richardhutnik said:
As wrong as Krugman is on a number of things, particularly him being Keynsian economically, the fact is that he won a Nobel Prize in economics and knows more about economics than people who post on forums like this. The reason I brought up Krugman is because someone goes off and speaks how economics has nothing to do with liberalism. The reality is that someone can be well versed in economics and argue for liberal views politically, as Krugman does. How about, if people want their arguments to be taken seriously, they drop this partisan bull on how Liberalism is totally divorced from economics. |
Well to be fair. Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. How well did that work out? You could argue that he's been more warlike then bush. It's probably why so few republicans have tried to attack him on national security.
The problem with Krugman is that when argueing for Liberal ideals he seems to forget eveyrthing he talks about economically.
There are a LOT of great arguements for liberalism, the problem lies in people trying to make economic arguements for it... which are pretty awful.
It's very much like the conversation with Prof. I could come up with a number of good reasons for why you'd fund green jobs and GOOD ways to do it.
However it'd still more likely then not economically be a sink.
