Comments, anyone?

That being said, Krugman is still a douche. His opinion is no less biased then Limbaughs.

georgeob1 wrote:

Private sector enterprises are subject to the same human failures, however those that don't deliver are usually quickly forced to change or die. Brueaucrats last forever.

I've heard this before and used to take it as axiomatic. However I don't really think it's true anymore. I think that private sector enterprises are subject to all the same trappings as government agencies, especially once they get big enough to have serious consequences result from their "death", and even more so if their industry is one primarily supported by government, like defense.

When you are speaking of inefficiencies in business, please remember to add the Profit Necessity as an inefficiency of modern private insurance. The need to please investors directly leads to a degradation of service for customers. It is one of the few business models in which investors only make money, if the actual customers of the business are denied services. What a perverse incentive!

Cycloptichorn

Yeah, I was one of thumbs-uppers on that one.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

When you are speaking of inefficiencies in business, please remember to add the Profit Necessity as an inefficiency of modern private insurance. The need to please investors directly leads to a degradation of service for customers. It is one of the few business models in which investors only make money, if the actual customers of the business are denied services. What a perverse incentive!

Cycloptichorn

Profit is simply thc cost associated with attrracting the capital to run the enterprise.

Government doesn't apply the same accounting standards it demands of corporations to its own affairs. In particular government entities and appropriations don't reveal or acknowledge the cost of the capital they displace to cover their operations. Their cost is real and it is generally only slightly less than that of large business, however it is hidden in separate appropriations to service the fast-growing national debt. If a proportional share of the interest payments on the national debt were added to the apparent "costs" and "government overhead" you would see an enormous increase - even in the predicted costs of new government entitlement programs. That is the magic wand of "progressive" politicians..

McGentrix wrote:

That being said, Krugman is still a douche. His opinion is no less biased then Limbaughs.

I have my qualms with Krugman and his objectivity when it comes to politics, but he's simply not in the same ballpark of biased as Limbaugh.

How did one of our great political parties become so ruthless, so willing to embrace scorched-earth tactics even if so doing undermines the ability of any future administration to govern?

The key point is that ever since the Reagan years, the Republican Party has been dominated by radicals " ideologues and/or apparatchiks who, at a fundamental level, do not accept anyone else’s right to govern.

But the worst thing about Limbaugh isn't his bias. Krugman makes arguments. Limbaugh is a fat hypocritical bully.

But the worst thing about Limbaugh isn't his bias. Krugman makes arguments. Limbaugh is a fat hypocritical bully.

You forgot (3) - Krug is an actual economist. He has some expertise in the field that he discusses, whether you agree with his arguments or not.

Limbaugh isn't an expert in anything he talks about, unless he's discussing being a drug-addicted fat idiot.

Cycloptichorn

The differences are (1) Limbaugh is fat: Krugman looks like an insolent rat; (2) Krugman masquerades as a serious, unbiased analyst: Limbagh's partisanship is open and undenied.