Paul Krugman: Behind the Curve

[Wetzelbill]

Behind the Curve

President Obama’s plan to stimulate the economy was “massive,” “giant,” “enormous.” So the American people were told, especially by TV news, during the run-up to the stimulus vote. Watching the news, you might have thought that the only question was whether the plan was too big, too ambitious.

Yet many economists, myself included, actually argued that the plan was too small and too cautious. The latest data confirm those worries — and suggest that the Obama administration’s economic policies are already falling behind the curve.

To see how bad the numbers are, consider this: The administration’s budget proposals, released less than two weeks ago, assumed an average unemployment rate of 8.1 percent for the whole of this year. In reality, unemployment hit that level in February — and it’s rising fast.

Employment has already fallen more in this recession than in the 1981-82 slump, considered the worst since the Great Depression. As a result, Mr. Obama’s promise that his plan will create or save 3.5 million jobs by the end of 2010 looks underwhelming, to say the least. It’s a credible promise — his economists used solidly mainstream estimates of the impacts of tax and spending policies. But 3.5 million jobs almost two years from now isn’t enough in the face of an economy that has already lost 4.4 million jobs, and is losing 600,000 more each month.

There are now three big questions about economic policy. First, does the administration realize that it isn’t doing enough? Second, is it prepared to do more? Third, will Congress go along with stronger policies?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/opinion/09krugman.html?_r=1

[ixion]

1. we need real change...

bottom-up, grassroots, out-of-the-box and beyond the status-quo change. Not a shuffling of deck chairs on the Titanic, with big bonuses being dolled out to the same idiots who caused this mess.

Unfortunately, everything I've seen thus far is the opposite of this, and won't actually do much to make things better.

[gratuitous]

2. Question 3 is the key one

You can't clear the Grand Canyon in a series of little hops. It takes one motherfuckin' big leap. The problem will come when the usual gang of idiots is called upon to share in the sacrifice. And unfortunately, they control a disproportionate percentage of the nation's media megaphones. Not to mention the number of Senators and Representatives who think they owe their seats to the overrich and don't know how to render public service.

Will Congress go along? They're going to need help. A lot of help. From every last one of us.

[seafan]

3. President Obama, it's just not enough; the public favors strong action.

Is anyone listening?


Behind the Curve

By PAUL KRUGMAN
March 8, 2009

.....

There are now three big questions about economic policy. First, does the administration realize that it isn’t doing enough? Second, is it prepared to do more? Third, will Congress go along with stronger policies?

On the first two questions, I found Mr. Obama’s latest interview with The Times anything but reassuring.

“Our belief and expectation is that we will get all the pillars in place for recovery this year,” the president declared — a belief and expectation that isn’t backed by any data or model I’m aware of. To be sure, leaders are supposed to sound calm and in control. But in the face of the dismal data, this remark sounded out of touch.
And there was no hint in the interview of readiness to do more.

A real fix for the troubles of the banking system might help make up for the inadequate size of the stimulus plan, so it was good to hear that Mr. Obama spends at least an hour each day with his economic advisors, “talking through how we are approaching the financial markets.” But he went on to dismiss calls for decisive action as coming from “blogs” (actually, they’re coming from many other places, including at least one president of a Federal Reserve bank), and suggested that critics want to “nationalize all the banks” (something nobody is proposing).

.....

How about nationalizing only the specific banks that are identified as being insolvent? Up until this point, concealing the identity of WHICH banks were in trouble was precisely why former Goldman Sachs CEO/Bush Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson forced all the major banks to take Bush's TARP money. If all the banks were forced to take this money, the insolvent ones had the perfect cover as the election loomed closer.



Krugman continues:

.....

As I read it, this dismissal — together with the continuing failure to announce any broad plans for bank restructuring — means that the White House has decided to muddle through on the financial front, relying on economic recovery to rescue the banks rather than the other way around. And with the stimulus plan too small to deliver an economic recovery ... well, you get the picture.
Sooner or later the administration will realize that more must be done. But when it comes back for more money, will Congress go along?
Republicans are now firmly committed to the view that we should do nothing to respond to the economic crisis, except cut taxes — which they always want to do regardless of circumstances. If Mr. Obama comes back for a second round of stimulus, they’ll respond not by being helpful, but by claiming that his policies have failed.

The broader public, by contrast, favors strong action. According to a recent Newsweek poll, a majority of voters supports the stimulus, and, more surprisingly, a plurality believes that additional spending will be necessary. But will that support still be there, say, six months from now?
Also, an overwhelming majority believes that the government is spending too much to help large financial institutions. This suggests that the administration’s money-for-nothing financial policy will eventually deplete its political capital.

So here’s the picture that scares me: It’s September 2009, the unemployment rate has passed 9 percent, and despite the early round of stimulus spending it’s still headed up. Mr. Obama finally concedes that a bigger stimulus is needed.
But he can’t get his new plan through Congress because approval for his economic policies has plummeted, partly because his policies are seen to have failed, partly because job-creation policies are conflated in the public mind with deeply unpopular bank bailouts. And as a result, the recession rages on, unchecked.

O.K., that’s a warning, not a prediction. But economic policy is falling behind the curve, and there’s a real, growing danger that it will never catch up.

IMHO, the president has one bite at this apple. Bold steps must be taken now to nationalize the specific banks that are in trouble, while leaving the solvent banks alone. The general public is behind the idea that pouring more money into the black hole of insolvent banks is futile. Time is of the essence. If these failing banks are not nationalized temporarily to restructure them, President Obama's political capital will be drained very quickly.

Needless to say, the Republicans are crossing their fingers that our president's economic recovery efforts will fail. And if we do not rapidly nationalize these failing banks, these jackals just may get their fervent wish.

[NJmaverick]

4. We get it Paul, you are pissed off at not being part of Obama's

Economic Advisory panel. Enough is enough, using your NYT to engage in disingenuous Obama bashing is only destroying your own credibility

[anaxarchos]

7. Why not do the world a favor...

...and back up your pop psychology with a commentary, yours or someone else's, on how or why Krugman is "wrong"? The "jealousy" thing is weak and unprovable, even for a made-for-TV-docudrama. More to the point, Krugman's commentary is semi-scientific, requiring a similar counter. Which alternative commentary supports your position? Who claims that Krugman is wrong about the assumptions of the stimulus (I'm not aware of anyone)?

[NJmaverick]

8. please... how on earth did you miss glaring inconsistencies in Krugman's "logic"?

inconsistencies that are indicative of someone trying to bend the facts to a desired opinion, rather than forming an opinion based on the facts.

[galloglas]

9. Could you please compare and contrast??

If you wish to counter Anaxarchos, please do so in a format in which we can all see both sides of this argument an decide ourselves.

For my money, what I am reading from your posts seem to indicate that you believe nothing that Krugman is saying and dismiss all of his points simply because you believe that Krugman wished to be an Obama advisor (in whatever capacity). To dismiss these points on such a basis is not persuasive and would tend to make one believe that Krugman is correct because there is no point-by-point refutation.

Remember, when we counter the RW crazies, who claim no global warming and "What does it matter anyway as we are all going to be Raptured!", we need to point to scientific expertise, real world observations, etc., to counter their points. This, even if we think they are certifiably mad as hatters from the things they say.

If you want credibility yourself, you must do more than say "He/she is just saying that because....". You must use logical rigor in the same way you seem to find that Krugman lacking.

[NJmaverick]

11. It's not hard

here is a perfect example

from his March 6th column

Here’s how the pattern works: first, administration officials, usually speaking off the record, float a plan for rescuing the banks in the press. This trial balloon is quickly shot down by informed commentators.

"informed commentators"?????? clearly a Krugman fantasy construct, to justify his dubious position.

Still those same "informed comentators morphed into this (in just 3 days)

President Obama’s plan to stimulate the economy was “massive,” “giant,” “enormous.” So the American people were told, especially by TV news, during the run-up to the stimulus vote. Watching the news, you might have thought that the only question was whether the plan was too big, too ambitious.

Suddenly those "informed commentators" are now clueless.

Nest item. What sort grade would you get in one of his Princeton classes if you made meaningless and unsubtanciated claims like this one:

Yet many economists, myself included, actually argued that the plan was too small and too cautious. The latest data confirm those worries — and suggest that the Obama administration’s economic policies are already falling behind the curve.

Finally he has an unstated belief that ONLY the government can create jobs. After all that is the foundation of this bit:

Employment has already fallen more in this recession than in the 1981-82 slump, considered the worst since the Great Depression. As a result, Mr. Obama’s promise that his plan will create or save 3.5 million jobs by the end of 2010 looks underwhelming, to say the least. It’s a credible promise — his economists used solidly mainstream estimates of the impacts of tax and spending policies. But 3.5 million jobs almost two years from now isn’t enough in the face of an economy that has already lost 4.4 million jobs, and is losing 600,000 more each month.

Sorry but I refuse to belief the private sector will not be creating any jobs over the next 2 years. That is a bad assumption on Krugman's part. Then again while he may be a brilliant economist he is a man with an agenda.

[galloglas]

13. I had asked,

"If you want credibility yourself, you must do more than say "He/she is just saying that because....". You must use logical rigor in the same way you seem to find that Krugman lacking."


You replied with these (apparent) ad hominems against Krugman.


1) "informed commentators"?????? clearly a Krugman fantasy construct, to justify his dubious position" (What is dubious, and by whom, and for what reason, is it so called?)


2) You asked "What sort grade would you get in one of his Princeton classes if you made meaningless and unsubstanciated claims like this one:" (citing it below)

Yet many economists, myself included, actually argued that the plan was too small and too cautious. The latest data confirm those worries — and suggest that the Obama administration’s economic policies are already falling behind the curve.--- Krugman


I believe the above quote is neither meaningless nor unsubstantiated. Yesterday's figures show employment at the peak expected during all of 2009. The logical conclusion is that, unless unemployment starts falling immediately, the original projections of the Obama Team are dated and insufficient. No fault of Obama's but certainly no reason to pillory Krugman for noting it. Even Obama will say so very soon, as it is as obvious as the sun rising.


Further, are you not being snarky? If so, why? Why do you seem to attack Krugman, who is obviously in the same camp (as opposed to RWingers) as Obama? What is at issue between the (possibly) variant opinions of Obama and Krugman is only the matter of accurately predicting a future outcome. How different is that that the situation in WWII when Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill had differing opinions on when, how and where to attack Hitler?



3) "Finally he has an unstated belief that ONLY the government can create jobs".

You know this HOW? Unless you are reading his mind, how do you make this pronouncement? I really can't see that as the "logical rigor" I had requested.



4) "Sorry but I refuse to belief the private sector will not be creating any jobs over the next 2 years. That is a bad assumption on Krugman's part."

How so? Do you have a contrary assessment based on financial and economic factors, or simply an opinion. Remember that in the huge run-up of vaporous wealth of the moneyed and posh in our nation, during the Reign of George W., we created (something like) 19,000 net new jobs over the Clinton years?? And you think capitalism will result in more during an horrifically worse economic period?

I am a betting person, and I will bet there is no net job creation by the private sector during the first two years of Obama's administration. I am willing to bet on Krugman's being correct.

And, lest your urge to protect Obama's back about the last statement arises, I will say up front that it will not be Obama's fault. It is one more legacy of the Bush Regime's willful efforts to allow the predation of the American Public by a laissez faire capitalist state.

Lastly, your phrase "he is a man with an agenda." comes off as a needless attack on someone with his country's well-being at heart (just like Obama). But, having said so, please state clearly what you think ,that agenda is. What is Krugman attempting to do, in his capacity of "ink-stained drudge"? If you will state clearly why we should fear Krugman's musings, perhaps we will be well-advised. If not, this remark about a "man with an agenda" comes off merely as neo-McCarthyist fear-mongering.

[NJmaverick]

21. Now you are just playing word games, in a futile attempt to justify

your and Krugman's Obama bashing:eyes:

[galloglas]

32. Put up or shut up

is what I have asked you to do.

You said I played word games when, in fact, I am just asking you to justify, and back up, your own unfounded remarks. You seem to be unwilling or unable to do so. That, until done, should eliminate your credibility, And you do seem to be doing a hatchet job on Krugman.

But, on another matter, you have stepped over a line. You have now resorted to saying I am bashing Obama! You owe me an apology, pure and simple. Back it up or retract it. And I am asking you to retract it. Now.

[NJmaverick]

34. Like the GOP, when you were faced with the facts you denied them

so I am not going to waste time providing you with yet more facts. You made up your mind a long time ago and no amount of contrary facts nor solid reasoned argument is going to convince you to change that position.

[galloglas]

38. You provided absolutely NO facts !!

Only baseless and false allegations. Including one against me. You are over the line.

[NJmaverick]

39. whatever, you believe whatever outlandish things you want to believe

me, I will stick to the facts

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/09/obama-krugman-idea/

[galloglas]

40. A troll , perhaps,

might intentionally cause this much dissension about "Obama bashed by Krugman" and then cite their "facts" as being from a dateline of Jan 9th, 2009 at 11:57 am. But surely, you are not a Troll.

So, please explain your "facts" being based on a an article put out even before Obama is sworn in!! Are you fooling us or simply irresponsible??

[NJmaverick]

41. What a load of crap. Everytime that KNOWN Obama basher Krugman

comes out with his latest baseless attack on Obama, as sure as the sun rises, the Obama bashers here will post it and praise it.:eyes:

[DireStrike]

57. And that's too strong too.

I'm agnostic on this issue at the moment because I'm ill informed. But you aren't winning the argument.

Really, hes a KNOWN Obama basher?

[DireStrike]

56. I have to agree with his response to this

Your facts were unconvincing. Krugman's claim was not unsubstantiated, as he immediately linked it to unemployment and showed the figures.

[Jim Lane]

14. I agree with Krugman, not you

Your first point compares apples and oranges. The earlier Krugman column, per your own quotation, describes what happens when "administration officials ... float a plan for rescuing the banks...." The more recent column refers to the reaction to "President Obama’s plan to stimulate the economy". They're two different things. Your conflating them actually supports one of Krugman's points -- that they'll be conflated in the public's mind, with the result that the unpopularity of the bank bailout will make it harder to enact a further stimulus package.

As to your second point, Krugman's argument is not unsubstantiated. He gave specific data (see below). His students are presumably required to submit scholarly papers that would have much more data and more quantitative analysis, far beyond what would fit into his limited column space. It's pointless to judge a popularization by asking what grade it would get in an advanced course at Princeton.

Finally, you say you "refuse to belief the private sector will not be creating any jobs over the next 2 years." Of course some jobs are always being created, just as some are always being lost. What's important is the net effect of changes in the private sector, and Krugman's point is that the net effect has been a significant loss of jobs. On that point, he's completely correct. Consider reporting the loss of 651,000 jobs in February: "February's net job loss came after even deeper payroll reductions in the prior two months, according to revised figures released Friday. The economy lost 681,000 jobs in December and another 655,000 in January."

So Krugman's point is correct -- whatever private-sector job creation exists is being overwhelmed by private-sector job loss, producing a net loss of 600,000 per month (actually he's being conservative in that figure; he'd be justified in rounding to 700,000 instead). It's in that context that he criticizes as inadequate a plan to generate 3.5 million jobs over two years.

OK, we now await your data to refute Krugman....

[NJmaverick]

23. that's right, the data from the last sub-prime mortgage meltdown

world economic collapse. If you were looking to do more than just bash Obama, you would be asking for Krugman's data. but hey, Krugman says what you WANT to hear.

[Jim Lane]

36. No, the data I cited were current

Krugman made a general statement that we're currently losing 600,000 jobs a month. I gave you a link to an AP story showing net job losses of more than 600,000 jobs in each of the last three months (December, January, February). That's not the last meltdown -- whenever you say that began and ended -- it's the current one, as current as can be.

Nor is Krugman saying what I want to hear. I want to hear that Obama's plan will turn things around, be a roaring success, be widely perceived as a roaring success, and lead to further Democratic gains in the 2010 elections. That's the kind of thing I was hoping for when I went door-to-door and phone-banked to elect Obama. (That last bit was thrown in just to make clear that, no, I'm not trying to bash Obama.)

Unfortunately, the data give reason to believe that Krugman may be right and that stronger medicine is needed.

You suggest that I should "be asking for Krugman's data." Krugman gave data. I supplemented his with more detail from the AP report. I then asked for your data. So far, I've seen nothing.

You're not obliged to produce data for me. You have the right to believe that Obama's plan will in fact turn things around, be a roaring success, etc. I would be delighted if such optimism turned out to be justified. Unfortunately, there are sound reasons to be pessimistic.

Obama can only be helped if more people are calling for a stronger stimulus, rather than the weaker or nonexistent one favored by his Republican adversaries.

[NJmaverick]

37. Krugman needs MORE than just the number of jobs lost

to make any sort of sound statement about the economy. However this frequent Obama basher, doesn't have any.

[Jim Lane]

42. In his limited column space, he addressed the issue of job loss

His point was that, if we're losing 600,000 jobs a month, then creating 3.5 million jobs over two years won't be good enough.

Yes, there are other economic issues. You haven't shown how any of them undermine Krugman's conclusion.

Krugman provided more data than you did. You have your beliefs, fine, it's your right, but I'll pay no further attention unless and until you go beyond denouncing anyone who disagrees with you as an "Obama basher".

[NJmaverick]

43. That point is flawed in that it assumes only government created jobs

then again, Krugman, doesn't let logic or reason get in the way of his frequent attacks on Obama.

[anaxarchos]

48. Hah... Now I remember you.

You were on one of the Krugman threads, making up shit faster than anyone I have ever seen on DU... a notable accomplishment. You were talking about the relative "policy" expertise of Summers and Krugman and about Nobel Prize research and everything under the sun and it was most entertaining, though you didn't seem able to get a single thing right...

Let's see how you did on this thread?

1) Your first two points are trivial and irrelevant - simply subjective interpretation. There is no contradiction between them because they refer to two different sets of "commentators". The first quote refers to the bank bailout and specifically to the criticisms of Geithner for "floating" various banking plans, without detail, and then seemingly changing his mind days later. Here is Geithner attempting to respond to that general criticism two weeks before Krugman wrote his commentary:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/us/politics/12bailout.html

One does not "respond" to "informed criticism" if that criticism does not exist.

2) Your second quote refers to the television talking heads who were hijacked for nearly a week by the Republican Congressional criticisms of the stimulus plan prior to its passage. You seem to like Google. Google "stimulus criticism". What do you find? In both cases, Krugman's comments are perfectly reasonable and reflect common knowledge.

3) Your next point pretends to be substantial. You reproduce this quote with your emphasis: "Yet many economists, myself included, actually argued that the plan was too small and too cautious. The latest data confirm those worries — and suggest that the Obama administration’s economic policies are already falling behind the curve." You call this, "meaningless and unsubtanciated".

I could give a shit that you can't spell. I do care that you omit that very substantiation in the next sentence: "To see how bad the numbers are, consider this: The administration’s budget proposals, released less than two weeks ago, assumed an average unemployment rate of 8.1 percent for the whole of this year. In reality, unemployment hit that level in February — and it’s rising fast."

What was the unemployment rate in February? It was 8.1% and is likely to be revised upward (as have the rates for the previous 3 months). Now, if the rate was 8.1% in February, the only way that the unemployment rate can be 8.1% for the year is if either the jobless rate stops increasing in March, or there is a matching increase in employment towards the end of 2009. Is anyone forecasting that?

Well, there was no hint of that in the source that Krugman cited. There is no hint of that in the last Treasury forecasts which are available here:
http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/press/2009/pr09025a.pdf
UNEMPLOYMENT:
2009 8.4%
2010 8.8%

Nor, is there any hint of that in the January CBO forecast available here:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9958/01-08-Outlook_Testimony.pdf
UNEMPLOYMENT:
2009 8.3%
2010 9.0%

But, the worst news is that the stimulus was "sized" in the fall of 2008 when the "outlook" was significantly more optimistic. The September, 2008 CBO Outlook, for example, projected this:
UNEMPLOYMENT:
2009 6.2%
2010 6.1%

Now, I can't think of an indicator more meaningful than the Unemployment Rate... unless it is negative GDP growth. That story is even more dismal.

Krugman's statement is true on the face of it (if too charitable - "falling" in place of fallen), meaningful, and fully substantiated. This last is a matter of objective fact, not opinion, based on the last quote you reproduce.

5) Your last point consists of a simple statement of factual material from Krugman about the likely increase in unemployment, based on what has already occurred, and the gap between conditions as they already exist and the projected impact of stimulus. Again, Krugman is far too generous. The original theory of the stimulus is succinctly summed up in Stiglitz's Vanity Fair article of a few months ago. The math was easy: two to two and a half million jobs would be created by spending upwards of $500B a year for the next two years on "infrastructure" projects plus an additional amount paid out to the states to forestall budget cuts. Somehow, by the time the actual "Stimulus" appeared, the claim became 3.5 million jobs for one fifth as much spending on infrastructure. Since the remainder of the stimulus package is much less directly related to job creation, the way that this magic was performed was by changing the wording from "creating" 2.5 million jobs to "creating or saving" 3.5 million jobs. That Krugman charges the whole administration number to job creation is a mystery and makes ridiculous the claim that he "overstates" the case.

But, what is even more mysterious is your commentary on this: "...he has an unstated belief that ONLY the government can create jobs... Sorry but I refuse to belief the private sector will not be creating any jobs over the next 2 years. That is a bad assumption on Krugman's part."

What?

Your comment is incoherent but it seems to be based on a very rudimentary understanding of the issues involved. First, there is going to be a net reduction in private sector employment in 2009 and probably in 2010 because of economic crisis. That is what is being discussed here. Of course new jobs will be created but many more jobs will be destroyed as the economy continues to unravel. The only possible generator of net job growth in such circumstances IS the Government, which is exactly the same as saying that it is the only possible source of an increase in aggregate demand. Krugman, not only is not "making assumptions", he is stating an uncontested truth... unless you can find a single source which can forecast net private sector job growth in 2009. You can't because none exists.

Said more simply, you don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about... just as I suspected.

Perhaps you would like to talk about Krugman's Nobel research, instead?

"Then again while he may be a brilliant economist he is a man with an agenda."

The only "agenda" is your own.

[JoseGaspar]

52. Christina Romer admitted as much last night on CSPAN.

She said that the Council of Economic Advisors was aware that their base assumptions were under water because of some "bad news" in the last two months, but that they had decided to move ahead and revisit the subject in a few months. It was hard to see any real sense of urgency.

[anaxarchos]

54. Here is Stiglitz making the same points on the "Stim"...

... as Krugman does in his editorial:

Nobel Prize Economist: Obama's Stimulus 'Not Enough'
http://www.freemarketproject.org/articles/2009/20090108153545.aspx

[anaxarchos]

49. Hello, galloglas...

"You must use logical rigor in the same way you seem to find that Krugman lacking."

Seems obvious, don't it?

Nice to see you again.

[Jim Lane]

10. Krugman is raising a serious issue, not a personal grudge

What's "disingenuous" about his column? To the contrary, it would be disingenuous to pretend not to know that many economists agree with him about the size of the stimulus that's needed.

The same is true about Obama's general approach to ailing financial institutions. Krugman is hardly the only progressive who's concerned about Geithner's continuation of essentially Paulson-esque bailout policies.

Krugman has praised Obama when he thought praise was deserved, as in his column about Obama's first budget.

True, he may be a little miffed that he and other progressives have been largely excluded from Obama's economic policy team. But if he is upset about that, he's hardly the only one. I think it's a pretty common view here on DU. It's not a basis for ignoring or discounting the substantive points made by Krugman and others who consider Obama too conservative.

[NJmaverick]

12. The issues he raises, are not being substantiated by fact or sound reasoning

See my break down, above this post

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. Problem is that Dr Krugman is RIGHT,

this was not enough

Politically that is all they could get, but it is not enough

Read on the great depression and then come back to me

[NJmaverick]

24. The great depression was a different situation in a different era

while there are some conclusions that can be drawn from it, it would be foolish to declare anyone having a full grasp on a solution (like declaring mr bitter as being "RIGHT")

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. So you are telling me that the principles of Keynseian economics

used since the great depression with great efficacy, are wrong?

Okie dokie...

[NJmaverick]

28. Economics is a fuzzy science, at best

because of complexity of modern economies (just too many variables to create meaningful equations). On top of this the economy has to deal with the human element, that is both complex and rarely predictable. It's simply a field that doesn't readily adapt to the usual scientific methods and principles. While economics provides some basic concepts and guidance, it has been found lacking on more than one occasion. In other words it's as much art as it is science.

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. And your PhD is exactly from where

And the Noble prize on your mantle is proudly displayed

Fact is that public spending does work... and you need lots of it

That is simple... even some may say, common sense

As I said... Keynes works... have a good day

[JoseGaspar]

53. Are you a computer program like Eliza?

It sounds like you are saying something but, i can't really find anything in it.

[Wetzelbill]

46. he didn't want to be part of the administration

Quit saying that, it's petty and makes you sound like a small person because you disagree with him.

[galloglas]

16. And bashing Krugman yields what ??

Is Obama so weak that he needs some Dana Perino-styled back watching here at DU?

[Elidor]

18. Some people feel they have to "man the boards"

As it were.

[NJmaverick]

19. Krugman is bashed because he deserves to be bashed

Paul is engaging in intellectually dishonest behavior.

[galloglas]

30. I think it is you who are

"engaging in intellectually dishonest behavior."

I have asked you repeatedly to document your charges. I have not seen it. That implies that there is no countervailing argument based on intellectual rigor, as requested, or that you are unwilling to supply same.

Either way, it does seem truly McCarthyesque. And I think that failure to put up an argument, or acknowledge the points of those arrayed against your beliefs, does constitute aforesaid "intellectually dishonest behavior".

Do you think you yourself are deserving of said bashing?

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[JackRiddler]

17. James Carville, is that you?

[NJmaverick]

20. Nope, I am just not amoung the DU Obama basher crowd

[JackRiddler]

29. A partisan whose first answer to a critic is to invoke jealousy...

has already rendered himself irrelevant.

Consider it the latest variation on Godwin's Law.

[NJmaverick]

31. lol

[femrap]

5. I believe we need an entirely new

way of doing business...a new paradigm. I am starting to believe that Marx was right...Capitalism contains the seeds of its own destruction. And that is what we are seeing.

I don't see why all hospitals are not run as NON-PROFIT. Why haven't we put Glass-Steagal back in force? Is it because Humpty Dumpty can't be put together again...there is nothing left to divide. You can't have banks owning brokerage firms.

Corporations kept insisting on being 'persons.' And there are 2 things that people have to do: pay taxes and DIE.

I get a kick out of seeing GE, Citi and B of A at such low values. Maybe it's time they die.

[ananda]

6. Totally agree. Freemarket capitalism cannot work.

A total metanoia in the halls of government
and all institutions must take place.

Right now, they don't have the vocabulary
and the conversations are not being had that
will actually fix what ails us.

What Obama is doing is trying to use phantom
money from the broken unworkable system to
fix a system that cannot work.

[leftstreet]

22. LOL Excellent!

"Corporations kept insisting on being 'persons.' And there are 2 things that people have to do: pay taxes and DIE."

Nice!
:thumbsup:

[dysfunctional press]

25. the other day when obama was touting that his plan would save/create 150,000 construction jobs...

by the end of 2010- it seemed extremely underwhelming to me- considering that we're losing 500K-600K jobs per month.

[uponit7771]

27. Krugman never says how much is too much or enough, that's what's makes me think he's snipping...

...right now instead of looking at the whole picture of the amount of money Obama is putting into the GDP this year and next year.

[NJmaverick]

35. yeah that's one of the tells, that this is an agenda piece rather than good opinion

[Tesha]

45. That's curious -- I read a column where he tallied-up exactly how big the hole in the economy was.

He went on to claim that the stimulus package should be exactly that big.

I guess you missed that column.

Tesha

[Wetzelbill]

47. there are people who who take any slight critique to Obama

as a personal affront. They refuse, and lack the intellectual honesty, to see things like you just mentioned. If somebody reads his columns and blogs they actually understand what he's getting at. Krugman's job isn't to kiss Obama's ass, he does what he always does, he critiques policy, just like he did with Bush. Nobody said he was jealous then.

[Telly Savalas]

50. What makes this all the more weird

is that Obama has gone out of his way on numerous occasions to admit that he will make mistakes.

[Wetzelbill]

51. yes

and he's magnamimous and thick-skinned enough guy to handle any criticism. He's smart and he knows Krugman is too. If anything, Obama looks to be a guy who welcomes all kind of intelligent opinions even critical ones. As somebody who loves politics and policy, I like all of this, I think it's constructive. I wish the process was going faster, but I like what I'm seeing so far. As for these two, I like that Krugman is not a shill who will just roll over and let a Dem do whatever he wants as president and I like that Obama is a conscientious, thoughtful leader.

[Tesha]

55. Thanks -- I agree. (NT)

[burythehatchet]

58. Mods, please remove thread. Message poster from NJ has discredited Nobel prize

winning economist.