But I know some of us like to keep up with the other side's speaking points.
krugman has the insight of stalin, marx and engles.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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
"Yet in the 1950s incomes in the top bracket faced a marginal tax rate of 91, thats 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...
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?
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.
Hey, Krugster, your gay supporters onboard with this idea of going Back to the 50’s?
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.
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??
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.
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.
He’s another example of why the Nobel Prize means very little.
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.