Krugman Wins Economics Nobel
Good for Paul Krugman - who has written quite readable pieces (hard to do when you win an economics Nobel) on the current economic crisis. I think the days of unfettered capitalism and free trade are over - at least for a while!
The only thing wrong with Krugman is that he supports Ol' Barack for president.
19 comments:
Krugman was rooting for Hillary and has questioned Barack few times. Not exactly an Obama devotee.
In truth obama is no angel either.Who do we prefer between the two?
Republicans are preferable to Democrats. It is proselytization as much as jihadism that I dread.
The onslaught of information overload about both only makes me thoroughly confused like the bewildered common man of RK Laxman.
Read the christianized boohoo mendacious report:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/world/asia/13india.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
One sentence soothes.
" Today it is a heap of rubble on an empty field, where cows blithely graze."
I see in Obama a greater economic threat than McCain, since Obama is more of a protectionist. I agree with Obama's criticisms that the Iraq War was a needless distraction from the conflict with Taliban and AlQaeda. But there seem to be more Atlanticist types grouped around Obama than around McCain - the Democrats are after all the party of Wilsonianism.
A lead for a McCain rally talked about people of other religion praying to "Hindu(sic), Buddha or Allah" for an Obama win. The insinuation being heathens like Hindus are praying for Obama. This is the bigot campaign that you want to support? I agree with almost allideas expressed on this site, but I cannot understand your belief that McCain will be good for India. For our own economic interest, as NRIs, and for India itself which will do better with a more prosperous USA, I hope for an Obama win
But for 'conversion' threats , it would be sensible for us Hindus to always support Republicans.NEVER democrats.
That is what a lot of mature people advise.As pointed out earlier by Rajeev , obama is saudi's.
Makes sense to support Mccain.
India has to crack down & muzzle bigots of both ROP & ROL within India. As without the overt & covert connivance of establishment Hindus would not have been targetted.
middleroad ,
It would be worthwhile to remember it was AMERICA that rapturously welcomed Swami Vivekananda with:
" He a heathen? No way, we want more people like Him here ".
Also do not forget after returning from America to India , Swami Vivekananda was refused a ride by a boatman (yes, yes, in the glorious motherland) as He could not pay a few annas.
Hindus in America are not getting converted or bombblasted away in multitudinous numbers as they are in Godforsaken india.
Well, there are bigots on both sides. Wendy Doniger, for example, wrote a column in NYT arguing in favor of Obamamaniacs. I hope you know who she is.
In general Republicans are business friendly and more pragmatic, Democrats are not. Actually Democrats are more protectionist. The foreign policy of Republicans is influenced by neoconservatives who are decidedly against totalitarians like China and the Islamic fundamentalists. Democrats are the ancestors of Wagah candle types.
I wish we COULD live off the respect shown to Vivekananda, but we can't. The American economy is suffering and who do you want at the helm?
The one who
1. Said the fundamentals of the economy are strong the day the economy tanked
2. Suspended his campaign and rushed to Washington
3. Canceled his appearance on Letterman because he was airlifting to WAS, but instead ended up in Couric's show
4. Insisted on a "bipartisan" meeting that infused so much politics that the deal could not be struck for another week
5. Refused to debate until the deal was struck
6. Debated anyway even though a deal was NOT struck
7. Rushed back to Washington but didn't meet anyone, insisting he could conduct his business over the phone, then accused Obama of "phoning it in".
8. Took credit for the deal just before it tanked in the House.
9. Then blamed Obama for supporting it.
All within the space of 7-8 days.
Look at what happened since Saturday
1. On Saturday, Lindsey Graham says he will have an economic package
2. On Monday, his campaign says he doesn't plan on one, but instead will go with "We got them where we want 'em".
3. On Monday, Obama comes out with a proposal that is well received. Hours later, McCain decides he will come out with one too
I am not suggesting that Obama walks on water, but looking at how erratic and clueless McCain has been over the last 4 weeks, I fear for my 401K as much as the USA if we have to undergo 4 years under him.
Also, may I remind you that the evangelicals, who are the main group behind conversions, are solidly Republican. And that Palin thinks the war is God's work
"In general Republicans are business friendly and more pragmatic, Democrats are not. "
For business friendly to be useful, you need to have businesses. After the disaster of the last 8 years, I would rather take a protectionist who leaves behind a surplus than one who leaves trillions i debt. Take a look at these numbers:
National Debt when Carter came to office arrived at the White House:
$660 billion.
Added during Carter's four years: $337 billion.
Added during Ronald Reagan's eight years: $1.6 trillion.
Added during George H. W. Bush's four years: $1.6 trillion.
Added during Bill Clinton's eight years: $1.5 trillion.
Added during George W. Bush's seven years, nine months: $4.5 trillion.
Portion of the $9.5 trillion added to the national debt during the past 31 years and seven months that came during Republican presidencies: $7.7 trillion.
Percentage of that $7.7 trillion added during George W. Bush's two terms: 58%.
Generalizing is easy to do. Apply your mind when deciding who is best for your OWN economic interests
Spare me cut & paste verbiage middleroad.
Not quite middle enough I feel.
By endorsing 'protectionism' you are actually championing the parasites' causes.
I am not an American citizen.Still I prefer Republicans and McCain.Republicans intrinsically are " NATURAL " allies of Hindus.So are Jews. Period.
Paul Krugman is smart guy, that's why he is supporting Obama. Anyone rooting for the other ticket ie., [Washed-out gold digging sugar daddy + Creationist Fundamentalist]
If reading and understanding anything beyond your standard talking points taxes your brain, please ignore my comments. I neither aimed my comments at you nor care what lazy intellects think. My comments were to people whom I respect, like Rajeev Srinivasan, san and Ghost writer.
The guys above and anyone else who is capable of a real argument, please let me know if I am saying anything that is not factual. I don't pretend to know everything and am simply presenting my point of view. If I am wrong, please do let me know. I am seriously concerned about our economic health. My 401K has suffered a lot recently and I don't want to see another 401K statement like the one I got last week.
>>the evangelicals, who are the main group behind conversions, are solidly Republican. And that Palin thinks the war is God's work<<
I know. Apologies for belabouring my point:
That country which tenaciously has been playing cricket for aeons , had it cared could have easily imposed a blanket ban on evangelicals & conversions.
So it is india that is culpable not sarah palin for India's plight.
Respectable people endowed with sophisticated & supercilious intellect need not be reminded of the fact that pope exhorted his flock to plant the cross in Asia & reap a rich harvest of souls in India.
"For business friendly to be useful, you need to have businesses. After the disaster of the last 8 years, I would rather take a protectionist who leaves behind a surplus than one who leaves trillions i debt."
How's a protectionist going to give you surplus, pray tell me? There are gazillion welfare-expanding schemes that Obama has proposed. Where's the money for all that going to come from? Globalization was key to the previous decade's growth and your fancy 401(k). If income redistribution could usher in growth and alleviate poverty then Soviet Union will still be around.
You cite the deficit but forget the tax revenue growth and the expansion of economy. I am quite curious though as to where from any President is going to get a surplus from. Show me the math and I'm sold (to protectionist policies).
For those who live in the US, this is an election the Dems must win - and big time - so big that it wipes out the odious remnants of Reaganism. For the people of India it doesn't matter. Whether it is the donkey or the elephant, every US President acts decidedly in the best interests of his country. So an Indian can only look for areas of common interest. Protectionism is a would hurt China much more than it would hurt India, but might bring a lot of benefit to the US itself. That would be good for India, if more manufacturing were to happen in hte US, and India were to provide the services. But let's not look at this in mercantilist fashion. I am happy that India has been practical in its relations with the US, and after FDR who pressured Churchill on Indian Independence, and thanks to his wife was a fan of Gandhi, Eisenhower and Bush Jr. have both been cordial towards India. There is no pattern here though. It is purely a result of prevailing geopolitics. Right now China is vastly more important to the US than India. So there is some bipartisan opinion on China. In case of India we aren't yet there.
socal, here is the link. Do your own research.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/
Or you can simply go with the guy whose solution to everything is "corporate tax cuts".
In an eerily starange way , nondhimmi Hindus are in the same predicament as Republicans in America.
When Republicans utter the word God/Lord/Jesus Christ they are branded as (sic) kuklux , racist etc. As Hindus uttering Raam or Ssivadhrohee are (sic)communal , hindu militant etc....
Whereas inshaallah , bourgeoise , politburo , marx , socialism , liberalism , SEykoolAArism , reservations, quota ,blahblah are accepted as 'holiest' words(((
middleroad,
Here's a counter for you(hope you have NYT userid):
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/14/opinion/14brooks.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
In nutshell, Democrats are huge fans of Keynesian economics, which means big govt. deficit spending to trigger economy. It's not that they don't like deficits, which they do. They just don't like deficits the way Republicans have done. Apparently some deficits are more preferable than others.
The Obama site says he's going to charge oil companies with windfall tax. With oil prices down 50% from their previous yr. highs that's plain impossible. He's going to charge rich people. Okay. But with the markets down the rich aren't as rich anymore. If the rich are taxed they won't invest as much, which means less job creation. Obama sure is not going to withdraw from Iraq anytime soon, especially with the surge a success, which means the Iraq war spending won't come down.
So, where's the money going to come from? Or are you dreaming that the little tax cut that Obama is going to through the middle class's way will somehow makeup for your depleted 401(k)?
Post a Comment