Yeah, I realize I'm out on a limb with that statement.
When making a stament about the man who is to economic "journalism" what the Titanic was to appoximately 1500 travelers, one could make the following assertions without even reading his latest half-truth laden garbage and be right about 95% of the time:
Paul Krugman fudges figures again.
Paul Krugman reports hyperbole as reason, opinion as fact. Again.
Paul Krugman is a big, hairy loser.
In a recent vomit purge, Krugman posited that "studies" "show" that the low French national GDP, is due to the fct the the French have "family values," i.e. they take more time off of work to "spend" with their "families" than us career-oriented Yankees do.
It's true that France's G.D.P. per person is well below that of the United States. But that's because French workers spend more time with their families.
O.K., I'm oversimplifying a bit. There are several reasons why the French put in fewer hours of work per capita than we do. One is that some of the French would like to work, but can't: France's unemployment rate, which tends to run about four percentage points higher than the U.S. rate, is a real problem. Another is that many French citizens retire early. But the main story is that full-time French workers work shorter weeks and take more vacations than full-time American workers.
Let's put aside the patronizing "family values" trope. It's meaningless. Dan Quayle uttered the phrase in a speech 15 years ago, and ever since the moonbats have been usuing it as a constant condescending refrain in an attempt to club conservatives ("Gee, aren't you all for family values? Welllllll, isn't Socilaist health care a family value?? Hmmmmm?")
Krugman has got to be full of shit.
First, you've got a baby bust in Europe. Is Paul telling us that a country that is barely keeping the native population at level (that is churning out only as many babies as there are people dying) has a low GDP because all the workers are spending time with their families? What families? How many French workers have their own families? And here I'm talking about spending time with the kids, not aunt Mimi. Krugman doesn't tell us. I don't buy it.
Second, aren't Americans waiting longer to marry have kids? Meaning that you have all these young go-getters out there, working their tails off establishing a career, and driving up the GDP with no family to tend to. Wouldn't that say more about our family values - whatever Krugman thinks those are - that the trend for Americans is to avoid having children until such time as it is possible to give them a sufficient amount of parental attention? Krugman doesn't seem interested in this, and doesn't ponder it.
At this point I'll hand this off to King Baaambaam, who knows a lot more about the intercourse of economics and demographics than I do. Maybe he can answer the questions that Krugman avoids.
And while he's at it, maybe Prof. Baaatmaiaian could take an axe to this:
Rolnick says the indicator to watch is population growth. If it starts lagging projections, that would be a sign that people no longer think Minnesota's government is providing enough of the public goods and services needed for a high quality of life.
So...people are drawn to Minnesota by government programs?
Not the lifestyle.
Government-provided public goods.
Needed for a high quality of life.