so the left and the right get together and they disagree on everything, but agree their one mutual enemy are the moderates in the pocket of big business.
and what is economics? Just a dismal science to support your world view. If you think everybody should work hard, that will affect your dismal economic "science." on the other hand, if you are like me, and think everybody should do as little work as possible, well then, your dismal science and my dismal science may come up with different results when tested.
in otherwords, you believe in economics which produce the kind of results you believe are good. It's more of a religion than a science.
I don't see much difference between Krugman and Billy Graham, or Farakhan, or Milton Freidman. They all have an outcome they are trying to produce, and what is "right" like what is the "right" economic policy or social policy depends on what kind of outcome you are trying to produce.
which brings us back to the moderates, which if you are betting man is always a good way to go. Most people are moderate and don't support the extreme religious and economic views and the desired results Friedman and Farakhan and Krugman and Graham desire.
Loyek, I bought some saltine crackers to day that claimed on the box that the bottoms were unsalted, but when I took them out of the box I discovered that they had salted the bottoms but left the salt off the tops instead. This is just the kind of thing that can happen when you start taking economic advice from people like Krugman.
QUOTE="piezoe, post: 4143126, member: 45984"]Loyek, I bought some saltine crackers to day that claimed on the box that the bottoms were unsalted, but when I took them out of the box I discovered that they had salted the bottoms but left the salt off the tops instead. This is just the kind of thing that can happen when you start taking economic advice from people like Krugman.[/QUOTE] you democrats need to decide if you want your government run like a large corporation, in which case, Krugman is just as good a CFO as anybody, or if you want to reduce it back to a small rules governing body. My point was the difference of opinion on what is a desired outcome. One side won't be happy until everybody is taken care of. The other side won't be happy until everybody is free. I'm right in the middle. I figure food, clothing and shelter are a no brainer. Once we have that for all citizens, not just the citizens of USA but all citizens of the world, then the rest of us can get back to fighting about freedom. I learned a long time ago, if you are fearful about going through a hard financial time, always keep a box of Nabisco Premium Saltines in your pantry. Then all you need is enough to buy a can of beans and just like magic, you have dinner. And that's really all it would take to feed the world.
but yeah, I get the point. I'm strictly a bottom up guy, because that is the only thing we know for sure. We are not competing with China. We want all of their citizens to be fed, sheltered and clothed. And it aint us well meaning generous libertarians that are keeping that from happening, it's the greedy government. They take a cut of everything we make to stuff their fat pockets, and the poor get very little of the leftovers.
democrats think they are fighting for the people. May have been true long in the distant past. Now all they are fighting for is the government.