Detroit - anyone interested in the facts?

In case anyone is interested in the facts about Detroit, rather than feeling good about believing what Fox News and Rush and the financial elite ordered you to believe, here is an article by someone who is right more often than anyone else.

Paul Krugman says that although Detroit has had very bad governance, they haven't been uniquely irresponsible, and are, for the most part, “an innocent victim of market forces.”

“What? Market forces have victims? Of course they do. After all, free-market enthusiasts love to quote Joseph Schumpeter about the inevitability of “creative destruction” — but they and their audiences invariably picture themselves as being the creative destroyers, not the creatively destroyed. Well, guess what: Someone always ends up being the modern equivalent of a buggy-whip producer, and it might be you.”

ccccc http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/opinion/krugman-detroit-the-new-greece.html?_r=0 cccccc

 

ROFL!!!! "Innocent victims of market forces". What a total lack of economic honesty.

They IGNORED market forces. The unions forced the auto manufacturers into deals that were suicidal. Unions quit have a partnership relationship with the manufacturers in 1970 and became parasites. It is amazing that it took them until now to suck the blood out to the point it was terminal. That really shows some resilience by the manufacturers. Then again, Chrysler did require a bailout in the 1980's too.

 

Pittsburgh was a steel town, and they adapted with the loss of the steel plants, now they are known for medical technology.. Detroit only makes cars and they failed to adapt...this can be blamed on the municipal governance which did not encourage business growth in their business center with tax incentives and keeping it safe. Detroit rotted from within....playing the "victim" game won't change that reality. They had decades to adapt and never did.

 

Lest we forget that Detroit had 60+ years of liberal mayors and big government intrusion to help set the stage for the inevitable demise of that once thriving metropolis.

 

Sorry, but I value Paul Krugman's opinion over everyone else's, including your's. I have read his column for more than ten years and can't remember him ever being wrong.

 

If you are more knowledgeable than Paul Krugman about this you'd better stop wasting your time here.

Criticizing Krugman is like telling God that he made a mistake. And God has made more than Krugman.

- - - Updated - - -

Lowly mayors are a convenient scapegoat for Republicans.

 

Isn't "creative destruction" a form of "interventionism"?

 

You got that right, liberal mayors are lowly all right.

 

Looks like you are more interested in kindergarten-level humor than in ferreting out the facts.

 

Good to see that you have no problem detecting humor as presented here. As far as the facts go, what part of having Detroit run by leftist mayors, and having the unions tax the private sector in order for their members to keep their Cadillac pension plans up to snuff in helping to destroy the city's economy and job prospects don't you get? If that city had privatized any and all of their businesses as any successful Capitalist/Conservative run city or state has done--then Detroit wouldn't be destined to land in the liberally plated dumpster of despair. Perhaps an apt comparison to the liberal city of Detroit's demise might be to look at the liberal run state of Kallyfornicator who is currently looking at I believe 8 or 9 billion in debt. I don't see any relief out on the left coast either when you have governor moonbeam calling all of the liberal shots.

 

I never heard of Paul Krugman...however the New York Times is a wonderful newspaper....to line a birdcage or clean up dog poop.

I read the OP/ED you presented and he's not saying anything radically different than what I've said...Detroit failed to adapt it's business center after the collapse of the auto industry. He even mentions Pittsburgh, which has been able to do so, at least enough to avoid involvency. Both cities were once industrial powerhouses in the automative age...both declined after manufacturing declined...yet Pittsburgh was able to adapt. I haven't said anything that Mr. Krugman doesn't mention himself.

It's been a Democratically controlled city for 1/2 a Century...you can't say "Reagonomics" caused the decline...that's a bit of a stretch. Detroit is broke, they can't pay their bills....common sense dictates if you're broke you spent more than you earned. Clearly Detroit was spending it on something if not pensions.

 

I concur! Not to mention he is a Nobel prize winner. Haven't seen Hannity or Rush running around with any of those. Just mouth piece awards! I would love to see krugman take up an economic debate with the entire Fox News staff. Talk about a "DUH" experience for Krugman.

 

Our President has a Nobel Peace Prize...
That prize is a joke....

We've been at war his entire Presidency...so much for "peace".....
A political shill is a political shill....just another paid hack giving their opinion is all this Krugman fellow is.

 

You totally failed to interpret the article. The demise of Detroit had nothing to do with liberals or big government intrusion. This repetitive brainwashing the right clings to shows a lack of willful understanding of the actual problems. If anyone took the time to read Krugman's article you would realize markets decide economies, not unions. It's ludicrous to think unions can take away a market. If something makes money, a union isn't going to somehow surprisingly make "money making", go away.

 

If it's a joke then to give it to Obama, can you imagine the fun we would have if a republican was awarded one then?

 

You libs just don't get it. First off, krugman has never been right of anything in his life. He's become the laughing stock on any of the political talking head shows. Its not just the unions that stymie private business growth, but its the liberal/democrap government that is installed in any of these failed liberal cities and states that over tax the people and over regulate the private businesses that contribute to the downfall of the blue state venues. For comparison, check out how the capitalist run state of Texas with a no-nonsense Republican governor is doing to create jobs and encourage new business start-ups amidst Obama's socialist experiment across our nation. Republican success vs Democrat failure. Choose which one you would prefer for America going forward. Not much of a choice, eh?

 

Not only have I done the comparison, but so has Krugman. You tout job growth for Perry in Texas, when there has been net job growth in the government sector and down in the private. So, maybe Obama's socialist experiment is working, while Perry gets the credit. The evidence points out that it is the democrap government creating jobs, not so much the private sector for Perry. What do you have to say for evidence? Which is what I would rather deal with instead of fantasy and a wild imagination.http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/rick-newman/2011/08/16/how-rick-perry-created-jobs-in-texas

By the way, do you have proof Krugman hasn't been right of anything in his life, or is that an unsubstantiated accusation? Now would be a good time to hear how he is wrong factually.

 

I think the reference to victim is more in keeping with the factors that lead to this position. Not simply blaming auto unions and city pension funds. Since cities were first founded, they have faced these struggles. Some, such as the example you gave find ways to make them relevant again, others are dusty footnotes in history texts. Steel and manufacturing centers all over the western world have had to deal with this. Detroit is just the latest on the roll call

 

Since most every post you put up here has been wrong, I feel its my job to not only show you the facts concerning private job growth in Texas as compared to the negative government job growth in Texas, but to do it with you understanding that Obama once again has failed big time here.

79% of Private Sector Job Growth over the Last 5 years in America has been in Texas.

The following posted on 01/14/2013:

Texas saw net private sector job growth of 2.9% with all private industries, except information (down 2.0) adding jobs over the last 12 months. Total job growth was lower, only 2.6% due to the miserable growth (0.7) in the government sector, which accounts for about 17% of the total state employment.

For the nation, private sector growth (despite Obama's obstruction/regulations) was 1.8% for the 12 months ending in November with no private industries, except information (down 0.3%), showing negative growth. HOWEVER, overall job growth was a more modest 1.4% (despite Obama's regulations and recession) because the GOVERNMENT SECTOR lost jobs (0.2%). So feast your rose colored eyes on those statistics. LOL! You might want to send a copy of those stats to your buddy Paul Krugman as well.

http://kyleed.com/news/spotlight-job-growth-unemployment

 

Obama isn't the one who failed for Texas . Obama made it possible for Rick Perry to look good. Your problem is, you refuse to look at the whole picture. The job growth in Texas really has nothing to do with Rick Perry. And that's the fact you're not looking at; http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/201...wing-that-have-nothing-to-do-with-rick-perry/ Krugman was spot on. The way Texas is rebounding in the private sector is due to the initial government spending. FDR did the same thing. Plus Texas never really saw a devastating recession because it is so rich in resources to begin with. But it was never because of some brilliant policy strategy by Perry. It wouldn't have made a difference if it had been 95% of all jobs in America. A robust economy because of its size, resources, and government stimulus has kept Texas no. one. And again, it has nothing to do with Perry. It's all fantasy when he takes the credit.

 

Detroit was at its peak in 1960.
The auto industry prospered through the 60s but the city was in definite decline.

 

The unions turned their partnership with the automakers into a parasite/host relationship in 1970. It was all a matter of time after that.

Krugman is a political hack worried more about carrying the Liberal torch than carrying out honest debate. His O.P. is ridiculous. Leftists sucked the economic engine dry in Detroit to feed their constituents in order to maintain power and control. The producers LEFT. Atlas shrugged and the leftists are crying and whining about it.

 

and government stimulus has kept Texas #1? Wow, what part exactly did government have to do with making Texas #1? I need you to tell me exactly government's role in Texas's success story of job growth. Keep in mind the statistic I earlier provided that the growth by government jobs in Texas reached a measly .07%.

And if you think Rick Perry taking credit for the job growth is fantasy, then you should also be willing to blame Detroit's miserable economic failures on 60 years of liberal leadership backed up with government and union failures of intrusion.

 

I love the irony. Krugman is supposed by some here never to have been right. No? He's right on this one and this thread is the evidence.

 

The unions drove business away which pretty much sets the market reality for the industries involved. When you can't hire someone to bolt a part onto a frame for less than $30 (plus bennies) in the US, but hire someone to do the exact same job in other parts of the world, where do you think the company is going to hire people. It won't be here. Which eroded the tax base, laid off scores of workers, which eroded the tax base. The lack of jobs to be had drove down wages, and anyone with the means fled, which means that the government cannot pay for the bull that it put into force when times were good. But raising the cost of labor to unsustainable levels has never affected markets.

Now you know why Krugman is a moron.