How About Krugman's Words for 9/11/11?

#101
#101
volinbham said:
Relatively speaking yes - Krugman's opportunity to cash in is considerably smaller of course but he sure is milking it for everything it's worth.

The larger point is that there is no evidence that Bush, Guiliani, et al "raced" to take advantage of the situation any more than any other leader takes advantage of any other situation. As a result, the underlying "truth" presented by Krugman here is akin to saying water is wet. Krugman has packaged this truth as a cynical attack on people he's at odds with ideologically and cares not that he's completely diverting attention from a national tragedy.

So, relatively speaking I think Krugman is the one racing to exploit a tragedy.
Click to expand...


One Percent Doctrine by Ron Suskind
State of Denial by Bob Woodward

Highly recommend, great reads.

Within a month of 9/11 the Bush Administration was drawing up a strategy to sell an Iraq war.

How that is equal to anything Krugman or any other hack political pundit was capable of is beyond me.
 
#103
#103
Anyone who believes we had to invade Afghanistan to get OBL obviously can't read a newspaper. I don't know how anyone might not have thought it would be more difficult to locate someone in a war zone. Ignore the fact that he was killed in Pakistan, he was killed by a crack team acting on good intelligence, going in and out, without occupying a foreign country. Imagine that.

Iraq has never threatened us. Iraq could not threaten us with imaginary WMDs. Iraq will never threaten us. That was an utter waste.

Yes, Bush, et al used 911 for all it was worth to expand leviathan as far as they could.

The captain of the Titanic wasn't a hero. Being in charge when something bad happens doesn't make you a hero. Responding to the loss of 3000 lives and several billion dollars of property by killing 10s if not 100s of thousands, throwing away `4000 more american lives and 1.5 trillion dollars, is the act of a child throwing a temper tantrum. It is not the actions of rational adults, much less heroes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#104
#104
Without putting the pressure on Al Qaeda and OBL in Afghanistan, we would have been in no position to gain the intelligence that led to his death. Yes, crack teams are a great way to go after these guys. We've used it a lot. To do that, we need a base for those operations and need to have sufficient control to allow for the necessary operational freedom. Those came as a direct result of our push against the Taliban (and Al Qaeda) in Afghanistan.
 
#105
#105
I may be mistaken...but I'm pretty sure Byzantium wasn't invaded unprovoked. Years of hatred/warring between Roman Empire and Turks, Pontics, Persians, etc.
 
#106
#106
BigPapaVol said:
I don't think it's likely. What I know for sure is that it's anything but a foregone conclusion.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...

I don't know....opposing cheap foreign labor is just like opposing machinery, IMO. The Ghandi approach. How'd that work out for India? You don't pay machines, yet when they replace workers America gets wealthier. Very strange.

How come employment was so great after the inception of NAFTA?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9csCerjfdE&feature=channel_video_title[/youtube]
 
#108
#108
KiffinKiller said:
First Penn and Teller...and now Drew Carey? Who's next?
Click to expand...

It's Drew Carey on ReasonTV. The Reason Foundation is actually very reputable (founded in 1968). Drew Carey is a major donor and they often ask him to be a guest personality. You've probably seen Reason correspondents all over the major news networks, Bill Maher, etc.
 
#109
#109
nbakerld said:
Maybe you could be more specific about the latter 2. Who invaded them, unprovoked? I know little to nothing about the Byzantine empire, so maybe you could elaborate on that as well.

Greece? You mean the empire that conquered the world? Yeah they don't qualify because they didn't "keep to themselves".
Click to expand...

must have missed that whole persian invasion...........
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#111
#111
OrangeEmpire said:
must have missed that whole persian invasion...........
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

No, I didn't. Greece had an expansive foreign policy (hence they don't qualify). They spread themselves thin by growing their empire and devaluing their currency. This is where America is headed. Expanding their empire and putting a target on themselves did not make Greece safer. Why do we think it makes us safer?
 
#112
#112
nbakerld said:
Hmmm...

I don't know....opposing cheap foreign labor is just like opposing machinery, IMO. The Ghandi approach. How'd that work out for India? You don't pay machines, yet when they replace workers America gets wealthier. Very strange.

How come employment was so great after the inception of NAFTA?
Click to expand...

you don't really think NAFTA drove the employment boom that quickly? Please tell me that you know better. However, a quick look at employment data now says that it has been a boon to Mexico and Canada while a negative impact for USA.

I don't oppose cheap foreign labor, but I don't blindly follow the "wealth" argument for free trade. A market like ours is simply different than those in the models and it does require some level of protection or we'll see a drop in wealth.
 
#113
#113
nbakerld said:
No, I didn't. Greece had an expansive foreign policy. They spread themselves thin by growing their empire and devaluing their currency. This is where America is headed. Expanding their empire and putting a target on themselves did not make Greece safer. Why do we think it makes us safer?
Click to expand...

greece after the persians or before?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#114
#114
BigPapaVol said:
you don't really think NAFTA drove the employment boom that quickly? Please tell me that you know better. However, a quick look at employment data now says that it has been a boon to Mexico and Canada while a negative impact for USA.

I don't oppose cheap foreign labor, but I don't blindly follow the "wealth" argument for free trade. A market like ours is simply different than those in the models and it does require some level of protection or we'll see a drop in wealth.
Click to expand...

Can you support this statement? It appears you are simply looking at employment trends and attributing them to NAFTA.

Is there a country in the history of mankind that got poorer by opening up free trade? You were an econ major, right? You don't accept the theory of competitive advantage? It's the most basic theory of economics and it says you're wrong.
 
#116
#116
nbakerld said:
Can you support this statement? It appears you are simply looking at employment trends and attributing them to NAFTA.

Is there a country in the history of mankind that got poorer by opening up free trade? You were an econ major, right? You don't accept the theory of competitive advantage? It's the most basic theory of economics and it says you're wrong.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not just looking at employment trends. I'm looking at income levels as well. Of course they're attributable to NAFTA, otherwise, all Mexican stats would look like a dumpster fire.

Americans have been made poorer by opening up free trade, period.

No, I wasn't an econ major. Yes, I fully well understand competitive advantage in a vacuum. It also assumes no other factors exist, which is absurd.
 
#117
#117
You're mostly on the money with China though. They were constantly invaded by barbarians. The 'Central Kingdom' way of thinking was pretty isolationist - but this didn't stop mongolian, manchu, viet tribes from invading. This is a very general look at it though.
 
#118
#118
KiffinKiller said:
You're mostly on the money with China though. They were constantly invaded by barbarians. The 'Central Kingdom' way of thinking was pretty isolationist - but this didn't stop mongolian, manchu, viet tribes from invading. This is a very general look at it though.
Click to expand...

Was China the world power at the time?
 
#120
#120
BigPapaVol said:
No, I'm not just looking at employment trends. I'm looking at income levels as well. Of course they're attributable to NAFTA, otherwise, all Mexican stats would look like a dumpster fire.

Americans have been made poorer by opening up free trade, period.

No, I wasn't an econ major. Yes, I fully well understand competitive advantage in a vacuum. It also assumes no other factors exist, which is absurd.
Click to expand...

You say this as fact, but you can't substantiate it. Theory does not support it. If you are going to protect us from foreign competition, it's the same principle as protecting us from technology, or supporting minimum wage, etc. It's a way to artificially make us feel wealthier while reducing standard of living. Concentrating benefits and diffusing costs does not make us wealthier.
 
#121
#121
TennTradition said:
Without putting the pressure on Al Qaeda and OBL in Afghanistan, we would have been in no position to gain the intelligence that led to his death. Yes, crack teams are a great way to go after these guys. We've used it a lot. To do that, we need a base for those operations and need to have sufficient control to allow for the necessary operational freedom. Those came as a direct result of our push against the Taliban (and Al Qaeda) in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

Is that pure conjecture or do you have anything to back it up?
 
#122
#122
RespectTradition said:
Is that pure conjecture or do you have anything to back it up?
Click to expand...

How effective do you think we would have been in spotting OBL's courier and following him to OBL via humint if OBL were living in an unfriendly Afghanistan where we had no operational freedom?

In addition, the CIA targeters were moved to FOBs like Khost for a reason. Proximity to targets and working relationships with special forces on the ground. Putting pressure on the enemy and securing staging areas as well as the requisite operational freedom were all parts of taking the fight to Afghanistan.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#123
#123
BigPapaVol said:
No, I'm not just looking at employment trends. I'm looking at income levels as well. Of course they're attributable to NAFTA, otherwise, all Mexican stats would look like a dumpster fire.

Americans have been made poorer by opening up free trade, period.

No, I wasn't an econ major. Yes, I fully well understand competitive advantage in a vacuum. It also assumes no other factors exist, which is absurd.
Click to expand...

I always hesitate to cite Wikipedia for an obvious reason - it's often wrong. In this case it presents a fairly balanced argument. NAFTA's effect on United States employment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
On a net net basis, we probably did lose jobs to Mexico. Canada is a different case. It is a relatively low populated country with huge natural resources and a relatively educated and homogeneous (I believe our diversity is costing us these days. We're carrying an awful lot of dead wood). I believe its economy does relatively well with or without NAFTA and it too might have lost jobs to Mexico.
 
#124
#124
Redstater said:
I always hesitate to cite Wikipedia for an obvious reason - it's often wrong. In this case it presents a fairly balanced argument. NAFTA's effect on United States employment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
On a net net basis, we probably did lose jobs to Mexico. Canada is a different case. It is a relatively low populated country with huge natural resources and a relatively educated and homogeneous (I believe our diversity is costing us these days. We're carrying an awful lot of dead wood). I believe its economy does relatively well with or without NAFTA and it too might have lost jobs to Mexico.
Click to expand...

Most sources are. If you compare wikipedia entries with traditional encyclopedias, it's just as accurate. The stuff that tends to be inaccurate are things like what you and I might post on there about Rod Wilks.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top