The Paul Krugman Thread

That's not his job. Also:

See Rachel Maddow.

Well, I suppose it's less "find someone," and more "find a bunch of people."

You need an equal amount of firebreathers on each side for politics to work properly.

And, I frankly don't give a damn what he thinks his job is, because he's just wasting his time if he thinks that "convincing people I'm right past just putting up facts and economic extrapolations" is going to work on its own...

Okay USAF, let's be real. What do you think he should do. Show us the theoretical model that would create the best effects that is within his capabilities as "bearded man with good models."

I get that there's indignation by liberals about the lack of liberals seriously taking to the streets and kicking ass and chewing bubblegum (while out of gum), but Krugman really is one of the more proactive liberals, not one of the less. He's not a Face person, but for not being a face person, he's pretty in your face. It's not the fight to pick, I would say.

Also, he's not some kind of uberrich billionaire who can HIRE personalities to talk economics.

~shrug~

The entire liberal model is flawed because it reflects how government should be (i.e. based on fact, not on charisma) but not how it really works.

You have to be able to play the game to be able to change it...

We'd be better off having no models than having Republican models.

Besides, in "normal" times, the positive effects of stimulus aren't generally disagreed upon. It's only the austerity whores that are driving us into a corner.

I meant political model, not economic model.

All the economics in the world don't mean a thing if you can't get into office to implement them...

In "normal" times, people actually listen to economic models, though even then maybe not as much as they should.

Mostly USAF, it sounds like you're complaining about liberals for the sake of indignation, not because you have some better idea in mind. That kind of thing drives voter apathy, which is precisely what prevents liberals from getting into power.

edited 19th Sep '11 2:37:27 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

Yes, I am annoyed at them for not standing up for what they believe. That is a pet peeve of mine, regardless of the belief in question.

Too many people I don't agree with stand up for what they want, and too few I agree with do the same. I simply want everyone to stand up for what they believe, so I can see who to support and who to stand against...

My idea is, play the goddamned game. Throwing your hands up and saying "this sucks, I'm not going to bother, because this is all wrong" won't get you into power to make it right.

I don't do voter apathy, personally. I'd rather vote for the least-worst option than just not vote at all...

edited 19th Sep '11 2:44:13 PM by USAF713

No one is doing that.

Krugman is writing his column. That column appeals to people like me, who see it as a beacon of reason. It serves its purpose. It's not like he's choosing to be silent.

You want to complain, complain about Blue Dog Democrats. Krugman sure as hell does.

USAF, its not that they don't try to fight, its that the republicans are the school bully who takes wrestling and brings his friends to the fight, and when it looks like the democrats are fighting back, the bully and his friends scream about how they're being bullied by the democrats.

Also: Liberal ideas don't really work with the wrestling technique the Republicans have taken.

What is a Blue Dog Democrat, and what is Krugman's (and, I assume, your) beef with them?

And, that's just an argument for the Democrats to not back down where the Republicans wouldn't back down. If both sides play at the same level, that level will eventually come down—or we'll throw them all out of power and find people who know how the goddamned government is supposed to work...

Blue dog democrats are basically democrats who are republicans but posing as democrats. Its more complicated than that, but its a close approximation.

They're basically what the Republican party would be if it weren't for the Cult of Centrism. They're actual centrists (which, in this case, are people who are to the right of good policy), and since the Republican party won't have them, they're Democrats.

...Dixiecrats, or less Southern-fried?

Sort of dixiecrats yeah. I mean, for instance, the congressman just north of here is a blue dog, and his district is very heavily black, so basically, the southern democrats who DIDN'T jump ship when the Civil Rights Act was passed I guess?

There are actual centrists in this country?

Why wasn't I told? 0_o

You';ve been told multile times.

These blue dogs are also why our response every time to "why didnt the democrats poass fuckloads of legilsation while they controlled the senate" is "because blue dogs"

They're not real centrists. That would be us liberals-well, most of us. They're centrists by American standards, which is still pretty right wing.

To be fair, Jon Huntsman would probably be a blue dog if he weren't currently running as a Republican ;P

IN ANY EVENT Krugman is most certainly NOT a blue dog.

Blue Dogs are basically empty seats, not democrats.

edited 19th Sep '11 2:57:52 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

Good enough for me. I'd take that over crazy Tea Party astrotrufing hypocrites...

So, Krugman has a special disdain for conservatives, Republicans, Dixiecrats/Blue Dog Democrats, and basically anybody who isn't fiscally liberal out the ass?

Generally he has a disdain for anyone who values ideological purity more than factual data and logical predictions.

So yes. those groups. because theyre all pretty damned amazing at tuning out facts in favor of ideological proselytizing.

edited 19th Sep '11 3:01:22 PM by Midgetsnowman

If by "out the ass" you mean "enough to actually fix the economy."

He's very very very much against the Golden Mean Fallacy.

Don't think that Blue Dogs are your friends just because they're centrists. Good positions don't work that way.

No, not really "my friends," just "less of a threat."

A valuable and important difference, that.

Centrisms even more of a threat. Centrists make sure that the tea party isnt seen as so far right they can be safely ignored.

Being a centrist doesn't mean I don't think the Tea Party is far Right. It means that I just don't think either side necessarily has bylines I agree with entirely...