Tea Party

“Baume's been away and doesn't know about the common usage of that phrase here as irony.


Euro,

He has no clue what I was talking about in that post.

My point was that the children of the people who are willing to do something about climate change will suffer the effects of it the same as the children of the people whose primary concern is not spending more money on their power bills. It's their usual fixation with keeping a deathgrip on their money no matter what the effects on future generations might be.

Greed � (still one of the deadly sins, last I heard).

And in so doing they are simply tools of the industries seeking to protect their profits, no matter the longterm effects. The ironic part is that the underwriters of these industries see the writing on the wall and the previously united industrial front is crumbling.

We've seen many times how people here who should care about the outdoors would rather level mountains for cheaper coal than spend more on their air conditioning. Global Warming..... same thing. In the past, it was a much simpler problem; they'd just engineer a coup to protect access to cheap energy. Even sending in the Marines is a simpler response compared to the problem we have now.

But people like that get upset when you call them on it.... like cockroaches don't like it when light is shined on them.


So ---- the 'frying' was all about climate change.

And the folks doing the 'frying' are the ones who have supported doing nothing about it.... � like the idiot redneck from Mississippi.”

“Yep, Tr*ll's only crime is that he cares too much.”

“I don't know why people like that are on a backpacking forum to begin with, except to troll.”

“OMG - LOL!”

“I'm confused. Will I need to shave my balls again for the tea party?”

“Not only is greed one of the deadly sins, it's about the only sin I keep reading about in the newspapers and hearing about on TV.

Let's not forget the ones we don't hear about so often:

Envy- Damn those greedy "rich people."

Lust-It feels good to take money away from greedy "rich people."

Sloth- Didn't work for an education although you're not mentally handicapped? Don't work hard at your job although you're not physically handicapped? Don't worry, we'll include you when we redistribute wealth from those greedy "rich people."

Gluttony- Spent all your money on "stuff" you wanted to buy during your lifetime? Don't worry, that's what SS and medicare are for.

Wrath- Let's call those who disagree with us nasty names and angrily dismiss their ideas because they are evil and stupid.

Pride- We've got the moral superiority to know best how to redistribute wealth for the good of society.



We all suffer from some of these to one degree or another.
last edited: 4/17/09 10:40:47 AM”

“arc..>HOW DARE you....don't you know that is a violation of the First Law of PrezBOterians...(LOL). ????”

“Dayumm - wrong url behind that red x. I think I got it right this time:


last edited: 4/17/09 11:16:22 AM”

“Nice cartoon Stovie!”

“Yeah ---- that's a classic.

Most of them still don't know who was behind it. I heard Dick Armey and the people who bankroll him began preparations last Summer when the McCain/Palin poll numbers began to tank.”

“Did you hear that from Keith Olberman or that Rachel Maddow dude?


Look at Ped, all trolly the last few days, lol.”

“Anyboby here hear the bottom line for the T-bill?
last edited: 4/17/09 11:54:35 AM”

“�I'm having a hard time believing that anyone could be dumb enough to be against a non-partisan group that is against government spending and waste.�
Nigal
3:56:03 PM
4/15/09

That's fairly naive. I think its dumb to rally around something just because you like the slogans.

An old political tactic is to start a movement with slogans that most everyone can rally around and use it for much more specific purposes.

One example - a guy asked me to sign a petition for religious equal rights in the Middle East and invited me to a rally in support of equal rights for all relgions in the middle east. I ran across the rally later and they were carrying signs about equal rights and religious tolerance.

Of course I'm for tolerance and equal rights, but the petition called for an end to Israeli discrimination in its laws against Moslems and Christians. It said nothing about any other country. I didn't sign. The guy asked me why I didn't think Moslems and Christians deserved equal rights. The demonstration also had very anti-Israeli signs.”

“If the last homeowner burned the house down, the new owner is going to have to put some serious dough into it to get it livable again.
The teabaggers never protested the fire, but they're screaming bloody murder about the renovations.”

“No doubt, many more teabaggers should have been screaming when the previous owner kept the gas on and ignighted a fire. And some who were screaming then have obviously strained themselves and lost their voices now.

But if the new owners weren't worried about paying for gold plated fixtures, still planning nice vacations, and not even considering a reduction in their household budget in order to save up for those renovations (as would any responsible homeowner), those folks wouldn't be screaming so loudly.


Two wrongs don't make a right.”

“That's fairly naive. I think its dumb to rally around something just because you like the slogans.

An old political tactic is to start a movement with slogans that most everyone can rally around and use it for much more specific purposes.
PEDX


UM so the "Vote for Change" (with no explanation of what the change was or qualifications on the person proposing change was STUPID?) Good to have you on our side there Pedo.”

“Kleetn said it and arclite has a point, but the question still has to be ask,' why weren't they protesting 7,6,5,4,3 and 2 years ago'? Were they afraid to protest against Cheney and the family Monkey, but aren't afraid of the 'Changer'?”

“XL's nailed you peddy....besides you miss the point of the tea party the other day. I'd explain it to you but...if you don't get it yet.....it's about people ped. People who are finally ready to loose it all. People ready to not sell out any more. No more compromises, no more excuses, no more selfish irresponsibility in our leaders.”

“The left most certainly didn't like the spectacle of the tea parties and FairTax rallies on tax day. Liberals would much prefer that you just file your tax return and shut the hell up. After all .. this protesting government thing is something that rightwing extremists do, right? I think that we all knew that the left would try to find ways to denigrate the protests ... and here you go.

Princess Nancy has come forward with her own theory as to how these rightwing extremists came to be protesting our government spending habits and our tax code. You'll love this. Nancy Pelosi actually believes that these tea parties are supported by ... ready for the class-warfare card? ... "the high-end." That's just another way of saying the evil, filthy, disgusting rich. Here's her quote:

"This initiative is funded by the high-end. We call it 'astroturf'; it's not really a grassroots movement. It's astroturfed by some of the wealthiest people in America to keep the focus on tax cuts for the rich instead of for the great middle class."

So there you have it, folks. Rich people were behind this. They're somehow using the masses to protest taxes so that the evil rich won't have to pay their "fair share" of taxes. Why is it only the "great" middle class that is deserving of a tax cut? Is Princess Nancy implying that the evil rich don't actually work to earn any of that money? Hmmmm. You know, of course, that she actually does believe that. Oh .. by the way, Nancy and her husband are worth in the tens of millions.

Why the "Astroturf" word? Well ... and let's see if we can follow this: The tea party movement is not true grassroots. It's fake. Fake because it's promoted and financed by some rich people .. and Fox News, of course. Fake grass = Astroturf. Get it? Unusually clever for liberals, I'd say.

Oh and by the way, guess who happens to be known as the master of "astroturfing" in Washington? Obama's chief strategist David Axelrod. Basically what it happens is a corporation or political party creates the impression of something being caused by spontaneous "grassroots" behavior .. when in fact it is very much manufactured.

So this is what Nancy Pelosi believes the tea party movement to be all about. And therefore, your anger and your frustration is not worthy of her time because it is coming from an artificial source.

I don't think there was anything false or manufactured about what happened on April 15th. Do you? But that's how the Democrats are going to get around this ... by pretending that your actions aren't fueled by genuine concern for your children's future.

Wouldn't you like to see Pelosi just reduced to another one of the 435 members of the House of Representatives? What a day that would be ... and that day only comes around when the actual productive people get off their duffs and actually vote when the next election comes around.”

“I've seen the videos and you guys were outnumbered by the illegal aliens like a thousand to one.... a couple hundred people here, twenty or thirty there....

Dick Armey should have studied how the Mexicans did it. He had plenty of time and money. What happened? It surely couldn't be from a lack of kooks?”

“That idiot goober redneck from Georgia is trying to defend his 'frying' children again. LOLOLOLOLOL”

“MarkO's a bully full some bull. You're right tilt, Aremy isn't a Mexan, or is he?
last edited: 4/17/09 5:02:25 PM”

“My tea party had around 1,000 people....the one in SAn Antone was 20,000

This isn't a bunch of reneck racists...It's the sleeping giant of America waking up, the real power of this country, the working class common man”

“That's what they wanted people to believe.

They were just anti-Obama rallies. Nobody was fooled but the usual Fox-Limbaugh audience.... � but they never had much of a grip on reality anyway.”

“So something like one out of every 20,000 Americans turned out?

We're so surrounded!”

“"... the question still has to be ask,' why weren't they protesting 7,6,5,4,3 and 2 years ago'? Were they afraid to protest against Cheney and the family Monkey, but aren't afraid of the 'Changer'?”


Holy Cow! Talk about a brain buster! I'd prefer to call NASA before I make up my mind, but let me just pull an idea out of left field here. This may be paranoid, and I'm really unsure, but here goes:

Maybe because the two major political parties spend more time trying to play gottcha, and keep themselves in office, than they do trying to solve our country's problems?

I know it's a bizarre theory, but I'm a bizarre guy.


Since 1958, Congress has spent more than they've taken in for 39 of the past 42 years. Let's listen to that again...

Congress has engaged in deficit spending for 39 of the past 42 years.


For some bizarre reason some folks used to call it Reaganomics, trickle-down economics, or voodoo economics. Now the derisive term is Obamanomics.

The real name for injecting capital into the market through government spending is Keynesian economics. It's still not clear how all this "change" will work. But we can be sure that the bill will come due in the future.

They haven't even tackled SS or, worse yet, medicare.”

“Add it all up and we looking at 1.25 quadrillion(YES ITS A REAL NUMBER) Arclite....”

“never had much of a grip on reality anyway.�
Tllt
8:25:32 PM
4/17/09

t*lt comes clean.”

“I miss the old tilt, the kinder, gentler tilt...the one I thought I liked and respected....


oh well, I'm over it”

“arclite - you must know that Reaganomics refers to tax cuts, not deficit spending... right?

I mean... you claim to have read a few economics texts.


You must also know that the Republicans forced the stimulus bill to be heavier on tax cuts and lighter on spending - exactly the opposite of what was recommended by serious economists... right?

Its a shame that right wing demagogues forced us to waste money just so we could get a bill through that would do something to raise aggregate demand.”

“So long and thanks for all the tropical fish ----”

“....serious economists.....


You know, not those other wacky economists.”

“You crack me up, Noncon. :-)”

“No kidding, violin?

You mean like when Ford gave tax rebates? Or like when Bush gave tax rebates? Or like when Obama promised tax rebates?


"Its a shame that right wing demagogues forced us to waste money just so we could get a bill through that would do something to raise aggregate demand.”

Violin, you did say you actually studied economics didn't you? Aggregate demand. That's priceless! Here's your logic flaws in Keynesian tax cuts and aggregate demand 101:

http://www.bloggingtories.ca/forums/topic6690.html


Just like when Hoover and FDR tried to raise aggregate demand?
last edited: 4/17/09 10:05:28 PM”

“So you want to have a discussion about economics but deny that there is such a thing as aggregate demand?

How about we talk about architecture and I'll ridicule the concept of live load?


I'm well aware that several think tanks are running around saying that the New Deal was a failure. Have you bothered to look at GDP and employment figures following FDR's election?”

“If I thought for a second that Tr*ll liked girls I would try to set them up, lol. Talk about a match made in wingnut heaven!


Tr*ll:
That's what they wanted people to believe.

They were just anti-Obama rallies. Nobody was fooled but the usual Fox-Limbaugh audience.... but they never had much of a grip on reality anyway.�
Tllt
9:25:32 PM
4/17/09


JANEANE GAROFALO (from the Keith Olberman show, no less):

You know, there's nothing more interesting than seeing a bunch of racists become confused and angry at a speech they're not quite certain what he's saying. It sounds right and then it doesn't make sense. Which, let's be very honest about what this is about. It's not about bashing Democrats, it's not about taxes, they have no idea what the Boston tea party was about, they don't know their history at all. This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up.”

“I note that the CATO Institute talking head only spoke about the "average" unemployment rate during the FDR administration. Even you can understand how the use of averages can be misleading.

Here are a few simple graphs arc. Yup, the New Deal was an abysmal failure.






Unemployment Rate


BTW, that recession in 1937 coincided with an effort to reign in the deficit before a new surge in government spending in the spring of 1938.”

“Teddy Roosevelt and Woodry Wilson are the ones who started this American "progressive" BS.

Vile-o-lennin, did you know that FDR threw thousands of political enemies in prison and even taxed people making over $25,000 at 100% ?


Wow, that's weird.....hmm, No wonder you like him so much!”

“'This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up.' Garofalo
For many whites, this is right on, don't deny it.
It is hard on whites to see their total dominance over other races be taken away slowly and the fact that other people nolonger have fear of the US military and policing abilities. The Soviet had these feeling for years before the 'wall'.
last edited: 4/18/09 7:25:36 AM”

“uncliff, there are racist among us. But to call me one, just because I criticize a black man's point of view is so outragiously offensive, you can't imagine how infuriating to me that is. And furthurmore it's devisive and every bit as wrong as the racist is....so step and be an adult and drop the bullsh1t.....

It also shows your ignorance and Geraffalo's because the New York event alone had 3 black speakers. There are many black people of honor and integrity conservatives would support.....JC Watts, Walter Williams, Condi Rice, Thomas Sowell...lokk them up (Sowell and Williams)and read what they have to say
on racism.....”

“Affording to be a world police and a police to protest our own rich as well as import almost everything we need and even more the things some wantrather than need is just not in this new deck of cards.”

“You will never see my point, so , I'll just not try anymore. Light switch thinking is the reason I can't communicate with a group of people on this board. Two sides does not define this once great country, but two sides it has become and this board is exactly the kind of breeding grounds for that errant thinking.

Everything is either good or evil, left or right , black or white and all the things that can't qualify to fit this yes or no system has to be tongue lashed until it fits one or the other.

Politicians are all crooks, that is a prerequisite for the job and unless you play you're on the side of the road with a sign 'Will lie for food'.”

“No kidding, violin? So what you’re saying is that a LOT of economic statistics can be misleading. Boy Howdy! Do I agree with that.

Many economists have long said that FDRs policies were failures on a number of levels. Even the latest study out of UCLA shows those policies to have prolonged the depression by seven years.

But I think I’ve heard somewhere that economists can disagree. You post Paul Krugman as an authority. You and I both know that CATO tends toward libertarian principles and so have their bias. Are you disputing their take on Keynesian aggregate demand as a more efficient plan for the redistribution of wealth than as an economic stimulator?

Would you say that you studied Keynesian economics under a Keynesian professor? Would you say that you understand the concepts behind the Chicago School and the Austrian School (and other schools) as well as you do Keynes and that you dismiss their ideas on rational grounds?

Don’t let the fact that Krugman completely dismisses the Austrians affect your bias. Everyone has bias and the lame excuses by journalist about there being no journalistic bias except on Fox are childishly, and obviously, ridiculous. I fight my bias every day. It’s a difficult proposition. And from many conversations I’ve had, it’s almost impossible for many folks.

Although I haven’t been able to even try to stomach reading a book by Ann Coulter, she makes some good points about leftists having faith in their beliefs similar to religious fundamentalists. Both those groups often dismiss ideas contrary to their own despite good scientific evidence to the contrary.

It only makes logical, and common, sense that economists disagree, and that many different economic schools of thought exist, only because no one school has found all the answers. Krugman’s dismissals of the Austrian School are surely self-serving, and not based entirely on their non mathematical views, as the Austrians make very logical arguments against his philosophy of planned wealth redistribution.


Paul Krugman makes very clear why he likes Keynesianism. The major premise of his book (The Conscience of a Liberal) is his belief that government should control the redistribution of wealth to correct the flaws of capitalism.

As that video talks about, the flaw of the Keynesian aggregate demand is that it doesn’t add productivity or capital to the market, it merely redistributes it. Other schools, and Keynesians themselves, admit Keynesianism has logic flaws. Keynesians work hard to get around those flaws.


F.A. Hayek presents a great case for the impracticalities, loss of individual freedom, and the rise of totalitarianism that are the consequences of governmental wealth redistribution policies.

He presents an argument that says: The redistribution of wealth is a collective vision of what is best for society (in Krugman’s case he uses the old socialist buzzwords- “social justice”). A major flaw is that this view requires a consistent moral code of what is “just” and in the best interest of society. Since good people can disagree with what is “just” and in the best interest of society, this redistribution of property will either need to be administered by an economic dictator who applies consistent rules for the allocation of property, or be subject to the arbitrary decisions of those who hold power at the moment.

"The cry for an economic dictator is a characteristic stage in the movement toward planning."

The Road to Serfdom (pg 75) by F.A. Hayek.


"If “capitalism” means here a competitive system based on free disposal over private property, it is far more important to realize that only within this system is democracy possible. When it becomes dominated by collectivist creed, democracy will inevitably destroy itself."

The Road to Serfdom (pg 77&78) by F.A. Hayek.


"There is no justification for the belief that, so long as power is conferred by democratic procedure, it cannot be arbitrary; the contrast suggested by this statement is altogether false: it is not the source but the limitation of power which prevents it from becoming arbitrary. Democratic control may prevent power from becoming arbitrary, but does not do so by its mere existence. If democracy resolves on a task which necessarily involves the use of power which cannot be guided by fixed rules, it must become arbitrary power."

The Road to Serfdom (pg 79) by F.A. Hayek.


But don't take those sound-bites for gospel. You should read the book.


It is no wonder why Krugman dismisses the Austrian School economists despite their record of predicting the business cycle. I have a subscription to The Independent Review (a journal of political economics) and I have previously typed excerpts of this old article. Thank God it’s now up on the web. It’s rather long but shows how well the Austrians did at predicting the bubble/bust of the nineties.

Who Predicted the Bubble? Who Predicted the Crash?

Curiously it leaves out Krugman. As one economics observer said, It’s not that you can predict the business cycle fluctuations, it’s when. Timing is everything. Krugman has made many predictions that haven’t come to pass and he’s made predictions that have come to pass years after his warnings.

When you type “Krugman” and “lies” into Google, you get a lot of websites to choose from. The man has often stretched the truth in order to make his point. But he says he predicted the bubble/bust of the nineties and has left the impression that he predicted the timing as well. Maybe that’s true and the Austrians just aren’t giving him credit as a snub of their own. I’ve looked and can’t find it. Maybe you can provide something showing that Krugman gave an accurate time-frame for the bubble/bust?


Krugman writes an article about Milton Friedman accusing Friedman of being less than truthful in public discussions. I don’t find it difficult to believe that most people have stretched the truth to make a point. But the article is full of falsehoods and half-truths.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19857

In one example he uses, he points to the failures of economies in South America who he says followed Friedman’s suggestions. This might be palatable to the general public, but anyone who knows a little bit about economics knows that Argentina and Mexico have followed very dissimilar ideas than did Chile.

Projection is such an interesting dysfunction that often goes hand-in-hand with anger, rationalization, and denial. Even if we dismiss all of the anecdotal evidence by those who have met and talked with Krugman, reading The Conscience of a Liberal there can be no doubt that Krugman is an angry bigot.


Nevertheless, his book is worth reading. In that spirit let me make two reading suggestions:

The Conscience of a Liberal by Paul Krugman and The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek. That's a balanced look at two different philosophies.


You’ll never catch me calling you Vile Man. I like your on-line persona. I’ve found you to be a thoughtful person who has gone out of his way to help me gather information. You provide links showing that your conclusions are based on more than personal opinions provided to you by newspapers and TV. You’ve provided me with suggestions for reading. I am following those suggestions and making my way through a lot of literature.

I couldn’t care less whether someone agrees with my (always subject to change) conclusions. I have constantly said that it sure would be nice if we bothered to educate ourselves. This means we need to fight our biases, and give serious thought to views which disagree with our current conclusions. That’s what bipartisan truly means.
last edited: 4/18/09 11:34:02 AM”

“arc - Aggregate demand is not a Keynesian concept. It's about as basic to economics as gravity is to physics. There is no disagreement about whether or not exists.

There are very few true Keynesians left today. His ideas have been refined and built upon for decades. Most of my professors at Rutgers were post-Keynesians.

Take a look at the graphs I posted and tell me how anyone can honestly argue that the the New Deal prolonged the Depression. Its dishonest propaganda and a waste of time discussing.

So the Austrian school people called the popping of tech bubble. Whoop-de-friggin-doo. How well did things work out when we followed their proscription to deregulate the banking system? Their ideas have been tried and found to be slightly defective.
last edited: 4/18/09 12:26:53 PM”

“DUDE! (sorry I just loved that) I never meant to imply that aggregate demand was specific to Keynesians. What I said was, "Keynesian aggregate demand" meaning the way Keynesians view aggregate demand as a stimulus.

I draw pictures to explain things, don't expect me to be a wordsmith.


I didn't know that. I didn't know banking deregulation was an Austrian idea. I though supply-siders were behind that. And I know so little about banking and finance that I'd be playing catch up big time.

Dang man! My brain's on overload already! Now I'll have to look into the implications of what you just told me. Maybe you are evil.




Hey, if you know anything about the mathematics of shear and bending I'd be more than happy to listen to you expound on your theories of live load. But we may want to call Dayhiker in on this one. He knows more than I do about that. I have to know a bit about EVERYTHING that goes into hospital construction.


One of my favorite lines from Good Will Hunting:

“And Two, you dropped 150 grand on a f^#king education you could have got for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library.”


Well, let’s just say it’s cost me a bit more than a dollar fifty because I like books. I like hardcover books. I like my reference library.

To assume that a person is not capable of educating himself without attending University is a very naive thought.

When I graduated with all my degrees in architectural design and city planning I was still totally unprepared for the real world. Every day for the past 20 years has been an education. What folks learn in University just scratches the surface. And if we don’t continue to educate ourselves we get left behind.

University gives us a jump start. But I’ve found that there has been no subject that humans study that I have not been able to comprehend given a comprehensive cross-section of information. I’ve also found that University professors have bias and that they can’t possibly explain everything about a subject. In the case of many economic schools, Keynes is the major focus even if it is now called post-Keynesianism.

It would be foolish for me to believe I know as much about economics as some economists. My mathematics study went as far as Calculus and Differential Equations. I never took Linear Algebra, Real Analysis, Probability Theory, or Game Theory. Nor do I have a desire to learn more than the basic theory behind any one of those (although Game Theory sounds cool as hell).

So I am unable to check the mathematical validity of many economic models. But I can well understand the logic behind how they were put together; what variables were included, and which were not.

I am a good observer and I have the ability to process disparate information into patterns.

I also have a decent grasp on philosophy. Philosophically I agree with the proposition that forced redistribution of wealth is tyranny and totalitarianism. Maybe some folks view living under the control of a tribal leader with sentimentality. Maybe some folks view living under the control of the church with sentimentality. Maybe some folks view living under a monarchy with sentimentality. Humans have a long history of voluntary servitude. Maybe some folks want to be told what to do. Maybe some folks enjoy servitude because it takes away personal responsibility.

I’ve got a simple political philosophy: I don’t want others to control my life and so I return the favor. I believe in smaller, less intrusive, government that, in a healthy democracy, may be temporarily controlled by political philosophies many citizens disagree with.

I have no desire to monopolize control of society according to my world view. I don’t feel so morally superior and arrogant that I believe I know what’s best for other people while trying to control wealth redistribution in order to accomplish my superior utopian ideals for society.


That's MY bias as it currently stands.”

“Actually I do know a little about the mathematics of shear and bending. I took both statics and dynamics before leaving the Rutgers engineering program. My theories on live load: man that's some dry, boring-ass #&%!$!”

“Wait... we can say "ass"?”

“Violin smells like Bigfoot's ass....



did it work?”

“He really DOES smell like Bigfoot's ass!”

“Violin, you can use that in reference to me any time you like. Lord knows my step-daughter does as I pull her leg.

Did you like how I implied that the “mathematics of shear and bending” are a prerequisite for understanding live loads? I knew you’d appreciate that. Understanding what aspect of live loads?

I assume you have postulated that you shouldn’t park your SUV on the first floor (assuming you’ve got a basement) of your home. Standard residential live loads are easy to look up. I assume you don’t feel a need to park your SUV on the first floor in your home in order to collect data on whether the floor will fail. But if you've got a hybrid....

Now dead loads, dead loads are a whole different ball game. Much complex mathematical calculation is involved with dead loads, especially when you consider their synergistic effect combined with live loads.


We're having a lot of fun spoofing those narrow-minded denial and rationalization situations. I know you won’t mind if I’m somewhat skeptical that “a few simple graphs” explain the economic policies of The Great Depression and the entire scope of those consequences to your satisfaction.

What you are saying is not that their models are wrong, or that their understanding of economics is unclear, you are saying a whole bunch of economists are lying.

Not that I don’t trust you as a brilliant economist (I do trust you as brilliantly funny), but I’d prefer to see the argument that they’re lying presented by income distribution supporters Krugman and Stiglitz.

Oh wait, Krugman does mention it in his book. He believes that FDR’s policies were good because there was a more “equitable distribution of wealth” after many of those greedy rich folks were destroyed financially. He actually expresses glee in his prose. What an altruist. What a humanitarian.
last edited: 4/18/09 6:39:32 PM”