Posts

Showing posts with the label Krugman

Constraints Loom Large in Mr. Krugman's Anti-Libertarian Agenda

Image
Vote as if It Matters by Paul Krugman (my comments in red) nytimes.com /2016/09/19/opinion/vote-as-if-it-matters.html 9/19/2016 Does it make sense to vote for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for president? Sure, as long as you believe two things. First, you have to believe that it makes no difference at all whether Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump moves into the White House — because one of them will. Second, you have to believe that America will be better off in the long run if we eliminate environmental regulation, abolish the income tax, do away with public schools, and dismantle Social Security and Medicare — which is what the  Libertarian platform  calls for. These scare tactics do not scare me more than continued wars with Mrs. Clinton; but elimination of the income tax shouldn't be in this list as Mr. Johnson has stated he wants a consumption tax with vouchers given to the poor to offset the inordinate hit that a consumption tax would have on them. Howev...

The Undeserving Rich - NYTimes.com

I love how Mr. Krugman of the NY Times keeps up the pressure on our state of inequality as in this article, The Undeserving Rich - NYTimes.com , however, I would like to point out a minor fallacy in a minor example he uses to explain how the rich get away calling themselves "deserving." Mr. Krugman says that it is because the super rich and their minions lump the not-so-rich into the "rich" category--the 0.1% that I and Mr. Krugman disdain--and this thereby makes it seem as if there are many more at the top. This is a very valid observation but he makes a point of including LAWYERS in that "dilution" phenomenon, and with that, I take issue as I do with most people with government-issued licenses. No, there is nothing wrong with licenses per se (it is only that after the issuing, they are no longer regulated except for very egregious and, oftentimes, only serendipitous discoveries.) Now, what is it about the inclusion of lawyers that I find so objecti...