World's debt the result of moral bankruptcy
In a recent commentary, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman said the French got it right by electing a socialist who proposed a 75 percent income tax on the "rich." Maryland tried that, in a fashion, and the rich all moved to Florida. Who wants to work for the government until Sept. 30?
Disorder in the natural laws of economics causes recessions. Nature abhors disorder, and it exacts a terrible price.
Krugman is correct about what ails the world's economies: excessive debt. These nations' debts were mostly accrued by politicians buying votes with money their central bankers printed for them. Keynesianism, the notion that government spending gooses economies, is perfect for politicians. These debts can only be settled by spending less, taxing more or currency devaluation (inflation or money-printing).
Never miss a local story.
Krugman favors the latter, and he cites Iceland as a great success story. It had the "courage" to default on debts. Sell that to the responsible Icelander who saw his savings wiped out, and the creditors who were cheated. Germany, he tells us, succeeded because its neighbors could buy German products with inflated currency, loaned by Germany. Stay tuned.
Here lies the moral bankruptcy of Keynesianism. At its core, it is theft, particularly generational theft. Money- printing and default steal from the responsible and reward the profligate. Which is more courageous: living within your means or stealing from your children?
There are many talented economists who disagree with Krugman. Their work is easy to find, easy to read and very persuasive.Please consider other viewpoints.
Cameron S. Schaeffer
Justices are men of integrity
University of Kentucky professor Ron Formisano's diatribe against the honorable men of the U.S. Supreme Court can be viewed in a much more positive light. These Supremes, men of high character and integrity, have earned the support of the Tea Party and middle America by their well-reasoned judicial wisdom rendered in their verdicts.
Too bad that this can't be said of the Lady Supremes, one in particular who will not recuse herself, even if she did act as solicitor general for "Obamacare." Guess who supports them?
Orin M. Simmerman Jr.
No BPA in glass containers
Regarding Beth Ruggles' April 30 commentary, "FDA failure to ban BPA in food, containers endangers health, lives": While the Food and Drug Administration decided not to ban BPA from food containers, there are steps concerned consumers can take to lessen their exposure.
First and foremost is choosing glass packaging when making food and beverage purchases. The choice of container may be as important as the choice of the food or drink itself.
Not only do many consumers prefer glass packaging because it preserves the taste of the food or beverage it contains, but more important for those concerned about BPA, it offers unsurpassed health protection and preservation. This is perhaps best evidenced by the fact that glass is the only major form of food packaging that has been designated by FDA as "generally recognized as safe" — the agency's highest standard.
President, Glass Packaging Institute
Pseudoscience not newsworthy
It is time that the Herald-Leader, in some misguided attempt to be fair and balanced, stopped giving an illusion of credibility to pseudo-science.
It's baffling enough that the paper even deemed newsworthy the blathering rant of Ken Ham of the Creation Museum, disputing the International Museum of the Horse's display on the horse's evolution. But the paper then compounds this waste of space on inconsequential gibberish by referring to Ham as supporting the "young-earth philosophy."
This is not a philosophy. This is not a science. It is a delusional inaccuracy and should be branded such by a responsible factual news entity. Stop tiptoeing around the delicate egos of the lunatic fringe and just give us recognized, accepted facts, please.
Charles Edward Pogue