The Fraudulence of “Waste, Fraud and Abuse”
Paul Krugman, Krugman wonks out
History repeats itself, the first time as farce, the second as clown show

Once upon a time a Republican president, sure that large parts of federal spending were worthless, appointed a commission led by a wealthy businessman to bring a business sensibility to the budget, going through it line by line to identify inefficiency and waste. The commission initially made a big splash, and there were desperate attempts to spin its work as a success. But in the end few people were fooled. Ronald Reagan’s venture, the President’s Private Sector Survey on Cost Control — the so-called “Grace commission,” headed by J. Peter Grace — was a flop, making no visible dent in spending.

Why was it a flop? There is, of course, inefficiency and waste in the federal government, as there is in any large organization. But most government spending happens because it delivers something people want, and you can’t make significant cuts without hard choices.

Furthermore, the notion that businessmen have skills that readily translate into managing the government is all wrong. Business and government serve different purposes and require different mindsets.

How Paul Krugman changed the public face of economics
Noah Smith, Noahpinion
He’s a great economist, but he also changed how we talk about the subject.

I say this not just out of personal gratitude, but because it illustrates one way Paul Krugman helped redefine economics writing. Elevating and engaging with nobodies like myself has always been part of his M.O. Krugman’s conversations are a meritocracy of ideas — if you’ve said something he thinks is interesting, he’ll engage with it in the same way whether you’re a legendary academic or a no-name grad student. It’s the ideas that are important to Krugman, not the credentials or the accomplishments of the person who said them.

Why I’ve Grown Skeptical Of Colorblindness
Luis Parrales, Persuasion

With racial animosity rising on the right, abolishing race is not the answer. But nor is embracing the identitarian left.
The challenge—and it’s frankly one that few take up—then seems to be for liberals to recalibrate some of our key assumptions about what our discourse about race looks like today, to eschew some skepticism and replace it with curiosity. Doing so will require recognizing the good in collective identities—but not at the expense of liberal principles. It should compel us to envision a way of thinking about racial identity that’s conscious without being commandeering, that’s wary of how it can overshadow our individuality but also appreciates its unifying potential.

Most Folk Are Civil and Decent
Dr Dan Goyal
It’s easy to forget that the vast majority of people simply want to get along with each other and live their lives.

You Should Be More Worried About Trump’s Planned Military Purge
Trump wants officers loyal to him, not the constitution
Don Moynihan, Can We Still Govern?
Purged for Doing Their Job
A Purge Without Precedent
This is About Loyalty, Not Wokeness
A Broader Politicization of the Military