General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsKrugman: Recession ‘gratuitous’ because if Congress created jobs program it ‘would all be over’
Paul Krugman, the New York Times columnist, economics professor at Princeton University and Nobel prize winner talked to Bill Moyers on Jan. 11 about what he believes is the best path forward to a strong economic recovery.
Moyers started by noting that 235,000 signed a petition that said Krugman should be the next Secretary of the Treasury.
When Moyers asked what the Treasury should do to help the economy, he said, “Campaign against this austerity obsession. We’re not going to get a big new stimulus package, much as I would like to see it. No, we’re not going to get it this year, anyway. But I’d like to see him saying when somebody says, ‘Well, we need to slash here, we need to slash there.’ And he would say ‘Why would we want to be doing that now? That’s actually going to hurt the economy.’”
“This is the same kind of animal that we confronted in the ’30s. This is depression economics. And the nature of the solution is not really very different now from what it was then,” he said later.
“Depression economics is when the normal things you do to boost the economy, have the Federal Reserve cut interest rates a little bit, are no longer available or effective. It’s a situation where the normal rules of what you– of economic policy, have to be put on hold, and you really need to do extraordinary stuff,” he explained.
He argued that “the core thing, the thing that we know works, the thing that all the evidence of history says works in a situation like this is the private sector won’t spend, government can step in and provide the spending that we need in order to keep this economy afloat.”
He went on to say that the poor economy was “gratuitous” because if Congress could be convinced that “deficit spending, for the time being, is okay” and that a major jobs programs should be created, “it would all be over. It would be no problem at all.”
Watch the video, via BillMoyers.com, below.
http://vimeo.com/57196229
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/11/krugman-recession-gratuitous-because-if-congress-created-jobs-program-it-would-all-be-over/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)This depression is simply more shock doctrining to help the Predator Class shovel more cash to themselves.
EVERYONE needs to know this.
FreeBC
(403 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Response to rhett o rick (Reply #71)
FreeBC This message was self-deleted by its author.
sakabatou
(42,141 posts)ErikJ
(6,335 posts)The New Deal helped alot. It brought unemployment from 25% in 1933, down to 12% in 1936. But WW2 brought unemployment down to almost zero in the 40's.
We need WW3 but not on a country, on CLIMATE CHANGE. If we put the same effort into renewable energy production as we did WW2 we could be 100% dependent on solar and wind in 5 or 10 years. Then with a massive program of planting of trees to soak uop the CO2 we might begin to reverse global warming.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)I don't think we NEED a war to get out of this. WWII happened in Europe and Asia. We could raise taxes and start making things people need without a war, y'know. Besides, we already spend way to much on the military.
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)We need WW3 but not on a country, on CLIMATE CHANGE. If we put the same effort into renewable energy production as we did WW2 we could be 100% dependent on solar and wind in 5 or 10 years. Then with a massive program of planting of trees to soak uop the CO2 we might begin to reverse global warming.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)To me that's infrastructure.... not war.
mythology
(9,527 posts)Besides, we've had a war on poverty, war on drugs, war on terror, the Republicans have a war on women (and gays, and minorities and intelligence)
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)It is the only thing worth going into monetary debt for. And not even in the long run, now. Who really cares what fictitious amount of debt we leave behind if we shave off a few degrees of heat. Environmental debt cant be wiped clean like a hard drive. There is no reboot switch. No amount of money can retain what we are pissing away while we stuff our faces and stare blankly into our China phones.
But I digress. It would put people to work. Doing real things. That help real people. And it will require sacrifice. On the level of the Greatest Generation sacrifice if not greater. What cause could be greater than assuring the only things that make life worth living are around for future generations?
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)Most people put the beginning of WWII at Sept. 1939 when the Germans, under Hitler, invaded Poland under completely false pretenses. Japan actually started fighting in 1931, when they invaded the northwest Chinese province of Manchuria. In 1937, the Japanese attacked many places along China's coast, most particularly Nanjing, where the Japanese committed some of the worst military atrocities of the war.
The US had begun selling arms to Britain and France before the European war started, and that increased when the shooting started. Our factories ramped up considerably, and our Navy did what it could to help the British and the Canadians (who fought with their mother country). When the British ran out of money, the U.S. government financed their purchases through FDR's lend-lease program.
We joined the war days after Dec. 7, 1941, the day that the Japanese Navy attacked Pearl Harbor.
While little fighting happened on U.S. territory (the Japanese attacked and occupied a few of the western most Aleutian Islands of Alaska), U.S. men, weapons and material fought in Asia, Northern Africa and Europe. We had an enormous Army, Army-Air force and Navy. A huge percentage of U.S. men between 18 and 45 were in the service. Those that weren't, together older men and many women (like my Mom and one of her sisters) went to work in defense plants that sprung up everywhere. We look many, many, many casualties. Iraq and Afghanistan are small skirmishes in comparison, and we barely feel the military production in our economy.
The War was the only thing going on in the country between 1941 and 1945. There was nothing else. We defeated the horrid racist militarists in Japan nearly single-handedly, and were very important in defeating Germany in the West. It is an incredibly important part of OUR history. Wiki has excellent articles covering every aspect of our men fighting overseas and the incredible industrial production here. I cannot urge you strongly enough to read up on it if you actually think that WWII was no big deal here.
DhhD
(4,695 posts)and other measures pushing America back toward Austerity of Hoover/GOP. Results: the Recovery STOPPED. And unemployment went back up in 1938, 1939, 1940 and so on.
A real Jobs Program and a another bigger Stimulus would do it. We gave both Bushes bailouts so when will our second bailout/stimulus happen? When we clean the tea off the carpet in the House of Representatives. Stimulus would be spent in the Recovering Economy. The Bush bailouts went to the 1% hoarders and rats jumping ship to sail to the Cayman Islands with America's money.
Dokkie
(1,688 posts)WW II destroyed the infrastructure of the economic powers competing with the US. So unless WWIII destroys China, Japan, most of Europe and India, it wont do us any good.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)WWIII on climate change. Rosie the Riveter flexing her bicepts against the causes of climate change would be phenomenal!
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)We need a "new New Deal" in which we build a new, green infrastructure with public labor. How about a maglev train from NY to LA? Get the planes out of the air and a lot of cars off the highways. Modernize the rest of the rail system & get all those semis off the roads. A super-internet. Wind & sun farms. Pour resources into developing new battery technologies. Urban gardens. Universal education for everyone, as far as their abilities will take them.
I don't see why we need any war metaphors.
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)I think war is a good metaphore because climate change is a global phenomenon and is turning out to be extremely dangerous to the whole world. We must take it as seriously as any world war to reduce global warming within a 10 year time period. The global fossil fuel industry will be a formidable foe as well.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)War
…War
……War
Bullshit, I say.
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)So its going to take a global WW2 effort to solve climate change.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Of course, nobody in the right frame of mind is legitimately suggesting that nothing can be done to mitigate climate change.....but rather, how and when.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Not a damn bit. The typical solution to the problem of growth & jobs (burning energy for growth) is a direct contradiction to the biggest problem of the 21st century.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Climate change is the greatest challenge to our survival that the species has faced, at least since the Toba near-extinction event of 70,000 years ago (which is thought to have left only 15,000 humans alive).
We must make rapid and profound changes in our behavior and in our worldview if we are to salvage an existence worth living, or perhaps existence at all.
One of the toughest changes we will need to make is to shift onto a cooperative cultural model. War is one of the destructive pastimes the species needs to leave behind. We must commit to finding and implementing rational solutions, we must overcome our own childish, self-centered impulses.
Wars on abstractions don't work because they play on the wrong metaphor and lead us to do the wrong things in confronting problems.
What we have to do is not to fight a war, but to grow up.
NewJeffCT
(56,828 posts)the austerity gang started to gain sway, and government spending was cut - and the economy went back in the tank in 1937 and 38
Hatchling
(2,323 posts)
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)The only reason this doesn't happen is because the government serves the elites, not regular people. or something like that.
socialindependocrat
(1,372 posts)We need to get a group of professors for each problem amd have them hash out the pros and cons and have the professors deliver a lecture to congress letting them know the pros and cons and the possible paths forward.
Why do we elect people whose greatest assett is a massive ego that will push them to lie and do the things necessary to get elected. After they're elected, they're dead in the water.
We have Bernie and Warren and Greyson and a few others who have a brain that can still figure out how to move on down the road.
We need to elect people who have the ability to solve problems
not the brainless psychoheads who are driven to fame and fortune.
BlueNoteSpecial
(141 posts)...I say bought and paid for.
socialindependocrat
(1,372 posts)How do we correct a system where we elect people who only represent themselves once in office?
Our government was at this same point with the robber barrons and income discrepancy and no unions. Was it just because of a president that things turned around?
Like the OP says, it's in their general interest to keep things the same - until it isn't. Somehow we need to make that happen.
BlueNoteSpecial
(141 posts)...the Office of Citizens Oversight. Since We can no longer trust most representatives elected to serve the People, We the People need to serve ourselves. This entity could be staffed through a nationwide jury pool type system, with a strong, stern set of qualifiers. I guarantee a motivated, and interested citizenry. Since there are roughly 13,000 registered lobbyists in DC, I believe a staff of roughly 30,000 would be a start. Every committee meeting, every lobbyist meeting, every single situation where the privileged/corporate elite have access, 3 OCO officers are to be present. NO backroom deals made without 3 members present. I'm sure it could be done, in spite of the heavy lifting. I'll also be so bold as to say that support from trusted reps. such as Mrs. Warren, Mrs. Pelosi, along w/ Mssrs. Brown, Grayson, Kucinich, etc. would give it a fighting chance. I'm sure someone a hell of a lot smarter than me has floated this type of idea. It could be achieved.
socialindependocrat
(1,372 posts)I have also said the same thing.
I'm not as smart as a lot of other people here on DU
BUT
It seems that our government is so corrupt that they are not trying to hide the corruption anymore. It's like they are saying, well, we did thus and so and nobody said anything so let's just do what we want until someone says something.
The ethics committee needs to be held to some standard that says they need to be working on at least one thing at any point in time.
We know there are certainly, enough things that need to be worked on.
Your idea does have merit and it makes a basic statement - If We the People cannot trust our elected officials to do what we've elected them for then there needs to be oversight at a level that can be trusted - at the We the People level...
Thanks for your ideas and your time
BlueNoteSpecial
(141 posts)DhhD
(4,695 posts)BlueNoteSpecial
(141 posts)gtar100
(4,192 posts)the majority of elected officials are ineffective. Most senators and congressmen are there to represent special interests only and are blind or willfully ignorant of basic civics. Am I crazy to think that the role of government is to protect the interests of people and regulate businesses towards that end rather than the other way around? Instead it's become a cash cow for large corporations and a vehicle for a few rich people to skew the rules in their favor. We live in a hellish world not because "that's just the way it is" (like gravity) but because of the bone headed greed and ignorance of people who happen to find themselves in a position of power. The answers are out there to fix pretty much all our problems but it's the lack of political will that prevents their implementation.
Seriously, what an asshole Reagan was for saying that government is the problem (and fuck all those who still believe him). Those who think like that are a real problem.
socialindependocrat
(1,372 posts)I think we need to write letters to our congresspeople and
state all these observations - lobbyists, special interests,
bribery, greed, not representing the people, and on and on and on...
And sent the letters to our congresspeople.
Then we need to send them to the ethics committee
(who have done exactly what in the past who knows how long?)
And to Bernie and Elizabeth Warren and to Grayson.
And to the President and VP
And keep the pressure on
They have said that unless we get up and make a concerted effort and bug people to make the changes we want they will not get started to make changes.
We need to start an uproar.
As far as I'm concerned, lobbyists are bribing our elected officials and it is illegal - but accepted in D.C.
We need to bust some people and put a scare into them all.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)The Wisconsin Idea in education
The Wisconsin Idea is a philosophy embraced by the University of Wisconsin System, which holds that research conducted at the University of Wisconsin System should be applied to solve problems and improve health, quality of life, the environment and agriculture for all citizens of the state. This Progressive-era policy applied the expertise of the state's university to social legislation that benefited all the state's citizens; it led to classic programs such as regulation of utilities, workers' compensation, tax reform, and university extension services; sometimes expressed in the maxim that "the boundaries of the university are the boundaries of the state."[3]
For more than a century, the university system has been guided by the Wisconsin Idea, a tradition first enunciated by University of Wisconsin President, Charles Van Hise, in 1904. Van Hise declared that he would "never be content until the beneficent influence of the university reaches every family in the state." Today that belief permeates the UW System's work, fostering close working relationships within the state, throughout the country and around the world.
The Wisconsin Idea, in United States History, also refers to a series of political reforms of the late 19th century and early 20th century whose strongest advocate was Robert M. La Follette, Sr., Wisconsin's governor (1901–1906) and senator (1906–1925). The Wisconsin Idea was created by the state's progressives to do away with monopolies, trusts, high costs of living, and predatory wealth, which they saw as the problem that must be solved or else "no advancement of human welfare or progress can take place."[4] Reforms in labor and worker's rights were one of the major aspects of the Wisconsin Idea. The progressive worker's compensation program was first introduced by German immigrants, who were abundant in Wisconsin. The system was adopted from the existing system in Germany, which was based on the idea that the employer was obligated to take care of his employees and keep paying them as they grew old.[5] Many of the reforms were based on traditions and customs brought to the state by German immigrants. The emphasis on higher learning and well-funded universities stressed by the Wisconsin Idea was derived from the education system of Germany. Progressives also proposed the first state income taxes, as well as submitting the idea of a progressive tax. They also passed legislation prohibiting pollution and police brutality.[6]
The Wisconsin Idea would go on to set an example for other states in the United States. The progressive politicians of the time sought to emulate and ultimately transcend the states of the east coast in regards to labor laws. Wisconsin progressives wished to make Wisconsin into a benchmark for other Midwestern states to strive towards. Although many of the reforms went through in 1911, conservative opponents of the progressive party took control of Wisconsin in 1914, thus minimizing the magnitude and effects of the reforms.[7] The Wisconsin Idea would continue to be a revolutionary precedent for other universities, and its educational aspects are still relevant today. Robert LaFollette, Sr. was the man who implemented much of this legislature, and he was among the earliest supporters of direct election of senators, which is now a national practice. These progressive politics also helped pass the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments to the American Constitution.
These proposed reforms, all of which were eventually adopted, included:
Primary elections, allowing the rank-and-file members of a political party to choose its nominees rather than caucuses usually dominated by political bosses.
Workers' compensation, allowing workers injured whilst working to receive a fixed payment in compensation for their injuries and related expenses rather than forcing them to go to court against their employers, which at the time was extremely difficult and had little realistic chance of success.
State regulation of railroads in addition to the federal regulation imposed by the Interstate Commerce Commission.
Direct election of United States Senators as opposed to the original method of their selection by the state legislatures, eventually ratified as the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Progressive taxation, where the wealthier pay a higher rate of tax than the less-affluent, made possible on the federal level in part by the adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Adoption of these reforms marked the high point of the Progressive Era.
[edit]The Wisconsin Idea in media
Wisconsin Public Radio was established to bring the Wisconsin Idea to the broadcast airwaves. From the WPR Mission Statement: "WPR’s Mission is to realize the Wisconsin Idea by producing, acquiring and delivering high quality audio programming that serves the public’s need to discuss ideas and opinions, and that provides cultural enrichment, intellectual stimulation, and intelligent, enlightening entertainment." [8]
socialindependocrat
(1,372 posts)This is such a wonderful success story-
I'll bring this up to my congressmen and see
if they'll answer why this system hasn't spread.
This is fantastic stuff!!
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Having gotten 3 degrees from the UW and taught on several of its campuses, I've ALWAYS known about it. In fact, when I went to a 1-room public school in the remote northern part of the state in the early 50's, some of our education was piped in via FM radio from WPR as part of the Wisconsin Idea.
flamingdem
(39,308 posts)Pachamama
(16,884 posts)...Treasury Secretary....
But the Banks and corporations couldnt allow for that now, could they?
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)
hunter
(38,304 posts)If we set up our economy so that everyone had enough to eat, a safe place to sleep, an effective public health care system, universal literacy, with liberty and justice for all, then there would be no recessions.
Economic cycles are set up by the plutocracy so they can buy up everything created in "good times" at foreclosure sale prices during the "recessions." This artificial economic cycle increase their share of the nation's wealth. It's the method by which the rich get richer at the expense of everyone else.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)If products and services for U.S. consumption are made abroad, they don't provide jobs here.
Outsourcing and insourcing are huge problems that our politicians, including Obama, seem to be happy to ignore.
RomneyLies
(3,333 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)The bankster bailout was handled in the second-worst possible way, and the steadfast refusal of our government to take action to stop the economic suffering of the citizens of this nation, should be considered criminal at this point.
Trillions for Wall Street, nothing for Main Street.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Why? Because it works. And that makes it harder to, um, control people.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
patrice
(47,992 posts)NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)I don't think things are the same as the 1930s, due to biophysical limits. Energy consumption per dollar of GDP has been dropping consistently for decades on end. It cost more and more to do usable work than it ever has in the past, meaning our economy is approaching an abstract point of diminishing returns due to energy costs. How long can you ignore this and pump blood into a zombie economy?
Krugman's approach might keep the behemoth stumbling along a bit longer (emitting more CO2 into the atmosphere), but fall it must eventually. Collapse is especially inevitable when everyone approaches these changing times with paradigms that may no longer be applicable.
Neoclassical economics wants to pretend the real world doesn't exist for as long as it possibly can.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)In fact, any genuine jobs program would also include green jobs, which would actually help with combatting climate change, amongst certain other things.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)We have less and less surplus to command the energy required for growth (that generates wealth we use at the next stage to command further energy). "Debt" pretends this little problem doesn't exist.
God damn, we are going to chase our tails in a circle for the next 50 years (At which point climate change does us all in) or we are going to need to drop neoclassical economics like a rock and find a new way to live in a real finite world.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Is just another way of avoiding the combatting of REAL issues that we have to face; it's really just as bad as climate change deniers who say there's no artificial warming.
Oh, and btw, but climate change isn't going to "do us all in", either.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)We are not looking at all solutions, but only solutions that ensure civilization is maintained and can continue to grow. This eliminates a lot of viable approaches (if not all of them).
What is so bad about the collapse of civilization anyway? You keep saying its not going to happen like its a bad thing (whereas, it would very well help avoid extreme climate scenarios).
And yes, the Bushes and Koch brothers of the world will have the resources to make it. Ask me if I give a fuck
BTW, did you take a look at that graph? Thats basically due to declining EROEI in the real world. So every year that goes by we have a more indebted nation, more expensive energy, deeper drought, more ocean acidification, higher CO2 concentrations, and somehow we are going to figure it all out (when we are going bankrupt on a quest to burn more energy now). When will that magic point come, and how do you know that belief in it isn't akin to religion?
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)
What is so bad about the collapse of civilization anyway? You keep saying its not going to happen like its a bad thing (whereas, it would very well help avoid extreme climate scenarios).
If methane indeed becomes a real significant problem, as scientists are saying that it could, then it'd be all for nothing, because in your precious little collapse scenario, we might well indeed be powerless to do anything(whereas, at least with intact civilization, we'd have a fighting chance).
And yes, the Bushes and Koch brothers of the world will have the resources to make it.
I don't think so, though. In fact, they'd probably be amongst the first to die from violence in that scenario.....not that it'll happen in anyone's lifetime, but that's likely how it would play out.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)First, we don't know if we are at a tipping point such that if all CO2 emissions stopped, the thawing of permafrost will accelerate (and contribute to further thawing) and do us in regardless. So collapse before that point could be a "good" thing.
Now, we also don't have an inkling that civilization could possibly do a damn thing after that point anyway.
So, to keep civilization propped up while it approaches that point, for the sole intent of having it around to "fix" things once we get there (by chance), seems counter-intuitive. Right?
This is the land of hypotheticals. Wouldn't it be interesting if someday we heard politicians discussing these nuances?
99Forever
(14,524 posts)
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)Isn't it obvious that every dime we need is staring us in the face?
Of course that would mean lost jobs. But the jobs the military supports are nonproductive, in the general sense of the scheme of human existence.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Can't all those contractors make something useful? Solar panels? Wind mills? Bridges? Levees? I'm sure there are other things....
I mean instead of bombers to fight the USSR...
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Your spending is my income while my spending is your income. When the private sector refuses to spend, the government must step in and do the spending.
The time to worry about deficit spending and the debt is after the economy has recovered.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)the point about Congressional obstruction the impacts of austerity at the state and local level for a couple of years.
Macroeconomic Advisers on the American Jobs Act, proposed a year ago:
We estimate that the American Jobs Act (AJA), if enacted, would give a significant boost to GDP and employment over the near-term.
-The various tax cuts aimed at raising workers’ after-tax income and encouraging hiring and investing, combined with the spending increases aimed at maintaining state & local employment and funding infrastructure modernization, would:
-Boost the level of GDP by 1.3% by the end of 2012, and by 0.2% by the end of 2013.
-Raise nonfarm establishment employment by 1.3 million by the end of 2012 and 0.8 million by the end of 2013, relative to the baseline
Of course, it that had happened, Obama would be more or less a lock for reelection. Instead, having blocked the president’s economic plans, Republicans can point to weak job growth and claim that the president’s policies have failed.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/08/the-jobs-program-that-wasnt/
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Does anyone remember the American Jobs Act? A year ago President Obama proposed boosting the economy with a combination of tax cuts and spending increases, aimed in particular at sustaining state and local government employment. Independent analysts reacted favorably. For example, the consulting firm Macroeconomic Advisers estimated that the act would add 1.3 million jobs by the end of 2012.
There were good reasons for these positive assessments. Although you’d never know it from political debate, worldwide experience since the financial crisis struck in 2008 has overwhelmingly confirmed the proposition that fiscal policy “works,” that temporary increases in spending boost employment in a depressed economy (and that spending cuts increase unemployment). The Jobs Act would have been just what the doctor ordered.
But the bill went nowhere, of course, blocked by Republicans in Congress. And now, having prevented Mr. Obama from implementing any of his policies, those same Republicans are pointing to disappointing job numbers and declaring that the president’s policies have failed.
Think of it as a two-part strategy. First, obstruct any and all efforts to strengthen the economy, then exploit the economy’s weakness for political gain. If this strategy sounds cynical, that’s because it is. Yet it’s the G.O.P.’s best chance for victory in November.
- more -
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/10/opinion/krugman-obstruct-and-exploit.html
Notice that I said “government in America,” not “the federal government.” The federal government has been pursuing what amount to contractionary policies as the last vestiges of the Obama stimulus fade out, but the big cuts have come at the state and local level...We’re talking big numbers here. If government employment under Mr. Obama had grown at Reagan-era rates, 1.3 million more Americans would be working as schoolteachers, firefighters, police officers, etc., than are currently employed in such jobs.
And once you take the effects of public spending on private employment into account, a rough estimate is that the unemployment rate would be 1.5 percentage points lower than it is, or below 7 percent — significantly better than the Reagan economy at this stage.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/opinion/krugman-states-of-depression.html
Here's the last jobs report:
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/01/04/16347906-us-economy-adds-155k-jobs-in-december-jobless-rate-unchanged
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I guess Robert Rubin's crew pays much, much, much better?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Too bad he's one of our party's pariahs"
...he sees himself that way: http://election.democraticunderground.com/10022154355
Still, that has nothing to do with the point he has been making.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)What about Blankfein and Dimon? Weren't they at the White House yet again 2 weeks ago?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)recently.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/05/nothing-to-say/
Are you trying to negate the point Krugman has been making?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)Krugman has been making the point about Congressional obstruction the impacts of austerity at the state and local level for a couple of years.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2180781
Still it's good that you posted a thread to push this thread. Really cool. Krugman makes some great points.
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)The soup lines of the Great Depression. "SNAP currently helps over 40 million Americans avoid hunger". http://www.snaptohealth.org/snap/the-real-benefits-of-the-snap-program/
I saw how bad this Depression was when I saw people lined up around a Mr Alans shoe store for ONE TEMPORARY shoe sales position. Literally hundreds if not thousands of people were lined up.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)..certainly much bigger than they currently make.
We have a consumption-based economy. That is the reality. Who would spend the most money today? The lower and working classes, because (1) there are far, far more of them than the rich, and (2), in order for the lower and middle strata of American to keep up with the cost of living in the US, they have to spend money today.
The problem in the American economy is a lack of demand, which is tied to the fact that more and more wealth is tied up in fewer and fewer hands. Corporations are sitting on record numbers of cash reserves, because in a recession, their priority is to keep costs down, not to hire people.
Get the demand side of the economy going again, and you will have a stronger middle class, economic growth, upward mobility..the list goes on. But the rich don't want this, because most of them are too narrow-minded in their individual self-interest; they want what's best for them, and them alone. and screw the rest of us.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Windfall profits are made pushing others into poverty, as in the Great Depression. They're loving all that's happening. All of the ALEC proposals are just their new way of robbing and killing - as they've always done.
harun
(11,348 posts)and the DLC types is exactly what we are getting. Which is depressed wages and increases in poverty. This keeps inflation low and labor cheap.
It is what they want so they can boost profits. Everything Congress does is to increase corporate profits. People need to wake up to this. It get's wrapped in a right vs. left package but the real purpose of whatever legislation they pass is $$$.
Response to harun (Reply #57)
freshwest This message was self-deleted by its author.
harun
(11,348 posts)Response to harun (Reply #59)
freshwest This message was self-deleted by its author.
BeHereNow
(17,162 posts)BHN
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)Bank on it.
When the voters elect to the Congress morons who don't even know something as simple as checks and balances (ie PRESIDENTIAL VETO) or basic math (234 divided by 435 is LESS THAN two-thirds), you really shouldn't hold your breath waiting for them to do something valuable.
handmade34
(22,756 posts)
libodem
(19,288 posts)But then all those jobs might reflect well on my, President, and those worthless sonsabitches can't have that. They are traitors and seditionist a-holes, who need their asses fired and sent home. Remember, they HATE government, and should not be there.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,300 posts)Thanks for the thread, Playinghardball.
FreeBC
(403 posts)flamingdem
(39,308 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Christie, who is becoming more and more popular every day showed his true self long before Hurricane Sandy came in and made him a superstar.
There was going to be a new tunnel connecting NY and New Jersey
it was 100% paid for
it would have provided mega revenue for New Jersey forever once opened
it would have provided 10s of thousands of jobs to build it and the refurbishing of tracks state wide to use it
again, it was 100% paid for
Chris Christie vetoed it. Along with the hopes of millions of New Jersey/New York residents who needed this
oh, yes, also, it would have enabled a whole section of New Jersey, the Northwest area, to have a way to mass transit into Manhattan, something now totally unavailable to those in this area. Of course meaning the environment would have been improved tenfold
(after Sandy tore through the state, and the one tunnel closed for weeks in NJ, one in NY closed, shows how infrastructure is the way to go
Why not have a nationwide rebuild the railroad program?
Why is it, NO ONE in America can take a train to Nashville Tn if they wanted to.
From NY area, one can take a train to Chicago, wait a long time, take a train to Memphis, but it is 4 hours from Memphis to nashville.
There are NO commuter trains into Nashville.
Think of all the jobs, the revenue, etc.
if only the republicans were not there to veto every single idea there is.
BTW as to Krugman himself, he don't want a job. He is happy bloviating where he is.
He makes much money(he is a 1%er himself) doing what he does. Why would he actually want a governmental job at this time in his life? Betcha he wouldn't take one if offered. He would lose his forum).(IMHO just telling it like it is with most talking heads.
People who want to serve the public, do so.
People that don't, do what they do, which is talkinghead if they are famous and making a fortune doing what they do, which is great for themselves.
(starting a new thread on two shining examples of people who just do, constantly
Senator/Gov. Bob Graham and Gov. Jerry Brown
Festivito
(13,452 posts)
tavalon
(27,985 posts)
Turbineguy
(37,295 posts)against republican religion.
obama2terms
(563 posts)Republicans have created one job 
Overseas
(12,121 posts)
