Economists are a strange bunch. When I got my first undergraduate degree in business, I was subjected to like 6 economics classes, give or take 1. Every one of my economics professors was a little bit odd. This is just anecdotal, I’m not impugning all economics professors, but others might want to share their observations. Damn near all of them were supply-siders, so that gives you some idea of where they were coming from politically.
I’ve always appreciated Paul Krugman’s opinion on economics, I am a Keynesian for sure. But the more I read his writings, the more I see that he doesn’t always comprehend things as they are, to put it politely.
Krugman recently linked back to a piece he did after President Obama’s first inaugural – there will be a second. When I clicked and read it, I noticed something right away that made me wonder whaaaaaa? He wrote this back on January 22 of 2009. I’m bolding the part that caught my eye.
Thus, in his speech Mr. Obama attributed the economic crisis in part to “our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age” — but I have no idea what he meant. This is, first and foremost, a crisis brought on by a runaway financial industry. And if we failed to rein in that industry, it wasn’t because Americans “collectively” refused to make hard choices; the American public had no idea what was going on, and the people who did know what was going on mostly thought deregulation was a great idea.
Uh, well, Paul…President Obama wasn’t saying that Americans “collectively’ refused to make hard choices”…he was talking about politicians and leaders. Here is the entire paragraph from President Obama’s inaugural address.
That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost, jobs shed, businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly, our schools fail too many — and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.
I don’t know how anyone listening or reading that could possibly think that the President was talking about “Americans” refusing to make hard choices. If he were, why would he end the sentence with “prepare the nation for a new age”? Is it the role of citizens to “prepare the nation for a new age” or politicians and leaders?
I read that paragraph to say that it isn’t just Wall Street’s fault (greed and irresponsibility), but the politicians who enabled it to happen; the ones like Bill Clinton and George W. Bush who deregulated Wall Street and made it possible for the greed and irresponsibility to overtake us. I also interpreted it to mean that politicians didn’t make the “hard choices” like raising taxes on the wealthy or more specifically, voting against the Bush tax cuts. I would also add the failure of politicians to actually pay for two wars or Medicaid Part D — those were a couple of hard choices that weren’t made as well.
I have no idea what motivates Paul Krugman, it smells an awful lot like sore-loser syndrome. Hillary was supposed to be president and that young upstart, Barack Obama, swooped in and stole it from her….you know?
I don’t see anywhere in that paragraph or in the entire speech where the president blames “Americans”. They are the victims of the greed on Wall Street and the lack of balls on politicians — no offense to women who don’t need balls to get shit done. So as you can see, Paul Krugman’s interpretation of that one sentence sent him off on a tangent. I guess he’s standing by it, though, because he linked back to it to remind us all.
I think he thought that because the 2nd-person plurals are about 95% in reference to all Americans in the speech; it’s a call to a shared purpose. And later, when his exhortation really gets underway, it does seem as though he thinks Americans have been irresponsible:
“What is demanded, then, is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility — a recognition on the part of every American that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world….”
I think you’re half right. The moment Krugman quotes and you pick apart is a very clever ambiguation between the American people and the leaders who have failed them. But that doesn’t mean that Krugman’s observation, that the line places blame on the shoulders of the American people generally, is wrong.
Also, this is a totally weird place for you to be attacking Krugman, given the number of times the President has since said that the crisis was brought on, in part, by homeowners’ irresponsible borrowing.
I don’t think you can generalize that because in other places he talks about “our” in reference to all Americans that you can say therefore he is doing it here. I guess what tops it off for me is the “prepare the nation for a new age” that was in the very same sentence. Now if you are positing that the nation prepares itself for a new age, well then we disagree.
I think I made myself pretty clear, that I was reading a post that he linked to and came across what I think is clearly a lack of comprehension of what was being said by the President. I suspect it was misinterpreted because Krugman had a clear disdain for President Obama going into the speech. But I still maintain that the entire sentence says that the President was referring to politicians making the hard choices.
And I’ll attack Krugman anytime I want, thank you. Your last sentence makes no fucking sense. Why wouldn’t I be able to “attack” Krugman – even if President Obama has said that homeowners had some responsibility, I’m not Barack Obama, you know. Why would something that President Obama says preclude me from “attacking” Paul Krugman. Where are these rules written down that you seem to live by.
I’m curious what others think.
Easy, there.
I do think you were clear about what you were saying. I just happen to think it’s wrong. Far from generalizing, I was claiming that almost every ‘we’ ‘our’ and ‘us’ referred to Americans as a whole, and that this one doesnt explicitly set itself apart. Skimming the speech once more, I in fact find only one place where such a qualification is made (pasted below). The fact that the President does go out of his way in that moment suggests that the places where he doesnt and the meaning is therefore ambiguous, are deliberately made to be so. And that is much closer to Krugmans interp than yours.
With respect to whether or not youre allowed to say these things, i never said you werent. I just said youre wrong. Im sure you understand that those are very different statements. And the reason that the President’s later statements would make you wrong is that K’s claim about the speech (that the Prez is blaming homeowners) does fit the administration’s longer-term narrative and policy positions a lot better than yours does.
IMO, President Obama was referring to the national government’s failure to lead: the failure of Congress and President Bush to address problems that they knew existed, and the failure of Congress and President Bush to have a clear vision for the country. I used to read Krugman but was forced to stop when I saw he was biased against President Obama for some reason. His failure and unwillingness to acknowledge the difficulty any president would have in enacting his policies while having to deal with a group like the current crop of republicans in the House was a huge turn off for me. I respect his expertise in economics, but I think he should open his eyes and see what President Obama is having to deal with. President Obama’s opposition comes not only from the GOP, but also from the PL, the firebaggers, the frustrati crew, and the MSM.
**I visit your blog everyday, EL, and I just love reading your posts and seeing the pics of your adorable little granddaughter.
The statement at issue is somewhat ambiguous, and I don’t think that Krugman’s interpretation is at all unreasonable. Frankly, I lean toward his interpretation more than EL’s. EL, while I think your interpretation is also totally reasonable, but you have to admit that the President’s statement isn’t 100% clear. It seems an odd thing to sic on this particular quote from Krugman given that ambiguity. If you have a deeper problem with Krugman, surely you can find more solid examples to back up your point.
So you honestly think President Obama was blaming the American people for the Wall Street crash and mess? That’s ridiculous, he was clearly talking about “failure to make hard choices” and “prepare the nation for a new age”…neither of which the American people did.
I have to question anyone who interprets it the way Krugman does, they are obviously grasping for just one more thing to impugn the President with. There are plenty of actual things to take issues with, why stretch and make shit up?
I agree with Johnny that the first-person plural used in political speeches is usually in reference to the American people in general. As far as the blame aspects are concerned, one could easily argue that even if the politicians should receive direct blame, the American people also deserve indirect blame for electing them and not holding them accountable in any meaningful sense.
Your automatic assumption that anyone who agrees with Krugman must have someone ulterior motive to impugn the President is just lazy and stupid and about as productive to the discussion as someone screaming “OBOT!!!” in response. I think you need to calm the fuck down and reevaluate your mind-reading abilities before you go around putting words into people’s mouths.
Krugman was a partisan supporter of Hillary Clinton.
Just a couple days ago, in his blogs, he was lamenting that Democrats didn’t listen to him and support Hillary.
He’s essentially a white-collar PUMA. He’s still engaging in rear guard actions over 2008 primary, like you know how.
I like Hillary, don’t get me wrong, but it’s been three years and half years since she lost Iowa, it’s time to move on, Paul.
I think it’s that, and a lot of wounded ego. He’s mad that Obama didn’t put him on the Council of Economic Advisors list, that Obama is listening to other economists than him, and that the Administration isn’t slavishly following his every suggestion. To make it worse, they’re succeeding.
Succeeding? How?
We get it. You can’t stand Krugman. You’ve managed to create a controversy where there wasn’t any by using your clearly “superior” comprehension skills and in the process provide an ad hominem attack to add that little dash of illogical spice. You start off with an “innocent/anectdotal” aside about how quirky and weird economic professiorials types are—they might be brilliant mathematicians but because they are so socially awkward, they are completely incapable of understanding an obviously vague line in the President’s speech. But ZOMG he’s a Hillary lover and therefore his economic critiques of the president are always tinted with the hue of envy and hatred because he vanquished our Queen! Really? This is all you’ve got?
Here let me help you out with your reading comprehension:
“…the American public had no idea what was going on, and the people who did know what was going on mostly thought deregulation was a great idea.”
You see right there? How could he blame America “collectively” if he’s saying that they didn’t know what was going on? And then follow that with “the people who did know”, i.e. Clinton, Summers, Geithner, Daley, Immelt and all the little Rubinites, pursued deregulation and “[thought] it was a great idea.” I don’t get how this can be any clearer. If your comprehension skills aren’t up to snuff then I can see where that important section may have escaped you since you seem bent on misconstruing everything said by Krugman. So I have to question you since you can only interpret things in the most tribalistic manner possible, i.e. Krugman hates Obama, therefore everything he says is wrong and naive.
If you had argued that Krugman was making a snide comment on Obama’s economic team, I would have granted you that point. Wasn’t it candidate Obama who said “You can’t keep doing the same old thing and expect different results.” And so what does O do? He appoints all the awful deregulators who basically helped create the framework for Wallstreet’s excesses, W’s devastating economic policies, and Greenspan’s moronic view about rational markets. It is the trifecta of myopic stupidity and corruption that we are grappling with right now; and Obama shouldn’t get a pass for allowing the same criminals and imbeciles to direct economic policy. But to then come to the facile and silly conclusion that what Krugman was saying amounts to: “Why do you hate America, Mr. Krugman?” That’s really quite hilarious. And wrong.
Bravo Elib. Character assassination coupled with accusing Krugman of hating America, you have made all Rovians very proud.
Well done, sir, well done.
Why did I know you would reply like that. Fuck off! I’m not getting drawn into your little pity party for Paul. He’s a big boy and says big things and is wearing big boy pants now. Why don’t you get a fucking hobby, David?
Pity party? How? You can’t discuss things like an adult and have to resort to Fuck Off! Get a hobby! Are you unable to defend your sorry arguments, is that? You should change your name to Extremely Thin Skinned. Waaaaaaa!!!!! Mommy, someone called me out and now the only thing I can resort to is verbal schoolyard insults. Waaaa!!!! You really need to brush up on your reading comprehension buddy. By the way, this is my hobby, calling bullshit when I see it.
“By the way, this is my hobby, calling bullshit when I see it.”
Better stay away from mirrors.
Good one.
LOL
I made my feelings perfectly clear in the post and the comments, please read them.
I was referring to your “ad hominem attack” and “can’t stand Krugman” and “Character assassination”…what a bunch of fucking horseshit. You dish up more horseshit than any commenter I’ve ever seen. Sanctimonious bullshit. You have way too much time on your hands or you are being paid by someone to troll around and act faux outraged at the horrible things that people are saying about those innocent, unopinionated pundits. Poor poor Paul Krugman who has a non paid blogger “attacking” him and he writes for the fucking New York Times. :) Seriously, find a hobby or grow the fuck up and realize that politics isn’t for the weak and easily outraged.
Well, well, well….pot meet kettle.
“Seriously, find a hobby or grow the fuck up and realize that politics isn’t for the weak and easily outraged.”
You seem quite outraged by my push back. Perhaps it’s you who is weak and needs to find another “hobby” since you can’t argue or discuss things without resorting to ad hominem attacks– I direct you back to your comments about quirky econ profs, your last few posts which have clearly and deliberately misconstrued Krugman’s positions to bolster your bona fides with your cohorts, and character assassination since you can’t deliberate anything without going back to how much Krugman is siding with Bartlett (false) and how Krugman is blaming the Murican people for our economic woes, when he has done no such thing. And you call me sanctimonious when you can’t even direct your commentary to anything of substance other than your perceived slights about Krugman towards the president or my analysis of your faulty logic and comprehension. Again, who is weak and easily outraged?
By the way, no one is paying me either, but if that makes you sleep better then whatevs, buddy. FYI, I’m unemployed (there’s that terrible economy again) and I do have a lot of time on my hands. So fucking what?
Wow, it just keeps flowing doesn’t it David. Amazing how people can make up their own minds, isn’t it. That pisses you off doesn’t it, you want them all to agree with you. There are plenty of links that source the material, if people want to explore and make up their own minds, that’s fucking awesome. That’s the wonder of the internet, everyone can see the sources and don’t have to rely on me or you to interpret if for them.
Have a good day, David. But if you are going to throw around things like “ad hominem attack” and others or because I give my interpretations, I get shit like “by using your clearly “superior” comprehension skills” I’m going to jump down your motherfucking throat. So you better get used to it.
The rest of the bullshit you typed is just fucking nuts, you deserve many more slurs, but I’ve already waded into your bullshit for way too long. Seriously, start putting together puzzles or doing crosswords. Hey, I have an idea, volunteer for President Obama.
You really don’t get it do you? I could give a rat’s ass if anyone agrees with me. What I object to is someone, let’s call him Extreme Moron, spewing vacuous analyses of shit so wrong headed it hurts just to read it.
You declared that Krugman had somehow bought into supply side economics and was now pimping Bartlett. Not just wrong, but fucking wrong. Then you pretend that your innocent observation about an odd Econ professor is not an ad hominem; and then pile on the stupid because according to his quirkiness he is having trouble comprehending a passage, made by a fucking politician who designs his speeches to be vague and leave plenty of wiggle room to adjust his “meaning” in the future–and if you’ve been paying attention, you will have noticed that this is a feature and not a bug with political rhetoric and speeches, all politicians do this. All while attempting to discredit one of the only credible people to be able to counter the awful bullshit economic bile coming out of Congress, Conservative Think Tanks, the Village, Very Serious people, and, and, and the fucking White House of all fucking places. In addition to making the bold assertion that Krugman is blaming America for our economic predicament and not corrupt politicos and sleazy financiers.
I’m beginning to wonder if you really can’t read and comprehend or you’re just too much of an ideologue to recognize objective economic analysis and facts when they don’t fit your narrow Obama-centric narrative. The man has been right on so much in the last 3 years you’d think someone would have noticed, especially you, since of late you’ve been particularly obsessed. Instead you spend your precious time attempting to discredit him vis-a-vis ad hominem attacks about his “oddness”, then your bizarre analysis of Krugman’s inability to comprehend an obviously vague passage, and then you went deep into your Rovian pocket, to declare guilt by association when he used Bartlett as an example of a conservative declaring someone else a conservative. Is it because you can’t stand Obama being challenged on an economic policy that could lose him the Presidency?
Go ahead and jump down my motherfucking throat for pointing out your short sighted idiocy and despicable behavior, I welcome it.
Wowee zowee. You are a deeply unpleasant and off-putting person. Forget TL;DR — Alex, I’ll take “Too spittle-covered; didn’t read” for $200.
Circle the wagons people. So, after pointing out to our dear friend ELib how much his diatribe is based on vague (and wrong) conclusions about someone’s ability to comprehend, ad hominem attacks which provide cover for character assassination used to discredit accurate portrayals of economic realities, and then using guilt by association (in previous posts) which are fabricated out of whole cloth, and then….. using slurs and insults to deflect those arguments, I’m the unpleasant and off-putting one? Riiiiiiiggggghhhhhhtttttttt. C’mon people, let’s get those wagon in circle!
I thought I was fairly polite to Paul Krugman, and I hate to leave ole’ David’s misrepresentations of what I said hang out there, but I’m not wasting my time with him anymore. Like I said, people can make up their own minds, that’s the beauty of giving links to sources.
Is David a Balloon Juice commenter who found his way over here?
I do think that Obama was ambiguous. What he said can be interpreted more than one way. And, I think that the country has some hard adjutments to make. I do not see a willingness in the political class and the general public to discern those adjustments. We – the political class and the general public – have not gotten that far. We are far from negotiating the details of those adjustments.
As for Krugman, I like his economic ideas, and that those ideas should be a basis for policy. As for his political ideas and the reasons for them, I have no opinion. I do not know the man
I guess Krugman should have listened to himself and just stopped when he typed “but I have no idea what he meant.”
He was right about that.
And is this a better thread for David’s continual attempts to derail and misdirect?
I don’t think so.
Perhaps he does need a hobby – or a new and different hobby at least, since being a chronic pain seems to be what fills his overabundant free time.
(Note to David – I’m talking about you, not to you.)
Derail? Misdirect? Pray tell, how and where? Perhaps thinking is not your strong suit. (Note to TGWTP – I’m talking TO you, and ABOUT you.)