Slashdot Mirror

Yeah, about that: Paul Krugman on his work for Enron.

He's advised a lot of other people too. Point being that if you think he was bought off (for a measly $37K, which given that he's probably a millionaire is basically chump change), you're probably wrong. He's also explicitly mentioned his work whenever he's written about it.

Back in the 18th century, when mercantilism and beggar-thy-neighbor were debunked. Of course, not everyone got the memo.

Have a read: http://www.pkarchive.org/trade/MythCompetitiveness.html

Except that's wrong.

If we have to do that as a private business, what makes government any different?

The fact that it's a government.
See the "Paradox of Thrift" and here generally.

I don't agree with all the bailouts that have been done lately, but there are two points here. First, these bailouts are necessary because the markets were insufficiently regulated. They got out of control, and as a result burned not only the bad people, but the good ones too. The bailing-out of Wall Street was (at some level) necessary, even if it was horrifically poorly structured, because otherwise the further spread of the collapse would have crushed your business, just like everyone else's. Google "counterparty risk" sometime.

We can't run a government based exactly on the Constitution for the same reason we can't build all computers off the model of a 1965 IBM mainframe spec -- government, as a technology, has evolved way beyond where it was 250 years ago. And mostly for the better (though manifestly not for the perfect).

I'm sure none of his accomplishments or extensive experience as an economist or his proven track record of being "ideologically colorblind" have anything to do with the fact that his ideas on what investment in sustainable energy and efficiency should perhaps be listened to by the general public. Besides, as Amory Lovins says in his TED talk, one could conceivably add almost every major tech company in America let alone the world to the list of organizations recognizing that investment in efficiency has green results in more ways than one. The Nobel Prize in Economics, like the science Prizes, is also significantly more impressive than the Peace Prizes which Gore and Obama won. There are a number of other economists that advocate aggressive investment in efficiency and sustainable energy as one of the surest bets America has to reassert its economic dominance over the world as the BRIC countries continue to grow their economies and political muster in the world, Krugman is simply one of the more widely known and read of these.

The impending demise of social security has been greatly exaggerated. I will refer you to another article by Paul Krugman. When that article was written, the very conservative estimates of the Social Security Administration had the trust fund running out in 2042.

That's not what he said back in 1996

1. It has been proven over and over again that reduced tax rates equal greater tax revenue. Less shackles equals more work.

Krugman's politics are far from well defined, his views on most social issues are unstated and thus unknown. He does comment on economic issues, and to an increasing extent what he views as the mendacity of the Bush administration but there are plenty of self defined right wingers who have criticized Bush's actions too.

Krugman is frequently cited as a candidate for a Nobel Prize in economics and as such is pretty much an orthodox economist. Thus Krugman's unsurprising opposition to corn subsidies, as any orthodox economist he opposes trade distorting subsidies at all times and in all places and naturally would oppose the corn subsidy. The fact that it's on the front page of the news now notwithstanding. He's probably too pro-free trade for much of the traditional left wing, he also is more opposed to deficit spending, and has a more nuanced view of school voucher programs than a typical US left winger. In short, despite his reputation in the media Krugman's social political stance is unknown and his economic position is mostly orthodox (ie. centered not left or right wing) and driven by data analysis not opinon.

As for the Cato Foundation it is a serious policy think tank forming positions based on data, unlike the AEI which has sold whatever reputation it had as a center for serious thought for the benefits of cheerleading for the administration and its allies. Although the Cato Foundation has a charter allying it with a partisan libertarian bias its publications largely are well reasoned and well researched. Since the problems with subsidies have been known to economists of all stripes for at least a century now it's unsurprising that Cato Institute fellows also take the orthodox position with respect to a corn subsidy.

In summary, it's not surprising that Krugman and some Cato Institute fellows agree that corn subsidies should be abolished. What's depressing is anyone would consider an article about this worthy of anymore consideration than one finding polar bears and emperor penguins agree about preferring cold weather in spite of living near opposite poles.

I don't know diddly about SarbOx but I know that Enron didn't get in trouble by getting all the cash *first* and then providing services. They did the opposite, http://www.pkarchive.org/column/062802.html, the signed a contract, made an assumption about margins in their favor and booked year & years of revenue in that one quarter. If Apple want to take the cash flow now, *and* recognize the revenue now, the only problem is matching associated cost. But it seems like the service is already developed and there are no R&D expenses to amortize, just the rollout.
I'd be suspicious that this is a red-herring from Apple.

Very well said.

Most of the opponents of off-shoring seem to subscribe to the lump of labor fallacy (yes, that's shrill liberal Paul Krugman). Jobs are not in fixed supply because a job is not an object or an item, but a transaction. Quick proof that giving a job to somebody doesn't destroy a job from somebody else? The fact that our unemployment rate did not permanently increase when women entered the labor force.

Learned that example from the "Contemporary Economic Issues" lecture by Tim Taylor, available from The Teaching Company (one of many reasons I was inspired to switch from embedded software engineering and now am currently pursuing a Master's in econ). So far, I've found that software engineering is comparatively simple and straightforward when compared to most social sciences. After all, people are much more unpredictable and harder to explain than machines, and this whole thread seems to be a result of commenters here forgetting that.

And how about another example that strikes closer to home. The unemployment rate also did not increase permanently when computers were invented. After all, computers (and the software that runs on them) have allowed firms to get much greater productivity from fewer workers. Indeed, much more than productivity gains from off-shoring (which runs into communication issues). So maybe we should destroy all the computers and give everybody in the world more jobs!

...the America I grew up in -- the America of the 1950's and 1960's -- was a middle-class society, both in reality and in feel. The vast income and wealth inequalities of the Gilded Age had disappeared. ... But that was long ago. The middle-class America of my youth was another country. We are now living in a new Gilded Age, as extravagant as the original.

Paul Krugman, "For Richer"

You must be trolling. The labor force does not need "one more able body", it already has more than it can absorb.

Sorry, he's right. You've fallen for the lump of labor fallacy.

What will happen to millions of people who -only- are qualified to move boxes and count bills?

They should gain other skills. What happened to secretaries who were only qualified to use typewriters? Give them welfare if they need it, but don't hold back technology to keep them in make-work jobs.

Between State tax, Federal tax, Social Secirity tax, Town tax, Property tax, and sales tax I pay something like 45 - 50% of my income in tax

Unless you're quite wealthy, no, you don't.

That's a false bromide from the "starve-the-beasters" who want to eliminate social programs and government regulation.. A typical middle income household pays about 15% in federal taxes; combined with state and local taxes about 25-30% total.

(I'm all for lower taxes, once we've cut spending. Start with cutting the expenses of running an empire rather than a country, and the costs of locking people up for consenual acts. We can eliminate social and regulatory spending just as soon as we stop the government policies and actions that make such governors on capitalism necessary - eliminate corporate charters, reserve banking, absentee ownership of land and resources...)

I thought this to be a perfectly appropriate time, considering we're talking about this exact type of media issue.

But we're not - the hijacker statistic is about the past. It's about what has already happened. The draft statistic is about something that might happen, in the future. Which is not the past, and has not happened yet, and so by definition there can be disagreement about. People being suspicious of Bush's motives is not the same as being ignorant of the perpetrators of the worst terrorist attack on the US mainland.

I'm just going to ignore your challenge about the media saying the attackers were Iraqi, since that's completely not what I said. You're right, many sources did make clear how many of the attackers were Saudis. If I were to argue about why the confusion happened, I would say that those facts were underpromoted, and Bush/Cheney made a lot of implications of connection, and people filled in the gaps with what they wanted to believe.

But I'm not responsible for stating why that confusion happened. It did, and it's pretty clear that it did.

The "Dick Cheney gutting the military" involves the post-cold war draw down when he was secretary of defense. If you're confused, you aren't alone - the republicans blame Clinton for that cutback. Oh, and there was some number fudging on those recruitment goals, which also required lowering standards.

I know you'll think this is a GOP soundbite, but it's the truth: we were already in recession before Bush even took office. Every economist agrees; it was plain as day.

Really! I did not know that the National Bureau of Economic Research was not made up of economists! I guess that means Paul Krugman is not an economist, but Newt Gingrich is.

If you want me to spend my time replying to you, you're going to have to do a better job on your end. Particularly if you're taking the side of Newt Gingrich, who is far more responsible for the recession than Clinton.

The prime cause of giant budget deficits is a plunge in the federal government's tax take, which fell from 20.9 percent of G.D.P. in fiscal 2000 to a projected 15.7 percent this year, the lowest share since 1950. About 45 percent of this plunge can be attributed to the Bush tax cuts. The rest reflects the end of the stock market bubble, the still-depressed economy and -- probably -- growing tax sheltering and evasion.

(Note: much of the reason the economy is taking so long to recover is, obviously, the war in Iraq, and the fact that Bush's tax cuts were back-loaded, having most of their effect in the years to come, not in the three years we just lived through.)

And you simply have no idea what you're talking about re "massively increased spending." Go look up what the annual increases in discretionary spending were under Clinton and under Bush. Even Cato calls it "The Republican Spending Explosion."

Almost all economists agree....

You lost me from the start.

Perhaps we do not read the same economics journals, but perhaps you have heard of Paul Krugman and J. K. Gailbraith?

I'm not saying "almost all economists" lightly. Surveys show that over 90% of economists favor free trade, and few see any distinction between offshore outsourcing and other international trade.

I don't know what J. K. Galbraith has said about outsourcing.

Reunite Church and State? Maybe the government should give funding to churches. Do you think they also fund mosques?

Your link contradicts your argument ... we find the Federal Government (ever mindful of the constitutional separation of church and state ;-) has addressed the issue (the DEVIL is in the details ;-):

Partnering with the Federal Government: Some Do's and Don'ts for Faith-Based Organizations

If I cannot take government money to support religious activity, how do I separate our religious activities from our Federally-funded social service program? link

Money Quote:A faith-based organization should take steps to ensure that its inherently religious activities, such as religious worship, instruction, or proselytization, are separate - in time or location - from the government-funded services that it offers. link

BTW, the term "faith based" would appear to include "mosques." Any evidence that it does not?

Tax breaks that only benefit the rich? Here's what Paul Krugman had to say on the subject.

Ah Yes ... noted Enron Advisor Paul Krugman ... there is now a large number of Krugman readers - The Krugman Truth Squad who have a knack for catching Krugman making inaccurate and often false statements regarding the economy.

Krugman's work has become very sloppy as of late ... too busy writing ... too lazy to research his arguments or check his data. More Krugman errors can be found here with links to supporting DotGov data ... scroll down to "New York Times"

More to follow ...

Reunite Church and State? Maybe the government should give funding to churches. Do you think they also fund mosques?

Your link contradicts your argument ... we find the Federal Government (ever mindful of the constitutional separation of church and state ;-) has addressed the issue (the DEVIL is in the details ;-):

Partnering with the Federal Government: Some Do's and Don'ts for Faith-Based Organizations

If I cannot take government money to support religious activity, how do I separate our religious activities from our Federally-funded social service program? link

Money Quote:A faith-based organization should take steps to ensure that its inherently religious activities, such as religious worship, instruction, or proselytization, are separate - in time or location - from the government-funded services that it offers. link

BTW, the term "faith based" would appear to include "mosques." Any evidence that it does not?

Tax breaks that only benefit the rich? Here's what Paul Krugman had to say on the subject.

Ah Yes ... noted Enron Advisor Paul Krugman ... there is now a large number of Krugman readers - The Krugman Truth Squad who have a knack for catching Krugman making inaccurate and often false statements regarding the economy.

Krugman's work has become very sloppy as of late ... too busy writing ... too lazy to research his arguments or check his data. More Krugman errors can be found here with links to supporting DotGov data ... scroll down to "New York Times"

More to follow ...

Reunite Church and State?
Maybe the government should give funding to churches. Do you think they also fund mosques ?

Hold citizens with[out] trial or bail?
Hmm, even the CATO Institute seems to think this is a bad idea.

Nation building without proper cause?
Well, the US gives lots of money to Israel. As for Iraq and Afghanistan: you call that building?!?!

Tax breaks that only benefit the rich?
Here's what Paul Krugman had to say on the subject.

Dismantle the EPA and let Corporations write Enviro Laws?
It's called the "Clear Skies Initiative", probably because it clearly pollutes the sky. There's also Cheney's Energy Task force, but I can't give you supporting evidence because it is being withheld, even from the Government Accounting Office.

Create a Police State where you can spy on cizitens with impunity?
We're reading about this right now.

Kensian economics has been on the decline for decades. The truth is massive government hurts the economy. This is because the excessive government spending perverts the free market and prevents investment in new ideas. It does this by taking money away from would-be investors and dedicating it to bone headed, woefully inadequate social programs.

Going to Mars and taming space is the only way forward for humanity as a whole.

Humanity as a whole has problems a lot more serious and significant than finding new sources for iron oxide and colonizing a planet that lacks a breathable atmosphere. We'd be much better off, for example, pushing hard to find ways to make sure that the atmosphere of the planet we currently inhabit remains breathable.

Despite the fact that more than half of Earth is covered in water, we're currently unable to provide enough clean water for our population to drink.

Good news! We now have the technology to manipulate the climate of an entire planet! Bad news: we can only move it in one direction.

Future space travellers will be happy to learn that Earth can produce more food than its population requires, but they may be dismayed to realize that we haven't yet figured out how to distribute it to the Earthlings that need it, let alone a Martian colony.

Would humanity as a whole be better off sending a man to do a robot's work on Mars, or spending an additional $20 billion on reducing AIDS, TB, SARS, etc?

Would Americans be better off sending a man to Mars, or spending money to provide drugs for those that need them, and getting those who abuse drugs to stop?

Honestly, I think space exploration is a great thing, and something to which we should aspire. Spending a few $billion to do it makes sense. And yeah, it'd be a really, really cool thing to be able to visit Mars in person, even if 6 billion of us have to do it vicariously through a lucky two or three astronauts. But if you think that this is the most important thing we should be doing, or even that it's just very important, I think you should take a long look at the world around you.

Let me tell you what's really going on with this proposal. Through a series of tax cuts and spending increases, the current administration is doggedly pursuing a "starve the beast" strategy that will ultimately require a huge decrease in the size of the federal government, and a corresponding increase in the power of the states. Which, essentially, is what Republicans have been trying to accomplish for years. The more money the Bush administration commits us to spending over the next decade or two, the greater the pressure to reduce spending in other areas such as Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, education, and social services. And the cherry on top is that Bush gets to announce popular new spending programs to dupes like you who'll eat it up.

So yeah, by all means write to your representatives. But first think long and hard about what you want to tell them.

Enough water for the troops? Too expensive

As the other poster stated, it's a difference of emphasis.

This piece by Paul Krugman, presents another view of the power crisis.

As I understood it, the deregulation bill was passed under the earlier Republican government, if this is true, then your comment about the liberal government not being able to let go, should apply to the conservatives as well.

Interestingly one can test these two competing views. One observation is that the highest prices hit not during summer when power usage is highest, but during a cooler period. The market manipulation theory is fine with this observation, as it predicts that the crisis was caused by power companies cutting supply rather than trying to meet demand. How would you explain this observation?

> if you don't, you wind up doing nothing at all.

Thanks for providing me a reason to keep trying to educate. It may be pathetic and pitiful, but not everyone can hope to be great.

> by shoving document after document of propaganda, doctrine and philosiphy

What is wrong with that? You can't dismiss arguments by classifying them as propaganda or doctrine. One has to read, understand, and then prove them wrong. Your failure to do that can be interpreted in many ways: reading incompetence, unwillingness to face intellectual challenge are some of them.

> you are an extremist

I read from Paul Krugman that it isfunny, isn't it, how "balance" becomes a goal in itself?. Also from him, sometimes you have to be extremist to be truthful. Because being at some extreme or at the middle has nothing to do with being right or wrong, but with not agreeing with the current climate of opinion. Where extremism is unseemingly is when the extreme is pursued as an end in itself: that's what I call "opositionism", or opposing something just because it's unfashionable to be in accordance.

> The extremes to which you would want to go with free software is unatainable at best, and at worst, absolute insanity.

Please prove them so.

> I have not experienced this evilness of corporate which does not allow me to get my work done.

I don't know what's your field, but in the database industry is bad enough that people are bashing the only fundamentally sound approach to the field because they don't realise it was never attempted, instead Big Corp pushes SQL which is brain-damaged. If you don't have database education I won't ever be able to tell you how bad this is, neither in bad faith nor in consequences.

But even outside of IT, haven't you heard about the railroad tycoons, or the military industrial complex, or Enron, or the California energy crisis, or Microsoft? I can't provide you with every piece of reading that's good for your education, but for a starter you could read some Paul Krugman or some Bill Parish. But this is just the tip of the iceberg, much more can be said at the deeper cultural, even philosophical level. Then you will have to do deeper reading, from Plato & St Augustine to Francis A Schaeffer & Rookmaaker, along with their contradictors.

> philosophy means nothing without fact and proof

Well, show me where my own philosophy is lacking. I don't doubt it has lackings, as I am young enough and even elders aren't perfect, being human. But you never cared to disprove it.

> I have yet to come across a person who uses only free software and who's life has dramaticaly improved because of it.

That's show you are missing the whole point. Free software isn't pragmatical in the first place, even if we hope it will be eventually. It's idealistic. It's building a new future, with all the sacrifices that entails.

> it is a rare enough instance just to come across someone who uses all free software period.

Yes, and I've given you the reasons: unreasonable forking (because there is such a thing as reasonable forking too) and time wasted reverse engineering file formats, protocols & APIs which should be documented in the first place.

Anyway, free software is not about being popular -- not yet. We do know it's not yet fit for general consumption, and therefore we are far enough from World Domination(TM).

> When you show me the proof of corporate evil and rule. When you show me the proof of GNU Nirvana, then I will consider your position. But sending me link after link of propaganda is nothing more than that. Propaganda.

Now spare me the junk. These last phrases in your comment are just that, junk. If you can't do your reading and understand your own time and its signs, even yet don't ever go around calling names and putting words in other people's mouths.