3 ms·

Please tell me you aren't nicknaming yourself after Jefferson Davis. ;) Anyway, I admit it's a stretch, but Krugman is one of our most valuable economists, and

by Bud 15y ago

Please tell me you aren't nicknaming yourself after Jefferson Davis. ;) Anyway, I admit it's a stretch, but Krugman is one of our most valuable economists, and this can be read as a social assessment of the current dynamics in our economy, including these growing protests. This has ramifications for us all, most certainly including hackers. I disagree that Krugman's piece is overly partisan; it's not his fault that virtually all the plutocrats at fault happen to be Republicans.

gyardley 15y ago
As long as the administration takes a hands-off approach to their industry, the 'plutocrats' on Wall Street prefer to vote and donate Democrat, often for cultural reasons. Just like many other monied people here in New York. It's not a big Republican town. Many recipients of the financial bailouts OWS is protesting have traditionally been big Democratic donors. Both Bush and Obama passed financial industry bailouts - this isn't a partisan issue. Krugman knows this, and has chosen to highlight just the Republicans' responsibility and their crude attempts to rile up their base ('this is class war!') instead of the Democrats' responsibility and their attempts, largely through paid union staffers, to transform the protests into a pro-Democratic movement. (Who can blame them for trying? I think the Republicans came out ahead by co-opting the Tea Party, nominating goofs like Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle excepted.) That's why this is a partisan piece. It's not what Krugman said, it's what he chose to omit.
jeffdavis 15y ago
"Please tell me you aren't nicknaming yourself after Jefferson Davis. ;)" No association at all. "This has ramifications for us all, most certainly including hackers." By that reasoning, we should just post any political op-ed we happen to agree with, and we can just upvote as practice before the polls open. It's just not hacker news, or not what HN used to be anyway. "I disagree that Krugman's piece is overly partisan" I didn't say it was overly partisan. I said it was partisan. That's perfectly fine -- nothing wrong with being partisan. But it's just not the kind of thing I come to HN for.

by Bud 15y ago

gyardley 15y ago

As long as the administration takes a hands-off approach to their industry, the 'plutocrats' on Wall Street prefer to vote and donate Democrat, often for cultural reasons. Just like many other monied people here in New York. It's not a big Republican town. Many recipients of the financial bailouts OWS is protesting have traditionally been big Democratic donors. Both Bush and Obama passed financial industry bailouts - this isn't a partisan issue. Krugman knows this, and has chosen to highlight just the Republicans' responsibility and their crude attempts to rile up their base ('this is class war!') instead of the Democrats' responsibility and their attempts, largely through paid union staffers, to transform the protests into a pro-Democratic movement. (Who can blame them for trying? I think the Republicans came out ahead by co-opting the Tea Party, nominating goofs like Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle excepted.) That's why this is a partisan piece. It's not what Krugman said, it's what he chose to omit.

jeffdavis 15y ago

"Please tell me you aren't nicknaming yourself after Jefferson Davis. ;)" No association at all. "This has ramifications for us all, most certainly including hackers." By that reasoning, we should just post any political op-ed we happen to agree with, and we can just upvote as practice before the polls open. It's just not hacker news, or not what HN used to be anyway. "I disagree that Krugman's piece is overly partisan" I didn't say it was overly partisan. I said it was partisan. That's perfectly fine -- nothing wrong with being partisan. But it's just not the kind of thing I come to HN for.