[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > I could point out that Krugman has become such a loon that he has written > > in the New York Times his belief that Enron is more important than > > September 11th. > > I truly find that hard to believe - 9/11 is obviously changing not just > international policy and outlook but internal politics as well. > > Me: > >From the January 29th New York Times: > "I predict that in years ahead Enron, not Sept. 11, will come to be seen as > the greater turning point in U.S. society." You can find it on their > website pretty easily. He's completely gone off the deep end.
Oh, sorry - I reread what I said and I realized the phrasing & grammar are off - I agree that its a nuty thing to believe. > > Or comment on what a tragedy it is that one of the best > > economic minds of his generation has turned into the worst New York Times > > columnist in living memory. But I think the best thing to do is to paste > > Andrew Sullivan's response to Krugman's rant, from his superb website > > www.andrewsullivan.com. Below: > > Thank Gautam. While I find myself in agreement with Sullivan about the > correctness of the Enron == Bush Budget equation, I have to say that he > (Sullivan) has done nothing to refute the essential points that Krugman > manages to get out before his rant derails - how are 70 ton artillery > pieces, missle defense, and a tax cut for rich contributors going to > help in the "War on Terror"? > > -j- > > Well, two things. First, "a tax cut for rich contributors" is, I think, > false rhetoric. Let me make my own position clear - I opposed the tax cut > at the time and think that it should now be rethought in light of the need > for higher defense spending. So I'm not a defender of it by any means. > But the rich pay a vastly disproportionate share of taxes in this country - > if your argument against cutting taxes is that the rich will get more back, > then you're arguing that taxes should never be cut. Even more than that, > it's not fair at all to say it was "for rich contributors". Yes, the > wealthy get more back. Jay Rockefeller and John Kerry will probably get > millions more back. But they're, you know, Democrats. John Kerry (he who > married $730M of Republican money) will probably run against Bush in 2004. > But he's still getting the benefits of the cut. So it's hardly fair to use > that turn of phrase - one calculated to make it sound like a corrupt payoff > instead of a policy decision that is arguable on its merits. I apologize for the phrasing. Would "tax cut that disproportionately effects the wealthy of this country" be better? I'm not arguing that position - its not a position TO be argued.. its just the way it is. > But as for 70 ton artillery pieces - Krugman (as he himself said) knows > nothing about the military. Then that should be the argument, NOT being so "bold" as to strip away the obvious rant and rhetoric. Debate should be about the points, not the method of delivery. > The reason that systems > like that are useful is because we _don't know_ what the war on terror will > require. We do now what it won't require, and that's large-scale mobilization against any nation that challenges us on a technical level. To point to Saddam as a credible threat is not looking at our history on the ground against his forces, or really our record against any force similarly equiped. I don't deny that we may very well attack Saddam, but 1) it will happen long before these new weapons reach deployment and 2) we don't need them to beat his forces (or forces similarly arrayed.) > As for missile defense - we can go back and forth on this one for ages. > Dan M. has convinced me that it probably won't work (I still think that > boost phase might, but it would be difficult). I've never seen anything terribly promising about it, myself. > But if you think it _will_ > work, then it seems to me that saying that Sept. 11th makes it more > necessary is an eminently reasonable position. Sept. 11th showed beyond > all doubt that there are people in the world who, if they get their hands > on ballistic missiles, will be willing to use them against us. We debated once whether or not Saddam was "crazy" in the sense that MAD wouldn't work. I disagree with the premise that 9/11 shows they'd use such weapons; indeed, I think a stronger case can be made that they WOULDN'T use such weapons. Either they're cowards that sit in their caves (as the rhetoric goes) or they're not. If they are NOT cowards, then yes, they'd launch their 1-2 missles that we somehow didn't know about and neutralize the threat thereof beforehand, and we'd maybe... MAYBE... have a chance of stopping it with the so-called "missile shield"... and then we'd pound the snot out of them. Hijaking an airliner is a much safer, cheaper, and more accesible option for them. > we are now committed to destroying any _government_ that sponsors terrorism > against us - a position that is, in my mind, long overdue. I agree that we need to do something, even to the point of destruction, but military might is not the only tool at our disposal. > My point is not that the > Administration is right or wrong in making the choices it has made - it's > simply reasonable, and criticizing them in the way that Krugman has done > shows his intellectual bankruptcy - it doesn't demonstrate, one way or the > other, whether these are good decisions or not. I don't think the term intellectual bankruptcy, as I've seen it used elsewhere, applies in this case. I agree he's ranting in the article posted, but I disagree that Sullivan refutes anything (other than Krugman's poor writing style!) -j- -- moo.
