This is R.L.Love's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following R.L.Love's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
R.L.Love
Recent Activity
EMichael, That is a good response for you. You should stick to using small words and comments of 3 words or fewer. Over time, maybe this will help with your anger and bias issues?
1 reply
PK has nearly lost all of his ability to see things objectively. Ambition got him, I suppose, or maybe he has always longed to be popular. He was probably teased and ridiculed too much in his youth. He is something of a whinny sniveler after-all. Then too, I doubt if PK has ever used a public restroom in the Southwest, or taken his kids to a public park in one of the thousands of small towns where non-English speaking throngs take over all of the facilities and parking.Or had his children bullied at school by a gang of dark-skinned kids whose parents believe that whites took their land, or abused or enslaved their distant ansestors. It might be germane here too... to point out that some of this anti-white sentiment gets support and validation from the very rhetoric that Democrats have made integral to their campaigns. As for not knowing why crime rates have been falling, the incarceration rates rose in step, so duh, if you lock up those with propensities for crime, well, how could crime rates not fall? And while I'm on the subject of crime, the statistical analysis that is commonly used focuses too much on violent crime and convictions. Thus, crimes of a less serious nature, that being the type of crimes committed by poor folks, is routinely ignored. Then too, those who are here illegally are often transient and using assumed names, and so they are, presumably, more difficult to catch. So, statistics are all too often not as telling as claimed. And, though I'm not a Trump supporter, I fully understand his appeal. As would PK if he were more travelled and in touch with those who have seen their schools, parks, towns, and everything else turn tawdry and dysfunctional. But of course the nation that most of us live in is much different than the one that PK knows.
1 reply
It seems odd to me that Galbraith didn't mention Hudson's foretelling article in that paper considering their connection via the MMT. But maybe there is some conflict that escapes me, or maybe Galbraith wasn't as well informed as he seemed to think? Thanks
1 reply
"A specific reference is necessary" (hehe, but then of course you may be busy finding references for those who lack such)
1 reply
Yea, that is the one. And it surprises me that you don't remember it because one of the regulars here was mentioned and the paper created quite a scolding stir. Here is the connective part: (A strong line of descent runs from Minsky to recent work in non-linear dynamics, for example the work of Peter Albin, Barkley Rosser, jr. and Ping Chen.11 A key property of non-linear systems is the appearance within them of phase transitions: from single equilibria, to two- four- and eight-period repeating cycles, and finally to deterministic chaos.)
1 reply
If I possessed your computer skills I would not put much importance on remembering stuff, but as it stands, I must rely on my tired old mind. And I suspect that you will find Jamie's paper before I finish writing this or I would offer to try and find myself.
1 reply
"necessary"? Is this not a bit totalitarian? And surely such an erudite crowd as this is aware of Hudson's much discussed article. I was in fact torn by whether I should add an occasional 'of course' or 'naturally'. In fact I edited out a "naturally". But I suppose you are more in touch with such things than I am, except that you probably don't realize just how slow I am on a computer and so you could not then know just how much you 'ordering' me to do.
1 reply
Yes, anne, I was aware of PK's contribution as well all of those who were so lavishly mentioned by Jamie Galbraith. But my point stands in regards to Hudson receiving relatively little credit. Plus, I suspect that Hudson's positions after the meltdown connect well to the 'new idea' theme involved here. That, as opposed to the lack of new ideas being presented by the likes of PK or any of the other prominent economists that I am aware of. But, I only dabble, admittedly.
1 reply
In May of 2006 Michael Hudson wrote a cover story for Harper's called 'The New Road to Serfdom' and he thereby laid out the impending collapse in simple terms. In the years after the collapse though, any economist who had so much as mentioned the housing bubble before its bursting was given credit for their foresight, but Hudson's superior prescience was rarely mentioned. After the collapse, Ben Bernanke testified before Congress and stated that the economics profession had not yet found a way to recognize bubbles... as such imbalances occurred. Yet, in another part of the same testimony, Bernanke explained that foreign inflows, high leverage ratios, lax lending policies, and so on, had all combined to create excess liquidity. And even though it is rather obvious that bubbles can not exist without excess liquidity...this line of thinking supports the Claim by the Chinese that the Triffin Dilemma is the underlying issue which caused the meltdown. This thereby calls into question our reserve currency status and whether the USA has been fair and responsible in its leading role in the global economy. The big question here being that if a nation as wealthy as the USA has too much liquidity...while most of the world has too little, WTF? And the fact that the USA is having an obesity epidemic while using far more of nearly every resource than any other nation, and etc., is, well, embarrassing to a threatening degree. Therefore, truth often interferes with the formation of new ideas. So, my point is then, that mainstream economists rarely look for new ideas because they are busy instead... trying to justify a status quo, or a political bias, which are more so shaped by foreign policy concerns, social issues, and all of the elements of greed and empire. Ray
1 reply
I think you have it about right. Patriotism is the glue that makes propaganda stick. It is that which pits the less fortunate against each other on behalf of those who never have enough.
Toggle Commented Jul 30, 2016 on Paul Krugman: Who Loves America? at Economist's View
1 reply
I went back and re-read our conversation and I must admit that I failed to decipher the following: "And, like Tmb81, the Dems have a platform, along with a long history, of backing up those appeals to goodness with related policy proposals and legislation". And thus, I didn't understand when you said:"Well, I already said tolerance and multiculturalism as examples of goodness, and pointed out how Tmb's reference to "immigration reform, expansion of social security and health care, social justice, etc." described the Dem's platform". And so maybe you meant to write "and like tmb81 'said'..."But I must of assumed at the time that anyone so quick to criticize my "English" would not write something so poorly written as that. But I suppose now I am beginning to understand where your support was hiding, hehe. I'm still a little confused though on why you seem to believe that anything listed in tmb81's original comment, combined with your "goodness" (multiculturalism, tolerance), would constitute a 'given' where support is concerned. The only thing close to a given might be the ACA, but of course it is rife with questionable policies and showing signs of failure (costs rising in some states at unsustainable rates). And so, since you didn't mention any actual Dem accomplishments until after my original criticism, and because I never so much as hinted at any doubt that the Dems had made valuable contributions in the past, well...your comments are wildly inaccurate. And as for your claims that so much "goodness" is being expressed through progress on multiculturism and tolerance, how is that possible in light of the Trump phenomenon? Are you suggesting that a nut-case such as Trump might get so much support in such times of "goodness"? Are you therefore the actual Trump Troll, lol. Was this all part of some sort of trick?
Toggle Commented Jul 30, 2016 on Paul Krugman: Who Loves America? at Economist's View
1 reply
Yea, the blogosphere is suffering from growing pains, still. Or maybe I'm just not patient enough. Thanks, Ray
Toggle Commented Jul 29, 2016 on Paul Krugman: Who Loves America? at Economist's View
1 reply
Perhaps you could cite where you mentioned that which is not a campaign promise, the "Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, minimum wages labor protections of all sorts, etc etc etc etc". Maybe I missed something you said? And maybe I missed the part too where it is ok to change time periods to apply some spin (according to your comment the abolition of slavery wouldn't count as "goodness"). But then of course my comment about the "same type of goodness" was clearly aimed at campaign promises and 'not' deeds, so the context of everything I said is mangled to a point that it is difficult to even make sense of your comment.
Toggle Commented Jul 29, 2016 on Paul Krugman: Who Loves America? at Economist's View
1 reply
So you think changing the context of a statement to spin a point is good "English", and that anyone who disagrees with your lacking integrity is a "Trump Troll". And I noticed too... that you are quick to suggest that others who disagree with your regurgitating should be banned from this site. Yet you are the most vitriolic person here so far as I've noticed. Seemingly, an angry old fool with a need to disparage. But then maybe the host relies on such fools and so maybe truth and integrity cause too many problems here. In any case, I've nearly realized that this site is not for me. Thanks for making that decision easy for me.
Toggle Commented Jul 29, 2016 on Paul Krugman: Who Loves America? at Economist's View
1 reply
"Trump troll"? I have been a committed Democratic Socialist since the 1970s. I was committed enough to offer my services to the Sandinistas while spending many months in Central America. I have been a loyal member of 2 labor unions and I've worked the streets on behalf of many progressive causes going back many decades. So what does that say about your judgement?
Toggle Commented Jul 29, 2016 on Paul Krugman: Who Loves America? at Economist's View
1 reply
Yes, it is easy to seem brave on the web. Maybe too, campaign promises serve well enough for support of "goodness", in some subjective and hopeful sense. But of course the opposing party is rife with the same type of goodness, and so it goes, the pandering that I mentioned in the beginning.
Toggle Commented Jul 29, 2016 on Paul Krugman: Who Loves America? at Economist's View
1 reply
Here is some entertainment from 'Onion'to go with your popcorn: WASHINGTON—Citing a “widespread disinterest bordering on contempt” for the program’s most basic aims, Michelle Obama announced Monday she was shutting down “Let’s Move!,” the initiative she created in 2010 to fight childhood obesity. “Though I had hoped ‘Let’s Move!’ would promote healthier habits among America’s children, it turns out our young people simply aren’t interested in moving—at all,” the first lady told reporters. “Seriously, not even a little. When I visit these schools and talk about exercise, most of the kids look back at me with blank stares. And the ones who do attempt to exercise clearly do not like it and stop almost immediately.” Obama added that she expects to achieve far more success with her forthcoming “Fine, Let’s Just Sit Here Stuffing Our Faces Until We Drop Dead!” campaign
Toggle Commented Jul 29, 2016 on Paul Krugman: Who Loves America? at Economist's View
1 reply
Most Americans share some traits with Trump, maybe all do. But I for one try to avoid thinking that patriotism is a valid criteria for much of anything.
Toggle Commented Jul 29, 2016 on Paul Krugman: Who Loves America? at Economist's View
1 reply
How funny it would be, and how honest, if the First Lady gave credit to her husband's exploited white ancestors while mentioning that few if any slaves ever came from Kenya, hehe. But such honesty might lead to a recognition that her efforts to fight obesity were serving the interests of a corrupt food industry at the expense of countless children.
Toggle Commented Jul 29, 2016 on Paul Krugman: Who Loves America? at Economist's View
1 reply
Territorialism in all of its forms, whether called 'patriotism', 'tribalism', 'racism', or a sport's rivalry, is an age old ploy to win favor. Think of how often we hear that the Chinese are stealing our jobs. But if one can see past the conditioning, five Chinese families might prosper on what one wasteful American family demands and ultimately the Americans family still consumes more than each of the Chinese families do. But 'they' are of course them.
Toggle Commented Jul 29, 2016 on Paul Krugman: Who Loves America? at Economist's View
1 reply
No, he said "Russia, I 'hope' they go find the emails"
Toggle Commented Jul 29, 2016 on Paul Krugman: Who Loves America? at Economist's View
1 reply
You need to learn to support your claims and rely less on lengthy attempts at saying so little. What you have said here gives me so little to argue against, where is the "goodness" for example, or, what "long history". Perhaps if you had a little more goodness yourself, and a little less dependence on insults, and thereby applied your efforts to supporting your empty claims, you could then fill those empty paragraphs with something debatable.
Toggle Commented Jul 29, 2016 on Paul Krugman: Who Loves America? at Economist's View
1 reply
Yes, but of course the Republicans rely on a long-list of other issues too (Bubba loves his guns and his god). And if the Dems are so concerned about the welfare of immigrants why do they never consider sanctions against nations where these people are migrating from? Or, why did NAFTA not include strong provisions to enforce worker's rights in Mexico? And so on, so yea, they pander. Think of it this way: if a Dem approached the donors with the main selling point being an intention to unite the working-class, across all racial divides, by revealing that their common economic interests would give them the power to move things forward for the vast majority, with the bonus of racial harmony, would the donors donate?
Toggle Commented Jul 29, 2016 on Paul Krugman: Who Loves America? at Economist's View
1 reply
Or...one could just as easily say that each party has polled extensively and decided to pander accordingly. It follows too that the moneyed interests that enabled each party is allowing their 'divide and conquer' scheme to keep the workers divided.
Toggle Commented Jul 29, 2016 on Paul Krugman: Who Loves America? at Economist's View
1 reply
The inaccurate statements, which come from nearly all concerned here, do much to maintain the racial divide in the working-class and that of course has undermined collective bargaining efforts. What is now so routinely ignored, is the fact that blacks were not the only group that was mistreated. Throughout the slavery period, slaves were rarely used in manufacturing jobs because it was cheaper to use those who cost nothing up front and who could be replaced at will. And those who could not work for any reason were left to dig through garbage and to live in even worse conditions than slaves did. So...it seems that just about every possible twist gets put on this subject except the truth twist. The truth being here that slaves did 'participate' in the building of the Whitehouse but so did many non-slaves, including some other participants who played more important roles than the slaves did, architects, fabricators, master -tradesmen and so on. But naturally, the first lady and her husband have benefited greatly from the type of rhetoric which gets blacks to voting booths. And O'Reilly spews his ugliness and stays popular with his kind while PK serves his masters in a very similar fashion.
Toggle Commented Jul 29, 2016 on Paul Krugman: Who Loves America? at Economist's View
1 reply