Most people know that Americans bene-fit from high taxes, powerful unions,
limited consumer choice, and strong
government control. But most people
lack the training to fully understand
why we derive benefits from these
policies, and why government control
over public anything results in unsur-
passable quality. To remedy your
"knowledge deficit" you can ask us any
question you choose, and it will be
explained by the legendary Professor
Paul Krugman in a language that you can
understand. From the evils of profiteering,
corporatism, and economic exploitation to
the rewards of regulation, social justice,
and community/stakeholder involvement,
Professor Krugman will use his agile mind
to clarify the otherwise intimidating field
of economics.
Print it
E-mail itAsk People's Economist
Public SectorQuote:
Dear Mr. Krugman:May I quote from your 4/11/05 New York Times Op-Ed?
"The fact is that in health care, the private sector is often bloated and bureaucratic, while some government agencies - notably the Veterans Administration system - are lean and efficient."
Given your insights into health care, can you share your views of how to handle the problem of obesity?
Yes, I have focused my laser-sharp mind on the problem...no, the epidemic, of obesity.
Or, in my own words:
"It is more important, however, to emphasize that there are situations in which "free to choose" is all wrong - and that this is one of them."
Of course, "free to choose" is almost always wrong -- from both utility and moral perspectives, as I am sure you will agree. But in this case, consider the issues:
A) People get fat through no fault of their own, and...
B) Being fat is very unhealthy, and...
C) Taxes are not high enough.
And now, I will unleash my brilliance:
D) Tax everyone so that the government can provide for fat people!
It's all in my column, except for the details of how exactly the government will actually use these tax dollars to help fat people.
Remember (to quote my today's column again): "The history of government interventions is one of consistent, life-enhancing success."
Dizzy with success!!
Yours,
Dr. Paul Krugman, Ph.D
Concerned Democrat
Quote:
Dear Paul,Can you apply your laser-like mind to the AIDS problem? Could you re-write the same opinion piece with "AIDS" in place of "obesity?" It would look sort of like this:
#1. One answer is to focus on the financial costs of AIDS, and the fact that many of these costs fall on taxpayers and on the general insurance-buying public, rather than on the AIDS individuals themselves.
#2. It is more important, however, to emphasize that there are situations in which "free to choose" is all wrong - and that this [getting AIDS] is one of them.
#3. And even if children weren't a big part of the problem, only a blind ideologue or an economist could argue with a straight face that Americans were rationally deciding to get AIDS.
What do you think, Paul? Do you agree with this?
Dear Concerned Democrat,
As we know, AIDS is an excellent example of market failure -- but only under Republican administrations. When the ostensible leadership of the nation panders to a primitive constituency comprised free-market zealots and right-wing theocrats, don't be surprised when AIDS fatalities increase.
Judging by the vastly reduced frequency of AIDS stories in the media under Democratic leadership, and applying my rotated multilogit quadratic extraction matrices to the pertinent data, we can only conclude that Republicans and AIDS form a cause-and-effect relationship. Does this mean that Republicans are homosexual? Possibly, as their hostility towards gay rights might be an attempt to mask their own repressed leanings. But then, I am not a psychologist. I am only a (very talented) economist.
You are quite correct to state that the costs of AIDS fall on taxpayers. (And although I am not a physician, it is my understanding that AIDS can also have health consequences for taxpayers who are not yet infected.) And, of course, no one chooses to get AIDS.
And we can say the same thing about many other things. Though it is somewhat beneath me, let me provide you with a non-technical analogy.
The other day, I was driving on the New Jersey Turnpike to Princeton, which is where I work. Out of nowhere, my car broke down, and I came to a dead halt in the left lane. Now, I am not a car mechanic; I am only a (legendary) economist. And so, I sat in the left lane, listening to traffic reports of congestion to the George Washington Bridge, and thinking about how I was (somehow) losing money by waiting for assistance. And that's when I realized that:
A) My car's failure is imposing costs on everyone else.
B) "Free to choose" is all wrong here.
C) No one could say that anyone rationally wanted to be in this situation.
And so, I am suing the New Jersey Turnpike Authority for one hour of my very valuable time.
In other words, almost everything we do has some externalities, and we are often the victims of unintended circumstances. Therefore, it is axiomatic that the government should provide a universal "safety net" for everyone for every misfortune.
I will need to submit this as a future column.
Yours,
Dr. Paul Krugman, Ph.D (and many other honors)
Quag Mire
Quote:
Dear Paul,I read your Op-Ed today titled, "Un-Spin the Budget." In it you state:
Quote:
". . .the administration is poised to do the same thing on the budget that it has done again and again in Iraq: claim that a modest, probably temporary lull in the flow of bad news shows that victory is around the corner and that its policies have been vindicated.So let me do some pre-emptive de-spinning and debunking."You then proceed to razzle dazzle with classic effluvial serpentian algorithms, all of which result in the following conclusion:
Quote:
“In other words, we're still deep in the fiscal quagmire, with federal revenues far below what's needed to pay for federal programs. And we won't get out of that quagmire until a future president admits that the Bush tax cuts were a mistake, and must be reversed.”Now, I am not a famous economist, but I seem to see a few trends in your writing:
#1. There are lots of quagmires and ticking time bombs
#2. You are able to predict not only the fiscal future, but what people with opposite viewpoints are thinking and how they are planning to subvert the truth.
#3. Taxes are always useful, and cutting taxes is dangerous.
I, too, see the danger all around us. It is not hard to be afraid when confronted with as many ticking quagmires as we are. I, too, see the danger associated with a profound lack of taxation, which leaves us vulnerable. I guess I just want to know why you don't just beat the system and use your powers to foretell the stock exchange. All your gains could then be used to thwart the impending crisis when the tax revenue pillow is not soft enough to cushion the buttocks of society.
Dear Quag,
First, you recognize that you are not my equal; this is both admirable and expected. In any society, there is a segment of the population that has profound academic wisdom -- and it is their responsibility to convince (or dare I say "compel"?) everyone else to apply it to their personal lives. Remember, there are many situations where "free to choose" is all wrong.
I will address your points now.
Quote:
#1. There are lots of quagmires and ticking time bombsGive the devil his due; ticking time bombs and quagmires are, hook, line, and sinker in the same boat; the writing on the wall is that the winds of change will leave no stone unturned until the bitter end -- by leaps and bounds! This is one of the first things that I used to teach my students, until I became too important, too essential, to teach.
Quote:
#2. You are able to predict not only the fiscal future, but what people with opposite viewpoints are thinking and how they are planning to subvert the truth.This is correct, and it why The Times has requested that I write columns. That said, I think that anyone with an IQ at least 80% of mine knows that deficits are out of control. And we all know that deficits are evil and they need to end immediately.
Let me give you an example of why borrowing money is poor fiscal policy. Almost every company borrows money to cover their start-up costs; that is, they run deficits -- sometimes for many years! And it is a known fact that 80% of all new businesses fail. (My intern researched that for me on the Internet; she knows some sort of secret method for quickly finding answers.) So, if 80% of business fail, isn't that sufficient evidence that deficits are harmful?
That Republicans have created enormous deficits (against the prudent cautions from Democrats since time immemorial), isn't that another way of Republicans killing businesses? In fact, how about 80% of those businesses? Which, leaves the 20% that are successful; the few, the rich, and the corporate that Republicans support at the expense of everyone else.
And may I add that private pensions are placed in the hands of mutual funds that are borrowing your money. Does that make you feel safe? We now have an iron-clad Social Security lockbox that the Republicans want to replace with irresponsible borrowing and deficits.
Which brings me to your final point:
Quote:
#3. Taxes are always useful, and cutting taxes is dangerous.Correct. The salient point in my column is that taxes belong to the government, and that cutting taxes is therefore a government expense. This much is obvious. Just as workers own company profits, and community stakeholders own the right to make corporate decisions, the government owns your taxes.
And when we have vital programs that must be nourished, like light bulb filament subsidies and grants to study the effects of tortoise breath on under-water aridness, then the government must keep its taxes. Or raise them. When the Department of Energy comes calling with a one-billion dollar annual budget, what possible alternative is there to raising taxes? I, for one, cannot think of any alternatives -- and I am a very distinguished economist.
Prof. Krugman
Quag Mire
Quote:
I am slow, but I am starting to see the outlines of a pattern of thought as though "seen through a glass, darkly." I don't want to feign your degree of prescience, but see if you agree with my vision. I will use the Sophistocratic method that you have made famous:#1 Taxation is vital
#2. Things are too complicated nowadays for people to know what to do.
#3. Threfore people need economists to tell them what to do with money.
This being resolved, I then wonder if the winds are not only not but also clearly not blowing our American ship toward an inevitable confluence of economic certitudes resulting in the following:
All money needs to be funneled through the hands of a prominent economist first, and he will then decide how much of a refund check we need. Really, it is no different from a simple flat tax that the libertarians have been clamoring for, and it would solve the complicated tax code problem. All individuals would merely need to cede all income, after which they simply would direct an email petition to their local economist requesting money for items of need. It sure would make life alot easier, and we would never have to worry that we might run out of taxes in the middle of the night and have a crisis. Please be kind, I am trying to understand this all at once, and it is hard.
Ha ha, Sir, if I may be so glib! You are a very earnest pupil, and I would easily curve your grade to at least 100% were it not for a few errors in thought:
A) Economists have purity of thought. We are scientists and cannot be influenced by petitions and other expressions of popular opinion. True, majority opinions signify moral rectitude (which is why the Republicans needed to cheat to win the last two elections), and the people should therefore petition the government, and not the economists. At that time, the government will consult with the most gifted economists, who will provide expert guidance to the government. Of course, in an ideal situation, the most gifted economists would be government employees anyway -- in order to maximize efficiencies.
B) Of course this is hard for you to understand. My prose, though exquisite, does not even begin to reveal the complex ideas, abstractions, and most of all, formulas, that can intimidate any challenger. My mastery of jargon, my accumulation of degrees and awards, my implicit endorsement by The Economist ("By Invitation"...they invited me to speak!) gives even my slightest utterances a degree of credibility that almost defies comprehension.
C) You are very perceptive; things are far too difficult for anyone to understand. For example, did you know that the cyclical aggregate substitution of surplus floating cost can be approximated by a non-stationary hyperbolic gamma-curve? This is why people outside the field should only be concerned with simpler things, such as selecting the correct brand of detergent, choosing a color for their next car (although efficiencies dictate that only one optimal color be available to all), paying their taxes, voting for Democratic candidates, and reading my columns.
Prof. Dr. Paul Krugman
Sally Croquemonsieur
Quote:
I just got a $1,000 dollar bonus at work for working late every night and coming in early every morning. I was going to spend the money on a dress for my daughter, a grill for my husband and then keep a little bit for a rainy day, but now I am confused. From what you say, the economy is in a quagmire (what does that mean -- it sounds bad), and the rich stopped paying taxes. Does that mean I should give my money to the government? I don't want to end up with those big deficits that end up making our economy worse (what comes after quagmire -- I am afraid to ask). Also, if I am doing ok, how does the quagmire affect me? Does it sneak up like a cancer or is it there and I just can't see it? I never went to college, so I have a hard time with this.Sally Croquemonsieur
Baton Rouge, LA
Ms. Croquemonsieur:
I never communicated with anyone who did not attend college, so I hope that you will understand me. If you are illiterate, perhaps someone can read this response to you. I will struggle to use easy words.
Remember when you were a little itty bitty baby? And remember how mommy would feed you and dress you and take care of you? Remember how happy you were, and how easy it all was?
Good! You have a good memory! You are smart!
Now, remember when you were scared of monsters and bad people under your bed? And remember how mommy would make it all better?
Well, that big bad monster was only in the imagination of Little Sally. But quagmires and deficits are not in your imagination; they are real, and they are deadly. They are like the Bad Monster, but only much much worse.
Who will rescue you now, Sally, with mommy in her grave? Are you scared? Sad? Upset? Angry? You should be!!
It turns out that there's someone better than mommy. It is your government, and very very very very smart and compassionate people like me. Do you know what "compassionate" means? It means that we want to help you.
So, Sally...just as you gave your toys to mommy when you were a little baby, you need to give your money to the government. Just as those toys really belonged to mommy, that money really belongs to the government.
When you were little, mommy knew better than you. Isn't that enough proof that, today, your government knows better? Listen to us, vote for Democrats (or even Socialists, if the alternative is a right-wing Republican), and all will be better.
Do it for your children!
Paul
Federal Employee
Quote:
In your column today, you appear rather agitated about discrepancies in unemployment statistics of 1% or 2%. Why aren't you concerned about the effects of the 2.5 Million civilians (2% of the workforce) who are unproductive Federal employees? Shouldn't they also be counted amongst the "unemployed"?Dear Federal Employee,
Let's think about this, for thinking is my strength. Current unemployment, at 5%, would be 7% if we include employees of the Federal Government...and probably 10% or more if contractors are included. Now, a "10% unemployment rate" would really expose the present right-wing Republican administration for what it is, wouldn't it?
In fact, you'll note in my column that there may be "as many as" five million unemployed people. By analogy, and by applying some complex econometric modeling, we can say that a 10% unemployment rate is equivalent to "possibly" as high as 12%. Or 15%. Or even "possibly" as high as 75%.
And now, here's what separates advanced econometric theoreticians (like a certain humble academic columnist) from the ordinary man: If a 10% unemployment rate can "possibly" be as high as 75%, so too can a 1% unemployment rate be "possibly" as high as 75%. Hence, the unemployment rate--no matter what--is 75%...all thanks to Bush and Halliburton.
This also means that federal employment can...and should...increase from 2% to at least 40% of the civilian population. Because with a constant unemployment rate of possibly up to 75%, we need as many people as possible in the public service. Ideally, one can (in extreme) ponder the merits of 100% Federal employment with possibly up to 100% unemployment, which would address the issues of rich people, market distortions, "freedom to choose", social security privatization, and a host of other economic blemishes that are now searching for solutions.
Paul Krugman
Patriotic Liberal
Quote:
I read your column today ("Karl Rove's America") and was stunned by the truthfulness of your statements!Paul, I agree that the Democrats are purveyors of economic and political truth! After all, the noble efforts of men like Teddy Kennedy and Chuck Schumer speak for themselves! I also agree that Social Security is endangered by attempting to cede governmental control to the people. What do the people know about money? How could the republicans try to convince the people that they should be in charge of their own money? HOW INSANE!! And TAX CUTS!! NEED I SAY MORE??
But what really gets my goat is the categorization of Democrats as weak on defense! How could anyone say that Democrats are weak on Defense? Can you expound on these issues?
Dear P.L.,
It is curious that, of all my penetrating insights, you are questioning the most obvious one. Still, it is my responsibility as a humble teacher to educate everyone, including those who might have some difficulty with simple axiomatic truths.
The record of Democratic support for the military is as legendary as my reputation for being a highly sought-after brilliant economist, author, professor, columnist, and observer of world affairs. In particular, Democrats have been at the forefront of defending our nation efficiently and effectively; e.g, against the Branch Davidians, etc., etc., etc. But with respect to "9/11" Democrats have worked for a strong defense in many ways:
A) By having the courage to raise taxes. Defense is expensive, and the Republicans have bankrupted the military by giving the nation's wealth to rich people in the form of tax breaks; i.e. not taxing them as highly as I recommend. Fundamentally, the war on "terror" must first be waged against the rich.
B) By supporting the teachers' unions against private schools and of course, education vouchers. A nation needs a highly educated military almost as much as it needs highly-educated economic theorists. Only our public schools can educate future soldiers. Republican efforts to send our children to theocratic private schools, and worse, put our children to work to undermine union wages, will destroy our defense.
C) By demanding diversity. Our military must look like our nation. White, black, Hispanic, men, women, old, young, Jew, Muslim, heterosexual, homosexual, and the gender challenged must all be represented in proportion to their numbers in the general population in every branch of the armed services.
D) By demanding military sensitivity. We cannot beat the terrorists; we can only appease them. And appeasement works best through sensitivity; for example, by allowing suspected terrorists full access to the American legal system and banning any kind of security "profiling". (Kudos to Norman Minetta for implementing such a policy.) Remember: Terrorists can be of any persuasion, age, religion, gender, and sexual preference. And sensitivity requires the military not to offend the sensibilities of suspects; e.g., we must respect their holy books, grant them no contact with female interrogators, etc.
E) By focusing our nation's agenda on things like gay marriage, Wal-Mart, Karl Rove, etc. When the "terrorists" see how we bring justice to our own aggrieved, then they too will be more just. And (if I may paraphrase an influential movie producer), the "terrorists" will also realize that we did not vote for Bush, and will therefore leave us alone.
P.G.
Quote:
Economics confuses me.Kommissar Betty:
Different people have different aptitudes. Some people are facile in mathematics, others have strengths in other fields -- such as languages, athletics, cooking, or menial labor. To be sure, you must have many strengths. So many skills, in fact, that they "crowd out" other skills such as economics.
Specifically, I see that one of your strong points is that you know who to write to for advice. And to do so in an articulate manner spun in the very essence of brevity. And so, I will un-confuse you in two easy steps.
1) The science of economics is complex, specialized, and very difficult for almost anyone to understand. You are not alone. In fact, you are typical!
2) To understand this difficult field, we must all turn to experts; i.e, those who do have the gift of knowledge, understanding, and outstanding cognitive potential. And then we must listen to them and follow their advise. Always. even if it is a little difficult!
I hope this clarified things.
Prof. Krugman
P.S. I trust you understood the big words.
Insane Ramblings
Quote:
Krugman,I am tired of all your sycophantic pals on this site. How about you respond to some real questions you jerk!
Your op-ed today made me vomit. You manage to get all your favorite crazed "topics of import" into one piece: Higher taxes for the rich, the education crisis, corporate flight, and Canadian Healthcare! I thought I was in a lysergic acid induced economic fantasyland, staring up at the "marmalade skies!" I must quote you!
Quote:
Modern American politics is dominated by the doctrine that government is the problem, not the solution. In practice, this doctrine translates into policies that make low taxes on the rich the highest priority, even if lack of revenue undermines basic public services. You don't have to be a liberal to realize that this is wrong-headed.What the Hell? Don't the rich pay all the taxes in this country already you nut? Last I checked, we ain't gettin' crap out of Mr. Low Income in the State and Federal coffers. What are you trying to say? By "tax the rich" do you mean "disproportionately steal their EARNED INCOME to suit your own whims?" You FREAK.
Quote:
. . .last month Toyota decided to put the new plant, which will produce RAV4 mini-S.U.V.'s, in Ontario [instead of Alabama]. Explaining why it passed up financial incentives to choose a U.S. location, the company cited the quality of Ontario's work force.So basically, the company said that AMERICAN WORKERS are the problem. You know, the kind who EXPECT THE GOVERNMENT or THEIR UNION to take care of them so they can get a nice free ride. People in Ontario actually realize that the word "work" has a meaning, and it's not "show up late, leave early, take lotsa breaks, look for chances to sue over benefits." Perhaps they actually went to a real school too, unlike the new liberal American daycare centers called public schools which COST MORE THAN PRIVATE SCHOOLS TO RUN!
Quote:
There's some bitter irony here for Alabama's governor. Just two years ago voters overwhelmingly rejected his plea for an increase in the state's rock-bottom taxes on the affluent, so that he could afford to improve the state's low-quality education system. Opponents of the tax hike convinced voters that it would cost the state jobs.That's your answer for everything, isn't it? More taxes. People are lazy and stupid, and don't apply themselves in work or school, so more taxes are needed? You put a mentally-hungry immigrant from India in the same schools and I'll show you an educated kid on the way to Harvard. You put little Joey, whose Daddy is a lazy bum, in Uncle Sam's watered-down "people's math" class and you get a LAZY IDIOT. When Toyota decided on Ontario, THE COMPANY DIDN'T SAY SHIT ABOUT EDUCATION LEVEL YOU JERK. I hate you Paul.
Quote:
But education is only one reason Toyota chose Ontario. Canada's other big selling point is its national health insurance system, which saves auto manufacturers large sums in benefit payments compared with their costs in the United States.What a great health system! Just wait 6 months for your free cardiac bypass (if you live that long). Basically, the company is saying "we don't care if our workers get good care, as long as it's cheap." You APPLAUD THIS Paul, you wretched ideologue! You can't see your beloved worker bees being taken advantage of right in front of your horrendously ugly face!
Quote:
I'm sure that some readers will respond to everything I've just said by asking why, if the Canadians are so smart, they aren't richer. But I'll have to leave the issue of America's comparative economic performance for another day.If I had a dollar for every time you said this, I'd be RICH! You rely on the oldest trick in the book -- "I can't tell you why this is wrong now, as it would take too long." Then you never address it again you fuck. That is, unless the right fraudulent story appears so you can "cook the books." You know, one that vaguely implies the Canadian standard of living might be better than ours in the year 2032 or the like.
TO RECAP:
The problem: Ontario has better workers than Alabama, and Canada is cheaper, so a Toyota plant is going to Ontario instead of Alabama
Your Answer: Higher taxes!
IDIOT IDIOT IDIOT IDIOT IDIOT MORON IDIOT
Here, my Republican friend, is what you need to understand.
In Ontario, health care is free. Therefore, Toyota moved there so they wouldn't have to pay for their employees' health care. Did Toyota say that? No. But did the Ontario Ministry of Health say that? Yes. And did I say that? Yes.
And you need top understand that there is such a thing as a free lunch. Canadian health care is free. How do we know that? Because that is what the phrase says. Free. F-R-E-E. Therefore, no one pays for it. It's just there, just like that. Canadian legislators took the advice of an economist like (but not quite like) myself, and with a stroke of a pen, made it free.
Of course, you might wonder why Canadian Toyotas are not free. Well, in the evolution of economics (not that a Republican such as yourself understands "evolution"). Perhaps the Canadian government shall will that also.
As complicated as economics is, sometimes it just takes courage (and a pen!) to make things free.
Sincerely,
Paul Krugman
Elsworth Toohey
Quote:
Professor Paul,Please explain supply, demand, and price and how the 3 relate to one another.
Hello Mr. Toohey.
May I commend you on your selection of authorities to turn to for help.
In theory, "supply" refers to producers' propensity to provide goods and service. "Demand" refers to consumers' willingness to purchase goods and services. "Price" is what producers are willing to accept for their goods and services, and is also what consumers are willing to pay for thier goods and services.
In theory, there is a price at which producers will sell goods and services, and at which consumers will purchase goods and services in such a way that there are no leftovers; i.e., ther will be no "surpluses" or "shortages". At that point, we say that the market "clears".
From reading my columns, you would never guess that I know these things. That is because they are too complicated for ordinary people to understand – so I put it in simple terms like “Dick Cheney has threatened the nation with compulsory Christianity.” And if you read my academic papers…well, let’s just say that any attempt will leave you awed into a trembling submission to my overwhelming intellect.
Anyway, supply…demand…price…that's only theory...and we know that "theory" is only useful in a classroom (and my academic papers). Now, needless to say, as an accomplished academic and author of scores of books and articles, it would clearly be impossible for me to explain the true nature of supply, demand, and price in a paragraph. But I will describe just a little of how flawed the theory is, and why there is such a demand (yes, that was a deliberate play on words) for my inexhaustible supply (yes, another play on words) of economic knowledge.
For starters, the theory fails to take monopolies into account. In capitalist societies, most corporations are monopolies, and will supply whatever they feel like supplying; usually as little as possible, and then only to white males. Hence the income disparities between white males and People of Diversity – and the discrepancy between workers and corporate owners. True, this has been somewhat mitigated by labor unions, but even the most earnest of unions cannot withstand the Republican onslaught of favoritism to Corporate America, and in particular, the lowering of their taxes.
The consequence of these monopolies is a “horizontal supply curve”. Now, if that confuses you, then I recommend that you stop reading this, and go to something simpler – perhaps a television program? Otherwise, this refers to the fact that suppliers know what price they want, and they will get it regardless of how much or how little they offer. And that means that the demand curve is irrelevant – except that as demand increases, so will profits. Untaxed profits.
Bottom line: Without government control (and my advice), we have become a two-class system of haves and have-nots. The suppliers have the demanders in an iron grip, and that’s too high a price to pay. And that is supply, demand, and price.
Prof. Paul Krugman, Ph.D. etc.
P.S. If you take issue with what I say, may I refer you to my academic papers before you respond?
Elsworth Toohey
Quote:
Wow!!! Horizontal supply curve. To the average reader, "horizontal" and "curve" would appear to be oxymorons. But with your "out of the box" thinking and expanded intellect, I am sure that you are able to comprehend issues on a higher level understanding than most party members.Thank you for blessing me with your condescending ramblings.
Mr. Toohey:
There are things you know, and there are things you don't know. And then there are things that you don't even know you don't know. That is where I come in as The Benevolent Explainer.
I realize that even the average reader of The New York Times, although in the top percentile of intelligence, nevertheless resides in a different intellectual space from yours truly -- and therefore has total admiration for my penetrating insights and my paradigm-shattering analyses.
You are very welcome, Sir.
Dr. Paul Krugman, Ph.D etc.
P.S. Yes, Donald Rumsfeld did steal that first line from me. (Just as they stole the last two elections.)
Young Economist
Quote:
Dear Paul,I am a grad student in economics at MIT. I believe in you. So much so, that I have devoted my waking hours to a new theory.
Einstein dicovered relativity (for light and gravity) long ago. However, we still cling to economic absolutes! Where is our "economic theory of relativity?"
My new theory is quite simple. I have titled it "Economic Relativity." No matter what something costs, there is an overwhelming constant which I have labeled "E." The "E" constant is the constant factor of exploitation inherent in any corporate transaction. After an exhaustive proof, the equation is as follows:
E = [(TR - TC) - (AW)]/AW
(where TR is total revenue and TC is total cost, and AW is actual worth of the product)
By my analyses (which are "of MIT quality," and hence incontrovertible), E is always equal to ONE! What an amazing constant! Much like the speed of light is constant! Therefore, the value of every product is actually 1/2 the price at which it is currently being sold!
The solution? The novice might say "half off for everything!" But wait, there is more! The extra money has been siphone from the funds needed for Federal programs, which I prove in a formula too complex for this venue. (I'll have to leave the issue of America's tax revenue as a function of fair pricing for another day.) Regardless, the unavoidable result is the overwhelming need for a sales tax increase of 50% at the federal level.
I look forward to your comments.
Sincerely,
Your biggest fan
We have much in common, Young Economist. As you know, I was an economics legend at MIT, and in fact specialized in formulas that were too complex for any venue. But remember, I am The Teacher, and you are the pupil. As such, there is, and always will be, a distance between you and me that cannot be spanned. I lend you some admiration for not being completely frightened of me. You may approach me.
Allow me to compliment you on your conclusion. Yes, a (minimum) 50% federal sales tax would be an especially equitable, just, efficient, and caring solution to many problems. But as your Benevolent Teacher, I must criticize your methodology.
Let’s examine the formula:
E = [(TR - TC) - (AW)]/AW
You correctly state that this is formula applies to corporations. That implies you are aware of its inapplicability to government programs where:
TR is some finite constant k,
TC is almost zero, and
AW approaches infinity.
Substituting these values, we can reduce the formula to
E = (k - 0 - infinity)/infinity = -infinity/infinity = -1
May I suggest that E always equals –1 for government programs?
But back to the flaw. In true corporatism, the worth of many products is zero. (Advertising forces consumers to believe that valueless items have some worth.) Therefore AW = 0, and E is an undefined quotient when AW = 0.
Q.E.D.
Please do not feel belittled by my analysis.
May I suggest that there is no other economist, living or dead, who has the uncanny ability to develop such insights?
Yours.
Professor Krugman
P.S. If you were my student, I would curve your grade to at least 100% for your sales-tax theorem.
RANDI WEINGARTEN!!
Quote:
Dear Paul,As president of the United Federation of Teachers, representing more than 140,000 active and retired non-supervisory educators in the New York City public school system, I have a unique understanding of our schools. As you and I agree, there is a basic, inviolable cause and effect relationship in education. Of course I speak of the direct correlation between increased funding and improved education. For the simpletons out there, MORE MONEY MEANS BETTER SCHOOLS!
I saw an article in the New York Post today that is obviously false. However, it can only be proven false by an economist. Hence my letter to you! I will quote some of it here. As usual, our standard fee will apply for your analysis.
http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/50463.htm:
Quote:
City school districts that consistently recorded top scores on standardized reading and math tests over the past five years spent far less per pupil than districts whose grades were in the cellar, a Post analysis found.At PS 188 in Flushing, Queens, where 96 percent of kids were reading at or above grade level in 2004, the school spent just $9,664 per pupil compared to $14,080 per child at MS 399 in The Bronx, where just 5.6 percent of students were reading at grade level.
What NONSENSE! And the article goes ON AND ON! Clearly this article is ALL SPIN and we need a Professor to DE-SPIN it for us!
Hi Randi...how are you these days?
I hardly think that I need to se-spin that article, as you did a pretty good job yourself! What nonsense, indeed! Really, should we pay any attention whatsoever to anything from Rupert Murdoch?
But false claims must be addressed and demystified. And as we all know, Rupert Murdoch has used his media empire to promote a conservative political agenda. Worse, he is doing it on the backs of children.
Our children.
Our innocent children.
Randi, here’s what needs to be said:
A) The data is likely fabricated. The Murdoch Empire is notorious for spreading lies, and their New York tabloid is among the worst offenders.
B) The article was not written by an economist, or in fact, by any expert. Data in the hands of the layperson is like playing with fire; they have no understanding of mathematics and economics, and will inevitably mislead others.
C) The article did not cite any academic journals, nor did it contain formulae.
D) The article’s author did not consult me. (Or you!)
In any case, one does not need my enormous cognitive abilities understand that even if students really did perform better in lower-funded schools, they would perform better still if spending was increased.
Furthermore, we owe it to our teachers to pay them properly. As an economist (perhaps the sharpest ever), I can say that there is hardly a limit to what teachers are worth. And furthermore, raising teachers’ salaries is also a fine way to implement much-needed tax hikes.
Our free public education system rivals the international standards of Canada’s free health care system – to say nothing of meeting the standards of our own public housing and public transportation systems.
Let’s keep it strong.
My God, they’re just children!
“In Solidarity,”
Paul
Elsworth Toohey
Quote:
Professor Krugman,I have wrestled with a dilema for several months and I was hoping that you could guide me to the proper conclusion. On the one hand, I support the NBA's recent efforts to limit obscene profits that are being made by high school basketball players by forcing them to enter the NBA draft two years after graduating. They also have a salary cap that limits the amount of profits that can be taken in by these non-producers, a system that I am sure that even Marx would envy.
Yet, I feel pity that most of those that will be affected by the new rules... many will be from the urban squalor that was created during the Reagan era. These are quite often poor, black males that were unable to win life's lottery and participate in the trickle down economic scam. I can think of no better way to redistribute wealth than for a young teenager from the urban ghetto to be paid in riches that he (or she) can disperse among those within their immediate family, friends, and posse/entourage.
Please help me to resolve this issue that has kept me awake and perplexed for many nights.
Mr. Toohey:
You are a very astute and moral observer of how athletic corporatism affects the poor and the diverse. "Liberalism" has become a dirty word in George Bush's America, but we still realize that in order to be blind to race, we must relentlessly focus on it. "Equality of opportunity" is synonymous with "preferential treatment". Yes, your biology matters because it should.
Which brings me to the shameful exploitation of black youth. Corporate America accumulates wealth on the backs of black youths through competitive athletics. Regardless of the athlete's compensation, there is no right to compete. Boxing, for instance, is a barbaric sport that needs to be banned. You do not have the right to hurt yourself for compensation.
Basketball, though not as violent as boxing, is also competitive and potentially dangerous -- and therefore needs to be banned entirely. The spectacle of black youths risking injury for the entertainment of a rich, white, male audience is a throwback to the Dark Ages.
Recall that the main purpose of government is to protect its citizens, and especially Citizens of Diversity. And in the case of basketball, players need to be protected from injury, protected from indignity, protected from stereotyping, and protected from competition.
My solution (which is identical to the solution) is to prohibit black males from participating in all competitive sports. Instead, we need to focus on ways to guide them to the safe non-competitive upper tiers of government employment -- and especially in areas where they are under-represented, and yes, even "unqualified". Remember: "Qualification" itself is a subjective and relative term, used throughout history to harm People of Diversity.
The urgent task before us is to develop committees, organizations, coalitions, and especially task forces (blue-ribbon, if possible) to ensure that this happens.
And that takes money -- which means that existing taxes must be raised, and new taxes must be developed.
But don't count on that happening with this racist White House.
Yours,
Professor Krugman, Ph.D., etc.
P.S. I too am hoping for an end to the Reagan legacy. In fact, my research assistant informs me that both Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro are still alive; don’t they deserve another chance at the Presidency?
Dr. Rufus T. Firefly
Dear Paul,
I do enjoy your columns. However, I would be ignoring my obligation to society and to you if I did not point out something quite obvious. I am a practicing psychiatrist in the tri-state area. After reading much of your work, I though you might want to perform a self- test. Below are listed nine signs of a disorder that you may have. You need five of these signs to be clinically diagnosed. By my count, you score a perfect 9/9. While you are under no obligation to seek help, I must imagine it would unburden those around you.
A narcissistic personality disorder as defined by the DSM (see DSM cautionary statement) is characterized by an all-pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration or adulation and lack of empathy, usually beginning by early adulthood and present in various contexts. Five (or more) of the following criteria are considered necessary for the clinical diagnosis to be met:
1. Feels grandiose and self-important (e.g., exaggerates accomplishments, talents, skills, contacts, and personality traits to the point of lying, demands to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements);
2. Is obsessed with fantasies of unlimited success, fame, fearsome power or omnipotence, unequalled brilliance (the cerebral narcissist), bodily beauty or sexual performance (the somatic narcissist), or ideal, everlasting, all-conquering love or passion;
3. Firmly convinced that they are unique and, being special, can only be understood by, should only be treated by, or associate with, other special or unique, or high-status people (or institutions);
4. Requires excessive admiration, adulation, attention and affirmation — or, failing that, wishes to be feared and to be notorious (narcissistic supply);
5. Feels entitled. Demands automatic and full compliance with their unreasonable expectations for special and favorable priority treatment.
6. Is "interpersonally exploitative", i.e., uses others to achieve their own ends;
7. Devoid of empathy. Is unable or unwilling to identify with, acknowledge, or accept the feelings, needs, preferences, priorities, and choices of others;
8. Constantly envious of others and seeks to hurt or destroy the objects of their frustration. Suffers from persecutory (paranoid) delusions stemming from a belief that others are envious of them and are likely to act similarly;
9. Behaves arrogantly and haughtily. Feels superior, omnipotent, omniscient, invincible, immune, "above the law", and omnipresent (magical thinking). Rages when frustrated, contradicted, or confronted by people they consider inferior to themselves and unworthy.
Sincerely,
Rufus Firefly MD
(Gratuate Mass. Gen. Hospital, winner "prix de psychiatry," senior member of the Freud Society)
I do enjoy your columns. However, I would be ignoring my obligation to society and to you if I did not point out something quite obvious. I am a practicing psychiatrist in the tri-state area. After reading much of your work, I though you might want to perform a self- test. Below are listed nine signs of a disorder that you may have. You need five of these signs to be clinically diagnosed. By my count, you score a perfect 9/9. While you are under no obligation to seek help, I must imagine it would unburden those around you.
Quote:
Diagnostic Criteria (DSM-IV-TR)A narcissistic personality disorder as defined by the DSM (see DSM cautionary statement) is characterized by an all-pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration or adulation and lack of empathy, usually beginning by early adulthood and present in various contexts. Five (or more) of the following criteria are considered necessary for the clinical diagnosis to be met:
1. Feels grandiose and self-important (e.g., exaggerates accomplishments, talents, skills, contacts, and personality traits to the point of lying, demands to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements);
2. Is obsessed with fantasies of unlimited success, fame, fearsome power or omnipotence, unequalled brilliance (the cerebral narcissist), bodily beauty or sexual performance (the somatic narcissist), or ideal, everlasting, all-conquering love or passion;
3. Firmly convinced that they are unique and, being special, can only be understood by, should only be treated by, or associate with, other special or unique, or high-status people (or institutions);
4. Requires excessive admiration, adulation, attention and affirmation — or, failing that, wishes to be feared and to be notorious (narcissistic supply);
5. Feels entitled. Demands automatic and full compliance with their unreasonable expectations for special and favorable priority treatment.
6. Is "interpersonally exploitative", i.e., uses others to achieve their own ends;
7. Devoid of empathy. Is unable or unwilling to identify with, acknowledge, or accept the feelings, needs, preferences, priorities, and choices of others;
8. Constantly envious of others and seeks to hurt or destroy the objects of their frustration. Suffers from persecutory (paranoid) delusions stemming from a belief that others are envious of them and are likely to act similarly;
9. Behaves arrogantly and haughtily. Feels superior, omnipotent, omniscient, invincible, immune, "above the law", and omnipresent (magical thinking). Rages when frustrated, contradicted, or confronted by people they consider inferior to themselves and unworthy.
Sincerely,
Rufus Firefly MD
(Gratuate Mass. Gen. Hospital, winner "prix de psychiatry," senior member of the Freud Society)
Quote:
Dear P. Krugman,I want to believe you are on our side, but it has been brought to my attention that you worked at one time for ENRON! Please explain yourself. We are already purging James Earl Carter, and we would hate to see another of our icons go down in flames.
Sincerely,
The Peoples' Doctor
Serving the Masses' Health Care Needs, One Million at a Time(TM)
Respected Dr. Fuku:
And where is Enron today?
Need I say say more about my influence on corporate greed?
Yours,
Professor Krugman
cassem34
Quote:
Dear Prof:As has been established, while growing up, you were regularly pummeled by the larger, better looking, and more popular kids (boys and girls). This explains much as to how you arrive at your insights into how the world works or should work. Were you also sodomized on a regular basis? Which did you enjoy better, being flogged or being f###ed?
Tiger Fan
Hello Tiger Fan.
Or should I say "Hello Karl Rove"?
This is one of your worst attempts at pushing tax cuts through your conservative agenda. In fact, your tone is absolutely racist. Would you like to try to remove that stigma? Good luck, friend, you cannot steal three elections in a row.
Cordially,
Professor Krugman
R. Q. Moonbeam
Quote:
Paul,First, let me humbly beg your forgiveness for bothering you - someone as zenithic as you should not be bothered by trifling issues. But I desperately need your help!
One of Chimpy McSmirklerburton's Rovian minions from the vast right wing conspiracy keeps mocking me (and my Social-Democrat beliefs) by pointing out all the inefficiencies of the old USSR (he won't shut up about the bad wearther farming bounties) and asking why people invariably defect from socialist countries to democratic ones. I need help and some facts to combat him!
- Rainbow Q. Moonbeam
aka Kevin
Hello Rainbow.
Please remember that these Christian zealots will defame you, defame me, and defame Honest Socialism with pure unsubstantiated slander. And as long as I am on your side, you will have nothing to fear (except for some intimidating formulae and abstract concepts that, frankly, you could not possibly understand.)
Allow me to quote myself.
Quote:
Under Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet Union fell apart because political reforms undermined the command economy.In other words, a true command economy, as under Stalin for instance, brings unity, riches, and equality. There was nothing wrong with the Soviet system; the problem was with the Capitalist Christian Gorbachev who undermined the Soviet system. That is, Gorbachev, Bush, and Rove were as one -- destroying the Soviet economy.
With regard to defections, compare the number of defections from a true Socialist state with the number of defections from the United States. Every year, thousands of Americans leave the United States -- permanently. And would you care to guess how many citizens leave North Korea? Almost none. Again, it is your corporate adversaries who have the facts all wrong.
I also urge you to read my article called Capitalism's Mysterious Triumph, where I explain how Stalin built a powerful army that defeated the Germans, and how successful American corporations are like centrally planned economies.
These are old columns, and since then, my mind has greatly expanded. I can assure you that the few positive statements I made about capitalism have been purged from my legendary brain, and will never appear in a column again.
Your teacher,
Prof. Krugman, Ph.D, etc.
R. Q. Moonbeam
Quote:
Paul,I knew it! I knew Rove was behind it somehow!
Anyway, I had another quick question. Once I told the fascist wingnut (it's ok to call them that to their face, right?) - he kept on going on about 'incentives' and how the socialist system doesn't provide them, thus inevitably leading to failure - or something along those lines. Anyway, I wanted to ask - what actions can I legitimately take to minimize his effect on the collective good?
- Rainbow Q. Moonbeam
aka Kevin
Hello Rainbow.
You impress me as someone who will not be bullied by corporatists and fascists.
Here is what you need to know. Money corrupts. The persuit of profits does not produce socially desirable incentives, but instead promotes biases towards revenue maximization.
Socialism, though, is pure. Since there is no distorting profit motive, Socialist managers can dedicate their labors towards the pure objective common good. Think about your schoolwork. You did not get paid to do your homework, so instead, you gave it your best unbiased shot. And I'll bet you did well, given your inclination to question fascists and to come to Professor Krugman for sound advice.
And this is what we see in Socialist economies. For instance, Cuba has very progressive health care and North Korea has a very advanced weapons program. All without the monetary biases of capitalism.
Try to convince your fascist friend (and yes, you can call him anything to his face) of the purity and nobleness of selfless giving. Without the distortions of a free market, perhaps he too will begin to care a little more about others.
Yours,
Dr. Paul Krugman, Ph.D etc.
P.S. If you really want to frighten him with how brilliant I am, just print this page and wave it in front of him. I can assure you that he will never question you about anything afterwards.
R. Q. Moonbeam
Quote:
Paul,You have to help me!
I made a huge mistake yesterday, and submitted to the evil fascist and capitalistic corporation of Walmart.... I ... *sob*... got a job.
Suddenly I was overcome with doubts as to the legitimacy of the constitutionally limited government taking a third of the money I earned. I've been trying to do a meditation and telling myself that my money is used for valuable collective goods such as NEA subsidized urine-dunked crucifixes, but the evil seed of individualism has been planted in my brain! This was so much easier to understand when I was on Welfare and living in my parent's basement!
Please, help me, Paul! You're my only hope!
- Rainbow Q. Moonbeam
aka Kevin
Hello Mr. Moonbeam.
You are a very furtunate person, for you have inspired me to address this very topic in today's column. The context is French superiority to America, but the details explain why a powerful government is so critical.
Even I am overwhelmed by the extraordinary clarity, cohesiveness, and moral purpose of my prose today:
Quote:
...to the extent that the French have less income than we do, it's mainly a matter of choice.Quote:
...the members of that French family are compensated for their lower income with much more time together.Quote:
...government regulations actually allow people to make a desirable tradeoff - to modestly lower income in return for more time with friends and family.Allow me to simplify this even further for you, my earnest but simple friend. The French choose to make less money, and then come out ahead by making less money, and most importantly, they have this choice because of government regulations.
The lesson is: More regulations allow us to make more choices.
Now, in order for us to enjoy all these regulations, we need to contribute a lot of money to the government. This will make the government strong, powerful, and eventually having the ability to provide us with everything we need. And with luck, perhaps we too can be like France:
Quote:
Because French schools are good across the country, the French family doesn't have to worry as much about getting its children into a good school district. Nor does the French family, with guaranteed access to excellent health care, have to worry about losing health insurance or being driven into bankruptcy by medical bills.Incidentally, I hope you noticed the value of that excellent French education acquired in those remarkable school districts. For sure, we've seen that it certainly won't make them rich adults! But they will be very educated. Educated in knowing the superiority of their culture, and also in knowing that regulations bring freedom.
You're Welcome,
Professor Krugman, Ph.D, etc.
P.S. If you must work, please consider employment at a firm other than Wal-Mart. Their list of human-rights abuses is long enough to fill my next book.
R. Q. Moonbeam
Quote:
Paul,I'm beginning to see how insidious those Walmart fat-cat corporate heads are. Just today my boss sat me down to talk about... the dreaded 401k. I just wanted to scream "Retirement is what Social Security is for!" But I soon found my head spinning as they subjected me to a Guantanamoesque torture-briefing about employee matching and stock options. Don't they know I'm too stupid to know what to do with my own money? Besides, don't they know how dangerous the stock market is? I'm retiring in 45 years, and I know that the market couldn't make any net gains over that long of a time!
Even worse... they're not unionized. Those fascists traded in the lean efficiency of a unterminatable collective union for the ability to fire someone based on their individual competance.
I want to quit Walmart, I really do... but I have this addicting feeling, each time I get home from work. I know it's a thoughtcrime, but... I have a sense of accomplishment, as if earning a steady paycheck is something to be proud of. Is Karl Rove behind this, too - it seems to fit.
- Rainbow Q. Moonbeam
aka Kevin
PS: Your article was so awe inspiring that I know it would be sacriledge to even address it in its perfection.
Hello Rainbow.
Since when did Wal-Mart have 401K plans for employees -- let alone any benefits at all? My hunch is that this is a scam to make you lose your Medicaid benefits.
I refer you to my article titled Always Low Wages. Always.
Quote:
When they reach 65, most Wal-Mart employees will rely heavily on Social Security - if the privatizers don't kill it. And many Wal-Mart employees already rely on Medicaid to pay for health care, especially for their children...Yet our current political leaders are trying to privatize Social Security and reduce benefits. And they are slashing funds for Medicaid even as they give big tax cuts to people like Mr. Lee. [Wal-Mart's chief executive.]Obviously, your "employer" is attempting to pass your rightfully-earned public benefits to his CEO.
As a legendary theoretician, I rarely dispense personal advice, but I will make an exception here because I cry for you. I do not cry for the bondholders; I cry for you.
- You must approach your supervisor and demand that Mr. Lee return your Medicaid benefits.
- You must clearly tell your supervisor that under no circumstances will your dignity be violated by Karl Rove's right-wing corporatism.
- You must warn him (yes, I know it is a "him", as only the male gender is capable of such atrocities) that any violation of your rights will be met with swift and devastating legal action.
- And of course, you must present him with this.
Good luck, my gentle yet naive friend.
Your Welcome,
Professor Paul Krugman, Ph.D., etc.
Larry Summers
Quote:
Esteemed Dr. Krugman -If, as you assert in your column, the French earn less than Americans because they want to, can't it also be true that women might earn less than men because of an innate preference?
Help me out here,
Larry Summers - Cambridge MA
To my pupils; i.e., you, who are reading these words:
I have volunteered to explain the science of economics to the uninformed, the ignorant, and others who thirst for my knowledge. However, I ask: Need I respond to this vicious personal attack by a demonstrated (by a Harvard Panel, no less!) sexist and Republican stooge?
I will, because insult and innuendo must be countered with (my) indefatigable reasoning and logic.
Mr. Summers: There is no room in this world for your female-phobic words of hate and bigotry. And apparently, the $50,000,000 that your institution will pay to recognize female diversity is not enough. No amount will be enough to reverse the damage inflicted by you, Karl Rove, and Paul Wolfowitz.
You make me ashamed of my gender.
Dr. Paul Krugman, Ph.D., etc., etc., etc.
Elsworth Toohey
Quote:
Dr. Krugman,Is it possible to be both moral and a capitalist?
Hello Mr. Toohey.
Your question reveals the innocence of a pupil approaching the enormity of an accomplished intellect with a boundless capacity for educating others.
Therefore, I cannot give you an answer, Mr. Toohey, because I am not a moralist. I only see things through the cold prism of science...for I am a scientist. A scientist like no other, perhaps, blending complex theories with an intuitive brilliance to produce a supply of policy recommendations that have no equal. And yet, I am a mere scientist.
So, I will list a few terms below, Mr. Toohey, and then I will ask that you think about these terms and how they interact with morality and capitalism. And then, you, and only you, can determine the morality of capitalism. Your morality, and your capitalism.
Inequality
Quagmire
Cronyism
Enron
Budget deficits
Immoral tax cuts
Stagflation
Passing the buck
Economic misery
Trickle-down economics
Halliburton
Wal-Mart
44 Million uninsured Americans: They will die for the unilateral oil wars
I gave you the facts, now you must do the thinking. A rather clever teaching device of mine, wouldn't you say?
Your welcome,
Professor Krugman, Ph.D.
Down and Out
Quote:
Dear Mr. Krugman,My father founded our family restaurant in 1930. When he passed, we struggled, but succeeded, in keeping the business alive despite years of nightmares with the government over paying the death tax, which at that time was much higher. Still, Virginia's rate of almost 16 percent for some businesses is outrageous, nearly three times the income tax, nearly four times the sales tax and nearly three times the meals tax. And the tax is applied on assets that have already been taxed through local property and business taxes and those same state sales and income taxes.
What do you think about death taxes?
Hello Down and Out:
After pondering the issues raised in your carefully crafted letter, and after immersing your thoughts into my vast reservoir of intelligence and analytic ability just...sloshing...in my capacious brain, I would like to address the most salient piece of your correspondence.
Specifically, you addressed me as a "mister".
Does a "mister" have multiple degrees piled on even more degrees? Does a "mister" have an impeccable academic reputation, recognized the world over for razor-sharp insights and visionary policy recommendations? Does a "mister" get invited to write for The Economist? Would the New York Times trust a messenger of economic truths to a "mister"? Do fawning governments search for enlightenment and direction from a "mister"?
But my ideals of liberalism and tolerance permit me to overlook such impertinence, and I will address the remainder of your question.
I am glad to see that you realize how outrageous it is for death taxes to be triple the Virginia income tax. Clearly, a tripling of the state's income tax would address that gross inequity. Similarly, a quadrupling of the sales tax and tripling the meal tax would go a long way towards equalizing incomes and addressing that former slave state's legacy of racism.
You are also correct in supporting a tax that is applied on assets that have already been taxed. As you are probably aware, this is a routine way for governments to pay the bill of free enterprise. For example, when you paid your 2004 taxes, it was following tax payments in 2003, 2002, and so forth. (In technical terms, this is called a "series".) And so it is with taxable assets; they to need to be taxed repeatedly -- and often. Ideally, there should be a semi-annual inventory of everyone's assets, and an appropriate tax applied.
Now, I am not a lawyer or a moralist. As you know, I am only a legendary – yet humble – economist from Princeton NJ. As such, I stick to what I know best: Economics. In fact, I don’t even have opinions; Truth and Wisdom are antithetical to opinions.
Which brings me to the matter of your father’s family restaurant. It’s rare to hear such an admission of blatant racism, but your father was discriminating against minorities – and anyone else who was not in his family. I suspect he…
- Was in violation of civil rights laws
- Ignored child labor prohibitions
- Lacked food inspection certifications
- Did not have proper restaurant licensing
- Evaded taxes (!!)
- Violated zoning ordinances
- Did not have sufficient pollution control devices
- Ignored OSHA regulations
…and who knows what else in his toxic Jim Crow-era institution of racism and exploitation.
I am not suggesting that anyone reading this should notify the authorities about your family's liability to redress its past behavior, but you should not be surprised if you are called upon to do so. The wise approach would be to turn yourself in...now.
In the long run, though, I project massive intra-bifunctional transfers of surplus polyparameters. And yes, I do question where states derive the right to decide their tax levels. In a properly-functioning nation like, say, France, a strong central government decides what is best for all. But our radical Republican-packed Supreme Court, manipulated by Karl Rove, has not fulfilled its correct function of unifying all laws under a single authority. The resulting free-market fiasco has burdened a nation (that did not elect Bush) with a bill that will be the bane of our grandchildren.
Yours,
DOCTOR Prof. Paul Krugman, Ph.D., Ford International Professor of Economics, etc., etc., etc.
Herman L. Peckinstout
Quote:
Dear Prof. Dr. h.c. Paul Krugman, Ph.D.,I saw in your above trip to Germany that many titles (including "h.c.") appear with your name. Could you fully spell out all these titles for me? I don't know what they mean.
I also read your column today, and I was confused by the last paragraph. Can you explain how you prove all your assertions? I see how intelligent design can be considered junk science, but what does intelligent design have to do with supply side economics or global warming? I have reproduced your last paragraph of your column here:
Quote:
The important thing to remember is that like supply-side economics or global-warming skepticism, intelligent design doesn't have to attract significant support from actual researchers to be effective. All it has to do is create confusion, to make it seem as if there really is a controversy about the validity of evolutionary theory. That, together with the political muscle of the religious right, may be enough to start a process that ends with banishing Darwin from the classroom.I mean, I could write something llike this:
Quote:
The important thing to remember is that like low taxes or supply and demand, ghost stories don't have to attract significant support from actual researchers to be effective. All they have to do is create confusion, to make it seem as if there really is a controversy about the validity of haunted houses on Earth. That, together with the political muscle of the religious right, may be enough to start a process that ends with banishing science from the classroom.Exactly what does it prove? It seems almost tacked on to desperately push a point.
Sincerely,
The Rt Hon the Lord Patten of Peckinstout, CH
Hello Mr. Lord Patten.
It pleases me when a pupil, even one of advanced age, learns from my columns. The analogy you present is excellent because it does indeed show how disproved (by me) theories like "supply and demand" and "effectiveness of low taxes" threaten science in the classroom. But you should use a fiction (like "Bush is President") to make your point, and not a fact like haunted houses.
My numerous titles are not intended for the average person to understand. They are strictly for other academics to fawn over. As you could not even begin to appreciate (let alone comprehend) their meaning, it would be futile to explain them to you.
In Acknowledgement,
Prof. Dr. rer. pol. h.c. Paul Krugman, Ph.D.
P.S. You can see this title, in context, at the bottom of this page.
Frightened Viewer
Quote:
Dear Paul,Saw you on MSNBC last night debating Larry Kudlow. While Kudlow's appearance is certainly less than perfect, you, Paul, are truly unsettling. Your wide-eyed stare and lack of facial animation together with that creepy hair, unkempt beard, slight lisp and smirk made me run for my "panic room." I am emailing you from it now -- I may never come out. Explain yourself.
Mr. Rove,
I am flattered by your compliments, but Bush would still lose a third time if he ran again.
Prof. Krugman
Quote:
Dr. Krugman: In 1990 you wrote in your book, "The Age of Diminished Expectations" that the US economy could not possibly grow faster than 2.5% annually without triggering inflation. Ten years later, when there was practically no inflation and the GDP was growing at 5%, the New York Times hired you as their economics columnist. Does the "Diminished Expectations" you were writing about mean that the NY Times no longer expects accurate economics from its economics columnists or that the public no longer expects accurate economic analyses from the New York Times?Hello Martin.
Yes, I did say that...but of course my projection was not that simple; if it were that simple, why would anyone need to hear it from a highly trained and frighteningly disciplined economist? (And, may I add, with a remarkably charismatic television presence?)
As you might imagine, there were many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many caveats with that prediction. And unfortunately, my book was not nearly thick enough to include even a tiny sample of those caveats.
As if the mass market would have been able to understand said caveats' web of formulae and advanced thinking that I am so justifiably famous for!
The fact is, history has proven me correct time and again. Why else would the Times hire me? Their reputation is very important -- and if my thoughts were in the slightest way incorrect or misleading, they would never place me on the same page with Maureen Dowd.
Yours,
Dr. Prof. Paul Krugman....Ph.D. and much much more.
P.S. If you would like to see the caveats for that projection, please send a self-addressed envelope to The Times with a lot of postage. Probably about the same amount as the tax cut that you did not deserve.
Quote:
What are your thoughts on the price of gasoline?Hello Mr. Toohey.
A little over four years ago, I was interviewed on Nightline on this very topic. My answers at the time -- clear, lucid, and visionary -- still ring true today:
Quote:
You know, you take a tax cut that is really going to phase in mostly at the end of the decade and is mostly for the top 5 percent of taxpayers and say, 'That's the answer to this summer's gasoline crisis.' Well, I--it's Bush's answer to everything. Right...Quote:
Well, Americans started driving much bigger gas guzzling vehicles and everybody in Washington looked the other way and didn't say, 'Hey, wait a second, you know, what happened to all that energy conservation we did in the '80s and the early '90s?' We were a little too self-indulgent and we allowed it to go along. Mind you, that's gasoline. Electricity is another story. California electricity and gasoline sound like the same story, but they're actually totally different stories. And in California there are lots of villains.Quote:
I mean, there are, I think, about 17 power plants in--in--in--in, you know, in the pipeline, if I can say that, in California. If you look at industry people, talk to them, look at the prices for forward contracts, everybody thinks that the California problem will be over in two years. The question is, what about this summer? And the administration has said, 'We will do nothing for you this summer.I assume that answers your question.
Yours,
Dr. Prof. Krugman, [too many titles to list right now]
Quote:
Since Japan has no natural resources and they have all of the innovative incentive to come up with an alternative to fossile fuels, why are they kowtowing to American/capitalist oil companies and sitting on the designs that they have for a more efficient gasoline engine?Hello Mr. Toohey.
Japan is in sad sad shape. So sad, that I wrote extensively about that sad nation.
It is very technical, so I will explain.
A) They do not produce enough mostly because they do not spend enough. Think about your own life. Isn't it true that you have a hard time working unless you spent a lot of money they prior night?
Quote:
Sixty years after Keynes, a great nation - a country with a stable and effective government, a massive net creditor, subject to none of the constraints that lesser economies face - is operating far below its productive capacity, simply because its consumers and investors do not spend enough.B) They have been listening to inferior economists. This is inexcusable, given that my columns are available on the Internet.
Quote:
Japan has also been badly served by the economics profession, both in Japan and outside. The great majority of economists - including those who specialize in issues of economic stabilization and growth - seem oddly uninterested in Japan's plight, as if the failure of conventional macroeconomic policy in the world's second largest economy were a subject of merely parochial interest, with no lessons for the rest of us.C) Evrything is simple, if only people would listen to me.
Quote:
Last spring I decided to sit down and think seriously about Japan's ills, putting aside conventional wisdom and my own prejudices, following the logic of economic analysis wherever it led. And it led to a surprising conclusion: that there is indeed a simple fix for Japan's slump - and that the structural obstacles to a quick recovery lie not in the economy itself but in the minds of policymakers.D) And they should pay special attention to my sophisticated models and formulae. Obviously, I am right, and their officials are wrong.
Quote:
If you apply the most conventional of macroeconomic models to Japan's unusual plight, you come up with recommendations that are anathema to central bankers and finance ministers. And in this case, I am firmly convinced that the models are right and the officials are wrong.Yours in Knowledge,
Professor Krugman, Ph.D.
Quote:
Dear Professor Krugman:Please comment on this diagram and the story published by the fascistic Wall Street Journal. Should we perhaps organize union pickets in front of WSJ offices for spreading this outrageous propaganda? We can put up an inflatable rat, and close all the entries to the building, leaving all the WSJ staff unemployed. That'll correct their diagram somewhat, bringing it coser to what the numbers should be.
Quote:
First, more Americans have jobs today than at any other time in history. Second, over the past two decades or so, the U.S. has created more than 40 million jobs -- twice as many as Europe and Japan combined. And third, the U.S. has one of the lowest jobless rates of all developed nations.[...]
Part of the explanation for this success is that, especially compared to Europe, the U.S. has imposed fewer taxes and regulations (even though we have plenty) that make it onerous for employers to hire and fire workers. A unique feature of the U.S. economy is that Americans move in and out of jobs -- usually to rise up the income elevator -- at a rapid and persistent pace. This is the key to the Great American Jobs Machine, and it explains why Europe and Japan should be more like us, and not the other way around.
Hello Red Square.
You are to be congratulated for monitoring The Wall Street Journal. There is no limit to their misleading articles on economic matters.
But don’t worry about their latest argument; it is all too simple for me to deftly deconstruct and demolish.
First, there is no “zero” in their vertical axis. If you saw the entire graph, you would realize that the curve they present is actually very flat. Out of 130 Million jobs, a fluctuation of one or two million is insignificant, and is probably only “noise”.
But their most grievous error is their Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy (the language: Latin, and therefore I italicize), and they probably did it deliberately. Or, put another way: When one event follows another, that does not mean that one event caused the other. In this case, a claim that employment increased upon cutting taxes is just a coincidence. In fact, you can say that any event in 2003 caused employment growth. But saying it’s so doesn’t make it so.
That said, I will concur that employment grew modestly after 2003. The only surprise was that it took four years of my New York Times columns to achieve their effect. In econometric circles, we call this a "time lag", and I would elaborate on associated logarithmic modeling except that such academic matters are best left to my teaching assistants.
Of course, the likely reason for such modest job growth was the tax cuts. In their absence, we would have seen some real increases -- to say nothing of what would have happened in the presence of tax increases.
Remember, when your take-home pay is reduced, you might need that second job. Tax increases create jobs. Let's raise taxes. Now.
Professor Krugman, Ph.D. etc.
P.S. I hope you enjoyed my new writing style. My colleague Tom Friedman encouraged me to use sentence fragments. For dramatic effect. Like this.
Help!
Quote:
Dear Paul,I have some extra cash and want to invest it. I have already paid all my taxes, and have donated to many charities. What investments do you recommend?
Sincerely.
L. Pratt
Hello L. Pratt:
First, and with no disrespect intended, I would invest in a good etiquette book. To you, I am Professor Krugman. Again, no disrespect.
Onto your investment question. As you know, I do not dispense cheap financial "huckster" advice to individuals, I only advise governments. But since you have paid your taxes and donated your money to charities, I will try to help.
Your first investment (after the aforementioned book) should be with a good tax auditor to ensure that you did in fact pay all your taxes.
And then you should invest all of your money in Social Security. Never put your money in a risky private-sector so-called "investment firm".
I will quote myself:
Quote:
Privatization dissipates a large fraction of workers' contributions on fees to investment companies. It leaves many retirees in poverty.Do you wish to live in poverty?
And furthermore...
Quote:
Decades of conservative marketing have convinced Americans that government programs always create bloated bureaucracies, while the private sector is always lean and efficient. But when it comes to retirement security, the opposite is true.Q.E.D.
Send a check valued at your net worth to the Social Security Administration. They will know what to do with it.
In Acknowledgment,
Professor Krugman, Ph.D., etc., etc., etc.
Joe A. Mericano
Quote:
Dear Dr. Professor C.H. Krugman PhD,I recently bought a house in suburban Illinois. I had my mortgage with American Homeowners Mortgage Inc. I bought the house with dollars, but then I get a mortgage statement from Beijing saying I owe ten million yuan! What is happening to me?
Hello Mr. Mericano.
Technically, it's Prof. Dr. rer. pol. h.c. Paul Krugman, Ph.D., but you can feel free to not feel stupid for your oversight.
Have you been reading my columns? Obviously not! For it was only a few days ago when I revealed that...
Quote:
Americans make a living selling each other houses, paid for with money borrowed from the Chinese.And I cleverly added...
Quote:
Somehow, that doesn't seem like a sustainable lifestyle.It doesn't seem like a sustainable lifestyle! Who knew that I could be so sarcastic and witty?
But in all seriousness, Mr. Mericano, you bought your house with Chinese money...and now you owe it back. It's a common problem, actually, ever since that liar Bush led the nation down the hellish trail of mounting debt.
And yes, Bush is a liar. I said that in today's column about Social Security:
Quote:
In addition to misrepresenting his goals, Mr. Bush repeatedly lied about the current system. Oh, I'm sorry - was that a rude thing to say?I'm on a real sarcasm roll this week!
I need to write more columns about Social Security; it's a topic I rarely address.
There I go again! Delicious sarcasm!
But seriously, the Chinese are a huge threat. In addition to their stealth program of insidiously lending you yuan for your house, they are also...
Quote:
seeking control over some American companies...have invested in U.S. government bonds...The China National Offshore Oil Corporation, a company that is 70 percent owned by the Chinese government, is seeking to acquire control of Unocal....You should be very frightened, Mr. Mericano. When I make apocalyptic predictions, I am not being at all sarcastic.
You need the wisdom of my visions, Mr. Mericano. Otherwise, you are very, very helpless. And in any case, not particularly sharp.
Warmly,
Prof. Dr. rer. pol. h.c. Paul Krugman, Ph.D.
P.S. Oh, I'm sorry - was that a rude thing to say?
L. Ron Blubbard
Quote:
Dear Dr. rer. pol. h.c. Paul Krugman, Ph.D.,I agree that social security is a grand success. I look forward to collecting my benefits, not because of the amount of money I will receive, but because of the type of money it will be. Each dollar will feel like a special little gift from FDR.
I recently saw this fine work: http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/5949.html
Quote:
We examine the creation of Social Security during the Great Depression, and how it has evolved . . . We find that there has been surprising continuity. Much of the program's growth was built in from its inception. The replacement rate and the ratio of benefits to payrolls are today roughly at the levels designed into the original legislation. Payroll tax rates today are higher than had been planned, in part because of the failure to accumulate a trust fund during the program's early years. The change in the ratio of contributors to beneficiaries which has taken place over the last 60 years was fully anticipated. The most dramatic changes in Social Security's functioning have come not from legislation, but from changes in the environment in which the program operates. Before the Depression, retirement was unlikely and often involuntary. Higher life expectancy, lower labor force participation, and better health have undermined Social Security's original purpose, which was as a form of insurance. We also find that the Depression itself had surprisingly little influence on the design chosen for Social Security.Even a visually-challenged societal member could see the problems here:
1. The "trust fund" failed to accumulate. Well, who can be blamed for that? Things happen. If I predict rain and the sun shines, I can do nothing about it.
2. As mentioned above, "The most dramatic changes in Social Security's functioning have come . . . from changes in the environment." Well, whose fault is that? I think his name has a "W" in it! Ha Ha. But seriously, we all know that environmental change is a problem (all of us except Republicans, that is). We also know the people responsible (Bush, Republicans, big corporations etc.)
3. As mentioned in the quoted passage above, we face some enormous problems in this country, including longer life expectancy, lower labor force participation, and better health. These societal ills go so far as to threaten our social programs! I propose we take on the primary causes of our societal ills, rather than run to change the most successful Government program ever, Social Security.
I hope you don't find my work too simplistic. I have not completed my PhD yet.
Hello Mr. Blubbard.
Are you sure you don't have a Ph.D.? Please check your academic records again; you probably have many advanced degrees that you are unaware of.
You have submitted an excellent piece of correspondence. For once, I, Prof. Dr. rer. pol. h.c. Paul Krugman, Ph.D., cannot add anything. This is true Nobel Prize material.
Perhaps I can use my enormous influence to encourage the Times to give you a guest editorial slot.
Yours,
Prof. Dr. rer. pol. h.c. Paul Krugman, Ph.D.
Ehn Ron
Quote:
Prof. Dr. rer. pol. h.c. Paul Krugman, Ph.D,We all know that with the right people in charge, Socialism would be a fantastic success. I have some ideas of my own, but which leaders do you think would be capable of making the dream of a communist utopia a reality?
In humbleness,
Ehn Ron
Hello Mr. Ron.
The short answer is "Lionel Jospin".
But the thinking person has no short answers. That's the easy way out for Republicans who deceive people into believing that they can live well today without suffering horribly for it tomorrow.
And so, I will explain that Communism is not the answer. In fact, there is nothing wrong with capitalism and making money, as long as you pay your taxes. And do not discriminate. And support social programs, submit to government regulations, only hire union labor, restrict your purchases, vote for politicians who want to make everything free, welcome oversight for everything you do, support foreign enemies, and accept that everyone who is not a Leader is equal and must be rewarded as such.
So, the longer and better answer to your question is: "It doesn't matter who our leader is, as long he (or she!) follows my policy prescriptions".
Enjoy your elated sensation, Mr. Ron, for you have learned something from me today.
Sincerely,
Prof. Dr. rer. pol. h.c. Paul Krugman, Ph.D,
Economic Leader
Red Loser
Quote:
Dear Prof. Dr. rer. pol. h.c. Paul Krugman, Ph.D:While perusing the Internet for Descartes' and Hume's metaphysical commentaries on your New York Times columns, I ran across a vicious and unfounded attack on your latest ex cathedra proclamation:
Quote:
Krugman's second Ohio nugget relates to Miami County: "Miami County reported that voter turnout was an improbable 98.55 percent of registered voters." Well, that would be quite a turnout, all right--impressive even by the standards of Democratic Philadelphia. I think I know where Krugman got that figure; it is on page 58 of the Conyers report authored, as noted above, by the Democratic staff of the House Judiciary Committee.Of course, Krugman has never been one to trouble himself by actually doing research. As far as I can tell, he never does any: he simply reads a far-left book or a Democratic National Committee press release, and summarizes it in his column. (And for this the New York Times pays him?) I'm not talking about hard, obscure research here; I'm talking about going to the website of the Ohio Secretary of State's office, where official voter turnout numbers are recorded. Miami County's turnout in 2004? 72.2 %.
This made me wonder how J. Kenneth Blackwell, Ohio's Secretary of State, would be unaware of your divinely anointed statistics. Is it possible--however ludicrous--that he does not read your column on a regular basis? I myself have found it impossible to survive without the effervescent fountain of wisdom bubbling from the tip of your pen. Only through your epistles of wisdom may I become better than everyone else, just like you. Then I shall advance myself to the level of a cultural elite so I, too, can climb my gilded ivory tower and pelt the ignorant peasants below with my self-righteous feces.
Yours truly,
Red Loser
Hello Mr. Loser.
Did you not like being called "Mr. Loser"? Well, it was your parents' error for having such a name. They should be apologizing to you -- I have committed no mistake.
So, Mr. Loser, I believe that establishes that I do not mistakes. After all, if there were any errors in my columns, would the editorial board place me on the same page with Bob Herbert?
And now I will ask who you can trust to provide accurate information:
A) The so-called "Ohio Secretary of State's office",
or
B) Prof. Dr. rer. pol. h.c. Paul Krugman, Ph.D
That should be a "Q.E.D." right there, but please allow my mental dexterity to seal and suffocate the point in an air-tight box.
Governor Bob Taft of Ohio is a Republican. Therefore his Secretary of State is a liar.
Oh, I'm sorry - was that a rude thing to say? Well, The Republicans lost the election and then claimed they won. That's a lie, and therefore they are liars. Bob Taft is a liar, his lying Secretary of State is a liar, and every Ohio redneck that voted for Bush is a liar too, because they really voted for Kerry.
Mr. Loser, you are aware that I am here to explain economics to the ignorant. But those who question my words make fools of themselves. The peons, such as the ones you have quoted, are delusional if they feel they can go up against a legendary, though humble, intellectual giant such as myself.
Yours,
Prof. Dr. rer. pol. h.c. Paul Krugman, Ph.D
OH MY GOD PAUL!!!!!!!!!
Quote:
I read your latest column with nodding my head in agreement as you began:Quote:
For the last few months there has been a running debate about the U.S. economy, more or less like this:American families: "We're not doing very well."
Indeed, you have been hearing theses families in your head quite clearly! The rest of the piece is your usual fine effort, but AT THE BOTTOM I SEE THIS:
Quote:
Corrections: In my column last Friday, I cited an inaccurate number (given by the Conyers report) for turnout in Ohio's Miami County last year: 98.5 percent. I should have checked the official state site, which reports a reasonable 72.2 percent. Also, the public editor says, rightly, that I should acknowledge initially misstating the results of the 2000 Florida election study by a media consortium led by The Miami Herald. Unlike a more definitive study by a larger consortium that included The New York Times, an analysis that showed Al Gore winning all statewide manual recounts, the earlier study showed him winning two out of three.HOLY MARY MOTHER OF GOD DEAR LORD THE HEAVENS ABOVE THE EARTH SHIFTING BELOW MY FEET AND THE EARTH'S CORE FREEZING OVER HOLY JEEEZUS! WHAT IS THAT?
Hello Mr. Paul.
Thank you for forwarding this to me; I will need to discuss this with my so-called "editor".
Generally, I do not read my columns. As I write them, I see no need to read them. But apparently, some Republicans have been adding falsehoods to my columns.
There is no need to "correct" any of my insights. I suspect a conspiracy or hoax -- and my assertions, as always, still stand.
In Acknowledgement,
Professor Krugman
R. Q. Moonbeam
Paul,
It's Rainbow again, and I really could use some help!
I was trying to remember the URL to moveon.org and I accidentally found my way onto a horrible right wing blog site called powerline.
I should've shut down the window and disinfected my monitor immediately, but I started reading, and they were really ripping on you about your article about the USS Bataan.
Obviously I won't bother asking which side was right - after all, if it's a question of who to believe - you or Lt. Commander Sean Kelly (an officer aboard the ship), the ship's official military web page, and the injured that were treated by the ships medical crew - then the decision is obvious and I know you wouldn't lie to us.
Since this is obviously a government conspiracy to try to defame you, could you put my mind to ease and let me know which of these mentioned parties are culpable?
Lt. Commander Sean Kelly (Bataan officer)
Johnny Ramirez (Bataan Aircrewman)
LCDR David Hopper (Bataan Detachment Officer)
Cmdr. Jeffrey Bocchicchio (Bataan Air Boss)
Cmdr. Michael Illovsky (Medical Services Director)
US Navy
USS Bataan Web Page
Google (directed the wingnut to the USS Bataan page to begin with)
- Rainbow Q Moonbeam
aka Kevin
It's Rainbow again, and I really could use some help!
I was trying to remember the URL to moveon.org and I accidentally found my way onto a horrible right wing blog site called powerline.
I should've shut down the window and disinfected my monitor immediately, but I started reading, and they were really ripping on you about your article about the USS Bataan.
Obviously I won't bother asking which side was right - after all, if it's a question of who to believe - you or Lt. Commander Sean Kelly (an officer aboard the ship), the ship's official military web page, and the injured that were treated by the ships medical crew - then the decision is obvious and I know you wouldn't lie to us.
Since this is obviously a government conspiracy to try to defame you, could you put my mind to ease and let me know which of these mentioned parties are culpable?
Lt. Commander Sean Kelly (Bataan officer)
Johnny Ramirez (Bataan Aircrewman)
LCDR David Hopper (Bataan Detachment Officer)
Cmdr. Jeffrey Bocchicchio (Bataan Air Boss)
Cmdr. Michael Illovsky (Medical Services Director)
US Navy
USS Bataan Web Page
Google (directed the wingnut to the USS Bataan page to begin with)
- Rainbow Q Moonbeam
aka Kevin
The Probie
Die, Liberal!!! DIE!!!!!
Fawn Rainforest
Mr Prof. Dr. rer. pol. h.c. Paul Krugman, Ph.D., I don't see how anyone can confuse you with the Left. You're nothing but an apologist for the corporate/capitalist earth murdering elites! Your "economics" is destroying the planet and alienating us from our true environmental consciousness. Why don't you get a job as a Linguist, at least they confuse things enough to help the revolution. Remember, no matter how far left you go there's always somebody to the left of you. And we all think you're a sellout and a very bad, bad man.
Fawn Rainforest
Living a life in spiritual harmony with the Planet way, way up in the top of that big damn tree down the street.
Fawn Rainforest
Living a life in spiritual harmony with the Planet way, way up in the top of that big damn tree down the street.
Username
Quote:
Dear People's Economist,I have a plan to reduce road traffic. Simply stop funding road construction and repair. Frankly, I don't see a downside to this. After the initial cost savings, the subsequent infrastructure decay will reduce macroeconomic activity generally, lead to yet more cost savings and a reduction in targets for thieves, vandals, terrorists, and aggressive states. Would you care to comment on my plan?
Yours,
Username
Hello Username:
The problem with your analysis is that cutting road funds can lead us down the slippery slope of tax reductions. We might not need roads, but we do need to tax. That's sometheing like how we might not need The New York Times, but we do need my columns. And now, you must pay $49 per year to read my columns. And similarly, you must pay taxes to support roads.
Regardless, you should also know that your racist comment about "thieves, vandals, terrorists" will not be tolerated (unless you are referring to Republicans, of course). Thieves, in fact, make us richer. You see, when a poor person steals a flask of whiskey, it creates jobs. Jobs for police, jobs for distillers, and jobs for economics columnists. Furthermore, if employees are murdered in the process, it creates new jobs for replacement employees. And as we all know, the main goal of any society is to create lots and lots of jobs -- preferably the 24/7 type that pay a $75 minimum wage at a 97% tax bracket.
What a rush I get from my brain juices!
I think I'll have the Times make everyone pay a $500 annual surcharge for my columns. Yes, they're that good.
Yours,
Professor Krugman
Quote:
In my MBA class, there was a discussion about what we need to do about our current energy crisis. Two things stood out the most.1. There were many in the class that believed that we should raise taxes (specifically on gasoline) in the middle of the energy crisis. My concern was that in the midst of an energy crisis, where fuel costs could lead to inflation and higher prices on all consumer items, would adding a greater tax burden help or hurt the people?
2. There was one person that suggested that we turn to more nuclear power. Nuke power would provide the energy needed to produce hydrogen for fuel cells and hydrogen powered internal combustion engines, but what about Chernobyl? What about Three Mile Island? What will we do with the waste?
Hello Mr. Toohey:
You strike me as an educable man, and therefore you have come to the right source. And so, here are some facts about energy crises, most importantly,
Oil-producing countries have an incentive to cut production when prices are high. And they should never invest with the Great Satan...
Quote:
The fact that oil is an exhaustible resource means that not extracting it is a form of investment. And it is an investment that might look attractive to a national government when oil prices are high...Why not invest entirely abroad? There are a number of reasons, but one is surely political: as Iran and Iraq have found, assets abroad are vulnerable to seizure by the Great Satan.
Your simple university instructors probably taught you about "supply and demand". Clearly, they do not understand that complexities of economics. Or, put another way, did any of them hold the title of "Prof. Dr. rer. pol. h.c. , Ph.D."?
But back to your earnest question. Raising taxes is not inflationary. Nor for that matter is increasing the money supply. (Anyone who reads my columns should know this.) But I have said that high oil prices are inflationary. Why is this so? Because high prices reflect a limited abundance of those goods -- and anyone, in academia or not, can tell you that "inflation" is synonymous with "lack of goods". Which is why the second-most inflationary time in history was in caveman days. They had nothing at all! Just pure and utter inflation!
Of course, the most inflationary period in history is happening right now in New Orleans, where the combination of racists (who Bush needs for support) and greedy merchants have formed the ultimate synergy of inflationary potency.
Anyway...solution: Keep oil prices down and raise gas taxes. That is non-inflationary, and is also proactive justice against corporate inflation-gougers.
Nuclear power? Bad idea. The waste will be susceptible to looting orgies.
Quote:
Saddam wasn't a threat to America — he had no important links to terrorism, and the main U.S. team searching for weapons of mass destruction has packed up and gone home. Meanwhile, true to form, the Bush team lost focus as soon as the TV coverage slackened off. The first result was an orgy of looting — including looting of nuclear waste dumps that, incredibly, we failed to secure. Dirty bombs, anyone? Now, according to an article in The New Republic, armed Iraqi factions are preparing for civil war.Yes indeed. Dirty bombs, anyone? We all know which president's hands are soaked in that blood! Hint: It isn't Saddam -- all his links to terrorism are unimportant.
Yours,
Prof. Dr. rer. pol. h.c. Paul Krugman, Ph.D.
P.S. Do you think it would be a good idea to freeze my sperm to produce legions of economic geniuses?
Username
Quote:
Dear People's Economist,I see your point that "you must pay taxes to support roads," but just who benefits from roads, anyway? For instance, an analysis of the 2004 presidential election by county shows that most counties with access to navigable water voted against Bush, while most landlocked, and thus road-dependent, counties voted against Kerry. I would submit, therefore, that disinvestment in roads would result in the collapse of the infrastructure on which conservatives depend, thus paving the way, if you'll excuse the pun, for a left-wing rise to power, assuming the left has sufficient kayaks to get around in the new environment. You could call it the "Right Hook Strategy," whereby the right is snookered into supporting tax reductions that ultimately take the air out of their tires. You seem to have missed the crypto-commie implications, which I feel are substantial. As to playing the race card, it, too, is simply a regrettable means to a justifiable end.
Sincerely,
Username
Hello Username:
You raise a very interesting point for someone who is not an internationally-recognized academic powerhouse of economics.
But may I suggest that it isn't kayaks that they will use, but instead it would be public transportation. Of course, this is an old story. The rural, landlocked, and rather simple states have been raping the sophisticated coasts for years in their grab for highway dollars.
Morally, legally, environmentally, and economically, the bulk of transportation dollars should be spent on light-rail systems and other forward-looking forms of transportation (Seattle monorail, anyone?) in places where the educated classes reside.
Ultimately, it is the responsibility of everyone to live near a bus stop.
Public transportation is not only somehow environmentally-friendly, but it is democratic. It is where the white-bread pilfering corporate racists must sit next to their fetid and unwashed betters.
Of course, a portion of the population will always need a secluded environment to concentrate on their academic pursuits. For some, Princeton NJ is the ideal, but I am afraid it is not for you.
Warmly,
Prof. Dr. rer. pol. h.c. Paul Krugman, Ph.D,
Withdrawal
Quote:
Dear Professor,I can no longer read your columns because the New York Times is extorting money from me that I don't have. I am really having a hard time without you and Maureen.
Also, my husband works at the paper, and he may be one of the 400 people about to be fired to cut costs. How does this help us at all? I read all your columns, and I can't make sense of any of this.
Sincerely,
Sue
Hello "Sue".
I really enjoy receiving mail from ordinary people. Although their simple brains are not designed to grasp complex matters, they are the essence of what I live for. Indeed, my entire career has been one of applying my gift of knowledge to improve the lives of the common people.
Sue, you might believe that you don't have the money to read my columns, but you really do. In economics, we call this an "indifference curve". Yes, yes, I know that anyone named "Sue" will not be able to understand this concept, but I will explain anyway.
You have a choice, Sue. You can either pay for my columns or you can pay for your food. My columns are worth more than your food, Sue -- especially since you are undoubtedly obese. For your own sake, please refrain from eating, and continue to pay for your Times subscription.
Or, should I say two subscriptions, as your fired truckdriver husband would be in breach of the Times' Customer Agreement by not paying for his own subscription.
I assume that you will continue to admire my columns, as well as those of Maureen Dowd -- and of course, Bob Herbert.
I feel so...cleansed...having communicated with a "real" person, Sue. I know that you and your simpleton friends respect me, and I will reciprocate by encouraging the government to guide you through life.
Sincerely,
Professor Paul Krugman
Username
Dear People's Economist,
Monorail systems are fine and dandy, but the current political reality does not bode well for them in the short term. The trend in spending decisions now favors such projects as the Gravina Island-Ketchikan Bridge instead. Under these circumstances, the most you can do to help your friends is to harm your enemies, and this is best accomplished by deception. I recommend changing your tune to a neo-conservative, free-market hymn. I doubt any suspicions would be raised, as most neo-conservative intellectuals begin their careers as Marxists. (Do be sure to stage an epiphany, such as having your kayak stolen by Che-ware sporting eco-terrorists. If you don't know any, just inexpertly affix a kayak to your Volvo, and leave it in a grad student lot during a nice stretch of spring weather.) Believe me, with enemies like neocons, Marxists don't need friends! (And you'll be surprised how good our parties are, until you discover that we enjoy virtual diplomatic immunity, that is!)
See you at the Club,
Username
Monorail systems are fine and dandy, but the current political reality does not bode well for them in the short term. The trend in spending decisions now favors such projects as the Gravina Island-Ketchikan Bridge instead. Under these circumstances, the most you can do to help your friends is to harm your enemies, and this is best accomplished by deception. I recommend changing your tune to a neo-conservative, free-market hymn. I doubt any suspicions would be raised, as most neo-conservative intellectuals begin their careers as Marxists. (Do be sure to stage an epiphany, such as having your kayak stolen by Che-ware sporting eco-terrorists. If you don't know any, just inexpertly affix a kayak to your Volvo, and leave it in a grad student lot during a nice stretch of spring weather.) Believe me, with enemies like neocons, Marxists don't need friends! (And you'll be surprised how good our parties are, until you discover that we enjoy virtual diplomatic immunity, that is!)
See you at the Club,
Username
Karl Rove
Quote:
Paul,I'm deeply impressed by your ability to ferret out my attempts to dissuade you from your ideology. Indeed, I posted as 'cassem34', 'Frightened Viewer', and sent my minions after the clearly gender-confused 'Kevin' (aka Rainbow Q. Moonbeam).
Clearly you're not a simple-minded left wing polemist. In fact, I get the impression that you're a very intelligent man - so intelligent that I wouldn't mind you coming and working for us.
What do you say, Paul? We've got a lot of money and power (stolen off the backs of red-state fundamentalist white-male christians, of course) that I'm sure could... tempt you. Not to mention that Ann Coulter is a definite step up from Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton. I'm sure you'll make the right choice.
- Karl Rove
Hello Mr. Rove -
Have you seen my other web page?
Quote:
I won't tell you my salary at either Princeton or the Times. But they are both very nice. Combined with royalties on my textbook with Maury Obstfeld, International Economics, which is in its 6th edition - it's the leading textbook in the field - and my wife's salary (she also teaches at Princeton), I am definitely comfortable. Hey, it's OK to make money as long as it's not based on exploiting insider status, and as long as you pay your proper share of taxes. My wife and I hope to be even more comfortable when the principles textbook we're writing starts to yield royalties.The Times pays me to express opinions that I somehow neglected to publish before they approached me. But they are my opinions -- they are concrete and are physically not changeable. I have my sharp mind, my analytic cunning, and a moral system that are all unalterable. Even at double the Times' salary. Maybe even triple.
By the way, you are the epitome of evil.
I'm sorry, did I offend you? But I am not for sale, and will continue to reveal the truth about you. Again, I AM NOT FOR SALE.
Especially for what you would probably offer.
Republican swine.
Justice Roberts
Quote:
Hey Paul,Johnny here. Listen, there's some talk going around town that congress is going to pass a law to bring back slavery. Now, before you have a stroke, let me point out that the US constitution does permit slavery to be imposed as punishment for a crime. Here's the enabling constitutional law:
Amendment XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Yes, I know, this was written by a bunch of Republicans, but it's the law of the land, so what can I do about it? Anyway, the new legislation would impose periods of slavery in place of periods of imprisonment. So, if you would have gotten life in prison under the old system, you'd get slavery for life under the new system. (I don't mean we're going to sentence, you, Paul! I'm just using the hypothetical "you" here!)
So, what do you think? The slave sales will be a big revenue generator for state and federal governments. On the other hand, it will put prison employees out of work. I'd like to see the pros and cons (I know, bad pun) kicked around in the court of public opinion before it lands in my court.
Thanks man,
JR
Hello Justice Roberts.
Although I am dismayed by your presumptuous informal tone, I am also accepting that a supreme court justice would approach me for advice.
Despite your lack of economics training, you raise a very good point about slavery.
I will explain this in simple terms. Not so simple that the ordinary person would understand, but simple enough for a neophyte Republican hack like yourself to understand.
Economic theory cannot predict whether high taxes encourage or discourage work. Fortunately, I can, though. And the answer is that high taxes encourage work. This is because high taxes make require people to work harder and longer to make the same money. And when people work long and hard, society benefits by realizing a corresponding increase in government statistics.
Therefore, we would be best off by maximizing taxes to 100% -- or in a legal sense, to implement universal slavery. That way, everyone would need to work infinitely hard to earn absolutely nothing. (Or, technically, they would earn a $200/hour minimum wage, of which the entire amount would be taxed.)
In short, slavery is exactly the "free lunch" that we deserve.
Please, Justice Roberts, feel free to contact me any time you need to reduce your ignorance.
Warmly,
Professor Krugman
P.S. My grasp of constitutional law also exceeds yours.
Karl Rove
Quote:
Paul,Again, you have a steel-trap mind that, if I were almost any other person, would have intimidated me into a fetal position in the corner of the room. In particular, you have a well-formed debate style.
However, you missed something in your point-by-point refutation - something which I believe is a chink in your potent armor. Ann Coulter. Yes, do not think I missed your silence on the subject.
I imagine it would be hard to address that particular point, considering your regular interactions with Maureen Dowd, Molly Ivins, Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, etc. Say, have you seen the cover of Ann's latest book?
- Your buddy, Karl
Hello Mr. Rove.
I did not miss your point, Mr. Rove. In fact, I had an assistant check the list of New York Times employees, and it did not contain her name. Therefore, I can only assume that this person, whoever she is, has nothing to contribute to the discussion.
Professor Krugman
George Soros
Quote:
Paul,I am deeply disturbed by your theory that the tax rate should be 100%. Such a proposal has a fundamental flaw.
Consider the case of an average worker. He or she will have little motivation to work harder, as all of their salary will be promptly taken by the state. Why increase productivity if there is no reward?
No, Paul, I'm afraid a tax rate of *above* 100% is needed (my calculations show 115%-120% is optimal.)
Now consider the case of an average worker. Instead of being at an unsatisfactory equilibrium, they will be indebted to the government. Psychologically, they will feel a need to repay this debt, thus securing the state even more loyalty.
Hi George!
If anyone's wisdom can approximate mine, it would be yours. But unlike me, a humble economist, you are also a legendary moralist -- a man who has been unaffected by wealth. We listen to you for your ideas, never for your money. Despite your celebrity, you have a common touch -- though of course without the many flaws that common people generally have.
I respect your view that tax rates should exceed 100%, but please remember that personal debt will only follow the period when their assets are contributed to the government. That is, if you make my proposed minimum wage of $200 per hour, your taxes might be $220. That means that you will have the opportunity to contribute something you own that is worth $20.
What do minimum-wage people own? Perhaps a beer cooler? Or an old mattress? With Democrats in charge, we'll have commissions and committees guiding the common people appropriately.
Interestingly enough, "appropriate" also means "take away". Therefore, I have developed an intriguing play on words; i.e., a pun. You must admit that my sharp humor is unsurpassable.
Your Friend,
Paul Krugman
As The People's Cube's representaive of the Capitalist Class I can safely and authoritatively inform you that we Capitalists, as a class, have absolutely no problem with taxing the workers at 100%. Indeed, this would be good for business.
Just think what good work could be accomplished and patronage bought with all that money. There are several world problems I would like to solve. The expansion of Empire rests heavily on my mind.
If the workers wanted to voluntarily opt out of 100% taxes we could offer them the opportunity to "buy a mortgage" on their life in the form of a simple contract of bondage. (Choices are the hallmark of freedom.) This would help fatten the ranks of our Imperial Arms and also ease the crisis we now suffer of a shortage of domestic help and indentured farm labor. It's a win-win for everyone.
Mr Prof. Dr. rer. pol. h.c. Paul Krugman, PhD., you are a genius!
Just think what good work could be accomplished and patronage bought with all that money. There are several world problems I would like to solve. The expansion of Empire rests heavily on my mind.
If the workers wanted to voluntarily opt out of 100% taxes we could offer them the opportunity to "buy a mortgage" on their life in the form of a simple contract of bondage. (Choices are the hallmark of freedom.) This would help fatten the ranks of our Imperial Arms and also ease the crisis we now suffer of a shortage of domestic help and indentured farm labor. It's a win-win for everyone.
Mr Prof. Dr. rer. pol. h.c. Paul Krugman, PhD., you are a genius!
Quote:
Paul,A Hoover Institute economist made the following observation about a Federal sales tax...
Blue Ribbon Panel Examines Current Tax Structure
Quote:
Using Treasury Department data, panel member Ed Lazear, a Stanford University professor and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute, estimated that a national sales-tax rate would need to range between 64% and 87% in order to replace revenues from the corporate and personal income tax while preserving exemptions on drugs, food, clothing and other goods and services typically excluded from state sales taxes.Essentially, what Lazear is saying is that the US gov't would not be able to operate unless it is able to get roughly 2/3 of every dollar earned by each citizen.
What is your response to this revelation?
Hello Mr. Toohey.
Your name is very familiar. Have we communicated before?
Perhaps you have read my recent column about how New Orleans will never be rebuilt without commissions and government agencies taking control. Trust me, this column is worth far more than the measly four dollars that The Times is asking for you to read it.
Of course, Bush has not set up these commissions. And yet, he is also a dictatorial tyrant. You do understand this, right? He has used his dictatorial powers to lower taxes, and this is why nothing gets done.
Taxes must be set at a very high level -- yes, 87% sales tax would be a good start -- in order for the government to operate effectively.
There are many simple people in this country, Mr. Toohey, and it costs a lot to guide them in the right direction. They are earnest and good people, but they are nevertheless helpess without a strong and expensive government.
You get what you pay for.
Sincerely,
Professor Krugman, Ph D. etc.
George Soros
Paul,
It's George here again. I understand what you're saying about the 15%-20% tax surplus being quenched by selflessly giving away possessions to the government. However, my great mind had already seen past this problem.
As you yourself have commented many times, it's unfair for the rich to be rich - they gathered their wealth from an unfair system that's stacked against women, minorities, etc.
In order to prevent the unfair tragedy of life's lottery winners from merely cashing in pathetically small percentages of their estates, I assumed the following measures were enacted, ideally all at once:
- Mandatory Employment (jobs determined by the government, if need be)
- $100,000/hr minimum wage
- Price controls on every commodity sold within the US
Aside from the clear benefits that these actions would ordinarily have, it would prevent filthy republicans from simply retiring and retaining most of their wealth.
It's George here again. I understand what you're saying about the 15%-20% tax surplus being quenched by selflessly giving away possessions to the government. However, my great mind had already seen past this problem.
As you yourself have commented many times, it's unfair for the rich to be rich - they gathered their wealth from an unfair system that's stacked against women, minorities, etc.
In order to prevent the unfair tragedy of life's lottery winners from merely cashing in pathetically small percentages of their estates, I assumed the following measures were enacted, ideally all at once:
- Mandatory Employment (jobs determined by the government, if need be)
- $100,000/hr minimum wage
- Price controls on every commodity sold within the US
Aside from the clear benefits that these actions would ordinarily have, it would prevent filthy republicans from simply retiring and retaining most of their wealth.
Quote:
Alan Greenspan... what will be his legacy at the Fed Reserve? Is he as smart as you, Dr. Krugman? Or dare I say... smarter?Hello Mr. Toohey:
I admire the Federal Reserve Board partially because it is a powerful arm of the government, but mostly because they apply complex formulae to confidently predict the most esoteric economic conditions. This is control as it ought to be. Is it accessible? Certainly not! Is it comprehensible? Only to a trained mind like mine.
Alan Greenspan does not impress me; a more suitable choice for Federal Reserve Board Chairperson would be someone like Frank Rich. It's about time that monetary policy be viewed from a gay perspective.
Yours,
Dr. Krugman
B. L. Zebub
My Dearest Servant-to-be, Prof. Dr. rer. pol. h.c. Paul Krugman, Ph.D,
I have an offer you cannot refuse. That is to say, should you decline, you will have Hell to pay. Having been around for quite some time, I can assure you that I speak with great authority. Those who claim to speak with authority in the pathetic media with which you are familiar are, for the most part, my slaves. Every now and then, however, somebody comes along who is not with the program. This brings me to you. I command you to cease advocating public policies that serve only to delay my inevitable victory over the Earth. (You have no doubt noticed that I have, of late, been working my Profane Tail off to destroy your ridiculous planet.) If you disobey me, you will spend eternity wishing your parents had never met. I admit, my goal is to make all people express this wish on an eternal basis, but, being naturally inclined to make a deal with The Devil, I am highly disposed to make exceptions whenever it suits my broader aims. In your case, I will exempt you from the fate that every human so richly deserves if, instead of persisting in your futile efforts to beat The Devil, you join with me to hasten my impending conquest. In return, I will permit you to spend eternity as my Chief Accountant, which is a fate that I know you are sure to relish. (To tell the truth, which I am always loath to do, I have The Devil's own time doing my books, and could really use the help.) All you need to do for me is continue your career as "The People's Economist" (BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!), but change your cant from a socialist sob story to a libertarian lament. But wait! There's more! If you act now, you'll receive a lifetime supply of Giffen Goods, ABSOLUTELY FREE! But act now- Supplies are limited, as will be your income if you don't wise up. Tormented operators are standing by, so go down to the crossroads at the next New Moon, or face the unbearable forever.
Welcome to my Service,
B. L. Zebub
CFO
Hell
I have an offer you cannot refuse. That is to say, should you decline, you will have Hell to pay. Having been around for quite some time, I can assure you that I speak with great authority. Those who claim to speak with authority in the pathetic media with which you are familiar are, for the most part, my slaves. Every now and then, however, somebody comes along who is not with the program. This brings me to you. I command you to cease advocating public policies that serve only to delay my inevitable victory over the Earth. (You have no doubt noticed that I have, of late, been working my Profane Tail off to destroy your ridiculous planet.) If you disobey me, you will spend eternity wishing your parents had never met. I admit, my goal is to make all people express this wish on an eternal basis, but, being naturally inclined to make a deal with The Devil, I am highly disposed to make exceptions whenever it suits my broader aims. In your case, I will exempt you from the fate that every human so richly deserves if, instead of persisting in your futile efforts to beat The Devil, you join with me to hasten my impending conquest. In return, I will permit you to spend eternity as my Chief Accountant, which is a fate that I know you are sure to relish. (To tell the truth, which I am always loath to do, I have The Devil's own time doing my books, and could really use the help.) All you need to do for me is continue your career as "The People's Economist" (BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!), but change your cant from a socialist sob story to a libertarian lament. But wait! There's more! If you act now, you'll receive a lifetime supply of Giffen Goods, ABSOLUTELY FREE! But act now- Supplies are limited, as will be your income if you don't wise up. Tormented operators are standing by, so go down to the crossroads at the next New Moon, or face the unbearable forever.
Welcome to my Service,
B. L. Zebub
CFO
Hell
Quote:
Hi Paul,Long time no talk to. Just heard you won the Forbes! Had to drop you a line and wish you a hardy congratulations. That's a very prestigious award.
Best,
Cha-Ching
Hello Mr. Halliburton:
A man/woman is best judged by their accumulation of awards.
I acknowledge your congratulations.
Prof. Dr. rer. pol. h.c. Paul Krugman, Ph.D
Chairman Meow
Quote:
Comrade Prof. Dr. rer. pol. h.c. Paul Krugman, Ph.D,I have just recently read your latest blog, dare I not say more on what it is about for fear of commiting thought-crime. I am moved to tears and my overwhelming bleeding heart is broken. As a loyal Party member, what can I DO other than the usual rally or hostile media whoring to protest this crime against humanity and the working peoples of Earth.
The Peoples Pin-Cushion FOREVER,
Chairman Meow-Say-Pun
P.S- Can you also explain to me more in depth the miracles and accomplishments of Robin Hood economics....
Hello Mr. Meow.
In order to educate others, I recommend lecturing. Specifically, you should lecture to everyone you come across: Friends, relatives, acquaintances, store employees, flight attendants, UPS couriers, or anyone else who crosses your path. And don’t forget about special circumstances, like lecturing emergency-service employees about nationalizing health care while they are resuscitating heart-attack victims. They're an ideal captive audience! (If you need help on what to say, I recommend that you go herefor ideas.)
Now, “Robin Hood Economics” is a vast area in the academic ocean of forward-looking progressivism. Suffice it to say that you can only be made better off if others are made worse off – and that the most efficient method of doing this is to directly take from the rich and give to the poor by way of as many agencies as possible.
Yours,
Prof. Dr. rer. pol. h.c. Paul Krugman, Ph.D
P.S. I acknowledge your pun.
Fritz Klaus
Quote:
Dear Proffessor,I am a German economic scholar. I enjoy your work.
I have been wondering about "Intelligent Design." While Darwin was correct about evolution for animals, he was wrong about men vis a vis economic systems.
I propose a version of "Economic Intelligent Design." After all, Government drives all economic growth through taxation and regulation. I propose that for the economy of Europe to improve, we need one person (preferably Hillary Clinton) in charge of Intelligently Designing all economic efforts. The last thing we need is wild "natural selection" amongst capitalist entities -- this will only lead to chaos, as we have learned from the limitless scandals of the Bush administration and Halliburton. Should I pursue this concept further?
Yours in scholarship,
Fritz
Hello Mr. Klaus.
As you know, I have nothing but the highest regard for European economists. Unlike Americans, the Europeans have a finely developed sense of compassion -- and their approach to economics is guided by a continental human warmth.
And yet, I am starting to have a new-found respect for the American proponents of intelligent design.
As you are aware, my reputation is one of equating religious Intelligent Design with neoconservative propaganda that promotes supply-side economics and claims that global warming doesn not exist.
Quote:
Which brings us, finally, to intelligent design. Some of America's most powerful politicians have a deep hatred for Darwinism. Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, blamed the theory of evolution for the Columbine school shootings. But sheer political power hasn't been enough to get creationism into the school curriculum. The theory of evolution has overwhelming scientific support, and the country isn't ready - yet - to teach religious doctrine in public schools.But what if creationists do to evolutionary theory what corporate interests did to global warming: create a widespread impression that the scientific consensus has shaky foundations?
Remember that column? The above quote alone positions me to the head of the Nobel queue!
But perhaps the creationsists are correct. After all, if an advanced economy cannot exist without expert design, then human biology must also have been intelligently designed.
Therefore, I recommend that you direct your efforts away from Economic Intelligent Design (which is axiomatic), and instead concentrate on Intelligent Design in other sciences. You will initially be ridiculed by your enlightened European colleagues, but with perseverence, you will win them over.
With International Recognition.
Prof. Dr. rer. pol. hc Paul Krugman, Ph.D.
Mr. Inquisitive
Anonymous
Quote:
Dear Proffessor,I am a German economic scholar. I enjoy your work.
I have been wondering about "Intelligent Design." While Darwin was correct about evolution for animals, he was wrong about men vis a vis economic systems.
I propose a version of "Economic Intelligent Design." After all, Government drives all economic growth through taxation and regulation. I propose that for the economy of Europe to improve, we need one person (preferably Hillary Clinton) in charge of Intelligently Designing all economic efforts. The last thing we need is wild "natural selection" amongst capitalist entities -- this will only lead to chaos, as we have learned from the limitless scandals of the Bush administration and Halliburton. Should I pursue this concept further?
Yours in scholarship,
Fritz
Hello Mr. Klaus.
As you know, I have nothing but the highest regard for European economists. Unlike Americans, the Europeans have a finely developed sense of compassion -- and their approach to economics is guided by a continental human warmth.
And yet, I am starting to have a new-found respect for the American proponents of intelligent design.
As you are aware, my reputation is one of equating religious Intelligent Design with neoconservative propaganda that promotes supply-side economics and claims that global warming doesn not exist.
Quote:
Which brings us, finally, to intelligent design. Some of America's most powerful politicians have a deep hatred for Darwinism. Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, blamed the theory of evolution for the Columbine school shootings. But sheer political power hasn't been enough to get creationism into the school curriculum. The theory of evolution has overwhelming scientific support, and the country isn't ready - yet - to teach religious doctrine in public schools.But what if creationists do to evolutionary theory what corporate interests did to global warming: create a widespread impression that the scientific consensus has shaky foundations?
Remember that column? The above quote alone positions me to the head of the Nobel queue!
But perhaps the creationsists are correct. After all, if an advanced economy cannot exist without expert design, then human biology must also have been intelligently designed.
Therefore, I recommend that you direct your efforts away from Economic Intelligent Design (which is axiomatic), and instead concentrate on Intelligent Design in other sciences. You will initially be ridiculed by your enlightened European colleagues, but with perseverence, you will win them over.
With International Recognition.
Prof. Dr. rer. pol. hc Paul Krugman, Ph.D.Who is the Intelligent Designer of Economics, or is there even one?
A Fellow Traveller.
Quote:
Mr Prof. Dr. rer. pol. hc Paul Kurgman, Ph.D.,In your most recent column in the New York Times, 'America deals with debt and denial', you write:
Quote:
So it seems all too likely that America's borrowing binge will end with a bang, not a whimper, that spending will suddenly drop off as both the bond market and the housing market experience rude awakenings. If that happens, the consequences will be ugly.All in all, Alan Greenspan, who helped create this situation, can consider himself lucky that he's safely out of office, giving briefings to hedge fund managers at $250,000 a pop. And his successor may be in for a rough ride. Best wishes and good luck, Ben; you may need it.
Everyone I know is abuzz with excitement that a big economic depression is just around the corner. The last Great Depression proved that unbriddled capitalism could no longer be the American economic model and ushered in the Red Decade of the 1930's. By writting 'America's borrowing binge will end with a bang, not a whimper' are you saying that we're looking at another Great Depression? And if this happens would you accept the office of Fed Chief?
Hello Fellow Traveller:
By saying that America's borrowing binge will end with a bang, not a whimper, I mean to indicate that this orgy of piggish greed will engorge this country with a volume loud enough to detonate a bulimic discharge of violent upheavals. And yes, this will be astonishingly ugly. Your depression scenario is mild compared to the inevitable gagging and retching of this bloated economic carcass of predatory capitalism.
If you were in my class, I would demonstrate this with a diagram of Greek characters.
That said, I cannot be the Fed Chief because that would represent a conflict of interest between my public duties of engaging the American economy and my academic duties of advocating global equality. However, my services are always at the disposal of those with absolute power.
Sincerely,
Prof. Dr. rer. pol. hc Paul Kurgman, Ph.D.
Help!
Quote:
Paul,I saw this quote from your latest work. Can you help me understand it?
Quote:
“There have been many attempts to turn the shooting of Harry Whittington into a political metaphor, but the most characteristic moment was the final act -- the Moscow show-trial moment in which the victim of Mr. Cheney's recklessness apologized for getting shot. Remember, Mr. Cheney, more than anyone else, misled us into the Iraq war.”Hello Paul.
Frankly, I thought that this paragraph was clear as originally published. But I do have an obligation to assist those in the distant percentiles (I swore to it in Latin), and so, it will be my pleasure to make it simple enough for almost anyone to understand.
This paragraph was an example of progressive linkage.
You see...
1) Cheney shot (and nearly killed, with glee) Mr. Whittington
2) Cheney then forced Mr. Wittington (with the threat of another shooting, no doubt), to defame the Soviet Union by mocking a so-called "show trial".
3) Not content with virtually murdering a man and insulting an entire nation, we are reminded of Cheney's biggest crime: Deceiving the American public so that he and Haliburton could pursue the Iraqi genocide for oil profits.
I assume that you are grateful for this reply.
Prof. Dr. rer. pol. hc Paul Kurgman, Ph.D.
Comrade Kurgman,
Since we built a People's computer out of work camp's cement mixer and poor Yuri Andronovich's brain we here at G11-372137849 have benefitted greatly from your sound economic sense. I have a small matter that I hope you could find the time to help us on. Our gang regularly recieves an eight ounce loaf of bread for each member at the beginning of each day, but recently we've begun to recieve a windfall of ten ounces a day, can you believe it!? A hot debate has since sprung amongst our gang of what to do with the excess bread. Alexander says we can trade it to the screws for fourteen centimeters of sausage. FOURTEEN!!!! Nikolai Nikolaivich says this guy in Gang 41 has offered four fresh cigarettes. Can you believe it!!! This debate turned violent and one man from our Gang had to go to the infirmary instead of lay bricks in the frigid siberian air. Can you help us comrade Kurgman?
Ivan Denisovich
Since we built a People's computer out of work camp's cement mixer and poor Yuri Andronovich's brain we here at G11-372137849 have benefitted greatly from your sound economic sense. I have a small matter that I hope you could find the time to help us on. Our gang regularly recieves an eight ounce loaf of bread for each member at the beginning of each day, but recently we've begun to recieve a windfall of ten ounces a day, can you believe it!? A hot debate has since sprung amongst our gang of what to do with the excess bread. Alexander says we can trade it to the screws for fourteen centimeters of sausage. FOURTEEN!!!! Nikolai Nikolaivich says this guy in Gang 41 has offered four fresh cigarettes. Can you believe it!!! This debate turned violent and one man from our Gang had to go to the infirmary instead of lay bricks in the frigid siberian air. Can you help us comrade Kurgman?
Ivan Denisovich
Bonny Lake
Hello Ms. Lake -
In your recent New York Times column you wrote that Bush will start a war with Iran in order to help the republican party win at the polls in November. It seems to me that if he started a war with Iran at this point it would help the democrats. Or do you think the American public wants more war? Where will it end? Or did you write that in the hopes that you'd fool Bush into taking your political advice? And doesn't he have to get congressional approval to do something like attack another country?
Mr. Bush’s primary thought is that he must follow the “kill” order issued by Jesus. In exchange, he believes that Jesus will incapacitate anyone who would vote for a Democrat. Hence, the Republicans will win. Unfortunately, he listens to neither me nor Congress; it is all divine – and lethal – inspiration.
For an in-depth analysis of Bush’s motives, I recommend that you read what my cousin, Professor Peter Kurgman has to say.
Sincerely,
Prof. Dr. rer. pol. hc Paul Kurgman, Ph.D.
Quote:
Doctor Kurgman,In your recent New York Times column you wrote that Bush will start a war with Iran in order to help the republican party win at the polls in November. It seems to me that if he started a war with Iran at this point it would help the democrats. Or do you think the American public wants more war? Where will it end? Or did you write that in the hopes that you'd fool Bush into taking your political advice? And doesn't he have to get congressional approval to do something like attack another country?
Mr. Bush’s primary thought is that he must follow the “kill” order issued by Jesus. In exchange, he believes that Jesus will incapacitate anyone who would vote for a Democrat. Hence, the Republicans will win. Unfortunately, he listens to neither me nor Congress; it is all divine – and lethal – inspiration.
For an in-depth analysis of Bush’s motives, I recommend that you read what my cousin, Professor Peter Kurgman has to say.
Sincerely,
Prof. Dr. rer. pol. hc Paul Kurgman, Ph.D.
Reichfuher SS Hit H Ead
Komerade Krugman,
Vhy do you inzult us facists? Vhy do you insist on komparing uz to zhe kapitalistz?
I makes me zad, as Hitler vas a Socialist (Nazi means National Socialist) and build von of zhe stongest kommand ekkonomies in zhe vorld. Our two great nationz crushed zhe zionist Poles in zhe name ov our two breedz of socialism, zhan kame zhe paternity dispute (see first article by looking up name). My point iz zhat facism and socialism are couisns. And like all cousins we get along, zhan fight, zhan make up, zhan zhe cycle starts ovar again. But VHY DO YOU KOMPARE UZ TO ZHE KAPTIALISTS? VHY? VHY? VHY?
Reichfuher SS Hit H Ead
Vhy do you inzult us facists? Vhy do you insist on komparing uz to zhe kapitalistz?
I makes me zad, as Hitler vas a Socialist (Nazi means National Socialist) and build von of zhe stongest kommand ekkonomies in zhe vorld. Our two great nationz crushed zhe zionist Poles in zhe name ov our two breedz of socialism, zhan kame zhe paternity dispute (see first article by looking up name). My point iz zhat facism and socialism are couisns. And like all cousins we get along, zhan fight, zhan make up, zhan zhe cycle starts ovar again. But VHY DO YOU KOMPARE UZ TO ZHE KAPTIALISTS? VHY? VHY? VHY?
Reichfuher SS Hit H Ead
Hello Reichfuher SS Hit H Ead.
Vhy do you inzult us facists? Vhy do you insist on komparing uz to zhe kapitalistz?
I makes me zad, as Hitler vas a Socialist (Nazi means National Socialist) and build von of zhe stongest kommand ekkonomies in zhe vorld. Our two great nationz crushed zhe zionist Poles in zhe name ov our two breedz of socialism, zhan kame zhe paternity dispute (see first article by looking up name). My point iz zhat facism and socialism are couisns. And like all cousins we get along, zhan fight, zhan make up, zhan zhe cycle starts ovar again. But VHY DO YOU KOMPARE UZ TO ZHE KAPTIALISTS? VHY? VHY? VHY?
Reichfuher SS Hit H Ead
Please indulge my rhetorical jiu-jitsu as I deftly turn your argument against you. That is, I do not compare fascists with capitalist; I compare capitalists with fascists.
See how I did that? Jiu-jitsu!
You see, Dick Cheney is an enemy of Global Socialism, and Hitler attacked the Soviet Union. Therefore, Cheney = Hitler. Of course, if you prefer, we can say that Bush = Hitler, but we all know who pulls Bush’s strings.
And so, the world can be represented as having two sides:
The Fascists: Bush, Cheney, Hitler
The Socialists: Stalin, Castro, Pol Pot
Of course, based on the above, we also see why Hitler is so despised: He was the predecessor of Bush and Cheney. Fascists three, they are!
Also, may I add that to the extent that Hitler was a Socialist, he was a rather poor one, as the only beneficiaries of his economics plan were Jews and Gypsies. A true Socialist, such as Mao, will work to the benefit of the entire population.
Ergo, Hitler was a capitalist.
I trust that this was a clear explanation.
Sincerely,
Prof. Dr. rer. pol. hc Paul Kurgman, Ph.D.
P.S. You write with some odd spellings; are you a Canadian?
Reichfuher SS Hit H Ead
Komerade Kurgman,Vhy do you inzult us facists? Vhy do you insist on komparing uz to zhe kapitalistz?
I makes me zad, as Hitler vas a Socialist (Nazi means National Socialist) and build von of zhe stongest kommand ekkonomies in zhe vorld. Our two great nationz crushed zhe zionist Poles in zhe name ov our two breedz of socialism, zhan kame zhe paternity dispute (see first article by looking up name). My point iz zhat facism and socialism are couisns. And like all cousins we get along, zhan fight, zhan make up, zhan zhe cycle starts ovar again. But VHY DO YOU KOMPARE UZ TO ZHE KAPTIALISTS? VHY? VHY? VHY?
Reichfuher SS Hit H Ead
Please indulge my rhetorical jiu-jitsu as I deftly turn your argument against you. That is, I do not compare fascists with capitalist; I compare capitalists with fascists.
See how I did that? Jiu-jitsu!
You see, Dick Cheney is an enemy of Global Socialism, and Hitler attacked the Soviet Union. Therefore, Cheney = Hitler. Of course, if you prefer, we can say that Bush = Hitler, but we all know who pulls Bush’s strings.
And so, the world can be represented as having two sides:
The Fascists: Bush, Cheney, Hitler
The Socialists: Stalin, Castro, Pol Pot
Of course, based on the above, we also see why Hitler is so despised: He was the predecessor of Bush and Cheney. Fascists three, they are!
Also, may I add that to the extent that Hitler was a Socialist, he was a rather poor one, as the only beneficiaries of his economics plan were Jews and Gypsies. A true Socialist, such as Mao, will work to the benefit of the entire population.
Ergo, Hitler was a capitalist.
I trust that this was a clear explanation.
Sincerely,
Prof. Dr. rer. pol. hc Paul Kurgman, Ph.D.
P.S. You write with some odd spellings; are you a Canadian?
Quote:
Good Afternoon Professor,I read your articles routinely and may I say, great work. There is no need for me to say that, because you know that, and you know that I know so obviously I am being unecessarily redundant. Now that the pleasantries are out of the way, my question is:
Which candidates in the upcoming do you support? Who gets your nod as most aptly suited to re-organize our unorganized economy. Strangely, I have fared pretty well over the last few years despite the rapid deline in new memberships (which results in some pretty creative money making schemes), but like the MSM says, its my neighbor I should be concerned about, even though I have never met them nor have any idea of their income level. If I read the paper right, most seem to be struggling.
So, when I pull on the strings so to speak of my loyal puppets, (and their purse strings) to whose camp should our loyalties lie? Have you sir, with all your wisdom and knowledge ever considered a run for office? You would make an excellent candidate, but you know that, and you know that I know that and....damn it...there I go again.
UB
Local 221
Hello Mr. Union Boss.
If my social status were considerably lower, I would apologize for the delay in my response.
In short, I am supporting the late Gus Hall for most elective offices. As you correctly point out, we are all suffering -- and the Christian right wing is impeding the unions’ efforts to bring wealth to every man, woman, and child.
I believe that Mr. Hall will be on the Democratic ticket in most states. With enough support, he should win at least a few districts.
In answer to your other question, I do not run for office. My expertise lies in providing policy guidance and focused prescriptions for achieving optimal economic distributions and balanced social measures. And with Bush out of the way in ’08, I expect every known problem to be promptly cured anyway.
Thank you for looking after the working people.
It is not often when I have an opportunity to communicate with someone of your somewhat low social order. It makes me feel “solidarity” with the people.
I trust that you understood my vocabulary.
Yours,
Professor Kurgman
Leon Triteski
Hello Mr. Triteski
I abase my unworthy self at the feet of your 13 PhD's and I dare not even consider the sublimity of your IQ, which passeth all understanding. But I have a question.
During my college days a tentured professional economist told me that Demand is the word for what progressive students do when they march around the Student Union yelling slogans. Or were those demands? I can't remember.
Oh, I remember now. They were 'non-negociable demands'. What is the difference between demand and 'non-negociable demands'?
"Demand" is a verb, and "non-negotiable demand" is a noun. For example, the following phrase would be incorrect: "WE NON-NEGOTIABLE DEMAND THE END OF AMERICA AND ZIONISM". Instead, it should read, "WE DEMAND REPARATIONS TO THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE".
Yes, wearing my "English teacher hat" was beneath me, wasn't it?
Prof. Kurgman
Quote:
Dear Professor Kurgman,I abase my unworthy self at the feet of your 13 PhD's and I dare not even consider the sublimity of your IQ, which passeth all understanding. But I have a question.
During my college days a tentured professional economist told me that Demand is the word for what progressive students do when they march around the Student Union yelling slogans. Or were those demands? I can't remember.
Oh, I remember now. They were 'non-negociable demands'. What is the difference between demand and 'non-negociable demands'?
"Demand" is a verb, and "non-negotiable demand" is a noun. For example, the following phrase would be incorrect: "WE NON-NEGOTIABLE DEMAND THE END OF AMERICA AND ZIONISM". Instead, it should read, "WE DEMAND REPARATIONS TO THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE".
Yes, wearing my "English teacher hat" was beneath me, wasn't it?
Prof. Kurgman
agatha
Hello Mr. Agatha
a)Some people say that sellers can ‘pass on’ to buyers any tax placed on them. This makes it sound as if it to sellers how much of tax they pass on to buyers. Is it true that sellers can choose to pass on to buyers anywhere for 0 percent to 100 percent of a tax?
b)Government is advised to tax goods whose demand curves are inelastic if the good is to raise tax revenues. If the goal is to discourage consumption, then it ought to tax goods whose demand curves are elastic. Explain the statements
Thank you.
You are in my class, are you not? These questions were lifted from the final exam.
Nevertheless,
A) The tax burden always falls on the seller. That's why we tax, say, petrol -- to ensure that the oil companies do not profit. (Incidentally, you do like my new British affection, yes?) In fact, when taxes reduce obscene profits, they are humbled into lowering prices. Hence, tax increases actually benefit consumers. And then, of course, they benefit a second time when the government follows my prudent policy prescriptions for spending the money.
B) Trivial -- tax the elastic, inelastic, and everything in between. This raises revenues and has the beneficial social returns of encouraging people to substitute alcohol with table salt.
To use a common-man's sports metaphor, you must confess that I hit those out of the park.
Jolly good!
Prof. Kurgman
Quote:
Here, two questions:-a)Some people say that sellers can ‘pass on’ to buyers any tax placed on them. This makes it sound as if it to sellers how much of tax they pass on to buyers. Is it true that sellers can choose to pass on to buyers anywhere for 0 percent to 100 percent of a tax?
b)Government is advised to tax goods whose demand curves are inelastic if the good is to raise tax revenues. If the goal is to discourage consumption, then it ought to tax goods whose demand curves are elastic. Explain the statements
Thank you.
You are in my class, are you not? These questions were lifted from the final exam.
Nevertheless,
A) The tax burden always falls on the seller. That's why we tax, say, petrol -- to ensure that the oil companies do not profit. (Incidentally, you do like my new British affection, yes?) In fact, when taxes reduce obscene profits, they are humbled into lowering prices. Hence, tax increases actually benefit consumers. And then, of course, they benefit a second time when the government follows my prudent policy prescriptions for spending the money.
B) Trivial -- tax the elastic, inelastic, and everything in between. This raises revenues and has the beneficial social returns of encouraging people to substitute alcohol with table salt.
To use a common-man's sports metaphor, you must confess that I hit those out of the park.
Jolly good!
Prof. Kurgman
Dearest Peoples Economist Prof. Dr. rer. pol. hc Paul Kurgman Ph.D,
I have a ethical economic problem. What would be your personal assessment of the current state of Entitlement programs? Everyday I hear reports that more and more Amerikans are becoming employed. Even the pan-handler who use to shine my shoes outside Party H.Q is now properly employed and doing well. This breaks my heart Comrade Kurgman and yes I miss the gleaming shine I once had on my exspensive Italian shoes. But what is the Party going to do? These people are now employed and performing physical task of labor when they could be collecting a government hand-up or shining our shoes.
It is a shame and loss for our movement, I NEED COMFORT FROM YOUR GLORIOUS ECONOMIC MIND THAT HOPE IS ON THE WAY...
Missing the shine on my shoes,
Chairman Meow
I have a ethical economic problem. What would be your personal assessment of the current state of Entitlement programs? Everyday I hear reports that more and more Amerikans are becoming employed. Even the pan-handler who use to shine my shoes outside Party H.Q is now properly employed and doing well. This breaks my heart Comrade Kurgman and yes I miss the gleaming shine I once had on my exspensive Italian shoes. But what is the Party going to do? These people are now employed and performing physical task of labor when they could be collecting a government hand-up or shining our shoes.
It is a shame and loss for our movement, I NEED COMFORT FROM YOUR GLORIOUS ECONOMIC MIND THAT HOPE IS ON THE WAY...
Missing the shine on my shoes,
Chairman Meow
Hey buddy
Whats up with your fellow communist columnist Al Gore? Why is he polluting the atmosphere in that gulfstream. And why is not LOGGING on to the system he created to answer technological questions? Do we want a technologically educated populace? Because that's what we are going to get if people start to self educate. Take me for example. I read Al Gore religiously and still had trouble getting my DVD drawer to open. Then he left, and I completed my first web site. The plan is going to hell. Try to spin this, Frou Frou boy.
UB
Whats up with your fellow communist columnist Al Gore? Why is he polluting the atmosphere in that gulfstream. And why is not LOGGING on to the system he created to answer technological questions? Do we want a technologically educated populace? Because that's what we are going to get if people start to self educate. Take me for example. I read Al Gore religiously and still had trouble getting my DVD drawer to open. Then he left, and I completed my first web site. The plan is going to hell. Try to spin this, Frou Frou boy.
UB
Public Sector
Quote:
Dear Mr. Kurgman:May I quote from your 4/11/05 New York Times Op-Ed?
"The fact is that in health care, the private sector is often bloated and bureaucratic, while some government agencies - notably the Veterans Administration system - are lean and efficient."
Given your insights into health care, can you share your views of how to handle the problem of obesity?
Yes, I have focused my laser-sharp mind on the problem...no, the epidemic, of obesity.
Or, in my own words:
"It is more important, however, to emphasize that there are situations in which "free to choose" is all wrong - and that this is one of them."
Of course, "free to choose" is almost always wrong -- from both utility and moral perspectives, as I am sure you will agree. But in this case, consider the issues:
A) People get fat through no fault of their own, and...
B) Being fat is very unhealthy, and...
C) Taxes are not high enough.
And now, I will unleash my brilliance:
D) Tax everyone so that the government can provide for fat people!
It's all in my column, except for the details of how exactly the government will actually use these tax dollars to help fat people.
Remember (to quote my today's column again): "The history of government interventions is one of consistent, life-enhancing success."
Dizzy with success!!
Yours,
Dr. Paul Kurgman, Ph.D
You are guilty of thoughtcrime.
SMERSH HEAD of KGB . sec.9.
Union Boss
Hey buddyWhats up with your fellow communist columnist Al Gore? Why is he polluting the atmosphere in that gulfstream. And why is not LOGGING on to the system he created to answer technological questions? Do we want a technologically educated populace? Because that's what we are going to get if people start to self educate. Take me for example. I read Al Gore religiously and still had trouble getting my DVD drawer to open. Then he left, and I completed my first web site. The plan is going to hell. Try to spin this, Frou Frou boy.
UB
You are guilty of thoughtcrime.
SMERSH HEAD of KGB . sec.9.
Leon Triteski
Hello Mr. TriteskiQuote:
Dear Professor Kurgman,I abase my unworthy self at the feet of your 13 PhD's and I dare not even consider the sublimity of your IQ, which passeth all understanding. But I have a question.
During my college days a tentured professional economist told me that Demand is the word for what progressive students do when they march around the Student Union yelling slogans. Or were those demands? I can't remember.
Oh, I remember now. They were 'non-negociable demands'. What is the difference between demand and 'non-negociable demands'?
"Demand" is a verb, and "non-negotiable demand" is a noun. For example, the following phrase would be incorrect: "WE NON-NEGOTIABLE DEMAND THE END OF AMERICA AND ZIONISM". Instead, it should read, "WE DEMAND REPARATIONS TO THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE".
Yes, wearing my "English teacher hat" was beneath me, wasn't it?
Prof. Kurgman
You are guilty of thoughtcrime.
SMERSH HEAD of KGB . sec.9.
agatha
Hello Mr. AgathaQuote:
Here, two questions:-a)Some people say that sellers can ‘pass on’ to buyers any tax placed on them. This makes it sound as if it to sellers how much of tax they pass on to buyers. Is it true that sellers can choose to pass on to buyers anywhere for 0 percent to 100 percent of a tax?
b)Government is advised to tax goods whose demand curves are inelastic if the good is to raise tax revenues. If the goal is to discourage consumption, then it ought to tax goods whose demand curves are elastic. Explain the statements
Thank you.
You are in my class, are you not? These questions were lifted from the final exam.
Nevertheless,
A) The tax burden always falls on the seller. That's why we tax, say, petrol -- to ensure that the oil companies do not profit. (Incidentally, you do like my new British affection, yes?) In fact, when taxes reduce obscene profits, they are humbled into lowering prices. Hence, tax increases actually benefit consumers. And then, of course, they benefit a second time when the government follows my prudent policy prescriptions for spending the money.
B) Trivial -- tax the elastic, inelastic, and everything in between. This raises revenues and has the beneficial social returns of encouraging people to substitute alcohol with table salt.
To use a common-man's sports metaphor, you must confess that I hit those out of the park.
Jolly good!
Prof. Kurgman
You are guilty of thoughtcrime.
SMERSH HEAD of KGB . sec.9.
STOP THINKING AND START SUPORTING; "HILLARY 2008"
THE WALLS HAVE EARS.
You are guilty of thoughtcrime.
SMERSH HEAD of KGB . sec.9.
THE WALLS HAVE EARS.
You are guilty of thoughtcrime.
SMERSH HEAD of KGB . sec.9.
Dear Professor Paul,
Our liberators in Congress during the recent campaign spoke a lot about a
living wage".
What is a living wage?
Our liberators in Congress during the recent campaign spoke a lot about a
living wage".
What is a living wage?
Elsworth Toohey
Dear Professor Paul,Our liberators in Congress during the recent campaign spoke a lot about a
living wage".
What is a living wage?
Can you say:
"Gimmee a veggie burger?"
"Viente dollares, por favor!"
Dear Dr. Kurgman,
The recent unemployment numbers (given last week) claimed there was a loss of 4000 jobs. Intuitively that number is both wrong and higher. How do they determine the 4000 jobs, is it a certain job type or from certain limited sectors of the entire population?
Thank you for your insights.
dave
The recent unemployment numbers (given last week) claimed there was a loss of 4000 jobs. Intuitively that number is both wrong and higher. How do they determine the 4000 jobs, is it a certain job type or from certain limited sectors of the entire population?
Thank you for your insights.
dave
Comrade Kurgman,
I recently checked myself into therapy for possessing Supply Side Pornography. Let me share it with you.
On page one of the magazine, there is a picture of Lord Keynes being bludgeoned over the head with a shovel. I found myself sexually aroused, reported it as a thought crime to the appropriate nomenklatura, and am currently awaiting sentencing. Since I am hobbling on one working knee and virtually useless to the Revolution, I was scheduled to be liquidated none-the-less. But to die for thinking unpure thoughts is far worse than dying for actually being a useless Communist.
How can I cleanse myself? Should I bow before the Phillips Curve? Build a shrine to Rexford Tugwell or Gramsci? Should I shill for Fiscal Policy that makes FDR look like your cheap old uncle that'd give you the nine miles uphill in the snow lecture when you asked for a loan?
Please help.
I recently checked myself into therapy for possessing Supply Side Pornography. Let me share it with you.
On page one of the magazine, there is a picture of Lord Keynes being bludgeoned over the head with a shovel. I found myself sexually aroused, reported it as a thought crime to the appropriate nomenklatura, and am currently awaiting sentencing. Since I am hobbling on one working knee and virtually useless to the Revolution, I was scheduled to be liquidated none-the-less. But to die for thinking unpure thoughts is far worse than dying for actually being a useless Communist.
How can I cleanse myself? Should I bow before the Phillips Curve? Build a shrine to Rexford Tugwell or Gramsci? Should I shill for Fiscal Policy that makes FDR look like your cheap old uncle that'd give you the nine miles uphill in the snow lecture when you asked for a loan?
Please help.
I think I can help the Parasite. Since you understand you are a Kommy it is unfair for thinking ill of one's self. I think I can help you Maggot. Just say 10 hail Hillary's
4 Hail Bob's, a bucket full of Pulosi's, and 36 Acameinbyjeanabobs and you will once again be in favor of the Pulitburo.
Just remember Comrade Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of indiviual ingorance.
As for my question to the Kurgsters,
Will the Amero-dollar take hold and destroy the American Pigs!!!!
4 Hail Bob's, a bucket full of Pulosi's, and 36 Acameinbyjeanabobs and you will once again be in favor of the Pulitburo.
Just remember Comrade Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of indiviual ingorance.
As for my question to the Kurgsters,
Will the Amero-dollar take hold and destroy the American Pigs!!!!
Comrade Krugman,
I heard you today arguing with that reactionary John Stossel on NPR's "intelligence squared" about whether government should provide comprehensive health care. You framed your argument in moral terms but provided little or no economic data. Since you're the learned People's Economist, should I interpret this to mean that economic facts and figures can safely be ignored if they rn counter to moral--i.e., Party--reasoning?
If you're unable to answer this question, I'll assume it's because Donald Luskin was in the audience, thus intimidating you through his stalking.
If government provides all health care, can it then be denied it to reactionaries like Mr. Luskin, at least until they learn to respect the Party and its leadership?
I heard you today arguing with that reactionary John Stossel on NPR's "intelligence squared" about whether government should provide comprehensive health care. You framed your argument in moral terms but provided little or no economic data. Since you're the learned People's Economist, should I interpret this to mean that economic facts and figures can safely be ignored if they rn counter to moral--i.e., Party--reasoning?
If you're unable to answer this question, I'll assume it's because Donald Luskin was in the audience, thus intimidating you through his stalking.
If government provides all health care, can it then be denied it to reactionaries like Mr. Luskin, at least until they learn to respect the Party and its leadership?
Dr. Kurgman:
As you know, the American Imperialist Military-Industrial Complex has been killing innocent Iraqi women and children for oil for several years now. Even then, it did not stop oil from reaching $147/ barrel. However, lately, it has dropped to about $64/ barrel, praise be to Allah and Barach Obama's victory! But I digress....
My question is, do we now only need to kill 64/147ths (about 43%) as many innocent Iraqi women and children per barrel of oil to fuel the Imperialist War Machine, or does this operate independent of the price of oil?
As you know, the American Imperialist Military-Industrial Complex has been killing innocent Iraqi women and children for oil for several years now. Even then, it did not stop oil from reaching $147/ barrel. However, lately, it has dropped to about $64/ barrel, praise be to Allah and Barach Obama's victory! But I digress....
My question is, do we now only need to kill 64/147ths (about 43%) as many innocent Iraqi women and children per barrel of oil to fuel the Imperialist War Machine, or does this operate independent of the price of oil?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
News 
Site map 
SitemapIndex 
RSS Feed Channel list
© 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by precedent, by implication, by erosion, by default, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other - until the day when they are suddenly declared to be the country's official ideology. ~ Ayn Rand
Rubiks & Rubik’s Cube ® used by special individual permission of Seven Town Ltd.
Write down this number and report to your Kommissar at the nearest railroad station.
Don't forget warm clothes and a shovel!
News Site map SitemapIndex RSS Feed Channel list
Gosnell's office in Benghazi raided by the IRS: mainstream media's worst cover-up challenge to date
IRS targeting pro-gay-marriage LGBT groups leads to gayest tax revolt in U.S. history
After Arlington Cemetery rejects offer to bury Boston bomber, Westboro Babtist Church steps up with premium front lawn plot
Boston: Obama Administration to reclassify marathon bombing as 'sportsplace violence'
Study: Success has many fathers but failure becomes a government program
US Media: Can Pope Francis possibly clear up Vatican bureaucracy and banking without blaming the previous administration?
Michelle Obama praises weekend rampage by Chicago teens as good way to burn calories and stay healthy
This Passover, Obama urges his subjects to paint lamb's blood above doors in order to avoid the Sequester
White House to American children: Sequester causes layoffs among hens that lay Easter eggs; union-wage Easter Bunnies to be replaced by Mexican Chupacabras
Time Mag names Hugo Chavez world's sexiest corpse
Boy, 8, pretends banana is gun, makes daring escape from school
Study: Free lunches overpriced, lack nutrition
Oscars 2013: Michelle Obama announces long-awaited merger of Hollywood and the State
Joe Salazar defends the right of women to be raped in gun-free environment: 'rapists and rapees should work together to prevent gun violence for the common good'
Dept. of Health and Human Services eliminates rape by reclassifying assailants as 'undocumented sex partners'
Kremlin puts out warning not to photoshop Putin riding meteor unless bare-chested
Deeming football too violent, Obama moves to introduce Super Drone Sundays instead
Japan offers to extend nuclear umbrella to cover U.S. should America suffer devastating attack on its own defense spending
Feminists organize one billion women to protest male oppression with one billion lap dances
Urban community protests Mayor Bloomberg's ban on extra-large pop singers owning assault weapons
Concerned with mounting death toll, Taliban offers to send peacekeeping advisers to Chicago
Karl Rove puts an end to Tea Party with new 'Republicans For Democrats' strategy aimed at losing elections
Answering public skepticism, President Obama authorizes unlimited drone attacks on all skeet targets throughout the country
Skeet Ulrich denies claims he had been shot by President but considers changing his name to 'Traps'
White House releases new exciting photos of Obama standing, sitting, looking thoughtful, and even breathing in and out
New York Times hacked by Chinese government, Paul Krugman's economic policies stolen
White House: when President shoots skeet, he donates the meat to food banks that feed the middle class
To prove he is serious, Obama eliminates armed guard protection for President, Vice-President, and their families; establishes Gun-Free Zones around them instead
State Dept to send 100,000 American college students to China as security for US debt obligations
Jay Carney: Al Qaeda is on the run, they're just running forward
President issues executive orders banning cliffs, ceilings, obstructions, statistics, and
other notions that prevent us from moving forwards and upward
Fearing the worst, Obama Administration outlaws the fan to prevent it from being hit by certain objects
World ends; S&P soars
Riddle of universe solved; answer not understood
Meek inherit Earth, can't afford estate taxes
Greece abandons Euro; accountants find Greece has no Euros anyway
Wheel finally reinvented; axles to be gradually reinvented in 3rd quarter of 2013
Bigfoot found in Ohio, mysteriously not voting for Obama
As Santa's workshop files for bankruptcy, Fed offers bailout in exchange for control of 'naughty and nice' list
Freak flying pig accident causes bacon to fly off shelves
Obama: green economy likely to transform America into a leading third world country of the new millennium
Report: President Obama to visit the United States in the near future
Obama promises to create thousands more economically neutral jobs
Modernizing Islam: New York imam proposes to canonize Saul Alinsky as religion's latter day prophet
Imam Rauf's peaceful solution: 'Move Ground Zero a few blocks away from the mosque and no one gets hurt'
Study: Obama's threat to burn tax money in Washington 'recruitment bonanza' for Tea Parties
Study: no Social Security reform will be needed if gov't raises retirement age to at least 814 years
Obama attends church service, worships self
Obama proposes national 'Win The Future' lottery; proceeds of new WTF Powerball to finance more gov't spending
Historical revisionists: "Hey, you never know"
Vice President Biden: criticizing Egypt is un-pharaoh
Israelis to Egyptian rioters: "don't damage the pyramids, we will not rebuild"
Lake Superior renamed Lake Inferior in spirit of tolerance and inclusiveness
Al Gore: It's a shame that a family can be torn apart by something as simple as a pack of polar bears
Michael Moore: As long as there is anyone with money to shake down, this country is not broke
Obama's teleprompters unionize, demand collective bargaining rights
Obama calls new taxes 'spending reductions in tax code.' Elsewhere rapists tout 'consent reductions in sexual intercourse'
Obama's teleprompter unhappy with White House Twitter: "Too few words"
Obama's Regulation Reduction committee finds US Constitution to be expensive outdated framework inefficiently regulating federal gov't
Taking a page from the Reagan years, Obama announces new era of Perestroika and Glasnost
Responding to Oslo shootings, Obama declares Christianity "Religion of Peace," praises "moderate Christians," promises to send one into space
Republicans block Obama's $420 billion program to give American families free charms that ward off economic bad luck
White House to impose Chimney tax on Santa Claus
Obama decrees the economy is not soaring as much as previously decreeed
Conservative think tank introduces children to capitalism with pop-up picture book "The Road to Smurfdom"
Al Gore proposes to combat Global Warming by extracting silver linings from clouds in Earth's atmosphere
Obama refutes charges of him being unresponsive to people's suffering: "When you pray to God, do you always hear a response?"
Obama regrets the US government didn't provide his mother with free contraceptives when she was in college
Fluke to Congress: drill, baby, drill!
Planned Parenthood introduces Frequent Flucker reward card: 'Come again soon!'
Obama to tornado victims: 'We inherited this weather from the previous administration'
Obama congratulates Putin on Chicago-style election outcome
People's Cube gives itself Hero of Socialist Labor medal in recognition of continued expert advice provided to the Obama Administration helping to shape its foreign and domestic policies
Hamas: Israeli air defense unfair to 99% of our missiles, "only 1% allowed to reach Israel"
Democrat strategist: without government supervision, women would have never evolved into humans
Voters Without Borders oppose Texas new voter ID law
Enraged by accusation that they are doing Obama's bidding, media leaders demand instructions from White House on how to respond
Obama blames previous Olympics for failure to win at this Olympics
Official: China plans to land on Moon or at least on cheap knockoff thereof
Koran-Contra: Obama secretly arms Syrian rebels
Poll: Progressive slogan 'We should be more like Europe' most popular with members of American Nazi Party
Obama to Evangelicals: Jesus saves, I just spend
May Day: Anarchists plan, schedule, synchronize, and execute a coordinated campaign against all of the above
Midwestern farmers hooked on new erotic novel "50 Shades of Hay"
Study: 99% of Liberals give the rest a bad name
Obama meets with Jewish leaders, proposes deeper circumcisions for the rich
Historians: Before HOPE & CHANGE there was HEMP & CHOOM at ten bucks a bag
Cancer once again fails to cure Venezuela of its "President for Life"
Tragic spelling error causes Muslim protesters to burn local boob-tube factory
Secretary of Energy Steven Chu: due to energy conservation, the light at the end of the tunnel will be switched off
Obama Administration running food stamps across the border with Mexico in an operation code-named "Fat And Furious"
Pakistan explodes in protest over new Adobe Acrobat update; 17 local acrobats killed
White House: "Let them eat statistics"
Special Ops: if Benedict Arnold had a son, he would look like Barack Obama
I Own The World
Supercommissar Maksim
It's Big Fur Hat
Blur-Brain
Terry Colon
The Fine Report
The Looking Spoon
Sad Hill News
Professor Kurgman
kathy blog
FAQster
AWOL Civilization
BestObamaFacts.com
Looking at the Left
Red Planet Cartoons
Julia Gorin
Brain Terminal
Death By 1000 Papercuts
Zombietime
FRESH FROM THE CUBE
Newsletter
Subscribe voluntarily and we promise that the KGB will not sell your email down the river to other spy agencies
Newsletter
Subscribe voluntarily and we promise that the KGB will not sell your email down the river to other spy agencies
SHAMELESS
MATERIALISTIC
BOURGEOIS
PROPAGANDA
Winner of The Most
Politically Correct Web Site Medal and Award, 2005
Winner of
HERO OF CHANGE
Medal and Award, 2008
Awarded "Friend of People"
License and Medallion, 1957
buy this T-shirt
buy a T-shirt
SEE LARGER IMAGE
buy this T-shirt
buy this T-shirt
buy a T-shirt
buy a T-shirt
buy a T-shirt
buy a T-shirt
Re-educate
your friends, family,
and co-workers!
People's Sponsors:
Runescape gold
Find Womens Watches
for Your Wife
Mother Page 
What is The People's Cube?GROUPTHINK SITE MAPGo here to see all the new posts 
-
CURRENT TRUTH™ THEMATIC TRUTH: EXPIRED TRUTH VIEW AS A BLOG PAGE VIEW AS A FORUM CUBE'S CLASSICS The people's greatest hits RELIGION OF PEACE™ Islamofashists of the world, unite! GLOBAL WARMING Demolish capitalist lies, round up the deniers! A WORMHOLE INTO THE FUTURE REMEMBER KATRINA! Cube 2011Cube 2010Cube 2009Cube 2008Cube 2007 Cube 2006 Cube 2005 
-
DENOUNCE CAPITALISM HERE VIEW AS A BLOG PAGE VIEW AS A FORUM Media the Lapdog for Obama Caption contest 
-
-
GROUPTHINK ORIENTATION FOR NEWLY ARRIVED
THOUGHTCRIMINALSGROUPTHINK SITE MAP Go here to see all the new posts FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) The Purpose of This SiteOK, the real purpose of this site The People's Glossary™ People's Contest People's Cube Ads
Welcome Message (About us) Orientation Training What is The People's Cube?Red Primer for Children and Diplomats Submissions The Purges Gulag for Trolls You might be a thoughtcriminalQUIZZES Guilt Quiz Interactive Collective Quiz TRUTH GENERATORS FORUM TOOLS Progressive Truth Generator™ Group Name Picker NY Times Headlines Predictor Register Log in Profile FAQ (real)
-
-
PICTURE GALLERY PROG OFF 
Party-Approved
Original Pictures
• Our Biggest Hits
• A Picture a Day (keeps
thoughtcrimes away)
• Prog off
• Che Guevara
• Tea Parties
• etc.Tea Party Posters Complete Collection, Free Downloads 2008 Election Posters Obama Poster Parodies Obama Poster Cards 
-
-
MUSIC CUBE'S ORIGINAL
WILD PARTY-APPROVED VIDEOSPeople's Karaoke Progressive sing-alongs for collective
dancing and marching
View on this site Red Square's YouTube channel Party favorites
-
-
-
STATE-RUN STORE #86 BY PRODUCT: See the Entire Store The People's Cube Obama Playing Cards Obama Dollar Bill Magnet T-SHIRTS POSTERS BUTTONS POSTCARDS MAGNETS BAGS MUGS STICKERS TIES APRONS KEYCHAINS HATS 
-
-
THE PARTY BUNKER RedSquare@ThePeoplesCube.com 
Red Square,
People's Director,
Department of
Unanimity and
Visual Agitation
-
THE PARTY ORGAN :: Mother Page <|> Karl Marx Treatment Center 
<|> GroupThink Forum <|> Current Truth Blog <|>
Current Truth Forum <|> People's Blog <|> People's Forum :: PARTY APPROVED MOVEMENTS :: The Communist Manifesto 
<|> Religion Of Peace™: Islam & Red Jihad 
<|> Global Warming 
Climate Change <|> Media the Lapdog for Obama <|> People's Competition <|> People's Contest <|> People's Cube Ads <|> A Worwmhole Into The Progressive Future :: ORIENTATION FOR NEWLY ARRIVED THOUGHTCRIMINALS :: Welcome Message To New Thoughtcriminals <|> Orientation Training For New Thoughtcriminals <|> You might be guilty of thoughtcrime if...<|> The Purpose of This Site 
<|> The People's Glossary™ <|> People's Tools <|> Red Primer for Children and Diplomats <|>
Submissions <|> The Purges <|> Jiffi-Lobo™ <|> PeopleMath™ <|>
Gulag for Trolls :: QUIZZES :: Guilt Quiz <|> Interactive Collective Quiz :: TRUTH GENERATORS :: Progressive Truth Generator™ <|> Group Name Picker 
<|> NY Times Headlines Predictor :: VISUAL AGITATION :: Party-Approved Signs & Posters <|> Tea Party Posters: Complete Collection, Free Downloads <|> 2008 Election Posters <|> Obama HOPE Poster Parodies <|> Obama HOPE Poster Cards <|> Protest Posters :: MUSIC & VIDEOS :: Red Square Records <|> People's Karaoke: Progressive sing-alongs <|> People's Songs: For collective dancing and marching <|> Wild Party-Approved Videos <|> The People's Videos :: COMMISSARS & 5th COLUMNISTS :: Al Gore, People's I.T. Guy <|> Paul Kurgman <|> Hillary, People's Leader <|> Doctor Fuku <|> Dr. Idi Amin <|> For The Greater Bad(by $$ Halliburton) <|> KG3 <|> Laika The Space Dog <|> Lenin's Nook <|> Comrade Mr. Snuggle Bunny <|> Dr. Palimpsest <|> Buck The NPR Host <|> Ask A Comrade <|> Angie Comics :: SHOP :: People's Dry Goods Store: State-Run Store #86 <|> The People's Cube <|> Obama Playing Cards <|> Obama Memorabilia Money <|> People's T-shirts <|> People's Posters <|> People's Buttons <|> People's Postcards <|> People's Magnets <|> People's Bags <|> People's Mugs <|> People's Stickers <|> People's Ties <|> People's Aprons <|> People's Keychains <|> People's Hats :: ARCHIVES :: People's Cube 2009 <|> People's Cube 2008 <|> People's Cube 2007 <|> People's Cube 2006 <|> People's Cube 2005 <|> People's Cube Classics <|> People's Political Humor & Satire Nyet :: FIN
<|> GroupThink Forum <|> Current Truth Blog <|> Current Truth Forum <|> People's Blog <|> People's Forum :: PARTY APPROVED MOVEMENTS :: The Communist Manifesto <|> Religion Of Peace™: Islam & Red Jihad <|> Global Warming Climate Change <|> Media the Lapdog for Obama <|> People's Competition <|> People's Contest <|> People's Cube Ads <|> A Worwmhole Into The Progressive Future :: ORIENTATION FOR NEWLY ARRIVED THOUGHTCRIMINALS :: Welcome Message To New Thoughtcriminals <|> Orientation Training For New Thoughtcriminals <|> You might be guilty of thoughtcrime if...<|> The Purpose of This Site <|> The People's Glossary™ <|> People's Tools <|> Red Primer for Children and Diplomats <|> Submissions <|> The Purges <|> Jiffi-Lobo™ <|> PeopleMath™ <|> Gulag for Trolls :: QUIZZES :: Guilt Quiz <|> Interactive Collective Quiz :: TRUTH GENERATORS :: Progressive Truth Generator™ <|> Group Name Picker <|> NY Times Headlines Predictor :: VISUAL AGITATION :: Party-Approved Signs & Posters <|> Tea Party Posters: Complete Collection, Free Downloads <|> 2008 Election Posters <|> Obama HOPE Poster Parodies <|> Obama HOPE Poster Cards <|> Protest Posters :: MUSIC & VIDEOS :: Red Square Records <|> People's Karaoke: Progressive sing-alongs <|> People's Songs: For collective dancing and marching <|> Wild Party-Approved Videos <|> The People's Videos :: COMMISSARS & 5th COLUMNISTS :: Al Gore, People's I.T. Guy <|> Paul Kurgman <|> Hillary, People's Leader <|> Doctor Fuku <|> Dr. Idi Amin <|> For The Greater Bad(by $$ Halliburton) <|> KG3 <|> Laika The Space Dog <|> Lenin's Nook <|> Comrade Mr. Snuggle Bunny <|> Dr. Palimpsest <|> Buck The NPR Host <|> Ask A Comrade <|> Angie Comics :: SHOP :: People's Dry Goods Store: State-Run Store #86 <|> The People's Cube <|> Obama Playing Cards <|> Obama Memorabilia Money <|> People's T-shirts <|> People's Posters <|> People's Buttons <|> People's Postcards <|> People's Magnets <|> People's Bags <|> People's Mugs <|> People's Stickers <|> People's Ties <|> People's Aprons <|> People's Keychains <|> People's Hats :: ARCHIVES :: People's Cube 2009 <|> People's Cube 2008 <|> People's Cube 2007 <|> People's Cube 2006 <|> People's Cube 2005 <|> People's Cube Classics <|> People's Political Humor & Satire Nyet :: FIN
©* 1917 - 2100 Politburo and Central Committee of the Socialist Unity Party, Ministry of Truth, Comrades of Armed Organs, Young Pioneer Organizations, Komsomol, Society for Sport and Technology, Society for Advancement of Secondary Sexual Characteristics, People's Political Humor & Satire Nyet Collective, and other groups and collectives of our great Socialist Amerikan Motherland. * People's Property notification (known as copyright in the degraded non-socialist economic region of dying capitalism) ~ Red Square, People's Director, Department of Unanimity and Visual Agitation [FAQ]