Krugman as usual, considers himself to be a judge of other people’s views, morals, and conscience.
I find the column title amusing.
Here’s what is so amusing and at the same time troubling about his column.
It makes me wonder if he in fact believes in the soul and the afterlife, rather than Dawkin’s thesis that God is dead which seems to be popular with the left.
After reading Willis Eschenbach’s excellent essay on how global warming alarmism and policy hurts the poor the most, watching Dr. Matt Ridley’s uplifting video on how CO2 is helping to green the planet, seeing Steve McIntyre point out that the latest Marcott hockey stick appears to be either a statistical fabrication or unrealistic data error, and noting Dr. Savory’s simple solution for rolling back how desertifcaton leads to climate change, and knowing that Paul Krugman wouldn’t see any of this as rational skepticsim, but would instead label it a sin, while promoting policies that hamper our economy and personal freedom, weaken our defense, hurt the poor, and won’t make any measurable difference to the outcome, my response becomes quite simple.
Dear Paul Krugman,
I’ll see you in hell.
Sincerely,
Anthony Watts
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@DirkH
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/15/quote-of-the-week-dear-paul-krugman-ill-see-you-in-hell/#comment-1249531
in case you missed that
To those that think that Socialism is a solution to economic inequality, prepare to cover your eyes, and quickly skip to the next post.
The only way that Socialism can ever improve econmic inequality, is to make everyone equally POOR, except of course, the government, and it cronies. But they (the government) will eventally be reduced to poverty also, by the corrupt incentives, of a centrally planned economy.
When a person earns money in the free-market, he does so, by providing a good or a service, supperior to the competing goods and services, according to his customer. This “earned money” is now his property, and can be spent, saved, invested, or donated, according to his priorities. By earning money, in the free market, he has raised the level of GNP, and society benefits by his wealth production.
If he chooses to donate money to the less-fortunate, the donator, recieves the benefits of magnanamy. The recipient(s) know the gift was given freely, and that future gifts are not certain. They know that, if they too, can be productive, that they will recieve independence, and the ability to help those, less able to compete.
When the government intrudes on this process, the govenment is now “taking by force” property from the earners, and presenting it to the “entitled”. Both sides are now less incentivised, to either earn more money, or to become less dependent. The end of this scenerio can be soon, or it can be forced into the future (for the children to enjoy), but it can not be prevented.
This system can not prevail, and ALWAYS ends in a collapse, where everyone is poor, and angry, and the vacuum is filled with “angry, nasty” leaders.
It is human nature. There has never been an example of socialism, that has had long-term economic growth. And there never will be. It violates the basic incentives for work.
HenryP says:
March 16, 2013 at 9:37 am
“again@DirkH
the point I was trying to make is that the countries with the lowest gini factor (more light and yellow colour on the chart) currently also have the highest per capita income…..”
Sorry I missed that comment.
Well, but is it true? I mentioned USA and Singapore as countries with a higher degree of inequality yet a very high GDP/capita. Cuba – when we ignore the nomenklatura – has a very low Gini index and is a starving hellhole. North Korea the same. So is there really such a correlation.
http://visualizingeconomics.com/blog/2006/01/04/gdp-per-capital-vs-gini-index
So… I think this refutes your statement. The countries with the lowest Gini index might be very rich and they might be very poor. Obviously the Gini index cannot be a causative factor.
Krugman talks of “Everyday Externalities”. People should not make the mistake of thinking that all externalities are negative as some are positive. Aside from other things Co2 is also a bi-product of industrial activity and this bi-product is helping to green the planet. So there.
On “Liberal” as a word:
There are two, substantially opposite meanings to “Liberal”. The “Classical Liberal” is more in line with American Libertarian. The “American Liberal” is an artifact of American Socialists / Progressives realizing they had a ‘bad name’ after W.W.II when the National State Socialists (i.e. Germany) and the International Socialists ( i.e. Russia) kind of had a tiff and killed millions… Also the “3rd Way Socialists” (i.e. Italy – the Fascist movement was the start of “3rd Way” Socialism) So after all that, the American Socialists and Progressives started calling themselves “Liberals”.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/01/19/i-am-a-liberal/
But they are just another flavor of “Progressive” who are indistinguishable from the “3rd Way Socialists” who preceded them. (Mussolini was widely praised in Progressive Era USA and his “3rd Way” was held up as a great step forward. He was given cameo appearances in a Hollywood Movie and praised by government Progressive leadership. It happened. Accept it.)
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/03/25/some-quotes-on-socialism-and-fascism/
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/nationalist-socialists/
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/01/15/liberal-fascism/
@HernyP:
Unfortunately, the difference between Communism and the other Socialisms is not nearly as great as you would like to think. Do be advised that they all like to shout about how different they are from each other and how far removed from all the bad things ‘the other kind’ has done / caused.
Even to the extent that Stalin branded National Socialism as “right wing” (there being nothing to the left of Stalin…) and had it “stick”. (“right wing” and “left wing” are essentially useless terms for sort socialisms vs capitalism vs other isms).
THE essential difference between Communism and National State Socialism is in the name. The focus on one Nation State vs the global collective “International” Socialism. (That’s why the Communist anthem was the “International”) Fascism came up with the innovation that they didn’t need to confiscate / nationalize companies as long as they ringed them with a wall of regulation and administrators that assured they did as told. So really, the most clear way to see it is just to look at the point where “Central Planning” operates.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/socialism-utopia-workers-paradise/
Communism: Center of the Party Committee (with the goal of creating global socialism)
National State Socialism: Center of the Nation State Government
Fascism (“3rd Way Socialism): Center of the Industrial Planning Commission
They are all “Central Planning” forms of government. They are all Socialisms.
BTW, the USSR defined itself as socialist…
As in “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics”
Now you can try to distance yourself from the precursor Socialisms and their failures. (It has a long tradition of name changing and distancing…) but I’d rather just look at what they themselves said ( all claimed to be good Socialists) and who they held as their guiding lights (all look to Marx and Socialist / Communist doctrines).
The current crop of Socialists look to the same sources. But they are nearly rabid in asserting that if we just leave out the bad bits from those prior failed attempts, “this time for sure” it will be different. So no “nationalism” as the Italian Fascists and German National State Socialists gave it a bad name. Rabid assertion that racism is the problem (via that same National State Socialist emphasis on racism). Assertion that Socialism can be more local (not necessarily “International”) – as the USSR ‘had issues’.
Even a tepid attempt to use “Market Socialism” since strait “Central Planning” has failed so often. Yet “Markets” under strong Central Regulation (which is different from “Central Planning” exactly how?…) and various commissions and panels and regulatory bodies doing the high level planning. The history of failed faux markets pushed by such methods is “not good”. (See the “carbon exchanges”…)
So please, do realize that there is a LOT of ‘smoke blowing’ and distancing and flat out lying about history in an attempt to hide the historical failures of socialisms over time.
The easy way to keep it clear is just to look at the Communist Manifesto ( you do have a copy, right? Mine is well used. It is essential to understanding the history of Socialism.) There’s a checklist in it. Just look at how many of those are done, that’s how close to the goal any given Socialism is placed. How Much is the economy planned and driven from the central government? How Much is a push for labor union / industrial forced “cooperation” mandated? Is there an emphasis on the “Avoidance of Bankruptcy” as a legal method? (i.e. “Nationalize” and bail out instead of bankruptcy court and bond holder precedence / liquidation). Nationalized “Public Education” (with central planning of what is allowed to be taught – with emphasis on making a ‘good citizen’ fitted to the needs of the party, the people, the nation). And several more.
Please realize I am not trying to cast stones at your belief in Socialism as a “good thing”. Just trying to assure that the history is not airbrushed away and that the actual relationships are remembered. (So we don’t need to repeat the failures…) I have often said I think I can make the best defense of “Lange Type Socialism” (now being renamed “Market Socialism” – though why is unclear). I can also spend weeks detailing why pure free market capitalism is bad and a failure. (“Monopoly Power” is a good place to start…) There ARE major problems with Capitalism.
But also realize that the history of the Socialisms is “not good”. The “3rd Way” or “Market Socialisms” can work spectacularly well … for a while. See China today. See the early history of Fascist Italy ( it did work well and the trains were on time). My complaint is only that the history of them is a history of “Unstable”. Central control attracts central controllers. Over time, the Evil Bastard personality type, instead of just running one company in competition with some other E. B.; instead takes over the country. Then this Tyrant begins mandating and power grabbing. (See Mayor Bloomberg for a petty example in the making). Eventually it ends in wars and a police state. Even your lauded EU countries are in the middle of that process today as power is centralized in Brussels and more “mandates” are handed down.
So “get back to me” when you have one example of a Socialism that lasts stable and peacefully for 100 years. Most look to “blow up” in about 30 years. (Some make 50, like the USSR, some far less, like National State Socialist Germany.)
I don’t like capitalism. But reality just is. And that reality is that having separation between a national government NOT running the economy, and a competitive cesspool of E.B.”Captains of Industry” fighting each other instead of the people (and with moderate / light regulation of the worst offenders by the government) seems to be what works best and lasts longest. Essentially “Mixed Economy Capitalism” within a democratic republic. So I’m smart enough to realize that history is a better decision maker about what works than anyone working from their pet theories or what they like. (BTW, Socialist doctrine specifically asserts that what people like and what theory says is the more important….)
In short: It works best when the cops policing the system are not part of it. Once government is “Central Planning” you get “Crony Economics” as “Friends of Government” get the advantage and the money. Then the cycle of decay starts with more E.B. types “working the system” of government control boards and influence pedaling. Eventually that all decays into inefficient government, inefficient industry, and a consortium of E.B. taking over the system (at least until one of them becomes a new Tyrant and ‘does in’ some of the rest…) Eventually you end in collapse.
So any Socialism (even “3rd Way” and “Market Socialism” types) has a ‘timer running”. They do well for a couple of decades, then the rot starts. Then you get the Solyndra type bailouts of “Favored Friends”, and the nationalizing of Banks and other major industries. The flood of ever more “permits” and “regulations” as the central power structure demands control and money. That, then, leads to stagnation, rise of the Petty Tyrants, and eventual collapse in decay.
Find a way out of that process and you have a great system.
Don’t find a way out, you are on the wheel just waiting your turn of the cycle to Tyranny and collapse.
So watch for “Central Planning” and “Central Regulation” as the defining markers. If the system allows for “organic” growth of distributed control and decision making, it does well. If it centralizes and limits choices, it does poorly. (And if it doesn’t police the distributed decision makers for monopoly practices, it ends up in one giant private monopoly and predatory destructive business practices…)
In short: Your desire for a more equitable world is a noble one. But look at the history of how the various systems have worked out over 50 to 100 year time scales.
The basic problem is the E.B. problem. Some of us are just not very nice. Letting them have central control of everything is much much worse than letting them run one company fighting with others of their kind… We can’t get rid of the E.B., but we can get them limited in their scope and reach. They WILL grab power, so make that power diffuse and distributed and competitive.
(Much of the current push to “Market Socialism” is just such an attempt. It’s doing better than most other Socialism. Still has the ‘slow creep to central Tyranny’ problem though..)
Krugman asks “can anyone deny that more drivers means more traffic congestion?”. Er, well, yes actually. What he seems to have overlooked is that for all the hundreds of billions spent on ‘climate change’ (oh how I hate that phrase), including research, and the green’s abject hatred if the car preventing build of road capacity, the road/transport networks could have received the much needed investment that would have had a positive impact on the economy, compared to the economic disaster green policies, including renewables, is causing.
Anthony — You’re clearly guilty of heresy for questioning the teachings of the high priests. You surely must be aware that they, and they alone, are capable of translating and understanding the ancient proxy scriptures.
@Russ R:
Thanks for your vote!
😉
But I lack the essential ingredients for being a politician. ( Sleezy schmoozing skills, lying with grace and ease, endless manipulation of others for my own gain, avoidance of truth, embracing the shared lie, exploitation of others…) I’m just not suited for the job…
Per “why so many” bright folks don’t get it. Um, I think they do…
One of the main assertions of Marx is the “inevitable” collapse of Capitalism and that, then, leads to The Revolution from which comes the Socialist Workers Paradise. The collapse of capitalism is a desired goal. Once that is in mind, it is easy to make the next leap.
Why try to ‘fix it’ or even help it last a bit longer? Is it not better to accelerate the “inevitable” collapse to hasten the day when more “Social Justice” and “fairness” and all the good things of Socialism will prevail on the land? Isn’t it your moral duty to help advance the arrival of The Revolution?
Once you realize that “collapse the system” is a goal state it makes much more sense. See Saul Alinsky.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/saulalinsky2.html
It really does help to “Know your Marx” and read your Alinsky… Always read the foundational documents of your opponent. They must act inside their belief system, so you will know what they will do…
So if you want to collapse capitalism, what better tool than to debase the currency and make contracts worthless?
In short, it’s not a lack of understanding, it’s a goal.
“The Conscience of a Liberal”
Such hubris – even the title is dripping with self-regard. This is exactly why in my mid-twenties I gave up left-wing politics, with its blinkered, hypocritical and self-righteous mutual back-slappers. And none of them has learned a thing since then
henry@dirkh & others
the countries that I mentioned in my earlier post all have the highest per capita income and the lowest gini factor, Your reference. does not disprove that. So socialism is good and social programs work. Canada versus USA is another good example. (I will l bet that Canada’s per capita income is bigger than that the USA). Obviously I have been doing some thinking about why this is so. The reason I came up with is simple.. Here in South Africa that has a high gini factor, I can see this very clearly. The rich people already have everything they need, so if they become richer they will not consume that much more. On the other hand, if the lower classes and total “have-nots” get more money in their hands they want fridges, washing machines and other basic commodities, etc. and so the whole economy gets working and everyone profits…. it is that simple….
Even in ancient Israel they had a social benefit: every 50 years all land would go back to the original owners and slaves were set free.
BTW, I subsequently found out that 50 years is about 50% of a 100 years weather cycle that the ancients knew about which has at its basis the noted 88 year Gleissberg solar/weather cycle.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
@Russ R.:
Oh, and one other point… If you are printing money like crazy, from a Socialist point of view it has two major benefits.
1) It accelerates the arrival of the collapse and the Workers Revolution.
2) It lets you hand over large chunks of cash (value taken, by definition, from the folks who presently hold cash and debt instruments like mortgages – i.e. “the rich”) to those who you like. SEIU and the Government Unions, Friends Of GM and their union, Friends of Obama and Solyndra like bail outs of folks you like. In short “wealth redistribution”.
Once you realize it’s a goal, it makes much more sense.
@DirkH & HenryP:
I see the “income equality” line is being fished again…
The big problem is not “income” but “wealth” distribution. The Obscenely Rich don’t need much pocket money to spend, so can keep ‘income’ at a mere $Million or two a year, if desired. While sitting on $Billions of accumulated wealth and assets. So leveling “income” just suppresses the “up and coming” trying to BECOME wealthy. “Income Equality” is supporting the status quo of wealth in-equality.
With that said…
We need income inequality. It is a good thing. Look up “marginal propensity to invest”.
http://www.amosweb.com/cgi-bin/awb_nav.pl?s=wpd&c=dsp&k=marginal+propensity+to+invest
It is just those people who have large and rising incomes who invest in new industries, new capital stock, new businesses. Poor people consume all their income (and then some). The Very Rich are already fully invested and largely interested in protecting their entrenched interests. (There will be some ‘organic growth’ inside some of the companies they own). But the simple fact is that only folks with high and rising incomes and wealth invest large fractions of their money. Investment that moves the growth of the economy forward for all participants.
When we are all “equally poor”, investment in new plant and equipment drops, we start a cycle of economic contraction and decay. To have more economic growth and more productivity for everyone, someone must invest, and the “marginal propensity to invest” says that is “rich people”. So the best way to make more wealth, is to have more rich people. Help the middle class to rise into the rich class. And help the poor rise into middle class. But if you try to ‘help the poor’ by hurting the rich, you get lower investment, lower job formation, and everyone gets more poor. That is only of benefit to folks who want to accelerate collapse and bring on the Workers Revolution…
(The Communist answer to this is “Public Investment”. Have the Government, as the only “Rich Guy”, own all the assets and do the investing. That doesn’t work out so well… For other kinds of Socialism, they have other ‘patches’, that also don’t work so well. Often involving various kinds of “subsidy” or “government programs”. See “stimulus bill” for examples… and check out Solyndra… So now you know why Obama talks about “investment”. The goal is have all the population poor workers and the government own / manage the ‘investment’ and capital stock via central planning… In theory it can work. Early days of Stalin’s USSR had rapid growth. Longer term it breaks down as innovation and incentive effects cramp.)
I agree with your observation about WHY today’s socialists in Washington (and Europe) WANT to “print money” and distribute income FROM their opponents to their voters – Roosevelt pioneered that intent in the 1930’s, and today’s politicians learned their lessons well.
But why are we NOT seeing 10% and 15% inflation today, or in the past two or three years.
I know that much inflaton can be “hidden” by accounting practices and by “changing the rules” about how prices are calculated and what is offset. Often, mild inflation is disguised by smaller cans of food, smaller drink sizes, smaller beer bottles, etc ….
But why are we NOT getting higher inflation with today’s five years of massive spending, and 12 years of simply “high spending”?
I see HenryP is rolling out the “demand pull” economic growth model…
So if we take all the money, and spread it equally, and all of us go buy steak and dish washers, who is using money to build the dish washer factories and raise millions of cattle? That takes money. Lots of it.
There is an essential balance between consumption and production. Economic growth works out to about 2% most of the time. Yes, an individual new industry can have a 15% growth, but some other will be in decline. So you have on average about 2% of net new growth. (Much of the rest of investment is really consumption via maintenance). So if you increase net consumption by 2%, from where will it come? Maintenance? Or investment / growth?
The simple fact is that the more that is put into investment (and the more maintence costs can be reduced while maintaining production capacity – that is, efficiency of capital improvements) the more can be produced and consumed. Eat your seed corn instead of planting it, you do not get more corn. You have 2% extra seed corn to work with…
The typical mode of failure of that “redistribute to improve” model is a burst of consumption, and folks feel all happy about their new “wealth” (that is really consumption). Then the machine tooling wears out and no maintenance was done, while no new investment made new machinery. Also no seed money went into creating the new tech. The iPods and iPads of the world. The economy stagnates at a point in time and then slowly decays. The USSR and Maoist China did that. The USA is flirting with it now.
BTW, in most countries today, promoting ‘demand lead’ policies will lead to growth of production… In China, as that money floods out of the country and into the lowest cost producer; where it will be invested by their new rich with rising incomes…
Looking at pieces of the economy in isolation is a fun hobby and leads to all kinds of interesting conclusions, but the real economy is full of many subtle and indirect flows and linkages. Theory is often somewhat decoupled from historical reality. So I’d advise against using “pleasing theories” to model your economic thought.
An industrious people left alone with markets will start a virtuous cycle of wealth creation and investement. A greedy people using government coersion will consume all they can and then some, resulting in an outcome of poverty. Promoting more consumption as a way to get the results of investment in plant and equipment is just a failed method. (See the USA and China today. The USA is taking the “consume” path while China is taking the “industrious and invest” path. We’re enjoying the cheap goods “for a while”, then we will be their financial thral as they have the investment in capital stock. We are becoming poorer, they richer.)
@E.M.Smith
I think you are giving too much credit, for formulating a “grand strategy” of eventual success for collective policies. This seems more like, imperial hubris , that allows ivy-league theorists, to think they can improve on the efficiencies of the market, through skillful manipulation, of the participants, and the underlaying incentives.
The very traits that you decribe for a politician “Sleezy schmoozing skills, lying with grace and ease, etc..”, are only effective if done, when the media is corrupt and the public is ignorant, or the voting public is tolerant of these traits.
The internet is removing the stranglehold, the media has on “political message”. The wealth that has been distroyed over the past 4 years, is a festering sore, that a small majority of voters, are willing to live with, as long as they think the politicians are trying to impove the economy. The modern maximum for maintaing a secret is 3 individuals. And only if they all stand to lose equally from the exposure of that secret.
Ja, I am sure we can argue on and on, but the facts show that communism is bad for everyone, capitalism is good mostly for the rich and socialism is good, mostly for everyone. It is written that the early Christians gave freely to those who had need. Now, I wonder why……..
Sorry I am logging off now, it is getting late.
We had some interesting discussions here, today. Thanks to you all…
@RACookPE1978:
That takes a very long answer, and I’ve already put up too many of those 😉
The answer is that it’s a mix of things. I’ll try to keep this minimal.
1) Inflation is flowing to China via a currency peg.
2) We are staying unemployed and underemployed. (So price of gas and food up, wages not, less inflation from less ‘wage inflation’).
3) Time lags. It takes a few years to a half dozen for the inflationary expectations to build up.
4) The Fed. Forcing interest rates way crazy low is masking the problem by making borrowed money cheap. Essentially pushing the problem toward the future. Further but eventually bigger.
5) The “hollowing out” of our domestic economy by mercantilist policies from China means that many things are having dropping prices. Take real estate in Detroit, for example. Or wages for Computer Geeks in the face of large H1B visa quotas of folks from India. This economic down cycle is offset against rising prices of goods (and smaller sizes) that many have observed. Chicken that had sold for 88 cents a pound now goes for $1.30 locally, for example. So those real negative economic structural “issues” mask the commodity / goods inflation.
There are some more bits, but that’s likely enough to give the idea. Things like the CPI having been redefined a few decades back to make it show inflation less well. Lower cost goods from China for many sectors having historically kept prices down on those goods so a 5% rise now from a 20% drop 6 years back isn’t “inflationary”. Never mind you are now working at a coffee shop for minimum wage instead of as a professional on salary… also held as deflationary. The “housing crisis” causing house prices that had inflated in a bubble to deflate, so inflation in things like food and fuel is offset by your house being worth less. Etc. etc.
The ‘end point’ is when The Fed decides they need to let interest rates rise, even just a little. At that point, all sorts of folks with loans take a big hit on costs, and that “gets passed on”. Equally, the folks on ‘fixed incomes’ that presently get nearly nothing from bonds will start getting income again. Then start spending it leading to more price pressures. At some point, The Fed can’t keep expanding the balance sheet by $Trillions/ year. Then the interest rates rise and the cycle catches fire. In theory, we will eventually start going back to work. At that time, wages start to rise (catching up with the prices of food, gasoline, airline tickets, etc.) and the CPI numbers can’t keep it hidden any more. That takes a few years.
Economics is full of very long lag time cycles. That throws a lot of folks…
IMHO we’re likely headed for a Japan Style “zero interest rate stagnation of a decade”. They just decided to throw in the towel and debase the yen. Now imported goods in Japan are rising in price (fast). So it depends to some extent on how long The Fed can hold zero or near zero interest rates and how long China will accept ‘pretty pieces of paper’ for real products. Once they say “no, we have enough”, then prices of Chinese goods start to rise. If they break the currency peg too, you can find that $30 Dutch Oven ( I just bought) turning to $50 overnight.
That, BTW, is already happening a little bit. Prices of goods ARE going up. Just wages are lagging at this point. Many companies have posted “increased earnings” on lower volume of sales. They hiked prices. Just most folks don’t notice real quick, or at small changes. (One kerosene stove I was looking at sells for $50 now, was $38 in an couple of year old article describing it. Had I not seen the article, I’d not have noticed).
HenryP says:
March 16, 2013 at 11:57 am
“the countries that I mentioned in my earlier post all have the highest per capita income and the lowest gini factor, Your reference. does not disprove that.”
Well but you have omitted all examples to the contrary; so you’re cherry picking. There have been quite a number of studies that did exactly the same thing so it is a consensical myth now. Of course, very much in the interest of statists and their media the world over, as it allows them to expand the state and buy votes in the name of lowering the Gini Index, so statist media continue to promulgate that myth.
Two thoughts:
If you rob me off even more of my income the Gini index will be lower. So you should do that to improve the equality metric. It’s the thing you should fight for.
At a certain point, of course, it will make economic sense for me to stop working. I might actually already be there. Of course, as soon as I stop working, the Gini index drops. Which is a good thing, so you support my desire to stop toiling. I like that aspect of your argument.
And another thought: You have to find ways of robbing me off my savings as well. Say, like the EU just did with the savers in Cyprus. Be warned, however, that I prepare for that event.
HenryP says:
March 16, 2013 at 11:57 am
“So socialism is good and social programs work. Canada versus USA is another good example. (I will l bet that Canada’s per capita income is bigger than that the USA). ”
In this case, you are right – but do you really want to make the case that Harper is a greater socialist than Trudeau? 🙂
HenryP says:
March 16, 2013 at 12:55 pm
“Ja, I am sure we can argue on and on, but the facts show that communism is bad for everyone, capitalism is good mostly for the rich and socialism is good, mostly for everyone. It is written that the early Christians gave freely to those who had need.”
Ok, Henry is gone but I can’t resist:
– He thinks that socialism is different from communism. There has in fact never been a communist state because communism by definition by Marx himself is a state without government; the evolution of the socialist state. I can only say, Socialists, read your own literature.
Socialism
E.M.Smith says:
March 16, 2013 at 12:09 pm
“central planning… In theory it can work. Early days of Stalin’s USSR had rapid growth. Longer term it breaks down as innovation and incentive effects cramp.)”
The first 5 year plan of the USSR – which started after Stalin gained the power – was written by Albert Kahn, Henry Ford’s architect, and involved the construction of 630 factories by German and American companies in Soviet Russia. The Soviets paid with mineral concessions and Gold. They had Gulag prisoners mine the Gold; so this was the reason to cart off millions of political opponents, thieves and victims of party purges to the Gulag, where mortality was 30% a year. Google Kolyma, as I said to Henry.
So that was the secret of Stalin’s rapid industrialization.
Russ R. says:
March 16, 2013 at 12:43 pm
“I think you are giving too much credit, for formulating a “grand strategy”
[…]
The modern maximum for maintaing a secret is 3 individuals. And only if they all stand to lose equally from the exposure of that secret.”
What gives you the idea that it is a secret?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabians
re: DirkH
The Fabians are not a secret society, and proudly proclaim their support for Socialism. I support their right to be wrong, and think they should move to Cuba, and enjoy the fruits of a subsidized life.
If the current administration thinks that way, it is a closely guarded secret. Most voters that support the current administration, would be surprised to hear ,that the goal of their fiscal policy, was the distruction of the economy. That is why I think it is improbable, and they are just falling for the same “ivory-tower” theories that have distroyed one economy after another. They all think they are doing what they can, to make life fair. And if a few “rich-folks” get skewered in the process, so much the better.
John A says (March 16, 2013 at 4:51 am): “Paul Krugman does not speak for liberals – he speaks only for himself.”
Paul Krugman speaks for enough people to earn a pretty good living.
E.M.Smith says (March 16, 2013 at 12:57 pm): [snip]
Thanks for sharing all the lectures. Informative, as always. I visit your blog occasionally and always come away feeling I’ve learned something.