Here is Krugman on the state of the economy and Obama's policies:
There are now three big questions about economic policy. First, does
the administration realize that it isnât doing enough? Second, is it
prepared to do more? Third, will Congress go along with stronger
policies?
On the first two questions, I found Mr. Obamaâs latest interview with The Times anything but reassuring.
âOur
belief and expectation is that we will get all the pillars in place for
recovery this year,â the president declared â a belief and expectation
that isnât backed by any data or model Iâm aware of. To be sure,
leaders are supposed to sound calm and in control. But in the face of
the dismal data, this remark sounded out of touch.
And there was no hint in the interview of readiness to do more.
A
real fix for the troubles of the banking system might help make up for
the inadequate size of the stimulus plan, so it was good to hear that
Mr. Obama spends at least an hour each day with his economic advisors,
âtalking through how we are approaching the financial markets.â But he
went on to dismiss calls for decisive action as coming from âblogsâ
(actually, theyâre coming from many other places, including at least
one president of a Federal Reserve bank), and suggested that critics
want to ânationalize all the banksâ (something nobody is proposing).
As
I read it, this dismissal â together with the continuing failure to
announce any broad plans for bank restructuring â means that the White
House has decided to muddle through on the financial front, relying on
economic recovery to rescue the banks rather than the other way around.
And with the stimulus plan too small to deliver an economic recovery
… well, you get the picture.
When Bush didn't save New Orleans, it was because he was a Republican. Roll eyes, here. (Never mind that the Governor was a Democrat.) Of course government didn't work well between 2000 and 2008. Insert snicker, here. Some people think government doesn't work well when Republicans are in charge because Republicans (fill in the blank here with your own partisan vitriol).
But once Obama got into the White House, I think some people actually thought it would be different. He cares, after all, and he has such a high IQ.
Krugman is going to have to come to grips with the possibility that maybe it wasn't Bush that made government so incompetent. It was government.
It takes a long time for government to spring into action. It takes a long time for government to do stuff. It even takes a long time for government to spend money. On top of all that, it is very hard for politicians, Republicans or Democrats, to say the words, "I made a mistake." So even though I sympathize with Krugman's view that Obama doesn't seem to realize that we're in a bigger mess than he may have thought and the solutions so far aren't working, I don't really expect a change of course until, oh, sometime close to the next Congressional election. Close means a year or so in advance.
The title of the Krugman's piece is "Behind the Curve." That's the essence of government. Behind the curve. Surprised? You shouldn't be.
Share
{ 48 comments }
"Krugman is going to have to come to grips with the possibility that maybe it wasn't Bush that made government so incompetent. It was government."
This will never, ever happen… under any circumstances.
Amen brother. Discovery Channel has a show now about what really happened with the crash in the Hudson. One thing to notice is that no official government first responders were on the scene until a police dive team helicopter arrived more than 15 minutes after the crash. They couldn't get as close as they liked because boats were "in the way" and the one person they saved was a lady who couldn't climb up a rope ladder to a ferry, but who was in danger from hypothermia or shock from the cold water. Jumping out of the copter without tanks and swimming to her was probably overkill for that rescue. Even in dire emergencies, it's really up to the people on the scene, whether they are operating under the auspices of "the government" or not. If the people on that plane had to wait for official government help, many of them would have drowned.
Krugman is nothing more than a glorified (by the politicized Nobel committee) political hack at this point. Wouldn't waste your time with him.
Obama has a high IQ? Huh…I guess a high IQ doesn't stop one being an idiot, then.
What I love is the call for "bold action" and to "do more". Of course, Obama and Barney Frank aren't rolling up their sleeves, investing their own money and sweat in an productive enterprises that employ people and produce things of value. A call for "bold action" and to "do more" by government is simply a call to theft. Theft is the only thing the unaccomplished political monkeys are capable of.
Dr. Roberts,
Put down the times and go have a beer.
"Obama has a high IQ? Huh…I guess a high IQ doesn't stop one being an idiot, then."
Some of the dumbest people I have ever known were Harvard MBAs. I personally witnessed them run Edison Brothers Stores into the ground.
They got numbers but not people.
FWIW, Malcolm Gladwell's (pretty good) new book "Outliers" talks about this to a degree. He makes the case that you can in fact be too smart, or at least that intelligence beyond a certain point doesn't help you and very well may hurt you.
As my dad has told me many a time, "My richest friends were all C students."
I second Dave's suggestion. Heck, if I was nearby you, I'd even offer to buy.
I can barely stomach Republicans. But thanks to the Democrats and ideas of their vocal defenders like Krugman, I'm a die hard and probably life long Republican.
I prefer to suffer a few pickpockets than live under a pirate empire.
I like to think of government as the high cost, low quality, late deliver of outdated goods and services that you must pay regardless.
Other than that, they'd be fine.
Economists are going to have to come to grips with the possibility that maybe it wasn't Krugman's personality that made his economic commentary so incompetent. It was his political economy …
Behind The Curve â is that the title of Krugmanâs autobiography?
The fact that this fool now has a Nobel prize renders that prize irrelevant, and him along with it.
He is so easily fooled (see above), he does not merit any consideration in any thoughtful conversation about contemporary economics whatsoever.
Mesa,
Maybe Krugman ought to do a take on Taleb's title and write an autobiography called "Fooled by everything".
Unfortunately Krugman has amassed huge power, validated by his Nobel Prize. You basically have to kiss his ring in order to survive as a high-level economist.
Heh. Fooled by everything. I like it.
Or, as jose would say,
Ganz vollkommen auf Alles hereingefallen
I don't know about kissing his ring. Maybe to be an esteemed economist in the elitist circles of the American Left, but John Stossel is doing well by us libertarians by giving Roberts, Kaplan, Williams, et al some face time.
We were watching the Bourne Ultimatum the other night, and I wondered aloud whether the Hollywood left will still pump out the government as our enemy movies like the Bourne series, Syriana, the Shooter, etc.
Please do not read the rest of this reply until Jan 20, 2017.
….
STOP!!! DON'T READ PAST HERE UNTIL 2017!!!
…..
…..
….
…..
"Some people think government doesn't work well when Republicans are in charge because Republicans (fill in the blank here with your own partisan vitriol).
But once Obama got into the White House, I think some people actually thought it would be different. He cares, after all, and he has such a high IQ."
Russ Robets 3/9/2009
So Russ here we are in 2017. Is this different? I mean when you wrote that post you had given the new President Barrack Obama all of 6 weeks before calling him a failure and no different then George W. Bush who you cheered for 7.5 years. What do you think now? Ahh… you're probably on my side by now so I suspect this post is irrelevant. But it does put things in perspective.
You don't need that much time to judge a politician. You know that a politician will lie, cheat and steal, you don't need 8 years to find that out. You are making a big assumption that he will get another term. What if he is the next jimmy carter, or GH Bush, or Lyndon Johnson?
"Government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office" – H.L. Mencken
Obama has a high IQ? Huh…I guess a high IQ doesn't stop one being an idiot, then.
Intelligent people often make the mistake that, because they are so intelligent, they must be right.
The fact that this fool now has a Nobel prize renders that prize irrelevant, and him along with it.
That puts him right up there with Arafat.
Muirgeo, show us where Russ "cheered on" George W. Bush.
Can you just do that?
C'mon wise guy, show us the money.
YASAFI.
The most foolish trait of the party man; thinking that one party is inherently good, and the other is inherently bad.
Hence the Matt Damons and George Clooneys will stop making movies about an evil American government, and start making movies about a benevolent American administration battling greedy Wall Street types.
And why the naive look at Obama's actions, and stated plans and fail to see that they are not new, but have been tried many times, and failed miserably on each attempt.
He is so easily fooled (see above), he does not merit any consideration in any thoughtful conversation about contemporary economics whatsoever.
Posted by: Mesa Econoguy
The Return of Depression Economics
by Paul R. Krugman 1999
"…means that for the first time in two generations, failures on the demand side of the economy–insufficient private spending to make use of the available productive capacity–have become the clear and present limitation on prosperity for a large part of the world."
YEP… NAILED IT!!!!
Nailed what, idiot?
There are now three big questions about economic policy. First, does the administration realize that it isnât doing enough? Second, is it prepared to do more? Third, will Congress go along with stronger policies?
On the first two questions, I found Mr. Obamaâs latest interview with The Times anything but reassuring.
Duh.
Crusader on 03/09/09 @ 7:33:34 PM
"Unfortunately Krugman has amassed huge power, validated by his Nobel Prize. You basically have to kiss his ring in order to survive as a high-level economist."
What??? Please define survive.
If the real problem with Stimulusaurus were that he wasn't gigantic enough, wouldn't we be seeing at least a little movement in the right direction? Instead of an accelerating move in the wrong direction?
Even if the gummint money isn't being spent yet, it's not like people need actual checks in their hands before they start acting on the good news. People, and markets, are perfectly capable of anticipating (and normally do anticipate) future good fortune. Wouldn't we see (for example) the stock market tick up, people buying stocks now because they expect the market to be much higher in 6 months?
I mean, Krugman here is like a passenger in a car the engine of which has stalled on the freeway, and which is about to get creamed by a tractor trailer from behind. "Step on the brake!" yells Krugman to the driver, so the driver does, but when the car continues to slow down Krugman screams "You idiot! You're obviously not stepping on it hard enough!"
Well, I dunno Paul. Seems to me, if after a little bit of your magic medicine the patient is not getting better even by a little bit — in fact is getting sicker — then calling for a much larger dose is not exactly what you'd call wisdom. Maybe wisdom would suggest you STFU and sit down, admit you really don't know what you're doing, not make things worse with more meddling.
Mierduck,
I'm waiting for you to cite an instance where Russ Roberts 'cheered on' President Bush'.
Heck, ducktor, I'd like to see you cite an instance where one of the regular posters here 'cheered on' Bush on economic matters. There are a couple of instances where Methinks or I voiced support for the Islamofascist War, but neither of us has ever had kind things to say about his comprehension of economics. He's every bit as Keynesian as you and Obama, just not necessarily a socialist asswipe. Like you and Obama.
Let's not feed the troll's need for attention.
See how the dishonest muirgeo avoided all the discomforting questions. LOL.
A good article by George Reisman – Obama: From Dumb to Dumberer
His premise is false, and so everything that could possibly follow is false.
He presupposes Krugman to be correct, and bases all "truth" on this constructed fact.
In his mind, consensus has been reached, debate over.
HISAFU
I remember reading an article once about the distress Einstein felt after going sailing with his son one day. He said the young man could explain every aspect of the boat, the wind, the water, and the interaction of all three using mathmatical models, but he hadn't a clue as to how to actually raise the sails or steer the boat.
Sam,
I've played Acrophobia and have a few ideas what your acronyms might stand for.
I'll be nice and keep them to myself :p
Seeing as how we get so much of our news from mainstream sources (yes, even the blogs because they link to stories that originate from the mainstream), I thought you all would find the following humorous:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=220252&title=cnbc-gives-financial-advice
Although I did agree with what Santelli had to say in his now famous "rant".
So Russ here we are in 2017. Is this different? – Muirdiot
For you? Nothing. You're still a moron.
Sam,
That was kind of my point.
Heck, ducktor, I'd like to see you cite an instance where one of the regular posters here 'cheered on' Bush on economic matters.
Posted by: brotio
For all practical purposes you guys ARE Republicans. I did a straw poll before the election and the posters here were like 10 to 1 voting for McCain.
Bill Maher smackdown of the Govmint Haters…start at 3:00
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuF50v9Yp8s
Let's stop picking on Barack..
He's so tired. (must be tough to start working at 47)
"For all practical purposes you guys ARE Republicans. I did a straw poll before the election and the posters here were like 10 to 1 voting for McCain."
-Muir
Still no examples where we "cheered on" Bush? Straw poll, huh? Well change it to "like" 8 to 2. I didn't vote for McCain.
I remember that straw poll very well. Muirgeo counted non-votes & votes for third parties as votes for McCain. I think maybe one McCain's two supporters actually liked McCain, & he was not a regular poster here. Nobody "cheered on" Bush.
If you don't like the Democrats, then you must love Republicans, even if you hate Republicans more than Democrats. Muirgeo's cognitive abilities have totally failed to escape that single fallacious principle.
"For all practical purposes you guys ARE Republicans. I did a straw poll before the election and the posters here were like 10 to 1 voting for McCain. "
Voting for a Republican doesn't make you a Republican. In the real world many time you have to choose between the bad and the worst. I have always despise Mc Cain but I held my nose and voted for him because I knew Obama will be much, much worse. Needless to say he has ended up being as I feared and then more. I am proud that I did all I could with my limited resources to defeat Obama. And I will continue to do all I can to have him kicked out of power at the next opportunity. And I have done that as a proud independent not as a Republican.
Mierduck,
It can't be that difficult. Well, for someone without a brain stem (like you), maybe it is.
I've made no bones about being a registered Republican, but even with that, you still can't cite one instance where I 'cheered on' or even defended Bush's economic policies. Bush is closer to YOU on economic policies than he is to me. He even agrees with your Church of AGW. If he were a Democrat, you'd have been cheering him on exactly as you're cheering on The Obamessiah.
Oh, and that straw poll? Bullshit!
I said I was voting for McCain because I agree with him about the war. On everything else he's closer to you than to me, but that one fact mattered to me. One other person may have made a similar statement – but I know for a fact Sam Grove said no to both, Randy doesn't vote, and Mesa would have told you to go fuck yourself. There's three right off the bat that you're lying about.
Now, try and answer Sam's question?
quack, quack, quack….
Thanks, Hans.
I was the reluctant supporter. Much in the same boat as Juan.
Actually, brotio, I was thinking of the guy who kept saying that McCain had "grit" & that I was childish for not voting.
I think I see you more as a supporter of a particular policy, one which most elected Democrats also support, than a supporter of McCain. Our point is that none of this is evidence that you cheered on Bush's economic policies. It just boggles my mind how much effort it would take to arrive at such an overly simplistic conclusion.
But mostly I saw Muirgeo lying about his straw poll (actually his reading of Russ's poll) & I decided to call him on it. Muirgeo's impressively objective & scientific straw poll is here. Anyone even remotely tempted to think this poll is evidence that we cheered on Bush ought to read it. Even if they conclude that "we" all love Bush, it hardly follows that Krugman knows what he's talking about or that Obama knows what he's doing.
Once again Muirgeo has turned the attention away from the real debate, & I totally fell for it. Bugger.
"Once again Muirgeo has turned the attention away from the real debate, & I totally fell for it. Bugger."
-HL
I think the same thing when I respond to his comments… although the word "bugger" doesn't usually pass through my mind…
Funny video muirgeo.
Of course, you know you're talking to a Libertarian and not a Conservative when they refer to the NRA as a gun-control organisation.
Gil,
The NRA is a gun-control organization. At their Whittington Center in New Mexico, there are rifle ranges, pistol ranges, shotgun ranges, and instructors available to teach you how to control your gun so that you hit what you're aiming for.
They also advocate these rules for proper control of your gun:
1. ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.
This is the primary rule of gun safety. A safe direction means that the gun is pointed so that even if it were to go off it would not cause injury or damage. The key to this rule is to control where the muzzle or front end of the barrel is pointed at all times. Common sense dictates the safest direction, depending on different circumstances.
2. ALWAYS keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.
When holding a gun, rest your finger on the trigger guard or along the side of the gun. Until you are actually ready to fire, do not touch the trigger.
3. ALWAYS keep the gun unloaded until ready to use.
Whenever you pick up a gun, immediately engage the safety device if possible, and, if the gun has a magazine, remove it before opening the action and looking into the chamber(s) which should be clear of ammunition. If you do not know how to open the action or inspect the chamber(s), leave the gun alone and get help from someone who does.
Wow, gee, brotio I s'pose any restrictions on guns could be considered 'gun control' couldn't they? Not pointing a gun at a person is a type of gun-control if you want to dicker. Of course, you know I meant those who view the term 'gun control' as a cover for the real term 'victim disarmament'. Which is to say that there are those who view the NRA as a 'victim disarmament' organisation.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gaddy/gaddy33.html
P.S. Why not end your post with "Liberals should be accompanied by a grown-up (a Libertarian) when in presence of a gun"?
Don't blame me, I voted for Palin.
{ 1 trackback }