America the Tarnished By PAUL KRUGMAN: Economic crisis has cost America much of its credibility

[Better Believe It]

Op-Ed Columnist
America the Tarnished
By PAUL KRUGMAN
March 29, 2009

Now, in fairness we have to say that the United States was far from being the only nation in which banks ran wild. Many European leaders are still in denial about the continent’s economic and financial troubles, which arguably run as deep as our own — although their nations’ much stronger social safety nets mean that we’re likely to experience far more human suffering. Still, it’s a fact that the crisis has cost America much of its credibility, and with it much of its ability to lead.

Like many other economists, I’ve been revisiting the Great Depression, looking for lessons that might help us avoid a repeat performance. And one thing that stands out from the history of the early 1930s is the extent to which the world’s response to crisis was crippled by the inability of the world’s major economies to cooperate.

The details of our current crisis are very different, but the need for cooperation is no less. President Obama got it exactly right last week when he declared: “All of us are going to have to take steps in order to lift the economy. We don’t want a situation in which some countries are making extraordinary efforts and other countries aren’t.”

Yet that is exactly the situation we’re in. I don’t believe that even America’s economic efforts are adequate, but they’re far more than most other wealthy countries have been willing to undertake. And by rights this week’s G-20 summit ought to be an occasion for Mr. Obama to chide and chivy European leaders, in particular, into pulling their weight.

But these days foreign leaders are in no mood to be lectured by American officials, even when — as in this case — the Americans are right.

The financial crisis has had many costs. And one of those costs is the damage to America’s reputation, an asset we’ve lost just when we, and the world, need it most.

Please read the complete article at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/30/opinion/30krugman.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

[Barack_America]

1. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8303815

But thanks for making sure we all realized it was by PAUL KRUGMAN.

[berni_mccoy]

2. Krugman just jumped the shark. BUSH COST AMERICA IT'S CREDIBILITY! Not the economic crisis.

Krugman should just be quiet for a while. He's costing himself his own credibility.

[Barack_America]

4. Yeah, so Krugman really thinks that our credibility was intact after Iraq?

Really?

Um, okay.

[ArchieStone1]

7. he is talking about economic credibility

And Krugman opposed the Iraq war before it started.

[berni_mccoy]

10. Yeah, Bush's corporate wellfare, tax-breaks for offshoring, and trillions of dollars of deficit

gave America SOOOO MUCH ECONOMIC CREDIBILITY.

[Barack_America]

23. So you're saying that Iraq had no economic consequences?

As bernie mccoy just mentioned, it's our national debt that has fucked our credibility. Care to guess how we've paid for Iraq? Yep, on credit.

History has not looked kindly on nations that have bankrupted themselves for silly wars and colonial ambitions.

[chimpymustgo]

8. That's a very foolish statement. Did you READ the column? He's talking about our fiscal credibilty

God, some people are stuck on stupid where Krugman is concerned. I'll bet you a hundred dollars you would have agreed 100% with that column last year.

edited to add:

The column is a negative critique of the Clinton/Bush/bankster/now-Obama/masters of the universe policies.

[berni_mccoy]

12. You're completely absurd if you think Bush isn't responsible for the current economic disaster

and ECONOMIC CREDIBILITY of the U.S.

[chimpymustgo]

15. I fucking DARE you to read the column. Then we can discuss it. Take as much time as you need.

[berni_mccoy]

17. I read it. He mentions Obama 4 times and Bush 0.

[leveymg]

18. Obama will be responsible for perpetuating it, if he doesn't change course.

Bailing out failed institutions by buying up toxic assets will be many times more expensive and less effective at helping regular people than simply taking TALF funds and creating a good bank to fund reconstruction. They may save the biggest institutions, but at the cost of letting everything else fail.

Once the Fed's remaining credibility (and credit) is used up, there will be only one course - restructuring. That means austerity. Read Krugman about that what entailed when applied by the IMF to the Asian and South American economies in the '80s and '90s.

[berni_mccoy]

20. Rrrrrright. Blame Obama then.

[leveymg]

22. Not blaming him. Saying he can make things worse, if he continues to

throw money into bailing out insolvent Wall Street institutions and neglects to break them up into smaller, fallable firms that actually compete rather than conspire.

[ProSense]

24. But what if he doesn't make it worse? n/t

[berni_mccoy]

25. But he will, he will, don't you know?

:sarcasm:

[lxlxlxl]

19. bush was responsible, but obama didnt have to bend over for the banks...get it.

im all for focusing on the inherited mess, but if obama was so blinded by the scope of the wall st. losses that he is willing to write blank checks for them then it is in the interest of any realist to call him out on it...

honestly, this is hard to write. i like obama. i like his team. but as a nation, we have just spent the last eight years exposing how empty our ideals are, and we are trying to do the same thing with our econ policies.

and try to imagine the barriers THIS COUNTRY has set up for the rest of the poor ass world to get ahead, and how cheap it looks that we can tank our system and reboot that quickly. this world exists on cooperation, and not american exceptionalism. the rest of the world will not allow itself to be dependent on american capital anymore. you will notice the differen

[berni_mccoy]

21. Obama is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

[Better Believe It]

28. One man did it?! I'm afraid not. It was a bi-partisan majority led by Clinton and Senator Gramm

that deregulated the financial industry which caused this economic crisis.

A rewriting and falsification of history could convince some gullible people with blinders on that Bush did it all by himself!

But that hard documented facts prove this was a bi-partisan accomplishment.

So much for bi-partisanship.

[lxlxlxl]

16. yes, it was bush, but we are hammering in another nail right now...

and obama relies on exceptionalism a bit much

[ecstatic]

3. Krugman's credibility is in question, as well

Oh the irony.

[leveymg]

5. Pay attention to Krugman and Stiglitz. They warned us this was coming a decade ago

We can't put the failed old model of finance back together again. The central bankers like Bernanke, Geithner and Summers who've been running things have to go.

Listen to Krugman and Steiglitz. They're telling us we have to take our remaining assets and build a new int'l banking system.

[PM Martin]

6. Krugman among others saw this coming down the pike

years ago. I will proudly give him a rec'd!

[chimpymustgo]

11. Some of the letters are AWESOME. Outside of DU, a LOT of liberals realize we're getting hosed.

7.
March 30, 2009 6:24 am

Link
Dr. Krugman, without digging through dozens of books and articles, and hundreds of email newsletters and posts, I can't say exactly how many I've read predicting both the current American disaster and explicating the stupid and selfish policies of the I.M.F., World Bank, and our Fed and financial system. America was drunk on power and self-satisfaction. Mr. Bush and his "team" -- if that's what we could call an emaciated shell of neocons and the likes of Greenspan and Paulson -- were not borrowing from Peter to pay Paul but robbing both to support their bogus wars and pie-in-the-sky budgets. They deliberately pumped up the price of real-estate and allowed a reverse salami-tactic to add small slices of greed until finally the whole cancerous mess exploded in our and the world's face.

Of course every word you write tonight makes sense, but I didn't see the worst miscreants even mentioned. Yes, Rubin, Greenspan, and Summers were there about two-thirds of the way through the build-up of the house of cards, which began during Reagan's first year in office. And, yes, they were blind to the disaster they were pushing further down the path. Mr. Clinton, who was so compromised after the CIA/Contra operation in Arkansas, was further weakened by scandal and Newt Gingrich, such that he stopped being a Democrat and rolled over to be an Eisenhower Republican (lite). Then along came liar George Bush, 9/11 (which somehow happened despite numerous warnings), the use of 9/11 as a pretext for what Mr. Bush had in mind all along, and the American people fat-dumb-and-happy from all the prosperity of the exploding housing market, which turned perhaps half the homes in the country into giant ATMs.

It is no wonder that Europeans don't respect us, that U.S. G-20 efforts will be met with resistance. The one thing you say tonight with which I disagree is: "even when -- as in this case -- the Americans are right." Perhaps from a purely economic perspective we're more right than the Europeans, which is to say that they should make stronger stimulus efforts. Certainly you're correct in saying that the whole world needs to pull together, especially the G-20 nations. But if we are deranged enough to think we can continue to wage war (or peace, or whatever today’s euphemism is) in Iraq and Afghanistan, maintain some 800 military bases around the world, be the de facto world cop, and march relentlessly ahead with our military budget, why would Europeans and others respect us? If we can't simply pass a few laws about automobile mileage and emission standards and then enforce them, why would Europeans think we could lead the world economy? If we can't figure out a way to shift to an economy based more on production and less on consumption -- especially of foreign-made goods, again we can see why others are cynical about the U.S.'s ability to lead.

The ultimately ugly truth is that we are too hypocritical as a nation to be taken seriously by others. If a child's parents are on drugs, they'd best not lecture the child about not using drugs.

— Butler Crittenden, San Francisco, CA
RecommendedRecommended by 781 Readers

[glitch]

9. K & R nt

[liberalmuse]

13. The fact that most Americans...

allowed that asshole Bush to reign for 8 years largely uncontested fucked us and our good will around the world. I thought when we got rid of Bush, we could also throw out the load of shit with him, but that is not to be. Instead, we are now sitting in that load of shit, and some people are actually playing in it and eating it (the Republicans, mostly). I think the only way we can get some of that good will back is to prosecute the Bush cabal for war crimes. Fucking hang them at the Hague, really, and after that, jail the corporate criminals who thrived under Bush lawlessness by using it as an opportunity to loot and pillage, fucking America and the world in the process. The world is going to turn to Socialism en force because of this. Mark my words. (Not that I care. I don't have a problem with most forms of Socialism).

[high density]

14. Magazine cover curse?

Interesting choice of words.

Is there any way to measure this "loss of credibility" in some way or are we supposed to take Krugman's word on it?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

26. It just seems as though he has become obsessed with Obama. This is bordering on ridiculous!

[Better Believe It]

29. Obsessed??? Isn't Obama the head of the Democratic Party and President of the United States?

Do you think he ought to speak out against those who have little or nothing to say about directing economic policy, liberals for example?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

35. He has every right to say and write whatever he wants, but he goes out of his way

to criticize the president every chance he gets. Every column is about Obama. I like Krugman but I agree with others that he's losing credibility and it sounds more like a personal issue with him...

[chimpymustgo]

34. Krugman is obsessed with the global economic crisis!! He fucking CARES that we get it out of the

toilet - and he just happens to think that throwing trillions of taxpayer dollars at the banksters WON'T solve the problem.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

36. We all care about what happens to this country. Not just Krugman!

[ClarkUSA]

27. Working for President Ronald Reagan and Enron has cost Krugman much of his "liberal" credibility

For those who aren't part of the DU Krugman Pom Pom Cheerleader team, that is.

[geek tragedy]

30. Shorter Krugman: Everything is Clinton's fault

Read the article, and you'll note he blames everything on Summers and Rubin.

Talk about wingnut talking points.

[Better Believe It]

31. Sure. Clinton, Summers & Rubin had nothing to do with deregulation. Wanna buy the Brooklyn Bridge?

[geek tragedy]

32. Krugman talks about the failed economy and our soiled reputation

without mentioning who was President from 2001-2009 or who controlled Congress from 1994-2006.

Larry Kudlow couldn't have done better himself.

[Better Believe It]

37. The soiled economic reputation was caused by the bi-partisan Democrat/Republican free marketeers who

deregulated the financial industry 10 years ago and still support Wall Streets crooks on Obama's watch!

You're not familiar with that history?

[geek tragedy]

33. dupe delete