Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Interesting article with two interesting questions:

Do you think the U.S. should be run like a corporation?

Do you have a disdain for elitism?

A Romney showdown: Krugman versus Brooks
Will Mitt's CEO experience make him a good president? The New York Times Op-Ed columnists go to war

Let no one say that the New York Times Op-Ed page isn’t a festival of diversity. On Friday, two esteemed regular columnists, Paul Krugman and David Brooks, tackled the same question — will Mitt Romney’s business experience position him to be a successful president? — and delivered remarkably different answers.

Wait, no, that’s not quite right. Shockingly, on at least a superficial level, Krugman and Brooks agree: Mitt’s business experience as a private equity wheeler and dealer tells us nothing about whether he’d be a good president...

http://news.salon.com/2012/01/13/a_romn ... us_brooks/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

kalm wrote:Interesting article with two interesting questions:

Do you think the U.S. should be run like a corporation?

Do you have a disdain for elitism?

A Romney showdown: Krugman versus Brooks
Will Mitt's CEO experience make him a good president? The New York Times Op-Ed columnists go to war

Let no one say that the New York Times Op-Ed page isn’t a festival of diversity. On Friday, two esteemed regular columnists, Paul Krugman and David Brooks, tackled the same question — will Mitt Romney’s business experience position him to be a successful president? — and delivered remarkably different answers.

Wait, no, that’s not quite right. Shockingly, on at least a superficial level, Krugman and Brooks agree: Mitt’s business experience as a private equity wheeler and dealer tells us nothing about whether he’d be a good president...

http://news.salon.com/2012/01/13/a_romn ... us_brooks/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't know if his business experience will help. But we have Krugman, who threw his economic pedigree out the window in favor of liberal partisanship years ago, and Brooks, the NYT version of a republican who supported Obama in 2008. WTF

I agree with OL FU. Krugman is a hopeless donk shill who's never had an original economic thought in his life. Brooks is every donk's favorite "conk" who forfeited his claims to leadership of the conservative punditocracy as soon as he took the Times job. Nothing to see here. Move on.

Ivytalk wrote:I agree with OL FU. Krugman is a hopeless donk shill who's never had an original economic thought in his life. Brooks is every donk's favorite "conk" who forfeited his claims to leadership of the conservative punditocracy as soon as he took the Times job. Nothing to see here. Move on.

What they said.

Who gives a fuck what either think?

Liking looking to Bloomberg for pure economic news.



Ahem...

Krugman delegitimizes all rational political discussion.


Sent from my iPad using one stinky pinky.

Excellent! Now that you all have vented how about the two questions I posed?

kalm wrote:Excellent! Now that you all have vented how about the two questions I posed?

Good luck getting an cognitive answer.

grizzaholic wrote:

kalm wrote:Excellent! Now that you all have vented how about the two questions I posed?

Good luck getting an cognitive answer.

Oh I don't know. IT might have been close here to providing one. But probably just ended up being indigestion...or gas.

kalm wrote:Excellent! Now that you all have vented how about the two questions I posed?

What was the question

I hear Krugman's name and I realize we are discussing polictics and not having an intellectual debate

Do I think the country should be run like a corporation?

The country should be run on many of the managerial principles that corporations ( I would prefer to say businesses) utilize ( or at least attempt to). Efficiency, elimination of duplication, proper allocation of resources. But no, the purposes of the two are not the same so you can't run them in the same fashion.

OK, so now WTF. Krugman is partisan liberal, first foremost and only, who give his PHD back

OL FU wrote:Do I think the country should be run like a corporation?

The country should be run on many of the managerial principles that corporations ( I would prefer to say businesses) utilize ( or at least attempt to). Efficiency, elimination of duplication, proper allocation of resources. But no, the purposes of the two are not the same so you can't run them in the same fashion.

OK, so now WTF. Krugman is partisan liberal, first foremost and only, who give his PHD back

Thank you.

kalm wrote:

OL FU wrote:Do I think the country should be run like a corporation?

The country should be run on many of the managerial principles that corporations ( I would prefer to say businesses) utilize ( or at least attempt to). Efficiency, elimination of duplication, proper allocation of resources. But no, the purposes of the two are not the same so you can't run them in the same fashion.

OK, so now WTF. Krugman is partisan liberal, first foremost and only, who give his PHD back

Thank you.

WTF You're welcome;)

OL FU wrote:Do I think the country should be run like a corporation?

The country should be run on many of the managerial principles that corporations ( I would prefer to say businesses) utilize ( or at least attempt to). Efficiency, elimination of duplication, proper allocation of resources. But no, the purposes of the two are not the same so you can't run them in the same fashion.

OK, so now WTF. Krugman is partisan liberal, first foremost and only, who give his PHD back

I aqgree with OL FU on the question of running the US like a corporation: the analogy only takes you so far before breaking down. Governments issue no shares and are answerable to voters (some/many of whom have no skin in the game), not to owners.

Disdain for elitism? Bogus question. "Elitism" has a negative connotation in the mainstream media of exclusion and snobbishness. If you define "elitism" in terms of excellence and achievement, I'm behind it 100%.

Back in your court, klam.

Ivytalk wrote:

OL FU wrote:Do I think the country should be run like a corporation?

The country should be run on many of the managerial principles that corporations ( I would prefer to say businesses) utilize ( or at least attempt to). Efficiency, elimination of duplication, proper allocation of resources. But no, the purposes of the two are not the same so you can't run them in the same fashion.

OK, so now WTF. Krugman is partisan liberal, first foremost and only, who give his PHD back

I aqgree with OL FU on the question of running the US like a corporation: the analogy only takes you so far before breaking down. Governments issue no shares and are answerable to voters (some/many of whom have no skin in the game), not to owners.

Disdain for elitism? Bogus question. "Elitism" has a negative connotation in the mainstream media of exclusion and snobbishness. If you define "elitism" in terms of excellence and achievement, I'm behind it 100%.

Back in your court, klam.

I'm an elitist of the Nothern Palouse.

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:
I aqgree with OL FU on the question of running the US like a corporation: the analogy only takes you so far before breaking down. Governments issue no shares and are answerable to voters (some/many of whom have no skin in the game), not to owners.

Disdain for elitism? Bogus question. "Elitism" has a negative connotation in the mainstream media of exclusion and snobbishness. If you define "elitism" in terms of excellence and achievement, I'm behind it 100%.

Back in your court, klam.

I'm an elitist of the Nothern Palouse.

And I'm damn proud of you!

If Obama is supposed to be part of the "Liberal Elite".........then what is Romney supposed to be???

As much as I'd like to believe there's a real correlation between the way a business and a government should be run, the comparisons are skin deep at best. Private companies are really pretty much dictatorships and the supporting cast (i.e. management structure) either gets on board or gets out. Public companies at least tack on the shareholder accountability which can oust a leader making poor decisions at the drop of a hat. Having the checks and balances of an executive branch and legislature nearly guarantee gridlock within a democratic system, which has hampered Obama and will do the same in the next term whoever takes the reigns. IMHO I do think Romney's background is more substantial than what Obama brought to the table in '08, but making the transition from a more autocratic private sector to government may or may not help him and rather cause a lot of frustration.

Our system needs some serious overhauls, the least of which are earmark elimination, term limits, and severe limits on PAC's and lobbyists. I'm not encouraged that I'll see anything meaningful come of any of those items in my lifetime, however.

ASUG8 wrote:As much as I'd like to believe there's a real correlation between the way a business and a government should be run, the comparisons are skin deep at best. Private companies are really pretty much dictatorships and the supporting cast (i.e. management structure) either gets on board or gets out. Public companies at least tack on the shareholder accountability which can oust a leader making poor decisions at the drop of a hat. Having the checks and balances of an executive branch and legislature nearly guarantee gridlock within a democratic system, which has hampered Obama and will do the same in the next term whoever takes the reigns. IMHO I do think Romney's background is more substantial than what Obama brought to the table in '08, but making the transition from a more autocratic private sector to government may or may not help him and rather cause a lot of frustration.

Our system needs some serious overhauls, the least of which are earmark elimination, term limits, and severe limits on PAC's and lobbyists. I'm not encouraged that I'll see anything meaningful come of any of those items in my lifetime, however.

Good post

kalm wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:As much as I'd like to believe there's a real correlation between the way a business and a government should be run, the comparisons are skin deep at best. Private companies are really pretty much dictatorships and the supporting cast (i.e. management structure) either gets on board or gets out. Public companies at least tack on the shareholder accountability which can oust a leader making poor decisions at the drop of a hat. Having the checks and balances of an executive branch and legislature nearly guarantee gridlock within a democratic system, which has hampered Obama and will do the same in the next term whoever takes the reigns. IMHO I do think Romney's background is more substantial than what Obama brought to the table in '08, but making the transition from a more autocratic private sector to government may or may not help him and rather cause a lot of frustration.

Our system needs some serious overhauls, the least of which are earmark elimination, term limits, and severe limits on PAC's and lobbyists. I'm not encouraged that I'll see anything meaningful come of any of those items in my lifetime, however.

Good post

Which is amazaing considering the amount of beer G8 can put away

OL FU wrote:

kalm wrote:
Good post

Which is amazaing considering the amount of beer G8 can put away

I take good notes from my local SoCon brethren.

ASUG8 wrote:

OL FU wrote:
Which is amazaing considering the amount of beer G8 can put away

I take good notes from my local SoCon brethren.

Those damn Methodist are something else aren't they

OL FU wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
I take good notes from my local SoCon brethren.

Those damn Methodist are something else aren't they

Wait...I'm pretty sure I read on this here particular board that Methodist banned drinking cuz it could lead to dancing.

kalm wrote:

OL FU wrote:

Those damn Methodist are something else aren't they

Wait...I'm pretty sure I read on this here particular board that Methodist banned drinking cuz it could lead to dancing.

No that would be the baptist