As Krugman says at the end of today's
column. Mr. Schultz evidently fell for the
Con but the rest of us shouldn't. He
couldn't have said it better to members of this
list. You bought the poison.
REH
<http://www.nytimes.com/> <http://www.nytimes.com/>
The New York Times
December 30, 2012
Brewing Up Confusion
By
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/paulkrugman/index.html>PAUL
KRUGMAN
Howard Schultz, the C.E.O. of Starbucks, has a
reputation as a good guy, a man who supports
worthy causes. And he presumably thought he
would add to that reputation when he posted an
<http://www.starbucks.com/blog/lets-come-together-america/1252>open
letter urging his employees to promote fiscal
bipartisanship by writing Come together on coffee cups.
In reality, however, all he did was make himself
part of the problem. And his letter was actually
a very good illustration of the forces that created the current mess.
In the letter, Mr. Schultz warned that elected
officials have been unable to come together and
compromise to solve the tremendously important,
time-sensitive issue to fix the national debt,
and suggested that readers further inform
themselves at the Web site of the organization
Fix the Debt. Lets parse that, shall we?
First of all, its true that we face a
time-sensitive issue in the form of the fiscal
cliff: unless a deal is reached, we will soon
experience a combination of tax increases and
spending cuts that might push the nation back
into recession. But that prospect doesnt
reflect a failure to fix the debt by reducing
the budget deficit on the contrary, the danger
is that well cut the deficit too fast.
How could someone as well connected as Mr.
Schultz get such a basic point wrong? By talking
to the wrong people in particular, the people
at Fix the Debt, whove been doing their best to
muddle the issue. For example, in a new
fund-raising letter Maya MacGuineas, the
organizations public face, writes of the need
to make hard decisions when it comes to
averting the fiscal cliff and stabilizing our
national debt even though the problem with
the fiscal cliff is precisely that it stabilizes
the debt too soon. Clearly, Ms. MacGuineas was
trying to confuse readers on that point, and she
apparently confused Mr. Schultz too.
More about Fix the Debt in a moment. Before I
get there, however, lets move on to Mr.
Schultzs misdiagnosis of the political problem we face.
Look, its true that elected politicians have
been unable to come together and compromise.
But saying that in generic form, and implying a
symmetry between Republicans and Democrats,
isnt just misleading, its actively harmful.
The reality is that President Obama has made
huge concessions. He has already cut spending
sharply, and has now offered additional big
spending cuts, including a cut in Social
Security benefits, while signaling his
willingness to retain many of the Bush tax cuts,
even for people with very high incomes. Taken as
a whole, the presidents proposals are arguably
to the right of those made by Erskine Bowles and
Alan Simpson, the co-chairmen of his deficit commission, in 2010.
In return, the Republicans have offered
essentially nothing. Oh, they say theyre
willing to increase revenue by closing loopholes
but theyve refused to specify a single
loophole theyre willing to close. So if theres
a breakdown in negotiations, the blame rests
entirely with one side of the political divide.
Given that reality, think about the effect when
people like Mr. Schultz respond by blaming both
sides equally. They may sound virtuously
nonpartisan, but what theyre actually doing is
rewarding intransigence and extremism which,
in the current context, means siding with the G.O.P.
Im willing to believe that Mr. Schultz doesnt
know what hes doing. The same cant be said, however, about Fix the Debt.
You might not know it reading some credulous
reporting, but Fix the Debt isnt some kind of
new gathering of concerned citizens. On the
contrary, its just the latest addition to a
group of deficit-scold shops supported by
billionaire Peter Peterson, a group ranging from
think tanks like the Committee for a Responsible
Federal Budget to the newspaper The Fiscal
Times. The main difference seems to be that this
gathering of the usual suspects is backed by an
impressive amount of corporate cash.
Like all the Peterson-funded groups, Fix the
Debt seems much more concerned with cutting
Social Security and Medicare than with fighting
deficits in general and also not nearly as
nonpartisan as it pretends to be. In its list of
core principles, it actually calls for lower
tax rates a very peculiar position for people
supposedly horrified by the budget deficit.
True, the group calls for revenue increases via
unspecified base broadening, that is, closing
loopholes. But thats unrealistic. And its
also, as you may have noticed, the Republican position.
Whats happening now is that all the
Peterson-funded groups are trying to exploit the
fiscal cliff to push a benefit-cutting agenda
that has nothing to do with the current crisis,
using artfully deceptive language as in that
MacGuineas letter to hide the bait and switch.
Mr. Schultz apparently fell for the con. But the rest of us shouldnt.
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ray Harrell
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 4:42 PM
To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION'
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Nobel Prize -- was Re:
[Ottawadissenters] Hey, you gotta watch dem machines...
Hello Ed,
Having known the Princeton University
environment with its rigor, since my own college
days, I would suspect that there is nothing
quite so frightening in the outside world as the
little buggers sitting in class and trying hard
to exploit every single weakness in a
professor's argument. Especially in economics
and law. There, is both an authority and
tenacity built into those environments that make
the underbelly of capitalism seem crass, gross and kind of stupid.
I was taught by my upper class friends that the
rigor of the academy was an end in itself while
the cult of profit was for those who were unable
to discipline themselves at thinking. Since
that time we have had physicists, economists and
other academic types, with a venal streak, move
into the market and literally tear up the social
fabric. I guess that proves that the
academicians and scientists are not as bright as
they thought. What is not examined is whether
their assumptions about the academy and the
market are correct. Krugman is a man at the
center of that storm. He seems both intensely
haunted and yet grounded in some foundation that
weathers storms without indulging in
fanaticism. I trust his teacher. He seems
at work in the NYTimes. I trust him much more
than the other NYTimes professor Stanley Fish
who is breathtakingly bright but feels of the sleaze of the classic liberal.
Meanwhile the poor market folks without PHDs in
science, and an academic connection, let the TV
producers into their environments only to see
themselves resembling the Mafia families more
than they care to
know.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Queen_of_Versailles>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Queen_of_Versailles
The light of transparency, required for the
advancement of a society, is at war with the
privacy required for "ownership" in the market.
What is still surprising to me is how much
investment the Yonega have in emulating things
that not only didn't work but that got them into
this mess in the first place. "Keep digging!"
REH
From:
<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ed Weick
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 11:27 AM
To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Nobel Prize -- was Re:
[Ottawadissenters] Hey, you gotta watch dem machines...
Not sure of where all of this is going. Prior
to Krugman, the theory of international trade
was based on the Ricardian notion of comparative
advantage. Countries would produce those
products in which in which they had an
advantage, given their resources, and then trade
with each other. From what little I know,
Krugman brought in the idea that, given a
certain level of technological development,
resource advantage didn't really matter very
much. Any advanced country could, and would,
produce cars and, given consumer willingness to
buy, these cars would be shipped to markets all
over the world. As others have pointed out,
economies of scale were very important in
this. The more cars that could be produced, the
lower the unit costs; the more cars that could
be shipped, the lower the costs of shipment.
I'll leave Krugman at this point and wade into
what Keith says about the growth of urban
centers. Keith appears to explain urban growth
in locational terms. Port and river cities
along major trade routes grew because goods
moved through them. Perhaps this was true until
relatively recent times. However, I've been to
a few cities whose growth took place for rather
different reasons. Take Sao Paulo for
instance. It is not a port nor is it on a major
river system. Nevertheless it is one of the
largest cities in the world, with a population
of some twenty million. I'm not sure of all of
the factors that made it grow, but one was the
mechanization of plantations in the countryside
and the consequent displacement of African
slaves who then moved to cities. Sao Paulo has
a modern urban core, but this is surrounded by
enormous slums occupied by the black descendants of Africans.
Or take Moscow, not as large as Sao Paulo, but
not very far behind with a population of about
eleven million. It grew very rapidly during the
twentieth century because it was the capital of
the Soviet Union and required huge hoards of
public servants to develop and operate the
planned economy. Or take St. Petersburg. It
was founded because Peter the Great wanted a
capital city that would match the elegance of
other major European capitals of the time. Very
few people lived there when construction began
some 300 years ago, but it now has a population of some five million.
All I'm saying is that while we like to think of
cities in terms of ports and trade routes, their
foundation and growth occurred because of a
variety of factors. The industrial revolution
had an enormous impact, draining the countryside
of people and moving them in to city
slums. Major changes in agriculture were also a
factor. If you didn't need as many people out
on the land, they had to go somewhere -- why to
the city of course -- which would account for at
least some of the growth of cities like Winnipeg
and Regina on the Canadian prairies.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: <mailto:[email protected]>Keith Hudson
To:
<mailto:[email protected]>RE-DESIGNING
WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION,EDUCATION
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 9:54 AM
Subject: [Futurework] Nobel Prize -- was Re:
[Ottawadissenters] Hey, you gotta watch dem machines...
At 03:27 30/12/2012, AC wrote:
Krugmans Nobel was in a very conventional
aspect of economic theory. He made certain
breakthroughs. Dont know whether that makes
him qualified to comment on this and that. The
NY Times likes him. And that apparently is good enough.
See below
<http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2008/press.html>http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2008/press.html
Patterns of trade and location have always been
key issues in the economic debate. What are the
effects of free trade and globalization? What
are the driving forces behind worldwide
urbanization? Paul Krugman has formulated a new
theory to answer these questions. He has thereby
integrated the previously disparate research
fields of international trade and economic geography.
(KH) As far as I can see (below) Krugman's
approach supplies nothing new -- bog standard
economic history. Everything he describes is
after the event -- after the fact of urban
centres. Why did they occur? Where did they
occur? When did they occur? He doesn't seem to answer those.
Well, I'll tell you. Almost all major
conurbations lie at what were previously major
ports (even if they're not so busy today), The
remainder are on rivers. In times past they all
had many manufacturing areas and developed major
warehousing (for stuff made in the interior of
the country) and financial sectors. (Clerks
alone were many thousands strong in all large
trading port-cities. Until WW2 every Bill of
Sale needed to be hand-written three times
[there was no other adequate copying method].
One copy went to the merchant's own bank
[wherever it was in the world], another copy
went to the counterparty's bank [wherever that
was], and the last copy went to a merchant bank
in the City of London which acted as an honest
broker between the two parties (who might be on
opposite sides of the earth and, if it's a first
contract between them, couldn't trust one another).
Take this cluster of major trading ports back to
the late middle ages -- the 17th century, say.
There was no globalized trading system. There
were four smaller ones. 1. The low European
countries and the Mediterranean; 2. The
Mediterranean based on Venice-Florence-Genoa 3.
The Arab based on the Red Sea; 4. The Indian
based on the Indian Ocean; 5. The Chinese based
on South-East Asia and islands.
The merchant adventurers of the last three
systems had lateen (steerable) sails on their
boats and could tack against the wind if
necessary and cross oceans. 3 and 4 were not
ready culturally. Chinese merchants, already too
rich for the Emperor's liking, were forbidden to
use their lateen sails. However, when Vasco da
Gama and Christopher Columbus decided to use
lateen sails in order to cross oceans, they
opened the whole world and spelled the end of the five previous systems.
The ports that these sailing ships chose had to
be able to offer safe water to, usually
thousands of boats of all nationalities and
sometimes for weeks if storms raged. This
further consolidated them as cosmopolitan cities
where many languages were spoken. Most of them
in Europe became free cities or city-states --
far more powerful, financially and militarily than the country around them.
The above, then, are the true beginnings of the
globalized trade system we have today. As we
have more and more automation and as factories
can become smaller and smaller, the bulk of
tomorrow's manufacturing will also take place in the megacities.
Arthur, when are you going to nominate me for the Nobel Prize?
Keith
Krugman's approach is based on the premise that
many goods and services can be produced more
cheaply in long series, a concept generally
known as economies of scale. Meanwhile,
consumers demand a varied supply of goods. As a
result, small-scale production for a local
market is replaced by large-scale production for
the world market, where firms with similar products compete with one another.
Traditional trade theory assumes that countries
are different and explains why some countries
export agricultural products whereas others
export industrial goods. The new theory
clarifies why worldwide trade is in fact
dominated by countries which not only have
similar conditions, but also trade in similar
products for instance, a country such as
Sweden that both exports and imports cars. This
kind of trade enables specialization and
large-scale production, which result in lower
prices and a greater diversity of commodities.
Economies of scale combined with reduced
transport costs also help to explain why an
increasingly larger share of the world
population lives in cities and why similar
economic activities are concentrated in the same
locations. Lower transport costs can trigger a
self-reinforcing process whereby a growing
metropolitan population gives rise to increased
large-scale production, higher real wages and a
more diversified supply of goods. This, in turn,
stimulates further migration to cities.
Krugman's theories have shown that the outcome
of these processes can well be that regions
become divided into a high-technology urbanized
core and a less developed "periphery".
From:
<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
[ mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ed Weick
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 2:57 PM
To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION
Subject: Re: [Futurework] [Ottawadissenters]
Hey, you gotta watch dem machines...
What I've liked about the many columns and few
books by Krugman that I've read is that, like
me, he doesn't like the growing income gap
between the rich and poor, the growing power of
money, the hollowing out of the economy by the
application of technology and the export of
jobs, and the growth and disenfranchisement of
the poor. While he is an economist, a Nobel
laureate at that, I see him more as a
commentator who is pointing at growing problems
that need attention and consistent work even if
they are very difficult to resolve.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: <mailto:[email protected]>Arthur Cordell
To:
<mailto:[email protected]>'RE-DESIGNING
WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION,EDUCATION'
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 2:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] [Ottawadissenters]
Hey,you gotta watch dem machines...
But through his incessant trumpeting of outdated
solutions he blocks innovative thinking, new
ideas. Yes he asks some questions but seems to
fear going down the road to possible solutions.
Arthur
From:
<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
[ mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of michael gurstein
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 1:51 PM
To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION'
Subject: Re: [Futurework] [Ottawadissenters]
Hey, you gotta watch dem machines...
But then all we have is the neo-lib conventional
wisdom Economics 101 echo chamber
At least he
asks a few of the right questions
M
From:
<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
[ mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Arthur Cordell
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 10:44 AM
To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION,
EDUCATION';
<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
Subject: Re: [Futurework] [Ottawadissenters]
Hey, you gotta watch dem machines...
Lets put Krugman out to pasture. He is becoming repetitive and boring.
From:
<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
[ mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sally Lerner
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 3:13 PM
To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION,
EDUCATION;
<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
Subject: Re: [Futurework] [Ottawadissenters]
Hey, you gotta watch dem machines...
Yes, the bit tax, and basic income as well.
Let's put Krugman in the loop. Sally
From:
<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
[[email protected]] on
behalf of Arthur Cordell [[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 12:11 PM
To:
<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected];
'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION'
Subject: Re: [Futurework] [Ottawadissenters]
Hey, you gotta watch dem machines...
Seems like Krugman is finally beginning to move
away from his learned dogma. Perhaps he has
been reading Keiths postings. In any event
time to think about policies for a digital
economy and time to think again about the bit
tax as a way of distributing the productivity of
a highly automated economy so as to maintain effective demand.
Arthur
From:
<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
[ mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ed Weick
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 7:05 AM
To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME
DISTRIBUTION,EDUCATION';
<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
Subject: [Ottawadissenters] Hey, you gotta watch dem machines...
Krugman's piece in this morning's NYTimes
appears to take us well into the realm of
science fiction. But then maybe it isn't fiction any more?
<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/28/opinion/krugman-is-growth-over.html?hp&_r=0>http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/28/opinion/krugman-is-growth-over.html?hp&_r=0
Ed
__._,_.___
Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ottawadissenters/join;_ylc=X3oDMTJnaDA3ZnM3BF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzE1MjA5MDU5BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA4MzUxMgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNzdG5ncwRzdGltZQMxMzU2Njk2MzMx>Change
settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email:
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Email%20Delivery:%20Digest>Switch
delivery to Daily Digest |
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Change%20Delivery%20Format:%20Fully%20Featured>Switch
to Fully Featured
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ottawadissenters;_ylc=X3oDMTJlZTl1Z3M4BF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzE1MjA5MDU5BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA4MzUxMgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNocGYEc3RpbWUDMTM1NjY5NjMzMQ-->Visit
Your Group |
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Groups
Terms of Use |
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
