From Krugman's perspective, it sounds that he feels that Paul Ryan is all talk, saying one thing and not acting on it. Krugman believes that in order to address poverty, his ideal program would entail spending more money, contrary to Ryan and the republican party. It is interesting to hear Krugman's ideal program and to still hear him say that programs today are particularly good, specifically food stamps. Even so, he still believes that more money should be put into this topic in order to address further problems, regardless of if programs are successful or not.
The grey area and questionable matter where I would need clarification relates to where money is best used: How much money put into these programs is too much and could it be allocated more efficiently elsewhere? How strongly do they want to focus on programs for the poor (give more money to) if they are already seen as somewhat successful in some areas? At the end of the day, I of course want adequate programs in place to help poverty and the poor, but I want to know what is most equitable and where money is most appropriately allocated in terms of efficiency… then I could start to answer whose money it is and what seems fair to me.
This really does contribute to the never ending spat I hear between the two parties (on what feels like nearly all economic issues today).
I would like to reply to this video with a video of my own:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM
This video demonstrates how almost everybody could benefit (excluding the top 10%). This also shows how much worse everybody is and that nobody understands the true allocation of resources in the United States. Reality vs. what we think vs. Ideal is scary. This does not necessarily answer your question. This video is just to show that we really do have a problem in this country.
The video does make one comment about whose money it really is. It talks about how much harder the 1% is working than the average worker for this company. I think we need to take a step back to admit we have a problem before solving it. Even by admitting we have a problem, there is almost no proper way to redistribute income and wealth. Both distributions would benefit most of the public and would permit higher growth rates. The money is everybody's, but not in a communistic/socialistic kind of view. As the United States has matured, technology improvements, and expansion, the united portion has basically fallen off of the United States. We are just a collection of states that has to "tolerate" the same government and fight for what helps us individually. We are in an era of selfishness. If this trajectory continues, the nation could deteriorate. There are good programs, but we aren't there yet. It is not only the Republicans though. Democrats have their own views. There are exceptions to both sides. This is a united idea and we need to find a balance between both parties.
This video really caught my attention because of the increasing inequality that is happening right now. The article: "The Benefits of Economic Expansions Are Increasingly Going to the Richest Americans" states that "the bottom 90 percent captured a smaller share of income gains and the top 10 percent captured more and One percent of the population took home 95 percent of the income gains." The rich just get richer and the poor just get poorer and nothing has be done to change the situation. According to Krugman, this is a show-off society, there should be more supporters for policies that would reduce the elite’s privileges. I doubt it would ever happen. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/27/upshot/the-benefits-of-economic-expansions-are-increasingly-going-to-the-richest-americans.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSum&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&abt=0002&abg=1 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/26/opinion/paul-krugman-the-show-off-society.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage®ion=CColumn&module=MostEmailed&version=Full&src=me&WT.nav=MostEmailed
From Krugman's perspective, it sounds that he feels that Paul Ryan is all talk, saying one thing and not acting on it. Krugman believes that in order to address poverty, his ideal program would entail spending more money, contrary to Ryan and the republican party. It is interesting to hear Krugman's ideal program and to still hear him say that programs today are particularly good, specifically food stamps. Even so, he still believes that more money should be put into this topic in order to address further problems, regardless of if programs are successful or not.
ReplyDeleteThe grey area and questionable matter where I would need clarification relates to where money is best used: How much money put into these programs is too much and could it be allocated more efficiently elsewhere? How strongly do they want to focus on programs for the poor (give more money to) if they are already seen as somewhat successful in some areas? At the end of the day, I of course want adequate programs in place to help poverty and the poor, but I want to know what is most equitable and where money is most appropriately allocated in terms of efficiency… then I could start to answer whose money it is and what seems fair to me.
This really does contribute to the never ending spat I hear between the two parties (on what feels like nearly all economic issues today).
I would like to reply to this video with a video of my own:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM
This video demonstrates how almost everybody could benefit (excluding the top 10%). This also shows how much worse everybody is and that nobody understands the true allocation of resources in the United States. Reality vs. what we think vs. Ideal is scary. This does not necessarily answer your question. This video is just to show that we really do have a problem in this country.
The video does make one comment about whose money it really is. It talks about how much harder the 1% is working than the average worker for this company. I think we need to take a step back to admit we have a problem before solving it. Even by admitting we have a problem, there is almost no proper way to redistribute income and wealth. Both distributions would benefit most of the public and would permit higher growth rates. The money is everybody's, but not in a communistic/socialistic kind of view. As the United States has matured, technology improvements, and expansion, the united portion has basically fallen off of the United States. We are just a collection of states that has to "tolerate" the same government and fight for what helps us individually. We are in an era of selfishness. If this trajectory continues, the nation could deteriorate. There are good programs, but we aren't there yet. It is not only the Republicans though. Democrats have their own views. There are exceptions to both sides. This is a united idea and we need to find a balance between both parties.
This video really caught my attention because of the increasing inequality that is happening right now. The article: "The Benefits of Economic Expansions Are Increasingly Going to the Richest Americans" states that "the bottom 90 percent captured a smaller share of income gains and the top 10 percent captured more and One percent of the population took home 95 percent of the income gains." The rich just get richer and the poor just get poorer and nothing has be done to change the situation. According to Krugman, this is a show-off society, there should be more supporters for policies that would reduce the elite’s privileges. I doubt it would ever happen.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/27/upshot/the-benefits-of-economic-expansions-are-increasingly-going-to-the-richest-americans.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSum&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&abt=0002&abg=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/26/opinion/paul-krugman-the-show-off-society.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage®ion=CColumn&module=MostEmailed&version=Full&src=me&WT.nav=MostEmailed