Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
Fri Oct 16, 2015, 07:02 AM Oct 2015

Please welcome Paul Krugman to the bottom of the bus!

Krugman, as usual, nails it with his latest column on financial reform. The whole thing is worth reading, but here are some highlights.

For what it’s worth, Mrs. Clinton had the better case. Mr. Sanders has been focused on restoring Glass-Steagall, the rule that separated deposit-taking banks from riskier wheeling and dealing. And repealing Glass-Steagall was indeed a mistake. But it’s not what caused the financial crisis, which arose instead from “shadow banks” like Lehman Brothers, which don’t take deposits but can nonetheless wreak havoc when they fail. Mrs. Clinton has laid out a plan to rein in shadow banks; so far, Mr. Sanders hasn’t.

....

Well, if Wall Street’s attitude and its political giving are any indication, financiers themselves believe that any Democrat, Mrs. Clinton very much included, would be serious about policing their industry’s excesses. And that’s why they’re doing all they can to elect a Republican.

...

If a Democrat does win, does it matter much which one it is? Probably not. Any Democrat is likely to retain the financial reforms of 2010, and seek to stiffen them where possible. But major new reforms will be blocked until and unless Democrats regain control of both houses of Congress, which isn’t likely to happen for a long time.

In other words, while there are some differences in financial policy between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders, as a practical matter they’re trivial compared with the yawning gulf with Republicans.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/opinion/democrats-republicans-and-wall-street-tycoons.html

But, hey, what does Krugman know anyway? He's just a Nobel winning liberal economist who has been right on virtually everything that happened economically, both in the US and abroad, for the last decade. Under the bus you go!
40 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Please welcome Paul Krugman to the bottom of the bus! (Original Post) DanTex Oct 2015 OP
He's in good company there wyldwolf Oct 2015 #1
I would be honored to join that group under the bus. DCBob Oct 2015 #14
The thing is, Krugman is taking Hillary at her word. I do not. djean111 Oct 2015 #2
Actually, Krugman *isn't* taking Hillary at her word. Old Crow Oct 2015 #18
His argument that Hillary's plan is "better" falls apart, then. djean111 Oct 2015 #23
My pleasure. Old Crow Oct 2015 #29
Good post and I agree riderinthestorm Oct 2015 #34
A mighty big "if"....The Clinton's have gotten rich off Wall Street... raindaddy Oct 2015 #27
In fairness to Paul Krugman: maddiemom Oct 2015 #31
Enlightened people realize who she is and what the Third Way stands for. JRLeft Oct 2015 #39
She took A LOT OF MONEY from Wall Street, 4 of her top 5 donors are Wall Street banks. Dustlawyer Oct 2015 #20
Great company under the bus. NCTraveler Oct 2015 #3
Krugman misses the point. Bernie wants to reduce the power of banks, that means breaking them up. reformist2 Oct 2015 #4
he sholdn't go under the bus for that Enrique Oct 2015 #5
No one is putting Krugman under the bus. djean111 Oct 2015 #7
Thanks for pointing out the straw-man argument! Jim Lane Oct 2015 #38
Here come the DU economists wyldwolf Oct 2015 #6
Paul says the differences between C and S are small in the big picture and we should keep riversedge Oct 2015 #8
I believe Krugman's point is that it doesn't really matter which democrat wins, Blus4u Oct 2015 #9
You mean the same guy who wanted Warren to babysit Clinton.... Bread and Circus Oct 2015 #10
Did he escape... quickesst Oct 2015 #11
I wonder what would happen if Bernie would take on Elizabeth Warren on as a VP? Baitball Blogger Oct 2015 #12
Why post this article with a manufactured, incendiary headline... Old Crow Oct 2015 #13
That is why I didn't REC the post thesquanderer Oct 2015 #37
Oh *hit, under the Bernie bus with you Mr Krugman! workinclasszero Oct 2015 #15
So I take it YOU are throwing Krugman under the bus? Old Crow Oct 2015 #16
Excuse me, but Bernie doesn't have a bus Demeter Oct 2015 #19
This the same Paul Krugman who has supported NAFTA, TPP, bankster bailouts, "looking forward", etc? Romulox Oct 2015 #17
Under what bus? waldo.c Oct 2015 #21
Welcome to DU. To find the bus, check out the post right above yours. DanTex Oct 2015 #22
Yes I laughed as soon as I checked my post waldo.c Oct 2015 #24
along with another important point, thesquanderer Oct 2015 #36
Best part of that article - djean111 Oct 2015 #25
it no doubt is to those lacking in integrity or intellectual heft stupidicus Oct 2015 #30
"But with great wealth comes great pettiness..." NAILS IT!! n/t TygrBright Oct 2015 #26
He's never been that great. Never understood why liberals have such a crush on Krugman Cheese Sandwich Oct 2015 #28
I agree, with Krugman, but I would see Hillary more likely to capitulate to Wall Street/Bankers than Todays_Illusion Oct 2015 #32
Nobel Schnobel. And why is he ignoring all the internet polls? (nt) Nye Bevan Oct 2015 #33
Why does it have to be one or the other? thesquanderer Oct 2015 #35
Krugman lives in the Old Gray Lady echo chamber. mhatrw Oct 2015 #40
 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
2. The thing is, Krugman is taking Hillary at her word. I do not.
Fri Oct 16, 2015, 07:07 AM
Oct 2015

I believe she will just tell her donors to "cut it out".
As far as I am concerned, no bus, and I will be sticking with Bernie.

Old Crow

(2,212 posts)
18. Actually, Krugman *isn't* taking Hillary at her word.
Fri Oct 16, 2015, 09:16 AM
Oct 2015

As shown by the article's third paragraph, which the OP conveniently chose to leave out:

But is Mrs. Clinton’s promise to take a tough line on the financial industry credible? Or would she, once in the White House, return to the finance-friendly, deregulatory policies of the 1990s?
 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
23. His argument that Hillary's plan is "better" falls apart, then.
Fri Oct 16, 2015, 09:42 AM
Oct 2015

His argument was not worth making, and not worth reading.
IMO, nothing Hillary says can be trusted.
Thanks for posting that excerpt!

Old Crow

(2,212 posts)
29. My pleasure.
Fri Oct 16, 2015, 10:09 AM
Oct 2015

I actually found Krugman's column enlightening, as always. Even when I don't agree with everything he says, he has so much knowledge I come away learning something. I definitely think that you and I are both more skeptical of Hillary's claims to regulate the banking industry than Krugman is, even considering his third paragraph.

My only complaint here--the only person I'd like to "throw under the bus"--is the OP, who presents a nuanced, balanced article with an inflammatory headline that is completely at odds with the piece's spirit and with a misleading edit. It's posts like this that sometimes make the DU experience suck.

raindaddy

(1,370 posts)
27. A mighty big "if"....The Clinton's have gotten rich off Wall Street...
Fri Oct 16, 2015, 09:55 AM
Oct 2015

There is absolutely nothing in Hillary's history that would indicate she would take the necessary steps to reign in Wall Street.
Marching in and telling them to "cut it out is a joke.."

Dustlawyer

(10,493 posts)
20. She took A LOT OF MONEY from Wall Street, 4 of her top 5 donors are Wall Street banks.
Fri Oct 16, 2015, 09:35 AM
Oct 2015

I would rather not put her to the test!

 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
3. Great company under the bus.
Fri Oct 16, 2015, 07:07 AM
Oct 2015

It's where the party is. I'm currently under the bus talking to Gutierrez about how we will get Sanders to support a pathway to citizenship this time around. Maddow has some interesting thoughts on the topic.

reformist2

(9,841 posts)
4. Krugman misses the point. Bernie wants to reduce the power of banks, that means breaking them up.
Fri Oct 16, 2015, 07:08 AM
Oct 2015

Addressing the specifics of the financial crisis seven years ago is admirable, but it doesn't get at the root of the problem, that the giant banks with their concentration of power and money dictate policy in Washington DC. Sure, Hillary may address yesterday's financial mess, but she won't touch any of the golden gooses Wall Street banks are currently profiting from. You can be sure of that!

Enrique

(27,461 posts)
5. he sholdn't go under the bus for that
Fri Oct 16, 2015, 07:09 AM
Oct 2015

this primary cmapaign seems different to me, there isn't as much mindless rancor as there sometimes is.

 

Jim Lane

(11,175 posts)
38. Thanks for pointing out the straw-man argument!
Fri Oct 16, 2015, 11:49 AM
Oct 2015

If I had to pick one logical fallacy that does the most to degrade the discussions on DU, it would be that one.

riversedge

(69,719 posts)
8. Paul says the differences between C and S are small in the big picture and we should keep
Fri Oct 16, 2015, 07:51 AM
Oct 2015

our eyes on the Republicans! good advice

Blus4u

(608 posts)
9. I believe Krugman's point is that it doesn't really matter which democrat wins,
Fri Oct 16, 2015, 08:31 AM
Oct 2015

getting anything done about it won't happen until more control is gained in the legislative branches. Real success at that starts at the state level houses and state governorships.
And we are notoriously bad at that.

Please re-read the last 3 short paragraphs Dan pasted above.

Peace

Bread and Circus

(9,454 posts)
10. You mean the same guy who wanted Warren to babysit Clinton....
Fri Oct 16, 2015, 08:45 AM
Oct 2015

So she doesn't run too far back to the right?

Read the snip at this link http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6030868

To me it sounds as if Krugman has the same fundamental concerns about Hillary that the rest of us have.

1.) Being two faced.
2.) Running to the right once elected.

So yeah I agree with Krugman there.

And having Warren babysitting Clinton? I would be for that.

quickesst

(6,280 posts)
11. Did he escape...
Fri Oct 16, 2015, 08:47 AM
Oct 2015

... and get recaptured? If memory serves, Paul was thrown under the bus some time back.

Old Crow

(2,212 posts)
13. Why post this article with a manufactured, incendiary headline...
Fri Oct 16, 2015, 08:51 AM
Oct 2015

... that completely ignores the spirit of the article's concluding sentence?

Also, I find it interesting that the poster chose to remove the article's third paragraph:

But is Mrs. Clinton’s promise to take a tough line on the financial industry credible? Or would she, once in the White House, return to the finance-friendly, deregulatory policies of the 1990s?

thesquanderer

(11,954 posts)
37. That is why I didn't REC the post
Fri Oct 16, 2015, 11:45 AM
Oct 2015

even though I think it's a good article, and a conversation worth having.

 

workinclasszero

(28,270 posts)
15. Oh *hit, under the Bernie bus with you Mr Krugman!
Fri Oct 16, 2015, 09:03 AM
Oct 2015
But it’s not what caused the financial crisis, which arose instead from “shadow banks” like Lehman Brothers, which don’t take deposits but can nonetheless wreak havoc when they fail. Mrs. Clinton has laid out a plan to rein in shadow banks; so far, Mr. Sanders hasn’t.



Lots of good liberals under Bernie's bus, its getting crowded.
 

Demeter

(85,373 posts)
19. Excuse me, but Bernie doesn't have a bus
Fri Oct 16, 2015, 09:28 AM
Oct 2015

Obama has the bus, and even in his 8th year, he's still throwing people under it. I am convinced that Hillary wants to take over after Obama is forcibly retired, so she has a place to stash Bernie and the 75% of the country that supports his candidacy.

But it ain't gonna happen, so you can relax.

On edit: the technical term from psychology is "projection":

Psychological projection, also known as blame shifting, is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in themselves, while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude.

According to some research, the projection of one's negative qualities onto others is a common process in everyday life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Romulox

(25,960 posts)
17. This the same Paul Krugman who has supported NAFTA, TPP, bankster bailouts, "looking forward", etc?
Fri Oct 16, 2015, 09:09 AM
Oct 2015
 

waldo.c

(43 posts)
21. Under what bus?
Fri Oct 16, 2015, 09:36 AM
Oct 2015

I don't think anyone here at DU would denigrate Paul Krugman, (let alone throw him under a bus); he's been a legitimate voice of sanity in an ongoing economic nightmare and has consistently pointed out Republican nefariousness in a variety of circumstance.
At the same time, I don't think he's correct in writing Bernie's strategy off. Bernie has been the (often lone) voice speaking out against the financial homicide that's been extolled by and inflicted on the working and middle class or the US by Republicans since Reagan.
Who can forget Bernie's absolute lambasting of Greenspan in 2009?

(So ironic that Bernie recently protected Andrea Mitchell, Greenspan's wife, from the press crush.)
What about when he grilled Ben Bernanke?

Bernie has been persistently advocating for radical reform of the American financial markets for many years and I believe that he has a strong strategy ready for implementation.
His proposal for a micro tax on the stock market is superb, his adjustment of the cap on Social security absolutely essential, his attack on corporate tax havens long overdue and his targeting of the Kochs, Waltons and Trumps and their ilk, all important. The rich in America will never stop crucifying the working class until they are brought to heel by honest Government.
And that's what you can absolutely depend on from Bernie - crystal clear honesty. Integrity has been his trademark since the 1960's.
Look, I know that everyone at DU desperately wants the best outcome for the Democratic Party's presidential bid.
I believe Bernie Sanders will deliver that outcome. That he has eschewed SuperPac money, and is depending on Americans to support him not only during the election but most importantly, afterwards, so as to achieve his goals clearly demonstrates that he is as politically transparent as a politician can be. He wears his political heart on his sleeve, his integrity is unimpeachable, and he's inviting all Americans to take part in Government. Mr Krugman should have taken that into account.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
22. Welcome to DU. To find the bus, check out the post right above yours.
Fri Oct 16, 2015, 09:41 AM
Oct 2015

Krugman isn't writing off Bernie's strategy, he's just saying that Hillary's is better, because she is more focused on the "shadow banking" system which is at the heart of the problem.

But his main point is that either Sanders or Clinton would be strong on financial regulation, and by far the most important thing is electing a Democrat. That seems self-evident to me, but it's not popular sentiments with a certain (large) contingent of DUers.

thesquanderer

(11,954 posts)
36. along with another important point,
Fri Oct 16, 2015, 11:43 AM
Oct 2015

that "major new reforms will be blocked until and unless Democrats regain control of both houses of Congress" -- meaning that (depressingly) neither the Clinton or Sanders plan is likely to get very far, at least in the near term.

 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
25. Best part of that article -
Fri Oct 16, 2015, 09:45 AM
Oct 2015
But is Mrs. Clinton’s promise to take a tough line on the financial industry credible? Or would she, once in the White House, return to the finance-friendly, deregulatory policies of the 1990s?


NO, her promise is not credible in the least.
 

stupidicus

(2,570 posts)
30. it no doubt is to those lacking in integrity or intellectual heft
Fri Oct 16, 2015, 10:19 AM
Oct 2015

and who largely rely on strawman arguments in lieu of defensible ones

It appears as if the best argument they can muster is that she's better than any rightwingnut.

Wow, let's be scared, shall we?

Todays_Illusion

(1,209 posts)
32. I agree, with Krugman, but I would see Hillary more likely to capitulate to Wall Street/Bankers than
Fri Oct 16, 2015, 10:22 AM
Oct 2015

Bernie Sanders.

thesquanderer

(11,954 posts)
35. Why does it have to be one or the other?
Fri Oct 16, 2015, 11:39 AM
Oct 2015

Why can't a plan include the benefits of reinstating glass-steagall AND the other measures HRC is talking about?

I'd like to see BS go that way... admit HRC has some giid ideas there too, and be willing to include them in his own plan as well. Government is not a place for "NIH" (Not Invented Here) syndrome.

mhatrw

(10,786 posts)
40. Krugman lives in the Old Gray Lady echo chamber.
Fri Oct 16, 2015, 02:34 PM
Oct 2015

In that chamber, Sanders cannot win, and even if he wins, cannot change anything.

In that chamber, taking millions from giant banks means you have the better plan to "reign" them in.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Please welcome Paul Krugm...