Donald Trump

Paul Krugman: Donald Trump is Right

On economics.

|

Todd Krainin

Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman's New York Times op-ed column today is headlined "Donald Trump is Right on Economics." Krugman makes this determination based on Trump's public statements, and namely his "willingness to raise taxes on the rich" and "his positive words about universal health care." Trump has said on the campaign trail he believes rich people could pay more in taxes, and at the first debate defended once supporting universal healthcare, claiming it works in several other countries. 

Krugman, naturally, isn't interested in exploring why Trump has staked these positions, why they are attractive to his supporters, or what it means. He's just interested in using Trump's position to attack Jeb Bush and other establishment Republicans' "economic delusions" about taxes and government expansion slowing economic growth. 

So even though Donald Trump seems to share a significant portion of Paul Krugman's economic outlook, Krugman still writes him off as "exactly the ignorant blowhard he seems to be." Krugman condemns Trump's anti-immigration stance, but makes no effort to explain why his positions on immigration make him an ignorant blowhard on issues not directly related to immigration. It's almost as if Krugman is calling himself an ignorant blowhard. After all, he agrees with Trump on some pretty core economic stuff. 

More importantly, Krugman claims there are "other" candidates who reject the conservative "economic orthodoxy" on taxes but don't share Trump's anti-immigration, anti-free trade positions. Krugman, unsurprisingly, doesn't mention a single one. It's not Bernie Sanders, who has shot into frontrunner status in the Democratic primaries. The man may not be firing up his racist base by promising to round up immigrants or start a trade war with China, but his policy positions on those issues aren't far off from Trump's. Like Trump, he considers open borders, or the right of people to travel freely across political lines on maps, a right-wing (big business) conspiracy meant to suppress wages, the same myth pushed by the anti-immigrant right. Sanders, too, is an economic protectionist, framing the phenomena of China's growing middle class and economic growth as a zero-sum endeavor relative to the American worker; China wins, America loses. Sanders may not be explicitly xenophobic, but explicit xenophobia is not necessary for blowhard positions.  

Krugman imagines a Democratic candidate who shares Trump's views on taxing the rich and universal healthcare but not on immigration and trade, but that's not the case. The leading Democratic candidates may not share Trump's anti-immigrant rhetoric, but they share his outlook on the issue, playing to the same fears, if more latent, in their supporters, that foreigners are responsible for America's economic fortunes and not Americans themselves. 

h/t commenter Djucational Woodchipper

NEXT: How to Balance the Budget in One Easy Step

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I wish people woulds top calling Krugman an economist. He hasn’t been an economist for close to twenty years. He’s a pundit and a progressive shill. But he ain’t no economist. Hasn’t been one since he learned that there’s more money to be made in pushing politically favorable economic fallacies than in actual economics.

    1. But then people wouldn’t be able to use the “he won a Noble Prize* so you should do what he says” argument.

      *Stipulated: that Noble Prize was deserved based on the work for which it was awarded.

      1. So did Obama. The PEACE prize.

        It burns.

        1. The Nobel Peace Prize has been a joke AT LEAST since 1994. Arguably since 1919. By giving it to Barak Obama as a Participation Trophy, the committee sealed the fate of the prize for all time.

          1. You misspelled Block Insane Yomamma.

            /MikeM

          2. In fairness, the Prize in medicine is still significant.

      2. The fact that Krugman of all people won a Nobel Prize is just the case in point that Hayek was right when he said there shouldn’t be a Nobel Prize in econ; after he himself had won the Nobel Prize, of course.

        But yeah, Krugman should definitely henceforth be referred to as “former economist Paul Krugman.”

      3. Economists I’ve known have agreed that his work on international trade was worthy of the Nobel.

        That doesn’t mean he has any expertise commenting on the economic effect of government spending. Winning the Nobel Prize for Physics for work in solid state memory devices does not mean you know more about quasars and black holes than a random person on the street.

        1. Winning the Nobel Prize for Physics for work in solid state memory devices does not mean you know more about quasars and black holes than a random person on the street.

          You probably do. You just don’t know as much as a specialist.

      4. There actually is no Nobel economics prize.

        Nobel never established one.

        What people and the media keep calling the Nobel economic prize is actually a Swedish bank prize named after Nobel.

    2. He’s a political hack. Nothing more.

    3. I vote for instituting the distinction of “Pre-crisis Krugman” versus “Post-Crisis Krugman” ? much as the end of the DC Multiverse cost Superman many of his amazing powers in the mid-1980s, it cost Paul Krugman his ability to understand macroeconomics!

    4. Economics: Paul Krugman is wrong

    5. Disagree ? Paul Krugman the economist and Paul Krugman the political pundit are two separate persons.

  2. Krugman agree with Trump.

    Questions?

      1. NO, YOU RIGHT 1ST TIME! NO NEED S! TOO CROWD IN CAVE!

      2. Dammit! agreeS

        Wow, I’ve seen two typos from you in about two or three days, Francisco. You’re losing it.

        /playful banter

    1. Take a look at banner, Michael Frank!

    2. Does that mean that Trump is just trying to disrupt the GOP on Hillary’s behalf?

      1. No. If he were, Krugman would be in the know, and would be attacking trump.

  3. Libertarians and Conservatives and liberals are not framing the debate as it should.

    Once you read the income tax code with a sense of history you can see that it is the American version of the 19th century classical liberal public office duty. It is all about taxing government privileges. The question to be debated then is not whether hedge fund managers should be taxed because they make a lot of money for “pushing papers around” but whether they make the money through federal privilege.

    Liberals and conservatives need to get over the idea that the “rich” should not pay more in taxes, but instead ask did the “rich” gain their wealth through federal privilege? The left has to ask the same question-does the 1% get their money by the government, or in free markets?

    If the answer is through government, ie money or privilege from the Treasury, and also derived from such, or from the market? If from the market, then in the case of individuals, they cannot be taxed on the fruit of their honest labors. If state chartered corporations, a flat tax is the most they should be burdened with.
    However, a progressive tax on government privilege is entirely appropriate. Why not tax the PRIVILEGED rich?

    1. How much tax for how much privilege? I don’t think there’s any formula by which you could quantify this. It’ll always be $ earned via some combination of honest labors & privilege.

      Take for instance licensed professionals. How are you going to tease apart how much they earned just by providing their service from how much extra they got because of the reduction in their competition?

    2. Paging Francisco D’Anconia.

    3. You’re talking about selling privilege. How is that any different than what we have now? What needs to happen is for the government power to grant privilege to be taken away.

    4. “libertreee|2015/09/07 11:07:08|#5570997~new~”

      That’s some of the dumbest shit i’ve ever read here in 10 years.

      Bo?

      1. It reads more Facebookical than Tulpical to me.

      2. Sovereign citizen? Sounds like a thing they’d say.

    5. If somebody is getting rich from a federal privilege, then the solution is to REMOVE the privilege – not tax it.

    6. The Romans didn’t tax the privileged. They taxed those who would make them the most money.

  4. Just imagine how low unemployment would be if those damn dirty apes obstructionist rethuglitards had not prevented our Glorious Leader from putting hundreds of thousands of new committed and caring teachers in America’s classrooms.

    1. Shovel ready jobs. Right there.

    2. There is always panhandling

      1. You ever try to panhandle a pension? People get really weird when you ask them to fill out the payroll deduction form.

    3. *Ouch* That’s gonna leave a mark!

  5. First morning links, now a Trump/Krugnuts thread. Well played Ed.

    1. Celebrating Labor Day by laboring. He’s an inspiration for the orphans in the mines.

  6. Trump is no different than Sanders or Krugman. All three of them are adamant that THEY are taking advantage of you, the heroic working American, and stealing your job or way of life.

    The only difference is they have different but equally fantastical and absurd boogeymen as their “They”.

    1. There is certainly a “they”. It’s just that the vast majority of the population worships “they” and keeps reelecting “they”. And “they” is approximately twice the size that they think “they” is.

    2. Frankly, Krugman’s position is dumber than that of Trump and Sanders. Both of them consistently refuse to believe that the law of supply and demand applies to labor markets.

      Anyone who supports minimum wages and protectionism (I’m going to speculate that if Krugman’s latest stroke didn’t drive him to abandon the last vestige of economic reasoning and turn him in favor of protectionism just so he can can be a full on Dem shill, his next one will soon), one should also oppose immigration. Those three issues all hinge on the same premise; a false premise, of course, but at least Sanders and Trump are consistent.

      And then of course there’s the fact that the rest of Krugman’s ideology hinges on the broken window fallacy. That this guy once won a Nobel prize in economics is amazing. It’s like James Watson coming out as a creationist.

      1. It’s like James Watson coming out as a creationist.

        Brian Josephson beat you to it.

  7. Paul Krugman: Donald Trump is Right

    Well, if there was any doubt as to Trump’s being a horrible president – this certainly removes them.

    1. No doubt. The greatest economic advice you could give any president is to always read Krugman and always do the opposite of what he says.

  8. Why do we turn our backs on a vision of a bold and egalitarian America in which AFSCME-represented federal dog park attendants make a living wage of 150k plus overtime? What about the dire shortage of public restrooms, supervised by professional attendants working for the federal government? Why can’t we as a society step forward and provide this greatly needed service to a deserving citizenry?
    When will w become civilized?

    1. It is important to ask, will the restrooms be transgendered?

      1. I thought restrooms were inanimate objects.

        1. Of course you did, you heteronormative cisgender shitlord.

          1. I will be the shitlord if there isn’t a restroom I can use.

  9. Wrong on immigration but right on economics, because immigration has economic implications

    1. I meant to say sarcastically “no” economic implications but I fucked it up.

    2. He’s wrong on both.

  10. I wonder if Krugman is doing this in order to ruin Trump by associating his name, which Republicans (rightfully) hate, with Trump to destroy his GOP credibility enough that the Trumpies finally abandon him.

    P.S. Thanks Ed!

    1. What leftest does not want Trump to be the GOP nominee?

      1. Touch?. Though that doesn’t change lefty hatred for Trump.

        1. But at this point, Krugman is basically a party lackey, hence the decline in intellectual honesty he’s gone through, so it may be more reasonable to think he would do what is strategic for the inner-Party. In this case, maybe he thinks his pseudo-endorsement will go a little way in convincing moderate Republicans that Trump is better than Jeb or whoever else.

      2. What leftest does not want Trump to be the GOP nominee?

        All of them. The left wants Jeb! He’s their dream candidate for the GOP.

        1. Unfortunately for the GOP, there are a lot of candidates in the primaries who leftists would love to face in the general.

  11. “Krugman condemns Trump’s anti-immigration stance, but makes no effort to explain why his positions on immigration make him an ignorant blowhard on issues not directly related to immigration. ”

    Okay, why is Trump ignorant to not want lots of immigration? He’s ignorant to think we can fix the problem because that ship has pretty clearly sailed due to how broken our border has been for 30 years, but saying ‘gee, it might not be a good idea to have tens of millions of poor people move into our country and get stuck in a welfare trap’ doesn’t strike me as an ignorant position.

    He’s a liar and a fraud who is manipulating idiots into supporting him based on a pipe dream of fixing thirty years of broken immigration policy, but if you go and actually look up studies about immigrant use of welfare, every one of them says they are vastly more likely to be on welfare than native born Americans. And this is true in every Western country.

    Trump’s ignorance about free trade is a huge deal, but when you have a generous welfare system, immigration will wreak havoc on your budget, as it’s done in the US and as it’s doing in Europe. I think the Europeans are going to have loads of fun trying to figure out how to pay for all the welfare those millions of refugees are going to be using, for example.

    1. What i think is ignorant is the idea held by elite leftists and some libertarians that you can have mass immigration sans negative consequences. A huge percentage of European criminals are of Muslim extraction and are only in the country because of mass immigration over the last 30 years.

      This refugee crisis in Europe could absolutely destroy some of those countries. It will blow up their budgets, it is a guarantee crime will be higher, and I think there is a 100% chance, given that the vast majority of refugees are young men, that there are going to be terrorist elements using this as an opportunity to gain access to Europe. But none of the people who want to claim they’re super-duper intelligent and everyone else is ignorant are even willing to discuss this issue.

      1. We had decades of mass immigration sans negative consequences, and with massive positive consequences. I’d think someone who uses the handle “Irish” would be familiar with that part of US history.

        1. I’ve yet to see anything close to convincing evidence that immigration from Mexicans and other Latin Americans in the last 40 years has caused an increase in welfare spending.

          As for the terrorist boogeyman, sure, you can’t guarantee that some aren’t ISIS sleeper agents but they already have crazies in Europe that can get Kalashnikovs and go shoot up a place.

          Additionally, the more jihadis they have in Europe the harder it becomes to coordinate these attacks without getting caught.

          1. Additionally, the more jihadis they have in Europe the harder it becomes to coordinate these attacks without getting caught.

            Wut?

            I’m not for the argument that we should limit immigration because of terrorists, but that is just silly.

            1. “Let in more terrorists so it’s easier to catch terrorists.” Sounds legit. Did a guy named Mohammed come up with that?

              Think of all the sea miles we could have saved if we’d just invited the Nazis and Japanese to our shores.

          2. Given that we have had a massive increase in entitlement spending since 1965 — not coincidentally when the modern immigration wave started — there is certainly correlation. Actually proving causation in a real-world environment without controls or any ability to isolate dependent variables is impossible, which is probably why statements like yours are the go-to for immigration advocates.

            The face of the electorate has changed. That’s obvious enough. If the U.S. had the same demographic now that it had in 1980-84, when Reagan won his elections, Romney would have won in 2012. That demographic change has been due to immigration.

            The nation is being taken away from its historical citizens without their choice or acquiescence (since a majority of the native population has never favored a permissive immigration policy. It’s been imposed at the top since the immigration act of 1965).

            1. SAVE US ROMNEY

              you are still falling short of any proof that there have been significant major consequences other than a weak claim that Republicans lost an election in 2008.

              and that somehow a republican win in 2008 would have meant a return to the golden ages, or something.

            2. If the U.S. had the same demographic now that it had in 1980-84, when Reagan won his elections, Romney would have won in 2012. That demographic change has been due to immigration.

              I hope you’re not saying Romney would have been perceptibly preferable to Obama.

              1. Romney, as well as any of the Republicans who had a decent shot at the nomination, would’ve been massively better than Obama. Even among the Democrats, only Hillary might’ve equaled or exceeded Obama in badness.

                1. Romney, as well as any of the Republicans who had a decent shot at the nomination, would’ve been massively better than Obama.

                  I could maybe go along with “slightly better”. But “massively better” is delusional. Civil liberties is at best a wash with Republicans probably being somewhat worse. Fiscal issues and regulations is maybe slightly better with Republicans, but that’s probably the deceitful veil of partisanship giving you the impression Republicans wouldn’t have spent as much by simply railing against a different team member (also considering defense is especially where Republicans love to rain govt money, and Republicans would have happily made something fairly close to Dodd-Frank). Foreign policy is again at best a wash where Republicans are likely somewhat worse.

            3. “The nation is being taken away from its historical citizens without their choice or acquiescence (since a majority of the native population has never favored a permissive immigration policy. It’s been imposed at the top since the immigration act of 1965).”

              “Wah I don’t want new people in my club! WAH!”

              Tough shit. The only thing the 1965 immigration law change did was slightly crack open the door for immigrants that America shut in 1929. BTW, the biggest increases in the USG coincide with when immigration was at its lowest levels. That includes 1965 entitlement spending.

              Romney would never have won. A born loser.

          3. More than half of immigrants are on welfare. Because far less than half of non-immigrants get some form of welfare, and most immigrants have been from Mexico and Latin America, then immigration from Latin America has caused an increase in welfare spending. Q.E.D.

            1. Fail. Does not adjust for income level. Not apples to apples.

              then immigration from Latin America has caused an increase in welfare spending.

              Wrong again. Cato’ study (unlike CIS, Cato is actually reliable) is clear that there is no correlation between immigration numbers and monies spent on welfare.

              1. Fail. Does not adjust for income level. Not apples to apples.

                Why would you adjust for income level? If we import a shitload of poor people it’s likely we’ll spend more on welfare.

            2. Cato analyzed the CIS study and found it full of holes

              Ex: “It turns out that when poor immigrants use welfare they consume a lower dollar value than poor natives do. For poor adult Medicaid enrollees, natives consumed $3845 of benefits in 2010 compared to $2904 for immigrants. Native born poor children enrolled in 2010 consumed $1030 in benefits while poor immigrant children enrolled only consumed $465. This pattern also holds for food stamps and SSI (but not for cash assistance).”

              Later:

              “An OECD analysis of immigration’s impact on the U.S. budget found that immigrant net-contributions to Social Security and Medicare from 2007 to 2009 vastly outweigh their net-consumption of means-tested welfare which decreased U.S. government deficits by about 0.03 percent of GDP.”

              PWND

              1. Here’s the Cato b.s. right at the start:

                The first issue is that CIS counts the welfare use of households, which includes many native-born American citizens, rather than individuals. There might be some good reasons to do this but the immigrant-headed household variable CIS uses is ambiguous, poorly defined, and less used in modern research for those reasons. To CIS’ credit they try to separate out households with children but didn’t separate out American-born spouses. There is debate largely over whether to count the American born children of immigrants as a welfare cost of immigration. If we should count them, shouldn’t we also count the welfare use of grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and great-great-grandchildren of immigrants? Such a way of counting would obviously produce a negative result but it would also not be informative.

                So if you ignore the costs of their American born children, they don’t seem to use as much welfare. Well, duh.

                And of course it’s “informative” to know whether subsequent generations are also on welfare.

                1. Here’s Cytotoxic shopping for food: “Let’s see, about half of the food in my fridge is rotten, but only a quarter of the food I’m buying today is rotten, so I’m ahead of the game!” Yeah, but you’d be better off if none of your newly-acquired food were rotten. Call it quality control, which we don’t have with mass illegal immigration.

                  1. Which is why it should all be legalized so that it can all be subject to QA.

                    Nice pathetic retort though. Faced with insurmountable evidence, all you can do is mumble out some weak nonsense equating immigrants with foodstuffs.

                2. “So if you ignore the costs of their American born children, they don’t seem to use as much welfare. Well, duh.”

                  DUR PAPAYA NOT UNDERSTAND CONCEPT OF APPLES TO APPLES DUR

          4. I’ve yet to see anything close to convincing evidence that immigration from Mexicans and other Latin Americans in the last 40 years has caused an increase in welfare spending.

            Education spending has tripled since 1970 (adjusted for inflation) with no evidence of improvement in student outcome.

            I won’t blame it all on Latin immigration, but you have to wonder about the percentage of blame…

            Public education is “welfare”.

          5. Any increase in welfare spending is a result of legislation, not immigration.

            And given that there’s no provision in the constitution for democratic theft, the decline of the union is not the fault of immigrants.

        2. I’d say that the one drawing parallels between the historical Irish and modern day favelastineans is the one who needs to familiarize himself with history.

      2. Re: Irish

        What npossible negative consequences could there be that can outweight Division of Labor and Comparative Advantage, two economic laws as unbreakable as the laws of physics?

        1. Any increases in the theft of labor of those who are more productive easily outwieghs those two things.

          Not only do you have the added burden, but you have people who come in who have the same voting rights and tend to add to that burden through the ballot box.

          Sans welfare state, every libertarian I know of would love to have open borders.

          1. “Not only do you have the added burden, but you have people who come in who have the same voting rights and tend to add to that burden through the ballot box.

            No they don’t. Wrong again. Illegal immigrants rarely vote. You can let these people in without letting them vote.

          2. Re: PaulW,

            Don’t speak absurdities. Competition of labor is not the same as theft. If you are not capable of serious discourse, I suggest you refrain yourself from it.

            1. It is if one competitor is artificially hampered by regulation and the other is not.

      3. “”What i think is ignorant is the idea held by elite leftists and some libertarians that you can have mass immigration sans negative consequences”

        We’ve had about 10 million or so mexicans enter the country since 1990.

        What’s the huge problem, again? (aside from our immigration system being a POS)

        1. More crime, more welfare spending, more crowded schools, more income inequality, more ammunition for leftist multiculturalists, less social trust. In California, we also have more crowded roads, higher housing costs, and more water usage in a drought. I consider those “problems.”

          1. So we should stop spending money on them, and let them in.

            Now, perhaps you take the never-ending expansion of the welfare state as an inevitability and that immigration invariably means more spending, but in that case, why bother debating welfare spending either, if it’s just an inevitability? May as well forget about it all and pack up and move to New Zealand.

            In any case, I think someone (most likely Republican) in congress should make a trade with the pro-immigration Democrats: make the borders much more open, and in turn cut welfare spending on immigrants drastically.

            Not that this will ever happen; fewer handouts and more immigrants, though good, are not a recipe for electoral success, since for most Americans immigrants and successful people are among the two most hated demographic groups.

            1. The order in which things are done matters, so OK, first get rid of the welfare state, and then we’ll talk about open borders.

              1. Nope. I want my freedom and I want it now. Immigration does not expand the welfare state in any event.

                1. Even Snopes can’t entirely debunk it.

                  2013: Undocumented LA County Parents On Pace To Receive $650M In Welfare Benefits

                  “When you add the $550 million for public safety and nearly $500 million for healthcare, the total cost for illegal immigrants to county taxpayers exceeds $1.6 billion dollars a year,” Antonovich said in a statement. “These costs do not even include the hundreds of millions of dollars spent annually for education.”

                  1. You’re citing Snopes. That’s…wow.

                    Your second source is entirely based on the claims of an official from LA, probably desperate for something to scapegoat. Thanks, I’ll rely on the well-researched findings of Cato over fucking Snopes and ‘some LA official’.

                2. Tell you own government that, shithead.

          2. “More crime”

            Nope

            In the time that we’ve absorbed 10 million illegal immigrants the national violent crime rate has dropped by 50%.

            Like other arguments you’ve made recently = why should i bother with the rest of your points when your leadoff argument has zero factual basis?

            1. For the sake of kneecapping you, however….

              ….”Welfare”

              There’s plenty of verifiable evidence that the illegal immigrant population contributes more in sales and other taxes than they collect in any benefits.

              Of course every source on each side of the issue will try to twist details to make contrary claims, but i’ve been looking at the top-line data for over a decade and the amount of money “illegals” spend more than compensates for the areas where they do suck up public benefits (which are less in “welfare” and more in public health services, which are overpriced anyway)

              “Income inequality”

              Really? You actually just said that? Importing poor people “increases inequality”. You don’t say.

              Dude, your credibility level just drops further every time you get your immigrant boner on.

              1. Sorry, are you saying that importing poor people does not increase income inequality? Or are you agreeing, but saying it’s not a problem? I believe concern over the topic is often exaggerated, but it’s never a good idea give progressives ammunition.

                1. I am pointing out that “inequality” is a bullshit concept floated by economically ignorant proggy motherfuckers who just want to raise taxes on everyone

                  If you hadn’t grokked that in all the years here, i don’t know what to think.

            2. That doesn’t prove what you think it proves. 1) How much more would our crime rate have dropped without illegal immigration? 2) How much crime by illegals goes unreported?

              Many studies have shown that Hispanics commit more crimes than whites, but fewer than blacks. The Los Angeles most wanted list is packed with immigrants.

              Illegal Alien Crime Accounts for over 30% of Murders in Many States

              1. “That doesn’t prove what you think it proves. 1) How much more would our crime rate have dropped without illegal immigration?”

                Gosh, maybe we’d have unicorns if it weren’t for dirty Mexicans ruining our great land! Maybe you should learn to logic before commenting. Also, try to use a source other than Tom Tancredo’s demented ramblings.

              2. “1) How much more would our crime rate have dropped without illegal immigration?’

                Argument from ignorance. To make your claim have ANY validity you’d need to show that there was a huge drop in pre-existing populations that vastly exceed those in areas which have a lot of immigrants.

                You can’t. Because many of the largest drops in crime between 1990-2012 were in places with already-high-immigrant populations. You can easily find places where murders are so infrequent that “30%” could be any random handful in a year. Not significant.

                no doubt some of these illegal immigrants ARE criminals. Just as some of any given population are criminals. Your quest to demonstrate that they are in any way significantly *more* criminal, or more prone to violence fails in any large-scale national look at the data

                i spent years doing research on the US “recently arrived” hispanic population (illegal and illegal). You’re not going to sway me with a few links.

                Most of the negatives identified in the immigrant population, btw, are largely a consequence of our *system*. Naturally when we have an enforcement only approach to illegal immigrants, we’re going to force them into grey and black markets where they avoid authorities and stick in cloistered communities rather than assimilate into the population. Most of the “problems” are consequences created by fucktarded approaches to immigrants in the first place.

                1. “Argument from ignorance.”

                  It’s all he has to work with.

                2. Because many of the largest drops in crime between 1990-2012 were in places with already-high-immigrant populations.

                  So crime went down most in the places where immigration didn’t increase? That’s a point in favor of Papaya.

                  1. 1) No it isn’t, because there were lots of immigrants there already 2) He didn’t say that immigration never increased.

          3. More crime, more welfare spending, more crowded schools, more income inequality, more ammunition for leftist multiculturalists, less social trust. In California, we also have more crowded roads, higher housing costs, and more water usage in a drought.

            Everything you said is a lie.

    2. “every one of them says they are vastly more likely to be on welfare than native born Americans.”

      That’s a lie. The data is clear that immigrants are less likely to welfare than income-matched natives.

      “when you have a generous welfare system, immigration will wreak havoc on your budget, as it’s done in the US and as it’s doing in Europe. ”

      No it hasn’t in either of those places. Cato did a study and it was clear: places with more immigrants in 1990 had more economic freedom by 2011. There was no correlation between the immigrant population of a state (in the US) and its welfare payments.

      1. “Income-matched” is the weasel term here. Importing more poor people who get welfare (for themselves or their kids) obviously increases welfare spending, compared to not importing poor people at all.

        1. That would be true if it didn’t push low-income natives into higher-income brackets. Since it does, it’s not. Again: no correlation between immigration levels and welfare monies. End of story.

          1. That would be true if it didn’t push low-income natives into higher-income brackets.

            What on earth are you talking about?

            1. “The arrival of low-skilled, foreign-born workers in the labor force increases the incentives for younger native-born Americans to stay in school and for older workers to upgrade their skills. Because they compete directly with the lowest-skilled Americans, low-skilled immigrants do exert mild downward pressure on the wages of the lowest-paid American workers. But the addition of low-skilled immigrants also expands the size of the overall economy, creating openings in higher-paid occupations such as managers, skilled craftsmen, and accountants. The result is a greater financial reward for finishing high school and for acquiring additional job skills. Immigration of low-skilled workers motivates Americans, who might otherwise languish in the underclass, to acquire the education and skills necessary so they are not competing directly with foreign-born workers.”

              http://www.cato.org/publicatio…..icans-move

              1. Because they compete directly with the lowest-skilled Americans, low-skilled immigrants do exert mild downward pressure on the wages of the lowest-paid American workers.

                Sucks to be them, I guess! But now they have more incentives to upgrade their skills! And they can be heartened that the overall economy is better!

                No wonder so many people think libertarians have no empathy for the poor….

                  1. While not a good idea, there’s really no reason to be any more unhappy about illegals getting pogey than natives. Indeed, since they almost never vote, it interrupts the voter-pogey feedback loop taking us to Greece.

                    “Sucks to be them, I guess! But now they have more incentives to upgrade their skills! And they can be heartened that the overall economy is better!”

                    Uh yup pretty much. Compete or DIAF.

                1. No wonder so many people think libertarians have no empathy for the poor.

                  Cry me a fucking river. Another idiot who thinks competition in the labor market is a bad thing.

                  Did you and Krugman attend the same school of economics?

                2. “more” low skilled people exerts downward pressure on wages no matter where they’re from.

                  Who the fuck cares where they’re from? Suddenly your best argument is “but we can’t have anything to reduce the cost of manual labor!? REAL AMERICANS PAY $100 TO GET THEIR LAWN MOWED

                  Arguing for an artificial price floor shows how quickly your libertarianism goes out the fucking window the second “mexicans” are involved.

                  1. I don’t think wanting to tighten up the labor market a bit at the very low end counts as “an artificial price floor.”

                    My libertarianism is tempered by real-world facts. Adding massive amounts of unskilled labor to a bankrupt welfare state with high unemployment had more negative effects than positive ones.

  12. Its hard to not be all conspiracy theorist and believe that Trump is there as the outside candidate that the media is pushing because they don’t want Rand Paul to take that mantle.

    Trump is a nationalist, militaristic, populist, xenophobic progressive. In other words, a full blown fascist.

    1. The media is definitely promoting Trump at this point. He is great for ratings and if he magically becomes the GOP nominee by virtue of mass delusion, the media will turn on him with ferocity. As far as taking out Rand Paul, he has also taken out Scott Walker and greatly diminished “low-energy” Jeb! In Jeb’s case, we should be grateful to Trump. Should Trump become dictator, er, president, we can look forward to a gilded white house with a big T over the west wing. Now I will leave you with the universal message of Trump’s rabid fans, in caps lock for full effect:

      YOU JUST DON’T GET IT! YOU’RE A FAT, STUPID, UGLY LOSER!

      1. In Jeb’s case, we should be grateful to Trump.

        And in Scott Walker’s case as well. I was optimistic about him because of what he’s done about unions, but his recently-tumescent war boner moved him irreversibly into my “no, never, not ever” category.

        1. There’s no evidence that Walker gives a damn about foreign policy either way, he’s just saying what GOP primary voters want to hear.

        2. You’re exaggerating. Walker has only said, IIRC, that we should use ground troops against ISIS ‘if necessary’. Which is almost tautologically true. If something is necessary, do it. He should be chewed out for being banal, not having a ‘war boner’ which is meaningless in the context you’re using it in.

    2. Trump is a nationalist, militaristic, populist, xenophobic progressive. In other words, a full blown fascist.

      Cool! If he gets elected, think I’ll be able to get a cosmotarian lampshade?

      1. What are you? I need the Poe’s law ambiguity resolved, dammit.

  13. So the scam artist Krugman endorses some of the scam artist Trump’s pronouncements?

    What’s not to like here?

    But maybe :

    In your dreams Krugman is not a scam,
    In your dreams, Donald Trump is not a scam,
    In your dreams, all the rest [of the candidates] are not a scam

    “In your dreams Obama is not a scam,
    “In your dreams George Bush was not a scam,
    “In your dreams Clinton was not a scam,
    “In your dreams Reagan was not a scam,
    In your dreams, all the rest were not a scam”
    “In your dreams the constitution is not a scam,
    “In your dreams the Supreme Court is not a scam,
    “In your dreams, welfare is not a scam”
    “In your dreams, social security is not a scam ”
    ……
    And so on and so forth, ad infinitum 🙂 .

    My original music and lyrics: “Dreams[ Hormegeddon Blues]”:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0o-C1_LZzk

    Dream on, or not? As always, your choice dear reader. 🙂

    Regards, onebornfree.
    Personal Freedom Consulting
    onebornfree.blogspot.com

    1. Scams are trippy but too much scammery assessment can sort of pull existence into disparate shards which makes one question if the self is not a scam also. But, peace out on the Dreams bars.

    2. Again: Fuck off, spammer.

  14. Krugman tripled his Prozac to pen that screed. The sentences read like a hallucination of confused fonts swerving like jello balls in an inside out dimension.

    1. If Krugman supports Trumponomics, that’s reason enough to suspect Trump may be wrong. If AC says Krugman is on drugs, that’s reason enough to suspect Krugman may be on drugs. (I suspect the problem is that Krugman isn’t on enough drugs.)

  15. So even though Donald Trump seems to share a significant portion of Paul Krugman’s economic outlook, Krugman still writes him off as “exactly the ignorant blowhard he seems to be.”

    Looked in a mirror lately, Mr. Kettle?

  16. “[Krugman is] just interested in using Trump’s position to attack Jeb Bush and other establishment Republicans’ “economic delusions” about taxes and government expansion slowing economic growth.”

    I think the thing that bugs me the most about this is the fact that Krugman is mostly just battling the establishment Republicans in his head.

    If the Tea Party contingent ever gets lower taxes, lower spending, and smaller government, it will be over the objections and denunciations of the very last establishment Republican.

    Krugman is adding to the delusion that the establishment Republicans are in some way against big government, against more spending, and against high taxation–and isn’t that delusional?

    “Krugman imagines a Democratic candidate who shares Trump’s views on taxing the rich and universal healthcare but not on immigration and trade, but that’s not the case.”

    He also imagines an establishment Republican candidate who is against taxing the rich, who is against universal healthcare, that really wants to do something to stop immigration, and who is genuinely pro-free trade. That establishment Republican candidate only exists in Krugman’s wild imagination, too.

    1. He is a flat out DNC hack. A propagandist. I’m not even sure he believes what he writes about republicans. It’s a social status thing.

      1. He doesn’t even follow his own ideas within individual articles. If you believe the Keynesian idea that you shouldn’t cut spending in bad economic times, then you also have to believe you shouldn’t raise taxes either since the GOAL is to have deficit spending to goose the economy. Krugabe’s fans are too ‘ignorant,’ to use his favorite word, to realize how full of shit he is in that regard, but increased taxation IS austerity. So Krugman is supporting austerity through increased taxation while attacking austerity for spending cuts and claims to oppose austerity despite the fact that he’s actually in favor of a major aspect of austerity.

        So there’s that.

        1. Being Paul Krugman means never admitting you are wrong.

          Economy fails to recover after spending a ton of money? You didn’t spend enough, spend more!

          Economy marginally recovers but fades again? You didn’t spend enough money, spend some more!

          Economy stagnates altogether in cycle of lost growth? Well think of how much worse off we’d be if we didn’t spend all that money!

          1. I also love the leftist double-think where they talk about how the economy has FINALLY begun to recover over the last two years.

            Except this has been a period where Republicans controlled congress and back when the economy sucked they were telling me it sucked because of ‘Republican obstructionism.’

            So if Republicans obstructed Obama and he couldn’t get through any of his policies, how is Barack Obama (who you just claimed has had all his policies stifled by the Republicans) responsible for our mild economic recovery?

            Oops, it’s almost like they’re retarded.

          2. Being a macroeconomist means never having to say you’re wrong.

        2. Keep in mind that Krugman repeatedly bashed Bush for all the money that could have been spent on infrastructure getting wasted in the war on Iraq, but also argues that how the government gets more money into the hands of consumers doesn’t really matter, it only matters that the government does get more money into the hands of consumers – as if the government buying a trillion dollars or so of bullets and bombs doesn’t get money into the hands of consumers just the same as buying a trillion dollars worth of roads and bridges and high-speed commuter railways. If you’re going to argue that investing in infrastructure is a better use of money than spending on war material, you can’t logically argue that it doesn’t matter what government spends the money on or that arguments over the best way to spend money are just a distraction from the goal of just spending more money. (And yes, I realize that I did say “you can’t logically argue”.)

          1. “How the government gets more money into the hands of consumers doesn’t really matter, it only matters that the government does get more money into the hands of consumers – as if the government buying a trillion dollars or so of bullets and bombs doesn’t get money into the hands of consumers just the same as buying a trillion dollars worth of roads and bridges and high-speed commuter railways.”

            We’re not in a liquidity trap. We shouldn’t be worried about the consumers’ marginal propensity to save at this point, and we shouldn’t have been worried about the marginal propensity to save back when the banks were not only failing stress tests but were out of compliance with regulators–because they didn’t have enough deposits to cover their outstanding loans! In 2008, BofA’s books were so bad, they gave me $200–of free money–just to open a checking account.

            Meanwhile, that money he has the government spending is necessarily coming out of the consumers’ future discretionary income. If he’s worried about the consumers so much, why is always in favor of squandering their discretionary income though taxes and government spending?

            Is the crisis ever over with this guy?

            At least he hasn’t gone anti-free trade.

            1. “Is the crisis ever over with this guy?”
              Yes and no. It’s over when we’re talking about taxes, but it’s still going when we’re talking about spending.

              “At least he hasn’t gone anti-free trade.”
              *yet. I kinda want Sanders to win the nomination and the protectionists rally just to see this prick sweat, then finally give in, join the crowd, and start calling tariffs just to fit in. If he actually stands up to Sanders’s brigade of retards and defends trade, he might just regain some of my respect. But something tells be it’s the party before all else for him now.

  17. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQ8vQVBLpSc

    Hilarious interview with UC-Irvine guy who tried to ban the American flag from campus. Says the US is more evil than ISIS and compares the American flag to the Nazi flag.

    1. Gov’t-school eddication right there!

      1. It’s also a great example of how the worst aspects of leftist idiocy are basically learned. There’s no way that kids poor parents coming here from Mexico would believe any of that horseshit, but he went through our education system and we ruined his brain.

        1. Are you sure that it’s not an elaborate parody?

          1. Isn’t the public education system an elaborate parody?

          2. The guy doing the questions is parodying a straight interview, but the kid who wrote the flag-banning bill I’m certain is dead serious.

      2. That’s “edumacation.”

        1. I’d never seen the guy who did this film before, but he’s quite the clever troll. Youtube put me on to another video of his, where he goes on the Berkeley campus waving the Isis flag, and no one says a word, some are even supportive. He then changes to an Israel flag, and you’d think he put up a sign saying ‘let’s rape babies’, he gets so much hate.

          1. These days, if you had a new Free Speech Movement on the UCB campus, the SJWs would riot and shut you down.

      1. Oh….my….God

        BROWN PEOPLE. IN FUNNY CLOTHES.

        1. Watch the video moron.

          1. +1 let ’em all in or bomb the shit out of ’em

        2. I think the issue of a bunch of young Muslims from that neighborhood going to fight for ISIS is the reason he made that video, not because they’re in funny clothes.

          1. Also, the vast majority of people in that video come off very well given that they’re talking about how much they like America. It’s not like he was just running a hit piece or else he wouldn’t have included all the Somalians who were talking about how great freedom of speech is.

            The women claiming a man should be allowed to force his daughter to marry whoever he wants her to marry is also pretty fucked up. He’s not criticizing the way they’re dressed, he’s criticizing Islam inspired misogyny, support for Sharia, and terrorism. Did you even watch the video?

            1. LOL, the dude in the Nets hat claiming he’s ‘not Americanized’ and his culture is ‘still Somalian’ while using words like ‘dude’ is one of my favorite people ever.

              Yeah, you’re totally not Americanized, big guy. Keep telling yourself that.

            2. Did you miss all the people advocating sharia law?

              1. BFD. As long as advocate is all they do, and it is all they do, then there are no problems. Sharia law in NA or Europe = fantasy. If they want to leave to fight for ISIS, then they can die fighting for ISIS. The ‘problem’ is self-resolving.

                1. Yeah, because bad things never come from groups of people merely advocating totalitarian positions! No need to worry, just ignore it until something bad happens….

        3. Toxic, you really are an idiot.

          1. He’s not really an idiot, he’s just such a dogmatist that it interferes with his perception of reality and ability to reason. “Politics is the mindkiller.”

            1. THE PROJECTION IT BURNS

              Up above, Gilmore and I are kicking your ass in half and all you can do is make arguments from ignorance and mumble some quotes probably cribbed from Tom Tancredo.

              1. Neither of you laid a glove on me. And it’s not an “argument from ignorance” to point out the spurious logic of “immigration is up but crime is down, therefore, immigration reduces crime.” That’s a Logic 101 fail.

  18. I don’t even have to know what Krugman is saying, I’m against it.

    1. It’s like knowing the winning lotto numbers in advance.

  19. “”economic delusions” about taxes and government expansion slowing economic growth.”

    Yeah, like robbing from individuals, and putting that money towards services that are inefficient and aren’t as effective as those provided privately is really great for everyone in an economy. Diverting money from efficiency towards inneficiency is awesome!!!!!

  20. “I’m mad, I’m angry,” said Biden. “Things have become worse for workers over time. The level playing field doesn’t exist.”

    “What kind of morons have been running this country for the last several years!?”

    (Props to Doug Powers.)

    1. 5 ways to further destroy the economy

      http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry…..d5c0761ef9

      1. This guy is like Krugman’d retarded child. EIC is a tax cut? Ok.

      2. You know, I have yet to hear a progressive explain how it is that Texas job growth has been so much faster than the rest of America if prog ideas are so great. This is from Fact Check.org:

        “Even using the preferred job-growth measure, Texas does better than the rest of the country. (As we have noted in the past, Texas’ positive job growth has been a long-term trend that predates Perry.) In fact, Perry’s claim that Texas had gained jobs while the rest of the country had lost jobs was accurate through the summer and up until the fall of last year. In July, Texas’ total job creation since December 2007 stood at 1.1 million; the rest of the country had lost more than 400,000 jobs during the same time period. It wasn’t until October that the U.S.-without-Texas began showing positive job numbers since the beginning of the recession.”

        Texas created 1.1 million jobs between December 2007 and 2014 while the rest of the country LOST 400,000. So we created 700,000 total jobs and that was entirely the result of Texas’ extraordinary job creation.

        1. To be fair Irish, at least some of that growth can be attributed to prog policies. Prog policies in California have forced businesses to relocate to Texas. So Perry can thank California Progs for some of that growth.

          1. And Texas plays the crony game as well as if not better than other states.

            1. I won’t disagree they do the same crony shit as other states, but they’ve got looser regulations, more reasonable tax rates, and certainly don’t fuck around with business as much as Illinois or California or New York, who would otherwise be their primary competition due to the fact that they’re the other really large and populous states.

              Let’s run through some unemployment rates for Texas cities:

              Houston: 3.7%
              Austin: 2.6%
              Dallas: 3.8%
              San Antonio: 3.2%

              New York City: 6.1%
              Los Angeles: 7.5%
              Chicago: 6.5%
              Detroit: 10.2%

              The numbers are ludicrous when you compare them to other large cities.

              1. Well that’s just because Texas is stealing jobs from the rust belt. We need tariffs against Texas.

                1. I don’t suppose many Mexican immigrants are in Texas either.

  21. Trump supports more taxes and Obamacare?!?!?

    OK NOW it is totally OK for Reason to call him a sexist racist.

    Note: by OK i mean it is not OK.

    1. yeah, we’d never have guessed that last part

      why not just write your gripe on a blog somewhere then link to 100 times a day? That way you’d still be just like NewLoneWacko, just less annoying.

      1. I have made less posts about Trump then Reason magazine.

        Here is a totally unrelated poll from late August of 2011 which has absolutely nothing to do with anything I swear. I don’t even know why I am posting it.

        http://www.gallup.com/poll/149…..ation.aspx

    2. Cool story bro.

  22. I… uh… what?

    Talking about working moms, Pres Obama said if men had to go through childbirth, “the human race would evaporate. We couldn’t even take it.”

    1. We really have had President Pajama Boy for the last 7 years.

    2. I passed a kidney stone once, which my mother, who has given birth to five children, assures me is significantly more painful than childbirth. It sucked but I made it through alright.

    3. Actually men would likely bear it better, since men have a naturally higher pain tolerance (men actually have fewer nerve-endings than women; this is why men generally react less to pain). Also worth noting that chemicals are released during childbirth that make the joints (including the pelvic joints) much more flexible, so it really ‘isn’t as bad it looks’ in a sense.

      But I guess you lose a progressive woman’s vote if you stop patting her on the back for a split second.

    4. Has this president ever read anything about Andersonville or Elmira, or the what soldiers endured at the Battle of the Bulge; how many minutes would he have lasted at Tarawa or Belleau Wood?

      1. At least this time he is plagiarizing a good source. From Euripides’ Medea:

        Men tell us we live safe and secure at home,
        while they must go to battle with their spears.
        How stupid they are! I’d rather stand there
        three times in battle holding up my shield
        than give birth once.

    5. If men had to give birth through their urethra, yes. That’d be pretty bad.

  23. And Trump is solidifying his lead in the Republican primary according to the latest polls. The U.S. really is becoming a circus. I blame gay marriage.

  24. There was an AM links and no one told me?

    I thought it was LaboUr Day!

    Aren’t you obligated by law not to work lest you be fined or shot?

    1. Rufus,
      I can tell you that Manuel and Jose’ are laboUring down the street painting an abode.
      I certainly have the orphans busy scrubbing the pool with tooth brushes, and it appears Welsh has E. K. similarly laboUring away.

  25. I won’t be voting for this Paulnald Trumpman fellow! That is for sure!

  26. They should make a sitcom starring Krugman as an unemployed economist clinging on to one success he had 25 years earlier. The shtick would be he crustily clings to stagnant views – a la Archie Bunker – despite the world he lives in now is far different (run by libertarians?) all while living in his daughter’s tent in her backyard.

    1. Tending to a vegetable garden in which nothing will grow despite all his plowing and digging.

    2. They should make a sitcom starring Krugman as an unemployed economist clinging on to one success he had 25 years earlier.

      Bojack Krugman?

      1. Something like that. He would argue an economic idea and then get obliterated by an Irwin Keyes type guy.

        1. Must have an unshaven Thomas Piketty in a yellow toque sleeping on his couch.

  27. Playing to the cheap-seats, Obo raises taxes on us all:

    “Courting unions on Labor Day, President Barack Obama denounced Republicans for a “constant attack on working Americans” and said he was using his executive power to force federal contractors to give paid sick leave to their employees.

    Obama was met with resounding applause at a major union rally and breakfast in Boston on Monday…”
    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/…..smsnnews11

    1. Public sector unions have a fundamental human right to vote themselves free shit, and politicians an obligation to give them that free shit in order to get elected.

    2. In other news, Barack Obama doesn’t understand the point of federal contractors and does his level best to ensure they become just as ineffective as civil servants, only more expensive

      I mean seriously, the entire purpose of government contracts is to obtain things that the government is incapable of providing. A significant amount of federal contract work is awarded more or less to employ people outside of the civil servant system so that work actually gets done.

      Of course, in the long run, the goal here is to make federal contractors look bad, so they have “no choice” but to in-house everything. A lot of lefties have been decrying the lack of growth in the federal workforce (and a corresponding explosion in the federal contracting sector). They are keen to change that.

    3. Yes, when BO talks about “working Americans”, he’s talking about public sector unions.

      This again fit right in with what I’ve been saying. The Democratic party is losing the support of private-sector union types, and Trump is picking them up. Note I say “types” because the official union leadership is of course married to the Democratic party. But my point is that the membership (white, working class, in construction and manufacturing sectors) is liking Trumps old-school America First rhetoric.

  28. Cunt: Dickhead is right!

    Next.

  29. On 09/07 Dilbert cartoon page is an argument to the effect that Trump will be nominated and elected. I personally put more stock in London bookies’ odds, which offer odds he won’t. But more to the point is that the Nixon campaign bribery law pays the media to ignore all candidates except the Dem and GOP machine choices, hence the Trump gambit. But just as the Liberal Party founded in 1930-31 lost, it won by compelling repeal of prohibition, which made FDR president for 3 terms. The GOP has never forgiven that, and to this day they use “liberal” to mean favoring actual repeal of laws making beer a felony and jailing women for birth control literature and druggists for selling condoms. The pro-life-in-prison movement will settle for nothing less than the status quo ante.

      1. In order for that explanation to make sense, one must assume that Ben Carson or Carly Fiorina would have taken out Bush as effectively as Trump. Are you feeling that?

        Read more: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1…..z3l63kpTox

        hmmm…

        Aren’t Sanders and Carson surging in the polls? Also all I pretty much have heard in the press about why Trump is doing so well in the polls is because he and his supporters are “nativist racists”.

    1. the Nixon campaign bribery law

      ?

      1. The short version with link to the official pdf is at http://www.libertariantranslator.com
        The bipartisan law passed one day before Nolan formed the Libertarian Party. It has been copied in countries like Brazil, where voting is secret and mandatory and 32 looter parties keep up a constant dinning of tax-funded propaganda through the telescreens. The LP filed a petition to form but the Senile Political Court ruled they would be a drain on the taxpayers, and that 32 communist, fascist and prohibitionist looter parties was plenty to choose from.

  30. Hillary really knows how to connect with our nation’s youth:
    http://www.mediaite.com/online…..ing-event/

    1. Most of our nation’s youth are smart enough to know that “pledge” means about as much as the one Trump signed regarding not running as a third party candidate.

    2. Is this even legal?

        1. If Krugman says something it’s wrong, If Hillary does something it’s illegal. good rules to go by.

      1. Legal? Yeah, in that it’s just a piece of paper. It has absolutely zero legal meaning.

  31. OT: These Are Words Scholars Should No Longer Use to Describe Slavery and the Civil War. You see, the “Compromise of 1850” wasn’t really a fair compromise, so we need to call it the “Appeasement of 1850.” Etc. I’m pushing back in the comments, but not getting overwhelming support.

    1. Leftists don’t seem that concerned any more about their behavior being exactly like that of Ingsoc from 1984.

      1. The Newspeak explanations, in which Orwell makes it clear Ingsoc is a secular religion, was banned from the translations of 1984 published in Brazil during the Johnson-Nixon-Ford-Carter-Reagan fascist dictatorship. Only recently were those explanations added in reprints.

    2. Likewise, scholar Edward Baptist (Cornell) has provided new terms with which to speak about slavery. In his 2014 book The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism (Basic Books), he rejects “plantations” (a term pregnant with false memory and romantic myths) in favor of “labor camps”; instead of “slave-owners” (which seems to legitimate and rationalize the ownership of human beings), he uses “enslavers.” Small changes with big implications. These far more accurate and appropriate terms serve his argument well, as he re-examines the role of unfree labor in the rise of the United States as an economic powerhouse and its place in the global economy. In order to tear down old myths, he eschews the old language.

      Labor camps are what the Nazis and Soviets had. They were camps created for the sole purpose of eliminating enemies of the state while extracting value from them.

      That is entirely different from what Southern plantations where.

      As for using the term “enslaver”, that doesn’t work since the majority of slaveholders in the South inherited their slaves or bought their slaves from other slaveholders.

      The term “enslaver” ceased to be accurate with the official banning of the slave trade by Congress in 1807, albeit illegal slaving continued for a few more decades.

      1. Good points.

        1. I think your use of Orwellian is accurate because the goal of the author really is to simplify language to the point where it only conveys a shallow emotional response rather than anything that requires critical thinking.

          Plantations are bad. Nazi concentration camps are bad. Let’s call them the same thing so people will conflate the two and not bother to learn the enormous difference between them or their respective contexts.

      2. I wish I believed that the NSDAP camps were economic. DNA was still 12 years in the future, but “blood” Eugenics was a popular subject in Germany and the USA. I suspect the Germans imagined that altruism is a desirable inherited trait, and the the Jews were deemed by them to be innately selfish. The logical conclusion, then, would be that German extermination pogroms were designed to make the world safe for positive christian altruism. Incidentally, the Wikipedia today censors all mention of the “National Socialist German Workers Party” in its propaganda articles abt how confiscating guns as of Kristallnacht absolutely did NOT put Jews at a disadvantage vis-a-vis SS troops and the Gestapo. Only the polite Russian slang term “Nazi” is allowed, just as in the South a Gentleman referred to slaves as “property.”

        1. The operation of death camps received a higher priority and preferential access to materials over the war effort in 1943 and 1944.

          The NAZIs literally cared more about seeing the final solution through than they did about military success.

    3. They need to ban reference to the Tariff of Abominations, the Nullification Crisis when states tried to repeal it, the Haitian Revolt, when every nonbrown person was killed and scared the bejeezus out of the plantation slavers. It is also not productive to mention the new high tariff passed nearly half a year before Lincoln took office. For the sake of Thor and Minerva do not mention that Texas took over federal armories and revenue ships months before anything happened on the Confederate East Coast. England liquidating American muni bonds to fund an opium war in 1840 and states crashing securities markets by defaulting is carefully avoided, as was gold in California as the pretext for war against Mexico (the 1st Boer War, so to speak) which necessitated the tariff hike which sparked the secessions. Government schools teach gubmint history.

    1. When you miss things like this morning, does a piece of your soul disappear?

      1. I just happen to sometimes come upon a Links post where no one has commented before me.

        1. Don’t lie. Reason pays you to comment.

    2. surprise am links and no pm links, Reason is blatently trolling F.O.E.

      1. It really was commie pinko to be posting any links on today, this day of remembrance.

        1. Wow, you’re really off your game today.

  32. Is Trump rising because the “racists” are fired up by his select wacky ideas on immigration, or are people in general yearning for his kind of “I’ll protect American jobs” populism? Because Bernie Sanders does that too, and he’s making noise on the other side.

    1. To the extent the truck is supported for actual ideas, I think people responding to his unapologetic support for nationalism.

    2. Maybe folks are realizing that a straight line leading from christian right nationalsocialism straight to left secular socialism is really short, meaningless and has a total area of zero.

    3. According to some recent polls, Trump polls higher with Hispanics than do all other Republicans including Rudio and Cruz, with something like 25% of their votes.

      So, I hate so say it, but people love the strong horse.

      You know who else loved the strong horse?

      1. Genghis Khan?

      2. Oh! Come on, you baboons!! The answer is Catherine the Great!

      3. Frank Hopkins?

      4. One recent poll says that Trump is now getting 25% of blacks. If true, and if he’s the nominee, that would mean a GOP blowout.

        Politics is becoming truly insane.

        1. What’s insane about it?

          Blacks have been screwed by the democrats for a couple of generations – especially wrt to immigration.

          The only thing that keeps them on the plantation is fear and hatred of the phants – and the establishment phants non stop attack on Trump makes him a palatable outsider.

          1. I’m not saying it’s insane for 25% of blacks to support Trump. I’m saying it’s insane that by far the leading GOP candidate now is hated by the GOP establishment, and the libertarians, and yet is beating all Democrats in the polls in a way that could mean a blowout. Who could have predicted this a year ago?

  33. So today I learned that labor day is racist because slaves weren’t paid.

    1. Jeebus….

  34. Reason is getting pathetic these days. The hysterical charges of racism have now transmogrified into hysterical charges of xenophobia.

    The desire to have your government act in the interest of its citizens is not xenophobia.

    1. I agree. which is why we should reform our immigration system to serve our interests better.

      Reforming that system mainly entails moving from an ‘enforcement-only’ approach to one which integrates the productive millions already here, boots out the scumbags, and rationalizes the border policy to screen people moving back & forth, rather than “build walls” to provide ‘security theater’

      However, no one can touch the existing system with a 10000-foot pole without being accused of either “Amnesty” or “hate crimes” by partisans on either side.

        1. And This, for comparison

          Expect to see this stuff in the news soon.

            1. I hate to break it to you, but nothing there says anything you think it does.

              on a monthly basis, hundreds of thousands leave the workforce and enter the workforce.

              Overall, the “native born” workforce is shrinking as people retire. Naturally immigrants will represent a higher share as time passes. this isn’t some shocking piece of news.

              1. I’m not suggesting it’s shocking. I’m pointing out a statistical variance.

                The thesis that boomers are retiring and being replaced by immigrant workers isn’t supported by the demographic data. And the labor force participation rate by those pre-retirement age has been shrinking as a percent of working adults (not total numbers). Immigrants make up a larger part of our labor force because more of them are being employed as a percent of total population. Native workers (pre-retirement) are a smaller percent of total workers as a percent of pop.

                It it what it is.

                1. The first two sentences there don’t have any necessary relation to one another (skipping the part that the first one is false)

                  The third sentence is “begging”

                  “”Immigrants make up a larger part of our labor force because more of them are being employed as a percent of total population””

                  Really? there’s more of them working because there’s more of them working?

                  You’ve got one point there that is actually factually accurate = that there’s low employment participation by working age natives.

                  But there’s no actual connection there between foreign-born workers, necessarily. You’re assuming that the job growth that the foreigners “take” are jobs that the natives “refuse” or are denied. Not true. Most of the job growth employing foreign born groups is in areas that would likely not have existed sans a cheap foreign born labor supply (agriculture, building, mostly manual labor).

                  the fact that some percentage of natives are under-employed has no necessary connection with foreign born workers. you’re just assuming that.

                  I’ll skip debating with you about the impact of retirees. You can look into it if you want.

                  1. Actually, the relevant part of the third sentence is as a percent of total population. I’m not going to rehash an obvious point that you either don’t understand or choose not to understand.

                    No, I’m not assuming the job growth is because foreigners take and natives are denied. I’m arguing math.

                    I’m also not assuming native under employment as any relationship to foreign born workers. I’m pointing out a STATISTICAL TRUTH.

                    I’m original comment was a bit tongue in cheek. My larger point was simple to point out the statistical reality of employment in the USA.

                    As to retirees, much of the job growth in the BLS numbers comes from people OVER 55.

                    1. I’ll just add, all this information is easily available on the BLS website for those interested.

        2. They take jobs, yes. Which is generally why people immigrate in the first place. The US population is aging rapidly and there are increasingly more immigrants taking jobs that non-baby-making boomers are leaving.

          Also, that chart shows growth from “21-to-25 million” over that period. which is consistent with growth rates in the overall employed. I’d expect there to be MORE cannibalization of jobs, not “mild” degrees of it.

          1. The demographics don’t support your point. We have the lowest labor force participation rate since the ’70’s. More adults (men and women) 18-35 not in the labor force.

            1. And, when they count adults not in LF the don’t count illegals or H1B1 holders.

            2. because people are aging. As noted above. Why would you expect immigrants (which tend to be younger) to *not* grow their share of a declining domestic workforce?

              1. You’re just repeating the same argument about aging boomers which is false. Address the labor force participation rate of those pre-retirement, please.

          2. Also, that chart shows growth from “21-to-25 million” over that period. which is consistent with growth rates in the overall employed.

            You do realize there’s also population growth among natives? Those people need jobs too.

        3. That graph really doesn’t demonstrate much. Also, they are not ‘your’ jobs they belong to whomever the employer wants to give it to. Further, without immigrants taking those jobs, there would be far fewer jobs overall.

    2. Liberty is the best interest of the citizens.

    3. It is not the government’s job to ‘act in the interests of its citizens’. It’s to protect their rights, and that means open borders.

      1. How does open borders protect the rights of citizens, who are already inside the borders?

        1. It’s called ‘freedom of association’.

          1. What’s stopping you from associating with other citizens?

            1. Nothing, but immigration law means I can’t associate with non-citizens being kept out for no good reason. I guess I am going to have to spoon-feed everything.

            2. Nothing, but immigration law means I can’t associate with non-citizens being kept out for no good reason. I guess I am going to have to spoon-feed everything.

              1. The first amendment does not say anything about a right to associate with non-citizens. “…the right of the people to peaceably assemble…” Foreigners are not part of “the people”, they come from a different people.

          2. If I wanted to hire someone who’s in prison for a 5-year term, is my freedom of association being violated when the state refuses to let them out early so they can work for me?

            1. Depends on what they’re in prison for.

              1. What does that have to do with my freedom to associate with them?

        2. Them immagrunts taken yer right to freespeech and freedom a religion, or are them immagrunts taken yer right to a good jerb at a livingwage? Cause one o them ain’t actually a right, ya know.

  35. Might be too late, but I guess this will have to serve as PM Links. Appropriately, it’s a Trump thread of second order (first order is Trump Says Something Stupid, second order is Someone Says Something Stupid About Trump, third order is Someone Says Something Stupid About Something Trump-Related).

    As promised,my personal favorites from the Accomplished Female Athletes of Eastern and Central Europe.

    Anastasia Luppova, Russian billiards player, twice the European Champion.
    Eva Samkova, Czech snowboarder.

    1. Antonia Misura, Croatian Olympic basketball player.
      Zsuzsanna Jakabos, Hungarian Olympic swimmer.

      1. I vote basketball. She’s only 5’10! i was terrified she was taller than me. we can hang.

    2. Ivana Nesovic, Serbian volleyball player.
      Sylwia Gruchala, Polish fencer (use arrows to move around the gallery).

    3. Yes!

      It will be sad to see this feature end.

      1. I may give it this week with restrictions lifted.

  36. “We’re losing badly the war on drugs, You have to legalize drugs to win that war. You have to take the profit away from these drug czars.”

    If I’d been asleep through the whole election season so far, woke up and found that the GOP front runner dominating the polls had once said that and has NEVER substantially repudiated it, I’d say the “libertarian moment” might be at hand.

    Donald Trump: Right on pot. Right on ass sex. WRONG ON MEXICANS

    1. “You, see, Katie, when I said that I was confused, what I was *trying* to say was that we need to consider hanging all the drug kingpins, and I mean hang them two or three times each, just to show how serious we are.”

    2. When did Trump say that and how many times has he flip-flopped since then?

      1. I knew Canada was a backward shithole but I didn’t realize they lacked Google.

        1. Even Google can’t keep up with Trumps contortions.

          1. Yeah they still haven’t indexed anything where he recanted what he said about legalizing all drugs. All he’s said since then is about the same position as Rand Paul or Rick Perry on marijuana. He thinks its bad, states can make the wrong choice to legalize it but he’s 100% for medical marijuana. Somehow the Marijuana Policy Project gives him a “C” on that while giving Carly Fiorina a C+ for being “100% opposed to medical marijuana”.

            1. It’s basically impossible to know what Trump’s position is. He can’t talk no good. It’s like Schrodinger’s cat.

      2. But he doesn’t flip flop on immigration and nativist racism right? Your exhaustive well referenced research shows he is solid in that department?

    3. I’d say the “libertarian moment” might be at hand.

      OK you started it:

      The totally real not kidding this time libertarian case for Trump:

      MSM will stop sucking the dick of government if he is in charge of it.

      Instead of YouTube being blamed for a 9/11 terrorist attack, instead of praising an economy worse then the depression, instead blissful ignorance of IRS malfeasance abuse of power and political attack and on and on and on we will actually get a press that is sceptical and hostile to power.

      Note: I did not know he was against the drug war. Funny seeing Cytotoxic doing conniption fit back flops over it. It does open the possibility for a more conventional libertarian case for Trump. Which is more important? Ending the Drug war or stopping a wall?

      1. you’re still 95 cents short of a dollar there.

      2. We don’t know what Trump will do as president. I sure as hell don’t see us turning to European fascism like the pants-shitters are preaching is a given. I do see him potentially breaking the hold the establishment has on the state if he wants to. I’m not a Trump “supporter” but I know what I’m against and they seem to fear Trump.

        1. “I sure as hell don’t see us turning to European fascism like the pants-shitters are preaching is a given.”

          Or at least no more so then other front runners like Hilary or Jeb or even current or past leaders like Bush and Obama already have.

  37. *
    Whoomp, there it is!

    “Thorndike woodworker devoted to sustainability, ‘Amish atheism’…

    “When [Kenneth] Copp was in his teens he left his mother’s Lutheran religious tradition to join the Mennonites, attracted by their simple lifestyle and closeness to the natural world. He later gravitated toward the Amish, whose principles deeply resonated with him for several decades. During those years, Copp mastered the art of fine, handcrafted woodwork, in keeping with Amish ideals. He and his family lived in several Amish communities around the United States, ending up in Thorndike, Maine.

    “Copp is a voracious learner with a deep-seated inclination to seek and to question. Those questions ? about religion, God and the Earth’s history ? eventually led to his decision to leave his Amish faith behind….

    “Copp, who now thinks of himself as an “Amish atheist,” said his evolution of thought has felt almost like a rebirth, something he calls a “deconversion.” He attributes it to education and is now as devout a believer in learning as he once was in his faith.”

    http://bangordailynews.com/201…..h-atheism/

    1. Eddie I’d fully support you if you were to decide to leave the Catlicks for the Amish…

      1. F D’A, I love you to death, but a little of you goes a loooong way.

  38. AM links. No PM links.

    I’m sooz confoozed.

    1. By this hour, the interns can’t even stand up to get to the computer.

      1. I NEED CONSISTENCY IN MY LIFE.

        Reason isn’t helping me.

  39. Embarrassed by the Confederate-soldier statue on your courthouse grounds?

    Don’t take the statue down, just add a memorial to Union soldiers and slaves.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

  40. More importantly, Krugman claims there are “other” candidates who reject the conservative “economic orthodoxy” on taxes but don’t share Trump’s anti-immigration, anti-free trade positions. Krugman, unsurprisingly, doesn’t mention a single one.

    You really expect Krugman to come right out and name Jeb?

    Jeb has repeatedly rejected the Grover Norquist/Club for Growth “no new taxes” orthodoxy. He’s said he’s “open” to tax increases if they’re offset with future promises of spending reduction “because that’s leadership”

  41. This isn’t going to help Patrick Stewart’s MENSA application:

    “”All my life I believed that I was circumcised,” said the 75-year-old Shakespearian actor. Stewart’s wife thought he was mistaken, and after asking his doctor, Stewart learned that she was correct.”

    http://www.vanityfair.com/holl…..rcumcision

    1. All it means is his that his wife has seen more cock up close than he has.

  42. KDW on Labor Day:

    The entire idea of “labor” as a social class standing in counterpoint to “capital” is antiquated, of course, and the main problem of the poor in the United States is not that they are worked too hard but that they do not work at all, a problem grown much worse during the presidency of Barack Obama.

    1. Forgot the best part? the subhead: “We don’t need this quasi-Canadian, crypto-Communist holiday.”

  43. As I have stated before, Trump is pulling support from what I call “Old Labor”: white working class union types, popular in the Northeast. He’s what Krugman called a “hard hat”: a socially conservative big-government type. The anti-immigrationist and anti-trade rhetoric all fits neatly together with Trump’s own background as a northeastern crony capitalist. Of course his supporters fear immigration and trade – both of those things directly threaten domestic labor. And of course they want the government to play a big role in protecting and subsidizing the industries they work for. But they aren’t the “New Labor” of the current Democratic party. “New Labor” is mostly public sector unions like the SEIU. “New Labor” is heavily service sector jobs (janitors, cafeteria staff), more likely to be minority dominated, and more favorable to immigration as a way to boost political strength. “Old Labor” is private sector manufacturing.
    When Trump says “Make America Great Again”, and talks about infrastructure projects, he’s sending a message directly to the heart of Old Labor: More money for construction projects, more money for heavy industry and manufacturing.

    1. Trump draws more support from the “socially liberal” wing of the Republican Party than he does from the “socially conservative” one.

      I do understand he’ll make the trains run on time. On time to carry the Mexicans to GAS CHAMBERS!

      1. The anti-immigration rhetoric is what puts him in the social conservative camp. He’s not a religious conservative, but he is a nationalist.

        1. Trump isn’t campaigning against immigration on cultural grounds so much as economic ones.
          The socially conservative case against immigration is that it is diluting or negatively changing our culture.

          1. Exactly.
            He’s speaking to working class whites who feel economically threatened by immigration and trade.

            But I’d still call that “right-wing” because it’s still nationalistic in nature. Buy American is a nationalistic sentiment.

    2. This is an excellent analysis.

      “Trump draws more support from the “socially liberal” wing of the Republican Party than he does from the “socially conservative” one.”

      LOLWUT? There is nothing ‘socially liberal’ about deporting all of the illegals.

      1. Bernie Sanders seems to want less of them.

        1. That’s Old Labour right there.

          1. Yes, Bernie Sanders is most definitely an “Old Labor” type.
            So is Joe Biden, which is why I suspect he is getting into the race.

    3. “, Trump is pulling support from what I call “Old Labor”: white working class union types, popular in the Northeast’

      Funny you say that…. because Trump polls highest in the South. By a significant margin. in the mid-30% range, with a huge gap between himself and peers.

      In the northeast…he’s doing well in NH, but in Massachusetts – the biggest state with the most NE “old labor” types you cite – he’s not even in the top 3.

      In PA he’s doing better (low 20s) but wasn’t even on the map as recently as July.

      Basically…. I’m not sure your theory has any actual evidence to support it.

      1. I’d also point out that most of these polls swung widely from before/after the first debate. 10%+ for most people. Which just goes to show how little people are paying attention day to day versus televised “Big Events”

        And that no one really considers these summer months “significant’. I suspect when you get into october, you’ll see people responding more seriously than they did when all they wanted was some rabble rousing entertainment for the summer.

      2. Well, working class labor isn’t exclusively concentrated in the NE, and I’ve never thought of Mass. as a union state. I’m thinking places like Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, Michigan – state with lots of heavy industry and manufacturing jobs.

        Thing is that the general liberal bent of the NE is going to be a confounding factor, so it’s not necessarily going to be where he polls the *best*. It’s more like he would disproportionately draw votes there, compared to other places where Republicans usually draw votes. If you were really going to do this analysis right, you would want to see how he is doing against Democratic candidates, relative to other Republicans. If he’s doing better against the Democrats than expected in the NE that would be an indication he’s a stronger candidate in the NE.

        Also, as I said, white working class union types aren’t exclusive in the NE, they are spread out around the country. Support in the South is probably boosted by plain old racists, too.

        1. Support in the South is probably boosted by plain old racists, too.

          You left out Trump’s appeal to Camaro and pickup driving, outhouse-shittin’, corn skweezins-swillin’, corn cob pipe-smokin’, skwerl-eatin’, one-strap overall-clad shoeless sister-fuckers.

          1. No, those people are holding out for Sarah Palin.

        2. “‘working class labor isn’t exclusively concentrated in the NE”

          I’m aware of that, which is why i thought your comment…

          “” working class union types, popular in the Northeast“”

          …made no sense.

          “”…. and I’ve never thought of Mass. as a union state.””

          All largish states have large public sector unions. Teachers, Cops, Health workers are obviously significant constituencies.

          If you meant PA, Ohio, Illinois, MI, etc., you should have said so. The polling there is more or less as i pointed out – not as significant as in the South.

          “” If you were really going to do this analysis right”

          Then why don’t you do it before you make your argument?

          The only states where they’re doing candidate comparisons GOP v DEM are NH and Iowa. Not exactly great data there that supports any claim that Trump pulls lots of “Old Labor” versus other groups.

          1. Well, Trump is a Northeasterner, and his positions are consistent with a kind of mainstream Northeastern blue-collar mindset. Outside of the big cities, a lot of the Northeast is economically depressed. It is, of course, a consequence of their terrible economic policies, but the people there most definitely do buy into the same kind of ideology Trump is selling – that the loss of US manufacturing jobs to China and the influx of immigrants is a calamity they blame their economic circumstances on.
            Again, people who are impacted by trade and immigration are spread out around the country, but I think that this sentiment is very palpable in the NE and Mid-west, because that’s where the manufacturing base is (or was) mostly located.

            Public sector unions are “new Labor”. I’m saying there’s been a split between the old-school labor movement – whose power has been in decline for a long time, and a new-school thing under Obama’s leadership, where the public sector unions line up behind progressive politics. So I wouldn’t *expect* states with powerful public sector unions to show a lot of Trump support. I would expect states with a declining manufacturing sector to support Trump.

            In the South, he might be getting inflated support because of other factors, unrelated to his core message. (i.e. white racism).

            1. I’m about to stop being polite.Racism is not confined nor especially more prevalent in the South, particularly considering the large Black and (in many states*) high Hispanic immigrant population. If the polling is not confined to “likely Republican voters” that inflated support may reflect the high approval (for a Republican candidate) Trump is getting from Blacks.

              * If you don’t live in a border state there is a higher % of Latino immigrants in GA, NC, and Fla. than reside your state.

            2. Hazel,

              “Trump is a Northeasterner, and his positions are consistent with a kind of mainstream Northeastern blue-collar mindset”

              You haven’t demonstrated any evidence for your attribution of “psychographic” attitudes/opinions to any particular demographic group.

              in fact, as pointed out – you contradict yourself, asserting that there’s some “old labor/union”-dominant perspective …. in a region that has zero traditional association with unionized industrial/manufacturing labor.

              You seem to be ascribing whole demographic swaths with cartoonish opinions that have little basis in reality.

              “It is, of course, a consequence of their terrible economic policies, ‘

              The “terrible economic policies” of the NorthEast? And those are….? please to share.

              ” I would expect states with a declining manufacturing sector to support Trump.’

              And as i pointed out = these places show less actual interest in him than southern states so far.

              Again = you seem to want to take your theory then run out looking for scant isolated details that confirm it. What “you expect” seems based entirely on preconceptions that aren’t all that informed by facts.

              So far the only single policy of Trump’s that anyone has cited in polls/interviews is immigration. His “We should Win on Trade” rhetoric says nothing about protectionism or anything that panders to the sort of old-labor concerns you imagine are so crucial to his popularity.

            3. Something that may be signal-crossing on your end…

              you are frequently citing ‘demographics’ (e.g. regional, working-class, white), but then describing a psychographic profile that may not actually have an consistent representation in that specific demographic

              you cite Krugman – when i suspect what he’s delineating in his “Hard hats” category is not a demographic group, but a psychographic profile, to which he’s applying this theoretical “avatar” of ‘old labor’ vote to give it an imagined ‘personality’.

              In reality, the people who hold these opinions come from all over the demographic spectrum… but which he labels with this term. =

              “combining social conservatism with support for extensive government intervention in the economy (he calls such people “hardhats”)”

              IOW, Krugman never did any demographic analysis/a… he’s simply attributing that “avatar” to a cross-section of opinions that fall into a specific category. Its just a brand-name for any combination of opinions.

              You seem to be crossing a line into thinking that this fictive ‘persona’ he gives his opinion-polling category is actually somehow reflected in demographic reality. As though there’s a monolithic “NE hardhat voter”, that has these very specific category of views…when that’s not at all what that term reflects.

  44. Johah Goldberg has a nice article on NR almost bidding farewell to the conservative movement. Money quote: “Every principle used to defend Trump is subjective, graded on a curve. Trump is like a cat trained to piss in a human toilet. It’s amazing! It’s remarkable! Yes, yes, it is: for a cat. But we don’t judge humans by the same standard.”

    http://www.nationalreview.com/…..h-goldberg

    1. No Movement That Embraces Trump Can Call Itself Conservative

      No it can’t. Only movements that embrace Mitt Romney,John McCain, 3 different members of the Bush family and Bob Dole can call themselves conservative. Is it any wonder that people are deserting that “movement” in droves?

      Goldberg should quit that conservative shit and come join the libertarians. He’s at least 80% there now which is more than we can say for a lot of libertarians.

      1. We should hand out Darth Vader masks each time they join the ranks.

      2. Conservatism is a loser, for sure. The whole conservative movement is a pile of shit, and Trumpism is its endgame. Let it burn.

        1. Can you be any more stupid?

          You just posted a link from the editor of the leading conservative publication arguing Trump isn’t a conservative. The voters seem to agree. The latest polls show Trump drawing 25% support among Blacks. Not the typical support demographic for a conservative. He actually draws a slightly greater amount of support from the “moderate wing” of the Republican party, once again–not very conservative. Krayewski’s post up top claims that Paul Krugman admires what he thinks Trump’s economic policies are, not too “conservative. Everyone seems to think Trump is anything but conservative. Everyone except low-information foreigners like you.

          1. El hombre no es conservador.

            1. See, even the Mexicans agree.

              NOW SPEAK AMERICAN

          2. Has anyone mentioned that you’re dense? Because nothing in your post contradicts what I said. I’ll say it again: conservatism is a con, and the conservative movement is a pile of shit. No principles, just a grabasstic clusterfuck of ‘traditions’ and tribalism and gut feelings. Worthless for advancing freedom. The end result of this anti-intellectual reactionary movement is Trumpism.

          3. Some aspects of his position are conservative, but no he isn’t a conservative. He’s a “hardhat” – in Krugmans own parlance.

            “Hard hats” are working class right-wingers. I.e. members of construction unions and manufacturing unions. They are nationalistic and supportive of a strong central government. “Hard hat” stances would be Buy American, anti-flag burning, pro-police, national security hawkishness, anti-trade, and anti-immigrant sentiment.

            1. That’s a pretty small demographic. I’m not sure how, as a mostly reliable Democrat constituency, they count as “right wingers”.

              1. No, it’s a pretty big demographic. In the same way there are few Libertarians and many people with libertarian leanings, there are many people with this kind of America First hard-hat type leanings. It’s just not a demographic we’ve heard a lot from in the last 8 years, although they were visible in Ohio over the GM bailout (the pro-bailout position). Obama’s camp didn’t play to them nearly as much as it played identity politics. It’s a huge demographic, but it happens that it’s power has been waning, both because of the decline of the US manufacturing base, and the consequent decline of private sector unions.

                There’s also long been plenty of crossover with Republicans, because the R’s have always been more nationalistic, so there’s a natural harmony with their stance on trade. And they are socially conservative but not in a religious evangelical way – just in a sort of boring mainstream cultural way. I.e. they are stereotypical middle-class and working class people.

                1. And they are socially conservative but not in a religious evangelical way – just in a sort of boring mainstream cultural way. I.e. they are stereotypical middle-class and working class people.

                  That would be “socially centrist”.

                  1. Maybe what used to be the center, but isn’t anymore, because the culture has shifted leftward. And what used to be the center is now “conservative” in the sense that they are holding onto something more traditional, more conformist.
                    That American culture from the 50s to the 80s or so, suburban neighborhoods where everyone watches the Superbowl and drinks beer and grills… that is a thing of the past.

                    1. No it isn’t, not even in Blue states. I live in an inner ring “old” suburb of a very large international city and we have minorities, immigrants, gays, hipsters, millenial professionals etc in every other house and they watch the Superbowl, grill, drink beer, have hobby cars, restored camper/R.V.s, call the cops when they see outsiders up-to-no-good, and many go off to presumably religious services from Friday to Sunday. They don’t live closer in to the city because they like yards, dislike property crime, like not having homeless people piss on their flowers and tomatoes, have dogs, families etc. They don’t live further out because they can afford not to, or don’t want to trade a long commute for a bigger house or better public high schools (the public elementary schools are fine). They’re just like the same people who lived here in the 1950s through 1980s only they come in more shades and accents and some couples are the same gender.

          4. Everyone except low-information foreigners like you.

            Excellent.

            LIFs

      3. Goldberg should quit that conservative shit and come join the libertarians. He’s at least 80% there now which is more than we can say for a lot of libertarians.

        Zing!

        1. It Zings! because it’s true.

        2. At least he’d be making an ass of himself in front of a smaller audience. I suppose there’s something to be said for that.

  45. Forgot it was labor day in the US, sat down at the screen and checked for AM lynx. They come up and no comments. Granted it was a weak effort, but I managed to lead off the lynx for the first and, most definitely, last time. Threw my whole damn day off. I don’t recommend it.

  46. I’m not seeing the Postrel-approved quality commenting on the non-H&R post side threads.
    A bit more “on-topic” perhaps but the discussion quality seems the same or lower than on the blog posts. Today’s are thoroughly Hihn-fected as well.

    1. The question of whether the Obama Administration will accept thousands of Syrian refugees isn’t a question of if but a question of when.

      If the Syrian refugees all had ebola or were gay, Obama would have accepted them already–and demanded more. Since it’s none of the above, it’ll take a while for Obama to get on board.

      How’s that for a quality comment?

      1. Not bad. Obama needs time to screen out the Christians and those that see a stigma in accepting long term government assistance.

        1. I just read this article here:

          http://www.wsj.com/articles/sy…..1441667373

          It’s interesting.

          Google search the headline in a separate browser if you don’t have a subscription.

          1. Kinda hard to figure anything out from the anecdotal interviews. One complains about the welfare coming to an end, both complain about the cost of living, the other complains about a lack of work. Uruguay is a pretty prosperous country. More so than Syria was even before the war.

            1. I read that one statement to sound as if the Uruguayan government had given them those hospital jobs.

              What are they supposed to do with Syrian “refugees” that are demanding a free ticket back to Syria (or Lebanon)?

              1. The ticket is cheaper than the balance of their welfare payments. Sounds like their quasi-stateless status is more of a problem.

                1. I thought being in Syria was the problem, and that’s why they were allowed to settle in Uruguay.

                  Now they want to go back to Syria?

  47. Well, serves me right for relying on the media.

    Here I thought that Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk, was standing like Horatius at the bridge trying to block all marriage licenses in her county. The idea of her as Horatius, standing up for the Constitution, appealed to me.

    But it turns out she’s more flexible than I had assumed. She’d be happy to have her deputy clerks issue the licenses under their own authority, *so long as her name isn’t on the licenses.* Yeah, so as far as she’s concerned, so long she doesn’t have to lend her name or authority to the license, her own people can do the honors.

    The problem is that the license form approved by the state must have the county clerk’s name on it.

    Is this the issue which is getting everyone’s nose out of joint? Biff and Bob’s Special Day would be ruined unless their license has some politician’s name on it? And a “homophobic” politician at that?

    1. We’re supposed to believe that gay couples are demanding that a homophobic politician’s name be on their marriage license, and so for this they’re demanding the politician’s imprisonment? I hope those of them who aren’t vein-throbbing indignation mongers would be cool without the name on the document.

      Madonna’s brother had it right – the activists are sore winners – not content with getting the clerk’s office to issue gay licenses, they have to put this woman, who literally isn’t seeking to do them any harm (even if we define harm to include denial of a marriage license), in a federal prison.

      The line between principle and nasty mean-spirited vindictiveness seems very blurry.

      Relevant legal document:

      http://ow.ly/RUfcB

      (see, eg., p. 11)

    2. I think the court is right to hold her in contempt.

      Whether this exposes the gay rights movement as a bunch of coercive, hateful shitheads is another question entirely.

      Gay rights activists aren’t libertarians. They don’t care about the rights of their fellow man. They just care about furthering the interests of the LGBTQ movement, and if they won’t shy away from publicly taking enormous delight in seeing people imprisoned for their religious beliefs, then it is what it is.

      I despise neo-Nazis, but I support their right to freedom of speech.

      I’ve long supported the right of gay people to enjoy the same right to marriage as the rest of us, but that doesn’t mean their movement isn’t filled with anti-First Amendment shitheads.

      1. Special interests gonna special interest. I have a gay, african american, retired marine friend. His posts on FB are all about either AAs, gay oppression or BOOYAH! the Marines. You’d think if this guy doesn’t get the necessity of respecting the right to free association, nobody would.

      2. It ain’t gonna end with Kay Davis

      3. Ken Shultz|9.7.15 @ 10:01PM|#
        “I think the court is right to hold her in contempt.”

        Yes.
        A-1; superstition separate from state.
        Regardless of anything else, she was imposing her superstition on those with whom she dealt as a representative of the government.
        Fuck her (well, maybe Crusty should); she has no reason to gripe and for those who suggest she shouldn’t be jailed, what is the alternative? Gov’t has the monopoly on coercion; without that, there is no government.

        1. Yeah, I don’t say fuck her. I say this is a necessary evil. but I’m not glad to see anybody imprisoned for their religious beliefs. Just because I agree with what the court is doing here doesn’t mean I’m glad to see it happen. It’s a sad thing.

          And just like racists who used to cheer on their local governments for arresting freedom riders and black protesters during the civil rights movement, I think this is likely to make the gay rights movement look bad in the long run.

          Yeah, you can’t just have people stopping traffic and marching down the middle of the street whenever they want, and if they’re stopping traffic, then by all means, the police should arrest them. The law is the law, and arresting people in that situation is the right thing to do.

          Still, you know how that’s going to make you look if the people blocking the streets are blacks in the South demanding an end to Jim Crow and segregation?

          Ultimately, it’s the same way it makes you look for locking people up because of their religious beliefs. Even IF IF IF it’s the right thing to do under the circumstances, there’s a price to paid for doing that. And people are making it worse by celebrating this…necessary evil. Locking people up for their religious beliefs isn’t a good thing for anybody.

          1. Ken Shultz|9.7.15 @ 11:49PM|#
            “Yeah, I don’t say fuck her. I say this is a necessary evil. but I’m not glad to see anybody imprisoned for their religious beliefs”

            Ken, “religious beliefs” are nothing other than juvenile fantasies. She is welcome to them. For instance, I don’t care if she prefers to die rather than seek real medical help; that’s her stupidity and she’s welcome to it.
            But she was imprisoned because A-1 says your superstition cannot be used to enforce the coercion of the state.
            ——————————-
            “And just like racists who used to cheer on their local governments for arresting freedom riders and black protesters during the civil rights movement, I think this is likely to make the gay rights movement look bad in the long run.”

            This isn’t about “gay rights”; it’s about some fucking superstitionist presuming her fantasy has some bearing on how humanity goes about its business. “Religion” is not some value to be protected; it’s an obsolete irrationality that deserves to be ignored at best.

            1. “Ken, “religious beliefs” are nothing other than juvenile fantasies. She is welcome to them. For instance, I don’t care if she prefers to die rather than seek real medical help; that’s her stupidity and she’s welcome to it.
              But she was imprisoned because A-1 says your superstition cannot be used to enforce the coercion of the state.”

              Again, I don’t disagree with holding her in contempt, but I’m not about to celebrate it.

              It’s like a justifiable police shooting of a teen for doing something foolish. There’s a big difference between saying, “Isn’t it sad this kid had to be shot by the police” and saying, “I am so glad that bastard is dead”?

              It sure as hell makes a big difference to some people. Last survey I saw suggested that some 30%+ of evangelicals support gay marriage. Even if it were half of that, why throw those evangelical gay marriage supporters under the bus? There they are in church every week making their case–what’s to gain by throwing them under the bus? You should take John seriously when he talks about how protecting gay rights really is a zero-sum game given our accommodation laws. Why feed into that perception?

              It’s a sad day when we have to imprison someone for asserting her First Amendment rights–even if imprisoning her is the right thing to do.

            2. And, incidentally, the First Amendment covers the free exercise of stupid religious beliefs, too–just like it doesn’t only protect smart speech. The First Amendment protects stupid speech, too. I don’t see the smartness or stupidity of her religious beliefs as being in any way relevant. If her rights should have predominated here (not that I think they should have), then they should have predominated regardless of whether her religious beliefs are smart or stupid or juvenile fantasies.

              1. Ken Shultz|9.8.15 @ 12:41AM|#
                ‘And, incidentally, the First Amendment covers the free exercise of stupid religious beliefs, too–just like it doesn’t only protect smart speech.’

                Yes, it does!
                If she were ‘speaking’ rather than employing her position to use the coercive power of the state to further her superstition, that would be a completely different matter.
                It isn’t. She was acting as a representative of the state and enforcing her superstition on others. Fail.

                1. When have I said she shouldn’t be held in contempt?

                  All I’m saying is that whether her beliefs are stupid is completely irrelevant.

                  I’m also saying that having to imprison someone for her religious beliefs is a regrettable, necessary evil–at best.

                  I guess I’m also saying that there will likely be consequences for doing that–even if it was justified.

                  If gay rights activists don’t want to see the pendulum swing in the other direction real hard, they better make a point of protecting people’s religious rights in the near future. America still identifies as largely Christian. If gay rights people convince average Americans that their religious beliefs are incompatible with gay rights, their support for gay rights in the future likely won’t be what it was in the past.

            3. “This isn’t about “gay rights”; it’s about some fucking superstitionist presuming her fantasy has some bearing on how humanity goes about its business. “Religion” is not some value to be protected; it’s an obsolete irrationality that deserves to be ignored at best.”

              We each have a right to make our own choices about our own religious beliefs. The framers, in their magnificent wisdom, protected that right in law because they saw all the harm not protecting that right did to the society they came from in Europe, especially in regards to the reformation, the Thirty Years War, and the English Civil War. Here we are discussing Syrian refugees upthread in a conflict that has a lot to do with various factions not having any faith that if their rivals win control, that they’ll respect the right of other factions to practice the religion of their choice…

              If you don’t see the rationale behind any particular religion, I hope you can at least see the value in the government protecting our right to choose our own religion anyway. What you’re saying sounds a lot like saying that because what Tony says is stupid, the government shouldn’t protect his right to speak.

              1. “If you don’t see the rationale behind any particular religion, I hope you can at least see the value in the government protecting our right to choose our own religion anyway. What you’re saying sounds a lot like saying that because what Tony says is stupid, the government shouldn’t protect his right to speak.”

                Ken, I would ask you to read my posts again. Nowhere did I suggest any superstitions should be prosecuted by the agency of government coercion. If you find such in my comments, please let me know; it is not intended.
                But also, I see no need of the government to ‘protect’ any superstition; protect it from what?
                The only true harm accruing to a particular superstition is likely to come from those of another who claim their skydaddy is superior to the other; pretty much a description of the near east now.
                Is ‘the government’ to protect one or the other?

                1. Sevo, I really wish that you, and people like you, would show up in force in demonstrations, in social media, etc., to share what you really think about Ms. Davis.

                  It would help to rebut the idea that this is some kind of conflict between religion and atheism.

                  1. /sarc

                2. “But also, I see no need of the government to ‘protect’ any superstition; protect it from what?”

                  From other people. From the government.

                  Just like any other right.

                  If government has any legitimate purpose at all, it is to protect our rights.

                  And just to be clear, again, the validity of this woman’s religious beliefs are completely irrelevant. Why keep bringing it up?

                  1. Ken Shultz|9.8.15 @ 1:30AM|#
                    “But also, I see no need of the government to ‘protect’ any superstition; protect it from what?”

                    “From other people. From the government.”
                    Uh, you’re asking the government to protect superstionists from the government?
                    Care to offer some specifics? WIH are you posting about?

                    1. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

                      There are two aspects to our First Amendment protections on religion. One of them is “free exercise” and the other is “establishment”. The government is a threat to both aspects–but especially on the “establishment” side.

                      Yes, I expect the courts, especially, to protect our right not to be forced to pray in public (government run) schools–which would be a violation of our establishment rights.

                      Don’t you?

                      People on the left (and atheists) seem to have a hard time with the free exercise part, but, yeah, the government is charged with protecting our right to the free exercise of our own stupid religions. And thank Dog for that–because without that right, I’m not sure civil society is possible over the long term.

                    2. I’m a big believer in the idea that governments are ultimately only legitimate insofar as they protect our rights (rather than because they were popularly elected), and the breakdown we see in the legitimacy of the Syrian state and the ongoing lack of legitimacy we see in the Iraqi government, that’s ultimately driven by those governments’ failure to adequately protect people’s rights–especially in regards to religion. If the U.S. government stopped protecting our free exercise rights here in our own country, I suspect it would ultimately suffer a similar breakdown in legitimacy.

                      Anyway, most of our Constitutional rights are protections against the government. The First, the Second, the Fourth, the Fifth, the Eighth…all the ones I can think of off the top of my head are about ensuring that the government will protect our rights–against violations by the government. Even the Ninth is about reminding the government that it’s charged with having to protect our rights that aren’t listed in the Constitution, too. In my own home? I have the right to do the Bible hokie pokie.

                      That’s what it’s all about.

                  2. Oops:
                    “And just to be clear, again, the validity of this woman’s religious beliefs are completely irrelevant. Why keep bringing it up?”
                    Bullshit.
                    She is an agent of the government, constrained by A-1, imposing her superstition in spite of A-1.
                    Ken, are you now gonna start ‘clever posting’? You got one chance; get cute and you got a rep, pal.

                    1. “She is an agent of the government, constrained by A-1, imposing her superstition in spite of A-1.”

                      Exactly. The question is about whether the government can establish what amounts to a religious law. The problem is that this woman is part of the government.

                      Whether her beliefs are stupid or smart has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

                      If her religious beliefs were ingenious, rather than stupid, it would still be just as unconstitutional for her to inflict them on other people–because that would violate our right to freedom from establishment, which is protected by the First Amendment.

                      And it’s important that we understand the character of her misconduct, too, because if we can’t explain to evangelicals, Muslims, and others that holding this woman in contempt isn’t directly about the nature of her beliefs so much as it’s about using the government to inflict her beliefs on other people, then what are we expecting religious people to do?

                      Come up with that libertarian explanation all by themselves?

        2. Sevo,

          What exactly would be wrong to have her assistant clerks, based on independent legal authority, hand out licenses without her name on them? What principle would that violate?

          Rather than say, “OK, we won’t use your name on these licenses and we’ll have someone else issue them,” they’re saying “no, screw you, rot in prison until you agree to have your names on the licenses!”

          So on the one hand she’s a superstitious homophobic sky-daddy cis shitlord, and on other hand it’s absolutely vital to lock her up until she agrees that these licenses have her name on them – because gay couples will love to gaze on the name of this theocratic oppressor!

          1. Eddy, I’m sure, buried in your post somewhere, there is some suggestion that she, as an agent of the government, could have somehow tiptoed around being a fucking bleever and maybe have justified her actions. If you held your mouth right. And if it were a Wednesday after some moon phase.
            But, ya know, I’m tired of reading your and Gilmore’s lame special pleadings for superstitions. Y’all make gay folks look right reasonable.

            1. Shorter Sevo: “I could have answered Eddy’s question, but I think it’s a whole lot more fun to just drop a few insults. And bring in Gilmore, too, because why not?”

              1. Shorter Eddy:
                I’m really good at making up loaded questions!
                Fuck off, asshole.

      4. The gay couples involved asked for nothing but their licenses. They even said they didn’t want to see her jailed. The only actor responsible for her jailing is the court, operating by procedures that would be considered perfectly normal if not for the murkiness of religious freedom–which is not as murky legally as it is in some people’s imaginations.

        1. You’re a fucking idiot, Tony, and what you said doesn’t bear any relation to anything I’ve said.

      1. Shake that asterisk, it’s so nice and round!

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUJtLjXiNrA

  48. The grilled lobster tails and shrimp this afternoon made me forget about politics for awhile.

    Decided to take a vacation day tomorrow cause America.

    Fuck you all – hope you trip into your woodchipper and lose both arms and die of angst, fear and loating, unable to off yourself cause DOUBLE AMPUTEE!

    Have a nice day.

    1. “Long ago, lobsters were so plentiful that Native Americans used them to fertilize their fields and to bait their hooks for fishing. In colonial times, lobsters were considered “poverty food.” They were harvested from tidal pools and served to children, to prisoners, and to indentured servants, who exchanged their passage to America for seven years of service to their sponsors. In Massachusetts, some of the servants finally rebelled. They had it put into their contracts that they would not be forced to eat lobster more than three times a week.”
      http://www.gma.org/lobsters/al…..4pdiK.dpuf

      Not me! Fresh, grilled or steamed tails; MMMMMMMMMM!
      And HAND to you, too.

      1. It is funny how tastes change. When I was young, flank steak was cheap as cuts of beef go. Now it’s more than top sirloin.

      2. Needs more butter…

  49. It’s almost as if Krugman is calling himself an ignorant blowhard. After all, he agrees with Trump on some pretty core economic stuff.

    Just a few edits might make this a respectable magazine of ideas instead of the middlebrow rightwing rag it is.

    Trump is the quintessential leader for these voters. He didn’t worm his way into politics, where politicians pandering doesn’t fool anyone (they leave that to the fat radio fatties). He panders from a place of respected authority: having turned money into more money via capitalism. And he’s totally on board with the white terror of their impending minority status, the political linchpin. Those people don’t care about tax rates; they care about what they think is the unfairness of the distribution maybe, but mostly they care about not transferring money from white neighborhoods to brown ones. Donald Trump can say raise taxes on the rich, and his core will say “Oh, yeah, duh, fuck you Republican politicians for never saying so.”

    1. Tony|9.7.15 @ 11:55PM|#
      “Just a few edits might make this a respectable magazine of ideas instead of the middlebrow rightwing rag it is.”

      Leftwing ignoramus offers the possibility of acceptance?
      Fuck off.

  50. “‘Give it a go, Joe’: Pittsburgh union crowd cheers on Biden”
    […]
    “PITTSBURGH (AP) ? Hearing chants of “Run Joe, run,” Vice President Joe Biden marched in Pittsburgh’s annual Labor Day parade on Monday as speculation swirled about a potential late entry into the Democratic presidential campaign.”
    http://news.yahoo.com/biden-ga…..tion.html#
    At least he’s more honest than Shrill! (the bar is set pretty low)

  51. Reason is getting pathetic these days. The hysterical charges of racism have now transmogrified into hysterical charges of xenophobia.

    The desire to have your government act in the interest of its citizens is not xenophobia.

  52. Ok, I didn’t want to read the original Krugman article so can someone tell me, is there anything not stupid in it?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.