More or less what Mises (and his students) argued decades before Krugman, without perpetrating the broken window fallacy, justifying all sorts of intervention and giving a misleading view on the Great Depression. I guess the best one could say is that he got a prize for something he's actually good at and correct on.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Niccolò: John Ess: I think calling Keynesianism and New Deal-type crap "regressive" is pretty spot on -- if it isn't then I don't know what is. I mean it's old stuff, been proven bunk over and over again, has diminished in credibility, and will not yield market anarchism in any possible way, either. Quit being a contrarian. I love how you spend so much energy saying that Austrian anarchists on this site are vulgar and worthless because of one misstep in your opinion (though maybe that's correct). Then Someone like Krugman comes along who has one or two good ideas among a large body of extremely harmful policy suggestions that won't lead anyone near any form of anarchism but to massive growth in the state... and Krugman becomes a "top economist." First, that's because they claim to be representing something that they're actually damaging. Paul Krugman does not do this, he's pretty open about his statism. Second, he is a top economist. Third, quit calling everything you don't like socialism. Are brussel sprouts socialism now too?
John Ess: I think calling Keynesianism and New Deal-type crap "regressive" is pretty spot on -- if it isn't then I don't know what is. I mean it's old stuff, been proven bunk over and over again, has diminished in credibility, and will not yield market anarchism in any possible way, either. Quit being a contrarian. I love how you spend so much energy saying that Austrian anarchists on this site are vulgar and worthless because of one misstep in your opinion (though maybe that's correct). Then Someone like Krugman comes along who has one or two good ideas among a large body of extremely harmful policy suggestions that won't lead anyone near any form of anarchism but to massive growth in the state... and Krugman becomes a "top economist."
I think calling Keynesianism and New Deal-type crap "regressive" is pretty spot on -- if it isn't then I don't know what is. I mean it's old stuff, been proven bunk over and over again, has diminished in credibility, and will not yield market anarchism in any possible way, either.
Quit being a contrarian. I love how you spend so much energy saying that Austrian anarchists on this site are vulgar and worthless because of one misstep in your opinion (though maybe that's correct). Then Someone like Krugman comes along who has one or two good ideas among a large body of extremely harmful policy suggestions that won't lead anyone near any form of anarchism but to massive growth in the state... and Krugman becomes a "top economist."
First, that's because they claim to be representing something that they're actually damaging. Paul Krugman does not do this, he's pretty open about his statism.
Second, he is a top economist.
Third, quit calling everything you don't like socialism. Are brussel sprouts socialism now too?
First, how is hidden statism more or less damaging to anarchism than open statism? Is the problem with statism that it is not more overt and unapologetic? Do you think it would possible to convince Paul Krugman to become an anarchist or anything near? You are damaging anarchism, in my opinion, because you accept contradiction knowingly... which provides no reason why anyone shouldn't accept the contradictions of say Hans-Hermann Hoppe and immigration. Or Milton Friedman and monetarism. Maybe you need to get with Ayn Rand and check your premises.
Second, by an arbitrary standard of popularity he is a "top economist." Do you read all 1,000 of those economists? What is your assessment of #2 Robert Barro's work on the IMF... or #1 Soren Johansen's work on asymptotic variance of cointegrated vector autoregression models?
Third, I never said socialism anywhere in my post.
Byzantine: Niccolò:just that he was a good economist with an actual ability to analyze economics - as opposed to just going on the same soap box for political economy. LOL! That's ALL Krugman does. Writes a column in the NYT every week. Same Keynesian crap, over and over.
Niccolò:just that he was a good economist with an actual ability to analyze economics - as opposed to just going on the same soap box for political economy.
LOL! That's ALL Krugman does. Writes a column in the NYT every week. Same Keynesian crap, over and over.
And unfortunately his Nobel Prize for trade theory will be used as validation of his heavily partisan popular media rantings. Do you really think he has contributed anything to helping the average person have a better understanding of economics, even Keynesian economics? Seems to me all he has done is give certain people a few facts and figures to throw out to sound educated when justifying government intervention in our lives.
Krugman's theory on trade is actually spot on. It's sad that people here put blind faith in everything published by the Austrian school. Some of his other stuff is crap, but the same can be said of Rothbard.
Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice; Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality.
Yes. He's demonstrated why countries like Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and even the United States benefited from limited/regulated economic trade, while neo-liberal experiments have been total catastrophes for domestic production.
I've not seen many people here put blind faith into anything, so that argument rings kind of hollow with me.
EDUCATION AND HEALTHCARE
No country can be free if its people are "ignorants" and not taken care of.
ocialism is a policy which in the early 1900's failed miserably in many countries, and which is failing miserably today. Advocating socialism, as Krugman does, would therefore be his attempt at regressing us to what other countries have already tried to do unsuccessfully.
That's right out of the mirror's glare. Many of the policies and actions associated with the New Deal/ "socialism" (American definition) empowered economies and living standards. Until the state conceded some help to laborers, corporations were notoriously authoritarian: they spied on employees, forced them to abandon their heritage, handed out corporal punishment, and made terrible deals. The law, combined with worker activities, effectively killed this type of business organization. Sadly, Ayn Rand would have decried the actions of these desperate men and women, since they broke property and held sit-ins.
The New Deal was not a failure. Indeed some of the most horrific consequences of the 20th century have been deregulation and privatization.
GeneCosta: Yes. He's demonstrated why countries like Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and even the United States benefited from limited/regulated economic trade, while neo-liberal experiments have been total catastrophes for domestic production.
Well obviously states that engage in mercantilism benefit from mercantilism, otherwise why would they bother? The point is that the people who pay the higher taxes to fund mercantilism never benefit from it.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Nice cop out. Accordingly, all states are "mercantilist" due to this forum's weird infatuation with the word capitalism (and sometimes these mercantilist states are socialist at the same time! Let's just morph two contradictory words we don't like). Don't attack the guy if he's just showing the reality of NOW, and not some future society held true by a very, very small population. Anarchists don't register on the radar, and anarcho-capitalists aren't even presentable to most social and individualist anarchists. I think Krugman not factoring such high variables is acceptable.
GeneCosta: Nice cop out. Accordingly, all states are "mercantilist" due to this forum's weird infatuation with the word capitalism (and sometimes these mercantilist states are socialist at the same time! Let's just morph two contradictory words we don't like). Don't attack the guy if he's just showing the reality of NOW, and not some future society held true by a very, very small population. Anarchists don't register on the radar, and anarcho-capitalists aren't even presentable to most social and individualist anarchists. I think Krugman not factoring such high variables is acceptable.
I take it from this that you agree with me?
GeneCosta: That's right out of the mirror's glare. Many of the policies and actions associated with the New Deal/ "socialism" (American definition) empowered economies and living standards. Until the state conceded some help to laborers, corporations were notoriously authoritarian: they spied on employees, forced them to abandon their heritage, handed out corporal punishment, and made terrible deals. The law, combined with worker activities, effectively killed this type of business organization. Sadly, Ayn Rand would have decried the actions of these desperate men and women, since they broke property and held sit-ins. The New Deal was not a failure. Indeed some of the most horrific consequences of the 20th century have been deregulation and privatization.
That's pretty much the definition of only looking at the seen and ignoring the unseen.
Corporations could legally use violence against their workers so the solution is to give the workers the legal right to use violence right back?
While I appreciate the input from our commie brethren please try to keep the appeals to emotion to a minimum. Oh, and the outright unsupported assertions as well.
Now if you have even the smallest bit of proof to support your arguments I'm all ears...
Communist? Perhaps next time before jumping on the accusation bandwagon, you should check your own premises. I don't object to the idea of anarcho-communism, but it seems strange to (wrongly) assume as much. Seeing that the state has sometimes outperformed the authoritarian capitalist market does not quantify as being communist these days, I hope!
Your second sentence is even more peculiar. Are you comparing violence against someone's property to violence against someone? Mostly de jure property, no less.
Eric Foner has some good works on the labor movement and implications of economic policy in the 20th century towards boss-employee relationships.
I don't know how I should respond to that answer. I'm not exactly sure what you believe is proper 'capitalism,' but if it follows what most here have supported, I don't see the difference between these "mercantilist states" and your "landlord."
I can agree that his theory may not be applicable to a truly free society.
GeneCosta: I don't know how I should respond to that answer. I'm not exactly sure what you believe is proper 'capitalism,' but if it follows what most here have supported, I don't see the difference between these "mercantilist states" and your "landlord." I can agree that his theory may not be applicable to a truly free society.
Well, a mercantilist state taxes stuff I need to buy from abroad and gives the money to producers who make stuff I don't need locally.
I freely pay a landlord my money in exchange for the production of land.
I'd rather look at what got him the prize.
Was it the applied mathematics behind his model? Then I'm okay with it. Was it based on the assumption that the model won't change (no free market)? I'm okay again. Let's not bash Krugman, as free market is quite unachievable, altough desirable, at the moment.
What I don't agree with is calling this mess a free market, as in the New Trade Theory (NTT). Okay, bash this semi-free market and less-than-free society, but don't call it free market. But if you compare NTT with a free market, you'll see that tariffs would simply be competitive premiums that wouldn't pose problems for trade.
One other useless thing is that stuff about stable exchange rates and currency crises [1]. Again, please don't call this a free market, it's a lie.
[1] http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2008/sci.html
I was more or less referencing the word state, not the adjective. Sorry. Should have been more clear. A state is defined as "a political association with effective sovereignty over a geographic area and representing a population" according to Wikipedia. Landlords - as regularly defended - fit this discription.
Stranger: GeneCosta: I don't know how I should respond to that answer. I'm not exactly sure what you believe is proper 'capitalism,' but if it follows what most here have supported, I don't see the difference between these "mercantilist states" and your "landlord." I can agree that his theory may not be applicable to a truly free society. Well, a mercantilist state taxes stuff I need to buy from abroad and gives the money to producers who make stuff I don't need locally. I freely pay a landlord my money in exchange for the production of land.
How is it not the "free market?" We could argue that the corporations are not a product of a free market, but their operations are pretty much without restraint.
GeneCosta:I was more or less referencing the word state, not the adjective. Sorry. Should have been more clear. A state is defined as "a political association with effective sovereignty over a geographic area and representing a population" according to Wikipedia. Landlords - as regularly defended - fit this discription.
No they don't. They are not an association, do not have sovereignty, and do not represent a population.
GeneCosta: How is it not the "free market?" We could argue that the corporations are not a product of a free market, but their operations are pretty much without restraint.
The definition of a free market is an exchange between two parties undertaken by free will of both parties and without coercion.
I don't know much about Krugman, but I have read his opinion articles. So I'll only judge those instead. If his reasoning is as flawed on his views that we need a central planning system to decide how economic transactions should work, then how can I as a non-versed (or barely versed) person in (general understanding) economics trust him on his more academic (and/or analytical) works? I'm not going to just write off the guy, but I am going to be skeptical of his supposed greatness.
The reason why I found Hayek's work amazing compared to a guy like Krugman isn't that I agreed with Hayek, but rather how much of Hayek's work applied to my studies in AI theory and the theories found in computer science; particularly spontaneous order. I can't seem to find any of Krugman's work being significant in a cross-disciplinary fashion as Hayek's by comparison. So, yes, imho, Hayek is a 'better' man than Krugman as Godel is a 'better' man than Pascal in many respects (in his case for his Incompleteness Theorem). It doesn't mean that Krugman or Pascal are idiots, but it does mean they're not the among the 'pantheon' of the greats. At least from a subjective context.
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
Free markets require complete and utter freedom in exchange of privately owned goods. Certainly not central banks. Definitely not compulsory health insurance. No SEC. No state courts. No state subsidies and so on. Simply saying we have a "free market" because some corporation is unhindered in its activities is imprecise and wrong. All one is entitled to say is a certain corporation is free to act whilst others are not.
GeneCosta:Communist? Perhaps next time before jumping on the accusation bandwagon, you should check your own premises. I don't object to the idea of anarcho-communism, but it seems strange to (wrongly) assume as much.
Just a shot in the dark after your last appearance here defending the violent commies at the RNC.
And the whole 'Freedom without Socialism...'
Feel free to substitute 'commie' with whatever neo-marxist school you follow since I just use it as a blanket term like your usage of 'capitalist'.
GeneCosta:Seeing that the state has sometimes outperformed the authoritarian capitalist market does not quantify as being communist these days, I hope!
Proof?
Or more unsupported assertions?
GeneCosta:Your second sentence is even more peculiar. Are you comparing violence against someone's property to violence against someone? Mostly de jure property, no less.
Is it even called violence when committed against property.
I was actually refering to the labor movement's use of legal violence against anyone who dared to cross their picket lines. Or anyone who dared to try to work for a company where they claimed a monopoly right on 'bargaining'.
GeneCosta:Eric Foner has some good works on the labor movement and implications of economic policy in the 20th century towards boss-employee relationships.
I looked at his website;
That war [of Northern Aggression] and the Reconstruction era that followed witnessed the [Republican] party's greatest accomplishments: emancipation of the slaves, passage of the first national civil rights legislation, adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment--which became the main constitutional safeguard of individual rights--and granting black men the right to vote in an effort to create a functioning interracial democracy in the South.
Quite the opponent of Big Central Government it would seem.
Didn't see anything about 20th century labor movements, though. Maybe a history of the "bomb throwing anarchists" is what you were referring to?
OK, I want you all to look me into the face and say "Nobel Prizes are awarded because of an individual capabilities, not political factors" without laughing. Let's see... Rowland and Molina got their medals for supporting the DuPont-sponsored... sorry, that one slipped out, I mean the ozone-saving ban on Freon, while Kissinger and Arafat got theirs for being such shining beacons of friendship among people. And let's not forget good old Al Gore and his IPCC chums.
Ooops, perhaps I said too much!
Byzantine: Niccolò:If more people understood the benefits of international relations, less wars would take place, more prosperity would be delivered to the poor, and we could finally move closer to a single world where liberty and fraternity were the only common principles What's the weather where you live? Is it an oxygen-breathing planet? The world is more internationalized now than ever. Consequently, it is less free a world than ever. Please count me out of your efforts to rebuild the Tower of Babel.
Niccolò:If more people understood the benefits of international relations, less wars would take place, more prosperity would be delivered to the poor, and we could finally move closer to a single world where liberty and fraternity were the only common principles
What's the weather where you live? Is it an oxygen-breathing planet?
The world is more internationalized now than ever. Consequently, it is less free a world than ever. Please count me out of your efforts to rebuild the Tower of Babel.
Thank you, Pat Buchanan.
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
John Ess: First, how is hidden statism more or less damaging to anarchism than open statism?
First, how is hidden statism more or less damaging to anarchism than open statism?
Quite simple really, and Sun Tzu did a great job of explaining it.
Deception is the greatest tool to use to defeat a cause. Hidden statists are deceptive, open statists, on the other hand, at least show you where they're coming from.
John Ess: Is the problem with statism that it is not more overt and unapologetic? Do you think it would possible to convince Paul Krugman to become an anarchist or anything near?
Is the problem with statism that it is not more overt and unapologetic? Do you think it would possible to convince Paul Krugman to become an anarchist or anything near?
No, that's the only blessing of it - or them, I should say.
And no, I don't believe that, but what I do believe is that it is better to take the best from each individual and use that as opposed to throwing the baby out with the bath water when the baby is still usable. The fact is that people take what Paul Krugman says seriously. Using him on his correct points is profitable and collecting from many different sources is impressive - you'd know this if you went to college and wrote a thesis.
John Ess: You are damaging anarchism, in my opinion, because you accept contradiction knowingly...
You are damaging anarchism, in my opinion, because you accept contradiction knowingly...
I'm not accepting contradiction. I'm accepting that Paul Krugman is a fine choice for the Nobel prize. This is a position that other reasonable Anarchists agree with - like Bryan Caplan. The man is an economist; he developed and popularized a new way of thinking for economists with international trade. This is something that is noteworthy and deserves praise. I would say it was a better choice if they, say, chose Roger Garrison for his work in capital macro-economics, but they probably won't - at least not for a while.
See, I, unlike most people here, think it's important to mix with others and use impressive sources to impress. Using the same website - mises.org - over and over again isn't impressive - it's partisan.
John Ess: which provides no reason why anyone shouldn't accept the contradictions of say Hans-Hermann Hoppe and immigration. Or Milton Friedman and monetarism. Maybe you need to get with Ayn Rand and check your premises.
which provides no reason why anyone shouldn't accept the contradictions of say Hans-Hermann Hoppe and immigration. Or Milton Friedman and monetarism. Maybe you need to get with Ayn Rand and check your premises.
No, people should accept the good things that Hans-Hermann Hoppe or Milton Friedman contributes and scorn the bad. You seem to believe that the Nobel prize is for best economist and not best contribution by economists. Krugman was recognized for his work on international trade, not his NYT articles. Have you ever even read one of Krugman's books?
I bet not. You obviously got the summary on Mises.org. Or maybe worse, you were channeling Ayn Rand?
John Ess: Second, by an arbitrary standard of popularity he is a "top economist." Do you read all 1,000 of those economists? What is your assessment of #2 Robert Barro's work on the IMF... or #1 Soren Johansen's work on asymptotic variance of cointegrated vector autoregression models?
It's not really arbitrary. It's based on data.
John Ess: Third, I never said socialism anywhere in my post.
I was addressing everyone.
ladyattis: I don't know much about Krugman, but I have read his opinion articles. So I'll only judge those instead.
I don't know much about Krugman, but I have read his opinion articles. So I'll only judge those instead.
But he isn't winning a prize for best op-ed columnists. Krugman is winning a prize for international trade contributions.
GeneCosta: ocialism is a policy which in the early 1900's failed miserably in many countries, and which is failing miserably today. Advocating socialism, as Krugman does, would therefore be his attempt at regressing us to what other countries have already tried to do unsuccessfully. That's right out of the mirror's glare. Many of the policies and actions associated with the New Deal/ "socialism" (American definition) empowered economies and living standards. Until the state conceded some help to laborers, corporations were notoriously authoritarian: they spied on employees, forced them to abandon their heritage, handed out corporal punishment, and made terrible deals. The law, combined with worker activities, effectively killed this type of business organization. Sadly, Ayn Rand would have decried the actions of these desperate men and women, since they broke property and held sit-ins. The New Deal was not a failure. Indeed some of the most horrific consequences of the 20th century have been deregulation and privatization.
See, now I'll actually disagree with a lot of what is said here, but I'll take what good parts I can find.
My position is that the New Deal was a failure - an obvious one - but not for the people it was meant to serve - that is the very, very rich.
As are most - if not all - labour laws. I think it is a mistake, as Kevin Carson eloquently points out, to merely look at something from the perspective of, "well, the politician says it will benefit the poor, so it must do that."This is a mistake made by both the capitalist sympathizers here and socialist-democrats elsewhere.
Niccolò:But he isn't winning a prize for best op-ed columnists. Krugman is winning a prize for international trade contributions.
You know...I really didn't understand your point on this matter until you posted it the tenth or eleventh time.
Talk about a fanboy.
I thought you were supposed to be banned or something?
GeneCosta: I was more or less referencing the word state, not the adjective. Sorry. Should have been more clear. A state is defined as "a political association with effective sovereignty over a geographic area and representing a population" according to Wikipedia. Landlords - as regularly defended - fit this discription.
Funny how you skip the most important feature of a state: A territorial monopoly of jurisdiction, taxation and coercion.
Wikipedia isn't too great for political economy, it seems, maybe you should diversify your sources ;)
Landlords don't have a monopoly of jurisdiction over their land, , nor taxation, or coercion the state does. In a free society, no one would have such monopoly.
Statism is deception the same as contradiction in philosophy. Who cares where it comes from?
And why is collecting a bunch of useless economic knowledge like trade patterns important to anarchism? Especially that which tries to make economics a obfuscated science in order to promote the need for "experts" to plan and make schemes -- which is the goal of Krugman? Do you really think it should matter at all to anyone that a violent state also fucks up trade patterns? And what do you think will be the end result of gathering random bits of economic knowledge and put them together? Since anarchism depends on ethics and does not depend on expected results -- that is economic outcome -- why do you think economic data gathered by Krugman would be important at all?
If someone's opinion of the state is based on something so small and petty as how well they manage trade patterns and subsidies (something that can forever be reformed, changed, legislated, etc.), do you really think they could or even should be convinced of a non-statist position? Apparently not if Krugman isn't convinced.
The data is real but the criteria for "importance" is arbitrary. Hell, your own criteria that the wider world of economics in general is so crucial is also arbitrary. Based on this "data" it seems that economics is not helping anarchism one bit. It seems more like every single one of the "top economists" is more interested in mathematical models and useless studies at their universities than it is about finding truth or furthering knowledge. Just as the swedish bank isn't interested in economic knowledge but something that furthers their own system of corruption.
But the same epistemology and conclusions that Krugman derives his more analytical work derives his op-ed articles. Therefore, any attempt to falsely parse his 'popular' works from his 'academic' works is at best stupid, and at worse immoral. Specifically, if you accept that all statements that one makes from one's own epistemology (and methods of epistemology) are constant from situation to situation (Krugman doesn't unbecome himself when he writes his research papers no more than Krugman as a 'researcher' unbecomes himself to write popular op-ed articles).
ladyattis: Niccolò:But he isn't winning a prize for best op-ed columnists. Krugman is winning a prize for international trade contributions. But the same epistemology and conclusions that Krugman derives his more analytical work derives his op-ed articles. Therefore, any attempt to falsely parse his 'popular' works from his 'academic' works is at best stupid, and at worse immoral. Specifically, if you accept that all statements that one makes from one's own epistemology (and methods of epistemology) are constant from situation to situation (Krugman doesn't unbecome himself when he writes his research papers no more than Krugman as a 'researcher' unbecomes himself to write popular op-ed articles).
Not really.
Krugman's book, Pop Internationalism was an example of academic work. Krugman's NYT columns are an example of journalism work.
Are you saying that if someone gets one thing wrong, they are no longer able to make a better point?
Do you want to learn useless economic facts or do you want to establish anarchism?
You can spend your whole life reading indiscriminantly -- wasting your whole life away -- or you can choose what is important personally and what is not. For that reason, economics is not a science that is important for its own sake. In fact, on the free market the theories espoused by Krugman would be useless to anyone. And no one would pay him for the information -- except people who just like reading about the state and have no interest in its being dissolved any time soon.
Niccolò: Krugman's book, Pop Internationalism was an example of academic work. Krugman's NYT columns are an example of journalism work. Are you saying that if someone gets one thing wrong, they are no longer able to make a better point?
If he doesn't acknowledge the errors in judgment, then sanctioning his other work would be stupid, yes. Krugman isn't literally split between two-brains as he has to use the same basis of thought to conclude one wrong answer then produces a right answer by the same basis, which could mean two possibilities: 1) He's deliberately evading the facts in one situation versus another as to placate a given set of views in one sphere of reading versus another (meaning: he knows he can BS his way through an NYT article, but he knows he'll get pwnt by any old grad student on his acdemic work if he should frack up big time) or 2) He's implicitly evading the facts as to comfort his emotional 'loyalty' to his beliefs. But either way, to say that it's okay to ignore whatever it may be and to sanction any part of his work without proviso that the work itself is good due to its factual substance is still stupid on anyone's part in doing so.
John Ess: Do you want to learn useless economic facts or do you want to establish anarchism? You can spend your whole life reading indiscriminantly -- wasting your whole life away -- or you can choose what is important personally and what is not. For that reason, economics is not a science that is important for its own sake. In fact, on the free market the theories espoused by Krugman would be useless to anyone. And no one would pay him for the information -- except people who just like reading about the state and have no interest in its being dissolved any time soon.
I think that depends on who the person is. To some, economics for economics sake is important and yes, Krugman's theories are useful to market forecasters.
Being able to determine the economic climate for which a company is involved in is definitely important to the market. Furthermore, not applying to anything other than political economy didn't seem to stop your precious Rothbard or Mises.
ladyattis: If he doesn't acknowledge the errors in judgment, then sanctioning his other work would be stupid, yes. Krugman isn't literally split between two-brains as he has to use the same basis of thought to conclude one wrong answer then produces a right answer by the same basis
If he doesn't acknowledge the errors in judgment, then sanctioning his other work would be stupid, yes. Krugman isn't literally split between two-brains as he has to use the same basis of thought to conclude one wrong answer then produces a right answer by the same basis
So, no tolerance law on the basis of correct answers.
By the way, the Mises Institute is quite a little authoritarian dictatorship. I think there's a small man on top with a very big power trip going on.
John Ess: In fact, on the free market the theories espoused by Krugman would be useless to anyone. And no one would pay him for the information --
Same applies for most Austrians and libertarian thinkers in general really.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan