Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Twinkie Manifesto
The New York Times ^ | November 18, 2012 | PAUL KRUGMAN

Posted on 11/19/2012 8:23:34 AM PST by LucianOfSamasota

The Twinkie, it turns out, was introduced way back in 1930. In our memories, however, the iconic snack will forever be identified with the 1950s, when Hostess popularized the brand by sponsoring “The Howdy Doody Show.” And the demise of Hostess has unleashed a wave of baby boomer nostalgia for a seemingly more innocent time.

Needless to say, it wasn’t really innocent. But the ’50s — the Twinkie Era — do offer lessons that remain relevant in the 21st century. Above all, the success of the postwar American economy demonstrates that, contrary to today’s conservative orthodoxy, you can have prosperity without demeaning workers and coddling the rich.

Consider the question of tax rates on the wealthy. The modern American right, and much of the alleged center, is obsessed with the notion that low tax rates at the top are essential to growth. Remember that Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, charged with producing a plan to curb deficits, nonetheless somehow ended up listing “lower tax rates” as a “guiding principle.”

Yet in the 1950s incomes in the top bracket faced a marginal tax rate of 91, that’s right, 91 percent, while taxes on corporate profits were twice as large, relative to national income, as in recent years. The best estimates suggest that circa 1960 the top 0.01 percent of Americans paid an effective federal tax rate of more than 70 percent, twice what they pay today.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: krugman
I apologize in advance for posting Krugman.

But I know some of us like to keep up with the other side's speaking points.

1 posted on 11/19/2012 8:23:37 AM PST by LucianOfSamasota
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LucianOfSamasota

krugman has the insight of stalin, marx and engles.

LLS


2 posted on 11/19/2012 8:25:59 AM PST by LibLieSlayer (I AM JOHN GALT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucianOfSamasota

apolgies accepted.


3 posted on 11/19/2012 8:26:38 AM PST by Perdogg (Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA4) for President 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucianOfSamasota

What a bunch of bung from Krugman. Add todays global economy, cheap labor in China, India and elsewhere and technological advances that make it possible for companies to utilize cheap labor overseas, we don’t have the same market.

Do we want job opportunities in the US or just to tear down the rich by making US companies uncompetitive so all the libs can feel better that life is more fair.

Note to all rich and mildly successful people....start living frugally so you can squirrel away what cash and assets you have now. It’s going to get a heck of a lot worse before it gets better.


4 posted on 11/19/2012 8:26:49 AM PST by No Socialist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucianOfSamasota

Some of the comments below his article are spot on. Back in the 1950s, companies, capital and individuals that were overtaxed had nowhere to go and so they stayed in the U.S. and paid higher penalties. Today, they can leave and leave they will.


5 posted on 11/19/2012 8:28:41 AM PST by gotribe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucianOfSamasota
This is really too easy to answer. In the 1950's the state state of communications and the shipping industry dictated domestic production. Thus the government could levy rediculous taxes and get away with it.

Today, manufacturers have options! Thus, the U.S. should be competitive for manufacturing jobs.

And Krugman bills himself as an economist when he is nothing more than a propaganda shill for the left-wing.

6 posted on 11/19/2012 8:30:35 AM PST by the_Watchman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucianOfSamasota
Above all, the success of the postwar American economy demonstrates that, contrary to today’s conservative orthodoxy, you can have prosperity without demeaning workers and coddling the rich.

What? Like Hostess in 2012? Hostess has been in bankruptcy trying to survive for several years. They have been held hostage by Unions and government regulations as their market has shrunk. How does that have anything to do with prosperity, demeaning workers or coddling the rich? SQUIRL!!!!

Consider the question of tax rates on the wealthy. The modern American right, and much of the alleged center, is obsessed with the notion that low tax rates at the top are essential to growth. Remember that Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, charged with producing a plan to curb deficits, nonetheless somehow ended up listing “lower tax rates” as a “guiding principle.”

Paul, ever hear of the Laffer Curve? Well, you can't simply include the income tax anymore when you figure tax rates. You know why? Because the tax code thingy has so many tentacles and embedded taxes that rob folks of expendable income, that you can't even tell what the masses are paying as a percentage. Liberal economists in Berkley have cited that the PODR (point of diminishing returns) on the Laffer Curver is about 33% (at the consumer level).

Let's see Krugman put together a piece using this same approach and logic for the failure of all these green energy companies.

7 posted on 11/19/2012 8:35:10 AM PST by Tenacious 1 (The Click-&-Paste Media exists & works in Utopia, riding unicorns & sniffing pixy dust.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucianOfSamasota

“I apologize in advance for posting Krugman”

I missed the barf alert?

Oh gross, who gave the M0ron Krugman a job?

The glorious unions paved the way for Toyota to come here, and all the electronics manufacturers to move over seas or close.

Textiles and furniture producers followed soon after.

Covet Thy Neighbors’ stuff!
Caddis the Elder


8 posted on 11/19/2012 8:36:00 AM PST by palmerizedCaddis (No one paid 91% you d00fus, there were a bazillion loopholes and deductions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucianOfSamasota

"Yet in the 1950s incomes in the top bracket faced a marginal tax rate of 91, that’s right, 91 percent, while taxes on corporate profits were twice as large, relative to national income, as in recent years. The best estimates suggest that circa 1960 the top 0.01 percent of Americans paid an effective federal tax rate of more than 70 percent, twice what they pay today."

Psst... somebody should tell the economic reactionary, Mr. Krugman, that it's not 1950 anymore, and we kinda, sorta have immense competition from countries like China and India that we didn't have before...

9 posted on 11/19/2012 8:37:26 AM PST by Qbert ("The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry" - William F. Buckley, Jr.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucianOfSamasota
I'm sure there are lots of answers to what Krugman said in the small, but there's one big question that I think Krugman needs to face in the large.

If that all worked so well in the 1950s, why did we go away from it?

Could it be because something changed that made the model unworkable?

10 posted on 11/19/2012 8:38:09 AM PST by ArGee (Reality - what a concept.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucianOfSamasota

In the 50s the USA was benefitting from being the only developed country not destroyed by the war. Also, while the tax rares were “hat high, no one paid that because of loopholes in the tax laws. Those conditions don’t exist today.


11 posted on 11/19/2012 8:42:22 AM PST by Vince Ferrer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucianOfSamasota

Hey, Krugster, your gay supporters onboard with this idea of going Back to the 50’s?


12 posted on 11/19/2012 8:45:10 AM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucianOfSamasota

Economist William Hauser’s (Hauser’s law)study has shown that federal tax revenues since World War II have always been approximately 19.5% of GDP, regardless of the highest marginal tax rate. Higher marginal tax rates on the wealthy will not lead to higher tax revenues as the GDP will shrink accordingly. Krugman should also note that an economic boom was started in the 1960s when JFK lowered all marginal tax rates including those paid by the richest Americans.


13 posted on 11/19/2012 8:50:41 AM PST by The Great RJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucianOfSamasota

demeaning workers?.... you mean like those people sitting outside a shuttered factory holding signs while waiting for new owner to give them their job back?

coddling the rich??

Solyndra? Stimulus? Have you read about those $35,000 a plate fundraisers the Democrats hold? Were those poor people??


14 posted on 11/19/2012 8:51:38 AM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucianOfSamasota

Hostess Shrugged.


15 posted on 11/19/2012 8:56:28 AM PST by OB1kNOb (On November 6th freedom was given the death penalty in America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucianOfSamasota
I notice Herr Krugman didn't mention the “smokestack” industries that were running full tilt, the cheap energy prices, or the fact that we had no competition from either Europe or Asia.
16 posted on 11/19/2012 8:58:40 AM PST by Rashputin (Jesus Christ doesn't evacuate His troops, He leads them to victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucianOfSamasota

One of the better comments on his article:

Krugman’s nostalga for the 1950’s is amusing and feeble in it’s comparisons.

In the 1950s, women moved back into the home to make way for men returning from war. African American poverty was far more intense than today. Factory jobs for men with a high school diploma were plentiful because America was the world’s only manufacturing colossus - Europe and Japan were digging out of the rubble and lining up to purchase American durable goods.

In the 1950’s, twenty Americans worked for every one recipient of social security. Many unions didn’t admit black members. There were not 12 million illegal immigrants forcing wages for the working poor ever lower, as there are today. There were no women or minorities at Paul Krugman’s Princeton.

And higher tax rates were NOT a cause of prosperity for working class people - available jobs were!

In the 1950s, the baby boomers were NOT retiring. America didn’t have national debt overtaking GDP. Half the population was not receiving government checks. Medicare was not soaking up the nation’s prosperity on its path to insolvency. States like Illinois and California were not burdened with hundreds of billions in unfunded pension liabilities. There weren’t laws and agencies like OSHA, or living wages laws, or mandatory overtime, Cobra - all of which minimize the need for private sector unions today.

Paul Krugman’s knowledge of history is as feeble and his application of economics. He is an leftist idealogue. Nothing more.


17 posted on 11/19/2012 9:00:20 AM PST by crusadersoldier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucianOfSamasota
Libtards keep saying that higher taxes and strong unions were the cause of economic growth. How do they know? The actual causes of economic growth are:

1) increases in innovation
2) anticipation of changes in demand by businessmen
3) increasing technological advances
4) increasing productivity of labor
5) increasing capital accumulation
6) increasing supply of capital goods
7) increasing efficiency of production
8) increasing amount of savings and investment
9) increased ability to cut costs of production by businessmen
10) increased velocity of spending
11) increase in the money supply
12) increase in aggregate demand.
These are the factors that were working to cause a high rate of economic growth between 1947 and 1975. Having to pay high taxes is an assault on saving and investment and slows down economic growth. So, between 1947 and 1975, if taxes had been lower, economic growth would have been even greater than it was.

18 posted on 11/19/2012 9:04:12 AM PST by mjp ((pro-{God, reality, reason, egoism, individualism, natural rights, limited government, capitalism}))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucianOfSamasota

He’s another example of why the Nobel Prize means very little.


19 posted on 11/19/2012 9:12:25 AM PST by elhombrelibre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vince Ferrer

You have pointed out an oft-overlooked fact about being the only developed country with an economy not devastated by WW2. I’m always surprised by those who proclaim themselves as being the superior intelligence due to their worldview but can’t connect to basic history. Krugman is a prime suspect in this fallacy, IMO.


20 posted on 11/19/2012 9:18:02 AM PST by T-Bird45 (It feels like the seventies, and it shouldn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: elhombrelibre
He’s another example of why the Nobel Prize means very little.

If you want another reason, read the work that got him his noble prize and then read his articles.

His work in favor of free trade and analysis got him the award, but for the last decade or so, he has essentially been bashing it (and indirectly, his own work).

I.E. He has indirectly renounced that which gave him credibility (not that it matters, the left ignores the fact that the guy is a former enron economist).

21 posted on 11/19/2012 9:19:21 AM PST by Sonny M ("oderint dum metuant")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

dont forget western europe and Japan were still devastated by war


22 posted on 11/19/2012 9:27:32 AM PST by hecht (restore Hetch-Hetchy, and screw San Francisco and Pelosi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: LucianOfSamasota

23 posted on 11/19/2012 9:33:17 AM PST by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucianOfSamasota

The patently sophomoric tripe “Dr” Krugman aside, just go take a look at the comments on that assrag!

It is a disgustingly putrid rehash of the most inane and foolish comments not born of ANY experience in the matter or in its history. Urbane, articulate idiots more interested in kissing this poofter’s ass than making sense.

I’ll tell you what, the next time NYC gets bashed, nuked, disastered, etc. you won’t find me crying one bit. It doesn’t exist for me.


24 posted on 11/19/2012 9:37:44 AM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucianOfSamasota

If 91% is good, then 100% would be better.

Krugman is such a douchebag.


25 posted on 11/19/2012 9:51:51 AM PST by Astronaut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Great RJ
Economist William Hauser’s (Hauser’s law)study has shown that federal tax revenues since World War II have always been approximately 19.5% of GDP, regardless of the highest marginal tax rate.

The inmplications of Hauser's Law are bunk. There is over a 1% GDP difference between tax cut years and tax hike years (graph from this article) in collected federal revenue. That is a huge number in dollars. It would be an even larger difference if you factored out the Reagan payroll tax increases from the tax cut years.

Higher marginal tax rates on the wealthy will not lead to higher tax revenues as the GDP will shrink accordingly.

Except that GDP has been lowering as marginal income tax rates get lower and conversely historically higher GDP growth eras have typically also been higher marginal income tax rate areas (see this CRS report).

26 posted on 11/19/2012 10:05:10 AM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: OB1kNOb
Hostess Shrugged.

lol

27 posted on 11/19/2012 10:07:15 AM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

Krugman is a GENIUS!

If Obama had doubled the U.S. corporate tax rate, then Hostess would never have had to go bankrupt!

And tripling the corporate taxes on Hostess, etc would have increased Hostess profits tremendously!

Genius, sheer genius!

And in the same logic, raise income taxes on the poor from the current nothing to 90 percent and they will all be rich!

Wow! Brilliant thinking (for the incurably insane).


28 posted on 11/19/2012 10:17:38 AM PST by OldArmy52 (The question is not whether Obama ever lies, but whether he ever tells the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: OldArmy52

bump


29 posted on 11/19/2012 10:18:55 AM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: LucianOfSamasota

I propose an Idiot Tax. Using a rate of 50 % on every failed liberal idea, I propose to wipe out our current National Debt and extablish a 6 trillion dollar surplus within the first 48 hours of my new tax’s implementation.


30 posted on 11/19/2012 10:19:48 AM PST by SCHROLL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucianOfSamasota

31 posted on 11/19/2012 10:23:58 AM PST by SparkyBass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucianOfSamasota

http://asspos.blogspot.com/2012/11/a-labor-victory-over-hostess.html

A Labor Victory Over Hostess


32 posted on 11/19/2012 10:25:45 AM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: No Socialist
Krugman et al believe that US tax policy in the 50s and 60s created the post-war boom in America. They seem to forget that the war caused the post-war boom. When your major industrial competitors have been bombed to rubble competition is pretty easy.

Tokyo after the firebombing. Essen, the heart of German heavy industry.

33 posted on 11/19/2012 10:37:01 AM PST by Straight Vermonter (Posting from deep behind the Maple Curtain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: LucianOfSamasota

If the 50s were so great, then why did Kennedy propose a massive cut in tax rates?

If high marginal tax rates worked so well, then why did Jimmy Carter fail and Ronald Reagan succeed?

Idiot.


34 posted on 11/19/2012 11:10:22 AM PST by TJ Jackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucianOfSamasota

Krugman’s ideas are very much like twinkies; spongy fluff empty of any nutritional value and inscrutably durable.


35 posted on 11/19/2012 12:16:53 PM PST by outofsalt ("If History teaches us anything it's that history rarely teaches us anything")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucianOfSamasota
While Krugman was reminiscing with pleasure over the high taxes in the 1950s, I sensed a bit of irony in that liberals usually love to say, "It's 2012, not 1950," when it comes to moral issues. However, Krugman threw this in, ensuring he made clear his opposition to the morals of the 1950s:

There are, let’s face it, some people in our political life who pine for the days when minorities and women knew their place, gays stayed firmly in the closet and congressmen asked, “Are you now or have you ever been?” The rest of us, however, are very glad those days are gone. We are, morally, a much better nation than we were. Oh, and the food has improved a lot, too.

Hahahahahaha! Morally better?

There are 1.3 million unborn children aborted a year. The group that does the bulk of these is funded by taxpayer dollars, and they teach a graphic sex ed program to kids in schools. Forty percent of the children in this country are born out of wedlock. Some put the divorce rate as high as 50%. People want to redefine marriage, adopt children to gay couples, and teach the gay lifestyle to kids in schools. America has a multibillion dollar porn industry. America has a growing STD rate. The advent of computer and phone technology has enabled more hookups, adultery, and easy access to porn than ever before. Reality TV is filled with desperate, attention seeking people who are getting paid to act a fool. The Billboard charts are full of songs with foul language, sex, disrespect of women, etc. Even scripted movies and TV is filled is filled with cheap sex jokes, foul langauge, and violence because it's easier for the writers to do that than write an intelligent script, and the masses lap it up. We campaign against bullying, but yet we hear about suicides of bullied kids frequently. Adding to that, go on the internet, say something the oh so tolerant left disagrees with, and you'll see how against bullying they are. God is being continually kicked out of the public square. People are ridiculed for conservative Christian beliefs. Conservative Muslims get know heat for being conservative, though, even though they are much more conservative. Secular humanism and moral relativity are the religion of the masses. Now churches are being forced to fund birth control against their beliefs.

Things are getting better? Maybe to Krugman this is progress, and things are getting better, and that's just sad.

36 posted on 11/19/2012 1:49:30 PM PST by Pinkbell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

41% illegitimate birth rate.
53% among mothers under 30.
Was 4% when I was growing up.

$750,000,000,000 Federal to support these illegitimate ‘families’.
Another $250,000,000,000 from the states.

We could almost balance the Federal budget if we simply returned to the 1950’s method of getting married BEFORE we pop out children, and then supporting the children in a two parent family.

But, there I go with my hate speech again!


37 posted on 11/19/2012 2:00:41 PM PST by LucianOfSamasota (Tanstaafl - its not just for breakfast anymore...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: LucianOfSamasota

Bump


38 posted on 11/19/2012 6:26:40 PM PST by Incorrigible (If I lead, follow me; If I pause, push me; If I retreat, kill me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucianOfSamasota
"Yet in the 1950s incomes in the top bracket faced a marginal tax rate of 91, that’s right, 91 percent, while taxes on corporate profits were twice as large, relative to national income, as in recent years."

Reaction from someone in the 1% earning bracket like Krugman

See Will Smith’s Shocked Reaction to France’s Proposed 75% Tax Rate…After Just Advocating for Higher Taxes in U.S. , May 15, 2012
39 posted on 11/19/2012 9:42:35 PM PST by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sonny M

James Taranto frequently reminds his readers that Krugman was on the Enron payroll.


40 posted on 11/20/2012 12:02:41 PM PST by elhombrelibre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson