Paul Krugman is a mixed-economy economist. He's for regulated capitalism with a splash of welfare state. His heart leans in the right direction relative to the vast majority of laissez faire advocates.
In his recent op-ed, Paul pretty much says that lower skilled and lower educated Americans are hurting because the U.S. is obtaining more and more of its goods from third-world nations where wages are a couple of dollars a day, if that.
Here's the article: "Trouble With Trade," by Paul Krugman. The New York Times. December 28, 2007.
No article can cover it all, but Paul is wrong that the better educated people aren't starting to hurt too by the importation of workers from especially India. Paul also doesn't mention that the wages in those third-world nations are worse than slave wages in most cases and that the markup on the goods is astronomical thereby allowing the middlemen and women to gouge at both ends.
The trouble with trade includes all the occupation safety and health problems, all the environmental damage, the global warming increased by long-distance shipping, and on and on and on.
Of course, no article by a leading mixed-economy economist is going to go by unaddressed by the invisible hand.
Here's a good example: "Perspective on Trade," by Don Boudreaux. Cafe Hayek.. December 29, 2007.
Now, Paul is negatively criticized for not being an orthodox libertarian capitalist whose position is that capitalist economics automatically finally finds the best path of least resistance to material prosperity. It's akin to necessity and greed being the twin mother's of invention and salvation. What it does is completely hate and therefore ignore the result of unbridled cooperation rather than competition. For these people, the military and police exist to stop anyone becoming successful via cooperation, egalitarianism, community property, and all things unselfish. Their law is "Be Selfish or Else!"
The trouble with trade is that it stymies giving and sharing. Trade is for profiting off your siblings. Giving and sharing is for benefiting them instead. Which do you think is the righteous spirit? Which do you think can best run the house, which is what the economist is supposed to know how to do? To the libertarian capitalists, systemic unemployment is just a law of economics. Actually, it's only a law if you're hardhearted, which means it's a falsehood. The real law of economics is softheartedness.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
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.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)