Krugman's Impression of Thomas Friedman
It seems like people lose track of reality pretty easily these days. The reason why we were forced into negotiating with the terrorist Republicans is that they threatened to run our economy off a cliff — unless President Obama acquiesced to their demands.
It truly was a hostage situation and Republicans pretty much admitted it. People lost sight of that fact throughout the process and somehow morphed it into a budget fight, as if President Obama welcomed it. This whole mess was forced on him and there was no easy way out.
What were President Obama’s options? From what I know about it, he could either deal with the Republicans and try to get a “compromise” from the hostage takers or he could invoke the 14th Amendment to the constitution and raise it himself. The 14th Amendment option has some issues attached to it, however…
Obama would be greatly extending his executive powers and setting a new precedent, which would have a host of potential ramifications. Furthermore, Obama’s administration officials do not believe that the fourteenth amendment grants the president that power, and elsewhere the Constitution grants Congress the sole authority over borrowing money.
Now I know that isn’t a concern to those who have a vision of the President as a dictator, which ironically comes from the left these days, but thankfully President Obama understands the ramifications of taking that drastic step. Personally, I wish he had done it, but I’m extreme.
There is a third option as well. The President could have let the U.S. AND world economy crash into the ground, pointing fingers the entire time at those dastardly Republicans and repeating “it’s their fault, it’s their fault” — as the country scratched its collective head and wondered why the President didn’t stop it. I don’t think that was ever considered as an option, but it certainly has been hanging over the situation like a stench. I’m glad our president has the best interests of all people in mind when making big decisions like this.
When I read and hear the people on the left screaming about “caving” and “folding” and all sorts of other dramatic characterizations, I can’t help but wonder how they would have handled the negotiations with the hostage takers. They never seem to say how the president should have done it differently, but they speak with such confidence that what the President did was wrong. As you’ll see below, Paul Krugman makes an attempt at answering that question. I take some credit for asking him in the comments of his blog.
The critics on the left frequently say things like “he should tell them” or ” he needs to be more forceful” or “he should just demand that they…” and all of those statements say to me that these people have no fucking clue. “Saying” and “demanding” things is all well and good, but what happens when the person you are making the demands to has fingers in their ears, mumbling “I can’t hear you, na na na na, na”. Then what?
Paul Krugman provides a perfect example of the irrationality of many on the left when it comes to politics. I respect Paul Krugman for his Keynesian economic ideas, but as a political pundit, not so much. Over the last few years, weeks, and days — he has proven to me that his skills in the ways of Washington politics are less than stellar. Here are some snippets from recent blog posts by Krugman. In this one, he embraces the wisdom of Bruce Bartlett, hmmmm….
No time to do any original posting tonight. But for those who missed the first time I linked to it, here’s Bruce Bartlett — an economic adviser to Ronald Reagan — explaining why Obama is indeed a moderate conservative in practical terms.
When you follow the link, Bartlett attempts to force the current situation into a historical model, playing the game of “historical false equivalencies” that many pundits like to do, especially with previous elections from 30 or 40 years ago. Krugman, in a later post, excerpted a large portion of Bartlett’s “wisdom”. The interesting thing to me about Krugman’s embrace of Bruce Bartlett is that Bartlett was one of the architects of Ronald Reagan’s supply-side economics. I shit you not. Bartlett even wrote the book “Reaganomics: Supply-Side Economics in Action” and co-authored the book “The Supply-Side Solution“. I wonder if Paul Krugman embraces supply-side economics now as well, or does he only pick and choose Bartlett’s wisdom as needed? I’m sure the fact that Bartlett mentioned Krugman at the end of his article had nothing to do with Paul linking to his piece.
As I was scanning through Krugman’s posts, I came across another that just smacked of irony. It was the day after he embraced Bruce Bartlett’s ideas about President Obama. In this post, he takes on some Reagan economists. It’s kind of weird that he didn’t mention Bartlett in that post…
First Michael Boskin, now John Taylor: there seems be an epidemic of politically conservative economists who used to be technically competent repeating the obviously wrong falsehood that Reagan ushered in an era of “unprecedented” growth.
You can imagine my surprise when I read that last bit after having just read 3 posts where Krugman goes to great lengths to quote and use to his political ends — one of the people responsible for creating Reagan’s economic disaster. In one day, Krugman is using a Reagan economist for his own political ends and the next he is excoriating them.
I found another post from Mr. Krugman where he uses the “denial” approach — the “I don’t believe them and you can’t make me” approach. Krugman was making a half-hearted attempt to respond to people like me who have been asking him how he would have done it differently. Here is part of his response…(emphasis mine)
But the answer is clear: I would have made a statement declaring that giving in to this kind of blackmail would constitute a violation of my oath of office, and that my lawyers, on careful reflection, have determined that there are several legal options that allow me to ignore this extortionate demand.
Now, the Obama people say that this wasn’t actually an option. Well, I hate to say this, but I don’t believe them.
Wow, you have to give him credit for being honest in just denying ideas that don’t fit with his narrative — just come out and say “I don’t believe them.” And what are those several options that “my lawyers, on careful reflection” have come up with?
And then the other day, Paul Krugman goes even further with his denial and in my opinion, damaged his reputation as an economist as well as that of a political pundit. I’m not sure why I should listen to anything he says after reading this next post.
I guess I have to be explicit at this point: yes, I would vote no.
What about the catastrophe that would result? Several thoughts.
[...]
Second, the people who claim that terrible things would immediately happen in the markets also claimed that there would be a big relief rally once a deal was struck. Not so much: the Dow is down 121 right now.
Did you catch that, we shouldn’t trust those people who claimed there would be a big relief rally. But remember, we should listen to Bruce Bartlett, one of the architects of supply-side economics. Paul should at least be consistent with his dismissal of ideas from people who were wrong before. There’s more…
Third, the idea that a temporary disruption would permanently damage faith in US institutions now seems moot; if you haven’t already lost faith in US institutions, you’re not paying attention.
I suppose he is trying to argue that the damage is already done, so fuck it, let’s go all out and default. What the hell, people have already lost faith in US institutions so we might just as well confirm it for them. Great idea, Paul. That may work for your snarky political views, but I doubt that it would do our economy much good.
Deaniac83 at The People’s View has a most excellent analysis of the entire debt deal, where he takes on Krugman as well for his political naiveté. Go read the entire analysis, I think you will be surprised at exactly what was in the deal that you aren’t hearing anywhere else. I loved these two paragraphs…
Read that again. That’s what the media and the whiners are not telling you. The President agreed to no Medicare benefit cuts in the “trigger.” None. The cuts, if they automatically happen, would go to whom? The providers. Who are these providers? Doctors, hospitals, clinics, Medical device makers, service providers, drug manufacturers. Who do you think they mostly donate to in the political season? The entire pressure on these Medicare cuts are on the private medical (and pharmaceutical) industry! So let’s ask that question again. The Medicare “trigger” is a trigger really from whom again? As a matter of fact, both big triggers (Defense and Medicare provider cuts) are triggers for the Republicans!
So while Krugman is correct in pointing out that the Teabaggers will hold everything and its mother hostage in order to get what they want, what they want is already being taken away from them: they will not be able to threaten the deficit reduction group with looming cuts in Social Security, or programs for the poor, civilian or military retirement, or Medicaid, or even Medicare benefits. Instead, if the Republicans do not let the deficit committee act in a manner commensurate with the President’s demand that it include tax revenue increases, they will be setting up big defense cuts and setting themselves up for dry campaign coffers on donations from the medical and pharmaceutical industries.
Finally, I feel compelled to explain that Paul Krugman has never liked President Obama, even before he was elected. Steve Benen sums up Krugman’s dislike for President Obama in this post about Newt Gingrich calling the Obama administration “a Paul Krugman presidency”…
Second, does Newt Gingrich ever actually read Paul Krugman? I don’t know the Nobel laureate personally, but reading his columns, blog, and Twitter feed, and watching his media appearances, I’m left with the impression that Krugman loathes President Obama. He made little effort to hide his aversion to Obama as a candidate in 2007 and 2008, and has been quite candid in the years since about his near-constant frustrations with this White House. At times, I get the sense that Krugman’s take on this presidency borders on contempt.
As I was looking back at Krugman’s opinions on the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, I found that although he wasn’t a huge fan of some of Clinton’s policies, it didn’t seem to rise to the level of contempt. I’ll let you speculate on why that might be.
I agree, most of the time, on economic matters. But, my economic opinions are heterodox and I know that they are. Washington was not about to do what I thought needed to be done. I think that Krugman would mostly agree with me about the recovery and what needed to be done.
But, I think that krugman is wrong about Obama. Obama has been doing what he thinks is politically possible and wise. And, he has been largely right.
I think that Krugman is speaking from anger and frustration.
I’m happy to see someone here echo my thoughts on Paul Krugman. His articles and posts on purely economic matters are pretty brilliant and damn persuasive, because he can both offer his own ideas and demonstrate why other schools of thought are not working. When he steps outside of that, his strong views on how the economy should be working seem to distort his ability to process what going on politically.
Obama, and by extension the Democratic party, have to consider not just what the best path for the country is, but how they are going to be able to actually achieve it. Being just as intransigent as the Republicans risks the worst possible outcome from this debate. The country defaults, he absorbs most of the blame for it, and the country installs a non-Keyensian Republican in the White House that only pushes the country MORE towards the right and MORE towards austerity.
Obama recognizes the need for patience in defining the path forward here. While Krugman (as well as others much less intelligent than Paul) insists the President move his Queen right up the board and put the Republicans in check right now, the President realizes he needs to be forming a plan for checkmate instead.
And I’m just talking regular chess here. Not even 11-dimensional!
EL, right about it was known a deal was struck, I saw KThug post “Obama caved!!!1111 Zomigod!!!!!111*” as he tweeted it on the great Twitter Machine. I immediately unfollowed him. He knows economics, but he knows shit about politics (or doesn’t care to know).
*OK, I exaggerate for effect.
I do not understand why you make a big deal about Krugman “agreeing” with Bartlett. When Krugman cited Bartlett as calling Obama a moderate conservative, that was precisely because he does NOT agree with Bartlett, and does not agree with Obama’s economic policies and political choices either. You seem to have erected a monumental huge straw target, which you assault with vigor.
I agree that Krugman is angry and frustrated: He was right about the economic need for a much larger stimulus, though he may have been wrong about the political possibility of getting one. In general, his economic analysis has been looking really, really good. And I’m not so sure that his political analysis is much worse than Obama’s. I say that as an Obama supporter, albeit one from way to his left, who thinks the President is doing his best in very difficult, possibly impossible, circumstances.
It’s fine to argue with Krugman, but it would be foolish to try to cut him out of the conversation. Which is essentially what that last, snide sentence seems to do.
With all due respect…
I’m not sure if you are denying that Krugman agrees with Barlett or not. “that was precisely because he does NOT agree with Bartlett”
That isn’t how I read Krugman, who cited Bartlett in no less than 3 posts. For someone who doesn’t agree, he sure gives him a lot of column space.
I mentioned what I thought was wrong with Bartlett’s piece, he’s trying to force the current political environment onto a situation from 40 years ago, that is completely different in every way, politically, economically, culturally and a whole host of other differences.
And yes, I question Paul Krugman endorsing Bartlett’s ideas when he absolutely hates supply-side economics, which was partly Bartlett’s idea. It’s kind of a hypocrisy type thing.
My last snide sentence…you mean “I’ll let you speculate on why that might be.”? That one. And thanks a lot for giving me the power to cut him out of the conversation, that’s pretty cool of you to do that for me. He does work for the New York Times, I’m not so sure he is the one being cut out of the conversation because I show his contradictions and complete lack of political perspective. I’m pretty confident he will stay in the conversation.
And I have to question your being indignant about me expressing my opinion about him and characterizing it as “try to cut him out of the conversation”. I think he has dominated the damn conversation and someone needs to call him out on his political naiveté.
I would add that I’m also not a fan of liberals using Reagan to make a point, Reagan was an asshole, it really doesn’t go very far in convincing me of something.
Foot meet mouth:
In January 2008…..”I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not,” Obama told a newspaper editorial board in Nevada. “He tapped into what people were already feeling, which is, We want clarity, we want optimism.”
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2044712-2,00.html
“In one day, Krugman is using a Reagan economist for his own political ends and the next he is excoriating them.” Sounds pretty politically savvy to me. Or at least, he’s paying attention to the political spinmeisters, who have no need for actual consistency or actual logic when they can be big shouters instead.
Anyhow, ever since Krugman got the Nobel, it seems that he’s less and less an economist; more and more a pundit.
It’s politically savvy until someone points out the rank hypocrisy, then it ain’t so savvy anymore. :)
There are so many examples of his lack of political perspective, he’s one of the worst at saying things like “he should demand they do this”…as if simply demanding something makes it so.
And of course what pisses me off is that he is brought on TV to represent the left, along with a whole bunch of others who really don’t represent the left.
Sure, it’s frustrating that Krugman is said to represent “the left.” But then, to one of my age and background, liberals were never the left, and the concept of an “extreme liberal” was oxymoronic. Actually, liberals were always essentially the enemy (and neo-liberals, when they appeared, were worse). But then Hubert Humphrey is long gone, and I’m just poking a little fun. Krugman is a social democrat; many would call him a liberal, even an extreme liberal. Which just adds to the entertainment.
When I talked about cutting Krugman out of the conversation, I did not mean out of the national discourse but out of consideration in genuinely left discussions, such as you clearly attempt to engage in (and good for you). That is not to say he is a leftist, he isn’t, but he’s a very smart economist and always worth reading, even when I disagree with him. And I think that last sentence was an uncalled-for slur.
So where to begin…let’s start with your bizarre reading that Krugman approves or endorses Bartlett’s economic views. Where oh where did you get this idea? I’m still looking. Maybe you can point me in the direction of where Krugman does this. But I will comment on your idea that now Krugman has allied himself with Bartlett’s philosophy and world view. You see it’s entirely possible to say, “you see even Bartlett, a conservative minded economist, thinks that Obama’s policies and economic ideas are more conservative, or moderate conservative as the case may be, than they are liberal (much less “extreme” liberal). I think you’ve missed the obvious point here, IF EVEN a conservative recognizes that Obama’s policies and economic leanings are conservative (rather than yelling socialist kenyan marxist communist, whatver ist or ism you’d like to add is fine) then it’s just more proof that Obama’s direction is much more conservative than progressive or liberal. It has nothing to do with endorsing or even agreeing with the logic and philosophy behind that argument, just that you recognize that someone of like mind sees a fellow conservative for what he is, say it with me….A Moderate Conservative.
Oh and by the way, spin it however you want but whether Obama was bluffing about putting the big three on the table or he really meant it…it doesn’t matter. The idea that a progressive president would not use this as a teachable moment to ensure that people understand that Social Security is solvent for the next 25 years at 100%, 90% for the next 50 and 87% for the next 75 years—-
Virginia Reno: Well, Social Security can’t borrow; it has no legal authority to borrow. So it’s absolutely true that changes will be needed over the long term to keep it in balance for 75 years, but even as you pointed out, the 75 year forecast—it’s 100 percent solvent for the next 25 years, it’s 90 percent solvent for the next 50 years, and it’s 87 percent solvent for 75 years. So it’s a long way there, but some modest changes—if the forecasts don’t change in the next decades—some changes will be needed. (http://www.truthdig.com/report/page2/kucinich_says_obama_got_the_deal_he_wanted_20110804/)
Or this, see #3:
(http://www.nasi.org/research/2011/quick-answers-common-questions-about-social-security).
And all of those arguments are without doing a damn thing to SS. So just the notion of putting it on the table and then tying it to a chained CPI is criminal and the opposite of a teachable moment. It’s a deception moment. And SS was put up as a bargaining chip, by the White House, and you still don’t understand the concept of conservative economic policy and the dismantling of the new deal vs. what Krugman has been endorsing.
Remember you can have your own opinions about what Obama would “prefer” but you can’t pick your own facts much less facts that I can easily pull up on youtube. I point you to 2:46 where Obama says he’s willing to lower domestic spending (not a liberal or progressive approach to economic shared sacrifice, it’s a CONSERVATIVE one). Or 5:30, where he endorses and argues for shared sacrifice and then goes on to say he’s pushing for a grand bargain, as big as he can get (again not Keynesian or progressive, since this is counter to anything endorsed by Keynesians.) So he may have argued for a clean debt ceiling vote at some point in the spring or early summer, but that line of argument was long gone and he embraced the notion of deficit reduction and the idea that a grand bargain is what the economy and america needed. So wrong and so moderate conservative of him. Obama is not, nor has his actions ever made him anything less than a moderate conservative, at least with respect to finance and the economy.
So I don’t see why Krugman is naive. He is simply stating that no matter how you slice it Obama isn’t doing these things, not because he can’t, he’s doing them because he wants to. Which is very different than being naive. He’s pointing out that a real progressive president would have pointed these things out, whether he used them as leverage or not is another matter. But Obama never did either so the point is moot. The naivete is your’s ELib not KDog’s.
forgot to include the youtube link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_Jtqbsl07c&feature=related
enjoy!
I guess political naiveté loves company. I suggest you read the piece again. Krugman clearly embraced Bartlett’s ideas, why would he write three posts linking to it and pasting a long excerpt if he didn’t.
And you proved my point for me, thanks. Why in the hell would Krugman cite someone who he disagrees with so profoundly on economic policy? Did you miss my point about that?
“I wonder if Paul Krugman embraces supply-side economics now as well, or does he only pick and choose Bartlett’s wisdom as needed.”
A question, not a statement. You do know what a question mark signifies right.
You say “IF EVEN a conservative recognizes that Obama’s policies and economic leanings are conservative”…did you read Bartlett’s piece, it’s a classic example of trying to force a current situation which is completely different, onto a historical model. It’s intellectually dishonest, even though people just love to do that shit. And once again, you seem to be missing my point that a the source of his confirmation of his idiocy is a man who thinks that giving tax breaks to the wealthy is going to lift all boats. Do you trust the judgement of someone so fucking stupid? I personally NEVER quote asshole Republicans to make a point, but someone with a “conscience of a liberal” seems to have no problem using a Republican’s talking points for his own political ends.
President Obama is a moderate liberal for sure, a pragmatist and not anti business. That doesn’t make him a conservative and it’s dishonest to go there with it, no matter how many historical analogies that are completely different he pulls out of his ass.
And President Obama has talked many times about Social Security not being the problem and being solvent, you just weren’t listening. So accusing him of not using it as a teachable moment shows your ignorance. This quote is from his April budget speech, a very liberal proposal, loved by most liberals when delivered.
“That includes, by the way, our commitment to Social Security. While Social Security is not the cause of our deficit, it faces real long-term challenges in a country that’s growing older.”
Here is Jack Lew from a USA Today piece
” The budget put forward by President Obama? last week is a blueprint for how we can live within our means and win the future. As this begins the budgeting process in Washington, we need to be clear about the causes of the pressing fiscal problems we face. Specifically, looking to the next two decades, Social Security does not cause our deficits.
Social Security benefits are entirely self-financing. They are paid for with payroll taxes collected from workers and their employers throughout their careers. These taxes are placed in a trust fund dedicated to paying benefits owed to current and future beneficiaries.”
And just to throw it back in your face, here is Paul Krugman’s reaction to the President’s speech in April. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/13/the-budget-speech/?ref=politics
I don’t see anything about moderate conservative in there. Krugman says
“Overall, way better than the rumors and trial balloons. I can live with this. And whatever the pundits may say, it was much, much more serious than the Ryan “plan”.
I guess if Krugman can live with the Presidents proposal, it must not be “moderate conservative”.
I’m not the only one pointing out Paul Krugman’s lack of consistency either. http://t.co/DnYFS9N
And really, cutting domestic spending of any kind is a “conservative” idea? I know many believe that, but if you look at polls, it isn’t just conservatives in this country who think spending is out of control. And it is that sort of thinking that plays into the Republican meme that Democrats just want to spend, spend, spend.
Not all spending is good…Marcus Bachmann getting money to convert gay people to straight…are you all for that spending too. If you think there isn’t waste in domestic spending or programs that need to be modified, then you really need to get your head out of the sand. Remember, politicians have been passing these bills for years and to believe that everything they’ve done over the years is completely necessary spending is pretty freakin politically naive.
But like I said, political naivete loves company.
Ok, arguing/discussing with you is truly pointless. But I’m going to try nonetheless. Just because Krugman links to Bartlett, does not mean that he endorses, believes, approves or condones the stupid economic philosophy and leanings of a Bruce Bartlett. You are merely too enamored with the cult of Obama to recognize that a it takes a thief to catch a thief and in this case it takes a conservative to point out, Obama is a Moderate Conservative, specifically with regard to economic theory and practice.
And Obama cannot run away from the reality that HIS cat food commission endorses “strengthening” SS and other entitlements. Again spin it however you want. But that certainly sounds to me like a way to dismantle a program that is SOLVENT for the next 25 years and I’ll say it again 90% SOLVENT for the next 50, and 87% SOLVENT for the next 75 years, while doing nothing. By the way, couldn’t find anything more recent to bolster your argument than April? I gave you July 15. Try again.
And by the way, you don’t need historical analogies to point out that so far Wall Street has been coddled and Main Street ignored. That my fiend is not an analogy that is fact and one pursued by Obama.
And what??? seriously???:
I guess if Krugman can live with the Presidents proposal, it must not be “moderate conservative”.
That’s not what he’s saying at all. Dude you have to get out more. In this case specifically, Krugman is saying “Substance: Much better than many of us feared. Hardly any Bowles-Simpson — yay!”
Meaning, I (Krugman) am not politically naive, this may be the best the president can get (or is willing to fight for) so I am willing to live with this, since it’s not as dreadful as the Ryan plan.
It is stunning how much you need to twist yourself into knots to not see what is clearly in front of your eyes—-Obama’s economic policies and actions are those of a MODERATE CONSERVATIVE. Get a grip.
I see a white man (me), an Asian woman, and someone of unknown race and gender (to me at least) agreeing with someone who is also of unknown race and gender (again, to me at least) on a blog hosted by a black woman.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you mean by “racial solidarity,” but if they showed that kind of it I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t qualify as neo-confederates anymore.
“Racial solidarity”
Is there any way to justify your use of this term that does not reveal you to be a total dumbass?