Krugman is getting close to the edge

[cthulu2016]

Last edited Sat Jun 2, 2012, 02:49 AM - Edit history (5)

He does a great job of keeping it together, but the ongoing process has been interesting to watch. Three years ago Krugman still thought that some right-wing economists and economic commentators were fellow devotees of the same discipline who were simply under-informed.

But more and more he has learned the hard-way that these people are not academics, they are all just professional obfuscators and goal-post movers in the employ of the Borg. And his current book tour is exposing him to a 24/7 dose of wing-nut static. Watching this video ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002752595 ) you can see the little flashes of utter contempt in his eye, and he has begun answering some objections with a very impatient, "That's simply false, but to return to my point...."

Someday soon it will be...

Krugman: We need to do X and Y.

RW Stooge: That's preposterous. You haven't factored in Z.

Krugman: Look... I used to think you people were just confused and hadn't grasped the economic intricacies of why Z is a non-factor. So I wrote a whole huge thing about it full of charts and equations and links and such showing that when looking at the data, no honest person could cling to the idea that Z matters.

But you kept up this noise. So I wrote it again, trying to figure out how I was failing as a communicator. I used smaller words. I provided homey examples. And still you persisted. So I wrote a recap of the first two explanations... in bullet points... illustrated with cartoons.

And this wasn't in some obscure journal. This was online... for free... in the New York Times.

So either you have no sincere interest in the truth of this matter whatsoever, or your view came to you in a dream and is thus not subject to reasoned refutation, or else you are well aware of the truth of the matter and are just a fucking liar.

Whatever your thinking problem is, it's your problem, not mine. I am tired of trying to reason with you people.

[freshwest]

1. Yes, that is something that must be said!

[bluestateguy]

2. He is a good economist who has no clue of the political realities of 21st century America

On substance he makes a lot of good arguments, but then he just assumes that Obama can snap his fingers, make a few speeches, and wham! A massive WPA style or Great Society style spending program will just whiz through Congress. Well, I'd love to see that happen too, but we are still in the rear of the Reagan era, and public support (to say nothing of Congress and the media) just won't allow it. Krugman seems to have trouble grasping that.

[MannyGoldstein]

6. He's a bloody Firebagger!

Americans want "free" trade, austerity and Social Security cuts, not realistic ways to fix the economy.

[ladjf]

53. Are you saying that Krugman might as well save himself the effort of offering good ideas?

[cthulu2016]

7. Repeating this will never make it true.

Krugman's readers know what he says... and it ain't the straw-man you've offered here.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

10. Well, politicians, greedy Wall St schmucks

and the media they own & control spend 1000% of their time, money, and effort making damn sure the public does not understand basic economics - because if they did, the goddamned pols and greedy corprats would be crucified in the streets. Paul Krugman, thankfully, brings the indelible, unchangeable truth about basic economics to the people via what few media venues allow him to do it and I thank him for that.

The problem isn't with Paul Krugman. He understands economics quite well. It isn't his fault everyone else is either willfully or otherwise ignorant about it, or deliberately deceptive about it.

[rhett o rick]

17. So you are ok with it? nm

[grantcart]

26. He's brilliant and great at economics.

Just can't count to 60.

[bluestateguy]

28. Thank you

He may well say a lot of things that end up being true, but he seems to just assume that his policy prescriptions can just easily sail through both houses of Congress and then work their magic. And then when that does not happen he seems to express bewilderment.

[Zalatix]

35. If his failing is that he underestimates the full effects of GOP obstructionism

then the failing here is not really his.

It's with the GOP obstructionists.

[donquijoterocket]

76. true

I think with the GOP obstructionists Krugman misses a couple things one is The big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart.'
and the other is he believes you can construct a foolproof system of economy but A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. Like most intelligent, rational beings he's more than a little confused by prideful, willful ignorance

[tex-wyo-dem]

37. The "political reality" that you speak of....

Is only reality because governments are now infested with pols who don't work for the majority's welfare, but rather for personal gain and the benefit of those with lots of money who fund their election$. This is all made possible by the corporate-owned media who are there to propagandize us to death with the notion that a top-down, supply-side, trickle-down model is the only way to go...any other solution is just socialism and will fail. Citizens United has just put this basic problem on steroids.

Krugman's basic argument is the economy will not improve until wealth, now concentrated in the top few percent of the population, is put back into the hands of the working-, poor- and middle-classes who spent money directly back into the economy. It's really not rocket science.

[RufusTFirefly]

79. +10000 Amen!

Holy tautology, Batman!
It appalls me how naysayers use corporate-sponsored perspectives to explain why our corporate-dominated system can't be changed.

[ladjf]

54. Personally, I sympathize with his impatience. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

59. *Both* parties are clamoring for austerity

And a massive austerity program starts in January that the CBO says will throw us back into recession.

Krugman is pointing out that this is unbelievably stupid and evil. Do you want him to tell us that peas and cat food are actually ice cream and apple pie?

[donquijoterocket]

77. which proves

if nothing else that we do have two parties in this country, but not a left and right. There is no left in America. There is an extreme right and a right of center party. I think that along with with the willful, prideful ignorance of those supposedly in charge frustrates Mr. Krugman almost to distraction, but I hope he keeps saying these things and pointing out the evil and stupidity.

[sabrina 1]

39. He can. He's heard that argument. But he knows, logically, that when people in power

want something, they get it and sometimes even without '60' because there are ways around that number, but you have to really, really want it. Otherwise it is a perfect number to use when you don't really want something, but you want people to think you do.

Krugman is not a fool.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

60. Absolutely right

When the Big Money Types want something, whether it's George W . Bush in the White House or big tax cuts or Iraq to be invaded, they never piss and moan about needing 60 votes. It just happens for them, probably through a combination of threats, bribery, and blackmail.

[Agony]

67. IOW you have to be willing to fight for it

and don't start negotiating from your own 20 yard line...

[chervilant]

88. 20?

Well, I'd have to say they're edging closer to mid-field in their placatory attempts to be 'bi-partisan,' which is so much crap given the economic team for the current administration. The corporatists have us all by the short hairs, and they should not be surprised that so many of us are now aware of this fact.

[Egalitarian Thug]

74. +1

[grantcart]

82. He's not a fool and he's not ever passed a single piece of legislation.

But if you want to give Krugman a pass on the political side, which he involves himself by giving political advice, then there is this.

He is brilliant but he is brilliant by himself.

He has failed to use his skill and his tools to engage his academic community and build a working consensus that his position is right by the overwhelming consensus of economists.

It really mean fuck all to be 100% right if you don't translate that into something.

He hasn't translated it into political or legislative action.

He hasn't translated it into academic concensus.

He hasn't translated it a social movement.

In graduate school I was attending a theological ethics class and it was a Friday afternoon on a holiday weekend and we all wanted to get away. The professor said that we were going to stay until somebody stated the greatest problem with Bonhoeffer's work. It went on for 30 minutes, each graduate student out doing themselves trying to critique The Cost of Discipleship, Sanctorum Communio and so on. After they had sputtered I raised my hand and said, "He didn't kill Hitler when he tried".

I don't know what Krugman is trying to do so its hard to say whether or not he has succeeded in what HE thinks he is doing but the fact is there isn't any legislation that is passed because of what he says. Nor is there a group of economists that have been organized to support his general position.

If you want to praise Krugman, fine with me but in the real world one Elizabeth Warren is worth 20 Paul Krugmans. Paul talks about the risks that the President should take, that he is too conservative and that he needs to risk more political capital and so on.

Did it ever occur to you that Krugman always is telling others the risks that they should be taking but always does so from the lifetime immunity of being a fully tenured Professor at Princeton?

Yeah Krugman is a real risk taker for the cause. Bonhoeffer failed but atleast he risked his life.

[sabrina 1]

86. Krugman is doing the job he signed on to do. He informs the public, AND elected

officials who presumably read the NYT. But why was he not asked to join the Obama Administration, or Stiglitz, or Galbraith, or any one of a number of economists who have been RIGHT all along?

Everyone can't be an elected official. The press performs an important job, maybe even more important than, at least, some of our elected officials. What they do with the information provided by people like Krugman is not his responsibility. And while you say he risks nothing, like all journalists who tell the truth, he risks the anger of elected officials, which he has experienced, and maybe even his job if they decide he's a problem. See Ashley Banfield, eg.

What risk does a politician take if s/he chooses to push policies that are right? Losing the next election? Maybe, and some have had the courage to do that.

Just as you say Krugman is taking no risks, neither are politicians who don't fight for what is right, but go along with the status quo.

I don't see the point of comparing an economist with an elected official, they both signed on to different jobs and we wouldn't expect a politician to do Krugman's job, so why demand that, in order to have credibility, Krugman needs to do THEIR job?

The truth is, which was my point re the '60' number, when they want something, they get it and that number means nothing.

An example of that were the Bank Bailouts. Congress, in response to the people, and believing it was the right thing to do, voted against the bailouts. They didn't have the numbers, that should have been the end of it. But no, it wasn't. We now know from several members of Congress that they were threatened if they did not vote for Henry Paulson's bailouts. Over 80% of the people in the polls said 'no' to bailouts, they called their Reps, their Reps listened, Paulson lost. He didn't have the numbers.

But because they wanted it so badly, they went back and forced another vote, going so far as to bully members of Congress into giving them the numbers they needed.

If only they would use the same tactics for things the people actually want. The banks wanted that vote, and regardless of what the people wanted, they got it. That was my point and that is not the only example I could give.

[Hissyspit]

97. Oh, brother.

[cthulu2016]

42. That's a punchy bon mot, but not very accurate.

Last edited Sat Jun 2, 2012, 02:33 PM - Edit history (3)

Does Krugman have a history of saying "X will pass the senate," or does he say, "X is correct and should be proposed and fought for."

Adherents of the "Krugman doesn't understand politics" rationalization do not, in fact understand politics.

The utility of proposing what is correct is not limited to whether it will pass the senate. Politics is not only about legislative vote counting. It is also about the development of public support, the steering of public attitudes, the framing of issues and ideas.

Why don't we see similar snark about how Martin Luther King couldn't count to 60? I'm sure he favored a lot of legislation that wasn't going to pass that week.

What the US government did in 2009 guaranteed that the election of 2012 would take place during a struggling economy. That is the stupidest political decision I have ever heard of, so I am willing to give the B of the D and assume that the administration did not realize that they were making a political blunder. They must have believed the economic problem was largely self-repairing in a 3 year time-frame.

If they had KNOWN (which they should have) that what was politically possible in 2009 would lead to a disappointing, under-performing economy then Obama should have been on TV saying just that.

Instead he was saying, we have done just what was needed to get back on track.

When you know that is going to blow up in your face and take willing political ownership of an economy that is sure to stagger down the road anyway is that shrewd politics?

If the head of the CDC said, "Only a national vaccination rate of at least 95% can hope to prevent this new deadly space virus from going epidemic," but we know that a couple of blue dogs in the Senate will not fund anything over 40% coverage do we denounce the head of the CDC as politically naive?

And when the senate passes 40% coverage does the president go on TV to talk about how this will solve the space virus problem?

And when the bodies start piling up, what force is there behind the call to vaccinate 95% of people?

"Whatever dude... you said 40% would fix it. Now you say 95%. You have no credibility here."

And the Republicans would be going, "The president's hare-brained vaccination scheme was tried, and it failed. Vaccination does not work. So our idea of putting leeches on the virus victims is clearly correct."



If Obama had done what was right, proposed and fought for what was right, he would not have gotten what he asked for out of the senate. That's a fact.

But when the economy staggered, as it was sure to do, the predicate would be laid. "See, I told you it wasn't enough. Now do what I wanted in the first place." And if Republicans had already taken over the House by then then he could be running against that.

And consider this alternative... let's say Obama had been chicken little and run around demanding more and predicting doom if more wasn't done and he turned out to be wrong. What's the downside? For him to have been wrong the economy would have had to have recovered on its own. He wouldn't be voted out of office for presiding over an awesome 2012 economy, no matter what he had said in 2009.


The reality is that 1) Obama didn't get the nature of the economic problem, and 2) he didn't want to fight with the blue dogs, knowing they would be needed for HCR.

I admire the hell out of the HCR push, whatever the policy defects. I am sympathetic to Obama's legislative priorites, since he did not get how bad the economy was. But to re-write history and pretend that Obama did understand the economy in 2009 paints Obama as a political moron. And I do not think he is.

Nobody with a political brain would take political ownership of an economic policy that was sure to fail. Obama definately has a good political brain. So he didn't get that it was sure to fail. QED.

So we can all stop pretending that the WH wanted to do the right thing but understood the political realities, unlike their stupid, naieve critics of the time.


Is Obama unable to count to 60? Why is he currently traversing the country proposing a jobs act that cannot pass Congress? Where is the scorn for his political cluelessness in such an un-pragmatic proposal?

Obama is doing what he is doing because he figured out, quite belatedly, that you cannot paint the opposition as obstructionist unless they are obstructing something, and the the president ought to get behind something that would actualy do good vis-a-vis the singular issue of the decade.

Demand what is right. The downside of appearing weak because you didn't get your way in the short-term is nothing compared to the downside of presiding over inadequate policy.

That's politics.

[sendero]

48. Excellent post...

... and I have only one small quibble. You posit that Obama "didn't understand the magnitude of the problem" (paraphrased) but I'm not so sure it wasn't really "the people who actually run the country would not let Obama actually address the problem".

The "belated conversion" might as well be window dressing, Obama has no power now, not any.

[MannyGoldstein]

63. Excellent, excellent post.

One of the best analyses I've ever read on DU.

I'd like to add that impartial and smart economists, like Krugman, were predicting that Obama's stimulus would fall far short of the mark. If the White House had embraced them instead of shunning them, this depression might be over. Instead, things are awful (for the 99%) and we're heading off another austerity cliff come January.

And, God forbid, the savaged masses put Romney in office in the mistaken belief that at least there's a *chance* he can improve our awful circumstances.

[paulk]

83. great post

thanks!

[grantcart]

84. I responded to a more general criticism of Krugman in 82.

As to your "Krugman has a history", I don't find your generalization the least bit accurate but if it makes you feel good about Krugman go ahead.

When the stimulous package was being passed Krugman took a lot of potshots at Obama for being to small (even though it was the largest ever attempted and dwarfs what the European Community attempted).

But even if he said that this will "pass the senate" he was wildly inaccurate.

The stimuluous that was passed passed by a single vote.

You can say whatever you want about what you 'think' will pass the Senate but that doesn't mean that it will.

The bottom line which I lay out in # 82 above is that Krugman is great about telling others what risks that they should be taking, he just won't take any himself.

He has permanent tenure and writes articles. He doesn't step down and run for office, and he hasn't been able to convince and organize fellow economists to make an academic stand. So what risks does he take?

If you want to worship the benign Krugman, fine with me. He's a smart guy and I basically agree with him.

I would take one Elizabeth Warren over 20 Paul Krugmans.

She took a risk, she got an agency started, she is running for election. She is going to change people's minds. Krugman could run for office or he could organize 100 leading economists to sign a letter. He sits in Firestone library and writes a column and never risks a thing.

[bread_and_roses]

87. Excellent. And he could now be excoriating the stupid Rs

Yes to almost everything. I have a few quibbles (I always do) but not worth writing since I'm a fly-by here in GD - very occasionally read, almost never post, and gone again now.

But I did want to add my kudos to the others for your post.

[Jackpine Radical]

99. I got here by way of a reference from Manny in another thread, and owe him for that.

You have done one of the most elegantly accurate critiques of Obama's Presidency so far that I have seen anywhere.

[bvar22]

93. Sure he can count to 60.

I can too.
I just wish this current administration had given America the chance to count to 60.
If they had actually FOUGHT,
and brought these issues to The Floor for a vote
instead of surrendering before The Fight,
the results could have been different.

There is a WORLD of difference between saying you are NOT going to vote for something,
and actually DOING IT before America and The World.
Other President have KNOWN this,
and FOUGHT for what they wanted
instead of pre-emptive surrender before the FIGHT.

NOW, We will NEVER know WHAT would have happened IF the Democratic Leadership had actually FOUGHT the Battle.
The worst thing that would have happened is that they would have lost,
and we would be in exactly the same place as we are now,
but with a little pride of having Fought the GOOD FIGHT
instead of just running from the big bad bully, Joe Lieberman.

"It was ALL that bully Joe Lieberman's fault.
He ruined it for EVERYBODY!
It was HORRIBLE.
There was nothing we could dooooo.
He is a SUPERMAN!"

I am glad I am old enough to remember HOW Democratic Presidents got things done in the past.
Can you IMAGINE what would have happened to wimpy little Joe Lieberman if he had stood up and told LBJ he wans't going to vote for Medicare?

We would STILL be finding little pieces of Joe Lieberman's ass spread all the way from Connecticut to Texas!

Read Up on "The Johnson Treatment".
http://thejohnsonpost.blogspot.com/2009/08/johnson-treatment.html

"Johnson was the catalyst, the cajoler in chief. History records him as the nation's greatest legislative politician. In a great piece on the Daily Beast website, LBJ aide Tom Johnson, writes about how his old boss would have gotten a health care reform bill through the current congress. It's worth reading to understand the full impact of the "Johnson treatment" and how effective LBJ could be in winning votes for his legislation."

http://thejohnsonpost.blogspot.com/2009/08/johnson-treatment.html

"Strong and successful presidents (meaning those who get what they want - whether that happens to be good for the country or not) do not accept "the best deal on the table". They take out their carpentry tools and the build the goddam piece of furniture themselves. Strong and successful presidents do not get dictated to by the political environment. They reshape the environment into one that is conducive to their political aspirations."

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/07/17

[font color=firebrick size=3][center]"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone[/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[font size=5 color=firebrick]Solidarity![/font]

[happyslug]

103. Remember LBJ needed 67 Votes not 60 to overcome the Filibuster on the Civil Rights Bill

In the early 1970s the Senate changed its rules on Filibusters, dropped the number of votes needed to end a Filibuster to 60 from the previous 2/3rd rule (i.e. 67 votes) AND permitted Filibusters on subjects to continue, while the Senate went on to other business.

In 1964, to get the Civil Rights Act passed, LBJ, and his allies, shut down the Government for 57 days, while the Senate did NOTHING but debate the Civil Rights Act. No confirmations, no budget, no other acts of Congress passed the Senate. That is what a Filibuster meant in 1964 and LBJ and his allies, proceeded to fight the Filibuster for the entire 57 days. It meant anything that needed action by the Senate had to wait till the bill was withdrawn OR 67 or more Senators voted to end debate on the Bill (To end debate on any bill on the Senate and to proceed with the actual vote on the bill, you needed 67 votes in 1964, 60 votes today, the inability to get that number of votes to end the debate is what defines a Filibuster).

Today, the Senate rules permit the Senate to go on to other actions it needs to do, but no vote on the item being filibustered unless 60 Senators decides to vote to end debate on that item. These refusal to vote to end debate on bills (and other actions such as confirmations) is what a Filibuster is today. The Senate can and does do other work, unlike the Filibuster of 1964 when NOTHING else was able to get done.

The old rule still stands, but the rule adopted in the 1970s is what most Senators do when their Filibuster today. Obama could have insisted on a vote and force the Senate to undergo an old fashioned Filibuster by the simple means of having NOTHING else on the agenda of the Senate. This is what LBJ and his allies did in 1964. Thus the Senate leadership could and did force vote after vote on ending the Filibuster. The GOP opposition could scream and yell about Obama playing Politics (and he would have been, just like LBJ was doing so in 1964) but that is what you have to do to get bills passed.

More on the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Johnson_and_passage

[Sekhmets Daughter]

107. Great post...

I have been so frustrated by the Dems refusal to emulate Johnson's tactics....

[JVS]

41. The problem is not with Krugman, it's with the politicians who have no clue of economic reality.

When push comes to shove, economic reality trumps political realities.

[Marr]

45. lol, right. Krugman just isn't blessed with your grasp of politics.

[ladjf]

52. Krugman is doing a wonderful job of offering up a steady stream of good ideas about what

could be done to improve the economy. That's his field and he is very good at it. There is
no need for him to also be expected to offer the political solutions required to enact good
economics policy.

It is the job of those who are forming the policies of the political realities to understand Krugmans ideas and to try to move them into policy as best they can. I don't see any such efforts being done by any of our politicians. I do notice the the new President of France seems to be moving in the direction suggested by Krugman.

[TheKentuckian]

55. I suspect he understands that political reality doesn't trump actual reality

A hundred votes in the Senate and 435 in the House to repeal gravity will still leave our feet firmly on the ground.

I suspect he also understands that compliance and meek acceptance of one political reality that is at odds with actual reality will without great luck result in a new ass is grass political reality when events in the universe of time and space catch up prove you false.

It is one thing to accept this is all I can get through Congress but you go into a very different ballpark when that acceptance leads you to pretend that it will work when you know you will be the one left holding the bag. At that point you removed your own defense, you cannot claim you were obstructed when you are on record playing Goldilocks, not effectively. It may pass muster among the choir but the folks outside the church ain't gonna buy it, not when your own words are used in rebuttal.

I'm also forced to consider the entire argument as excuse making since the President has for months been proposing measures that cannot be passed but also are inadequate if they were.

We also know that political reality doesn't change by embracing the current paradigm but rather by assaulting it, even when in the beginning it is strictly tilting at windmills. How many Reich wing ideas have we seen over the decades go from laughable to mainstream. They don't give a damn about how a proposal polls or if they have enough votes for passage they just keep selling it like it is the default position and relentlessly pursue their goals.
The same really goes for any movement that changes a status quo. Almost always at the start and often for many years the goals are laughable in the context of political reality.

Krugman is not so brilliant an economist that he can make inadequate, poorly targeted, or especially misguided policy prescriptions capable of fixing problems simply because they can pass Congress nor can he be blamed for not being stupid enough to play along and be wrong with an obviously (and demonstrably) wrong crowd.

Obama was beyond stupid to claim that the stimulus would keep unemployment below 8.1%. I don't know if the stupidity was fueled by misunderstanding the economics or political stupidity or both but there was nothing to stake that assessment on knowing you had too little fill for the hole and also no way not to have such an assertion hung around your neck when you made no argument and even made wild claims of how the package was just right.

If political reality is wrong then you have to push to change it because actual reality is far less malleable and certainly does not bend to the whims of poll watching technocrats.

[quakerboy]

78. And you miss the whole point

Its not a question of what can be done. Its a question of what needs to be done. And that is what Krugman is speaking too.

If you are in a hyundai accent speeding toward a cliff, you need to turn or stop. If the power steering and brake fluid have both been drained, well, youve got a problem, and you may not feel able to do either of those things. But you still need to do them, or something bad will happen to you. And saying "can't be done" isn't likely to make you any less mangled.

The question of how to make that happen is a second step. And Krugman may not be the man to go to on that side of things.

[paulk]

81. someone needs to be saying what Krugman is saying

so why not Krugman? He does have some cred, after all.

someone needs to remind Obama that there's a better way - someone needs to be making the argument.

I don't understand your objections other than it might hurt the tender feelings of our POTUS. Or maybe it might hurt the feelings of his devotees - I'm sure that Obama is listening and probably agrees at some level.

[Jakes Progress]

89. You are a good person who has no clue of the realities of the current situation.

Instead of knee-jerking to the the name Krugman because he has occasionally targeted Obama for administrative and political shortcomings, try to read what he is saying. What part of it do you disagree with? Do you think the republicans are going to do the right thing for the people just because it is the right thing? Krugman doesn't.

If you don't fight for what you want, they aren't going to give it to you.

You seem to have trouble grasping that.

[chervilant]

91. What?

Okay, let's be clear here: you've just insulted Paul Krugman, who is ranked among the most erudite and influential thinkers on the planet. How do you know he "just assumes that Obama can snap his fingers, make a few speeches, and wham!"? From whence do you glean your derogatory assessment?

I may have to go wading again...

[Logical]

98. Lol, mr political science knows more than kurgan! Classic!

[Sekhmets Daughter]

106. I respectfully disagree.

I think Krugman does understand 21st century politics and human nature as well. I think he has simply been too polite to tell the president and Harry Reid to grow a pair. By the time we were six months into the president's term it was quite obvious that the Republicans in the senate had found the formula to nullify his presidency...the abuse of the filibuster rule. Right then the president should have called Reid into the WH and told him to call out the mattresses for every single filibuster...make the GOP goons stand in the well for however long it takes to move them off of their obstructive position....
The only way to tame a bully is to challenge him. Then at the beginning of the next session Reid should have changed the rules for that session on the first day which requires just 51 votes. I am so sick of the spineless crowd calling themselves Democrats I have made a promise to myself. If the Bush tax cuts are again extended, the GOP is allowed to renege on the Defense Budget cuts and then Dems vote to raise the debt ceiling next Feb. or March I will never again support another national Democrat with my money or my vote. Having sworn off Republicans years ago, I shall vote for whoever is running on the Green ticket.

[JNelson6563]

3. Love it!

[riderinthestorm]

4. Sing it brother chthulu! Yup, this willful ignorance has to stop. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Krugman is dangerous, unrealistic and

increasingly irrelevant.

If he wants to play with the big boys, he needs to cut out his "numbers" and "facts" BS, and learn to compromise on reality. Just because he's been right virtually always doesn't give him carte blanche to disagree with austerity.

Everyone who's anyone *just knows* that austerity is the *only* way forward.

Austerity now! Austerity forever!

Sincerely,

Third-Way Manny

[Ron Green]

9. Look out, MG, you're about to become

my favorite poster around here.

[hatrack]

11. Third-Way Manny, you're so sensible!

Gosh, what would we do without you?

[Gregorian]

16. He's a troop hating elistist.

What in the pluperfect hell does he think he's trying to do! Why does he hate the beautiful military economy that we have so painstakingly created.


edit- Hey, I'm liking this post count thing. It's like wearing our age on our sleeve.

[socialist_n_TN]

19. As St. Margaret Thatcher said........

"There is no alternative."

[Prophet 451]

94. Thatcher was pretty much evil incarnate to us

Liberal Brits, that is.

[socialist_n_TN]

101. Yep, can imagine so..........

I think that she was even more evil than St. Ronnie, because she actually was more than an empty suit.

[Vanje]

32. I LIKE you!

nt

[joshcryer]

47. Your caricature is conflating different issues, as usual.

[fascisthunter]

66. he's spot on in regards to the "Third Way" phony democratic mentality

[fascisthunter]

65. lol

[Odin2005]

72. DUzy!

[datasuspect]

73. very pragmatic

you should get lots of dry powder out of this

[99th_Monkey]

96. did you forget the "Sarcasm" smily? ~nt

[Baitball Blogger]

8. We need someone to run around with their hair on fire.

That's how it begins. And then when the shit storms begins, he can go around hitting everyone on the head yelling, "I told you so!" "I told you so!"

[Ruby the Liberal]

12. I love that pic.

Had it as my desktop for a while.

It looks like the original is from Syriana, but I don't recall that in the movie. Regardless, it is spot on.



I'm surprised Dr K hasn't started pulling out his hair by the roots...

[cthulu2016]

15. It's near the beginning, I think.

[banned from Kos]

13. Bush the Lesser was the biggest Keynesian of all time

Federal spending went from $1.9 trillion in 2002 t0 $3.5 trillion in FY 2009.

And he still had a dismal jobs creation record (and two terrible recessions). Krugman is right of course - but the Western economies suffered far more than many know 2002-2009.

[tkmorris]

18. Just spending Federal monies does not make you Keynesian

A lot depends on what you spend the money ON, and that is where Bush went wrong. Among other things of course.

[FarLeftFist]

20. Bush spent it on war, a Keynesian would have flooded States w/ cash & kept public employees working

Because it's better to pay to keep them employed and spending in the economy than it is to pay them not to be working; on unemployment. Not to mention lower unemployment rates. At this point the ONLY thing that can save the economy is STIMULUS. Re-hire police officers, fire-fighters, teachers, nurses, sanitation workers, infrastructure repair, etc Lower the unemployment rate & have hundreds of thousands spending more in the economy. Even buying cars, homes, tv's, out to eat etc. THAT will stimulate the economy.

[banned from Kos]

23. Bush spent not just in Iraq but DHS, TSA, Medicare Drugs, schools, CIA,

housing, government sector, massive tax cuts, defense, - literally everywhere. He passed out the $300 checks as stimulus as well.

We owe 90% of our current problems to him though. I despise him so much I now buy into the Starve the Beast theory. The GOP is cynically and intentionally bankrupting the country. You watch - the next GOP president will spend big too.

[PSPS]

34. Those "$300 checks" were loans, by the way. You paid it back on the following year's tax return.

[sabrina 1]

40. You left out a few things.

Excellent try though. Nice reverse psychology attempt! Damn, all those 'progressive' polices Republicans tried showed us Democrats how they do not work!

Now that you pointed it out, we will join you in drowning government in the bathtub!

Give yourself a pat on the back!

[suffragette]

29. Bush & Cheney funneled the federal $$$ to their buddies and themselves, privatizing

much that was public in the process - Blackwater, Halliburton, etc.

And then there are the tax cuts, which disproportionately benefited the wealthy and, just as with Reagan, never trickled down.
http://www.epi.org/publication/tenth_anniversary_of_the_bush-era_tax_cuts/


There's nothing Keynesian about raiding federal funds and slashing social programs to benefit the already wealthy.

[cthulu2016]

36. This is not a popular observation, but

I think Bush's fiscal policy was very stimulative. It was not as stimulative, dollar for dollar, as any other use of the same deficit. Tax cuts for the rich and war are sub-optimal stimulus. But you can't run up a Bush size deficit without goosing the economy a fair amount.

Bubbles take down whole economies. The tulip bubble, the south seas bubble, the 1920s stock market, Tokyo real estate, the internet stock bubble, the housing bubble.

These events demolish economies, for a long time.

The internet bubble was, at the time, the biggest bubble in the history of money. I expected it to take the US economy down at least as hard as 2008 did. By all rights it should have.

But Bush wasted so much money on nonsense that the Keynesian spillover (which Bush probably does not even belivve in) kept the situation from rolling off the table. I didn't fix things, of course... employment was for shit, but the 9/11 interest rate cuts, the massive war spending and the low taxes for the investor class (particularly capital gains. Income tax is a side show) and lingering fake-ass internet bubble money were enough to pump up the housing bubble.

Consider this... Major bubbles are generational events. A bubble burst burns people so badly they lose thier bubble fever for a good long time. How on earth could the biggest bubble in history (in real dollars) collapse and then another equally dumb and perhaps even larger bubble develop only four/five years later in the same economy?

That's impossible, isn't it?

So I do not think the internet-era stock market sell-off was really the decisive resolution of the asset bubble. It wanted to collapse but more kind of deflated in a surprisingly orderly way, and did not send 100% of the bubble money to money heaven where it belonged. 2000-2001 should have been 1929, or at least 2008-2009, but wasn't.

The moving asset bubble didn't stop with real estate. Remember the moves that oil and gold and other commodities made in mid-2008 as housing was starting down? The bubble psycholgy was not broken in 2001. People continued to expect 20% annual returns.

The fact the internet bubble merely deadened the economy and kept employment flat has to be a fluke of the Bush tax cuts, the wars, Medicare D... the whole Bush blow-out.

None of this is to praise Bush, for several reasons.

1) He didn't have a clue. The grotesque deficit was meant to transfer wealth from poor to rich, not to prop up the economy. And the Republicans do not propose tax cuts for the rich for any economic purpose. The Bush tax cuts would have been proposed in any economic environment.

2) The deficits were just about the least optimal stimulative use of that size borrowing. Think what we could have done with infrastructure versus billions to murder a bunch of Iraqis as an election stunt. Think what we could have done with health care or hiring with those missing billions in tax revenue. It was massive stupid stimulus and unforgivable on that score. And,

3) Saving us from a bubble collapse by feeding the tension into and even more destructive bubble that takes down the whole shee-bang is hardly anything to brag about.

But all in all, when the biggest bubble ever bursts and terrorists blow up wall street and you've got a massive real estate bubble only a little time later it suggests something was keeping the house of cards propped up. And when that all coincides with moving from a budget surplus to the biggest deficits ever in a very short time that's a logical place to start looking for why.

[banned from Kos]

51. Well put. Bush's stimilus was real and in no way intended to benefit the middle class.

It was to further GOP goals and electoral prospects.

If the Tea Party were not a pack of lying scoundrels they would admit this. The huge deficits are on the GOP.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

108. The internet bubble did more than

deaden the economy. It heralded the current " secular bear market" we are now enduring. This market began in 2000 and investors are expecting the third correction/plunge to take place sometime in 2013. Usually the middle market decline (2008) in a secular bear market is the hardest, but there is no guarantee that the one in 2013 won't be as bad, if not worse.

Bush's tax cuts did not prevent a collapse. That was accomplished by the Alan Greenspan dropping interest rates (too low for too long) to create the credit bubble of which the housing bubble was a component. As I read the economic news, I am becoming persuaded that the best thing that could happen to the Democrats would be a Republican victory in the fall....The mess they will inherit and exacerbate will be so bad the GOP could end up back in the wilderness it endured between 1954 and 1994.

In 1988 Reagan signed Executive Order 12631 to create the President's Working Group on Financial Markets" aka The Plunge Protection Team.

[DCKit]

49. Funny, too, that they didn't start counting that cash until 2010.

There was no pResident between Clinton and Obama. Look into my eyes... there was no pResident between Clinton and Obama......

[RagAss]

14. Fuck reason !

[HiPointDem]

21. who is that man?

[awoke_in_2003]

24. Anton Chugar...

Well, his character name in "No Country For Old Men"


http://m.

[HiPointDem]

25. but who is he?

[socialist_n_TN]

27. Javier something or another........

Darn fine actor. I just looked it up.

Javier Bardem.

[patrice]

30. Javier Bardem . . . hubba, hubba! nt

[HiPointDem]

43. lol. i find him kind of creepy, at least in that clip.

[patrice]

69. Oh yeah, in No Country he's max-creepy. Have you seen him in Marquez' Love in the Time of Cholera? n

[patrice]

71. How about The Dancer Upstairs? nt

[jtuck004]

22. I used smaller words. I provided homey examples.... illustrated with cartoons....

One cannot talk slow enough for these people.

[starroute]

31. Krugman wanted to be Hari Seldon as a kid

He knows how this story ends.

He just keeps hoping it can somehow be averted.

[upi402]

38. asimov

ftw

[pam4water]

33. Stiglitz and Keen ftw!

Last edited Sat Jun 2, 2012, 04:14 AM - Edit history (2)

&feature=related
http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2012/04/banks-matter-krugmans-barter-mysticism.html

[hfojvt]

44. He does not seem to understand economics

as it is actually practiced by economists

"Graduate economics courses have become classes in rhetoric. The idea is to make plausible and logical arguments based on assumptions that need not be realistic at all. The criterion for economic theory is simply whether it is internally logical, not its realism. That is what makes economics a non-science in the sense that the physical sciences require not only a consistency of assumptions, but realism as well. The task of economists is to come up with a set of assumptions that will lead to the conclusions promoted by their employers." Micheal Hudson

Or as Galbraith said much earlier than Hudson

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

Excpet in this case, it is a pseudo-intellectual justification for policies which are based on selfishness.

[coalition_unwilling]

46. My wife and I laughed our asses off as we read your speculation

about where Krugman will eventually wind up, especially this little jewel:

"or your view came to you in a dream and is thus not subject to reasoned refutation"

Just another way of saying "faith-based economics"

[ProSense]

50. Krugman is a

must-read.

Extremists and Enablers

These two stories are related:

1. Republicans are getting ready to hold American hostage again, refusing to raise the debt ceiling unless spending is cut drastically; basically, never mind the old-fashioned idea of actually passing legislation, they’ll just blow up the country unless their demands are met.

2. Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein, two highly respected Congressional analysts with a reputation for being nonpartisan, have a book documenting the fact that our political dysfunction is very one-sided — it’s Republican extremism, not “both sides do it”, that’s at fault. Sales of their book have been very good, and there’s a lot of public interest. But guess what? They can’t get on TV to promote their book.

When future historians write about the fall of the American Republic, they will of course lay primary blame on the extremists of the right, who set out deliberately to destroy it. But they will also lay heavy blame on all the “centrists” and Serious People who not only refused to admit what was happening, but ostracized and silenced anyone who tried to point it out.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/16/extremists-and-enablers/

Spending and Growth

First-quarter growth results are now in for the major advanced economies; they look like this:



Wait, what? Japan as star performer? What’s that about?

Actually, no mystery. From Bloomberg:

Japan’s economy expanded faster than estimated in the first quarter, boosted by reconstruction spending that’s poised to fade just as a worsening in Europe’s crisis threatens to curtail export demand.

So Japan, which is spending heavily for post-tsunami reconstruction, is growing quite fast, while Italy, which is imposing austerity measures, is shrinking almost equally fast.

- more-

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/spending-and-growth/

Don’t Know Much About (Ancient) History

The things I do for book sales. I debated, sort of, Ron Paul on Bloomberg.Video here. I thought we might have a discussion of why the runaway inflation he and his allies keep predicting keeps not happening. But no, he insisted (if I understood him correctly) that currency debasement and price controls destroyed the Roman Empire. I responded that I am not a defender of the economic policies of the Emperor Diocletian.

Actually, though, appeals to what supposedly happened somewhere in the distant past are quite common on the goldbug side of economics. And it’s kind of telling.

I mean, history is essential to economic analysis. You really do want to know, say, about the failure of Argentina’s convertibility law, of the effects of Chancellor Brüning’s dedication to the gold standard, and many other episodes.

Somehow, though, people like Ron Paul don’t like to talk about events of the past century, for which we have reasonably good data; they like to talk about events in the dim mists of history, where we don’t really know what happened. And I think that’s no accident. Partly it’s the attempt of the autodidact to show off his esoteric knowledge; but it’s also the fact that because we don’t really know what happened — what really did go down during the Diocletian era? — you can project what you think should have happened onto the sketchy record, then claim vindication for whatever you want to believe.

It’s funny, in a way — except that this sort of thinking dominates one of our two main political parties.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/30/dont-know-much-about-ancient-history/

Video: http://www.bloomberg.com/video/91689761/

The Drywall Chronicles

So Mitt Romney gave a speech at a closed Ohio drywall factory, which he tried to use as a symbol of Obama’s economic failure. The symbolism was perfect — not as an illustration of Obama’s failure, but as an illustration of just how stupid Romney thinks we are.

Even regular reporters noticed that the factory in question closed under, yes, George W. Bush — a fact Romney failed to mention, although his campaign scrambled to cover for him afterwards.

What I didn’t see mentioned was the point that this was a drywall factory — that is, a supplier of a product largely used in home construction. It’s one thing to say that Obama should have revived the economy as a whole; it’s another to say that he should have brought back the housing bubble!

Finally, why should we believe that Romney’s policies — basically tax cuts for the rich, as usual — would yield great economic results? Well, I guess you can point to Bush’s example; how did his administration at this point compare with Obama? From BLS data:



- more -

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/the-drywall-chronicles/

[rurallib]

56. Why does Obama refuse to even listen to Krugman at all?

[cthulu2016]

68. Beacuse a) Obama is a poltician, and

b) the average voter rejects the center-left view of our economic situation as going against "common sense."

At this point I don't fault Obama much. The time to accept reality was a few years ago. Once the Republicans gained control of the agenda in 2010 any economic right answers became rather academic.

I cannot think of anything Obama could do about the economy today, in June of an election year.

Spilled milk.

[bvar22]

105. I disagree.

"the average voter rejects the center-left view of our economic situation"

When polled independently ON THE ISSUES, The vast majority of American voters (Democrats & Republicans) AGREE with the Left's Economic view.

Here is what the MAJORITY of Americans (Democrats AND Republicans) want from OUR government!

In recent polls 2005!!! by the Pew Research Group, the Opinion Research Corporation, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News, the American majority has made clear how it feels. Look at how the majority feels about some of the issues that you'd think would be gospel to a real Democratic Party:

1. 65 percent (of ALL Americans, Democrats AND Republicans) say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes.

2. 86 percent favor raising the minimum wage (including 79 percent of selfdescribed "social conservatives&quot .

3. 60 percent favor repealing either all of Bush's tax cuts or at least those cuts that went to the rich.

4. 66 percent would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

5. 77 percent believe the country should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment.

6. 87 percent think big oil corporations are gouging consumers, and 80 percent (including 76 percent of Republicans) would support a windfall profits tax on the oil giants if the revenues went for more research on alternative fuels.

7. 69 percent agree that corporate offshoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe offshoring is good because "it keeps costs down."

http://alternet.org/story/29788/

8. Over 63% oppose the War on the Iraqi People.

9. 92% of ALL Americans support TRANSPARENT, VERIFIABLE elections!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x446445

The American People AGREE,
So where is the disconnect?

1) The disconnect happens in the Corporate Owned Media (both Left & Right) who force the national dialog into the very narrow gap on Economic Policy between the two Dominant Parties. NOBODY who calls for a return to the Tried & True successful Economic Policies of the 60s that built the biggest, wealthiest, and most Upwardly Mobile Middle/Working Class the WORLD has ever seen is allowed ANY oxygen or exposure. These people are simply NOT allowed on TV by either the Right or the (supposedly) Left outlets.

2) The Democratic Party's Inability (or unwillingness) to barnstorm America and actually SELL these Economic Policies in easy to understand English, a la Huey Long.

The Marketing Program for Health Care Reform was designed to fail.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[drynberg]

57. HERE IS WHAT I THOUGHT WAS THE KEY PART OF DR. KRUGMAN'S ARGUMENT IN THE VIDEO

Paul just stopped and said the obvious truth. He said those "Tory Thinkers" were not really interested in stopping the Depression, but wanted to exploit the times to shrinkthe government to meet their political thinking. He also pointed out that frankly, our economy of a Nation is differentthan a household, and he implied that they were either disingenuous or incompetent or liars. He spoke frankly, openly, without bitterness nor anger. In short, spot on.

[Waiting For Everyman]

58. Perfect!

It's an inevitable conclusion. I still find it curious though that it takes some so long to get there. Maybe it's too much patience.

Love the pic!

[mother earth]

61. K & R, excellent OT, CTHulu2016, excellent points in discussion, austerity talk

needs to end, DOA, along with filibuster abuse.

You make excellent points on gaining public opinion. The public needs constant education, they are fed a constant diet of disinfo mixed in with family and christian value BS, coupled with periodic shock doctrine tactics.

[dotymed]

62. IMO, the PTB and their paid for politicians know that Mr. Krugman is right.

Of course, they can't afford to admit this.
Dr. Krugman should make it crystal clear that he wants to inform the people not the politicians. If they are educated then it makes it a lot harder for "our" politicians to act against our best interests. Maybe Krugman should say," these are the facts, this is the data to prove it. The politicians understand this but can't profit by implementing this cure. If we, the people, will not force the politicians to enact the legislation that is needed. Then we will increasingly suffer. Take to the streets if necessary or suffer serfdom."
If this message would saturate our population, maybe we can change the (for now) inevitable...

[1-Old-Man]

64. I do not think the desire to obstuct came to them in a dream

As is so often the case I could use help marshelling my thoughts.

I do not think the desire or knowledge of how to obstruct rational discussion and argument came to the people Krugmann references in a dream. I think it takes a generation to corrupt a people and about a half a generation to train those same people in how to do it. That gives you about 30~35 years, now go back that far in time and ask yourself, who was in charge?

Almost all of this countrie's current problems can be tracked back to their beginning, right around 1980. What happened in 1980?

Ronald Reagan, the worst President in the history of the United States of America.

[tosh]

70. Welcome to DU, 1-O-M!

Nice post. I often let my mind wander through the 80's and I stand in awe at how "beautifully" this was all orchestrated.

[Odin2005]

80. WELCOME!!! Great post!

[Sekhmets Daughter]

109. The GOP is nothing

if not long range planners, you're correct.

[felix_numinous]

75. And so are Americans

--these people are destructive and have to be voted out--but no--they're ready and willing to steal elections, and this requires that everyone unify and face these people together as one--99% nation.

Paul Krugman has been very patient and has helped many people come to their senses--and made it clear how desperate and unwilling to be reasoned with these RW people are. If people cannot be reasoned with, they have no place in the government of this country.

[southernyankeebelle]

85. The only thing that will finally sink into the nutjobs is "I told you so". Thats what happens

when you don't listen to people who have solutions.

[cthulu2016]

90. Even that doesn't work

The people who opposed the Iraq War on TV largely disappeared. The people who were for the war are still there.

"I told you so," doesn't work when the standard is, "Even if you were right you were wrong to be right at the time you were right."

If I thought there were WMD then that means all smart reasonable people thought there were WMD. Anyone who said otherwise was thus being reckless and dumb. So when it tuned out I was wrong and they were right that only proves that they were accidentally right because they are irresponsible people. My judgment was clearly the responsible judgment, right or wrong.

Like how the whole stimulus debate went from, "The stimulus is adequate," to, "The stimulus is inadequate but was all that could have been passed."

If you were right you were only right because you are dumb and irresponsible.

During the 1940s-1950s red scares there was a category of communistic activity called "premature anti-fascism." Communists were very against Hitler from word one and people who complained about Hitler before it was fashionable were suspect. And people who didn't complain about Hitler after we were officially against Hitler were suspect as Nazis.

[southernyankeebelle]

92. I never bought the WMD in the first place. I blame the republicans for pushing it. I blame

the dems for being to chicken to stand up and say No. They went along so the republicans wouldn't label them chickens. When in the end the republicans are the real chickens. They just don't think things through anymore. The president jumps and congress just says ok. I agree with everything you say. But an I told you so would have been right also.

[99th_Monkey]

95. Krugman/Warren 2016 ~nt

[irisblue]

100. that picture is now my screen saver.

if they had listened...

[TNLib]

102. I am no economist but When I was in college I took economics 101

100% of what I learned in basic economics is contradictory to everything I've ever heard some RW economist said when it came to taxes and government spending.

I think the RW economist go to a different college on a different planet where trickle down economics actually works and your suppose to severally cut government spending when your economy is in a depression.

[Rittermeister]

104. I worship this man

Seriously, I would give a year off my life to take one of his classes for a semester.