The elegant nature of untimed sports — like baseball or tennis — is that a safe lead cannot exist. With no clock to kill, the participant must consistently be the better competitor.
Supply and demand — that most basic economic truth discovered in the age of barter and the grand fairness of democratic society which the tea party participants ascribe to — is much the same. When the world’s wealthiest firm chooses to make an inferior product, when they choose to stop competing and to sit on a large lead, that moment occurs during day one on their path to bankruptcy.
According to his glittering bookshelf, economist Paul Krugman is one of the world’s preeminent thinkers. And according to his writing, he is supposedly the product of a solid-gold mind. He must believe in the existence of a safe lead.
His April 12 New York Times column, “Tea Parties Forever,” is a phenomenally wan, iron-deficient piece of journalism. Krugman uses unexamined lies, false assumptions, and brittle-boned logic to attack his philosophical opponents.
He makes a million unprofessional mistakes in the writing of this piece, all worth rebuttal.
But, more importantly, his million little mistakes add up to one much larger — one fatal hubristic flaw that only a market of millions and a bay full of tea leaves may correct. Regarding the tea parties, Krugman states that concern regarding Obama being a socialist is based only on Obama’s proposal to raise taxes on higher-income individuals. And publicly demonstrating, based on that alone, means tea party participants must be twelve buckets of crazy. Krugman writes:
President Obama is being called a “socialist” who seeks to destroy capitalism. Why? Because he wants to raise the tax rate on the highest-income Americans back to, um, about 10 percentage points less than it was for most of the Reagan administration. Bizarre.
Lovers of facts and evidence will recall that Obama has also committed trillions of taxpayer dollars to bailing out private industry, taken massive government stakes in those industries, complained about subsequent private industry decision-making (thus declaring his intent to apply government influence on their operations), enacted confiscatory government taxes to effectively annul lawful employment contracts, and forced out the CEO of General Motors.