Paul Krugman Schools George Will On The Great Depression

I think people are misunderstanding Krugman on the effect of the war. He isn't repeating the reactionary dribble that the war saved the economy, but stating the economy recovered. What he doesn't discuss here is important. The only way to prevent the "tendency of the rate of profit to fall" is to destroy capital (mostly means of production in this case). When WWII is considered in a context of every competing country's (allies and opponents), means of production was essentially wiped out, we have the real reason for the United States' economic recovery after the war. The right wing can never admit this since there are too many ideological penalties the come with it. If war really was a easy way to fix economies, why the slumps after Viet Nam, Gulf War I, the current occupations?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Paul Krugman Schools George Will On The Great Depression

Austrian school economics, brought to you by the same kooks that deify Ayn Rand, and actually think there is a way for markets to expand infinitely. For those unfamiliar with this discredited school of economics, they actually do consider Greenspan and Friedman as being left, since anything that hints of regulating the monstrosities of capital is considered left of Austrian School. Free markets always have and always will fail miserably, the contradictions inherent in the profit system insure this, and history has proven it time and time again.

A little hint for acudoc, you've misidentified the so called producers in your pro ruling class diatribe, and it sure isn't the greedy captains of industry you worship. There are producers in society, and they do create all the wealth. They are called the workers.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

"The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage," or the Capitalist Case?

The MIT article exposes itself all the more when you consider the doctorate the author is working on. His thesis is quite simple and rehashes what the revolutionary left has said for over a century, albeit from the vantage of the oppressors.

Capital always needs exploitable labor, but doesn't want to pay for its reproduction. It uses the state (formed for capitals' common interests) to subsidize the cost of reproducing the next generation of labor. LGBT people, according to Kolasinski, supposedly aren't contributing to the labor pool, and hence shouldn't be "subsidized." Never mind that in the regressive tax structure we live under such subsidies actually come out of our pockets anyway, his argument is surprisingly honest in terms of how their class views ours: work, breed, work...

Kolasinski then takes out insurance at the end of his piece with oft repeated, "if we let them marry, then what's next?" A reactionary straw-man that frequently devolves into discussions of bestiality and what have you.

As a straight, married, Californian, I will be standing alongside my LGBT sisters and brothers on Saturday. An injury to one is an injury to all!