The Republican party is not conservative at all, it is radical, revolutionary and fascist.

I am a conservative. I balance my checkbook and believe that the Constitution including the Bill of Rights is - for lack of a better term - a holy document.

This government was formed by a coup d'etat led by the "strict constructionist" supreme court and has violated every principle of conservatism. It has spent like a flock of drunken sailors while shoving cash at the rich and the corporations while also systematically undermining democracy at every turn and treating the Bill of Rights as if it were a quaint and irrelevant relic.

This government treats legislation, passed by both houses of congress and signed into law as merely advisory.

And what pompous gasbag has been there cheerleading from day one? George Will, of course. I think we can safely disregard anything he has to say on the subject.

Posted at June 1, 2007 10:01 PM in response to Fisking George F. Will's "Case for Conservatism"

Thanks, Mr Krugman for being our "voice crying out in the wilderness." So much of the media is wrapped up in enabling an orthodoxy that is geared solely to propaganda for the corporatists it's nice to see the occasional dose of reality you provide.

As I'm sure you know, you are pretty much a rock star in this crowd and I think I can safely say that I speak for the vast majority here when I express the hope that we see more of you. Keep up the good work!

Posted at May 30, 2007 8:43 PM in response to Heterodox Errors

Wouldn't be the first time.

Posted at May 30, 2007 5:00 AM in response to A (Strong) Response to Tyler Cowen

Friedman (as I'm sure you're aware) has been deconstructed in other forums far better than I can do it here. I expressed an opinion based on many years of listening to his evangelistic advocacy of one hare-brained wingnut idea after another. Obviously you, his many disciples and the Nobel committee (which is deeply enamored of hare-brained wingnut ideas) disagree. It's a free country - sorta.

Posted at May 30, 2007 12:13 AM in response to A (Strong) Response to Tyler Cowen

I'm way over my head here and I know it. I am a great admirer of JK Galbraith Sr, read several of his books and caught several (all?)of his "Firing Line" debates; never knowingly missed an opportunity to hear him speak. A real high point for me was carrying his suitcase one time when I was a bellman. I have met a few great men in one capacity or another; I considered Mr Galbraith among them.

Having said that, I'm gonna say this. Milton Friedman was a wacko. He, the Chicago school, the Laffer curve, the Nobel committee,and creation scientists are just about equivalent in my opinion. It doesn't matter how learned or complex the arguments for what your father used to call "horse and sparrow economics" (feed enough oats to the horse and plenty will pass through for the sparrow) the basic premise is invalid. It didn't work in China, it didn't work in Latin America and that's not what made us prosperous. Trickle up works. The richer the lower classes are, the richer the nation. That is the fact. I don't care how rigorous the mathematics demonstrating the incapacity of a bumblebee to fly, I saw one this morning.

The corporations and moneyed class pay very well for the research they want to hear, what a surprise that it comes out the way it does.

I believe in science, but I can name several occasions in which I followed the scientific heresy that no self-respecting scientist would consider; twenty years later my uneducated opinion turned out to be right.

Examples? The "steady state universe" "cataclysmic evolution" warm blooded dinosaurs, humans in America much earlier than 10,000 years ago - and from Europe.

Orthodox scientists like to claim a Joe Friday "Just the facts, ma'am," approach, but in one field after another politics plays it's part and economics is anything but the exception.

On one side there will always be learned neo-fascist ideologues (because that will always be where the money is) and on the other no nonsense cut-through-the-BS men like JK Galbraith.

Posted at May 29, 2007 10:55 PM in response to A (Strong) Response to Tyler Cowen

As I said in the previous thread, I profit from credit card use. I get 5% back on gas and groceries and 2% back on everything else. Since I don't do anything to incur the fees and pay the bill in full every month, I've never paid any interest or any fees. Period.

I get dozens of offers in my mailbox every month, I'm considering one now that is offering me $100 the first time I use the card. I like "free money."

Not being entirely stupid, I'm fully aware that these offers are similar to the casino that offers some free chips or the crack dealer that offers the first hit for free. They know that the first taste isn't enough for many people; a goodly percentage will become addicts and be very profitable.

I would support legislation mandating a cash discount (by businesses that take credit cards) and happily go back to paying cash. I understand that the credit card companies (counter intuitively) call people like me "deadbeats" - not what the word meant when I was growing up.

So why all the generous offers to a "deadbeat" like me? I'm reminded of the time I was out hiking in the hills around Austin and I noticed that vultures (buzzards) kept circling overhead. Suddenly I realized: "They're hoping I'll die!"

The card companies don't want me to die, of course - unless they can stick my widow with the bills. They just want me to get into trouble and rack up a lot of debt so they can soak me with exorbitant interest rates and insane fees.

I have that emergency fund Bonnie (good advice, BTW) so I hope they can hold their breath a long long time. On second thought, maybe I don't.

I seriously hate that the prudent ("Neither a lender or a borrower be.") shopper who insists on the most prudent course - paying cash - gets the shaft in this insane "best government money can buy" society. It is past time for a change.

Posted at May 29, 2007 6:33 PM in response to Credit Card Fees: Where are the Free-Market People?

In the 60s VW sales took off like skyrockets while Detroit was pushing muscle cars. One foreign automaker after another made inroads into the American market while Detroit insisted on forcing gas guzzlers down our throats.

There is a reason for this. The major oil companies hold large ownership stakes in American automakers and want to push their product.

It is well documented that the automakers bought up and destroyed trolley systems nationwide; more recently there was the otherwise inexplicable decision to confiscate and grind into little pieces every plug in electric vehicle they had been forced to produce in California at the first opportunity.

I drive a Toyota. It's 11 years old and had over 100,000 miles on it when I got it. Gets decent mileage and runs like a top. Most American cars would have been junk by now. Looks like my Camry is good for at least another 100,000. I'll probably trade it though, for something more fuel efficient. Guess what brand name I'll trade for.

Toyota sells a plug-in hybrid in Japan. I'd be interested to know why they won't sell it here.

Posted at May 29, 2007 5:45 PM in response to Toyota: We don't want to gloat

We're cool ;o D

Posted at May 27, 2007 7:50 PM in response to Rewards Cards Only Reward the Credit Industry

Great! I meant it sincerely when I said I hoped that it worked out for you. Obviously you don't have your head in the sand - you have thought it through and are willing to accept some disadvantage for a principled stand.

I have no idea what deposit at home or USAA are.

It's obvious that you and I have no argument about the pitfalls of credit cards. I liked living "off the grid" and thought long and hard before I applied for that first one. I knew I would be sacrificing privacy and that it's a nearly irrevocable step. (Even if you cancel cards, the companies will still send you checks that amount to signature loans - and they won't stop. If there is a way to make em stop short of intentionally messing up your credit, I haven't heard of it.) It means being more subject to identity theft and that an errant spouse can run up huge debt that you become responsible for.

More and more these days the noose is tightening around people like you are (and I was). You disadvantage yourself in many ways by refusing to participate. I respect that decision, but it simply isn't available to everybody. My point was that there are ways to use the cards to your advantage if you have em. Responsible people don't have to get caught in the "easy credit" trap and if you feel compelled to play in the game, there are ways to "win" at it.

The big winners obviously are the card companies. I would dearly love to return to sanity and see financial prudence appropriately rewarded and I would love to slide back "off the grid" just as a matter of principle. I just don't see that happening anytime soon.

I'm still POed about that 1 rating - I think you are a bit defensive. I understand that and appreciate what was otherwise a reasonable and thoughtful discussion.

Posted at May 26, 2007 8:58 PM in response to Rewards Cards Only Reward the Credit Industry

History tells us that revolutionary change is always initiated and led by dissatisfied members of the middle and upper classes. Our own revolution is a classic example. The signers of the Declaration of Independence were hardly the disadvantaged poor.

I agree you have a right to express an opinion; I have the right to point out that it is counterproductive and appallingly ignorant.

Posted at May 26, 2007 7:48 PM in response to Wanna Save $6 Billion at the Pump?