Krugman: Obama and the conventional wisdom (set your phasers on unrec')

Kurt_and_Hunter

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-03-09 05:25 PM
Original message

Krugman: Obama and the conventional wisdom (set your phasers on unrec')

Edited on Tue Nov-03-09 05:38 PM by Kurt_and_Hunter

Arguing for steps to reduce/constrain the deficit today is on roughly the same level as arguing to invade Iraq in 2003. It is that stupid and that potentially destructive. Obama is not an idiot (or closet-teabagger) so I give him the B of the D and assume he's always acting purely politically when he trots out the periodic deficit talk but that is not an acceptable sort of politics. Seeking voter favor by reinforcing sentiments or proposing measures that would do great harm to the world is never acceptable because even if you are just jerkin' the electorate, having a respected figure talking favorably about this stuff makes it seem legitimate.

Obama and the conventional wisdom
by Paul Krugman November 3, 2009, 9:06 am

Andrew Leonard asks when I’m going to “blow my top” over Obama’s statement that now is the time to “get serious” about reducing debt. Um, never?

Look, it has been obvious since the primary, if you were paying attention, that Obama — who has many excellent qualities — has an unfortunate tendency to echo “centrist” conventional wisdom, even when that CW is demonstrably wrong. Remember when he bought into the line that Social Security is in crisis, stepping on one of the biggest progressive victories in decades?

And right now, deficit-phobia has quickly congealed into the latest CW. You can see it in editorials (not from the Times, I’m happy to say, but almost everywhere else), in what the talking heads say, even in supposedly objective news reporting. Not a day goes by without my reading some assertion that “markets are anxious/jittery/worried about the deficit” — an assertion based on no evidence whatsoever. (Long-term interest rates on US debt are near historic lows; CDS spreads show no concern about default.)

And Obama, being who he is, apparently feels compelled to give at least rhetorical obeisance to the CW. We can only hope that his economists, who know better, can convince him not to act on it.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/obama-and-the-conventional-wisdom/

Refresh | +20 Recommendations

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Tansy_Gold

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-03-09 05:29 PM
Response to Original message

1. If by "his economists" Krugman is referring to

the evil triumvirate of Geithner, Summers, and Rubin, we is screwed. They do not know better.

My scatterbrained Aussie shepher, however, does. He should be Secretary of the Treasury.

TG

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Dr Robert

(381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-03-09 05:32 PM
Response to Original message

2. you prepare for unreccs because you post garbage

if a post ends up with negative recs,
that's because the majority here find it unworthy of being read.

it's funny seeing how those who consistently get subzero recs constantly attack the function itself, rather than questioning what they are posting.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

IndianaGreen

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-03-09 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #2

3. The unrec cohorts are our version of the tonton macoutes

Keeping everyone in centrist line!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Dr Robert

(381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-03-09 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #3

7. may Kucinich save us from ourselves!!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

IndianaGreen

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-03-09 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #7

12. Dennis Kucinich would not have sucked up to PhRMA

He would have fought bravely for Single Payer instead of being a tool for the health industry.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Dr Robert

(381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-03-09 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #12

15. Dennis Kucinich would have been completely thrashed by McCain

and you would now have a VP Palin.

Thank All that is Holy, that he never got close to the nomination

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

impik

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-03-09 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #12

20. Of course. Right after he

would win the election.

Oooops. Never gonna happen.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Name removed

(0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-03-09 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #2

4. Deleted message

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

Dr Robert

(381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-03-09 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #4

8. what I say is true. It angers you that it is true, but does not change the facts.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Kurt_and_Hunter

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-03-09 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #8

10. What you say is false. It amuses me that it is false.

But most of all it amuses me that you are most-likely a sock-puppet running your mouth until you get TS'd again.

Or maybe you are a multiple account sock-puppet who reserves this identity for being a tool while playing nice with the other ones.

In any event, when people with 50 posts lecture us about how DU works it is always good for a laugh.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Dr Robert

(381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-03-09 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #10

16. you can't handle it, can you?

you want to make believe that everyone here believes as you do so you can feel secure.

any evidence to the contrary is upsetting.

I understand.
I just cannot condone it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

inna

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-03-09 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #2

18. no, YOU do (post garbage, that is).

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Dr Robert

(381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-03-09 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #18

19. are you in Elementary school?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

CTyankee

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-03-09 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #2

22. Well then, Dr. Robert, why don't you just step up and argue the points of the "negative" recs?

Or, better yet, why don't the people "unrecc-ing" do it?

I don'thear many "unrecc-ers" talking about WHY they unrecc. So I have to wonder, why are they hiding and not defending their own point of view?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

geek tragedy

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-03-09 05:36 PM
Response to Original message

5. Unfortunately, Democratic politicians have to bow to the god of

Deficit Reduction, otherwise the Village decides that they're not 'serious.'

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

SemiCharmedQuark

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-03-09 05:37 PM
Response to Original message

6. Good article.

"Reduce the deficit" is one of those buzz phrases that politicians (and most constituents) love. It's along the lines of "God Bless America" and the bullshit about teachers being the root of the problem with the American Education system. It gives us a fuzzy feeling inside, but doesn't lead to good policy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

ProSense

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-03-09 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #6

11. It's interesting, but not a reality coming on the heels of this

Edited on Tue Nov-03-09 05:45 PM by ProSense

Geithner: Deficit reduction has to wait

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Kurt_and_Hunter

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-03-09 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #11

13. More confirming than refuting

"And Obama, being who he is, apparently feels compelled to give at least rhetorical obeisance to the CW. We can only hope that his economists, who know better, can convince him not to act on it."

That Geithner sings a different tune is more a confirmation of Krugman's argument than a refutation.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

ProSense

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-03-09 05:41 PM
Response to Original message

9. This is simply Krugman speculating. He has to go

back to the SS statement to prove his point. Recently, he has had to move away from his own pessimism to acknowlegde that thing are improving: here, here, here and here.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

depakid

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-03-09 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #9

14. No speculation as to the effect the half measures are having on the states

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

mkultra

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-03-09 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #14

26. all growth in the US occurs in a state

states are delayed beneficiaries of growth, much like jobs.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

inna

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-03-09 06:05 PM
Response to Original message

17. KR. Another relevant NYT article on deficit:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6910355&mesg_id=6911541

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

girl gone mad

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-03-09 06:33 PM
Response to Original message

21. "deficits don't matter"

right up to the point that they do matter, and then they matter tremendously.

It's interesting to read Krugman use what is essentially efficient market theory, an idea we all know has proven false, to defend huge budget deficits.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

fascisthunter

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-03-09 06:54 PM
Response to Original message

23. shit.... somebody rec this... I unrecced accidently

sorry

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Tom Rinaldo

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-03-09 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #23

25. I just covered you with a rec I wasn't planning on

...cause I hate when that happens :)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

mkultra

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-03-09 07:32 PM
Response to Original message

24. talking about debt is a political move, something krugman knows nothing about

in fact, the very reason many people love krugman(his big mouth) is the very thing that conflicts with politics and gives him a poor understanding of the system.

We racked up and awfully big debt dealing with the economy. Its important to reassure people that its being dealt with. It keeps the indies from being whipped into a frenzy by the wingnuts.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Kurt_and_Hunter

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-03-09 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #24

27. Hmmm... guess somebody didn't read the piece.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

grantcart

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-03-09 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #27

28. I must have missed something

Krugman allows that Obama may simply be making a rhetorical reasurring point.

And Obama, being who he is, apparently feels compelled to give at least rhetorical obeisance to the CW. We can only hope that his economists, who know better, can convince him not to act on it.

I think if you step back and consider that this is happening during a time when the final votes for the health care plan is being assembled and there are 5-6 Senators who come from states where their are rhetorical fireworks going on with the teabaggers. The sophisticated in New York can understand his analysis about US treasury bonds but there a lot of people in North Dakota that don't understand the deficit and need to know that if we are going to radically expand the role of the federal government that the guy in charge is concerned about the deficit.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

mkultra

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-03-09 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #27

29. i read it, i just got something from it that you didnt

namely that krugman doesn't completely approve of Obama's rhetoric and you even less. My opinion on rhetoric is that it is completely necessary and that people who don't understand this are naive.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Wetzelbill

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-03-09 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #29

30. he doesn't say he didn't approve

Somebody else said Krugman would blow his top over it and he said no he wouldn't. He knows what Obama is doing and saying, he just says he hopes that it's mostly rhetorical and that his economists keep him away from going in that direction for real.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

mkultra

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Nov-04-09 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #30

32. well, good enough but

he refereed to it as an unfortunate tendency. Clearly not blowing his top or becoming mad.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

jeanpalmer

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Nov-04-09 12:12 AM
Response to Original message

31. There are two policies an administration

Edited on Wed Nov-04-09 12:12 AM by jeanpalmer

has to publicly support -- a strong dollar and deficit reduction. Even if it is pursuing an opposite course. All Obama is doing is making the obligatory public statements. Geithner reiterated just a week or so ago that there is great risk in withdrawing stimulus early. So deficit reduction, at this stage, is not a real concern or possibility .

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

uponit7771

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Nov-04-09 02:57 PM
Response to Original message

33. I disagree IF.....IF he using deficit reduction to pass HCR then this could work in his favor

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Thu Aug 28th 2025, 01:35 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.