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/11F0019MIE/11F0019MIE1998124.pdf Highlight: 'families (including unattached individuals) living in the United States are not necessarily better off, in terms of disposable income, than their Canadian counterparts. Indeed, roughly half of Canadian families had disposable incomes in 1995 that gave them higher purchasing power than otherwise comparable U.S. families. The reason is that the very rich in the United States pull up the average income much more than in Canada, while those at the bottom of the U.S. income spectrum have less purchasing power than those at the bottom in Canada.' So, claims like 'the average American is richer than the average Canadian' aren't supported by the evidence. More precise questions like 'why is per-capita GDP in the US higher than it is in Canada' have no simple, single answer.

Subject: Canadians are spiritually richer From: Matthew Bristow To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 06, 2003 at 21:57:57 (EST) Email Address: matthew.bristow@britishcouncil.org.hk Message: My quesiton makes no sense? On the contrary, a six year old could understand it. But just to make everything nice and crystal clear: in daily life when people say 'average' they mean 'mean'. When they are talking about medians they always spell this out. At any rate, I have been speaking English for around three decades and this is the first time anyone has pretended not to understand my use of the word 'average'. By 'American' I meant human resident of the United States of America alive during the financial year in question. I was using 'richer' in the ordinary non-metaphorical sense of having more money. No doubt Canadians are spiritually richer, and obviously you can't put a price on their wonderful health care system and unique way of life. But that wasn't my question and, be that as it may, Americans have more money. And why is this? I get the strong impression that, like me, you don't know. Jesus, it's hard to get anything done around here.

Subject: Re: Canadians are spiritually richer From: Paul G. Brown To: Matthew Bristow Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 06, 2003 at 23:31:16 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: 'My quesiton makes no sense? On the contrary, a six year old could understand it.' Ask a six year old how many legs the average kid has. They will reply, 'Two'. Yet you would reply that the 'average person' has less than two legs and less than one colon, and when Bill Gates walks into a bar the average person in the bar is richer? People plainly do not mean 'arithmetic mean' whenever they say 'average'. Folk have a pretty good intuitive grip on the distinction between the concepts of mean and median, and when someone tries to conflate the two its a good clue that they're either confused or up to no good. As for richer means 'having more money', how about you and I take a long holiday on a desert island. We'll take two tons of canned beans to share. You can take as much money as you like. I'll take a can openner. Who's richer? Seriously, an 'amount of money' represents nothing more and nothing less than what that money can buy. By your definition Italians have much more money than either Canadians or US citizens! But that's a pretty uninteresting observation. The evidence I presented suggested nothing spiritual about anything at all. When you're talkin' beans, boots, colostomies and whiskey, the evidence suggests that more than half of Canadian families can afford more of 'em than equivalent US families. So the question 'Why are US residents richer than Canadians?' doesn't make sense because you can't even begin a sensible analysis. But why do US residents have more money? To go with their lawyers and guns, of course. ;-)

Subject: Why are American workers more productive? From: Matthew Bristow To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 03:11:46 (EST) Email Address: matthew.bristow@britishcouncil.org.hk Message: Modern dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive, and the one I currently have to hand –Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English- gives the most common usage of average as “the average amount is the amount you get when you add together several quantities and divide this by the total number of quantities: average earnings in the state are about $1500 a month / what’s the average rainfall for July? / an average speed of 200 kph.”. It seems to me that to insist that people define whether they are talking about mean, mode or median every time they use the word is effectively to ban it from use. Anyway, I was talking about mean GDP per capita, and I am sorry if I did not make that clear. American mean GDP per capita is quite a lot higher when adjusted for PPP than Canadian mean GDP per capita. This does not mean that Canadians can afford to buy more things than Americans; rather, it means the opposite. The gap cannot be explained by the countries being at different stages of the economic cycle, so it must be that the average American worker is more productive than the average Canadian worker. Does anyone know why this should be so? Do they have more capital to work with, are their education levels higher, are their companies better managed. Or what is it? Someone must know. I am determined to get to the bottom of this even if I have to go to Krugman himself (peace be upon him).

Subject: Re: Why are American workers more productive? From: jimsum To: Matthew Bristow Date Posted: Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 11:59:21 (EST) Email Address: jimsum@rogers.com Message: I believe the average person thinks 'average' means typical :-), which corresponds closer to the idea of a median than to a mean. I think you will find politicians use 'average' in this manner a lot, and I think most people are mislead when they confuse average with typical. I remember an article I read a while back that found that on an industry-by-industry basis, Canadian and U.S. workers are about equally productive. For example, Canadian autoworkers are as productive as American autoworkers. The difference was in the IT sector, which is a much larger portion of the U.S. economy than the Canadian economy. Since IT workers are so productive, this accounted for almost all of the difference in productivity. Another explanation is differences in government policy; the higher Canadian interference in the market causes and higher tax rates cause worse productivity. Canadian conservatives are all convinced this is the reason :-) I suspect it is both reasons, with some accounting problems thrown in. By the way, I rarely see productivity defined; but I think the usual measure, output per hour worked, is flawed. For example, if oil workers become more productive and start to produce twice as much oil, while simultaneously the price of oil drops by 50%, I think the measured productivity will stay the same, while clearly productivity is higher. Differences in productivity can therefore be partly explained by differences in pricing power. Along those lines, it could be the difference is partly due to the fact that companies (even Canadian ones) tend to have head office in the U.S. and branch plants in Canada. The head office sets the transfer price between the branch and head office, and can therefore pretty much choose where they will make their profit. Since U.S. tax rates are somewhat lower, transfer prices will be set much closer to the cost of production than the sale price; thus maximizing U.S. profit. This also makes head office and sales look like they are producing all the profit, thus earning head office a big bonus. Where I worked, our factory/R&D center received 70% of the list price; the rest went to the foreign sales & service organization. I don't know if this was a 'fair' split.

Subject: Re: North Americans vs Europeans From: Matthew Bristow To: jimsum Date Posted: Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 21:32:10 (EST) Email Address: matthew.bristow@britishcouncil.org.hk Message: That sounds plausible. Do you think North Americans are materially better off than Europeans and Australians? OK, OK, I concede the point about “average”.

Subject: Re: Why is America richer than Canada? From: jimsum To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 06, 2003 at 11:19:52 (EST) Email Address: jimsum@rogers.com Message: I know there is no simple, single answer; but are there any partial explanations? This seems like a very important question. I think a part of it is due to the differences between the economies; Canada is more reliant on commodities and manufacturing, the U.S. more on software, movies and marketing. The world seems to value the U.S. specialties higher than Canada's; but that isn't a full explanation. Could this be a short-term problem? Certainly the U.S. economy did better in the 90's than the Canadian economy and unemployment was significantly lower. Is the difference in GDP a bubble effect that will slowly disappear? There is also the fact that Canada's budget deficit was much higher than the U.S. deficit at the start of the 90's; maybe the comparatively poor results were due to an economic drag caused by eliminating the deficit -- which doesn't bode well for current U.S. fiscal policies, compared to Canada's current policy of running small surpluses. Another factor could be the exchange rate. The Canadian dollar was generally considered to be undervalued during the 90’s; it is only with the recent 20% increase in the value of the Canadian dollar that the exchange rates more closely reflect purchasing power parity rate. An undervalued currency certainly helps the balance of trade, but does it have a negative effect on measured GDP? It is hard to compare different economies and PPP might not fully compensate for exchange rate differences; if the U.S. and Canadian dollars remain at their current rates for a few years, will we see changes in the measured GDP? The final factor I can think of is the one I don’t want to believe; it is possible that inequality and higher GDP go hand in hand. If a country’s GDP grows faster if it is concentrated in the hands of the rich, how can the higher GDP be used to improve the standard of living of all citizens? I don't know the answer, but if there is an economic relationship between high concentration of wealth and a high rate of growth of GDP, it will make it that much harder to draft redistributive economic policies. At any rate, I may be biased as a Canadian, but I think the Canadian economy is interesting and deserves much more study that it gets. Canadian economic policy is somewhere in the middle compared to U.S. and European economic policy; you’d think the Canadian experience could shed light on both those alternatives.

Subject: Re: Why is America richer than Canada? From: Matthew Bristow To: jimsum Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 06, 2003 at 22:01:29 (EST) Email Address: matthew.bristow@britishcouncil.org.hk Message: A friend of mine is an economist for the UK government and he told me that there are efficiency gains in having a large internal market, but that this would only amount to a few percent. Also, one can't help noticing that a lot of the world's richest countries are very small- Norway, Luxembourg, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc. Unemployment is lower in the US, is it not? How much of the gap does that account for?

Subject: Re: Why is America richer than Canada? From: jimsum To: Matthew Bristow Date Posted: Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 12:14:27 (EST) Email Address: jimsum@rogers.com Message: There are some differences in the way that unemployment is measured in the U.S. and Canada, with Canadian rates tending to be higher. There is also the factor that a much higher portion of the U.S. population is in prison compared to Canada. The employment rates in the two countries may be a bit different; these are rates I have found. I think the employment rate is more relevant when talking about productivity. U.S. Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate: 66.1% in Oct 2003 U.S. Employment-Population Ratio: 62.2% in Oct 2003 Canadian Seasonally adjusted Participation rate: 67.5% in Oct 2003 Canadian unadjusted rate: 62.4% in Oct 2003 I got these numbers from the two government's statistics sites. I bet both are measuring different things :-) They are in the same ballpark anyway.

Subject: Re: Why is America richer than Canada? From: Emma To: Matthew Bristow Date Posted: Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 15:26:40 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Please gather the data, show the comparisons, and then ask the question again.

Subject: Re: Why is America richer than Canada? From: matthewbristow To: Emma Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 06, 2003 at 12:44:12 (EST) Email Address: matthew.bristow@britishcouncil.org.hk Message: What an annoying cow! Mine was a perfectly reasonable question asked in a genuine spirit of wanting-to-know, not to try and get everyone huffing and puffing. You can find the data in The Economist's book of statistics -The World in Figures- and in dozens of other places. It is simply a fact that mean GDP per capita is higher in the United States than it is in Canada, both in dollar terms and measured by PPP, which seems to me to require explaining. I don't come from either country, so don't interpret my question as an attempt to one-up Canadians, sneer at their social security system or imply that life in Canada is anything other than one great barrel of fun and laughter. Many of my best friends are Canadians, though I wouldn't want my daughter to marry one.

Subject: Re: Why is America richer than Canada? From: Gnao To: matthewbristow Date Posted: Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 19:19:13 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Dear Matthew, why had Great-Britain once been the most powerful country in the world? Give me the answer, and you'll automatically get your answer.

Subject: Re: British Empire From: Matthew Bristow To: Gnao Date Posted: Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 21:22:42 (EST) Email Address: matthew.bristow@britishcouncil.org.hk Message: Ethan, I expect you want me to say 'empire' or maybe 'slavery', but I don't think this is the case. I think it was simply that we had the industrial revolution first. The period of British power was very brief- there were only a few decades of the 19th century when Britain was ahead of the other European powers. By about 1880 this was already fading and by about 1900 we had been caught up by countries without many colonies i.e. Germany and the US.

Subject: Re: Why is America richer than Canada? From: Ethan Z. To: matthewbristow Date Posted: Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 13:49:59 (EST) Email Address: ejz23@yahoo.com Message: I would add to this discussion that one reason why there is a difference between the two nations GDP is that Canada's economy is mostly based on resources and the U.S. is more diverse. Meaning that there is more value in finished goods such as selling aluminum opposed to building the Boeing 747 with the raw products.

Subject: Re: Why is America richer than Canada? From: jimsum To: Ethan Z. Date Posted: Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 14:35:00 (EST) Email Address: jimsum@rogers.com Message: Figures from the Statistics Canada August GDP report (millions of dollars at annual rate): Total output: 1,007,694 Goods-producing industries: 313,350 Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting: 22,196 Mining and oil and gas extraction: 36,226 Add those two categories together (the others are Utilities 25,970, Construction 55,071, and Manufacturing 172,827, and thus not resource-related) and you get 58,422, which is 18.6% of the goods-producing industries, or 5.8% of total GDP. By way of comparison, the output of the subcategory 'Information and communication technologies (ICT) industries' was 56,154, which is almost the same as the resource industries. Resources are an important sector, and they are certainly a significantly higher percentage of exports than of total GDP, but I wouldn't say the economy is mostly based on resources.

Subject: Sorry about the cow comment From: Matthew Bristow To: matthewbristow Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 06, 2003 at 13:27:53 (EST) Email Address: matthew.bristow@britishcouncil.org.hk Message: Sorry about the cow comment. I take it back.

Subject: Thinking From: Emma To: Matthew Bristow Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 06, 2003 at 13:31:04 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Thinking and arguing about your interesting question.

Subject: picture on luskin's site From: hume To: All Date Posted: Tues, Nov 04, 2003 at 23:56:23 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: You're right, that's totally Kevin Smith. It also looks like Al Borland from Home Improvement. The hair is all wrong, and the beard needs more salt and pepper. It's kind of cute in a weird way though . . . no, it's just plain weird.

Subject: Re: picture on luskin's site From: Bobby To: hume Date Posted: Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 08:36:28 (EST) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: I was actually expecting Luskin to edit to the picture once again in the future to have lighter (redish-brownish) hair more like Krugman, and I was actually going to say at that point that it looks like Al from Home Improvement. We'll see if this prediction turns out right. . . .

Subject: Krugman was right AGAIN! From: Susan D. To: All Date Posted: Tues, Nov 04, 2003 at 09:51:46 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The roll call of voting in Washington was announced on Monday. Here's how the vote went on issues Mr. Krugman discussed in his book and column: House: Funds for Iraq. Voting 298 ( Republicans)for and 121 against, the House approved the conference report Friday on a bill appropriating $66 billion for military operations and $18.6 billion for national building in Iraq in fiscal 2004. The cost is to be borrowed, raising the projected 2004 deficit to $600 billion. House-Senate conferees killed a Senate requirement that $10 billion of the nation building allotment be designated as a loan to Iraq. Part of that bid was also a motion sought to add $1.2 billion for veterans' healthcare. with a vote of 198 for and 221 (Republicans) against, the bid was struck down. Poor Veterans In the Senate: Global Warming: Voting 43 (Dem) for and 55 (Rep) against, the Senate defeated a bil Thursday requiring US Manufacturing energy and transportation companies to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other polluting gases to 2000 levels by 2010. Along with setting a nationwide limit on smokestack discharges, thought by many scientists to contribute to global warming, the bill assigns emissions allowances to individual companies that can be traded on the open market. A yes vote was to pass the bill. Republicans voted no, Dems voted yes. Good for Big Businesses!! Who needs an ozone layer anyway? Saudi Arabia/Sept. 11- Voting 43 for and 54 against, (you guessed it, Dems voted for it, Rep against), the Senate rejected a non-binding call Wednesday for the White House to declassify 28 pages throught to shed light on any Saudi Arabian connection to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The disputed pages were blacked out by the administration in last summer's publicly relased Congressional Joint Intelligence inquiry into US Intelligence failures preceding the attacks. What do they have to hide? Well what would the no vote suggest? That Mr. Bush's promise to deal with any country who supported terrorism was a LIE. We will fight terrorism as long as it doesn't affect our oil supplies!!! These people really are just too much. Wildfires logging: Voting 80 (majority Rep) for and 14 (All Democrats) against, senators sent to conference with the House on Thursday a bill waiving enviromental rules and limiting judicial review so that commerical logging in national forests can be increased to control wildfires. (Of course they did. To hell with the enviroment) By easing NEPA, the bill opens as many as 20 million now-pristine acres in western states to timbering. If you read Paul's book, he talks about how the states and US could actually hire companies to clear away small trees and underbrush. That way, we could actually ensure that the companies are doing their job, as opposed to taking the timber from the 20 million acres and not doing their job (Which will no doubt happen). The price tag is said to be $776 billion annually for this bill, but actual spending levels remain to be set. Couldn't we find a company to clear underbrush and small trees around communities for a lot less than this? Combustible Debris: Voting 58 for (Of course, Rep) and 36 (Dem) against, the Senate killed an amendment Thursday to require federal land agencies to improve their management of the coumbustible and insect-ridden debris that timering leaves behind. The General Accounting Office found that in New Mexico, the Bureau of Management and Forest Service have been systematically lax in assuring that the 'slash' as it is called, has been adequately disposed of and acccounted for. The yes vote was to kill the admendment. Anything to help timber companies and federal agencies destroy the country. Damn, you have to love those Republicans! AIDS Funding: Voting 42 (Dems) for and 50 (Rep) against, (So you know this was actually a good bill), the Senate rejected a bid Thursday to increase AIDS, TB, and malaria funding in the fiscal 2004 foreign operations bill from $2.4 billion to the full $3 billion that President Bush and Congress have publicly pledged to the international community. Bush's reply: 'It wasn't me, it was those damned Republicans!' As Krugman states, we don't help the international community as much as we think we do. We don't keep our promises either. That comes straight from the roll call record. Pretty obvious what Republicans care about and what they don't. Very obvious that they care least about the future of this country.

Subject: Re: Krugman was right AGAIN! From: Sid Bachrach To: Susan D. Date Posted: Tues, Nov 04, 2003 at 15:18:20 (EST) Email Address: sidb23@juno23 Message: If we took a roll call of politicians and media elite figures who took money from Enron for doing precious little, Mr. Krugman would be right in the mix. When he took the $50,000.00 from Enron, Mr. Krugman was taking money from the shareholders. Mr. Krugman joined the ranks of the looters from both the Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals. When it comes to taking money that belongs to others, liberal Princeton professors and ultraconservative congressmen share the same color: Green

Subject: Re: Krugman was right AGAIN! From: Justin To: Sid Bachrach Date Posted: Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 15:15:40 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Sid, calm down your joy, my statement was ment in an ironical way. What are 50000 bucks compared to the X-billions-loss due to the 'fall' of the 'Pseudo-New Economy' predicted by PK in 1998-99? 'I am 75 and I still have to work because young and pseudo-smart, pseudo-high-skilled managers(read PK's Peddling Prosperity) invested all my money in this momentary-prosperous new-economy, and now I'm ruined.'

Subject: All Bad Not Sid From: Sid Logic To: Sid Bachrach Date Posted: Tues, Nov 04, 2003 at 17:01:44 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: All bad, only Sid good. Grrrrr.

Subject: Re: Krugman was right AGAIN! From: Susan D. To: Sid Bachrach Date Posted: Tues, Nov 04, 2003 at 16:49:58 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Sid that old line is getting really really old. You need something new to say to stay relevant. Otherwise, all we hear is blah blah blah And you mention no true defense for what I posted, because let's face it, there is no defense for it.

Subject: Re: Krugman was right AGAIN! From: Sid bachrach To: Susan D. Date Posted: Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 19:05:18 (EST) Email Address: sidb23@juno.com Message: If you travel through Eastern Europe, you will hear one constant refrain. People do not want any more of the heavy handed government controlled economy which stifled them for 50 years. What everyone in Eastern Europe will tell you is that the new prosperity is due to the fact that the market, and not government, determines what people can buy, where they can work and what they can do with their lives. Thousands of new entrepeneurs are creating businesses and jobs. Yet what does Mr. Krugman want to foist upon peoples? Only more centralized government with bureaucrats, none of whom ever met a payroll, deciding what products can be made, what goods can be sold and what businesses will be permitted. Mr. Krugman is well intentioned and his goals may be admirable but in countries like Bulgaria and Poland, far from the faculty dining rooms at Princeton, people actually have to live in the real world.

Subject: Re: Krugman was right AGAIN! From: Paul G. Brown To: Sid bachrach Date Posted: Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 19:55:56 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Sid - Krugman's an economist. He's an advocate of free trade. His whole approach to liberalism (neo-liberalism to co-opt Cockburn's language) and indeed, his whole career is built around understanding market capitalism. But just because something's done in the name of 'the market' doesn't mean we should all nod and salute. Read Adam Smith: 'Seldom do businessmen of the same trade get together but that it results in some detriment to the general public.' And market capitalism doesn't always result in an economically efficient outcome (unless, as some are inclined to do, you *define* an economically efficient outcome as being whatever the market produces). The trick then, is finding the right mix of market and regulation. You're right when you point out how shitty life was in Eastern Europe and how much it has improved. But if you really care about the success of market capitalism--and many capitalists do--you should care about the blights of cronyism (hello Hallibuton!) nepotism (hello James Murdoch!) and corruption (Kenny-boy! Good to see ya!).

Subject: Re: Krugman was right AGAIN! From: Sid Bachrach To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 16:54:58 (EST) Email Address: sidb23@juno.com Message: I will give Mr. Krugman credit for not being one of those Dick Gephardt types who blame Mexican peasants for everything that goes wrong in America. Wind up Gephardt, Kucinich or Nader and it's always the same:' Those Mexican peasants who stole good American jobs thanks to NAFTA...' These guys are so out of touch that it is pathetic. It is like those 'labor' organizations that pretend to speak for Mexican workers and when you actually meet these 'labor rights advocates' you readily that none of them has ever done a day of manual labor in his or her life, none has ever packed a lunch box and gone to a factory and none of them would know how eat a Philly cheese steak. Yet they all think that they are the selfannointed svaiors of us all. At least Mr. Krugman does not belong to that crowd.

Subject: Krugman was right AGAIN! From: Jenn To: Susan D. Date Posted: Tues, Nov 04, 2003 at 17:03:27 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Susan - Point for point. Well done.

Subject: Re: Krugman was right AGAIN! From: Justin To: Sid Bachrach Date Posted: Tues, Nov 04, 2003 at 16:36:30 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Sid, excellent, really excellent!

Subject: Re: Krugman was right AGAIN! From: Sid Bachrach To: Justin Date Posted: Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 21:05:44 (EST) Email Address: sidb23@juno.com Message: Thanks!

Subject: Excellent Analysis From: Terri To: Susan D. Date Posted: Tues, Nov 04, 2003 at 12:54:22 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Excellent Analysis! Thanks.

Subject: Paul Krugman: Part of the Problem From: Susan To: All Date Posted: Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 15:16:47 (EST) Email Address: Susan@alarms.com Message: October 30, 2003 CounterPunch Diary Paul Krugman: Part of the Problem By ALEXANDER COCKBURN Enter the world of Paul Krugman, a world either dark (the eras of Bush One and Bush Two), or bathed in light (when Bill was king). 'What do you think of the French revolution?' someone is supposed to have asked Chou En Lai. 'Too soon to tell', Chou laconically riposted. Krugman entertains no such prudence. Near the beginning of his collection of columns, The Great Unravelling, Krugman looks back on Clinton-time. A throb enters his voice. He becomes a Hesiod, basking in the golden age. 'At the beginning of the new millennium, then, it seemed that the United States was blessed with mature, skillful economic leaders, who in a pinch would do what had to be done. They would insist on responsible fiscal policies; they would act quickly and effectively to prevent a repeat of the jobless recovery of the early 90s, let alone a slide into Japanese-style stagnation. Even those of us who considered ourselves pessimists were basically optimists: we thought that bullish investors might face a rude awakening, but that it would all have a happy ending.' A few lines later: 'What happened to the good years?' A couple of hundred pages later: 'How did we get here? How did the American political system, which produced such reasonable economic leadership during the 1990s, lead us into our current morass of dishonesty and irresponsibility?' Across the past three years Krugman has become the Democrats' Clark Kent. A couple of times each week he bursts onto the New York Times op-ed in his blue jumpsuit, shoulders aside the Geneva Conventions and whacks the bad guys. For an economist he writes pretty good basic English. He lays about him with simple words like 'liar', as applied to the Bush crowd, from the president on down. He makes liberals feel good, the way William Safire returned right-wingers their sense of self-esteem after Watergate. Krugman paints himself as a homely Will Rogers type, speakin' truth to the power elite from his virtuous perch far outside the Beltway: 'Why did I see what others failed to see?' he asks, apropos his swiftness in pinning the Liars label on the Bush administration. 'I'm not part of the gang,' he answers. 'I work from central New Jersey, and continue to live the life of a college professor--so I never bought into the shared assumptions. I don't need to be in the good graces of top officials, so I also have no need to display the deference that characterizes many journalists.' All of which is self-serving hooey. The homely perch is Princeton. Krugman shares, with no serious demur, all the central assumptions of the neo-liberal creed that has governed the prime institutions of the world capitalist system for the past generation and driven much of the world deeper, ever deeper into extreme distress. The unseemly deference he shows Clinton's top officials could be simply, if maliciously explained by his probable hope that one day, perhaps not to long delayed in the event of a Democratic administration taking over in 2005, he may be driving his buggy south down the New Jersey turnpike towards a powerful position of the sort he has certainly entertained hopes of in the past. Faintly, though not frequently, a riffle of doubt perturbs Krugman's chipmunk paeans to the Clinton Age. 'In an era of ever rising stock prices hardly any one noticed, but in the clear light of the morning after we can see that by the turn of the millennium something was very rotten in the state of American capitalism.' It turns out he means only book-cooking of the Enron type, an outfit on whose advisory board the hermit of Princeton once sat with an annual stipend of $50,000 and which he hailed in Fortune magazine in 1999 (cited by Robin Blackburn in a good piece on Enron in New Left Review) as the prime emblem of neoliberal corporate strategy. 'What we have', Krugman gurgled ecstatically in Fortune as he described the Enron trading room, (stuffed as we now know with shysters faking and lying their way through the working day) ' in a growing number of markets--phones, gas, electricity today--is a combination of deregulation that lets new companies enter and 'common carrier' regulation that prevents middlemen playing favorites, making freewheeling markets possible.' Dr Pangloss couldn't have put it better. As a neo-liberal Krugman makes sure to advertise he has enemies to his left. He carefully reprints at the end of his collection a 1999 paean to the WTO from Slate (where he had plenty of room to burst through the straitjacket of 720 op-ed words) stuffed with vainglorious claims for the virtues of globalization. But has 'every successful example of economic development this past century--every case of a poor nation that worked its way up to a more or less decent, or at least dramatically better, standard of living taken place via globalization; that is, by producing for the world market'? The fact that he skirts Cuba, can't be bothered even to address the consequences, or even contours, of the shift in Third World economic strategies in the post-war period tells us how little Krugman is prepared to look with any honesty at his own economic ideas in the mirror. What of Argentina, a devastating advertisement for neo-liberal failure? Amid the rubble Krugman has this to mumble from within the 750 word straitjacket: 'I could explain at length the causes of Argentina's slump: it had more to do with monetary policy than free markets.' A page or two later, brooding comfortably in a column titled 'The Lost Continent' (of Latin America) , Krugman asks, 'Why hasn't reform worked as promised? That's a difficult and disturbing question.' But not one that he's prepared to address. In the concluding pages of a 426 book where Krugman might have disturbed himself and his audience with difficult questions about the widening gap, right through Clinton time, between rich and poor across the world and here in the US, about the reasons why Clinton's bubble economy collapsed so abruptly , Krugman prefers to indulge himself in playing to the gallery, Thomas Friedman-style, with some Nader-bashing. He reprints a column written in July 2000, when Nader had decided that a Third Party candidacy was the only way he could forcefully raise just those 'difficult and disturbing' questions the respectable and conventional Krugman shirks : 'And was I the only person who shuddered when Mr Nader declared that if he were president, he wouldn't reappoint Alan Greenspan--he would 're-educate' him?' Now suppose someone like Ralph Nader had re-educated Alan Greenspan prior to 1996, when the Fed chairman refused to impose the margin requirements on stock market speculators that would have punctured the bubble. It would have been a useful piece of schooling. But reeducation classes weren't on the agenda them any more than they are now, at least in Krugman's pages, so deferential to his heroes, like Robert Rubin, (Krugman reverently invokes 'Rubinomics') who kicked aside regulatory impedimenta like Glass-Steagall and then sprinted out of his Treasury job to cash in on the fruits of his deregulatory labors as co-director of the Citigroup conglomerate. Krugman is a press agent, a busker, for Clintonomics. For him as for so many others on the liberal side, the world only went bad in January, 2001. If a Democrat, pretty much any Democrat conventional enough to win Wall Street's approval, takes over again, maybe in 2005, the world will get better again. Who wants to read a 426-page press release? Fortunately we don't have to, particularly as we have to hand a new, serious, radical scrutiny of Clintonomics and neoliberalism, by Robert Pollin, and it is to his Contours of Descent that I propose to turn in a week or two. http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn10302003.html www.counterpunch.org/cockburn10302003.html

Subject: Re: Paul Krugman: Part of the Problem From: Ayn Rant To: Susan Date Posted: Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 18:49:58 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Does anyone take a fossilized Stalinist like Cockburn seriously? I agree with others on this thread: to be attacked by the likes of him is high praise indeed. Perhaps Cockburn should try getting a chat show on Fox network. He's no more of a vituperative ideologue than the rest of them.

Subject: Re: Paul Krugman: Part of the Problem From: AS To: Susan Date Posted: Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 21:09:32 (EST) Email Address: austinstoneman@aol.com Message: Cockburn is an over-the-hill hypocrite whose ideas are of very marginal importance, a mere remnant of a past generation. It is interesting to note that he is also an anti-Israel hardliner. Criticism from him should be interpreted as a mark of honor for PK.

Subject: Part of the Problem - Rubbish From: Emma To: Susan Date Posted: Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 17:05:23 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Rubbish A to Z

Subject: Re: Paul Krugman: Part of the Problem From: Paul G. Brown To: Susan Date Posted: Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 16:29:12 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: It might take a little effort, but I think several of Cockburn's arguments have satisfactory responses. The list of things Krugman has not commented on--including Cuba--will always be longer than the list of things he takes an interest in. Cockburn's Will Roger's crack illustrates that he simply hasn't read much Rogers, who was pretty funny guy (Krugman's kind of dry). But a detailed response wouldn't achieve much. Cockburn's a critic from the unreconstructed left. He's inherently skeptical of markets as a method for calibrating human needs to human capacities, and he's distrustful of power and the powerful. It's a position he defends with energetic prose. And sure, people are suffering, but about the only person being driven 'deeper and deeper into extreme distress' by late capitalism is, well, Alexander Cockburn.

Subject: Re: Paul Krugman: Part of the Problem From: Gnao To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 16:45:25 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: What is the mortality-rate of children in Angola?

Subject: Re: Paul Krugman: Part of the Problem From: Paul G. Brown To: Gnao Date Posted: Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 17:04:58 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: What is the mortality-rate of children in Angola? --- Obscene. 193.82 deaths/1,000 live births. But in the first place, African development isn't the subject of the Krugman book Cockburn was reviewing (US domestic economic policy was). And in the second place if you read Krugman (_Pop_Internationalism_ is a good place to start) you'll find that his argument is that the way to improve this situation is (in good part) to trade with them. That is, enage in market capitalism. I'm not sure what Cockburn's response would be. Going by what he's said in the past I think would agree with a lot of it. Sub-saharan Africa is an awful mess largely because the US & Soviet governments treated the region as a battleground in their proxy war and the imperialist impulse stands to do so again. But the evidence of the last thirty years is that aid doesn't address the root causes of the plight of Angola's newborns. Now, I'm not saying you simply abandon social and ecological responsibility in the process. You need effective worker protection laws, environmental protection and so on. But I agree with Krugman. Trade is the way out of poverty.

Subject: Re: Paul Krugman: Part of the Problem From: Gnao To: Gnao Date Posted: Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 16:48:18 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Ask PK, he surely knows it!

Subject: Did he even read the book? From: Susan D. To: Susan Date Posted: Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 16:13:47 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Actually, If you read the book, which I have serious doubts this reviewer did, Krugman didn't always agree with Clinton and even says that Clinton actually rode the wave of the technology bubble but did so, at least, as a fiscally responsbile leader. So after reading a half-truth, no, quite frankly a lie in the review, the rest of it is unreadable hogwash. But nice try.

Subject: Why Ever Read From: Emma To: Susan D. Date Posted: Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 17:08:41 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Who cares for such nonsense? There's a fine essay on Garcia Marquez in NYTimes Magazine....

Subject: Re: Paul Krugman: Part of the Problem From: Bobby To: Susan Date Posted: Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 15:36:22 (EST) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: See? I said Paul is a centrist . . . :)

Subject: Re: Paul Krugman: Part of the Problem From: Gnao To: Bobby Date Posted: Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 16:56:47 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Bobby what is a centrist?What is a democrat?What is a republican?But most of all what is the right cause?

Subject: Re: Paul Krugman: Part of the Problem From: Bobby To: Gnao Date Posted: Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 23:59:16 (EST) Email Address: robert@pkachive.org Message: I was referring to accusations against Paul that he's a dangerous leftist, which is untrue. This article is one more piece of proof that he's not a leftist. I just said the word 'centrist' as a way of expressing that idea.

Subject: Re: Paul Krugman: Part of the Problem From: Gnao To: Gnao Date Posted: Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 17:01:02 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Sorry, not right but noble?

Subject: Krugman/Luskin From: Dan Good To: All Date Posted: Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 10:14:50 (EST) Email Address: d.good@comcast.net Message: This is my first look at your website and I'm impressed. Impressed by the economic ignorance and rehearsed hate mongering of your visitors as detailed in their postings. They (and Krugman) are so filled with hate for Bush that economic reasoning is thrown out the window. Even the near record breaking 7.2% increase last quarter is dismissed with the suggestion that 'it can't last' and 'where are the jobs'. Anyone who follows economic recoveries knows that consumer confidence affects consumer spending which in turn affects business spending (and new jobs). Why do your contributors (and Krugman) ignore this natural fact? I know the answer: Bush hate mongering.

Subject: Duh From: Dan Troll To: Dan Good Date Posted: Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 14:29:36 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Wish I were not a troll, but I am.

Subject: I am a Troll From: Dan Good Troll To: Dan Good Date Posted: Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 14:28:01 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Sorry, I can not help being a troll and so can not be expected to even try to understand economics.

Subject: Paul on KCRW From: EZ To: All Date Posted: Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 09:05:55 (EST) Email Address: ejz23@yahoo.com Message: Bobby, just letting you know that Paul was on with another professor last Thursday on 'To the point' on KCRW Los Angeles. He talked about the 7.2% increase in the last quarter. Paul on KCRW www.kcrw.com/cgi-bin/db/kcrw.pl?show_code=tp&air_date=10/30/03&tmplt_type=Show

Subject: Reason they can't see the forrest? From: Susan D. To: All Date Posted: Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 14:53:23 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I have Republican friends and although I have never asked, I would love to know why they still keep praising Bush and believing in him despite all that is known about his politics and how little he cares about the working class. So I have devised a small list of things I think keep the conservatives, mostly middle and working class, fat, dumb and Bush loving. Feel free to add your own. In fact, I hope you do. 1) In spite of the information age, these people just don't care to know anything. Unless it's in the Enquirer or on Fox TV, they just aren't going to believe it. 2) It's all about winning at any cost. Their party is in, so what if they are ruining the environment, crippling the nation in huge deficit, making the rich richer, and in bed with every executive in the county? We win, you lose! Take that you righteous liberals! 3) They work for a major company or corporation who butters its bread with Bush Polyunsaturated Spread. ie: they work for Rupert Murdoch, Rev. Moon, Clear Communications, Halliburton, Halburn, the oil industry, lumber, Verizon, etc. etc. etc. 4)They believe that people who speak out against the Administration are unpatriotic. But surely they aren't so stupid as that they fail to realize that the order to attack anyone who says anything bad about Bush Policies is part of the right-wing conspiracy? Or are they??? HMMMMMM 4)They don't need a job, Social Security or Medicare when they get older; they don't care if they can't afford to send their children to private schools. And they didn't want to retire when they were 65 anyway. OK. I started. Anyone else who has any ideas why Republicans cling to their party and their support for Bush with ingorant exhuberance, feel free to add to this.

Subject: Re: Reason they can't see the forrest? From: Paul G. Brown To: Susan D. Date Posted: Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 00:49:27 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: There is this tendency, among progressives, to infer from the fact that 'so many' vote conservative, that 'so many' are stupid, venal, or intellectually lazy. Now, the essence of liberalism is that instinct which is not quite sure it is right. I'll push the point: if the proles don't vote progressive, then that's because we're wrong somehow, in our thinking, in our policies, or our rhetoric. I enjoy Krugman because what he writes helps sustain my convictions with respect to progressive thinking and policies. He single handedly turned me around on the importance of trade as a means of improving the lot of human beings world-wide. So its our rhetoric. And at the little strip-mall bar I hang out at while waiting for 'Mystic River' to fire up, progressives are up against the 'Gitlin Problem'. We talk (endlessly) about minority rights, about the environment, women (mostly those with high paying jobs struggling against the glass ceiling), immigrants, unions, sweat-shop workers, gay rights, and so on. But we don't talk about the prole whose arse-up on the barstool next to me. He or she is excluded by our language, but is talked about (talked to) by Rush et al. As Molly Ivins puts it, 'You gotta dance with them what brung you.'. Proles get that. They're too busy working to make payments to pay a lot of attention. That's the way democracies ought to work. So when someone pays attention them, that's who they vote for.

Subject: Re: Reason they can't see the forrest? From: Susan D. To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 16:20:05 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Apparently you didn't want to add to the thread, just post your own response. In that case, you should start a new message. But it's just like all of you conservatives to make up the rules as you go along.

Subject: Re: Reason they can't see the forrest? From: Paul G. Brown To: Susan D. Date Posted: Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 16:47:36 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Err. . . I thought my response was on topic. Why do folk repeatedly poll in favor of Democratic values and policies, yet persist in voting Republican? My argument--based on nothing more reliable than personal observation--is that its at least partly because conservatives talk to them, while progressive rhetoric splinters. Even when, as Krugman points out, there are paleo-cons in the Bush Administration who want to dismantle the social safety net, they (my strip-mall bar buddies) conclude that the only beneficiaries of these programs are [fill in least favorite Democratic constituency here]--not them. Look at the furor Howard Dean created saying that he wanted to be a candidate for the guy with the pick-up truck and the confederate flag decal. Now, I understand the repugnance many progressives feel for that symbol. It makes me queazy too. But that flag invokes more than one response in people: it's also the flag of Picket's Charge, rebellion, and so on. If you want people to vote for you, you have to at least acknowledge their world-view, as Dean tried to do. And from what do you judge I'm a conservative?

Subject: Re: Reason they can't see the forrest? From: Bernadette To: Susan D. Date Posted: Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 18:55:11 (EST) Email Address: nma@hotmail.com Message: What language will be the most spoken one in 30 years?(AA-study)

Subject: Ha Ha From: Emma To: Susan D. Date Posted: Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 15:55:08 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Nice sense of humor. I am thinking....

Subject: Scotland's 'deficit' From: Peter Swain To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Oct 30, 2003 at 14:09:47 (EST) Email Address: peter.swain@btinternet.com Message: In the course of a recent interview with Paul Krugman on Newsnight Scotland he referred to the old myth about Scotland being subsidised by the rst of the UK. This myth was exploded once and for all as long ago as 1997 when the then (Conservative) Government of the UK at Westminster reluctantly acknowledged in a reply to a written Parliamentary Question that over the period from 1979 to 1994 the amount by which the taxes paid by people in Scotland had exceeded government expenditure in Scotland had averaged £2 billion. There is ample evidence to suggest that Scotland has been continuing to subsidise the rest of the UK - and NOT the other way round - since 1994. Let's leave behind this nonsense about Scots being 'subsidy junkies' and make the arguments on a serious, adult and informed basis, shall we ?

Subject: Re: Scotland's 'deficit' From: Austin To: Peter Swain Date Posted: Thurs, Oct 30, 2003 at 18:38:17 (EST) Email Address: austinstoneman@aol.com Message: The Scots are always so sensitive to perceived slights! (I have some experience with this). I don't think PK said that to 'slag' Scotland, he probably just didn't know, but he better let things cool down a while before he tries to trek there again...

Subject: Please Give Context From: Terri To: Peter Swain Date Posted: Thurs, Oct 30, 2003 at 16:49:24 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Peter - please give the context of PK's remark so we can better understand.

Subject: Scotland??? From: Terri To: Terri Date Posted: Thurs, Oct 30, 2003 at 16:52:51 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Was PK likening Scotland to California or New York, for example? New York and California may have state deficits, but they pay more taxes to the federal government than the federal government returns in spending in either state.

Subject: Miniseries From: Austin To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Oct 30, 2003 at 00:14:08 (EST) Email Address: austinstoneman@aol.com Message: PK fans, be sure to catch this series-- looks like a refreshing break from all the Reagan-loving Republican distortions... Critics Blast CBS' Reagan Miniseries Wed Oct 29, 4:23 PM ET By LYNN ELBER, AP Television Writer LOS ANGELES - The angry buzz over 'The Reagans' has grown louder and more pointed. 'Advertisers will bail on CBS' anti-Reagan movie,' commentator Pat Buchanan (news - web sites) predicted on 'The McLaughlin Group' Sunday. Two days later, a conservative media watchdog group announced a boycott call-to-arms. But CBS isn't showing signs of regretting its excursion into political drama. Based on experience, observers say, it probably doesn't need to...

Subject: AND THE BAND PLAYED ON From: Susan D. To: Austin Date Posted: Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 13:58:20 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I plan to watch it and for the most part, I believe what most people are upset about was a comment Reagan allegedly made about the people with AIDS deserving what they got. If you watch the movie, 'And The Band Played on', about the beginning of the AIDS epidemic in the US, the filmmakers, at the very end of the movie, declare that it took Reagan years after the epidemic had broke out in this country to actually even say AIDS in a public speech. In addition, the task group who were tracking and studying the virus ended up for the most part getting their budget slashed so much they had to close up. And, in spite of the fact that it would have benefited the US to do so, the American REd Cross who could have used the hepatitits test to screen blood supplies (not exact, but better than nothing) would not do so. Perhaps if the administration had been on top of things, rather than ignore AIDS as a homosexual disease, the lives of thousands of people could have been saved. Perhaps people have a right to know that. In about 20 years, when they make a miniseries out of Bush, I wonder how much of an uproar that will cause?

Subject: AND THE BAND PLAYED ON From: Susan D. To: Austin Date Posted: Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 13:57:06 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I plan to watch it and for the most part, I believe what most people are upset about was a comment Reagan allegedly made about the people with AIDS deserving what they got. If you watch the movie, 'And The Band Played on', about the beginning of the AIDS epidemic in the US, the filmmakers, at the very end of the movie, declare that it took Reagan years after the epidemic had broke out in this country to actually even say AIDS in a public speech. In addition, the task group who were tracking and studying the virus ended up for the most part getting their budget slashed so much they had to close up. And, in spite of the fact that it would have benefited the US to do so, the American REd Cross who could have used the hepatitits test to screen blood supplies (not exact, but better than nothing) would not do so. Perhaps if the administration had been on top of things, rather than ignore AIDS as a homosexual disease, the lives of thousands of people could have been saved. Perhaps people have a right to know that. In about 20 years, when they make a miniseries out of Bush, I wonder how much of an uproar that will cause?

Subject: 'Lawsuit' From: Austin Stoneman To: All Date Posted: Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 20:41:58 (EST) Email Address: austinstoneman@aol.com Message: Hell will freeze over before Luskin wins his lawsuit, period. That letter reveals just how immature and ignorant Luskin is. What a baby...

Subject: frivolous question From: Bobby To: All Date Posted: Tues, Oct 28, 2003 at 23:47:53 (EST) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: I just wanted to know if I'm losing my sense of humor. Luskin cited as 'hilarious' a piece by James Taranto about Krugman, url below. I read it and find it very unfunny. I'm not offended by it or anything. It's just sort of banal and not very funny (it seems like Taranto's trying too hard). I know it's a frivolous topic, just wanted to bring it up cuz I'm bored. http://www.poorandstupid.com/2003_10_26_chronArchive.asp#106740117489436370 http://www.poorandstupid.com/2003_10_26_chronArchive.asp#106740117489436370 www.poorandstupid.com/2003_10_26_chronArchive.asp#106740117489436370

Subject: Is that the best he can do? From: Susan D. To: Bobby Date Posted: Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 10:25:40 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Bobby, went to the link and read it. You're right. It's certainly not hilarious as Luskin claims. Could Luskin be drinking or smoking something, you think? Because, I wasn't offended by it either. I just thought it was kind of silly and ok, I'll say it, shrill. Taranto sounds like a child calling another kid a poopy head and then running away because he doesn't have anything to back it up. If this column is meant to discredit Krugman, well then. . .in the immortal words of Krugman, 'Is that the best you can do?'

Subject: Re: Is that the best he can do? From: Bobby To: Susan D. Date Posted: Thurs, Oct 30, 2003 at 01:54:27 (EST) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: Sorry to beat a dead horse again, but I'm stuck at my wife's office, watching her work, bored . . . Anyway, once again, Luskin posted something really unfunny. It's about someone making a cat jump in order to measure some supposed shrillness or something about Krugman's columns (I can't load it right now on this slow internet connection, and I don't quite remember exactly what it is). Luskin says, 'How do they think of stuff like this? Check out the Krugman Cat Altitude Index, by Jeremy Yoder.' Once again: not funny. My wife, who loves cats, was actually offended by this one because it depicts animal cruelty (and maybe our cat, Noodle, would be offended if she could comprehend). It bugs me since, all at once, it has three annoying qualities: a) it's animal cruelty, b) it's meant to be funny c) it's really unfunny and it's stupid. Anyhow, the point is it's really unfunny and yet, for some reason, Luskin seems to think it's somehow creative. I mean, Luskin must have the sense of humor of someone who's been locked in a basement for the past five years. I don't like to stereotype, but I sometimes wonder about the sense of humor of today's conservative. I can't really think of a single conservative who I think is funny (I'm sure there are quite a few -- I just can't think of one right now). First, there's obviously Luskin. But also Dennis Miller and P.J. O'Rourke, who's not funny at all. Anyways, I know this chit chat I'm making is quite irrelevant, inconsequential, and frivolous, so I apologize in advance to anyone about this post's lack of import or seriousness (though, if you visit NRO's The Corner the vast majority of their content is very similar to the kind of vapid, self-satisfied bullshit I'm writing right now -- yet another reason why this post is bad). Finally, the relevant Luskin link is below. http://poorandstupid.com/2003_10_26_chronArchive.asp#106748094973402959 Wow this post is long. In case you ask, no, I haven't been drinking. I just felt like ranting again about unfunniness for some reason.

Subject: Question for Bobby From: Susan D. To: Bobby Date Posted: Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 14:13:16 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Just wondering. I read on the website what Luskin said about the column about Krugman. He wrote, I think, (from memory) that Luskin said it was hilarious. I think that's a severe overstatement. You also said you are kind of wondering about conservative humor lately. Don't you think their humor is somewhat frantic, almost maniacial in that they are trying desperately to cover up things they know are glaringly evident? It's borderline pathetic. But to me, they are saying what Krugman and others with brains in their head, are saying is so absurb as to be comical. Of course, many of us are realizing, as they well know, that what Krugman is saying isn't the least bit absurd, so maybe they are just cranking up their propaganda to a higher fever pitch level, which is making them seem very phony, very desperate, and very unstable. Just some thoughts.

Subject: Re: Question for Bobby From: Bobby To: Susan D. Date Posted: Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 16:02:33 (EST) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: Yes, all of it is indeed politically motivated. I just wonder how much these guys actually think is funny. If they actually do, I think 'frantic' and 'maniacal' are good words to describe this kind of unfunny sense of humor.

Subject: Attack Machine From: Emma To: Susan D. Date Posted: Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 14:31:03 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: There is a radical right attack machine that spreading from the 'think' tanks and media as NRO and American Standard and Faux, that aims at ideas and observations considered threatening and especially considered influential.

Subject: Re: Is that the best he can do? From: Paul G. Brown To: Bobby Date Posted: Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 00:31:07 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Aww, come on. Dennis Miller makes me giggle. And P. J. O'Rourke has his moments too. I once had an extended exchange about whether or not Lenny Bruce was a conservative. I recall conceeding that he was a libertarian. And cruelty to cats can be funny. If done tastefully. Its just that Luskin lacks the gift.

Subject: Paul,relax! From: Bernadette To: All Date Posted: Tues, Oct 28, 2003 at 14:02:22 (EST) Email Address: nma@hotmail.com Message: I think that PK should slow down with the intensity of his statements concerning religious questions even though he surely might be, 'is?' right.Religion was and still is built on a very vaste, hot, delicate and dangerous ground with a 'burnt and continually burning?' backyard.

Subject: Re: Paul,relax! From: austin stoneman To: Bernadette Date Posted: Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 20:37:41 (EST) Email Address: austinstoneman@aol.com Message: I don't know exactly what that post meant, but I do think that PK's sense of victimization was a little too strong in his last op-ed. Criticism is inevitable for someone expressing strong opinions, big deal. Now, having said that, I agree with all of PK's policy positions, without reservation.

Subject: On the Malaysian Speech From: Jenn To: Bernadette Date Posted: Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 16:11:16 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Here is another fine version of PK's commentary: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1003/chafets_2003_10_20.php3?printer_friendly How to be a Muslim moderate : An Islamic leader camouflages some truth-telling about the Islamic world with anti-Semitic lies By Zev Chafets

Subject: What PK Was About From: Jenn To: Bernadette Date Posted: Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 16:09:15 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Paul Krugman is merely trying to help us understand what was evident from the full text of the Malaysian speech. Ethnic prejudice is always hateful, but what it may represent has to be attended to. The Malaysian speech had an important strike against Islamic extremism, as well as the anti-Semitic passages. PK was excellent in noting this.

Subject: Bernadette relax! From: Susan D. To: Bernadette Date Posted: Tues, Oct 28, 2003 at 15:28:18 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: It's people like you Bernadette that has put this country into the mess that it's in right now. People aren't allowed to express their opinion if that opinion goes against the rhetoric of the right. Wimps like you, who urge complacency and would rather be apathetic than confrontational, (God forbid we upset anyone)has made blind sheep out of the masses. If Krugman wants to hammer away at criticisms of the misguided, he should be allowed to do just that. And if his opinions happen to deal with a touchy subject, made touchy by the people who wish nothing more than for him to shut up, than so be it. Instead of relaxing, Krugman needs to keep hammering away. And if you don't approve of the way Krugman makes his points, even if as you say, you think his points may be right, then don't read him. But isn't that what the right wing radicals want?

Subject: Re: Bernadette relax! From: Bernadette To: Susan D. Date Posted: Tues, Oct 28, 2003 at 17:09:36 (EST) Email Address: nma@hotmail.com Message: Dear Susan D., I only want PK not to lose credibility! P.S.:'Criticism is productive, not automatically destructive!'

Subject: Re: Bernadette relax! From: Bernadette To: Bernadette Date Posted: Tues, Oct 28, 2003 at 17:26:39 (EST) Email Address: nma@hotmail.com Message: Forgot something: read all his books (and try to understand them = him), not only one!

Subject: On Second thought, let's none of us relax! From: Susan D. To: Bernadette Date Posted: Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 10:09:01 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Yes, criticism is normally constructive, not destructive, but these are not normal times and I am still confounded that people do not understand that. By asking Paul to tone down his commentary, you are playing into the hands of the right-wing, who, as I said, would not only like Mr. Krugman to tone down his criticism, but to go away for good.

Subject: Re: On Second thought, let's none of us relax! From: Bernadette To: Susan D. Date Posted: Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 14:17:26 (EST) Email Address: nma@hotmail.com Message: Susan, I don't want to offend you, but the point is:'Who did elect the acting institution?'.By using these arguments, PK automatically is criticizing....?

Subject: Paul Krugman Rocks From: Emma To: Susan D. Date Posted: Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 13:54:13 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Dear Paul - Rock On. This is what honest, thoughtful and incisive, and courageous commentary is about. Rock On.

Subject: Krugman on Jews From: Sid Bachrach To: All Date Posted: Tues, Oct 28, 2003 at 11:57:17 (EST) Email Address: bachr32@hotmail Message: Today, Mr. Krugman writes that Jews should attempt to understand why so many people in the Muslim world don't like them. Well, whenever I hear about Jews needing to 'understand' why others don't like them, I know what is coming. 'You Jews always bring it on yourselves'. Whether it is Buchanan on the far right or Krugman on the farleft, the message is the same. It is always the fault of the Jews. If a Muslim friend of Mr. Krugman says Jews control the banks and the media, why then the Jews must have driven him to make such a silly remark. Blame those Jews, Paul!

Subject: Re: Krugman on Jews From: S. Baer To: Sid Bachrach Date Posted: Tues, Oct 28, 2003 at 19:38:48 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I don't think it is disrespectful to ask a group of individuals to examine there position on the world stage. Instead of becoming defensive, why not attempt to assist each side of the fence to help one another understand opposing opinions...Many will say that this has never worked before, to this I say, We are not trying hard enough. Paul, thank you for you outstanding coverage of events both foreign and domestic....I was introduced to you on CSPAN, and am looking foreward to keeping up with your column.Keep fighting the Good Fight!

Subject: Re: Krugman on Jews From: Susan D. To: Sid Bachrach Date Posted: Tues, Oct 28, 2003 at 15:17:43 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Krugman is a Jew you moron.

Subject: Trolls Can Not Read From: SD the Troll of Trolls To: Sid Bachrach Date Posted: Tues, Oct 28, 2003 at 13:27:20 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Idiot, why not try reading the column? Of course, you are an indiot troll and reading would be too much to ask.

Subject: Re: Krugman on Jews From: Dave E To: Sid Bachrach Date Posted: Tues, Oct 28, 2003 at 12:29:50 (EST) Email Address: daveellis_39@hotmail.com Message: Are you putting words in Paul's mouth, Sid? Why didnt you quote Paul? show the world with a link?

Subject: Re: Krugman on Jews From: Sid Bachrach To: Dave E Date Posted: Thurs, Oct 30, 2003 at 18:50:05 (EST) Email Address: sid23@juno.com Message: Mr. Krugman excused the virulent racism of the Prime Minister of Malaysia and said we should 'understand' why Muslims don't much like Jews or Americans. Then when Mr. Krugman tried to pooh pooh the whole ugly episode (shades of Limbaugh on ESPN) it was too late.

Subject: Re: Krugman on Jews From: Jonathan To: Sid Bachrach Date Posted: Thurs, Oct 30, 2003 at 23:49:32 (EST) Email Address: jonathan@lyingsocialistweasels.com Message: Mr. Krugman excused the virulent racism of the Prime Minister of Malaysia and said we should 'understand' why Muslims don't much like Jews or Americans. Then when Mr. Krugman tried to pooh pooh the whole ugly episode (shades of Limbaugh on ESPN) it was too late. --- Come on, Sid. A reasonable request was made of you to provide Paul's words verbatim, instead of your 'interpretation'. That's not too much to ask, is it?

Subject: Re: Krugman on Jews From: sid bachrach To: Jonathan Date Posted: Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 18:52:43 (EST) Email Address: sidb23@juno.com Message: Mr. Krugman excused the virulent racism of the Prime Minister of Malaysia and said we should 'understand' why Muslims don't much like Jews or Americans. Then when Mr. Krugman tried to pooh pooh the whole ugly episode (shades of Limbaugh on ESPN) it was too late. --- Come on, Sid. A reasonable request was made of you to provide Paul's words verbatim, instead of your 'interpretation'. That's not too much to ask, is it? --- Mr. Krugman's words were to the effect that the Prime Minister of Malaysia's antiSemitic comments (which Krugman did not really feel were antiSemitic) should be understood in the context of what Americans and Israelis have done to Muslims. So, according to Krugman, where a Muslim makes antiSemitic remarks, it should not be condemned but instead should be 'understood'. If you replace Krugman and the Islamic fanatic with Pat Buchanan and Hitler then you have the exact same logic. Read Krugman on the Malasian antiSemite and Buchanan on Hitler. The logic is the same.

Subject: Re: Krugman on Jews From: Paul G. Brown To: sid bachrach Date Posted: Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 00:26:04 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Mr. Krugman excused the virulent racism of the Prime Minister of Malaysia and said we should 'understand' why Muslims don't much like Jews or Americans. --- No. Krugman's did not say that Mahathir's words should be understood in the context of what Americans (you mean, the United States) and Israelis have done to Muslims. His point was that Mahathir's words should be understood in terms of what Mahathir's domestic audience (that is, Malaysians) *believed* 'Americans and Israelis have done to Muslims'. Pat Buchanan (I assume you are refering mostly to 'A Republic, not an Empire', which makes Buchanan an opponent of the various wars the Bush Administration has gotten the US into) has expressed both an admiration for Hitler (Krugman did not say he admired Mahathir, although Krugman noted Matathir was a canny politician which is scarcely admiration) and spends most of his energy on a fairly wierd argument to the effect that Stalin was worse than Hitler (a 'What if Superman fought the Hulk?' style of debate it doesn't bear to get into.) Suffice it to say, Stalin wasn't bombing London and didn't have a defense pact with Japan and didn't, in the last analysis, declare war on the United States. Have you ever read Thuycidides, dude? Athenian general? Loser? Wrote that the beginning of the end for the Athenians in their great war v. Sparta came about when attempts to understand the enemies mode of thinking was transformed into evidence of treason. If you dislike anti-semitism, then it might help to identify when it is being used by a demagogue, and what it is that makes it useful to said demagogue. Winning requires understanding your enemy. Or are you less interested in beating anti-semitism than you are in smearing Krugman?

Subject: Re: Krugman on Jews From: Sid Bachrach To: Paul G. Brown Date Posted: Tues, Nov 04, 2003 at 15:10:27 (EST) Email Address: sidb23@juno.com Message: Paul, If Krugman had prefaced his remarks about the PM of Malaysia by saying: 'We should recognize that this man is our enemy and try to understand his mode of thinking so that we can defeat him' that would be one thing. But Krugman did not do that. Instead, Mr. Krugman thought that there was a rational basis for the blind murderous hatred emanating from the PM of Malaysia and from the Iranian mullahs. Krugman said that the West, especially Israel and the US, should change our policies and our way of life so that the Muslim world will not have a reason to hate us so much. Implicit in Krugman's column was the message that only US and Israeli concessions to the mullahs and shieks will get them to stop hating us. Buchanan believes the same thing about the US and Britain and Hitler. Change Hitler for Osama and Buchanan for Krugman and you have the same identical, selfdenigrating argument.

Subject: Re: Krugman on Jews From: Paul G. Brown To: Sid Bachrach Date Posted: Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 20:36:11 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: You wanted Krugman to say: 'We should recognize that this man is our enemy and try to understand his mode of thinking so that we can defeat him' Krugman wrote: 'Indeed, those remarks [Mahathir's] were inexcusable. But they were also calculated? for Mr. [sic - it's Doctor Mahathir, Krugman got it wrong] Mahathir is a cagey politician, who is neither ignorant nor foolish.' You opined: 'Instead, Mr. Krugman thought that there was a rational basis for the blind murderous hatred emanating from the PM of Malaysia and from the Iranian mullahs.' Krugman never mentions Iran in the NYT Op-Ed. And Krugman's opinion (with which you may disagree, though it is a question reasonable folk may disagree on) is that Mahathir is not 'a hater' himself, but is *using* anti-semitism ('throwing some red-meat') for domestic political purposes. such demagoguery is poisonous, but not the personal crime you are accusing Mahathir of. That's the argument paragraphs 4 & 5 make Now, if you want to criticise the Krugman column I don't see the relevance of Rumsfeld and Boykin to the analysis of Mahathir's language. I think Krugman's not clear on the relevance either: hence the rhetorical questions. But has the war on Iraq stirred up anti-American feelings? It's an opinion, but not, I think, an opinion with an evil sub-text. Does opposition to the policies of Sharon's Likud government imply anti-semitism? Well, Israelis vote for other parties, so that's a hard case to make. And lastly, there's a big difference between pointing out that a policy as implemented is having unforseen consequences and recommending a different policy or a reversal. Krugman's column might be taken to imply that paying attention to the aspirations of Malaysia's ethnic majority by working for change in that country's economic management would be a good thing! Makin' money crowds out a lot of hate; particularly when the former object of your hatred wants to buy something from you!

Subject: Sid, you dweeby geek! From: I speak for all of us To: Sid Bachrach Date Posted: Tues, Nov 04, 2003 at 16:55:24 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: blah blah blah Sid. You go with more blah blah blah No one is reading what you wrote anymore, because we all have better things to do, like clean the grout in our showers, brush our dogs teeth, read all the expiraton labels on our food, etc. etc. etc. Anything is better than reading your silly meaningless rhetoric.

Subject: SD is Lying From: SD the Liar To: Dave E Date Posted: Tues, Oct 28, 2003 at 13:30:03 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: That is what us folks do. We lie. SD is a lie. A troll pretending to be Jewish.

Subject: Re: SD is Lying From: Harvey Korn To: SD the Liar Date Posted: Thurs, Oct 30, 2003 at 20:03:21 (EST) Email Address: austin308@yahoo.com Message: Paul Krugman thinks that if he convinces the anti-Semites that he isn't one of 'those Jews' he will be allowed admission to a restricted country club in Princeton. If Paul Krugman has to publicly excuse anti-Semitism and racism to get in, he is perfectly willing to pay that price. I have news for Mr. Krugman. No matter how much groveling he does, he will never be allowed in the front door.

Subject: Re: SD is Lying From: Jonathan To: Harvey Korn Date Posted: Thurs, Oct 30, 2003 at 23:46:26 (EST) Email Address: jonathan@lyingsocialistweasels.com Message: Donald L.? Is that you? You know, at least a LITTLE evidence (a link, something) when writing stuff like this would be really nice. Pony up, or admit you're posting lies. Take your pick.

Subject: Why didn't anyone listen? From: Susan D. To: All Date Posted: Tues, Oct 28, 2003 at 10:13:02 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Just finished reading Krugman's book. I'm a speed reader, but I forced myself to slow down and read every word. It took me four days. A particularly startling part of the book (most of it actually) kept my stomach upset for one whole day. If I were asked to comment on the book jacket, it would go something like this: Paul Krugman's The Great Unraveling will go down in the history books as an unflinching look at the corruption and radical takeover of American Politics during the Bush Administration. Let's just hope those same history books don't include the line, why didn't anyone listen to him? I have never been interested in polictics but I intend to contact my local Democratic office and volunteer my time to do whatever it takes to get Bush out of the White House. I will help locate and register Democratic voters, call to ask for Democratic support,help get the message about the urgency to get registered to vote. I will also campaign for ANY Democrat who wins the nomination. I hope many of you out there will do the same.

Subject: Re: Why didn't anyone listen? From: Harvey Korn To: Susan D. Date Posted: Thurs, Oct 30, 2003 at 20:05:26 (EST) Email Address: austin308@yahoo.com Message: Just out of curiosity, does the Great Unraveling mention that the author got a nice fat check from the boys at Enron? Just wondering.

Subject: Re: Why didn't anyone listen? From: Jonathan To: Harvey Korn Date Posted: Thurs, Oct 30, 2003 at 23:42:00 (EST) Email Address: jonathan@lyingsocialistweasels.com Message: Just out of curiosity, does the Great Unraveling mention that the author got a nice fat check from the boys at Enron? Just wondering. --- You know, I think I might have seen an Enron sign once. I guess that disqualifies me from making any comments regarding despicable corporate behavior, huh? Do right wingers even care whether they make sense? Or is everything sacrificed on the altar of ideology? Just wondering.

Subject: Right Wingers grasp at straws or Enron From: Susan D. To: Jonathan Date Posted: Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 14:21:09 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: LOL to that. I think Paul has explained the Enron thing a hundred times, but it's the one thing no brain right wingers can grasp at when trying to discredit Mr. Krugman. And if you think about the logic of trying to discredit him through Enron, well. . .there is no logic to it. If Paul stood to make financial gains from the Company, why tell the truth about what really happened in his book and column. Seems to me he would want to cover-up Enron's misdeeds. Oh wait a minute, that's what the GOP would have done. Now I have it right!

Subject: Re: Right Wingers grasp at straws or Enron From: Jonathan To: Susan D. Date Posted: Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 14:10:22 (EST) Email Address: jonathan@lyingsocialistweasels.com Message: LOL to that. I think Paul has explained the Enron thing a hundred times, but it's the one thing no brain right wingers can grasp at when trying to discredit Mr. Krugman. And if you think about the logic of trying to discredit him through Enron, well. . .there is no logic to it. If Paul stood to make financial gains from the Company, why tell the truth about what really happened in his book and column. Seems to me he would want to cover-up Enron's misdeeds. Oh wait a minute, that's what the GOP would have done. Now I have it right! --- It's really so lame, one has to conclude that partisans like Korn here know it's a non-issue and dishonest to pretend it is. But nothing's more important than promoting the cause, right?

Subject: Re: Right Wingers grasp at straws or Enron From: Harvey Korn To: Susan D. Date Posted: Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 04:13:40 (EST) Email Address: austin308@yahoo.com Message: Paul Krugman rails against Enron but he took the money. No matter how many times he fudges it he can not remove that damn spot. While Enron employees and shareholders got the shaft, Paul got the money. Enron employees get nothing and Paul gets fifty grand. If Paul had a shred of decency he would give the money back and apologize to the Enron employees.

Subject: Re: Right Wingers grasp at straws or Enron From: Paul G. Brown To: Harvey Korn Date Posted: Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 19:19:38 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Paul Krugman rails against Enron but he took the money. No matter how many times he fudges it he can not remove that damn spot. While Enron employees and shareholders got the shaft, Paul got the money. --- What's the matter, Harvey? You a communist or something? Don't like capitalism? Krugman was paid to do a job. He did the job. He got paid. He's fortunate that the check didn't bounce, but he's hardly culpable for what happened later. I'm also going to assume that you (like me) can't wait for the day we see Kenny-Boy doin' the perp-walk. Or is your holier-than-thou attitude less about the independence or the quality of Krugman's commentary than it is an attempt to smear him?

Subject: Re: Right Wingers grasp at straws or Enron From: Jonathan To: Harvey Korn Date Posted: Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 14:07:50 (EST) Email Address: jonathan@lyingsocialistweasels.com Message: Paul Krugman rails against Enron but he took the money. No matter how many times he fudges it he can not remove that damn spot. While Enron employees and shareholders got the shaft, Paul got the money. Enron employees get nothing and Paul gets fifty grand. If Paul had a shred of decency he would give the money back and apologize to the Enron employees. --- Sigh. What a weak attempt to smear Krugman. Good lord, man -- by your logic, the Enron employees themselves should give back their salaries, and never criticize the company lest they be hypocrites. What a bunch of crooks -- they got paid by Enron! Is this really the best the right wing can do, these days?

Subject: Re: Right Wingers grasp at straws or Enron From: Jonathan To: Jonathan Date Posted: Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 14:14:11 (EST) Email Address: jonathan@lyingsocialistweasels.com Message: Oh, and one more thing. The utter cynicism of the right wing in trying to smear Krugman for 'taking the money' (what money, Korn? Do you even know what he got paid for) and conveniently forgetting the crimes of Bush's buddies and cronies is beyond measure, and obvious. Don't pretend you give a damn about Enron's employees or shareholders, Korn. For people like you, it's painfully obvious, by word and deed, that everything takes a back seat to partisan advantage...

Subject: Re: Right Wingers grasp at straws or Enron From: Harvey Korn To: Jonathan Date Posted: Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 18:16:58 (EST) Email Address: austin308@yahoo.com Message: How hard it is to face the truth. Paul Krugman took the Enron money. A fact is a fact. Enron gave money to influence people. Everyone knew that. Some people of integrity said no to Enron. Paul Krugman took the money and that money should be turned over to the shareholders and employees. While secretaries and janitors got lay off notices, Paul got a big fat check. Paul Krugman may rail on and on about Kenny Boy but Kenny Boy had Paul right in his hip pocket. Paul, do the right thing and give the money back.

Subject: Re: Right Wingers grasp at straws or Enron From: Susan D. To: Harvey Korn Date Posted: Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 16:30:36 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Too bad Korn, Jonathan is right, you're wrong. YOu don't care about Enron employees, you brought up Enron not because you care so much about the little people, but because it's THE ONLY thing you can think of to smear Krugman. And why do you wish to smear Krugman? Because what he says is the truth and it scares the hell out of conservatives like you, who have to be on the winning side of an issue, no matter what the cost. Go sell crazy some place else.

Subject: Re: Right Wingers grasp at straws or Enron From: Harvey Korn To: Susan D. Date Posted: Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 17:46:19 (EST) Email Address: austin308@yahoo.com Message: When given a choice to take or not take the Enron money, Paul Krugman took the money. While secretaries and janitors got pink slips, Krugman got a big fat check. Other journalists had the decency to say no to Kenny Boy Lay. Not our dear Mr. Krugman. It is too late for him to say no to Ken Lay but at least he can do the right thing and give the money back. All of Paul's crocodile tears from the Princeton Club do not feed the families of the Enron employees. Give it back Paul.

Subject: Re: Right Wingers grasp at straws or Enron From: Jonathan To: Harvey Korn Date Posted: Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 19:23:35 (EST) Email Address: jonathan@lyingsocialistweasels.com Message: When given a choice to take or not take the Enron money, Paul Krugman took the money. While secretaries and janitors got pink slips, Krugman got a big fat check. Other journalists had the decency to say no to Kenny Boy Lay. Not our dear Mr. Krugman. It is too late for him to say no to Ken Lay but at least he can do the right thing and give the money back. All of Paul's crocodile tears from the Princeton Club do not feed the families of the Enron employees. Give it back Paul. --- Just noticed Korn chose to post a 'response' to my questions. A pity all he could come up with is repeating the same vacuous, baseless things over and over. Memo to Korn, if you're still listening: repetition doesn't equal fact. We're all still waiting for you to address the simple questions put to you. And I imagine we'll be waiting a while...

Subject: Paul on wnyc From: EZ To: All Date Posted: Tues, Oct 28, 2003 at 09:02:08 (EST) Email Address: ejz23@yahoo.com Message: Hello Bobby, just wanted to let you know that Paul was on WNYC last Friday on Brian Lehrer's show. www.wnyc.org

Subject: Re: Paul on wnyc From: Bobby To: EZ Date Posted: Tues, Oct 28, 2003 at 11:26:02 (EST) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: Thank you so much for the link :)

Subject: Link for the BBC file From: hbj To: All Date Posted: Sun, Oct 26, 2003 at 16:36:29 (EST) Email Address: hbjhbj@lycos.com Message: To the webmaster of this site - please contact me regarding the permanent link you requested. Thanks.

Subject: Why was Krugman's column moved? From: Nancy To: All Date Posted: Sun, Oct 26, 2003 at 13:35:54 (EST) Email Address: nancystair@earthlink.net Message: Why did the NYTimes move Krugman's column from Sun/Wed to Tuesday/Friday? I am just waiting for the old grey rag to fire him so I can cancel my subscription in disgust, which I want to do nearly every day as it is. The paper has actually gotten worse since Howell left. When they dump Krugman, I am stone cold gone.

Subject: Paul Krugman is a Treasure From: Terri To: Nancy Date Posted: Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 14:14:15 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Paul Krugman is a treasure and will not be lost to us. Read Russell Baker in the NY Review of Books: - http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16730

Subject: Re: Paul Krugman is a Treasure From: Harvey Korn To: Terri Date Posted: Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 04:21:48 (EST) Email Address: austin308@yahoo.com Message: Paul Krugman is a treasure? That has got to be a joke.

Subject: Re: Why was Krugman's column moved? From: Bobby To: Nancy Date Posted: Sun, Oct 26, 2003 at 15:28:03 (EST) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: The column was moved to tueday and Friday I think more than a year ago (I'm just not knowledgeable enough about photo shop to change the icon for the columns section tab). The Times shuffles their Op-Ed columns every once in a while. It has nothing to do with Krugman himself, since they changed the days of almost all if not all of then columns, like Dowd, Herbert, Friedman, Safire, Kristof, etc. I don't think the Times will be firing paul any time soon. Paul Krugman's the Bush administration's most effective and most important critic, and his influence is still growing. So, for the Times to fire him, I think even the people at the Times know that would be a serious mistake that would do serious and permanent damage to the newspaper and its credibility.

Subject: The Origin of... The Clenis™!!! From: dave To: All Date Posted: Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 20:52:09 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The Clenis was coined by an Atrios poster referring to the that dark emissary responsible for all that is evil in the world - the penis of Bill Clinton! The 'Krenis' was an offshoot of that... both referring to the types of arguments the wingnuts will resort to instead of dealing with the facts...

Subject: Krugman on BBC World Business Review From: Trillian To: All Date Posted: Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 16:38:15 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: (Bobby, congrats on getting the video on CSPAN, I was annoyed i only caught the last half on tv before, so a big thank you) Krugman had a brief interview on BBC's World Business Review last night, its short (about 13 minutes). Here's the Real Media link for it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/ram/worldbusinessreview.ram Krugman on BBC www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/ram/worldbusinessreview.ram

Subject: To Bobby and Paul From: Ari To: All Date Posted: Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 13:16:02 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1003/chafets_2003_10_20.php3?printer_friendly How to be a Muslim moderate : An Islamic leader camouflages some truth-telling about the Islamic world with anti-Semitic lies By Zev Chafets Bobby - You might care to send this article by Zev Chafets to Paul Krugman, for it argues similarly for a thorough reading of the Malaysian address. The address was fearfully anti-Semitic, but that text was to mask a criticism of Islamic fundamentalist culture. This is important to notice.

Subject: Malaysian Analysis From: Luis To: Ari Date Posted: Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 14:11:12 (EST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: As always the analysis of the Malaysian address was incisive and clear. The address was certainly a denounciation of Islamic fundamentalism under a 'mask' of anti-Semitism. Krugman and Chafets are completely right, the text must be read as a whole though the anti-Semitic passages are painful.

Subject: To HMartinez Re: Krugman in London? From: Bobby To: All Date Posted: Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 19:02:20 (EDT) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: Krugman is in London right now. I don't know anything about where he'll be appearing. Send an email to bmonteiro@monteiroandco.com where they'll definitely know the answer.

Subject: New message board and New Message Board Archive From: Bobby To: All Date Posted: Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 18:37:49 (EDT) Email Address: robert@pkarchive.org Message: Hey Folks, I had to empty this message board since these Hotboards message boards melt down once they reach 700 messages. Don't worry, since all of your messages posted before now are archived in our new Message Board Archive, which has all the old messages posted on this board from 6.9.03, when the board began, to 10.24.03, which is today. The Message Board Archive also has the old Hotboard message board that was here before 6.9.03. There's a link to the Message Board Archive on the Updates page and the link to the file is here: http://www.pkarchive.org/MBArchive.html I'm very sorry about any conversations on this board that I've interupted or any inconvenience that I've caused. http://www.pkarchive.org www.pkarchive.org