Seeking Alpha

Wealthy Americans react harshly to critics, such as the Wall Street protesters, because they...

Wealthy Americans react harshly to critics, such as the Wall Street protesters, because they "realize, deep down, how morally indefensible their position is," Paul Krugman writes. They "got rich by peddling complex financial schemes that... helped push us into a crisis whose aftereffects continue to blight the lives of tens of millions of their fellow citizens."
Comments (80)
  • Conventional Wisdumb
    , contributor
    Comments (1802) | Send Message
     
    What a goof! This guy was a Nobel prize winner?

     

    All "Weathy Americans" got their wealth dishonestly? I earned my wealth the hard way and it wasn't writing for a dishonest rag like the New York Slimes.

     

    I would use the words I really want to use but I know my post would be deleted by the thought police here on SA.
    10 Oct 2011, 05:54 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10241) | Send Message
     
    Krugman - generally a dunce....in his article referred to the Wall Street Masters of the Universe. While I disagree that the "morally indefensible" comment applies to those who have built businesses in America....I concur that most Wall Streeters fit the bill as described.
    10 Oct 2011, 06:13 PM Reply Like
  • superpatrol
    , contributor
    Comments (616) | Send Message
     
    Krugman, who I would never call a dunce, has probably gone overboard here.
    10 Oct 2011, 06:17 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10241) | Send Message
     
    While not a literal "dunce", someone like Krugman can be a great intellect in some areas, and yet "short" in some other areas. Where is his plan for fixing the economy? He actually thinks the Obama plan currently on the table is pretty good. His plan calls for huge government spending and expansionary monetary policy. And yet....he doesn't ever address the issue of debt levels and tolerance. Nor does he address the political reality of where we are re: spending and deficits. So....he may think he has some answers, but he can't even begin to conceive of how we'd implement. If fiscal stimulus is the answer, then how do you convince politicians and the American people. One can be smart about what's needed and ignorant about how to get there.
    10 Oct 2011, 06:28 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5685) | Send Message
     
    And your choice is...what exactly? More Mellonism? Copy what England is doing, which is tanking their economy?

     

    There are people who have really studied this sort of stuff, and most of them agree with Dr. Krugman. When everyone is selling, someone has to step in and buy or you get stagnation. Which is what we've got, because the 2009 stimulus only held the economy where it was. If it had worked as intended, yes, inflation would have been the result, but this ridiculous fear of inflation when deflation is the greater threat is silly.

     

    Oh, and before you say one more word about deficits, how about you show us how to pay for those wars we fought and put on the credit card?
    10 Oct 2011, 06:34 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Lewis
    , contributor
    Comments (317) | Send Message
     
    I didn't see him defending the war spending. We need to be realistic about where we are at. Whether you wanted the war spending or not, it got spent. It is what it is. Just because we spent a ton on two wars doesn't mean we can ignore the costs of borrowing even more money. At some point the costs of borrowing outweigh the benefits of Keynesian spending.
    10 Oct 2011, 06:42 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10241) | Send Message
     
    Dana....I assume you are replying to me. Interestingly, I didn't offer my opinion. I only talked about Krugman's opinion. I happen to believe that fiscal stimulus is the answer today, where we are in a balance sheet recession. Unfortunately, I believe the number for stimulus would need to be significantly north of $2T incremental to the existing budget (per year).

     

    I know there is no political will, nor does the body politic have any interest in pursuing more of what they think got us into this mess in the first place. Obama's plan is not a plan to cure. It is a plan to get votes.

     

    I don't believe there is a group of "politicians" in Washington that could come up with an economicaly attractive way to spend $2T per year incremental without resorting to crony capitalism and making hundreds of Solyndra type mistakes.

     

    But if you could get a group of people that could determine what to do and a group of people who could convince America to support it, I would go along.

     

    As for Iraq and Afghanistan. I am on record on SA as saying bring the troops home....from everywhere. We have no business being anywhere. We have demonstrated we can project force from here or from the seas and it's time to stop being world cop.

     

    The deficits have been a product of every administration. No one could muster the political horse power to turn the tide permanantly. It's my view that they have been intentional. All politicians need to be replaced with a new breed.
    10 Oct 2011, 06:46 PM Reply Like
  • Ted Bear
    , contributor
    Comments (573) | Send Message
     
    Coventional ( and Lightway too), i don't mean to be putting you down, but unless you are worth at least a hundred million, we're not talkng about your kind of wealth.

     

    We're talking about guys who 'only' made 10 or 20 million last year and feel like they are the underpiveleged. Guys like Immelt from GE who are completely diconnected from any sense of what really goes on the the average home in America. Guys who don't understand at Bank of America that the millions they gave to that broad is WAY more than most Bank of America Employees will earn IN THEIR LIFETIME.
    10 Oct 2011, 06:55 PM Reply Like
  • Terry330
    , contributor
    Comments (866) | Send Message
     
    Krugman speaks for the real American family, not the top 1%.
    10 Oct 2011, 07:10 PM Reply Like
  • phxcrane
    , contributor
    Comments (415) | Send Message
     
    Im not in the top 1% and Krugman doesn't speak for me any more then Bozo the clown. As far as Im concerned his Ideas have been tried and ultimately fail. We are dealing with humans not statistics. I concur with wmarkw. Except we are dealing with fallible humans. It won't work. What people need is an opportunity to better themselves. The clowns in Washington usually just get in the way.
    10 Oct 2011, 07:20 PM Reply Like
  • 2PP
    , contributor
    Comments (349) | Send Message
     
    Krugman is an idiot who writes for a morally bankrupt news wing of the DNC. He is one of the least admired writers in a world of politically driven journalists. Being awarded a Nobel Prize has become a joke.
    10 Oct 2011, 08:01 PM Reply Like
  • Conventional Wisdumb
    , contributor
    Comments (1802) | Send Message
     
    Ted,

     

    If people commit a crime they should go to jail.

     

    Krugman and his ilk don't make any distinction between the rich and ultra-rich - apparently millionaires and billionaires start at just $250k a year.

     

    At what point did we become a country that reviles those who achieved wealth through successful business ventures?

     

    You are now pitting people against people simply because they succeeded in becoming wealthy and the vast majority do so legitimately. I can't believe I actually have to spell this out.

     

    The guilty should be punished in the courts. Krugman's ire is misdirected and should be focused on the current administration.

     

    Why haven't there been more perp walks if in fact these crimes have been committed?

     

    The Bush administration put away way more of these criminals than this group has.
    10 Oct 2011, 08:18 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5685) | Send Message
     
    We replaced 'em in '06, replaced 'em in '08 and replaced them in '10. They've devolved. They talk past one another from fixed positions, supported by very strong grassroots organizations.

     

    "Throw the bums out" is not a philosophy that works. What happens is that politics is captured even more thoroughly by special interests and political pros, because no one in office has the political equity to challenge them.

     

    My comment on the wars is aimed at all the Republican deficit hawks out there who are all for throwing grandma off her Medicare but won't pay the increased taxes made necessary by wars they supported. I appreciate everyone trying to run away from the war now, but they're our responsibility and they have to be paid for. Out of taxes. And until Republicans admit to that and show me they're willing to raise their taxes to pay for their wars, I think they can all have a nice cup of STHeckUp on the issue of fiscal discipline
    10 Oct 2011, 09:16 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5685) | Send Message
     
    I agree that this Justice Department has been remarkably passive in many areas. They don't make cases without assurance of conviction, and they lack the resources to get the evidence. They're a lot more professional, and a lot less political, than their predecessors. That has both good and bad results.

     

    There is a distinction being made between those who make "just" $250k and those who make over $1 million.
    10 Oct 2011, 09:18 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5685) | Send Message
     
    Until you and other Republicans are willing to respect the intelligence of the brightest among those on the other side, I don't think you deserve any respect at all.

     

    And that attitude -- on both sides -- is what is destructive to democracy. The rule is simple. You want respect? Give respect.
    10 Oct 2011, 09:19 PM Reply Like
  • Zigg
    , contributor
    Comments (55) | Send Message
     
    What do you think would happen to the unemployment rate when all the troops are brought home and let go from the service?

     

    What happened to Rome when the legions came back?
    10 Oct 2011, 09:20 PM Reply Like
  • tka1115
    , contributor
    Comments (34) | Send Message
     
    Some of the people who studied this stuff reached different conclusions and perhaps in some parallel universe there are politicians who have the backbone to follow those other conclusions. Politicians choose Keynes because his theories justify spending and spending brings re-election. Here is a sample of a different conclusion:

     

    http://bloom.bg/nlAkNd

     

    I am simply in disbelief that Bernanke claims to be an expert on the Great Depression. I read about six books on financial bubbles this year covering Dutch Tulips, South Sea, French Mississippi scheme, English Railroads, etc; none of them support what we are having done to us.
    10 Oct 2011, 09:29 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5685) | Send Message
     
    Then obviously you didn't read Mr. Bernanke's book.

     

    This year's "Nobel" in economics (presented by a Swedish bank) covers analysis of macroeconomic policies that go beyond Keynsianism.

     

    My problem in the real world is with all -isms. You go to an -ism and you're putting your own brain on auto-pilot. But it is true that when everyone is selling someone has to buy. Don't you agree with that at least? So who do you suggest buy?

     

    Andrew Mellon never answered that question. He just suggested that people be taken bankrupt and spiral downward until some sort of natural economic force of recovery took hold. The result was 32% unemployment at a time when few women were in the workforce, and literal starvation for millions.

     

    Thus you'll excuse me if I don't endorse the position of the Mellonistas. We've done that, tried that. Didn't work. Never does. Seems like it should. But it doesn't. Inflation can actually be a good thing.
    10 Oct 2011, 09:35 PM Reply Like
  • 2PP
    , contributor
    Comments (349) | Send Message
     
    What you refer to as the intelligence and brightness of the other side is what most Republicans see as moronic blind ideology of the left. You might write articles for SA but your opinions mean nothing to me and others. The rule is simple. If you want respect, earn respect and you deserve no respect at all.
    10 Oct 2011, 09:56 PM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4555) | Send Message
     
    CW -

     

    Given your reaction to Krugman, the following by Joseph Stiglitz will make you apoplectic!

     

    http://aje.me/n9NgVH

     

    For my part, I think there is a large degree of truth in what Krigman and Stiglitz are saying (and no, it's not 'class warfare').
    10 Oct 2011, 10:14 PM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3534) | Send Message
     
    Nice post bob, you know some people are going to try and balk because of the source though. Personally I find the better articles are written by foreign sources, it's very easy for them to see a more balanced view. They are often calling the trends years before the US catches up.

     

    Stiglitz's quote is golden though:

     

    "The top 1 per cent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn't seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 per cent live Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 per cent eventually do learn. Too Late."

     

    Joseph Stiglitz
    10 Oct 2011, 10:56 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10241) | Send Message
     
    How many of the troops today are "National Guard"? Many come from jobs that are required to hire them back when they return.

     

    What happened after WWII. The came home, went to school on the GI bill, got educated (today's armed forces are already significantly educated) and went to work.

     

    Of course today is different because we are in a recession. But if we ended the "engagements", we could afford to pay returning troops 1/2 pay for 2 or 3 years to get back up and going.
    10 Oct 2011, 11:46 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5685) | Send Message
     
    Sorry. But in a democracy you are required to respect the other side. Otherwise, try autocracy. It's better suited to your attitude.
    11 Oct 2011, 09:49 AM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4555) | Send Message
     
    Lightway

     

    As the following article shows, even the head of Canada's central bank gets it.

     

    http://bit.ly/psRx8d/
    15 Oct 2011, 05:18 AM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3534) | Send Message
     
    Awesome, good to have somebody who is actually in the business with "street cred" that gets it and supports it.
    15 Oct 2011, 07:07 AM Reply Like
  • Christopher Menkin
    , contributor
    Comments (74) | Send Message
     
    A clash over laissez-faire---How much state and federal
    intervention or regulation, depending on your "viewpoint."

     

    One side clamors for "reform" and the other free from
    regulation or intervention.
    10 Oct 2011, 05:58 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3314) | Send Message
     
    Norvergence
    10 Oct 2011, 08:17 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Lewis
    , contributor
    Comments (317) | Send Message
     
    Every American gained their wealth like this? Come on Krugman...you're better than that.
    10 Oct 2011, 05:59 PM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3534) | Send Message
     
    Krugman is right, again. Not sure why people who don't even approach the level of wealth that these people have tow the line to defend them.
    10 Oct 2011, 06:00 PM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4555) | Send Message
     
    Lightway -

     

    I agree with you.

     

    Too many other commentators here are conflating the "super rich" and "economic royalists" (i.e. those making over, say, one million annually and who reject categorically any criticism of the manner by which this level of income is achieved in those cases where legitimate questions can be asked) with a much broader segment of well to do persons engaged successful in productive employment. Krugman is aiming his criticism at the former and he is correct to so do.
    10 Oct 2011, 06:39 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5685) | Send Message
     
    There are deserving rich and undeserving rich just as there are deserving poor and undeserving poor. So should society and the law seek to distinguish between them?

     

    We say "yes" in terms of the poor.
    10 Oct 2011, 06:42 PM Reply Like
  • burn8
    , contributor
    Comments (9) | Send Message
     
    The funniest comment in his article was this:

     

    "And there has in fact been nothing so far to match the behavior of Tea Party crowds in the summer of 2009."

     

    But I think Krugman had missed this article today:

     

    http://nyp.st/oa48Mh
    10 Oct 2011, 06:01 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3581) | Send Message
     
    Is not Paul Krugman a "wealthy American"?

     

    Hmmm.....
    10 Oct 2011, 06:07 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3314) | Send Message
     
    BinTin,

     

    Yes, but he got wealthy as an entrepreneur, industrialist, inventor, LOL
    10 Oct 2011, 08:18 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3581) | Send Message
     
    That's right - silly me. I thought he was just a talking head economic hack.
    10 Oct 2011, 10:20 PM Reply Like
  • Bouchart
    , contributor
    Comments (755) | Send Message
     
    The protesters are treating this like one big frat party. It's not a coincidence that these protests started in September, because that's when kids go back to college.

     

    In my experience, college students always complain about being in debt and jobless but they always seem to have money for beer.
    10 Oct 2011, 06:08 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5685) | Send Message
     
    I know y'all are having fun taking stuff out of context, but eating our economic seed corn, pushing the middle class down on behalf of the rich, is bad for the rich. It reduces the size of your domestic market, thus the value of your investments in that market.

     

    Personally I favor the 20th century over the 19th. Or the 16th for that matter.
    10 Oct 2011, 06:25 PM Reply Like
  • EMS
    , contributor
    Comments (563) | Send Message
     
    Context or not, this guy is a real jerk-wad.
    10 Oct 2011, 06:31 PM Reply Like
  • Duude
    , contributor
    Comments (3358) | Send Message
     
    I had no idea wealthy people only work on Wall Street. Thanks for the heads up Paul.
    So, then the universal call for socialism from the clowns protesting at Wall Street is the right thing to do?
    10 Oct 2011, 06:31 PM Reply Like
  • sprstirl
    , contributor
    Comments (83) | Send Message
     
    When K. starts blasting the pols who have become "rich" on the taxpayer dollar mostly because of the rules and regs THEY have introduced, then he may be considered to have a modicum of sense!
    10 Oct 2011, 06:45 PM Reply Like
  • bkpark
    , contributor
    Comments (325) | Send Message
     
    Wow. If he thought GOP response to the Obama White House was "harsh", Krugman should look up what Obama said after drawing up a compromise with GOP in the past year or so: he literally called GOP hostage-takers---and this was *after* he supposedly came to an agreement with his political opponents.
    10 Oct 2011, 07:15 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (12719) | Send Message
     
    What a pathetic and unabashed Marxist! He must be trying to rival his hero, Lenin, as an agitator.
    10 Oct 2011, 07:25 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5685) | Send Message
     
    Do you believe in America, Tack? Or would you prefer some system other than democracy? Democracy requires respect and tolerance regardless of your disagreements on policy.

     

    Any Republican unwilling to pay that price for democracy is not an American, in my view. And harping on "they do it too" is just childishness in this regard. We tell our 6 year olds not to act that way. We can do the same.
    10 Oct 2011, 09:23 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (12719) | Send Message
     
    db:

     

    What does my comment have to do with democracy? Look up "nonsequiter."

     

    I have neither to respect nor quietly tolerate Krugman's destructive rhetoric, even if he has a right to publish his hate-mongering opinions. Krugman spouts his ultra-leftist crap, and I call it for exactly what it is. Democracy and free speech at work.

     

    You'd prefer I and other Krugman critics be silenced?
    10 Oct 2011, 10:07 PM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3534) | Send Message
     
    How is Paul Krugman "ultra-leftist"?

     

    Stalin was ultra-leftist, Mao was ultra-leftist, the Communist-inspired terror groups that plagued South America, the Middle East, and Africa for 3 decades were ultra-leftist.

     

    It isn't that guys like Krugman are too leftist, it's that half of the country has gone bonkers and too far to the right.
    10 Oct 2011, 10:59 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5685) | Send Message
     
    Tack: No, you do have to respect the other side. If you're to demand I respect a thing those who disagree with me say in a democratic society, mutual respect is essential.

     

    I don't ask you to be silent. But I do insist -- no I demand -- that you treat him personally, and all those who disagree with you -- with respect. That you not personally insult them, and that you call out those who do.

     

    That's the basic rule of democracy. If you can't have that then you can't live in a democratic system. You will get, and deserve, a dictatorship by one side or the other.
    11 Oct 2011, 09:52 AM Reply Like
  • Conventional Wisdumb
    , contributor
    Comments (1802) | Send Message
     
    Dana,

     

    Did you copy this from a Hallmark card?

     

    Perhaps if the President and his advisors set the example we could take this type of pap seriously.

     

    We don't have a democracy we have a Representative Republic.
    11 Oct 2011, 10:17 AM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5685) | Send Message
     
    That's the kind of response I expect from a 6 year old. Rather than holding your breath until your face turns blue, set the right example. And demand that others you have influence over do as well.

     

    That's the route to real progress.
    11 Oct 2011, 12:03 PM Reply Like
  • Conventional Wisdumb
    , contributor
    Comments (1802) | Send Message
     
    Dana,

     

    Considering the level of your intellectual age, perhaps as a 6 year old I am speaking over your head.

     

    The President took more money from Wallstreet, lawyers and the lobbying community than any other candidate in history.
    http://bit.ly/nnhtuS

     

    Is it any wonder why there have been no perp walks for those who have committed these financial crimes?

     

    Why not march on the Whitehouse and demand that the perpetrators get punished?

     

    Where are the trials?

     

    Have a nice day!!!!
    11 Oct 2011, 12:41 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5685) | Send Message
     
    I think folks need to get their heads straight. Is Obama a communist socialist Kenyan-muslim terrorist or is he the plaything of President Dimon and President Blankfein?

     

    Can't be both. And if you pretend he's both you're just re-electing the man.
    11 Oct 2011, 01:40 PM Reply Like
  • Conventional Wisdumb
    , contributor
    Comments (1802) | Send Message
     
    Dana,

     

    "Democracy requires respect and tolerance regardless of your disagreements on policy."

     

    Doesn't take much for you to put aside your convictions does it?

     

    Being Ghandi isn't easy :)

     

    I don't even understand your comment. I think you are getting overwhelmed by all the attention.

     

    Yes the President is in the pocket of Wallstreet because they backed him and now they own him.

     

    If a crime has been committed where are the trials? Where's the leadership from the President?

     

    Have a nice day!!!!!
    11 Oct 2011, 02:19 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5685) | Send Message
     
    You're right. Being Gandhi isn't easy. Not for me, not for anyone. But it's a goal worth striving toward.

     

    I'm worthy of criticism when I don't meet it. So are others when they fail.

     

    I still didn't get an answer to my question. Is Obama the lackey of Wall Street or is he a commie, which is what his opponents said of him last year?

     

    Can't be both.
    11 Oct 2011, 02:40 PM Reply Like
  • John Grimes
    , contributor
    Comments (31) | Send Message
     
    Get out from behind your desk Krugman. 70% of employment in this country is from small business. I had a small, 7 person firm and realized I was getting nickel & dimed by " employee rights " costs. I now employ one person, myself. Your irrational attack on business is damaging our country. Are there things that need to be changed ? Sure, but not to your liking. Ask those six employees if they think the unnecessary costs to employers is " fair ".
    10 Oct 2011, 07:26 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5685) | Send Message
     
    Sorry you didn't earn enough to pay your workers a decent wage. Sorry you were a failure in business, John.

     

    My dad was a small businessman, and the proudest moments of his life were when he wrote those paychecks and knew he was taking care of other people.

     

    Employees have rights. I'm glad you're no longer an employer, since you disagree with that basic human concept.
    10 Oct 2011, 09:24 PM Reply Like
  • Johann Galt
    , contributor
    Comments (234) | Send Message
     
    Mr. Blankenhorn,

     

    Your dad did not operate in the current environment, which is stifling to the small businessman. I believe this is the point Mr. Grimes was making, and your ad hominem attack serves to underscore the invalidity of all of your comments.

     

    Further, "employee" status doesn't give someone extra rights. You've opined on the meaning of "America". Study up and feel free to opine on the meaning of "employment at will."
    10 Oct 2011, 10:05 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    I"m not sure what "employee rights costs" your refering to. I"m not a fan of the health care legislation but it is what it is. And yes my costs for health care are stupidly expensive already and I believe it will get worse.

     

    But America should be far more concerned with the incredibly stupid amounts of regulations and bureaucrats that lead to people like myself deciding that I've had enough. See I agree with Dana that most business owners are proud that they support employees as part of them being successful - at least I do. But we can't lose sight of the fact that I rely on my businesses to support my family. And while I'm in a different position than many new, young entrepreneurs (in that I have a pretty good life and growing businesses are no longer my primary concern)... my willingness to take risks and make investments can still create jobs. But its truly at a point where its just not worth it. The bureaucrats believe businesses exist because of THEM and their stupid paperwork and inspections and rules, etc, etc. Its truly unbelievable. Throw on top all the potential fines, penalties, and the all powerful IRS and its become a "why do I bother" situation.

     

    I used to frequently invest small amounts into local young folks new businesses - I haven't done so for two years and I can't see this changing anytime soon - why? All the paperwork, liabilities, and bureaucracy... and if it works out government takes 40%, if it fails I lose 100% (and I'm ok losing 100%, I'm not ok with the bureaucracy). Perhaps I'm wrong to say enough is enough - but my primary responsibility is to my family - not to continuing to create wealth to support bureaucrats. Something is terribly wrong when you can start a business in Thailand in one day as a foreigner but it takes weeks (not to mention the costs) here in the good old USA.
    10 Oct 2011, 10:42 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5685) | Send Message
     
    I have to call nonsense on that.

     

    The "present environment" isn't "more stifling" than that of the past. It just isn't.

     

    And the "employment at will" doctrine isn't part of the Constitution. It's relevant that you wish to demand it, but the rights of workers to be free of arbitrary firings had been well established law in many places, even in my dad's time, which you seem interested in overturning.

     

    So if I'm supporting the idea that "employment at will" isn't absolute, and that has been the law for many decades in many places and areas of employment, which one of us is the radical? Which one of us is demanding radical change from present practice?

     

    I'd say it's those who are trying to roll back their fellow citizens' rights.
    11 Oct 2011, 09:55 AM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5685) | Send Message
     
    The costs of starting a business are lower now than they were before. Lower. Not higher. What you're spouting is pure ideology.

     

    Now it's true our business climate is worse, relative to others, than it was. But that's not because of employment law. It's because our roads are bad, our bridges are falling down, our Internet is slow, and our air system is out of date. It's because we haven't invested in our infrastructure as we should have, while others have.
    11 Oct 2011, 09:56 AM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    Dana, how is it lower? I'd love to hear your reasoning for that.

     

    There is no comparison to the bureaucracy I deal with today to what I (didn't) deal with 25 years ago. The amount of paperwork that my businesses must produce and keep for different agencies is mind boggling. I don't think people realize exactly how expensive (and just as importantly irritating) it all is.

     

    And what air system is it that we have thats out of date? Our air is much cleaner than it was in 1975. Our idiot politicians are the ones that have CHOSEN to spend less on infrastructure (as percentage of GDP) than we did in the past - and why have they done that? So they can hand out social spending programs to get themselves re-elected.

     

    The politicians, bureaucrats, and financial elite are the ENEMY of the USA and must be destroyed as entities if we are to thrive again as a nation.
    11 Oct 2011, 11:49 AM Reply Like
  • Johann Galt
    , contributor
    Comments (234) | Send Message
     
    Mr. Blankenhorn,

     

    You clearly don't run a business. The notion that the regulatory burden is the same now as it was in the past is absurd, and patently false.

     

    Similarly, I think you confuse "employment at will" and laws allowing workers to collectively bargain. If you have a contract (i.e., a collective bargaining agreement), you are no longer an at-will employee. Under the contractual duties in a CBA, an employee cannot be arbitrarily fired.

     

    But you contend an entirely different proposition. You propose that everyone has a "right" to their job. This right is not found in the Bill of Rights, but is among those proposed by "progressive" socialists as well as the "right" to a home, a "right" to healthcare, etc. In short, "rights" that must be provided by the government. Just back-door socialism, which philosophy has failed with disastrous results repeatedly.
    12 Oct 2011, 10:24 AM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5685) | Send Message
     
    Small businesses are free to hire and fire, and I work closely with many, many small businesspeople. Using government as an excuse for your incompetence is an old dodge. Hope it gets you a free drink at every bar you visit.

     

    I am not saying people have a "right" to their job. I'm saying they have rights, rights which don't disappear with employment. Which means you can't just fire them because of their race, their sex, or because you don't like their politics.

     

    And just calling people "socialist" doesn't make it so. I don't know why conservatives think they can use that word as an all-purpose epithet but haul out the smelling salts when similar epithets are thrown their way. I guess they can throw a punch but can't take it.
    12 Oct 2011, 11:16 AM Reply Like
  • John Grimes
    , contributor
    Comments (31) | Send Message
     
    Your assuming I didn't pay my employees a decent wage. I paid above average wages to attract talent. Actually, I kept my business going out of loyalty to my employees. I could have left 2 years prior with quite a bit of money, but continued paying my employees until I finally closed up shop completely broke. That's the epitome of caring for employees..., probably too much. On your final comment I don't disagree with employees rights I disagree with unreasonable employee rights that stifle growth and job creation.
    13 Oct 2011, 08:52 AM Reply Like
  • HiSpeed
    , contributor
    Comments (1063) | Send Message
     
    Every word Krugman pens is another slam against the formerly venerable noble prize. Krugman is a worthless, ideological buffoon so perfectly detached from reality, he rarely adds anything to already stale arguments from the ultra-Left.

     

    And SHAME on the SA editors for giving him a mouth-piece on SA! (Of course, they do it because he generates hits/comments which is good for business via ad revenue).
    10 Oct 2011, 07:40 PM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3534) | Send Message
     
    People here need to read it and get the out of the bubble they live in.

     

    Every time the market tanks, the crybabies come out as if they were entitled by the Constitution to have the stock market always moving up. Someone losing their job because of the market tanking, okay, that's a real problem, but complaining because you bought UPRO and it's not up 10% the same day is pathetic. Can we get people complaining about REAL problems?

     

    It's called taking risk for a reason, plus, learn how to short/hedge when the market goes down, it's not that hard.
    10 Oct 2011, 08:05 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5685) | Send Message
     
    It's Nobel. N-o-b-e-l. Oh, and the "Nobel Prize in Economics" isn't really given by the Nobel committee, but a separate group in Sweden.

     

    As a Democrat I have to respect those I disagree with. I had to salute George W. Bush for 8 years. You need to do the same. Or stop calling yourself an American. The word I'm looking for in that case starts with the letter "f" -- and the second letter is "a".
    10 Oct 2011, 09:26 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3314) | Send Message
     
    Does Krugman actually think all "Rich People" got so in the financial sector?

     

    He is more clueless than I ever imagined before.
    10 Oct 2011, 08:12 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5685) | Send Message
     
    No, he doesn't and you just built a nice little straw man (then knocked it down) in one sentence.

     

    But the fact is too much of our economy over the last decade has gone over to those who merely move money around, and not enough to those who actually do stuff. Krugman has said that many times, I agree with him, and so do many of the readers here.

     

    We know we can make stuff in this country. Defense contractors make lots of stuff. Can we make stuff in a competitive market? Yeah, if we get out of the casinos.
    10 Oct 2011, 09:29 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    too much of our economy has gone to those that move money. Correct.

     

    But you left out the other half..... those that are politically connected. The public unions and politicians AND the financial elite are together destroying this country. Their triumvirate must be destroyed!!!!
    10 Oct 2011, 10:31 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5685) | Send Message
     
    I agree that the money changers are destroying the temple. But the public unions aren't in on the game. Destroying workers' rights to organize, destroying living standards, in the end is nothing but our society eating its own seed corn, reducing the demand side of our own market so there's less for rich people to earn money from.

     

    It's a spiral downward. And the way forward is to support honest businessmen. Through laws that send cheaters to jail.
    11 Oct 2011, 09:58 AM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    Dana, lets use public education.

     

    There are TWICE as many people employed in public education today per student than there was in 1980. TWICE AS MANY. And what do we have to show for it?

     

    Teachers union protect the mediocre, poor, and terrible students. And what do we have to show for that?

     

    In the county that I live, Teachers salaries, health care, and retirement add up to DOUBLE the average income in the county. Now I believe education is important, but how is it PUBLIC SERVICE when your earning twice what your neighbor earns? And lets remember this includes not just English and Math teachers, but drivers ed, gym, shop, home ec, art, etc, etc - all things its good to teach but not requiring huge levels of higher education. In 1980 teachers earned about 85% of their peers, now its double and the quality of the education results have declined.

     

    Now it could be that we're hiring the best and brightest? Nope - only 23% of our public education teachers come from the top 1/3 of their graduating classes in college/university. And that doesn't even speak to the quality of the institution - just that they are mostly average performers.

     

    So we are paying average talent, DOUBLE what the Average person in the county makes. That is a serious problem. The teachers union is the enemy of our children - and as far as I'm concerned that makes the teachers union an enemy of our country. Taking away their collective bargaining rights would mean FREEDOM for our children!!!

     

    Give me Freedom or give me death!!!!!
    11 Oct 2011, 11:57 AM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    I agree with Krugman as far as the financial sector goes. They figured out ways to gain an increasing percentage of wealth without creating anything of value.

     

    But beyond that specific sector I think he's out in left field. If you start a business you should be able to make as much as you can. And its not a bad thing. Most business owners that I know pay their employees fairly well when compared to themselves. Where we have real issues is in corporate governance - management that is just "caretakers" of what someone else built have also found ways to capture a larger percentage of corporate profits for themselves instead of those profits flowing to shareholders, workers, and also management.

     

    Rather than these stupid broad "the rich are evil" rants we'd be better off attacking the specific problems. Where the heck has the Justice department been with all the fraud that was part of the financial crisis? And I'm talking about Fuld, Mazzillo, London AIG guy, etc - I'm also talking about the forged mortgage documents, false income claims, all of it - high and low!

     

    Corporate boards are stacked with CEO lackeys, raising each other's pay to stupid levels. Create and grow a business - earn as much as you want. Take over someone else's business and sorry but your not worth 50 million while you laying off 3000 employees. Passive shareholders are the core of the problem.... the large funds own most of corporate America but in small bits and pieces that allows for no shareholder demands be placed on management. This has to be changed.

     

    What people seem to miss is that we could tax the "rich" 100% and we'd make less than 5% dent in the deficit! Less than 5%! Its the spending that is out of control. All of it! Cut the military. Close overseas bases. Bring the troops home. Buy fewer weapons. Reform Social Security by raising the retirement age and partially means testing it. Get rid of entire agencies in Washington DC. Yes, entire agencies. Do we have a better public education system since the inception of the Department of Education? NO. Gone. How racist is it that we have a department to tell Native Americans how to live? Gone. Commerce and Transportation can be downsized 50% and combined. Another one Gone. And we have to cut until we have a balanced budget in 2012! Not in five years, not in 10 or 12 or 2068 - NEXT YEAR!!! Its called sacrifice and self-reliance.

     

    Then we reform the whole tax code. NO deductions - that will eliminate 50% of all lobbyist overnight - a damn good thing I might add. Progressive flat tax rates - everyone contributes something - even if its 2%. Those at the top pay the most. New tax brackets at 1 million and 10 million. No carried interest, no mortgage deductions, no tax carve-outs, no subsidies, PAY YOUR TAXES. Get the government out of picking winners and losers - we saw them pick Wall Street bankers instead of 2nd shift Deere workers. And the tax code will need to raise MORE money than currently - with the increase going ENTIRELY to paying down the 14 Trillion.

     

    And yes, lets start to get rid of stupid regulations. Regulate what goes into the air, ground, water. Use common sense in these areas, but regulate them. Everything else is a candidate for removal - people need to use their own common sense in the world instead of assumign government bureaucrats are somehow protecting them.

     

    People seem to forget that somehow life was pretty good in 1997 or 1999 - we had fewer regulations, much lower government spending, and I didn't notice people dieing on the streets!!!
    10 Oct 2011, 10:28 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3581) | Send Message
     
    Are you running in 2012? If so, you got my vote.
    10 Oct 2011, 11:15 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5685) | Send Message
     
    I don't disagree with profit. But just as we have laws against murder and mayhem, so we need laws to keep people from cutting corners in business. And having cops to enforce laws costs money.

     

    Yes, things were pretty good in 1997, under Bill Clinton. Before Glass-Steagall was destroyed by Phil Gramm. But we chose to go a different way. We can return to the path we chose after Clinton or go toward laws that support honest business.

     

    There's nothing Krugman is asking for that wasn't supported by Republicans 100 years ago. It's sad we have to fight the fights of the dawn of the 20th century before we can progress into the 21st, but that was the choice we made after 1997.
    11 Oct 2011, 10:03 AM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    Yes, Phil Gramm.... And Larry Summer, and Rubin, and dare I say Billl Clinton! And you should look at the level of government spending in 1997 and compare it to today!!! Absolutely scandalous. And it all flows to the triumvirate of the financial elite, public unions, and politicians.

     

    And I"m all in favor of busting up the big banks - if rich people want to give hedge funds money to invest thats their business. But banks should loan money and offer consumer services - thats it. ANd let the losers fail.

     

    But how many more laws do we need for small businesses???? Can't people use their own common sense as to where they want to buy things from, decide who is honest or dishonest when purchasing services? Do you really believe that people like myself want to damage the communities WHERE WE LIVE???? Its pure and utter nonsense the level of bureaucracy and regulations that we have. Regulate what goes into the ground, water, and air - and enforce that. Everything else is a good candidate for elimination.
    11 Oct 2011, 12:03 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5685) | Send Message
     
    Public unions were responsible for the growth in government spending after 1997? I know your ideology insists you say that, but do you really believe it?

     

    It wasn't the unions, and it wasn't the banks, and it wasn't the politicians. It was us. We elect the politicians. We selected Bush, we re-elected Bush, and we elected every Congress since 1997, Republican and Democratic.

     

    We, the People caused this problem. We, the People must solve it.
    11 Oct 2011, 12:06 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    I believe I said the financial elites, public unions and politicians are the benefactors of all the increases in public spending. And I stand by that. I don't have statistics for 1997 to 2011 for public employees, but I have the data from 1980 to today in regards to the teachers union and I posted it elsewhere.

     

    ANd its too simple to say "its all of us" "the politicians just do what we want them to do". No, the politicians tell the people "your entitled", a large percentage of the people decide they "want" and vote for those that "promise". I have never wanted any politician to spend more than we take in - I agree with the comments you make about paying for war - nor have I ever wanted any social spending program for myself or my family. Build roads, Send men to the moon, promote pure scientific research, maintain the army, represent the USA in the world, promote the environment, Thats about it! The rest of it is called being responsible and providing for your family and community. The government is not for charity - thats what communities and churches and local organizations are for.

     

    I would agree that "we the people" are responsible for the clowns we have to choose from - the American people's refusal to vote for independents and third party candidates have allowed a very corrupt two party system to allow special interests to take over our government. And the primary special interests? The financial elites, public unions/bureaucrats, and politicians.

     

    But I'd say that its not going to be "we the people" that solve it. Just like with other huge differences this country has tackled it will come to one side winning and the other side being destroyed - just like how we got rid of slavery, just like Teddy Roosevelt busting up the trusts, etc.

     

    And unfortunately those that value their freedoms and believe people should take care of themselves and want the government to only do what its not possible for an individual to do are ON THE LOSING SIDE. I don't believe we will ever gut the government like it needs to be done. And I believe that in the next generation people like myself will be emigrating to other countries rather than stay in the USSA and slave away for the triumvirate of the public unions, politicians and financial elite. I'll stay and fight the losing fight, and if the revolution ever comes I've got lots of lead when the triumvirate comes over the hills to take the rest of what I've got!!!
    11 Oct 2011, 12:32 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3314) | Send Message
     
    "Yes, things were pretty good in 1997, under Bill Clinton. Before Glass-Steagall was destroyed by Phil Gramm. But we chose to go a different way. We can return to the path we chose after Clinton or go toward laws that support honest business"

     

    Notice how Bankenhorn blames eveybody other than the President that signed the Legislation?

     

    I did.

     

    I do not recall a president named "Phil Grahm"

     

    But I do remember, Bob Rubin, & Larry Summers who served under Obama as recently as a few months ago.
    12 Oct 2011, 06:13 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5685) | Send Message
     
    You're right. The President has listened to too many conservatives and proto-conservatives. So did Bill Clinton.

     

    But that doesn't mean going extremely in the other direction -- actually having a President like Phil Gramm -- is going to get us anywhere. We've seen what he did just as a Senator -- the destruction of value created through deliberately de-stabilizing systems that had some sense behind them.

     

    Money backed by taxpayers shouldn't be going to the dog track. Simple as that. Yet that's what the last Administration did, and breaking that apart is a multi-decade endeavor. It won't happen overnight. Because, in fact, Glass-Steagall wasn't destroyed all at once, in 1999. That, too, was a multi-decade effort.
    13 Oct 2011, 08:37 AM Reply Like
  • John Grimes
    , contributor
    Comments (31) | Send Message
     
    BTW, you called me a " failure at business ". After working 12-14 work days (while paying my own insurance) for years I now have a 3 million dollar net worth. I did this honestly and have used my good fortune to donate generously to charities. Your assumptions are not only wrong, but insulting.
    13 Oct 2011, 09:09 AM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (5685) | Send Message
     
    Sorry. I wasn't talking with you directly over a beer, but virtually over this narrow-gauge information railway.

     

    It's like being in a crowded room, where you hear from one person something objectionable and take it out on the next person of similar mien you see.

     

    My apologies.
    13 Oct 2011, 10:04 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|