Paul Krugman is not very far to the left. He is a huge proponent of free trade and the fiscal policies he proposes are straight out of mainstream Keynesianism. I do not know whether he would classify himself as a neoliberal or as a social democrat or as somewhere in the middle. I often don’t agree with his political analysis — he flirted with PUMAism during the 2008 campaign — but his economic analysis is rock solid. I say that not just because he has a Nobel prize but because he argues with numbers and historical examples — his argument against austerity, for example, is that it failed under Hoover and that it’s failing now in Ireland and the UK — rather than folkisms about sacrifice and belt-tightening.
Because he uses facts and data, and because he gives Village idiots no quarter, establishment media hates him and attacks him constantly as if he were a left-wing radical. Sully sneers at Krugman’s numbers and heh-indeeds Malkin’s criticism of him. The Kaplan editorial board regularly slams him (Marcus, Lane) — can you think of any other pundit they have ever criticized by name? David von Drehle — last seen fellating Glenn Beck, pimping a flat tax and insisting income inequality is no problem — writes one of the nastiest, and, yes most smug and condescending anti-Krugman screeds yet:
Even when he writes things that I agree with, which is almost never, he manages to strike tones of smugness and condescension that make my skin crawl. Of course, just because I feel this way doesn’t mean everyone should. It doesn’t even mean that I am correct. Which are two sentences that Paul Krugman would never write in a million years.
[…]I found myself wishing that Krugman could take the next small, but crucial, intellectual step—namely, to see that this truth also applies to important people on the Princeton faculty and The New York Times op-ed page. (And at TIME, in case you’re wondering.) No one knows enough to plan and run a modern economy, and therefore it is entirely reasonable to resist efforts to centralize economic power. The impulse toward smaller government doesn’t stem from “cruelty” or “savagery,” as Krugman likes to assert.
ACA and a larger stimulus are hardly efforts to “centralize economic power”. And von Drehle’s and other Villagers’ “impulse towards small government” stems not only from “cruelty” and “savagery” but also ignorance, careerism, and I-got-mine. Von Drehle is likely a multi-millionaire, based on book sales and a high salary at the Time, he’s not unemployed (so austerity won’t hurt his job prospects) and he will probably do just fine without Medicare, but this goes beyond looking out for number one; you can admit that you want lower taxes because you’re rich without demonizing Nobel prize winners as smug, condescending big gubmit radicals.
Human beings are tribal. Von Drehle’s tribe wants lower taxes for itself, suffering for the middle-class (he doesn’t want to do it, he feels he owes it to them, I’m sure), and a happy, comfortable circle jerk of Andrew Sullivan agreeing that Joe Klein is right to laud David Brooks for recommending that the poor eat their own children to save money.
I’m in the mood for a Malkin Moore Award today, so I’ll say this: in another time and place, Von Drehle and his ilk might not have been shoving people into ovens, but they’d sure as shit be writing paeans to the virtue of marching native Americans to Oklahoma.
Zifnab
It’s all about the fee-fees. Damn Krugman to hell even if he is being agreeable. The man makes my skin crawl.
I hear the same logic aimed at Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi among even my liberal friends. Policy be damned. Political positions are irrelevant. Hillary/Pelosi are bitches and we hates them. ssssss!
Joe Bauers
Clicked Sully to Malkin, and got the first sentence:
“Not that you needed any more evidence that New York Times columnist Paul Krugman is a flip-flopping charlatan…”
Stopped reading; too dumb.
"Fair and Balanced" Dave
I’ve long since come to the conclusion that anyone who advocates going to a flat tax is either rich or stupid–or in Drehle’s case both.
MikeBoyScout
I like that Krugman hammers home with numbers and his critics can only whine. Nearly every week he is able to show numbers and refer to his model. His critics whine about the lack of invitations to lunch.
Three-nineteen
@Joe Bauers: Awww, c’mon, can’t you finish reading it and summarize for me? ‘Cuz I’m damn sure not clicking on any Malkin link.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
This smells like pure Nixonland. Krugman is a classic Franklin: He’s a member of the Eastern Elite. He’s over-educated. He uses big words. He argues with facts and figures. But worst of all, horror of horrors, he is smug and condescending to the ignorant and the stupid. Which is UnAmerican, because everybody knows that we are the land of the
freestupid and the home of thebraveignorant.Screw HUAC. Too much trouble when all we need is college transcripts to tell who can be trusted and who can’t around here. And Krugman is one of those people.
The Moar You Know
No, that involves working with your hands. Von Drehle would be subcontracting the work of building those ovens out to a Pakistani construction firm working under the umbrella of a government contract with a 400% profit margin buried in the overhead rates.
Like any other patriotic American would.
Joel
Superluminar
No of course they wouldn’t, silly DougJ. They would be selling the ovens at a decent markup, and then expressing surprise at what they were used for.
EconWatcher
I wish K-thug were as good on TV as he is in writing. It’s been a while since I’ve seen him, so maybe’s he’s improved, but he wasn’t very effective.
I think his problem was that points he was asked to refute were so mind-numbingly stupid that he was left essentially speechless. The moderator (whoever it was) took this as an indication that he had no response to the devastating points that had been made.
An intellectual has to dumb down for debate in this country. It’s a skill unto itself.
Joe Bauers
@Three-nineteen: Think of it like radiation exposure – I’ve received the maximum dosage of concentrated stupidity that is safe for today. Someone else will have to go grab the second sentence.
jwb
The thing that has to be maddening to the punditry and other Villagers is that Krugman is cleaning their clocks when it comes to clicks. He’s got all the traffic that they desperately want, and they really don’t get it because he’s not playing at all by their rules.
Superluminar
@Joe Beese
why, thankyou for such a succinct summary of your own writings.
meh
nice to see someone work in a Judge Smails homage…don’t forget – the world needs ditchdiggers too Danny
jwb
@EconWatcher: I haven’t seen him in a while, but the last time I did he was quite good. I almost wonder if he’s getting fewer invitations as he has gotten better on the set, because what the media folks really want to avoid at all costs is our side making effective cases on TV.
Joe Bauers
@Superluminar:
You got the wrong guy.
Elia Isquire
I think you’re right in saying guys like DvD (whom I’ve never even heard of before today….these men [almost always men] are really a dime-a-dozen) aren’t Nazis or the like. And to say he’d more likely be praising Andrew Jackson is spot-on; good reference.
But I do think there’s a tangentially Godwin way to describe DvD and his ilk, which would be to say that they’re embodiments of the banality of evil. I don’t think Arendt was right in describing Eichmann as such, but I do think it exists — and it’s concentrated in the commentariat class.
Zifnab
@EconWatcher:
Even when he’s dominating the conversation, it’s always three-on-one with those Sunday shows. Paul Krugman, the token liberal. Republican operative of the evening. Republican speech writer with a book to sell. And George Will / Cokie Roberts as the Serious Conservative(tm) to snipe from the wings.
Krugman does what he can without descending into infantile fist pounding screams of “Why are you people so full of shit?!” which is more than I would ever be able to accomplish.
Brian R.
Or maybe Krugman condescends to him because he talks and acts like a child?
jwb
@Elia Isquire: Yes, I think Bobo is the prime example of the banality of evil. Even worse, he knows it and does it anyway.
Hans Solo
Krugman doesn’t fit into the cocktail circuit pundits populate and therefore doesn’t buy the all important “CW” (Conventional Wisdom.)
That is one of the things that makes him great.
While the rest of the punditry is marching lockstep and repeating the nonsensical drivel that is the CW, Krugman is pointing out that the “Emperor is naked.” Which, in this case, means that the CW is flawed and often only believable by those with small intellects and large deficits in intellectual curiosity.
That makes him the punditocracies enemy. That he is smarter than almost all other American pundits, and has been recognized as such by impartial sources (see Prize: Nobel,) makes him a very dangerous enemy. People like Andrew Sullivan loathe him because Krugman doesn’t agree with him and fear him because Krugman threatens their very livelihood. You see, pundits make money peddling their ideas, and mostly their ideas are just the CW reframed with a bit of personal spin to differentiate it from all the other pundits. This is why fools like Sullivan and Scarborough instantly love the Ryan Plan – To do otherwise would take thought, and might contradict the CW.
Krugman, on the other hand, could care less about the CW. Good for him, and, good for us.
mk3872
Save yourself the heartache and dismay. Simply remove The Daily Dish from your reading list. Why would you read a blog that links to Michelle Malkin to try and prove a point anyway?
jim filyaw
amen! i came to the conclusion long ago (back when he still had a boner for dubya) that sullivan was just another ego hound who was lucky enough to land a gig (god knows why, it would be unduly flattering to call his writing pedestrian). his comprehension and insights are immediately dismissable, but he does link to interesting articles by better writers.
Crusty Dem
I think you mean a Moore Award. I hate that I know that…
slag
Fix the grammar in your last sentence, and I’ll buy that.
I’m truly starting to be fundamentally troubled by all the casual cruelties that our society consistently rewards. It’s hard to not see the situation as a desperate one wherein the only conceivably rational response is a long walk on the beach followed up by dinner and a romantic comedy.
Or maybe a bunch of cat pictures. Tunch? Tunch, are you there?
Loneoak
Sometimes it’s hard to tell whether these people act like they do because of their juvenile emotional states or for protection of their wealth. I’m sure it’s roughly analgous to the stupid/cruel continuum, but then I get stuck wondering how such juvenile people whose emotional lives revolve around insulating themselves from the real world have amassed so much money and power. I know the system is rigged against little people like me, but that doesn’t explain how you can make money via eagerly running away from reality.
shaun
Ahem, another ad hominem attack on Sullivan and more brain cells burned by a blogger who is at his best writing provocative and original posts and at his worst when he is waving his willy at a blogger who gets more hits before breakfast than he gets all day.
PurpleGirl
New York Magazine has a new profile of Krugman up.
http://nymag.com/news/politics/paul-krugman-2011-5/
It’s pretty good, although I didn’t have the time to read the whole article yet. Yes, he isn’t the most leftward of commentators out there but he has been someone who does recognize the damage being done to the working classes and uses facts and figures to back up what he says.
The Ancient Randonneur (formerly known as The Grand Panjandrum)
DougJ I think you are bucking for the Moore Award not the Malkin Award. But, hey, maybe you just have a secret wish to dress up as a cheerleader and make a video so you can shake your pom poms?
Crusty Dem
@shaun:
I find ad hominem accusations more persuasive when they don’t consist exclusively of ad hominem and ad populum.
Though it’s hard to disagree with the basic sentiment, Sully is a tool who deserves the Paul Anka treatment (sadly, no video available).
salvador dalai llama
“but there’s sure as shit be writing paeans to the virtue of marching native Americans to Oklahoma.”
If you don’t get the Malkin, you’ll at least get the YEEEOWTCH! award. That’ll leave a mark.
Nothing will break your heart quite like reading the Cherokee memorials, their petitions about the removal: http://www.teachushistory.org/indian-removal/resources/memorial-cherokee-nation-december-1829
There’s one which I can’t find the link to, where they argue, “We’re civilized just like you white men! Look, we’ve even started owning slaves!”
But I believe, if I’m correct about my history, that in regards to the Trail of Tears, the math demanded it.
eemom
hmm, this info is dissonancing my cognitive. Von Drehle is the same guy who wrote the book about the Triangle factory fire that I’m currently reading, together with a couple of other books that don’t sound like they’re the work of a Village idiot.
slag
@shaun:
And this reality doesn’t disturb you in the slightest? Then, you’re part of the problem.
Mudge
Krugman is likely wealthier than Von Drehle, so in addition to his ability to use facts and math to illustrate (prove) his points, he also has a social conscience. His detractors are simply unable to follow his math or read charts. He is less condescending than intimidating. He is anti-their-ideology, proves them wrong and reminds them when events prove him right. What’s not to hate?
Upper West
Krugman: smug, but right.
George Will, David Brooks et al.: smug and wrong.
D.N. Nation
Paul Krugman is a terrific economist, clueless on politics, and a shitty writer. Makes him the turd that floats the best on the NYT’s opinion pages. Yay for him, I guess.
But make no mistake: In a just world, a perfect world, he’d be some tool with a blog, a fourth-rate liberal worth linking to every once in a long while. As is, he’s sadly one of the best we have. Doesn’t mean we should expect better- from him, from this country.
Elia Isquire
@shaun: Why would you have to clear your throat before writing a post online?
Fred
Once you get off your knees after having attended to K-Thugs needs I would like to point something out to you. You are talking about the same person who said the Stimulus needs to be twice as large and the banks all need to be nationalized or we are all gonna die!
Remember that? Strangely, I don’t remember K-Thug walking any of that back. He simply stopped talking about it when people got tired of listening and moved on to find other things to bash Obama on.
Turgidson
Sullivan’s long-overdue descent into “blogs we monitor and mock as needed” territory has picked up steam today. Glad to see it.
Joe Beese
@Joe Bauers:
Then here’s what you missed:
1996: Krugman describes “slow the growth in benefit levels, gradually raise the retirement age, impose limits on expensive terminal medical care that prolongs life for only weeks or days and — last but not least — raise taxes moderately now, rather than massively later” as “sensible proposals”.
2011: Krugman writes, “In general, the fervor with which Washington types call for raising eligibility ages is a ‘tell’: it shows how disconnected they are from the way the other half lives (and dies).”
I like P-Krug. [Mrs. Beese loves him.] So if there is a reasonable explanation for these two statements, I’m quite open to it.
But on the face of things, it looks like the kind of flip-flop that we would rightly ridicule any right-winger for – whether or not you’re pained to have Andrew Sullivan provided with this moment of schadenfreude.
jl
Krugman’s economics is not particularly liberal on the political spectrum. He sounds liberal now because he believes economies need policies right now that happen to align with most liberals’ beliefs.
When, or if, the economic recovers enough to produce something close to full employment, and high utilization rates, then he will start sounding more ‘conservative’ (Probably more conservative than Galbraith or Stiglitz, or to take an extreme example, the late William Vickrey (another Nobel Memorial Prize winner in econ, though not for macro).
DvD pulls a fast one in his column. Krugman believes that Keynesian macroeconomic theory is the best one we have for analyzing and predicting aggregate economic statistics. When Krugman says people in charge don’t know what they are doing, he means that they are ignoring for doctrinal reasons, a theory that works. DvD parlays this into a the idea that Krugman really meant that we just don’t understand the economy and no one knows much of anything. Which is false.
I did click the links to McArdle, and even clicked the related Kthug trashing links at the bottom of her column. they are not worth the time to even click on the links.
I couldn’t find a link to the 1996 column McArdle excerpts, but she only has him on being formerly more in favor of raising the retirement age in 1996. Her statement that the 1996 Krugman was essentially the same as the Ryan plan is nonsense.
The other Krug smashing links I followed only show that sometimes it is difficult to determine whether the author is ignorant or acting in bad faith.
Elia Isquire
@Fred: What in God’s name is going on in this terrible, terrible, profoundly knuckle-dragging post?
slag
@Fred:
LOL. He talks all the time about how the stimulus should have been larger. So often that I’m sure he’s probably tired of talking about it.
If you’re ok with the current economic situation, then, well, I seriously question your perspective. Why don’t you go see to Joe Lieberman’s needs?
Bill Section 147
You were not harsh enough.
If that gets you a Malkin then they are giving them out like Bush handed out the Freedom Medal.
Superluminar
Jeebus Beiber Christ! There’s a Mrs. Beese?! We’re fucking doomed. How much are you paying her?
Chris
That’s odd, because not so long ago, in response to a “is there anything you think you’ve been wrong about?” question, he happily provided an answer. Will try to dig it up, but I’ll say that I still have never met a Gooper pundit who would do that – every time they’re wrong about something, they either double-down on the wrongness or try to pretend that they never really embraced it in the first place. And nowhere is this clearer than in the reaction to the birth certificate.
In itself, no, it doesn’t. It’s a philosophy like any other. However, I challenge you to read through one single comments section of a PJM article and find anything other than cruely and savagery in them.
The other side is full-blown psychotic. Wish it weren’t so, and if it bothers you that we describe it as it is, then I suggest you get it to change.
Turgidson
@Upper West:
And smug towards the people who are right, which makes it 10x more obnoxious.
PurpleGirl
@Joe Beese: I believe the 1996 Krugman quote was from a book review he wrote. Sorry I don’t remember where I saw that or that the blogger had a link for it.
jl
Also, too, regarding raising the retirement age, there is a good reason for changing one’s position between 1996 and 2011.
That good reason is the evolution of life expectancies during the late 1990s and early 2000s.
Life expectancies for women at birth and age 65 pretty much stalled out in the US. For men at age 65, the growth rate in life expectancy in the US started falling so far behind that of other developed countries, that the US can no longer be said to perform well on that measure. Most of the lack of growth, or lagging growth in life expectancy came at the lower end of the income scale, opening up a gap between income levels.
I have no idea whether this was behind Krugman’s apparent switch on increasing retirement age. But the statistics are what they are.
You kids can download them here, for FREE!, for a do it yourself health policy project.
OECD health statistics
http://www.oecd.org/document/30/0,3343,en_2649_34631_12968734_1_1_1_37407,00.html
The US performance of men and women at 65 have started to improve around 2006, but US performance is relative poor compared to other developed countries.
Bob Loblaw
@Fred:
You are seriously dumb as shit.
Although this is a compelling contender to the throne of idiocy:
@D.N. Nation:
If Paul Krugman is a fourth-rate illiberal tool in your mind, I don’t know how you even manage to interface with society without killing yourself.
PeakVT
@Elia Isquire: I try to not-Godwin people like Bobo and this von Whosit guy by thinking of them as guardians of the palace gates. In every society there’s been someone willing to take that role, no matter how bad the ruler is or how many average people suffer.
@Upper West: Krug is smug (heh) about his economic skillz, which are pretty mad, and somewhat self-deprecating the rest of the time.
ppcli
@Fred:
You posted this the last time Krugman was mentioned here. Several people pointed out that you are an idiot, because Krugman never said that all banks should be nationalized. (Last time you used the phrase “nationalize the banking system” as I recall, but this is just as bad.) You gave some lame link in return indicating one place where Krugman said that one or two zombie banks needed to be taken over. Several people pointed out that you were even more of an idiot because this was completely different from “nationalizing the banking system”/”all banks”. Now you are revealing that you are still more of an idiot even than we realized, because a) you are using the same moronic talking point as before, apparently not realizing how definitively it was destroyed. b) you are apparently unaware that this point is so *spectacularly* dumb that if you reused it, people would remember and mock you for that reuse.
I don’t think it’s possible for you to look any stupider, but please – keep posting here and prove me wrong.
Chris
@EconWatcher:
I can relate to the “can write but not speak so well” thing, but also to this. Earth-shattingly stupid arguments from the right are legion, but they really are so fucking dumb that it’s just not possible to prepare for them.
I don’t even know if intellectualism has anything to do with it in this particular case. A normal person talking to conservatives without being one himself needs to dumb down like nobody’s business. It’s like arguing the Protocols of the Elders of Zion with one of their believers, again and again and again and in a myriad different ways.
I’ve met plenty of overeducated conservatives who would probably qualify as “intellectuals” and are still as mind-bogglingly stupid as any stereotypical trailer-dwelling redneck.
jl
@Fred: How about this economic boom we’re having? Dayum, it is sizzling hot out there, right?
Crusty Dem
Interesting, everything Malkin criticizes is in the 2007 Ruth Marcus screed linked to above. So if Sully wants to see how Krugman will respond to Malkin (as if the rage imp deserves it), all he has to do is look in Krugman’s archives.
ETA: Surprisingly, when conditions change, so does Krugman’s opinions. I suppose in Malkin/Marcus/Sully’s universe, they’d be arguing for geocentrism or spontaneous generation.. Actually, that doesn’t even seem like a stretch, does it?
Elia Isquire
@PeakVT: Sure, but it just happens to be that the person who coined the phrase most useful towards describing this phenomenon did so in the context of Nazism.
jl
@Crusty Dem: thanks, that was helpful.
slag
@jl: Yes, changes in a situation should likely include changes in one’s response to it. But I do always prefer when people explain the rationale behind their own evolution. Even if it’s obvious to them. I find it helpful.
PeakVT
@Joe Beese: There’s a difference between a politician doing a flip-flop when s/he finds the political winds blowing a different direction, and somebody, even a noted academic, who changes his mind 15 years later when different evidence comes in, or simply because they realize they are wrong. The two are quite distinct, and if you’re going to brand Krugman as a flip-flopper you need to show who exactly he is pandering to.
Bill Section 147
@PeakVT: I think “flip-flop” is being used as a hyphenated pejorative and not really intended to have actual value.
I prefer yelling at the building Krugman works in, “Your Grandma wears army boots!” as this angers him greatly. Also too I took my ball and went home.
D.N. Nation
@Bob Loblaw:
Feisty!
tomvox1
@Joe Beese:
Um…his thinking evolved in the intervening 15 years? I realize the Internets is mostly one big game of Gotcha! But is having a perspective that changes (and in this case improves) over time really a bad thing? I’m sure we all had opinions 15 years ago that we might want to disavow today. Or maybe you feel the onus is on the published elites never to have a change of heart/mind to demonstrate their gravitas and consistency.
In which case Sullivan ought never to be given any credence ever.
jenniebee
Is it too late to go long on smelling salts?
Marc
@PurpleGirl:
You’re not allowed to change your mind over the course of 15 years on anything? Because in my professional career there are a lot of things that I’ve changed my mind on. That’s what happens when you allow evidence to influence your conclusions.
Fred
@slag: You cannot change the direction of an ocean liner over night. Recessions take years. We are about 2.5 years in now and the jobs are coming back.
But don’t let that stop your argument that if the banks are not nationalized and we do not throw another 2trillion stimulus at the economy we are all gonna die.
So go ahead and lay out your argument. Complete with links with real numbers and such!
Turgidson
I’m a little surprised that Krugman would have ever supported raising the retirement age. But in 1996 the economy was so strong that he may not have seen the coming Lost Decade and Great Recession coming and thought most people’s retirement nest eggs would pick up the slack if they decided to hang it up before SS kicked in. Circumstances have changed, and Krugman’s opinion with them. Astounding, I tells ya.
He’s also 15 years older now himself and might better realize that working into your late 60s and 70s should be optional rather than required. It’s easier to say “raise the retirement age” when you’re decades away from considering retirement yourself and it’s all an abstraction.
But that one “gotcha” is a far cry from being able to credibly say that Krugman was Paul Ryan before Paul Ryan was Paul Ryan, in any event. Anyone lobbing that charge is a moran.
Fred
@jl:
Yawnnnn!
http://blog.markcz.com/obama-racine-midterm-election-warmup/bush-obama-job-growth.jpg
http://www.glgroup.com/News/GM-and-Ford-Confident-Recovery-In-U.S.-Market-Will-Continue-53329.html
Fred
@ppcli:
Yea, I was wrong, Krugman never said that….oh wait oops!
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a4Tl65kFU96s
Guess you never heard of the Google. It’s on something called the internet…..errum…Google it…LOL!
You are right, someone here certainly looks like an idiot. Stay classy with your arguments. Calling people idiots always works. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.
Sad_Dem
While some have criticized the Surge to Oklahoma as “unfair” to the Native Americans, others–including Senators, analysts, and senior fellows of policy institutes–have consistently pointed out both the necessity and the long-term benefits of the mobilization. Among the issues they cite: a measured reduction in the economically debilitating (however sentimentally appealing) elements of this developing society.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@Bill Section 147:
This reminds me of a question I’ve always wondered about: just what exactly is so pejorative about wearing combat-ready footwear, anyway?
Fe E
I just want to be a part of this.
Also, too.
liberal
@Crusty Dem:
Heh.
Turgidson
@Fred:
If the link said what you’re saying Krugman said (nationalize ALL banks or we die!), you might have a point. But it doesn’t, and you don’t.
JR in WV
@Fred:
Professor Krugman won’t need to “walk that back” because he was correct; the stimulus should have been 3 times the size it was, none of it should have been disbursed through faithless banks, which institutions should have been forced to find new management because nearly everyone above teller in rank should be in jail.
Your failed attempt to cast a slur by using the term “K-Thug” reveals how inept you are at using language, how tiny (perhaps non-existent?!) your honor is, and how despicable you are.
Fred
@Turgidson: Yea, it only says to nationalize the ones that were bailed out. Which consitutes 90% of all banking activity in the US. 90% does not = 100% so you win……sigh!
PeakVT
@Bill Section 147: Lolz.
catclub
@PurpleGirl: I was thinking that one who is strongly in favor of something does not describe them simply as ‘reasonable proposals’.
So a book review makes sense. perhaps the rest of the quote is referring to utterly deranged proposals (1996: kemp flat tax malarkey?)
Fe E
@Fred:
Yeah, ’cause, clearly that sentence means every bank.
jl
@Fred:
You need a nap.
Thanks for the graph on job growth, which says nothing more than it has been better than under Bush (who has the worst post WWII jobs record), and with no context regarding how much job growth is needed to reduce the long term unemployment from the largest post WWII recession.
I am also happy to know that US car makers think the recovery will continue (but says nothing about whether the recovery is strong enough to reduce unemployment).
After your nap, try to find something relevant.
jl
Does Fred understand what was meant by the term ‘nationalization’ of the major banks as used during the financial panic?
What did it mean, Fred?
catclub
yep, it is a quote from a book review:
“Both Mr. Morris and Mr. Peterson offer plans to avert the crisis ahead. The details differ, and Mr. Peterson’s proposal is more completely fleshed out, but the general thrust is clear: slow the growth in benefit levels, gradually raise the retirement age, impose limits on expensive terminal medical care that prolongs life for only weeks or days and — last but not least — raise taxes moderately now, rather than massively later. We need not dwell on their sensible proposals, however, because there is not the slightest prospect that they will be put into effect — or indeed that we will do anything serious about the looming crisis until it is almost upon us.”
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/20/books/demographics-and-destiny.html?pagewanted=4&src=pm
So not even things that Krugman is proposing.
agorabum
@Fred: If we had nationalized, we’d be getting all the profit. Lot of upside to stabilizing the market as the lender of the last resort.
And the stimulus should have been bigger.
If that was politically feasible/realistic, given the asshats in the Senate, I can’t say. But you don’t offer anything to show that K-Man was wrong in what he said.
Just like the Malkin screed doesn’t show there’s any inconsistency with his prior positions (let’s raise some taxes and make some minor tweaks to the system to ensure viability) vs his current one (the republicans want to dismantle medicare and ensure seniors will not receive the treatment they need).
Comrade DougJ
@shaun:
It probably takes him to lunch. I appreciate the feed back though, I get a lot of emails and comments asking me criticize Sully for this and that (I’m not complaining, they’re all reasonable requests), so the occasional, well-phrased “shut up about him” comment helps me maintain balance.
ppcli
@Fred: As others have already pointed out, this link doesn’t come close to demonstrating what you claim it does. Nor do any of your other links.
No. Not all people. Just the idiots.
Svensker
@Fred:
And was that wrong? Have we gone through the entire cycle and come out the other side with a strong economy? You might want to hold off on your nyah nyah thang for a bit.
Svensker
@Superluminar:
LOL
Elia Isquire
Just wanna remind everyone that about 1/2 or so of the jobs created under Obama so far have been low-wage ones. I’m not saying he therefore sucks but it’s really dumb to be like PROBLEM: SOLVED; EVERYTHING: AWESOME because McDonald’s is hiring again.
JohnR
I disagree. In another time and place, I’d bet that von Drehle and his ilk would have been quite happy to shove “people” into gas chambers (not into the ovens, of course, because handling dead people, even sub-humans, is just so icky). Most of the Nazis (other than the top guys, maybe) were perfectly ordinary people. Most of the guards were just doing their jobs. And after all, it’s not like they were dealing with real people – these were traitors; sub-humans who were working to destroy The Nation with their anti-Christian, Socialist, immoral, thieving ways. Even the women and children. Once you manage to redefine some group as Subversive Enemies who must be fought and destroyed in order to preserve the Moral Purity of The Nation, it becomes easy, even laudable, to round them up and cart them off to be isolated from the Right Sort of people. We did it to the Japanese in the 40s and the native tribes here (once we got settled properly), and we’re presently working on doing it to the Hispanics and soon the Muslims. Aussies did it to their aborigines, after the Right Sort of English did it to them. The Voortrekkers did it to the Kaffirs (although not without a fight). Pretty much everybody’s done it to the Jews at one time or another, and they’ve done it to the Palestinians. We’re people – it’s what we do. It’s why cities have slums and (talk about irony!) gated communities. It’s why we have prisons and Union workhouses, as Ebenezer Scrooge understood. We might as well get as much work out them as we can as long as we’re having to feed them, after all. And then, once they aren’t capable of producing a profit, we really ought to “downsize” them into a more space-efficient little pile of ash. Nothing personal, it’s just business.
slag
@Fred: I don’t need to google Krugman claiming that we’re all gonna die if we don’t nationalize the banks and triple the stimulus. But I will.
Now that that’s out of the way, let’s get to the larger point here. Clearly, this Krugman thing you have is all about tribalism. You don’t like the fact that Krugman criticized Obama so you have to either lie about what he said or misunderstand what he said in order to retain your sense of solidarity with your tribe. And, quite frankly, I find this tendency deeply troubling. But whatevs, I’ll play.
If I have to choose between a Nobel Prize-winning economist, who uses his platform in the NYT to do yeoman’s work of making something remotely akin to a liberal case for more government involvement in the economy, and some jackass on the internet who either doesn’t read what he claims to read or doesn’t understand what he does read, then I will.
Sorry, Fred, you’re not in my tribe. Fuck off and die.
Mandramas
@Joe Beese: Mostly, K changes a bit his mind in 16 years. He openly admit that he changed his mind a lot of issues; in fact, i think that he was surprised to see that life expectancy raises where affected in a high degree by wealth. That invalidates a lot of arguments regarding Medicare age raises.
But, to, this could be out of context;
Maybe the stress on Peterson’s proposal was on “gradually” and not in “raise”. In any case, PK always stress that some economical moves are right on some context and wrong on others; it is not the same Clinton’s superavit that Obama’s recession.
If you check the comments, a lot of trolls were hostigating Krugman with this issues in their blog since at least 2007 (google raise age site:http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/). Krugman silence could be concession, or simply lack of interest.
Fred
@jl: Yea, just keep attacking. That way nobody will notice you are WRONG! Atta boy.
Fred
@slag: Stay classy!
Nethead Jay
@Bob Loblaw: It’s not often I agree with you, but that was both dead-on, extremely well formulated and funny.
Judas Escargot
Late to the party here… but doesn’t anyone else think it strange that the supposed big “gotcha” here is that Krugman said something contrary to what he says now… back in 1996? That’s 15 years: Opinions change. I could easily think of 10 non-trivial things I’ve changed my opinion on over the past 15 years.
In fact, IMO anyone who doesn’t change their opinion on things over that long a span of time is part of the problem.
Doubly rich, this “gotcha!” being linked-to by A.S.
Primigenius
“No one knows enough to plan and run a modern economy…” !? Well I guess we’d better break out the cartoon wizard hats and examine the livers of a few sacrificial offerings. Perhaps someone should cast some bones which may help us understand if unemployment is going to rise or fall over the next quarter. These are the mindless meanderings of a nitwit who is all too aware that Krugman has about 50 IQ points over him. They are the protests of every Salieri who recognized the genius of every Mozart but knew they would never be in the same league. “No one knows how to plan an build an architectural structure…who does this Frank Lloyd Wright think he is anyway?”
Danny
I propose the term “Village Incorrect” referring to anyone who’s an unrepentant advocate for mainstream progressive policies from now on.
jhe
Krugman poses two problems to his critics. 1. He actually has expertise in a subject area which is pretty relevant to almost any policy discussion and 2. What he says loses a lot of them. That is, they’re so far from expertise in the area that they don’t even know where to turn for an alternative view.
It pretty much exposes the intellectual fraudulence of the paid pundits.
dollared
@D.N. Nation: but largely appropriate to your comment. Krugman is an amazingly smart, world renowned man who is a Nobel-prize winning economist and New York Times columnist. And he likes Chrissie Hynde. I realize he has not invested enough time in becoming a neurosurgeon as well, but, well, Buckaroo Banzai’s job is already taken.
dollared
@JohnR: This. The Dachau prison guards and SS captains of yesterday are Top 20 MBAs today. And they loves to quote wingnut economics to each other.
dollared
@Primigenius: Yup. It’s really important that we don’t know how to run a modern economy, because it is super important that the government take no action to protect anyone from “market forces.” Note the Supreme Court today – nobody can form a class action to fight ATT. We must be defenseless!!
Tim Ellis
Good lord. Look at all those facts and figures he used; I’ll refute this by pointing out that he’s smug!
It saddens me to know that this is effective.