Krugman: 'We are not now and have never been on the road to recovery.'

[Newsjock]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/05/opinion/the-wrong-worries.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

In case you had any doubts, Thursday’s more than 500-point plunge in the Dow Jones industrial average and the drop in interest rates to near-record lows confirmed it: The economy isn’t recovering, and Washington has been worrying about the wrong things.

It’s not just that the threat of a double-dip recession has become very real. It’s now impossible to deny the obvious, which is that we are not now and have never been on the road to recovery.

For two years, officials at the Federal Reserve, international organizations and, sad to say, within the Obama administration have insisted that the economy was on the mend. Every setback was attributed to temporary factors — It’s the Greeks! It’s the tsunami! — that would soon fade away. And the focus of policy turned from jobs and growth to the supposedly urgent issue of deficit reduction.

... The point is that it’s now time — long past time — to get serious about the real crisis the economy faces. The Fed needs to stop making excuses, while the president needs to come up with real job-creation proposals. And if Republicans block those proposals, he needs to make a Harry Truman-style campaign against the do-nothing G.O.P.

[OHdem10]

1. I heard another Financial Type Economist say we have been

in a recession all along. The stimulus stopped us from
cratering but was not large enough to turn things around.

[phasma ex machina]

3. Any stimulus needs to actually hit to Main Street to do any good but the rich keep a deathgrip on it

[liberation]

73. Technically then, a recession that long is really a depression.

[coalition_unwilling]

92. Not true (at least insofar as economists use and define the terms). Economists

generally define a 'recession' as any period of two or more successive quarters of negative GDP growth, no matter how small that negative growth might be. Economists generally define a 'depression' as a shrinkage of at least 20% in GDP over an indeterminate time period - could be one quarter, could be one year, could be five years. But if GDP declines 20%, we have a 'depression' as economists define the term. So duration of the downturn has nothing to do with whether economy is in recession or depression, except that for the former, the GDP must decline at least two quarters in a row.

[OhioChick]

2. Rec n/t

[truedelphi]

4. Mr Krugman, where were you when the Clintons were enacting NAFTA?

Right now, I guess you can afford to address these matters. And granted, your statements contain more truth than the hogwash we get from FOX news.

But I do have to ponder, where were you when the Clintons were enacting NAFTA?

I guess, being an academic type, you couldn't venture an opinion on the outsourcing that NAFTA was going to create until after the fact, when it was totally proven that outsourcing resulted.

But some people knew it and understood it and even said it.

Why weren't you one of them?

[BlueCheese]

6. I'm confused.

Are you suggesting that Krugman's opinion on NAFTA was wrong, and that therefore we can't trust him now? If so, can you provide some info? NAFTA happened 17 years ago--I don't think very many of us have any idea what Krugman said or didn't say back then.

[JDPriestly]

56. BlueCheese

Here is what Krugman said:

http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/ricardo.htm

Read it for yourself. Krugman was very, very wrong.

Here, for example, is what he said about the balance of payments and free trade:

- The balance of payments is not a problem: The standard textbook presentation of the Ricardian model assumes balanced trade -- indeed, it is usually a one-period model in which trade must be balanced. Yet the news is full of stories about the balance of payments, of complaints about trade surpluses and deficits. Why are these absent from the story?

Again, economists have good reasons for thinking that it is a good approximation to separate balance of payments from real international trade issues. In Ricardo's case, the essential ingredient was the argument by David Hume that trade imbalances are self-correcting: a surplus country will acquire specie, leading to rising prices that price its goods out of world markets, while a deficit country will correspondingly find its goods increasingly competitively priced. In the modern world, again, the channels involve less Invisible Hand and more government intervention: when monetary policies target the unemployment rate, exchange rates do the adjusting. Economists are also aware that even persistent trade imbalances are not necessarily a problem, and certainly that surpluses are not a sure sign of health or deficits one of weakness. Trade may be balanced in Chapter 2; but Chapter 13 explains that the trade balance is equal to the difference between savings and investment, and that a country may justifiably run persistent deficits if it is an attractive site for foreign investment.

Again, none of this is obvious to non-economists. The essential accounting identity, savings minus investment equals exports minus imports, is if anything a better-kept secret than the concept of comparative advantage. The debate over NAFTA was entirely phrased in terms of the apparent prospect that the United States would run a trade surplus with Mexico -- that was why the treaty was in our interests -- and the deficit that has actually materialized is universally regarded as a bad thing.

In sum, while the concept of comparative advantage may seem utterly simple to economists, in order to achieve that simplicity one must invoke a number of principles and useful simplifying assumptions that seem natural and reasonable only to someone familiar with economic analysis in general. ("What do you mean, objects fall at the same rate regardless of how heavy they are -- if I drop a cannonball and a feather ... you're assuming away air resistance? Why would you do that?") Those principles and simplifying assumptions are indeed reasonable, but they are not obvious.

...

Somehow the economists did not consider the political reality: that countries will protect their trade or their industry (China) or their currency and thus the purchasing power of the rich (the U.S.) through currency manipulation.

[TheKentuckian]

7. What is it that Krugman is wrong about now right now?

Are you calling for someone to continue forever being wrong once you are wrong for the sake of consistency or something?

[chill_wind]

8. Here's what he said, and he was in the huge company of other economists

across the spectrum from conservative, to liberal:

"Paul Krugman, a trade economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said that for the United States, the agreement is "economically trivial." Professor Krugman supports the treaty, saying he thinks it will help to keep free-market reformers in power in Mexico. He sums up the war of words this way: "The anti-Nafta people are telling malicious whoppers. The pro-Nafta side is telling little white lies."

The whole article is worth reading as to why so many of them thought so:

A Primer: Why Economists Favor Free-Trade Agreement
By SYLVIA NASAR
Published: September 17, 1993

When economists of every stripe agree on anything, it is noteworthy. So it is a sign of unusual accord that 300 economists, ranging from conservatives like James M. Buchanan and Milton Friedman to liberals including Paul A. Samuelson and James Tobin, recently signed a letter to President Clinton supporting the North American Free Trade Agreement.

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/09/17/us/a-primer-why-economists-favor-free-trade-agreement.html?src=pm

So no, he didn't hang back. as suggested. He put himself out there to be proven wrong.

I was reading a blogger whose commentary on this summarized it for me pretty well:

Ah well. All halos get tarnished eventually. I'm still a fan.

[truedelphi]

Thank you for the citation, chill_wind n/t

[paulk]

10. that's got to be about the weakest attempt at charactor

assassination I've seen on DU in a very long time.

Try to be relevant to current issues...

it will help your credibility

[roomfullofmirrors]

12. NAFTA is absolutely "relevant to current issues"

as is extending permanent most favored nations status to China. I honestly wonder what Krugman's opinion was on that one. I think any politician, businessman, or so called "economic guru" that thought that shit was a good idea has already assassinated his own character as well as his credibility frankly.

[chill_wind]

14. Krugman is said to have mostly renounced the church he once belonged to,

taking to whacking these days at its very pillars and committing no small amount of heresy, as this writer put it:

Krugman renounces free trade, neoliberal economics and financialization
(TPM) 2008

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/c/u/curtis_ellis/2008/12/krugman-renounces-free-trade-n.php


-------------------------------


We can listen to (and agree or disagree) about what Krugman might say about any new FTA coming up, but we should talk at least just as much about the real levers of present power and watch what they do and push. To your point about politicians and China:

What do Obama's new top appointments have in common?
Howard Richman, 1/7/2011

President Obama's top new appointments have more in common than just past involvement in the Clinton Administration. They were involved in the decisions to give China most-favored nation trading status and admit China into the WTO.

President Obama's new chief of staff is William Daley. According to Reuters:

Daley ... was U.S. commerce secretary when he helped usher through most-favored-nation trading status for China.

Obama's new chief economic advisor is Gene Sperling. According to Wikipedia:

Also in 1999, together with United States Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky, Sperling successfully negotiated and concluded the China-World Trade Organization agreement in Beijing, paving the way for China to enter the WTO in 2001.

more

http://www.idealtaxes.com/post3287.shtml

--------------------

Congress has some decision making to do, too:


Pelosi pushes back against Obama-backed free-trade agreements
By Mike Lillis - 08/03/11 03:07 PM ET

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi pushed back Wednesday against several pending free-trade agreements championed by President Obama.

The California Democrat signaled doubts that looming trade deals with South Korea, Panama and Colombia would benefit U.S. workers. President Obama on Tuesday called on Congress to approve the deals, which he and Republicans argue would create jobs.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/1005-trade/175285-pelosi-pushes-back-against-obama-backed-trade-deals

[paulk]

16. in the context of this thread

it is nothing more than character assassination

[truedelphi]

54. I doubt Krugman cares one bit.

About what I think about his character, or about what has happened to most of America's middle class.

He resides securely inside his ivory tower, with no worries about health insurance, or tenure, or his massive pension.

That is the main problem with those schooled in economics who then go on to make a profession of it - it is not a science but a cult. And when the cult sheds people from its ranks, and/or people in its ranks leave, because the policies were flawed, the economists who promoted those policies of the cult remain unaffected.

And in Krugman's case, he can now express his dismay. But unfortunately for 95% of us,.the polices he once promoted, and helped to put in place, are so firmly entrenched, they will not be removed during our lifetimes.

[StarsInHerHair]

114. you're wrong

[truedelphi]

55. See chill_wind' s post number eight -

Citations and all.

Krugman helped the Clintons convince many many people that NAFTA was the right way to go.

Too bad for most Americans he made major headway with that one. NAFTA and all the jobs lost since - I mean, it's nice and all that NOW Krugman understands the issues, but he sure helped the Clintons with the outsourcing issue when our side, that is, Middle America's side, needed help more.

[JHB]

11. Unfortunately, Krugman learned the lesson...

...but the politicians didn't.

[chill_wind]

15. +1

Well, some of them, but not the ones in the WH perhaps.

[JDPriestly]

57. Out trade policy has to do with politics. It is not intelligent economic

policy. But lots of political contributions come to those who support free trade.

[Bandit]

17. I wonder why the US economy experienced

"The Greatest Economic Expansion in History" under President Clinton. I think you might not understand the workings of our economy at all.

[immoderate]

23. Answer: Tech bubble.

What should we replace it with now?


--imm

[Bandit]

24. There was growth in every sector, not just tech industry.

That turned around immediately after Bush* got his first round of tax cuts in place. The Stock Market lost ground in almost every single year of the Bush* Presidency..In ALL sectors except Oil and Defense..

[immoderate]

28. Funny how that works.

Keynes could explain it to you. :)

--imm

[former9thward]

106. Some years under Bush were up in the market, some down.

http://www.1stock1.com/1stock1_139.htm

[JDPriestly]

58. Yes. That is the way the economy works.

The cotton gin. The discovery of electricity. New technologies increase productivity and improve the standard of living.

The next important technological advances will be made in the area of energy -- production and efficiency.

But conservative forces are holding back progress in those areas. The US is not taking the lead in the way we should if we want to continue to lead the world economy. China and Germany are leading in this area, and I would expect India to put a lot of time, money and energy into it too.

[immoderate]

111. Sounds right to me.

--imm

[StarsInHerHair]

115. bleeding edge pioneering technology, that's been an American strength

for awhile

[paparush]

66. Because businesses thrived by shipping production overseas? Lower labor costs?

[liberation]

74. You know what it is funny, that Greenspan, and Clinton's economic team have gone on record

stating how they did not understand why and how the "new economy" (i.e. the tech boom) of the late 90s worked. So your comment was rather ironic...


It turns out it was a combination of many things (few if any of them good):

1 - Making the mistake of equating the stock market with a proper indicator for economic reality.

2- Massive speculative bubbles in the US (tech stocks), and lots of American capital freed from proper taxation and oversight now flowing over to Asia to fuel a massive building bubble (People in the US forget how close to collapse Korea, Thailand, etc really came).

3- Companies were cooking their books inflating their profits (see Enron)

4- Productivity had skyrocketed but salaries remained stagnant, i.e. people were working harder for less money.

5- Aggressive deregulation of capital allowed corporations to double dip labor:
-- By paying stagnant salaries for increased labor, profits soared. Those soaring profits allowed corporations to have disposable capital, which was then used to offer loans to the same labor they had kept stagnant.
-- This is, rather than offering a living wage, corporations are offering low wages and the rest of the salary they should be paying is offered as a loan instead. Labor was no choice but basically have to work twice as hard:
First to get the base salary, and second to pay back the interest in the loans they needed to keep up with the cost of living increases.

6- Ironically most of the increases of cost of living for labor was due to the inflation induced by the same capital-based policies which had put corporations in such profitable place.

7- The Clinton administration allowed the financial industry to not only control, by then, over half of our economy but it was put in charge of actual policy.
-- E.g. the Depts of Treasury and Commerce were stacked to the gills with people from Wall Street, and often overruled the Dept. of State.



These trends had started with Reagan (and some even as far back as Nixon), but with Clinton they went into over drive. In the big policy items, as much as we would like to pretend otherwise, there has been a rather unbroken consistency for the past 4 decades regardless of whether Dems or Republicans being in control of either the presidency or congress. And by "big policy items" I most definitively don't mean wedge issues...

[lumberjack_jeff]

21. Where were YOU when Obama promised to renegotiate it? n/t

[Fire1]

37. I guess you mean NAFTA! He was listening to them LIE and

LIE some more that if he didn't raise taxes, didn't pursue EFCA, extended the bush tax cuts and didn't touch NAFTA, they would be able to hire workers. I don't think he realized that these are not honorable people and their word means absolutely NOTHING. He knows NOW and as a result THEY WILL BE TAXED COME 2013!! Bushes tax cuts WILL FUCKIN expire next year. Pick a side and stick to it!

[truedelphi]

59. If you mean, where was I in 2008, when Obama was talking about either

ending NAFTA or else "re-negotiating" NAFTA (Though I am pretty sure he said he'd end it) I was out pounding the pavement for Local Democrats.

[Vanje]

71. THAT is what I was wondering

!!!!!!!!

[_ed_]

22. You people will do anything to avoid

dealing with the facts at hand. I wonder why Krugman didn't forsee the Great Depression, either?

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[truedelphi]

60. From the citation and its text that chill_wind brought to

Everyone's attention, this topic, response number 8:

Some radical economists -- like Samuel Bowles at the University of Massachusetts -- predict large and negative effects from the agreement. But much of the national debate has been grounded more in politics and hyperbole than in economics.

Paul Krugman, a trade economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said that for the United States, the agreement is "economically trivial." Professor Krugman supports the treaty, saying he thinks it will help to keep free-market reformers in power in Mexico. He sums up the war of words this way: "The anti-Nafta people are telling malicious whoppers. The pro-Nafta side is telling little white lies." Well-Established Theories

I know several people who majored in economics at the infamous University of Chicago.

One of the problems with the academic types is that are very reluctant to say anything against any results that have not already happened, because if it hasn't already happened, then it cannot be totally proven.

One of my closer friends, who heads an entire department at a Midwest university, was telling me during the worst of the George W Bush days, that I need not worry about Fascism coming to the USA. After all, our media would be giving us a heads up and explaining how to fight 'em if that were to occur!

And of course, folks in the academic world achieve tenure, and usually don't have to worry about their jobs going overseas. So they have few concerns about their day to day life. Housing will be paid, vacations are paid for, health insurance, etc.

Though this recession is hitting hard enough that even the most entrenched of them are worried now.

[Fire1]

35. BINGO!! We have a winna!!! Wish I could rec 1,000 times!! n/t

[Javaman]

38. Why? because Krugman was wrong once, then has since apologized

now he's wrong about everything?

Wow, that's some logic there.

[Fire1]

40. It's the same fuckin logic you apply to Obama and if it's

good enough for Obama it's damn sure good enough for Krugman.

[Javaman]

64. How's those wars working out for you?

how's that public option working out for you?

[Fire1]

67. Wars are at a draw down and you know it. And you know

very well what happened to the public option! His own damn party in congress didn't support him on that. They were too consumed with pharma and insurance lobbys (campaign funding). The dems in congress don't even give a damn and we vote these mutha fuckas in anyway! ALOT of this shit falls directly at OUR feet.

[Javaman]

68. LOL

gitmo

extending tax cuts for the rich

it goes on and on, keep twisting yourself in knots. I love a good contortionist show.

Cheers. we are done.

[Fire1]

70. If you're that displeased you should join the tea party. n/t

[liberation]

80. Flawless "logic" you got going there...

[Fire1]

82. Logic has nothing to do with it. You clearly have a CHOICE. n/t

[liberation]

90. Oooops

just realized I have been talking to a script.

Got it...

[Fire1]

94. whatever that means. n/t

[paulk]

102. the choice isn't binary

:eyes:

[Fire1]

103. and?

:crazy:

[paulk]

126. and?

you present everything as either/or. You argue like a little kid. Right up to rolling your eyes 'cause my comment went over your head.

Disagreeing with Obama policy doesn't equate to joining the tea party.

Grow up.

[Javaman]

96. LOL

when in doubt use tired insults LOL

keep digging.

[druidity33]

109. I call big fat BS!

"Wars are at a draw down"... Pah! And who's telling the Iraqi government they need to invite our military to stay despite 90% of the population wanting us to leave? How many troops are in Afghanistan again? Contractors? Secret prisons?

Obama is the one that sold us out to the Pharma lobby by promising them before the Health Care negotiations even started that he would not allow Drug importation and bulk buying to be an issue. There were over 70 Dem Congresspeople who signed a pledge saying they would not vote for a HC bill unless it contained a PO who's arms and funding were twisted by the Obama admin until they conceded to a Mandate instead. Remember the Kucinich ride on AF1?

You really think Obama "gives a damn" about you?

:eyes:

[Vattel]

108. so bad logic is fine if the other side uses it. (head in hands)

[truedelphi]

130. Let me know when he suggests, as Max Kaiser has, that our nation needs to follow

Iceland's lead. That we put our house in order, and that does not mean letting our privileged few bow to the Uber Elite.

Understanding the principles that Iceland is utilizing, that is the only way that we can get back on solid ground.

If Krugman ever does that, I will follow the other people here in their worship of him.

[truedelphi]

62. I had no idea that what I thought of

As an off hand remark about the K-meister was going to get everyone's panties in a knot.

So thanks for being one of those who agree with me.

[chill_wind]

100. Is or isn't it of interest what I also posted in #14, then? Are you supportive

of the push for new FTA's by Obama?

[truedelphi]

125. I abhor the trade agreements, the G 8, and G 20, WTO,

And any of those things.

When people here were applauding Obama attending one of the G 20 meetings, and then praising a speech he gave, I was puzzled.

Where was the man who had rallied us in Fall of 2008 with the notion that "Once elected, I will end NAFTA." Why was he attending G 20 summit meetings?

I truly loved Candidate Obama. But I feel like once he was elected, he was kidnapped by aliens who then put a "walk in" in his place.

Yeah, I know there is a big difference between Obama and say, a President Palin. But being old enough to remember having had a Kennedy in the Presidency, who issued an executive order that would have returned control over the money supply to the nation, and no longer granted power to the "Federal Reserve" (which is no more Federal than Federal Express, and in fact represents the banking interests of England, and less of a reserve than my piggy bank,) it is hard to be enthused about Obama.

[chill_wind]

129. Thank you for your candor, truedelphi.

This particular article seems like a strange one to prompt this whole particular conversation, but you do seem to making a consistent, principled argument about something that matters strongly to you-- detrimental policies and your belief about them no matter who continues to keep advocating them. I appreciate that a lot.

:thumbsup:

[chill_wind]

99. So now are you gonna be for -or against- Obama's new

FTAs he's pushing for? Because if Krugman supported something 17 years ago that was evil, it's still an evil idea, right?

Unless it's Obama and his two top dudes Daley and Sperling?

Any idea how we got China mfn? (hint) It wasn't negotiated by Krugman.

Now see post #14.

[thereismore]

44. Weak! (insert Cartman voice). nt

[JDPriestly]

50. Krugman supported NAFTA and the concept of free trade.

http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/ricardo.htm

He laughed at the theory (which has been true) that free trade between countries, one with an abundance of low-wage earners in one country and high-wage earners in another, will lead to a reduction in the wages of the earners in the country with high wages. Krugman was very, very wrong on this.

Ross Perot was very, very right. And I was never a Ross Perot fan.

[truedelphi]

63. Thank you for the citation from MIT.

I had no idea my casual remark about Krugman would get everyone worked up so much.

[Javaman]

97. And krugman long since apologized

so your point is?

[StarsInHerHair]

116. I know, she won't read THAT!

[JDPriestly]

124. I was answering the question.

[No Elephants]

87. What does NAFTA in 1993 have to do with the OP of this thread again?

[Javaman]

128. Nothing, the poster, like many in this thread...

choose to distract from reality with unrelated facts. It appears as if, if a person is wrong about one thing that took place 14 years ago, the person is wrong about everything since then.

They try so hard.

[Amonester]

5. Here comes the 'Ridiculing' faction, in 5, 4, 3, ....

[jannyk]

9. K&R!

[upi402]

13. forget this president helping at all

this congress too...

just get it overwith

[Fire1]

46. Let's see how much help you get from Mitt Romney or

Rick Perry who's going to pray away your troubles. You need to stop bitchin and pick the fuckin side you're going to be on! As a party we don't need this shit. We either unify and rally together or go join the teabaggers.

[sendero]

105. As someone has said..

.. it's not a binary choice. I will not vote for Obama again, PERIOD. And I'm damn sure not voting Republican.

So if you are smart you can figure out what that means and I'm quite serious - Obama is no better than a Republican so essentially I have no choice but to stay home.

[City Lights]

18. K&R. eom

[Little Star]

19. Well, no one can deny the truth of this statement...

"The point is that it’s now time — long past time — to get serious about the real crisis the economy faces. The Fed needs to stop making excuses, while the president needs to come up with real job-creation proposals. And if Republicans block those proposals, he needs to make a Harry Truman-style campaign against the do-nothing G.O.P."

k&r

[Supersedeas]

26. as direct as one can be

[Major Hogwash]

20. I hear a bus coming Paul, look out!!!

Because asshattery is alive and well at the Mad Hatter's Tea Party!!

[Maven]

25. Obama doesn't have the stones to call out the other side.

Hell, it's not even clear whether he thinks of them as the other side.

It's too "ideological." Too "partisan." He would rather sell the fantasy that both sides are to blame and if we can come to a solution, any solution, no matter what ideas win or lose, then that's "progress." It's a fantasy designed to make him look good, which is pretty much all he cares about.

That is why he is totally useless as president in a contentious political climate.

[bluestate10]

27. Krugman is either an out of touch ideologue, or he is F'ing blind.

Krugman has a Nobel Prize. May be someone should hit him up side the head with the chart of joblessness that compares Obama years with the last Bush years. I don't have a Nobel Prize, but I am a scientist who regularly compare data populations, what I see is close to uniform improvement under Obama.

[jsamuel]

29. "recovery" doesn't mean that we aren't loosing jobs anymore

you need to look up that word as economists use it. Do some research before attacking someone with 100x more experience than you in the field.

[EFerrari]

39. Thank you. n/t

[woo me with science]

49. +1

[bluestate10]

118. It is you that must research. A word means it's most common usage.

Recovery by politicians, the overwhelming majority of economists and everyday people means moving from a point of high unemployment to a point of less unemployment, with the additional benefits of more tax revenue flowing in and less spending on unemployment benefits for the formerly unemployed. And coincidentally, less unemployment has meant improvement in the condition of businesses, although today that correlation is less exact given off-shoring of jobs.

[liberation]

81. An argument to authority in lieu of actual data to back an ad hominem on an anonymous forum

are we supposed to be impressed?

[bluestate10]

117. Re-read your post and try to figure out what the fuck you're saying.

Because I certainly can't. And I am willing to bet my right arm that my IQ exceeds yours.

[paulk]

127. LOL

yeah, and my Dad can beat up your Dad!

[spanone]

30. cheer up paul

[hulka38]

41. iow, come join me in fantasyland.

[on point]

31. As usual Krugman is absolutely correct again.

The wrong headed conventional wisdom among the talking heads and in Washington on the other hand is killing the country.

As Einstein said "We can't solve problems using the same kind of thinking we used creating them"

Ever since Raygun, the Supply side / deregulation economic fraud has been leading the country ever deeper into financial disaster. Continuing this fraud as the repukes, and I'm sorry to say Obama, want to do will make things worse.

Krugman is an economist rooted in reality, unlike the delusional fools that make up the tea party and the DLC wing of democrats.

[libmom74]

32. It's too late.

As soon as Obama agreed with Republican framing and caved (or colluded) on everything from Health Care Insurance Reform, the Bush Tax Cuts and finally this latest Debt Ceiling debacle he has lost all credibilty, he can go out on tour and talk about jobs, jobs, jobs all he wants but nobody is going to believe him after he has worked with Republicans to give Wall Street and the wealthy everything and more while burdening the middle and working class with austerity after Wall Streets manufactured economic crisis.

[orbitalman]

33. K & R

[Fire1]

34. Then YOU need to talk to corporate america, Mr. Krugman. n/t

[hulka38]

43. What does that mean?

[Fire1]

47. If you didn't get that then you don't need to be here. n/t

[hulka38]

72. What I get is that you have trouble communicating

with people. "...you don't need to be here" :rofl:

[No Elephants]

77. You're throwing people off this board and out of the Democratic Party? LOL!

[Fire1]

78. Take it anyway you want. n/t

[liberation]

84. The only thing I am getting from you so far is that you can only write in single sentences

You must have a crypto argument there somewhere...

[Fire1]

88. I'm very selective in my discourse. I have that right. n/t

[liberation]

93. Selective does not mean what you think it does

have a wonderful day.

[Fire1]

95. Coming from you, it probably doesn't. Good evening. n/t

[liberation]

98. Regardless of what you projection may tell you

some people, like me, actually do mean what they write.

[druidity33]

110. post count thing? nt.

[bluestate10]

119. Watch it. You are talking back to the holier than thou crowd.

Their shit doesn't stink. Their pundits are always right, however twisted their pundit's prose. And, of course, they hate President Obama with teabagger zeal.

[thereismore]

42. Our president does not believe that the government should create jobs. There is no way out. nt

[Fire1]

48. First of all, HE didn't say it. His press secretary did. Secondly,

he's giving tax credits (AGAIN) to corporations who hire out of work veterans. We DO need a jobs bill of some sort but he can't MAKE corporations hire ANYBODY!!

[No Elephants]

79. Face it, Reply 42 is correct.

First, get real, please. Press secretaries speak for their bosses. That's what they get paid to do. That is their only job description. And, if they say something their boss disagrees with, the press secretary or the boss makes that perfectly clear, especially if the boss is the POTUS.

Second, forget who said what on behalf of whom. What federal jobs programs did Obama start? I don't mean giving corporations money or other incentives to hire. I mean federal jobs.

Our national parks are a disgrace an understaffed. Our infrastructure is falling apart. There are plenty of jobs he could have created. Why didn't he? Reply 42 is correcte.

"We DO need a jobs bill of some sort but he can't MAKE corporations hire ANYBODY!!"

Straw man. He could have made the federal goverment hire people.

Reply #42 is correct.

[Fire1]

86. Well, I see you've made it your job to around the board

answering for everybody. I don't think they need your help and are quite capable of answering for themselves. EVERYBODY can't work for the government, Einstein. Plus, even the government is laying off. Last, I didn't say Obama started a jobs bill. Comprehension is the key to reading.

[Fire1]

91. I see you went back and revamped that whole post! LOL!

[frylock]

104. the guy obama hired to speak for him said it..

if carney is such a loose cannon, i expect that obama will terminate his services, post haste.

[Rex]

45. Word.

[DeSwiss]

51. K&R n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

52. No kiddin'. A consumer economy without consumers kinda works that way.

But, I'm sure the Obama/Boehner Catfood Committee will set things right.

[bertman]

53. Big Fat Rec for this one. nt

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hifiguy]

69. Enjoy your stay.

It is likely to be short.

[paparush]

65. The New Normal - 2% growth vs 3% growth (and we're a long way from 2% growth)

http://www.npr.org/2011/07/12/137708256/what-the-new-normal-means-for-americans
edit to add link to NPR article

[DCBob]

75. So Paul, when the DJIA goes up 1000s what does that mean?

Like it has since the Presdent Obama took office.

[girl gone mad]

83. It means the government pumped a lot of money into Wall Street's coffers..

but still no recovery.

[bluestate10]

120. That sounds........so teabaggy. Are you extreme Left? nt

[No Elephants]

85. Wall Street versus Main Street. Democrats used to get that.

[DCBob]

89. just trying to figure out Krug's logic.. he chastises Obama for yesterday's drop..

and does he also chastises him for the past increases? hard to please the man.

[bluestate10]

121. I am afraid Krugman has jumped without padding a little much.

I hope he STFU before he gives the Nobel Prize in Economics an bad rap.

[Jakes Progress]

76. Now we know why Obama won't listen to Krugman.

Krugman actually thinks that people and main street are more important than corporations and wall street.

It would mean that Obama must actually do something Democratic, must actually take a stand and defend it, must use whatever powers he has to be something more than the grand negotiator. Negotiating is for back alleys and side rooms. Obama asked us to make him president. Obama's advisors have let him play his useless game of bipartisan maven. They got what they wanted by letting Obama off the hook. He could play his pointless games while they got the outcome they wanted - money for the rich and concessions for corporate interests. Had Obama listened to Krugman, he would have had to actually act like a president - a job I don't think that Obama really thinks he can do. Time for him to man up. He asked for the job; he needs to do it.

[chill_wind]

101. Obama hasn't been listening to ANY progressive economists.

Other guys like Dean Baker and Galbraith and hundreds of others who tried to warn him of the same things Krugman talks about every day might as well be talking to a brick wall.

CTFO. "He's GOT this."

:-(

[BrightKnight]

107. The road to recovery isn't paved with Tea Party pessimism.

Austerity does not create jobs. Economies recover when confidence improves.

[inna]

112. i like Krugman, but he's completely in denial about Obama's motivations/intentions

- or, more likely, he understands the reality of the situation but wants to sound *as if* he's in denial (this is the NYT, after all).

[bluestate10]

122. How are things over at Firedog Lake?

I would go there if taken for my funeral, otherwise I have more productive uses of my time.

[inna]

123. huh?...

lol, and i'm sure you do. no wonder you love obama so much.

[StarsInHerHair]

113. it took FDR 6 years of stimulus spending, & when he let up in '37 the

economy immediately went into a Recession, within 3 MONTHS he created more WPA jobs & the economy got better.


Working Americans are taxpayers, what about this does the Right not get? Oh wait, they hate ALL GOVERNMENT, so they should butt out!

[Zax2me]

131. Then Obama has been lying for 2+ years?

Either that or he is doorknob dumb. If this piece is believed to be true.