Metal Reviews

Wish I had the energy to fully respond to this, but advocating differing policies in 2002 and today isn't flip-flopping...what's best for the economy depends on the situation, and obviously today is a much different situation from ten years ago.

I clicked the first 3 links and they all had holes in the economic logic--I'll just go at the first one, which talks about Krugman's supposed flip-flop on deficits. In 2002, he argued against tax cuts because it could cause a deficit of $3 trillion. Now, he's arguing for more government spending and not worrying about the deficit. Problems with this:

1. Difference in deficit between $3 trillion and $1.8 trillion. $1.8 trillion is conceivably sustainable, $3 trillion not so much

2. When the economy is in the tank, stimulus (government spending) is much more important than worrying about a sustainable deficit--whence, a different economic situation between when the two articles were written

3. Interest rates won't go up in an economy like this. In fact, they're as low as possible...so you don't have to worry about the deficit in that regard

Plus, there's the simple rule that economic policy CHANGES. It changes depending on the situation of the economy, with the latest economic literature, etc. It's not reasonable to expect an economist to be 100% consistent over the course of a 10 year period.

1.8 trillion is "concievably sustainable", while 3 trillion is "not so much"? It's only a 1.2 trillion difference.

Come on, man. Neither is conceivably sustainable. I'd actually have some repsect for the guy (even if I disagree with his poltics) if he was consistent. When you are in the trillions range, where lines get really blurred, economic theories don't just shift 180 degrees, or even shift much at all.
All I am asking for is a little honesty here.
I undersatnd he is a cult figure to you guys (must be those peepers), but the fact is his economic policy changes according to which party is in the white house. Coincidence? I doubt it. I guess we'll have to wait and see what his economic policy is when the next neo-con gets the WH.
My guess it will not be in accordance with that administrations policy.
Make all the excuses you want, but his partisanship is glaringly obvious.

Interesting.
Just goes to show that anybody that still thinks there is a difference between the "two" parties other than which special interest groups they have been bought by is being played for a fool.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t28ZR8eC1-w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAQcZsDzWgk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQSe9lml7bo

h/t to steve.

Will check those clips out after I cash my check. So what do you all think of Obama's new third stimulus for job creation?

It's obviously genius.



Seriously, it is nothing more than expanding government, which of course, will cost us quite a lot (I don't have the exact figure they claim to need for the starup, but I recall it being substantial), and of course is focused (as far as I can tell) mainly, if not exclusively, on public (gov) jobs.

One termer.

I was watching the news at work today, and historically it follows that when employment is this low- no president since FDR has been elected with that low of a turnout for employment. Of course, the nine percent is bullshit, once you break it down into the categories of youth unemployment, minority unemployment, and the 99ers which put the tally at 20% or so. Things are still really bad and he has done nothing to limit regulations, rein in on the mega corporations, or penalize the banks for fucking us over.

You're right; he's the blame everyone else campaigner in chief.

I mean you have to suck real real bad to oudo W in ineptitude.

Seriously, Ron Paul for the win.

Agreed.

/thread.

I'll be very very surprised if he does, though.
The state of politics in this country is extremely depressing.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/44370439

The LGBT community is widely known for being racist at times. Incredibly problematic. I'm not surprised. Gay people aren't working class leftists for the most part. Upper-middle class yuppies, despite being gay and marginalized, fall into marginalizing other groups quite easily it seems.

Over here, LGBT people are racist by necessity, seeing as how they are sure to be harassed and assaulted when walking in muslim or african areas of our cities. It just happened in June, actually, two gays were walking down a street near the center of Brussels and one was assaulted for no reason other than being gay. I'm conservative too and LGBTs are usually not the type of people I like to have around, but physical violence? Sheesh, fucking medieval retards.

This is interesting on many levels

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Feds-sue- ... 97747.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14774533



Holy shit.

Holy shit indeed.

But WE sold him weapons (or we at least tried, I don't know the details). Nobody can beat that. Sarkozy even let him pitch a tent (haha) on the Elysée gardens:



And what, 4 years later, Sarkozy decides to beat the crap out of him. I can't wait for next year's elections.

http://www.truth-out.org/goodbye-all-re ... 1314907779



Sounds like V.

"Socialism in respect to its means. Socialism is the visionary younger brother of an almost decrepit despotism, whose heir it wants to be. Thus its efforts are reactionary in the deepest sense. For it desires a wealth of executive power, as only despotism had it; indeed, it outdoes everything in the past by striving for the downright destruction of the individual, which it sees as an unjustified luxury of nature, and which it intends to improve into an expedient organ of the community. Socialism crops up in the vicinity of all excessive displays of power because of its relation to it, like the typical old socialist Plato, at the court of the Sicilian tyrant; it desires (and in certain circumstances furthers) the Caesarean power state of this century, because, as we said, it would like to be its heir. But even this inheritance would not suffice for its purposes; it needs the most submissive subjugation of all citizens to the absolute state, the like of which has never existed. And since it cannot even count any longer on the old religious piety towards the state, having rather always to work to eliminate piety (because it works on the elimination of all existing states), it can only hope to exist here and there for short periods of time by means of the most extreme terrorism. Therefore, it secretly prepares for reigns of terror, and drives the word "justice" like a nail into the heads of the semieducated masses, to rob them completely of their reason (after this reason has already suffered a great deal from its semieducation), and to give them a good conscience for the evil game that they are supposed to play. Socialism can serve as a rather brutal and forceful way to teach the danger of all accumulation of state power, and to that extent instill one with distrust of the state itself. When its rough voice chimes in with the battle cry "As much state as possible," it will at first make the cry noisier than ever; but soon the opposite cry will be heard with strength the greater: "As little state as possible."

Friedrich Nietzsche-All too Human, Page, 473.

It's fairly easy to see where thinkers like Ayn Rand and Grover Norquist received their ideas from. I think that assessment is probably one of the best quotes I found in my little trove of his books on the subject. Coercive equality the debasement of the individual for their supposed 'good', the man was on to something.

Ummm, first, Ayn Rand is a hack who does a horrible reading of Nietzsche distilled through Adam Smith-like bollocks.

Second, I don't think Nietzsche read Marx. However, those who have read Marx would know that Marx was not only the best critic of capitalism, probably to this day, he was a solid critic of the socialism of his time whether it be Stirner, Proudhon or religious folk drawing from Saint-Simon. And I think Marx wouldn't be against making very similar claims to that.