• 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!

Krugman - The Uses of Outrage

The average stay-away from national elections in the US is around 48%. We have one of the lowest voter-rates of any developed country.



It's "the system". Many people, especially on this forum, believe that the Electoral College (as it stands) needs no remedy. It is, rather, a huge-injustice to what some people call "democracy".



You forget that this is a "debate forum" and not a "message board". Though the one-liner messages here show just the opposite.

Besides, I'm taking the flak, not you ...

Fiddlesticks!
- If people don't vote, they are voting for the winner
- if people want to change the system of societal decision making, it requires more of an argument than: "It's not fair!"
- ....which is why "It's not fair!" is an argument that might be expected to call flak in a forum.
 
Fiddlesticks!
- If people don't vote, they are voting for the winner
- if people want to change the system of societal decision making, it requires more of an argument than: "It's not fair!"
- ....which is why "It's not fair!" is an argument that might be expected to call flak in a forum.

Rather, it requires the change in a constitutional amendment to do away with an idiotic Electoral College that elects presidents who have LOST the popular-vote - and is therefore HIGHLY UNDEMOCRACTIC.

The popular-vote in any democracy must not be tampered or adjusted in any way for any purpose ...
 
Rather, it requires the change in a constitutional amendment to do away with an idiotic Electoral College that elects presidents who have LOST the popular-vote - and is therefore HIGHLY UNDEMOCRACTIC.

The popular-vote in any democracy must not be tampered or adjusted in any way for any purpose ...

It could certainly appear undemocratic to someone that has never looked closely at methods of decision making in large democratically organized societies. But that is only because they do not think of the other factors of legitimacy that allow democracies to form and function in such complex and widely spread heterogeneous populations. That is part of the societal technology without which democracy will fail. This does not mean that the EC is the only solution. But it works alright and it is unclear that changing it would improve and not do damage. A two stage election like the French solution of finding majorities might be okay, though, it does had disadvantages too. What I have found is that the normal complainer about the EC instrument has never looked at the various decision making methods and constitutional constructions. Usually they are just looking for some simplistic gripe to further their own purposes, whatever they are.
 
KEY FACTORS

It could certainly appear undemocratic to someone that has never looked closely at methods of decision making in large democratically organized societies. But that is only because they do not think of the other factors of legitimacy that allow democracies to form and function in such complex and widely spread heterogeneous populations. That is part of the societal technology without which democracy will fail. This does not mean that the EC is the only solution.

Agreed, but in matters of National HealthCare and PostSecondary Education the US just cannot match the statistical advantage of Europe.

Yes, admittedly, Europe has its own ingrained problems - and this recent Great Recession (imported from Uncle Sam) has not helped matters towards solving them. Nonetheless, the EU has two Basic Advantages that the US is not even close to having.

That is, much lower per-capita cost National Health and PostSecondary Education - both of which are KEY FACTORS to the well-being of any socioeconomic entity on earth ...
 
KEY FACTORS



Agreed, but in matters of National HealthCare and PostSecondary Education the US just cannot match the statistical advantage of Europe.

Yes, admittedly, Europe has its own ingrained problems - and this recent Great Recession (imported from Uncle Sam) has not helped matters towards solving them. Nonetheless, the EU has two Basic Advantages that the US is not even close to having.

That is, much lower per-capita cost National Health and PostSecondary Education - both of which are KEY FACTORS to the well-being of any socioeconomic entity on earth ...

I would agree that the US seems to spend too much on health care by comparison. But like in matters of international security Europe free rides considerable benefits. At least this is, what medical friends seem to confirm. And it is quite unclear how a spending reduction in the marketplace that is the main target for new methods will affect health care innovation.

As to post secondary education, it is not as clear cut as you like to say. The free education produces considerable waste and the economics of proliferating education and its consequences earned a fellow a Nobel Prize. This does not mean that society should not educate achievers and brilliant students. But it does seem to mean that with few exceptions it is counter productive to overeducate the population and that this inefficiency reduces welfare.
 
I would agree that the US seems to spend too much on health care by comparison. But like in matters of international security Europe free rides considerable benefits.

The US decided it wanted to "police the world". Europe did not.

Btw, the French have about 1000 foot-soldiers in the Tchad fighting jihadists. Their casualties amount to about one a month over an area about the size of the southwest of the US. The Germans are also involved in support roles of military training and air-supply.

Just because they aren't on the Nightly News does not mean EU-forces are not participating, even if the major effort in air-strikes in the Middle-east and Africa is handled by both French and US air-forces.

I doubt nonetheless that the willingness of the EU-voters in general will accept any expanded military intervention ...
 
The US decided it wanted to "police the world". Europe did not.

Btw, the French have about 1000 foot-soldiers in the Tchad fighting jihadists. Their casualties amount to about one a month over an area about the size of the southwest of the US. The Germans are also involved in support roles of military training and air-supply.

Just because they aren't on the Nightly News does not mean EU-forces are not participating, even if the major effort in air-strikes in the Middle-east and Africa is handled by both French and US air-forces.

I doubt nonetheless that the willingness of the EU-voters in general will accept any expanded military intervention ...

Now that is pretty simplistic. 1.000 soldiers, you say? And Germany? Engaged? Don't be silly.

And yes, the US did decide it was better to create a degree of international security to allow trade and did not tax the public good. This was all path dependent history and we are now at or near the point, when this will no longer work.

And yes. Free riders always resist paying for public goods they have become used to getting for free.

PS: France and GB were among the countries that actually did honor their pledges.
 
Now that is pretty simplistic. 1.000 soldiers, you say? And Germany? Engaged? Don't be silly.

Silly, am I?

That ends this conversation ...
 
Sez you - sarcastic drivel that does not belong in a "debate forum".

For Idiots Only ....

I see you made your response and used no links to support your flawed opinion. Just as well as it's unsupportable.

Here's a link that supports my opinion:

Paul Krugman Predicts Market Tank From Trump, Is Way Off | The Daily Caller

<snip>
“It really does now look like President Donald J. Trump, and markets are plunging. When might we expect them to recover?” Krugman said in his post. “If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never.”
<snip>

Following this, the major American Stock Market indexes, all of them, have all closed at record highs multiple times and the Dow used a record tying short time span to gain 1000 points to close above 21,000. The gain in wealth for the American public AS A RESULT OF KRUGMAN BEING WRONG IN HIS PREDICTION BUT TRUE TO TO HIS PARTY AFFILIATION is in the trillions of dollars.

I eagerly await your link to support your assertion that Krugman is not an advocate for Democrat Party Politics.

No drivel, please.
 
Last edited:
I see you made your response and used no links to support your flawed opinion. Just as well as it's unsupportable.

Here's a link that supports my opinion:

Paul Krugman Predicts Market Tank From Trump, Is Way Off | The Daily Caller

<snip>
“It really does now look like President Donald J. Trump, and markets are plunging. When might we expect them to recover?” Krugman said in his post. “If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never.”
<snip>

Following this, the major American Stock Market indexes, all of them, have all closed at record highs multiple times and the Dow used a record tying short time span to gain 1000 points to close above 21,000. The gain in wealth for the American public AS A RESULT OF KRUGMAN BEING WRONG IN HIS PREDICTION BUT TRUE TO TO HIS PARTY AFFILIATION is in the trillions of dollars.

I eagerly await your link to support your assertion that Krugman is not an advocate for Democrat Party Politics.

No drivel, please.

In before link to the New York Times :lol:
 
I eagerly await your link to support your assertion that Krugman is not an advocate for Democrat Party Politics. I eagerly await your link to support your assertion that Krugman is not an advocate for Democrat Party Politics.

Of course he's an advocate of the Democrat Party - between the two existing main parties, there's no alternative except a Plutocrat-run Replicant Party ...
 
Of course he's an advocate of the Democrat Party - between the two existing main parties, there's no alternative except a Plutocrat-run Replicant Party ...

Krugman presents himself as an economist.

He is that only as a tool to be used by and for the Democrat Party Line.

In presenting himself as an economist, he is lying and intentionally deceiving to swindle.

If he presented himself as a party mouth piece, that would be okay.

I have no problem with anyone presenting himself as anything and stating an opinion. However when a person presents himself as one thing and then states an opinion based on that defined position, it needs to be accurate.

This is the same problem I have with news people that present themselves as reporters and then slant their presentation of news with political agenda more than 80% of the time.
 
In presenting himself as an economist, he is lying and intentionally deceiving to swindle.

Idiot commentary.

From WikiPedia, here:
Paul Robin Krugman ... (born February 28, 1953) is an American economist, Distinguished Professor of Economics at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, and a columnist for The New York Times. In 2008, Krugman was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his contributions to New Trade Theory and New Economic Geography.
 
Idiot commentary.

From WikiPedia, here:

Perhaps, then, you would like to explain the lack of accuracy in his prediction of the economy's direction in light of the Trump election.

If he is an actual good economist, why is he wrong so often? Why did he miss it so big this time?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...-night-2016/paul-krugman-the-economic-fallout

<snip>
It really does now look like President Donald J. Trump, and markets are plunging. When might we expect them to recover?

Frankly, I find it hard to care much, even though this is my specialty. The disaster for America and the world has so many aspects that the economic ramifications are way down my list of things to fear.

Still, I guess people want an answer: If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never.
<snip>

The guy is a political hack first and foremost and an economist only as a persona to gain a platform.

Perhaps you could post his article that explains why the stock markets have all been going up since Trump was elected. Explaining why the multiple trillion dollar increase in American wealth is happening in Trump's watch instead of Obama's.

Good luck finding that article by the party hack Krugman.
 
Idiot commentary.

From WikiPedia, here:

Out of curiosity, are you referring to me as an idiot?

No offense taken considering the source, but only wondering if you are resorting to the normal default position of every Liberal I've ever discussed anything with.

If you agree with a Liberal, you win a Nobel prize. If you disagree, you are called an idiot.

Just trying to help you understand your self identification.
 
Back
Top Bottom