Tuesday, May 07, 2013

The economist

Who but an economist could speak of the downside of funneling money to the world's largest professional killing machine in a way so devoid of humanity?
“Every time someone mentions a defense cut, a member of Congress talks about protecting factory jobs in their district,” he said. "But relative to other government spending, a considerable chunk of the military is spent outside our borders [editor's note: on killing people and stuff]. In that sense, the multiplier is smaller there than in other forms of government spending.”
Maybe Matt Yglesias.


  1. notimetobebanned8:22 PM

    It took me 5 tries to finally understand what those two sentences were saying. That's the worst writing I've ever read in my life, and I've read some Kant. Kant pays off if you plow through, I don't think contemporary liberalism pays off if you plow through. I don't think Yglesias or any commentator pays off if you plow through. And given that I can read, I don't think almost anybody these days actually listens to what they read or say, if they bother to read it or if it's blaring in the background while making dinner. There is simply no way that anybody dumb reads one of these guys' pervertedly fumbling phrases and gets it or that anyone smart doesn't feel insulted enough to put it away forever. Hence, it's an impotent conspiracy by the media, that's the only answer. Every time someone links to the the W.P., or some others in particular, I find it very difficult to follow through.

  2. Matt Yglesias is a total fraud. What an embarrassment it would be to admit to reading his dribbles. These "progressive" pundits are no different than the Tom Friedmans that the establishment promotes. Disinformation.