Paul Krugman: "We Are Making a Total Mess of a Solvable Economic Problem'

[Better Believe It]

Economists Agree: Failed Policies 'Making a Total Mess of a Solvable Problem'
by Paul Krugman
August 10, 2011

As Joe Stiglitz says,

When the recession began there were many wise words about having learnt the lessons of both the Great Depression and Japan’s long malaise. Now we know we didn’t learn a thing. Our stimulus was too weak, too short and not well designed. The banks weren’t forced to return to lending. Our leaders tried papering over the economy’s weaknesses – perhaps out of fear that if we were honest about them, already fragile confidence would erode. But that was a gamble we have now lost. Now the scale of the problem is apparent, a new confidence has emerged: confidence that matters will get worse, whatever action we take. A long malaise now seems like the optimistic scenario.

Robert Reich, talking to people in the administration, says that there has been a deliberate decision to focus on the wrong issues, knowing that they’re the wrong issues:

So rather than fight for a bold jobs plan, the White House has apparently decided it’s politically wiser to continue fighting about the deficit. The idea is to keep the public focused on the deficit drama – to convince them their current economic woes have something to do with it, decry Washington’s paralysis over fixing it, and then claim victory over whatever outcome emerges from the process recently negotiated to fix it. They hope all this will distract the public’s attention from the President’s failure to do anything about continuing high unemployment and economic anemia.

I’m still trying to make sense of this global intellectual failure. But the results are not in question: we are making a total mess of a solvable problem, with consequences that will haunt us for decades to come.

Read the full article at:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/10/dismal-thoughts/




Economists and public commentators Paul Krugman, Robert Reich, and Joseph Stiglitz have all railed against the failed economic policies pursued by the White House and Congress. They are not alone in their critiques, but their voices certainly feel lonely as the dominant political culture continues to avert its eyes from their prescriptions.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/08/10-5

[Donnachaidh]

1. recced to zero. Must be something up with this. n/t

[PurityOfEssence]

2. Anything critical of Obama must be destroyed

Standard Operating Procedure.

[kenfrequed]

3. Supply sider Blue Dogs

They hate Krugman and don't want to take any heat for not only going along with republican ideology but also don't want that ideology to be declared the obvious failure that it is.

[chervilant]

42. Yeah...

I envision the cadre of paid trolls going through and unreccing everything, because that's what they're paid to do. THEN, I think the DUers who cannot escape the bonds of servitude to our increasingly unpopular POTUS come through and unrec any critical post.

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

Samuel Johnson (1709-1784)

[mzmolly]

4. The White House is unveiling a jobs program in September.

eom

[TBF]

24. Do you have any links with more information about that?

nt

[mzmolly]

44. No. Heard it on the

tele from Howard Fineman on MSNBC.

[lark]

47. Jobs program for China?

That seems to be where all the jobs that should be American are going, with his administrations' blessings or blind eye. Either way, it results in the same thing, loss of American jobs and the rich just keep getting richer while the middle class dies.

[yarn_chick]

75. Jobs have been a problem since before Obama took the oath of office.

And he's been promising to focus like a laser on it for over two years now. Given the Satan sandwich he's agreed to and the further cuts that are likely to come down the line how exactly is he going to do anything that could possibly stimulate job production?

Tax cuts don't count.

[jwirr]

5. These three men and Elizabeth Warren should be who President

Obama is listening to. Why isn't he?

[Kaleko]

6. Because he is protecting the robber barons and war profiteers.

We, the People, are the marks in this protection racket. We should call it a con-game because that's what it is: a massive, international, long-term confidence trick that is now coming to its inevitable conclusion where the victims wake up, ashamed and disbelieving that they ever fell for it.

[donheld]

7. k & R

[RBInMaine]

8. No "We" aren't. The RePukeLiFucks are. Get it straight.

[krispos42]

9. Shock Doctrine in action.

The politicians fuck up on purpose far more often than they fuck up accidentally.

[DeSwiss]

10. K&R

What we should have had:


What we got instead:

[hulka38]

11. Wow.

Amazing.

[kenny blankenship]

12. I know! Only one of Obama's economic team had a beard. Only *one*.

What was he thinking? It's not like people couldn't see this train wreck coming a mile down the tracks.

[DeSwiss]

15. Yes, and only one of those people said this:

"I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should
face up to that."~http://www.whirledbank.org/ourwords/summers.html">Lawrence Summers, Chief economist of the World Bank in an internal memo, 12 December 1991

- Well, whaddaya know, he doesn't have a beard either!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

26. Yeah but the other 2 WERE beards.

For the banksters.

[jwhitesj]

14. +1 googleplex

[Jakes Progress]

32. We should have known we were fucked

when Obama named his advisors.

Maybe he picked people who agreed with his reagan democrat philosophy. Maybe he has no idea how to do the job and the slimiest of toadies and his remora toadies caught his ear and convinced them that they would steer him straight. Either way, when he picked his cabinet and advisors it was game over for the people.

If he isn't the corporate buddy and just picked the wrong guys, we would have to count on his vaunted brilliance to finally figure it out. If that were the case, surely at least half would have been fired by now.


Hmmmmm.

[DeSwiss]

50. I did. That's when I dropped him.

That's when I knew all the rhetoric was just a load of bullshit.

I've been at this since 2/09.

I'm of a mind that the US must fall to its knees before we "the people" will ever have a chance.

The current system is totally corrupted and totally fucked. TOTALLY.

The proof is that Obama is the best choice we've got -- which is no choice as far as I can see.

- When do we stop settling for the least among us?

''...you can stand back and look at this planet and see that we have the money, the power, the medical understanding, the scientific know-how, the love and the community to produce a kind of human paradise.

But we are led by the least among us - the least intelligent, the least noble, the least visionary. We are led by the least among us and we do not fight back against the dehumanizing values that are handed down as control icons.''

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYB0VW5x8fI">~Terrence McKenna

[Ignis]

41. Meet the new boss, etc.

[Poiuyt]

13. I'm kind of sickened by the comment that they are dwelling on the deficit because of politics

instead of doing what's right. I can understand Obama wanting to keep his job, but I'd think the best way to do that would be to get the economy back on track, rather than appeasing the tea baggers.

[bhikkhu]

16. The downgrade and the Eurozone crisis were not caused by our deficit efforts

...rather the deficit focus was an attempt to get ahead of the impending downgrade, and to reinforce our finances apart from a faltering Europe.

[bhikkhu]

17. Krugman shares the blinders that many economists wear

in that they have an essentially cornucopian view of the world's resources; growth can never be hindered much by a resource being used up, as the rising prices caused by scarcity will lead to substitution of something else - something cheaper, or more efficient, then allowing more growth.

Basically the "self-regulating market" mantra, which also says that the main problem that keeps markets from growing freely is government regulation and interference. Which should sound familiar to everyone...but its as much an economic tenet as a republican tenet.

In any case, it may have been true for a long period, but its not especially true anymore; the depletion of resources and high energy prices caused by oil scarcity and the increasingly high cost of extraction are the basic geological barriers that constrain the growth of the economy. Unlike in FDR's day, or even in Clinton's day, there is no abundance left to draw from to stimulate growth, no significant gain to be had from efficiency or innovation, no untapped supply, no cheap energy to fuel manufacturing and drive profits, no significant new sources to be found. What we have is the ability to eke out 1-2% growth, if things are kept on an even keel and well managed.

...so Krugman is wrong, like the bulk of 20th century economists if you project their policies into our era. In many ways, he is pointing down the wrong path and distracting from the real issues exactly in the way he so consistently accuses the President.

[TeamsterDem]

20. Well ...

He's ultimately not wrong in the substitution argument vis-a-vis energy because when extraction becomes too cost prohibitive the oil companies themselves will likely substitute another product into their output. It's either that or you think they'll just hold a press conference announcing they're out of business. I don't know how reliable it is, but some oil industry insiders suggest that alternatives are viable and possible right now, but that their prices as compared to existing oil infrastructure are (at this point) too high. But when the oil's all gone that argument won't hold anymore.

In addition, the economic drags we're encountering aren't all the outgrowths of short oil supplies. While I'd tend to agree that the global (extractable) supply is shrinking, the reality is that what we're seeing has several roots in several other problems, the biggest of which being the market "correction" after the banking/housing fiasco. On top of that I think we're seeing the beginning of the truly hollow global market insofar as "free" trade has pillaged economies around the world.

Krugman rightfully recognizes that what's being done now is patently absurd and the precise opposite of what we and they should be doing. The amazing part for me is that just as it seemed that the Friedman/Greenspan ideology was proven to be the bankrupt god of bad ideas that it is, we're now jumping right back into that cesspool of ideas for policy aims. It's very strange.

[TacticalPeek]

25. Precisely.

Very strange.

Almost as if things were rigged.

[marew]

30. Well said! n/t

[bhikkhu]

33. There is a big problem with energy substitution there

...of course you can say, for instance, Cantarell will run out of oil in Mexico, but then we can substitute resources from the tar sands. That doesn't work the same, because the energy required to work the different reserves renders them qualitatively different; for each unit of energy invested in Cantarell the return was about 60 units, while for each unit invested in the tar sands the the return is about 2 units. You can get the same volume but only at a much greater cost - fundamentally you substitute to something much less abundant, more expensive, and less suitable to drive growth. Similar stories apply to every single example of substitution away from oil.

Much the same result is gotten if you substitute solar power for oil; again, the cost of the inputs is much higher (as is the level of complexity), decreasing the net effect of the energy gained to the economic system.

Of course, the oil companies could diversify and produce whatever they want, but if they cannot provide inexpensive and abundant energy then they cannot fuel economic growth - human history is the story of exponential growth through the extraction of ever increasing energy supplies from the earth, always moving toward the greatest return on the investment. Oil was the largest one by far, but it is in decline and the long growth period finds nothing larger to substitute to.

There are other problems in the global economy besides high energy prices, of course, but the solving of them only leads to growing economies, which require more resources, which drive prices up (because of scarcity), which results in recession. Lather, rinse, repeat - it will happen over and over, to president after president, and if current trends are any indication, it will continue to be blamed on something else by economists.

[TeamsterDem]

54. But you're assuming that there aren't viable substitutions

Whereas most of us know there ALREADY are. One good example is hydrogen: True, it's not quite as efficient as gasoline-powered cars, but then again hydrogen is more abundant and, over time, can be made to be more efficient (just like gasoline cars were made to be efficient). There are also possibilities in natural gas and hybrid arrangements, not to mention that we're not yet at the point of out-and-out substitution; we can still complement our energy mix instead of diversifying it altogether.

In case you haven't noticed, we're no longer a manufacturing-based economy, thus needing energy to "fuel" economic growth isn't quite right. I'm certainly not suggesting that we don't need energy, but it alone doesn't fuel our economic growth. Moreover, right now the cost of CNG/LNG isn't much higher than gasoline. What we're talking about is a slightly lower efficiency rate, not one of 30:1 as in your example. The main problem with the alternatives is infrastructure. Then again, once TRUE peak oil hits, the oil companies will either invest on their own or get a subsidy from their bank - our tax dollars - to build it.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that energy shortages are causing our current woes, but I suggest to you that you're misinformed. I agree, first, that energy prices are unacceptably high (both as my opinion and an economic drag indicator), but I don't know of anyone who's claiming that if it weren't for their gasoline prices they'd be taking vacations to Hawaii or buying a rental property. It's a factor which is causing some marginal drag, but then again the anchor that's holding growth in place is high unemployment mixed with real wage stagnation. The reasons for unemployment are many, but energy costs to employers isn't one of them seeing as the higher energy costs are offset by ever-lowering tax rates for companies/individuals (the "job creators").

A great example of why energy costs aren't hindering employment can be seen at the USPS: They're not doing much hiring but - even as sensitive as they are to fuel costs owing to their delivery function - it's largely due to a legislative fiat purposely designed to cause them problems. Another example are the airlines: They're hugely subject to fuel costs, yet the reason they're not growing is because people are out of work and can't afford to travel - no matter the fuel surcharges. I'd point to manufacturing numbers but our politicians have all but killed that here.

[bhikkhu]

55. It takes about 4 times the energy to extract hydrogen as you get when you burn it

As detailed here: http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/hydrogen-economy-fuel+cell/480

It would take some breakthrough technology before hydrogen was worth much as an energy supply, and other options have similar issues.

The theory that economic growth or GDP can float free of energy or resource inputs has been around for awhile now. I recall it being popular at the end of the Clinton era, when many things seemed possible. In any case, it is a theory yet to be demonstrated:



There is some variance of a few points one way or another, but every real economy seems to basically run on real inputs, and "virtual" inputs have yet to show substantial value.

...I wouldn't argue with every point - I have other things to do - and of course there are plenty of complicated relations and various things going on...the USPS is losing its shirt for a numbers of reasons, including fuel costs. The airlines are struggling for a numbers of reasons, including fuels costs. The average consumer is struggling for a number of reasons, including fuel costs. The economy as a whole is constrained by a number of things, including fuel costs. I suppose you could boil it down to a basic sentence - economists say if you free up markets, the markets solve their own problems; I tend to look at energy inputs and GDP (as per the graph, one among many) as intrinsically linked - you don't solve one without the other - and as there is no solution to energy constraints, there will be no solution that increases growth beyond the 1-2% we have been able to eke out.

[TeamsterDem]

58. Well, of course that's a bit deceiving, now isn't it?

The reality is that basically only in the US do nearly ALL people have cars - sometimes 2-3 per family - and drive everywhere instead of using mass trans such as buses or subways. Yes, while people's driving habits do ultimately contribute to the economy, the reality is that not all of their driving is a fundamental activity within the nation's production ambit. What is probably immeasurable but would provide a relevant picture would be consumption of fuels WITHIN GDP PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES as compared to overall GDP; e.g. trucks, trains, planes, and other vehicles acting within commerce.

I agree that hydrogen has a ways to go, yet CNG/LNG technologies are already here and working. So too are hybrid capacities and, to a far lesser extent, electric vehicles. These alternative are already here, already working, and - if push came to shove vis-a-vis a true peak oil problem - are able to step in and bridge the gap. The reality is that the fuel "shortage" isn't quite what's being reported, as much of the price concerns surround investors and their futures markets. While I agree that there will come a day where we're in a true shortage, that day isn't today.

Regarding the USPS, no. They're only in trouble because of the GOP plan to front-load retirement plans. That's the entire nature of the nascent "concerns" surrounding its solvency. With respect to airlines, yes, fuel costs do play a role. But they're not hiring (expanding) because there's a shortage of demand. You don't solve that by decreasing fuel costs because unless you nearly wiped that cost out entirely, jobless people STILL wouldn't be going anywhere.

I suggest your theory is one of a false conflation. That is to say that while fuel costs DO CONTRIBUTE to a drag coefficient on the economy, they simply don't anchor it as much as you think they do at current prices. The REAL drag is a shrinking consumer base from which companies depend on to grow. And that base didn't decrease to the degree it has simply because gas prices are high. For that to be the case energy costs would have to comprise a much higher proportion of income than it does.

[DeSwiss]

60. Not hydrogen powered cars. That just keeps everyone tied to the grid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zhKMzMZ_eM">Electric cars.

- And when solar is eventually added, that's even better. That's free.

[TeamsterDem]

62. As poorly as I understand electric vehicles, don't they also tie one to the grid?

If not, how do you charge them?

[Jakes Progress]

34. Speaking of blinders,

That is an interesting post you made. It does nothing to address the OP, but digression is fine. So answer me. If you disagree with Krugman, do you agree with the republicans then?

I don't find where Krugman has called for an end to regulation, but that is the gist of your comments. Could you explain where Krugman has posited that government intervention was the cause of the economic crash? He has called for increased wall street and trade regulation and oversight.

So where is your evidence of you claims about Krugman. He is a liberal. He is a progressive. Are those his blinders?

Or could it be that you had to trash him simply because he, once again, committed the heinous crime of pointing out in an eloquent fashion the obvious errors of this congress and administration?

[bhikkhu]

51. The gist of it is that Krugman claims the problem is solvable, via government policies

...which to some extent claims that it is caused by lack of government policies. Just to be clear, "the problem" being am economic growth rate of 1-2% rather than the historic average of 3%, which has failed to produce a sufficient number of jobs to qualify as a strong recovery.

Krugman says that a different government policy would give us sufficient growth. What I would point out is that all economic growth is dependent on energy and resource inputs, and the largest constraint on growth is currently high energy prices due to high demand. He points to government policies which will do little or nothing to give us growth, even if we threw out the current crop of politicians and replaced them with another crop who did as he says to do..

[DeSwiss]

61. Self-delete. It ain't worth it. n/t

[Jakes Progress]

69. The gist of your post is that there can be no economic improvement?

How very silly. Of course the silly economists who study the history and examine the process of economy wouldn't know as much as you.

But let me get this straight. Krugman says that a different approach would have had a better outcome. You argue that no approach will make any difference. So, by your figuring, increasing the tax cuts for the wealthy would have no ill effect on the economy? Is that what you mean to say. Because you know that logic isn't on your side.

I know you didn't postulate that approach, but you said that no matter what is done, who makes the policy, there is no chance of an economic recovery because oil costs are high.

Try history. It can help you learn things that your blog friends aren't telling you.

[bhikkhu]

72. No - its that 1-2% is a good growth rate

That's what we've had for 18 months or so. 1-2% growth is roughly the economic growth potential of our economy, given available resources. The net of resources available over time forms a ceiling on potential growth.

A different tax policy, or a different social policy would certainly be worthwhile, as wealth inequality affects everybody and has a corrosive effect on society as a whole...but that's a different thing - it doesn't change the total physical circumstances, only their distribution.

[Jakes Progress]

73. Nice back up.

[harun]

37. Laughable. What real issue is he distracting you from, the debt ceiling?

[bhikkhu]

53. The effect of high energy prices on economic growth

High energy prices - whether one thinks they are caused by real scarcity or not - constrains economic growth. We have done well to reach a sustained 1-2% economic growth with the costs of energy and resources as they are.

Its easy to make political points by saying "its solvable" - meaning we can by the policies he suggests reach the 5-6% economic growth that many economists would like to see coming out of a recession - but I don't see that his policies would do a thing to alleviate the energy and resource constraint, so its unlikely they would have any overall effect.

[sulphurdunn]

56. Your argument is Malthusian.

It fails first to account for political will, and second to account for accurate information. Our present, and corrupt, political reality expresses itself in the rapid transfer of the nations wealth into the hands of a tiny minority who control the political process and are who also the major benefactors of the rising cost of the declining resources they control.

The same powers that control the political and economic spheres of society disseminate endless propaganda that ranges from the manipulation of real fear to its denial, again, as a means of control.

We do not face a problem of classical economic theory. It is a fact that humanity possesses the talent to save civilization. We face a crisis of the will. We could and would most likely save ourselves if the majority of people were presented the truth, regarding the global situation we face. They are not getting that information.

[bhikkhu]

59. None of that has anything to do with what I posted

Energy, as we use it, is essentially a geological resource. We can't make any more of it than there is, and of course we can't produce more of it by political or any other kind of will.

The simple point I was trying to make is that economic growth requires resources; when you start running short of resources two things happen: they get more expensive, and growth becomes more difficult. Its a simple description of a real problem which is not considered in the OP (and two-hundred year old dead guys have nothing to do with it either!)

[RaleighNCDUer]

64. But blaming energy is a straw man. The problem, as pointed out above,

is not energy, but the hoarding of wealth by the top 1% of the population. You postulate shortages that don't exist. High prices for energy exist because of a very few people getting between those resources and the people, and enriching themselves thereby.

That's your Chicago School of Economics at work.

[bhikkhu]

65. Wealth inequality is an entirely different problem - but definitely a problem

and on the issues of the concentration of wealth at the top Krugman tends to be right on, as far as I have read, and Obama and congress could do better.

...so I'm not just contradicting everything Krugman says because he criticizes the president.

Shortages don't exist so much as sufficient scarcity to support high prices...though at the current moment high prices may again have driven down demand (another way of saying "recession", when it comes to energy) and given us a few months of lower prices, lower consumption, and breathing room.

[TeamsterDem]

66. But the problem is that there isn't an energy shortage

There's a speculative demand which is overvaluing the commodity. The US Energy Information Administration is still showing production out of all regions to be normal: http://www.eia.gov/countries/index.cfm

And it's not energy prices which are driving the recession. It's a lack of jobs. Where are you getting your information?

[bhikkhu]

67. That's how the market works when supply and demand just meet

- if the economy shows growth, future demand is predicted to exceed supply, every expectation is that prices will go up, and investors buy up contracts for future delivery, driving up prices. On the converse side, if economic activity seems to be slowing, then future demand will be less than supply and expectations are for prices to decrease; investors bail out on the downside, driving down prices. You could call both the upswing and the downturn "artificial", but that's just the way unregulated markets work. Regulation would stabilize prices (assuming that could be accomplished at all on the global market), but it would be unlikely to produce more affordable oil on balance. Just the current means of maintaining the current rate of production are weighing towards the inherently very expensive deep water sources, and tar sands, and other options are even more costly.

At the heart of it, in any case, is a massive industry of resource extraction, and a massive global network of resource consumers. Which is in the driver's seat is partly a matter of recognizing which of the two has limits: is there a limit to the energy that can be produced, or is there a limit to the energy that can be consumed?

http://www.theoildrum.com/node is a pretty encyclopedic source of information for all things energy related.

[TeamsterDem]

70. So you're just gonna stuff your fingers in your ears and say "nuh uh" then, eh?

Conversation with you is pointless. You hear nothing except what you already believe - despite all evidence to the contrary. Have fun with that.

[bhikkhu]

71. I was about to say the same thing...

though conversation is always valuable, even if only to work out one's ideas. I simply think that the limits of resources are more pertinent to our age than financial speculators...but that is only one opinion.

[bhikkhu]

68. This is a good source of information as well:

http://omrpublic.iea.org/

which has monthly supply and demand figures. Production is normal, if you allow that normal is flat-out full capacity in most cases. Saudi Arabia is the only country with any significant untapped reserves, but that's been dubious for years - they haven't shown much evidence of being able to sustain a higher than 9 mbpd in a great while, in spite of many times of opportunity.

[emilyg]

18. knr

[Jim_Shorts]

19. We would so much better off if we just had chimpanzees making the decisions

To cut spending & jobs right now is the exact opposite (180 degrees) of what we should be doing, anyone, anyone could do a better job. It's Hoover all over again.

Reminds me of the CEO's at companies like GM, BOA, and AIG, they demand huge salaries because they say they are irreplaceable and then they run the businesses into the ground and we have give them more money to save their asses.

[BR_Parkway]

21. Actually more like FDR in 1937 - listening to advisors saying we have to

fix a deficit and killing off the growth the previous stimulus had started doing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession_of_1937%E2%80%931938

[Jim_Shorts]

45. A misstep by FDR, but I wish he were here today

Prior to the 29 crash, we were practicing supply side economics under Coolidge (Reagan was his clone) lowering top tax rates to help the job creators. (sound familiar?) The disparity between the rich and poor were at their highest levels, until now. The one thing all economists agree on is there was a complete lack of trust in government and with this debt ceiling bullshit I think we are at that pinnacle again.

I think until we raise wages (reverse Reaganomics) and put people to work (restore confidence) we are headed down the drain, actually, I think we are headed there anyway, but it might take longer.

[HughBeaumont]

22. All because we steadfastly refuse to tax the wealthy, end the wars and close the loopholes.

Three GIANT fucking elephants in the room that we need to get rid of, yet no one wants to do it because they're so afraid of and beholden to, the wealthy and the MIC.

Our country is going to be destroyed because we, for some fucked up reason, have to please and appease the greedy and useless wealthy and Pentasewer first, foremost and only. We have to cater to a bunch of petulant spoiled fucking adult-brats. And not one person even cares. Not one.

They're all "Well, I just don't see how this can be solved", as we all sit stunned and facepalmed.

Be brave and stand UP to them, for Christ's sake. You still have a choice. YOU STILL HAVE A CHOICE.

[russspeakeasy]

28. "You still have a choice". But probably not for long.

If it gets much worse, the downfall will be unstoppable.:banghead: :nuke:

[harun]

38. It is that simple. Population is for it, > 70%. Too bad we don't live in a

Democracy, or we could right the ship rather quickly.

Quick vote on the tax scenario, troops come home, done.

[lark]

48. He's made his choice, he stands with the RW, all the way

He may ocassionally fuss about them, but ALWAYS bends to their will and gives them more than they ever thought of asking for. His pretense at being a liberal is gone. He got elected the first time, he's through with us now. He gets paid more from the other side?

[MountainMama]

52. This.

I think I love you. :)

[ElsewheresDaughter]

23. Hey Washington Critters,READ and HEAR THIS Bucket of TRUTH?!?

[katnapped]

31. LALALALALALALALA! Can't hear you!

Eat your peas! Stop wishing for ponies! Change we can believe in! Yes we can!

:sarcasm:

[woo me with science]

27. Kicked and strongly recommended. nt

[warrior1]

29. who is this fucking "we"?

It's entirely the teabaggerrepublicans fault.

[jtown1123]

35. K&R

[woo me with science]

36. Kicking again. It is unconscionable. nt

[valerief]

39. As long as rich people get richer, that's all that matters.nt

[BiggJawn]

40. Somebody's gonna make a buck off the whole thing crashing down nto a heap.

My question is: Where the hell are they going to go live after they destroy the world's economy and collect their winnings?

[Enthusiast]

43. Kicked and recommended......nt

[polichick]

46. The global house of cards is about to fall - I say cover your economic ass!

[chervilant]

49. hmph...

The "dominant political culture" will continue "to avert its eyes from their prescriptions" at their own peril.

I am compelled to quote Sahlins:

The market-industrial system institutes scarcity, in a manner completely unparalleled and to a degree nowhere else approximated. Where production and distribution are arranged through the behavior of prices, and all livelihoods depend on getting and spending, insufficiency of material means becomes the explicit, calculable starting point of all economic activity. ... Consumption is a double tragedy: what begins in inadequacy will end in deprivation.

If we look at Economic Anthropology, and undertake a macro-level understanding of our economic behaviors, it's clear that we CAN create a different paradigm. Perhaps our post-WWII 'experiment' in socialistic capitalism (is that an oxymoron?) comes close to illustrating that potential?

Capitalism--unchecked and unfettered by compassion for one's fellow human being--is definitively about hierarchy. By definition, only a very few humans are allowed to clamber to the top of the wealth ladder, and they command the lion's share of the requisite power our pathetic species equates with wealth. Are we now to pledge obeisance to the Obscenely Wealthy?

Again, the "dominant political culture" obfuscates the catastrophic events threatening our global economy at their own peril. Their wealth will not protect them, just as wealth did not protect the French aristocracy during the French Revolution.

[Bobbie Jo]

57. H&R

Hit and Run.

[certainot]

63. it is impossible to have a rational national discussion of this or any other major issue

because the left continues to allow 1000 think-tank coordinated radio stations create an alternate reality the right's politicians and much of the main media must live in lest they be named by the talk radio gods and hounded as traitors.

[piratefish08]

74. why do you LOVE President Bachmann??!?!

WHY?



please don't criticize the administration. they know what is best for us.