Jeff K. Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 You don't need to cut and paste "the gilded age". I am very aware of what it is. And please lets not bring Krugman into it. I generally have found him to be a partisan bickering foolish individual without any real credibility with most economists (though the Nobel people like him, but hey, they give prizes to people who haven't earned anything yet - Wasn't Obama's for closing Gitmo? Or, what was it for again??!?!?).Thanks for the rather hackneyed People magazine view of "the gilded age". But it is weak and lacks any real depth and meaning.Again, the "sky is falling" mentality of bringing up statistics without comparison to the real gilded age is really a bit silly.For instance, if it is worse, or on steroids as you referred to it. Why is obesity the greatest danger for the poor in America today, but not during the other "guilded age", you know the real one. I reject the hunger statistics questions that are touted like a parrot does on a pirates shoulder. There is no real meaning to them if you don't know how the numbers were accumulated, if you don't know the criticisms for the accumulation of the numbers and if you don't have a clear base of statistics to the real gilded age.Do that, discuss that, and then maybe you might have something that is slightly more rigorous than the equivalent of an X Box game in which you push a button to race a marathon instead of learning to run one.You guys really get my goat sometimes.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.