Krugman is an imbecile and HYPOCRITE. I know for a fact he does not run his family budget in the same manner he advocates our Republic to run its budget. Krugman's philosophy for the country to get out of debt and become more prosperous is to borrow more money, led by the federal government, which is notoriously inefficient at anything it attempts. If krugman ran his life the way he advocates we run our country his whole family would be living in a SHELTER and his wife would be sucking dick for food.
Yeah, but his readers lap it up. His readers still insist, following his lead, that the stimulus wasn't big enough. The stimulus that was passed was over $800 billion and Krugman said it should have been $1.1 trillion, as I recall. Unless you assume that first $800 billion wasn't spent on the best possible projects on the government's to-do list, each dollar of an additional $300 billion would have had even less of a marginal impact as the 800 billionth dollar spent on the stimulus that did pass. Given that the $800 billion didn't get us anywhere near where Obama's team said we would be, we know that they already overestimated the marginal impact of each dollar in the stimulus. In fact, I would be shocked if, even at low interest rates, there was any net benefit to the stimulus at all. An additional $300 billion would have likely made almost no difference. That Krugman keeps screeching to the contrary just shows that he is either incapable of the relatively simple "marginal benefit" analysis that I just walked through or he's an ideologue trying to provide intellectual cover for a failed policy because he knows that the benefits of the stimulus, whatever they were, flowed to his political allies. So, yeah, he wanted to see $300 billion flow away from non-partisans or the other side's partisans to his partisans, but that doesn't make it a good idea for those footing the bill. I can't believe I've never seen anyone calling him out on this "marginal benefit" problem with his stimulus post-mortem.
On some level, I acknowledge that you could be right. At the same time, if you want to influence the future, you need to put ideas out there for discussion. If you can get "soccer moms" to start thinking that their family's future prospects might depend on the country splitting apart, you'll eventually have a chance to win the day. Right now, the only people talking about such a thing are people who can do the long-term math and who know that the Left is selling people a bill of goods.
The "parasite half" would wither and die... they need hosts' blood to survive. The "producer" half would flourish... not encumbered by having parasites draining their lives and productivity.
Any break up of such magniture most probably will be extremly violent, with countless deaths and major damage to properties and infrustructure. Then, it might be followed by a very prolonged civil war where both side will bleed each other to death. After all said and done, not much would be left to built upon. Also, such environment would be prime for a real dictator to surface. There is a saying, "Be mindful what you wish for...."
Why would it be violent? When the Soviet Union broke apart, similar predictions of a massive civil war didn't pan out and that was a much poorer society (i.e. much less to lose by going to war) than the US. Plus, given the degree of geographic self-selection among the competing ideological camps, it is unlikely that either would want to conquer the other's territory. No one who doesn't live in the heavily-blue urban centers wants to take them over and no one who lives in the urban areas wants to conquer the suburbs. Seems to me that this situation is much more like the Czechoslovakian situation before they split and the pre-Civil War US.
This makes alot of sense. Hard work is under appreciated nowadays, because of globalization. A look at twinkies shows that the people who do manual labor are fired and forced to make a pay cut why the CEO gives himself a 3X pay raise. Did the CEO work 3X harder? Nope. Very skewed. It is time for the plebs to take back control of the country. The name Twinkie manifesto makes alot of sense.
Yes he did work harder. The CEO did not get a pay raise, he lost his pay check. Obviously you do not live in the USA.