Hurricane Irene and Keynesian insanity

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

matthew8

Too true, and I bet Obama and all his Keynesian buddies were laughing when they heard about this hurricane. Unemployment numbers are already artificially low without this happening. Thankfully the hurricane wasn't bad and there wasn't too much flooding or deaths. The single-digit billions of repair costs will be a tiny stimulus. I bet Obama supporters will say (like with the stimulus) the hurricane prevented a depression, but it wasn't big enough to get the economy booming again.

ei.sdraob

Apparently WW2 was great
and we could do with an alien invasion...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhMAV9VLvHA

Why does this remind me of Orwell's perpetual war with Eastasia/Eurasia :P

Soldie

Krugman has previously hailed the economic benefits of the 9/11 attacks and said that the catastrophic earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan earlier this year could be "expansionary". It amazes me that an economic commentator with such esteem and clout can be unaware of a basic economic principle such as opportunity cost. In short, the $7 billion (or whatever the sum comes to) that is spent on rebuilding leaves people in the same situation they were in prior to the hurricane hitting and a $7 billion bill. Had the hurricane not hit, then people would have had intact properties and $7 billion to spend on other goods and services of their choosing. Saving and investment - not spending!

SupaNova

Schiff poking fun:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyW-o-Pr92M

http://www.europac.net/commentaries/why_not_another_world_war

matthew8

Soldie wrote: »

Krugman has previously hailed the economic benefits of the 9/11 attacks and said that the catastrophic earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan earlier this year could be "expansionary". It amazes me that an economic commentator with such esteem and clout can be unaware of a basic economic principle such as opportunity cost. In short, the $7 billion (or whatever the sum comes to) that is spent on rebuilding leaves people in the same situation they were in prior to the hurricane hitting and a $7 billion bill. Had the hurricane not hit, then people would have had intact properties and $7 billion to spend on other goods and services of their choosing. Saving and investment - not spending!

Keynesians don't care if jobs actually do anything, they just care that there are jobs. The problem is we use GDP to measure economies (which Keynes made to make his theory look good) which means broken windows, Abrams tanks, bunkers all have economic benefits.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Overheal

I think there's truth on both sides here. A natural disaster may raze an area and cause billions in damage that will need to be replaced but it also affords an opportunity to improve upon what was there before. For instance would many towns and cities have the same convoluted road networking systems that they adopted over 100 or more years or given the chance would they improve and redesign the system to improve traffic flow, commuter times, and ability for industry to transport goods better in order to serve more areas and create jobs in more places?

I'm sure we're all directly familiar with at least one or two examples of major infrastructure projects that cost a lot more when you're re-facing an old system and would cost quite a bit less if all you had to do was Demo the area and start on a clean lot. Road projects in particular drag for years longer than they would otherwise because of the requirement to facilitate traffic during the construction. Or as another example drive through any major city in America and at some point you'll cross an overpass/highway that goes right over someone's backyard - and they've been living there a hell of a lot longer than your road. Or I'm sure you've noticed that organizing your closet can be made far simpler by emptying it first.

Valmont

I can see the headlines already: "Hurricane not big enough says Krugman" and "Obama smashes local shop windows to kick-start the rejuvenation of the glazier industry". I wish I worked for The Onion.

20Cent

Interpreting Krugmans article as supporting war is a totally warped interpretation of what he wrote.

Here's a more appropriate Onion headline.
Tea Party Congressman Calls For Tax Breaks To Put Out Raging Wildfire In District

Suryavarman

20Cent wrote: »

Interpreting Krugmans article as supporting war is a totally warped interpretation of what he wrote.

Here's a more appropriate Onion headline.
Tea Party Congressman Calls For Tax Breaks To Put Out Raging Wildfire In District

He doesn't support a real war, but as ei.sdraob pointed out, he does like fake ones!


Also thought I'd throw this into the mix:

http://cafehayek.com/2011/08/the-microeconomics-of-the-broken-window-fallacy.html

Gives a pretty solid overview of the many ways to look at the broken window fallacy.

ei.sdraob

Added this piece of Krugmanite wisdom to sig

"Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble" - Paul Krugman 2002

20Cent

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Added this piece of Krugmanite wisdom to sig

"Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble" - Paul Krugman 2002

Maybe google that quote first, Krugman was quoting someone else.

Also the bit in the op about Keynes and and digging holes would be better served with the actual quote he wrote (including the line after) to make more sense.

SupaNova

20Cent wrote: »

Maybe google that quote first, Krugman was quoting someone else.

Krugman is for bubbles. A housing bubble then, in more recent years a green technology bubble, or the latest a bubble in defense technology to prepare for an alien invasion. To get it straight Krugman is for people working round the clock to receive rationed food(a nice wage i must say) which is what happened in war time, and yet holds a stance that minimum wage should not be touched and doesn't affect employment, that the economic law of supply and demand does not apply to labor for some reason.

SupaNova

More broken window fallacy.

Overheal wrote: »

I'm sure we're all directly familiar with at least one or two examples of major infrastructure projects that cost a lot more when you're re-facing an old system and would cost quite a bit less if all you had to do was Demo the area and start on a clean lot.

What about all the destroyed production and capital, all those factories and houses, you are forgetting the endless costs demolishing a city and rebuilding would entail. Destroying a city, would mean destroying the complex system of labor in that city. All the workers have to be retrained to mine raw materials, build factories for producing the materials required for construction, build the roads, build the city and build factories that they had before demolishing the city. Everyone would have to re skill once again to jobs in the new city, all this to get right back to where they started. Could this new city be that much better than the old city's continued evolution over that time period that it can replace the 20 yrs of lost production? The Keynesians would say we benefit by new building technologies we discover, but this again is at the cost of other technologies that would have evolved in the old city over that time period.

Road projects in particular drag for years longer than they would otherwise because of the requirement to facilitate traffic during the construction.

If we didn't facilitate traffic, while building roads you would be putting a lot of people out of work. Of course if we didn't facilitate the existing economy the road would be built quicker, but at the cost of all the production in the existing economy that was not facilitated.

Or I'm sure you've noticed that organizing your closet can be made far simpler by emptying it first.

The Keynesian view of emptying your wardrobe would be to empty it, destroy it, why not destroy all your furniture, get new furniture built that might better facilitate re-arranging your clothes, this would spur employment and technological advances in furniture production, not just improvements in wardrobes but tables and chairs as well.

Overheal

SupaNova wrote: »

More broken window fallacy.

What about all the destroyed production and capital, all those factories and houses, you are forgetting the endless costs demolishing a city and rebuilding would entail. Destroying a city, would mean destroying the complex system of labor in that city. All the workers have to be retrained to mine raw materials, build factories for producing the materials required for construction, build the roads, build the cities and build factories that they had before demolishing the city. Everyone would have to re skill once again to jobs in the new city, all this to get right back to where they started. Could this new city be that much better than the old city's continued evolution over that time period that it can replace the 20 yrs of lost production? The Keynesians would say we benefit by new building technologies we discover, but this again is at the cost of other technologies that would have evolved in the old city over that time period.

You've completely missed the point of this exercise. We're not discussing Simcity here, where you just select all and click Demolish. What's being discussed is that "Silver Lining" effect that comes after a Natural Disaster. Making the most essentially, of a situation which was never desired in the first place, such as a Hurricane, a Tsunami, or a rather large Quake.

On the Subject of the Broken Window, you could also say that the father spent money replacing it with a newer window that perhaps insulated his home better and caused his energy bills to drop. Haven't a lot of us at some point done the same with our single-glazed windows?

If we didn't facilitate traffic, while building roads you would be putting a lot of people out of work. Of course if we didn't facilitate the existing economy the road would be built quicker, but at the cost of all the production in the existing economy that was not facilitated.

Again, what I am saying that is in the wake of a disaster, or simply just expanding into new territories for development: theres nothing to Impede. Commuters would have no need to pass through a construction zone because what waits for them on the other side? Not a damn thing.

Again, the point is there would be No Existing Economy. Post-disaster, the existing economy is Shot.

The Keynesian view of emptying your wardrobe would be to empty it, destroy it, why not destroy all your furniture, get new furniture built that might better facilitate re-arranging your clothes, this would spur employment and technological advances in furniture production, not just improvements in wardrobes but tables and chairs as well.

Or a computer, with newer technologies. Whatever.

I'm not arguing that say if a guy has to spend $500 on a new laptop if he broke his old one that it doesn't mean something economically, I'm just pointing out that when he gets that new laptop it will be an improvement over what he had before. Even if its virtually the same spec you could still be talking about a 32nm process vs a 65nm; improved gyro-sensitive hard disks, or solid state drives - those make it more efficient and resilient. Or as I was getting at earlier in the same way you would be forced to replace your old economy with new economy but at least your economy would have some improvements over your other one. Who exactly knows what kind of valuable fixes and improvements you could make to the underlying bits. And I mean important changes that help spur long-term not just Keynesian short-term economic growth. Like oh, say, a Dublin Tunnel that's tall enough to support any and all freight trucks? That would seem like a significant improvement: one that's not easy to implement currently and one that would probably generate billions in extra revenue over the lifespan of such a tunnel. Or a factory in place of an older one which was unable to support newer standards or equipment, but that would have been too costly to Retrofit or Rebuild otherwise, if not for the likes of a disaster.

But let's be perfectly clear: Nobody is saying go break windows then throw your computers out of them and set the house on fire.

Overheal

I do love parallel discussions:

The Gaming Industry

The Office Chair Industry

And actually if you want to talk about Keynesian economics I have a question: why am I in class next to an Airman that's complaining about not getting the Pell Grant for college even though he owns 5 vehicles, has a house (that he bought when the market bottomed out I should add) and he makes 40k a year? I'm just left thinking to myself are we paying these folks all this money hoping they'll just spend it on junk back home while we send them away to foreign places to justify the reason for having them enlisted in the first place? I'm a little confused by this.

SupaNova

You've completely missed the point of this exercise. We're not discussing Simcity here, where you just select all and click Demolish. What's being discussed is that "Silver Lining" effect that comes after a Natural Disaster. Making the most essentially, of a situation which was never desired in the first place, such as a Hurricane, a Tsunami, or a rather large Quake.

I didn't miss the point. Keynesians don't see it as a "silver lining" but something that is actually good for economies.

But let's be perfectly clear: Nobody is saying go break windows then throw your computers out of them and set the house on fire.

Krugman is not saying do it, but Krugman is saying it would be good for the economy.

20Cent

SupaNova wrote: »

Krugman is for bubbles. A housing bubble then, in more recent years a green technology bubble, or the latest a bubble in defense technology to prepare for an alien invasion. To get it straight Krugman is for people working round the clock to receive rationed food(a nice wage i must say) which is what happened in war time, and yet holds a stance that minimum wage should not be touched and doesn't affect employment, that the economic law of supply and demand does not apply to labor for some reason.

a) Krugman never said that he was quoting someone else.
b) He is clearly mocking the Fed and Greenspan in the article.

If you want insanity check out the libertarian solution to a major disaster. Some pub quizes and a charity to fix billions in lost infrastructure.

Suryavarman

20Cent wrote: »

If you want insanity check out the libertarian solution to a major disaster. Some pub quizes and a charity to fix billions in lost infrastructure.

The Libertarian solution would be for people to insure against these disasters.

Overheal

Suryavarman wrote: »

The Libertarian solution would be for people to insure against these disasters.

That would require them forfeiting opportunity cost to the premiums

Exile 1798

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Added this piece of Krugmanite wisdom to sig

"Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble" - Paul Krugman 2002

C'mon now, even if that cropped quote is all you read on some Tea Party/Libertarian website, it should be obvious at first glance that it's not as they purport.

Dubya's Double Dip?

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: August 2, 2002

If the story of the current U.S. economy were made into a movie, it would look something like ''55 Days at Peking.'' A ragtag group of ordinary people -- America's consumers -- is besieged by a rampaging horde, the forces of recession. To everyone's surprise, they have held their ground.

But they can't hold out forever. Will the rescue force -- resurgent business investment -- get there in time?

The screenplay for that kind of movie always ratchets up the tension. The besieged citadel fends off assault after assault, but again and again rescue is delayed. And so it has played out in practice. Consumers kept spending as the Internet bubble collapsed; they kept spending despite terrorist attacks. Taking advantage of low interest rates, they refinanced their houses and took the proceeds to the shopping malls.

But predictions of an imminent recovery in business investment keep turning out to be premature. Most businesses are in no hurry to go on another spending spree. And those that might have started to invest again have been deterred by sliding stock prices, widening bond spreads and revelations about corporate scandal.

Will the rescuers arrive in the nick of time? Not necessarily. This movie may not be ''55 Days at Peking'' after all. It may be ''A Bridge Too Far.''

A few months ago the vast majority of business economists mocked concerns about a ''double dip,'' a second leg to the downturn. But there were a few dogged iconoclasts out there, most notably Stephen Roach at Morgan Stanley. As I've repeatedly said in this column, the arguments of the double-dippers made a lot of sense. And their story now looks more plausible than ever.

The basic point is that the recession of 2001 wasn't a typical postwar slump, brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raises interest rates and easily ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again. This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance. To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.

Judging by Mr. Greenspan's remarkably cheerful recent testimony, he still thinks he can pull that off. But the Fed chairman's crystal ball has been cloudy lately; remember how he urged Congress to cut taxes to head off the risk of excessive budget surpluses? And a sober look at recent data is not encouraging.

On the surface, the sharp drop in the economy's growth, from 5 percent in the first quarter to 1 percent in the second, is disheartening. Under the surface, it's quite a lot worse. Even in the first quarter, investment and consumer spending were sluggish; most of the growth came as businesses stopped running down their inventories. In the second quarter, inventories were the whole story: final demand actually fell. And lately straws in the wind that often give advance warning of changes in official statistics, like mall traffic, have been blowing the wrong way.

Despite the bad news, most commentators, like Mr. Greenspan, remain optimistic. Should you be reassured?

Bear in mind that business forecasters are under enormous pressure to be cheerleaders: ''I must confess to being amazed at the venom my double dip call still elicits,'' Mr. Roach wrote yesterday at cbsmarketwatch.com. We should never forget that Wall Street basically represents the sell side.

Bear in mind also that government officials have a stake in accentuating the positive. The administration needs a recovery because, with deficits exploding, the only way it can justify that tax cut is by pretending that it was just what the economy needed. Mr. Greenspan needs one to avoid awkward questions about his own role in creating the stock market bubble.

But wishful thinking aside, I just don't understand the grounds for optimism. Who, exactly, is about to start spending a lot more? At this point it's a lot easier to tell a story about how the recovery will stall than about how it will speed up. And while I like movies with happy endings as much as the next guy, a movie isn't realistic unless the story line makes sense.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html?scp=4&sq=krugman%20mcculley%20bubble&st=cse

So, he nailed it, and the meaning of his quote was actually the exact opposite of what you supposed/purported/presented it to be.

This is the problem with economics/politics, especially in the US. People simply have no shame or respect for honest argument. Even when Krugmen is exactly right, he's wrong.

I understand why people fall for this misinformation. What more interesting is the people who knowingly formulate it. If you have to lie to argue your position, isn't that a good indicator that your position lacks merit? I guess the probability is that they don't actually care about economics or politics, and that for them these are just vehicles with which to channel their "culture war" resentments. This would explain the American phenomena of the people who pontificate most loudly about taxes, debt and deficit knowing the least about taxes, debt and deficit.

Boulevardier

The Keynesians make a lot more sense than people like Bachmann who thinks Irene was a warning from God.

Give me Keynesians before Tea party nutters anytime.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Boulevardier

"‎8 of the last 9 recessions have been under Republican presidents
Democratic presidents create 2x as many jobs per year as Republican presidents.Republican presidents' deficits are 3x higher than Democrats' and 2x higher as a percent of GDP.The economy grows 41% faster under Democratic presidents.Businesses invest 3x as much under Democratic presidents"

Most Libertarians like Ron Paul are Republican. Most Keynesians are Democrats. I know who I would prefer.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Boulevardier

Fair point. I myself am a socialist, not a Keynesian.

matthew8

Democratic presidents create 2x as many jobs per year as Republican presidents.

Government does not create jobs.

8 of the last 9 recessions have been under Republican presidents

The republicans have had the presidency for 28 of the last 42 years too.

Republican presidents' deficits are 3x higher than Democrats' and 2x higher as a percent of GDP.

The democrats hold the record.

Most Libertarians like Ron Paul are Republican. Most Keynesians are Democrats. I know who I would prefer.

Eisenhower was Keynesian, Kennedy was Keynesian, LBJ was Keynesian, Nixon was Keynesian, Reagan was Keynesian, Bush I was Keynesian, Clinton was Keynesian, Bush II was Keynesian, Obama is Keynesian.

Ron Paul is one of the few who isn't Keynesian. Pat Buchanan is one of the few non-Keynesians to come close to the oval office. The only recent libertarian governor oversaw the fastest job creation in his state out of all 50 states, bucking the republican trend.

Your entire post is based around the "all republicans are George Bush" argument, which is wrong.

Suryavarman

Overheal wrote: »

That would require them forfeiting opportunity cost to the premiums

The same people have to forfeit opportunity cost when they pay their taxes to deal with disasters.

SupaNova

Exile 1798 wrote: »

So, he nailed it, and the meaning of his quote was actually the exact opposite of what you supposed/purported/presented it to be.

Did Krugman mean the opposite of what he said??? Was his promotion of interest rate cuts to get a housing boom a long running sarcastic joke that ran a couple of years? Or are you saying he nailed it because promoting a housing bubble was the right thing to do?

More of Krugman from 2001-2002:

"To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble. "

---

“During phases of weak growth there are always those who say that lower interest rates will not help. They overlook the fact that low interest rates act through several channels. For instance, more housing is built, which expands the building sector. You must ask the opposite question: why in the world shouldn’t you lower interest rates?”

---

However, let’s give credit where credit is due: Mr. Greenspan has cut rates since then. And while some of us may have been urging him to move even faster, the Fed’s four interest-rate cuts since the slowdown became apparent represent an unusually aggressive response by historical standards. It’s still not clear that Mr. Greenspan has caught up with the curve — let’s have at least one more rate cut, please — but the interest-rate cuts do, cross your fingers, seem to be having an effect.

---

“KRUGMAN: I think frankly it’s got to be — business investment is not going to be the driving force in this recovery. It has to come from things like housing, things that have not been (UNINTELLIGIBLE).


DOBBS: We see, Paul, housing at near record levels, we see automobile purchases near record levels. The consumer is still very much in this economy. Can he or she — or I should say he and she, can they bring back this economy?


KRUGMAN: Well, as far as the arithmetic goes, yes, it is possible. Will the Fed cut interest rates enough? Will long-term rates fall enough to get the consumer, get the housing sector there in time? We don’t know”

---

“Consumers, who already have low savings and high debt, probably can’t contribute much. But housing, which is highly sensitive to interest rates, could help lead a recovery"

---

“Post-terror nerves aside, what mainly ails the U.S. economy is too much of a good thing. During the bubble years businesses overspent on capital equipment; the resulting overhang of excess capacity is a drag on investment, and hence a drag on the economy as a whole.
In time this overhang will be worked off. Meanwhile, economic policy should encourage other spending to offset the temporary slump in business investment. Low interest rates, which promote spending on housing and other durable goods, are the main answer. But it seems inevitable that there will also be a fiscal stimulus package”

---

“The good news about the U.S. economy is that it fell into recession, but it didn’t fall off a cliff. Most of the credit probably goes to the dogged optimism of American consumers, but the Fed’s dramatic interest rate cuts helped keep housing strong even as business investment plunged.”

---

http://blog.mises.org/10153/krugman-did-cause-the-housing-bubble/
http://www.pkarchive.org/

Overheal

Suryavarman wrote: »

The same people have to forfeit opportunity cost when they pay their taxes to deal with disasters.

I wasn't aware that taxes increased when a natural disaster occurred? You pay the same amount of tax either way. Your point is moot.

Boulevardier

Anyone who thinks Reagan and Dubya were Keynesians must have an extremely broad definition of that term. Keynes would certainly have disowned them.

I knew this was a tea-party thread, thanks matthew8 for confirming it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Boulevardier

I think it is an appalling lie that Keynesians welcome disasters. Disasters in recent decades have been pounced on much more by their opposite numbers, the neoliberals. I understand that there is a book by Naomi Klein called "The shock doctrine" which pretty much proves this. That is why disasters are often followed by the enforcement of neoliberal doctrines such as privatisations.

There is no evidence whatever that fair and equitable tax kills jobs. A strong programme of good public services is clearly the way forward now that neoliberalism has been so utterly discredited.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

He clearly advocates increased Gov spending during times of crisis and depression. Not just for "any" reason.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Suryavarman

Overheal wrote: »

I wasn't aware that taxes increased when a natural disaster occurred? You pay the same amount of tax either way. Your point is moot.

So, Government spending doesn't have to be paid for out of taxes? Or does the money for this new spending just come out of thin air?

Boulevardier wrote: »

I think it is an appalling lie that Keynesians welcome disasters. Disasters in recent decades have been pounced on much more by their opposite numbers, the neoliberals. I understand that there is a book by Naomi Klein called "The shock doctrine" which pretty much proves this. That is why disasters are often followed by the enforcement of neoliberal doctrines such as privatisations.

Would you care to give any examples of this happening?

There is no evidence whatever that fair and equitable tax kills jobs

What is a fair and equitable tax?

A strong programme of good public services is clearly the way forward now that neoliberalism has been so utterly discredited.

I don't think neoliberalism has been discredited. Why do you think it has?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Boulevardier

The underfunding of the US government debt owes much to the fact that the super-rich continue to be protected from paying more tax, a thing they can easily afford to do and which some of them are even supporting. Taxing the super-rich is very unlikely to cost a single job.

Fair and equitable taxation equals progressive taxation, and that equals the rich paying a bigger percentage while the ordinary middle class pay a smaller one. It is social and economic justice - 2 terms the tea party loathes.

Neoliberalism has clearly and comprehensively failed, and capitalism itself is in crisis. It is clear to more peole by the day that democratic socialism is the way forward. I am hopeful that the tea party will prove to be a final sting from a dying neoliberal wasp.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

SupaNova

Boulevardier wrote: »

Taxing the super-rich is very unlikely to cost a single job.

Talk about an utterly simplistic and flat out wrong view. Tax and regulations most definitely have an effect. The only question to ask is should the regulatory and tax compliance burden employer's face be heavier or lighter than it is at the moment? Anyone with common sense can answer that question correctly.

See how Illinois is faring:
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/08/illinois-loses-most-jobs-in-nation.html

Manic Moran

Boulevardier wrote: »

Fair and equitable taxation equals progressive taxation, and that equals the rich paying a bigger percentage while the ordinary middle class pay a smaller one.

Out of curiosity, if you keep a dictionary in your house, would you mind awfully posting the definitions found in it of the words "fair" and "equitable?"

NTM

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There is a financial crisis at the moment you might have read about it. Why do you keep insinuating that Krugman wants war!!

Anyway Ron Paul has been shown up for the fool he is this week saying that there is no national response required for hurricane relief or major disasters. Like New Orleans would have been fine if the state had kept out of the way and let the millionaires in their helicopters and luxury motor boats pick everyone up.

Boulevardier

Just look at the jobs that are being created under neoliberalism. People are having to work longer and harder than before, while their union rights have been eroded. During all this time, the super-rich are raking it in, even though there is no evidence whatever that the tax breaks of the Dubya era have created a single decent job.

The long hours, insecurity and low pay of modern jobs represent the immiseration which Marx warned about. Globalisation has given it room to expand by creting Dickensian job environments in poorer countries, but now that process is stalling.

Obama is right to expose the lies and machinations of the super-rich and their tea-party poodles, but unfortunately his fightback has been pathetically weak. However, if he can unite a broad coalition of workers behind a programme of stimulus, fair taxation, better healthcare for all and more to spend on public schools, he can wipe out the tea party. Lets hope he succeeds.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

meditraitor

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I seen something along the lines of what he is saying
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/08/26/ron-paul-trashes-fema-just-hours-before-hurricane-irene-makes-landfall/

Just hours before Hurricane Irene is scheduled to reach the East Coast, Ron Paul decided it was appropriate to trash the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

While speaking in New Hampshire, Paul stated that no national response to the hurricane is needed, even though Irene threatens approximately 65 million people.

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul FEMA today, just hours before Hurricane Irene is scheduled to make landfall in the U.S. Approximately 65 million people are in the storm’s projected path. “A state can decide,” Paul said. “We don’t need somebody in Washington.”

He went on to cite the deadly hurricane of 1900 that leveled Galveston, Texas and killed more than 6,000 people as an example of a better life before FEMA. “I live on the gulf coast, we deal with hurricanes all the time,” said Paul. “The local people rebuild the city. Built a sea wall and they survived without FEMA. We should be like 1900, we should be like 1940 1950 1960,” Paul said. He argued they only make a “great contribution to deficit financing.”

These comments are really irresponsible at a time when millions of people are in the path of a hurricane which comes after a rare earthquake strikes the same region. People need to know that their government can take action if need be. But Paul apparently thinks that people should be left on their own if disaster and tragedy strikes

No national response is needed but a response on a local level,

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/08/26/7488430-ron-paul-no-fema-response-necessary

GILFORD, N.H. -- After a lunch speech today, Ron Paul slammed the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, and said that no national response to Hurricane Irene is necessary.
"We should be like 1900; we should be like 1940, 1950, 1960," Paul said. "I live on the Gulf Coast; we deal with hurricanes all the time. Galveston is in my district.

I know the republicans "want to take their country back" didn't think they meant to the 1900's. Galveston was one of the worst natural disasters in US history.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Boulevardier

permabear, the left slammed FEMA after the Katrina Fiasco because under Dubya they were good for nothing and did nothing.

If you live in a "nation" and fellow members of your "nation" are victims of a natural disaster, then there is ipso facto a case for a "national" response.