• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

this Krugman piece is certain to piss of the libertarians

justabubba

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
66,429
Reaction score
47,422
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
joG said:
I often disagree with the author, but find fun, what he writes. In this case neither applies.
Click to expand...
while i normally agree with him, in this instance, my limited observations of young adults and their fiscal positions tells me that the emerging leaders/voters are not as liberal as he would have us believe
this is the cohort who attended school with many their taxes will now be used to support
they did not appreciate the slackers then and they especially do not empathize with them now, as tax payers
they saw this same group who skated beside them in school and do not intend to work to pay for them to now skate on the dole
too bad Ron Paul has about aged out. this would be his demographic. unlike Krugman, i see a growing, small 'l', libertarian movement trending among the next generation
 
justabubba said:
while i normally agree with him, in this instance, my limited observations of young adults and their fiscal positions tells me that the emerging leaders/voters are not as liberal as he would have us believe
this is the cohort who attended school with many their taxes will now be used to support
they did not appreciate the slackers then and they especially do not empathize with them now, as tax payers
they saw this same group who skated beside them in school and do not intend to work to pay for them to now skate on the dole
too bad Ron Paul has about aged out. this would be his demographic. unlike Krugman, i see a growing, small 'l', libertarian movement trending among the next generation
Click to expand...

How do you know what you believe is true? Prof. Krugman wasn't making this up; he was basing his conclusions on a poll of young people (you know, data.) You seem to be saying, 'young people don't have the opinion they said to the pollster, they have more of the same opinion that I have.' Why? What evidence supports your view?

I can understand it being soothing to think that young people (or the general public) hold your libertarian views. It just isn't revealed in the data.
 
Just another opinion, not really worth more or less than any other partisan opinion. A big yawn for me.
 
Conservatives always lose young people on social issues and libertarians always end up losing them on environmental issues. Young people are all over the board when it comes to fiscal issues, but they are nearly universal in their support for strong environmental protections and public lands / parks. Someone that routinely goes on backpacking trips or rock climbs or trail runs or mountain bikes or white water kayaks or any of the numerous outdoor sports a lot of young people are into (as well as many older people) are not going to support any candidate that believes all that should be sold off and privatized. For example, they may like a guy like Ron Paul because he is anti-war and anti-drug war, but the first time someone points out that Ron Paul believes their National Park and Forest playgrounds should be sold off, a guy like Ron Paul will lose any chance of ever getting their vote.
 
MTAtech said:
How do you know what you believe is true? Prof. Krugman wasn't making this up; he was basing his conclusions on a poll of young people (you know, data.) You seem to be saying, 'young people don't have the opinion they said to the pollster, they have more of the same opinion that I have.' Why? What evidence supports your view?

I can understand it being soothing to think that young people (or the general public) hold your libertarian views. It just isn't revealed in the data.
Click to expand...

i failed to adequately develop my point
younger citizens tend to identify as independents. i cannot imagine that cohort sees themselves as fiscal liberals and social conservatives
if they were social and fiscal conservatives they would identify as republicans as those who are social and fiscal liberals would be expected to identify with the democratic party
leaving those who identify as independents not unlike small 'l' libertarians who are social liberals and fiscal conservatives
 
Krugman is a liberal shill and has been since forever. It is not a surprise he would speak out against anything that isnt part of the Dem agenda.
 
PoS said:
Krugman is a liberal shill and has been since forever. It is not a surprise he would speak out against anything that isnt part of the Dem agenda.
Click to expand...

i missed that pro-demo message
would you show it to me
 
PoS said:
Krugman is a liberal shill and has been since forever. It is not a surprise he would speak out against anything that isnt part of the Dem agenda.
Click to expand...

So are you saying that environmental protection is the Dem agenda, but not that of libertarians?
 
From the idiot who suggested a UFO attack or the trillion dollar coin was the solution to our economic problems? No thanks... I've got better things to read. That guy is a complete moron.
 
Let's just take the example that Krugman is using, phosphates used in farming (to increase yields of course), and the resulting agricultural run off that results in algae blooms:

1. There is no scientific dispute at all that phosphate runoff causes algae blooms.

2. There is no scientific dispute at all that algae blooms results in fish kills due to the de-oxygenation of water and can result in toxicity depending on the type of algae.

3. Farmers have an economic incentive to use large amounts of phosphate fertilizers because they greatly increase yields.

4. Overuse of phosphates results in run off that causes algae blooms.

5. The only way to reduce agricultural run off is to increase protections of wetlands which adsorb phosphates before they enter into waterways and incentivise farmers to not overuse phosphate fertilizers.

6. Individual farmers have an economic incentive to not set aside wetlands on their lands as land near bodies of water is typically some of the most fertile soil.

So how do you address this obvious market failure without government intervention at some level?
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
No Krugman piece is ever going to piss off anyone who knows anything about anything. Krugman is a joke. I would feel safe basing every decision in my life on doing the exact opposite of what Krugman thinks is a good idea.
Click to expand...

yet you are unable to point out a single thing that Krugman got wrong
do something different; use some facts to make your point
 
justabubba said:
so, the challenge is, share with us what Krugman got wrong in this story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/11/opinion/paul-krugman-the-libertarian-fantasy.html?_r=0
Click to expand...

From what I'm seeing, the young that Krugman is writing about are all for larger government until they find out what it's going to cost them, and then they change their minds. Saw this happen over the course of 6 months with my daughter as she entered the workforce and saw by how much her paycheck was reduced by the deductions.

As to another of Krugman's point:
The point is that before you rage against unwarranted government interference in your life, you might want to ask why the government is interfering. Often — not always, of course, but far more often than the free-market faithful would have you believe — there is, in fact, a good reason for the government to get involved. Pollution controls are the simplest example, but not unique.
Click to expand...
OK, fine. The communication as to the why isn't getting out, at least not nearly sufficiently or clearly enough.

You'd think that with all the practice of making speeches that politicians would develop some sort of communications skills, but I've not seen them. Perhaps that's why so many harken back to Regan with fond memories, as he seemed to have that unique ability lacking in the current crop of politicians: effective communication with the common man.
 
eohrnberger said:
From what I'm seeing, the young that Krugman is writing about are all for larger government until they find out what it's going to cost them, and then they change their minds. Saw this happen over the course of 6 months with my daughter as she entered the workforce and saw by how much her paycheck was reduced by the deductions.

As to another of Krugman's point:

OK, fine. The communication as to the why isn't getting out, at least not nearly sufficiently or clearly enough.

You'd think that with all the practice of making speeches that politicians would develop some sort of communications skills, but I've not seen them. Perhaps that's why so many harken back to Regan with fond memories, as he seemed to have that unique ability lacking in the current crop of politicians: effective communication with the common man.
Click to expand...

Greetings, Erik. :2wave:

My granddaughter experienced the same "deductions from her paycheck" problem, and she was livid! Talked about asking for a raise after one month on the job! I talked her out of that, and welcomed her to the real world - she now understands that the government gets first dibs on her money whether she likes it or not, and it's not her employer's fault! :2mad: She's still PO'd, though! :mrgreen:
 
polgara said:
Greetings, Erik.

My granddaughter experienced the same "deductions from her paycheck" problem, and she was livid! Talked about asking for a raise after one month on the job! I talked her out of that, and welcomed her to the real world - she now understands that the government gets first dibs on her money whether she likes it or not, and it's not her employer's fault! :2mad: She's still PO'd, though! :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Greetings, Lady Polgara. :2wave: Always a pleasure.

Yeah, that's exactly what happened here as well, and yes, she was livid. Lordy I don't have a clue as to where she learned how to swear like a sailor. :blushing2
It certainly wasn't me. :roll:

This raises my optimism slightly, as it causes reason that she's not the only one with that same reaction.
 
justabubba said:
yet you are unable to point out a single thing that Krugman got wrong
do something different; use some facts to make your point
Click to expand...

Krugman thought the internet would have no greater impact on the economy than the fax machine.

Krugman claimed the per capita increase in spending rate for healthcare was caused by the ACA, fully one year before it was passed (which is several years before it even took effect). He didn't bother trying to attribute the steadily downward trend of the prior seven years on anything.

Krugman said easy money is a boon to the poor and working class because the rich have their money stuck in low yield bonds. This is 100% opposite from the truth. Econ 101 students know this. Further, this came on the heels of the declaration (football spike) that money and bonds can be completely interchangeable at a point of perfect equilibrium (and older theory that Krugman revived and then revised out of the realm of logic), which means Krugman believes the rich are holding their wealth in what amounts to cash... which is exactly what poor people do.

Krugman applied the broken window fallacy to the 9/11 attacks, claiming that at the very least we would see some capital investments in a couple new office buildings. Kindergarten economists know that the broken window fallacy is a fallacy.

For a good laugh, I suggest you read this :Krugman The Invincible, Part 1
 
PoS said:
Krugman is a liberal shill and has been since forever. It is not a surprise he would speak out against anything that isnt part of the Dem agenda.
Click to expand...

So, you really have nothing of value to critique the piece besides ad hominem attacks. Got it.
 
polgara said:
Greetings, Erik. :2wave:

My granddaughter experienced the same "deductions from her paycheck" problem, and she was livid! Talked about asking for a raise after one month on the job! I talked her out of that, and welcomed her to the real world - she now understands that the government gets first dibs on her money whether she likes it or not, and it's not her employer's fault! :2mad: She's still PO'd, though! :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Excellent example of why many people vote "other than democrat."

Greetings Ms. P! :2wave:
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1063633168 said:
Excellent example of why many people vote "other than democrat."

Greetings Ms. P! :2wave:
Click to expand...

Democrats, as we know, invented tax withholding.
 
I think Libertarianism comes under the heading of: be careful what you wish for. Because it could all become mainstream policy, given current sentiments.

We may end up with a US that is somewhat like the China of the early 20th century. Technically, still a country, but so weakened that sundry commercial and political interests feast on the spoils of what once was, taking this and that for their own gain, and leaving the average worker out in the street in a condition of abandonment, if not contempt. The roll back of government, and its attending rules for fair play, the diminishment of trade unions, and the general retreat from civil society that the Libertarian movement advocates, directly or indirectly, could take us back to this place in history.

In today's age of globalization, the parallel would not be exact of course. Those at the top of the heap, the affluent and well connected, the few plugged into the globalized economy due to desirable skills, good connections, or good luck, would be immune from the grosser effects of such a political emergence.

It's still a sad fact that in the world today those that do not stand together can run the risk of being victims to the more voracious and driven. Americans could be in that position if they insist on throwing away rights hard earned in past generations, and casting their hopes on a bleak corporate aristocracy.

We've been there before. It doesn't work.
 
polgara said:
Greetings, Erik. :2wave:

My granddaughter experienced the same "deductions from her paycheck" problem, and she was livid! Talked about asking for a raise after one month on the job! I talked her out of that, and welcomed her to the real world - she now understands that the government gets first dibs on her money whether she likes it or not, and it's not her employer's fault! :2mad: She's still PO'd, though! :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

This is why krugman has no clue about what he is talking about.

young most young people are idealistic and ignorant and don't think things through. then they hit the real world and grow up a bit those usually become conservatives.
they realize quickly that the government will always take take take.

that all these lofty ideals cost money that comes out of their pay check.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Conservatives always lose young people on social issues and libertarians always end up losing them on environmental issues. Young people are all over the board when it comes to fiscal issues, but they are nearly universal in their support for strong environmental protections and public lands / parks. Someone that routinely goes on backpacking trips or rock climbs or trail runs or mountain bikes or white water kayaks or any of the numerous outdoor sports a lot of young people are into (as well as many older people) are not going to support any candidate that believes all that should be sold off and privatized. For example, they may like a guy like Ron Paul because he is anti-war and anti-drug war, but the first time someone points out that Ron Paul believes their National Park and Forest playgrounds should be sold off, a guy like Ron Paul will lose any chance of ever getting their vote.
Click to expand...

Hey SouthernDemocrat :2wave:

I'm not sure privatization of national parks is inherently a libertarian issue. There may be libertarians that support that, namely libertarian capitalists and those on the economic right, but there are a great many (myself included) that believe that national parks should be protected. The Green Party, which really is just a moderate left-libertarian party, is very strong on environmental issues.
 
TeleKat said:
Hey SouthernDemocrat :2wave:

I'm not sure privatization of national parks is inherently a libertarian issue. There may be libertarians that support that, namely libertarian capitalists and those on the economic right, but there are a great many (myself included) that believe that national parks should be protected. The Green Party, which really is just a moderate left-libertarian party, is very strong on environmental issues.
Click to expand...

I agree with all you wrote, and I have known a few green libertarians, but its worth pointing out that it sure seems like the majority of libertarians are on the economic right. Conservation is totally off their radar. Hell I remember reading an article on reason.com a few months back about how humans "increase biodiversity everywhere we go". The article believe it or not ended up being a defense of the intentional and unintentional spread of invasive species. I think even if you look at the stated opinions of most self professed libertarians on here, you will find that most of them could care less about conservation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom