Who should I believe...Paul Krugman or Bernie Sanders?

[Cali_Democrat]

Bernie Sanders thinks Hillary's answer about regulating Wall Street wasn't good enough.

Paul Krugman seems to think it was and he even says that she has a better case than Bernie:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/opinion/democrats-republicans-and-wall-street-tycoons.html

Who to believe? I think I'll believe the guy who won the Nobel prize in economics.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. A prudent person would defer to the person without a rooting interest.

EOM

[randys1]

2. Reich is who I trust and he says yes Glass = Steagall would have prevented what happened

http://robertreich.org/post/124114229225

[JaneyVee]

29. Reich was the Labor Secretary during NAFTA.

[SunSeeker]

46. Ouch. nt

[lovemydog]

85. But I believe Reich is correct about Glass-Steagall,

which was in place since 1933 until it was repealed under Bill Clinton. It limited commercial bank securities activities and affiliations within commercial banks and securities firms. It prevented huge banks from taking outrageous risks in the investment banking field. The notion that those huge banks were 'too big to fail' led to taxpayers bailing them out. I believe, as does Reich, that its repeal directly led to the economic meltdown that President Obama faced when he took office. And Bill Clinton has also expressed regret over signing the legislation to repeal Glass-Steagall.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. Welcome back to DU and may the rest of your life be the best of your life.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. Then let me extend a heart felt welcome and wish that the rest of your life be the best of your life

EOM

[mcar]

13. Really?

How? Do include links. Thanks.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. Name removed is gone after he or she assured us he was new.

[Hekate]

88. Who was that masked man? I'm always curious at the cloud of dust

[Thinkingabout]

4. When dealing with finanical matters I can see following the finanical guy. It has been said Glass

Stegall would not have prevented the financial crisis, I believe Krugman.

[DCBob]

5. Bernie is smart but I think his policies lack depth and detail.

His limited experience being a long-time politician from a small northern homogeneous state is starting to show.

[Cha]

81. Ex-zactly.

[Eric J in MN]

83. Bernie Sanders has introduced bills which have details

...such as his College for All Act and Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act.


He supports legislation in Congress for paid-family-and-medical leave.

You can turn to those bills for details.

College for All Act
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s1373/text

Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2015
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/sandersmarijuanabill11415.pdf

Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/786/text

[mcar]

6. Krugman for sure

I believe the Nobel prize winner, and will even reach under the bus to give him a fist bump.

[wyldwolf]

7. When O'Malley called Trump a carnival barker...

... he might as well had been referring to Sanders as well. Both have a shallow knowledge of issues and of how politics work and appeal to their party's most ideologically pure segments.

[brooklynite]

24. As a Clinton supporter, that's an uncalled for dig at Sanders

A "carnival barker" is generally presumed to be promoting something he knows he can't deliver (see: Trump). I have no doubt that Sanders believes in the principles he espouses.

[wyldwolf]

35. "generally presumed to be promoting something he knows he can't deliver"

We're not talking 'principles.' We're talking hard campaign promises and policy proposals. Is your contention he really believes in the principles of them or that he really believes he can make them a reality?

If it's the latter, then you're correct - he isn't a carnival barker. That's something else entirely.

[LovingA2andMI]

50. So, just to ensure full understanding....

Are you calling a Democratic Presidential Nominee named Bernie Sanders, a carnival barker?

[rbrnmw]

66. Totally uncalled for

He is far from being that. Please delete your comment,

[Eric J in MN]

84. Sanders had deep enough knowledge to vote against IWR and

...against the Patriot Act and against the Bankruptcy Bill and against DOMA.

[Quixote1818]

9. Krugman is probably going to get a spot on her cabinet. Robert Reich

has just as much credibility of not more than Krugman and he says Clinton is wrong on Glass-Steagall

http://robertreich.org/post/124114229225

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. Krug has a Phd in Economics from Yale. Reich has a JD from Yale Law

One was the youngest recipient of the John Bates Clark Medal which is a forerunner to a Nobel prize which he also was the recipient of . He also was a recipient of the Principe de Asturias Prize .

That being written, I will leave it to dispassionate observers to determine if one " as just as much credibility as the other."

[Quixote1818]

27. They are both brilliant. I think both should be taken seriously

and I would like to hear the two of them debate this. I will say that having Krugman back Hillary on this is comforting.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. The right hates Krug... I wonder if they would confirm him for anything...

That being said Cabinet appointments aren't as nearly as contentious as SCOTUS appointments.

[Turn CO Blue]

40. Joseph Stiglitz has written extensively that repealing Glass-Steagall was THE major factor

in 2008 crash, and HE is Clinton's economic advisor or so I understand.

Are you going to tell us all that Stiglitz does not have as much credibility as other economists? {sigh}

[JaneyVee]

28. Joseph Stiglitz is her economic adviser.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. Another Nobel laureate.

Ever notice how few Nobel Prize winners there are on the right...Milton Friedman is the last one I can think of.

[PosterChild]

75. Hayek, but....

.... he had to share it with Gunnar Myrdal. However, he was surprised at being given the award and believed that he was given it with Myrdal to balance against Myrdal's leftist perspective.

[Turn CO Blue]

41. Good, I'm glad, because he has written several articles saying repeal of GS was a mistake!

[Nonhlanhla]

59. Stiglitz is her adviser? Wow!

Now that I'm very comfortable with. I just read his "The Great Divide."

[BootinUp]

52. Krugman will not take such a job. He has made that clear

more than once. Robert Reich is good, he argues from the liberal point of view always. I like him a lot. I do not think he is quite the wonk that Krugman is though.

[72DejaVu]

10. Krugman won the Nobel Prize

Nobel was an oligarch who invented dynamite.

Therefore, Krugman is a corporatist warmonger and you can't trust him.

[mcar]

15. 6 degrees of...

[NurseJackie]

17. Ha!! :-D

[Chitown Kev]

78. LOL

There is that

[Baitball Blogger]

11. Does Krugman live in New York?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. May I please inquire as to the importance of his current residence?

Thank you in advance.

[Baitball Blogger]

22. New York's lifestyle is very much affected by Wall Street.

From several visits to the city, speaking to relatives and friends, I've noticed that people who live there have a very high opinion of the importance that New York has to the rest of the country. I don't think that we have shared pain when it comes to hard times. If their kids don't jump out of college and start with a $100,000 a year salary, they think they've hit hard times.

I think this lifestyle is something we can't afford to maintain for them, any longer.

Krugman may be too deep into this world to see it objectively.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. I suspect Krug has few friends on the Street.

If you read right wing blogs and blogs by right wing economists he is pretty much loathed.

[bettyellen]

56. oh yes- you actually have to be one of "the 1%" to get into NYC at all. It's just so fabulous...

We're all bathing in champagne and grateful for you all who subsidize it all.


Oh wait a minute- our taxes subsidize much of the fed govt for the rest of the country- oops.

[Baitball Blogger]

71. Don't take my word for it. Just ask New Yorkers who live outside the city boundaries.

What is that called. Upstate New York?

[bettyellen]

73. Or- the Bronx or Queens? HA HA. You have no clue at all. Not a one. We also subsidize upstate.

Can't afford us? Oh please. Where did you learn about NYC- watching Green Acres?

[Baitball Blogger]

76. You can try to be condescending.

But it only reinforces the perception.

Bottomline, our investments should be protected by institutions that have commitment to protecting the welfare of all the citizens in the U.S. And that's not what we have experienced over the years.

[Hekate]

90. That sounds as clueless as some of the things people spew about California or the South on DU....

DU is such a bastion of open mindedness and liberal thought sometimes, it's just breathtaking.

[Baitball Blogger]

93. Maybe you just have to be there.

I am as surprised as anyone would be to find themselves sitting at tables with people who have direct contact with the financial world in New York. The attitudes are every thing you would expect to find, from a world that gets to write its own rules.

We need to get a handle on this because most financial investments lead to New York. Maybe it could stand a little competition. Maybe the answer is to spread the risks. And if so, Bernie Sanders offers the best solution.

[LovingA2andMI]

47. Yes, he does...

9/11, 9/11, 9/11 --- It Explains EVERYTHING....

[PatrickforO]

18. Hmm. Let's take a stab at answering that, shall we?

Here is a link to a paper written by Yeva Nersisyan of Levy Economics Institute of Bard College: http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_829.pdf

LEI is basically a think tank founded in 1986, meant to be a nonprofit, nonpartisan, independently funded research organization devoted to public service. Through scholarship and economic research it generates viable, effective public policy responses to important economic problems that profoundly affect the quality of life in the United States and abroad. The gist of this paper is that the partial repeal of Glass Steagall was part of a larger deregulatory movement that allowed the rise of the so-called shadow banks.

This paper implies that reinstatement of Glass-Steagall would not necessarily be enough, but that "the elimination of GSA restrictions on bank-permissible activities has contributed to the rise of a financial system where the lines between regulated and protected
banks and the so-called shadow banking system have become blurred. The existence of the shadow banking universe, which is directly or indirectly guaranteed by banks, has made it practically impossible to confine the safety to the regulated banking system. In this context, reforming the lender-of-last-resort institution requires fundamental changes within the financial system itself."

So, my take is that Sanders has a good basic idea but a larger approach would be necessary to actually rein in Wall Street greed.

Be mindful that this does not necessarily mean that Clinton's plan is sufficient either, and in fact the article you've linked says that whomever the Dems elect, this may be a moot point, because they will try and build on the 2010 legislation but will be obstructed every single little tiny step of the way by Republicans. The author of your article, then is suggesting that until the Dems take both houses of Congress they won't be able to pass much, if any new reform on Wall Street greed.

Me, I keep waiting for Jamie Dimon and his ilk to be held accountable by those we elect to look out for our interests, but that hasn't happened, and Obama has been MUCH TOO EASY on these greed heads.

[pscot]

20. Read the entire article

Krugman doesn't really take sides.

If a Democrat does win, does it matter much which one it is? Probably not. Any Democrat is likely to retain the financial reforms of 2010, and seek to stiffen them where possible. But major new reforms will be blocked until and unless Democrats regain control of both houses of Congress, which isn’t likely to happen for a long time.

In other words, while there are some differences in financial policy between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders, as a practical matter they’re trivial compared with the yawning gulf with Republicans

[Jarqui]

21. Here's the two plans re Wall Street

Bernie's
https://berniesanders.com/issues/reforming-wall-street/

Hillary's
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/wall-street/
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/p/briefing/factsheets/2015/10/08/wall-street-work-for-main-street/

I agree with Krugman. Hillary's plan is more comprehensive, detailed, thorough/though out and better explained.

I support Bernie but the above is my opinion. I don't think it's close.

Now if Bernie had Hillary's plan, between the two, who would I trust more to do it? Hands down, not close => Bernie. In my opinion, Hillary is a much greater risk to say this stuff to get elected and then not follow through. I don't trust her as much.

Krugman's point about a bunch of this stuff not mattering unless the Dems control the House and Senate? For sure. That's why Obama's time in office was restricted to what he could get done.

To me, the key importance in getting a Dem elected president is if that doesn't happen, the GOP may strip away everything done under Obama and go back to war - back to the Bush years.

[hollowdweller]

77. Thanks for the links.

I'm voting for Sanders but I do think Hillary's proposals sound excellent and well thought out.

[JaneyVee]

23. BELIEVE THE GUY WHO HASN'T EVEN RELEASED A WALL STREET PLAN.

[cheapdate]

26. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 which deregulated

both derivatives and credit default swaps was vastly more important in causing the 2007 banking collapse than the the repeal of Glass-Steagll. That, and unbridled, delusional, greed and arrogance.

[jwirr]

70. You are correct. But on a personal basis the repeal allowed

investment banks to us deposit money from all of us to gamble in the markets. Before the repeal you and I could make the decision if our money was going to be invested in the local or the world economy. It also allowed this with our pensions and they even wanted to privatize Social Security so that money could be used by the investment banks.

I also think that we are wrong when we think that we can have banks that are too big to fail and be safe. Somewhere here on DU there is a chart that shows us how the banks have consolidated over the years from many smaller banks into 3 to 6 huge banks. That is insane. And that is why we had no choice but to bail them out. They had everyone's money in those 3-6 banks.

Hillary just wants to tell them "cut that out".

[UglyGreed]

32. How about Robert Reich?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251814463

[SunSeeker]

54. So you like the guy who was Secretary of Labor when NAFTA got passed?

I'd go with the Nobel prize winning economist. But that's just me.

[UglyGreed]

58. You mean NAFTA which

Bill signed and Hillary supported at the time?

[SunSeeker]

65. Apparently relying on Reich's counsel, Bill did sign NAFTA. nt

[UglyGreed]

67. Just in case you missed it below

Good advice and good for Krugman. But there's a peculiar snag in his declaration: Paul Krugman was himself a “supposed authority” who gravely misled the American public on how to think about free-trade globalization. As threatening losses and dislocations accumulated for the US, the celebrated economist was like Voltaire’s Dr. Pangloss, assuring everyone not to worry. Pay no attention to those critics dwelling on the dark side of globalization, he said. Economic theory confirms that free trade is the best of all possible policies in this best of all possible worlds.

A good many Americans did not believe him, mainly working people who saw their jobs and middle-class wages decimated by the processes of globalizing production. Krugman said they didn’t see the big picture. Educated professionals whose own livelihoods were not threatened by globalization were more likely to embrace Krugman’s perspective. While he never won the debate with the broad public, his argument prevailed where it counts – among the political elites who influence government policy-making. Both political parties, every president from Reagan to Obama, embraced the same free-trade strategy: support US multinational corporations in global competition, as their success is bound to lift the rest of the country.

http://www.thenation.com/article/why-was-paul-krugman-so-wrong/

[UglyGreed]

61. .

Good advice and good for Krugman. But there's a peculiar snag in his declaration: Paul Krugman was himself a “supposed authority” who gravely misled the American public on how to think about free-trade globalization. As threatening losses and dislocations accumulated for the US, the celebrated economist was like Voltaire’s Dr. Pangloss, assuring everyone not to worry. Pay no attention to those critics dwelling on the dark side of globalization, he said. Economic theory confirms that free trade is the best of all possible policies in this best of all possible worlds.

A good many Americans did not believe him, mainly working people who saw their jobs and middle-class wages decimated by the processes of globalizing production. Krugman said they didn’t see the big picture. Educated professionals whose own livelihoods were not threatened by globalization were more likely to embrace Krugman’s perspective. While he never won the debate with the broad public, his argument prevailed where it counts – among the political elites who influence government policy-making. Both political parties, every president from Reagan to Obama, embraced the same free-trade strategy: support US multinational corporations in global competition, as their success is bound to lift the rest of the country.

http://www.thenation.com/article/why-was-paul-krugman-so-wrong/

[litlbilly]

33. He's a Hillary supporter so that makes the prize moot, sorry

[Doctor_J]

34. unfortunately prof Krugman abandoned his liberal principles for the sake what remains of the party

He now believes healthcare should be a commodity, and now that Hillary will make wall street criminals behave by scolding them, after taking their money to get elected.

[Armstead]

49. Makes one wonder if he's angling for a job

[Enrique]

37. believe whatever suits your agenda

[yourout]

38. I'm going with Bernie.

[sheshe2]

39. I will stay with Krugman. nt

[jeff47]

42. It's so funny when Clinton supporters don't bother reading more than the first paragraph

or two of their sources.

[Turn CO Blue]

43. Who should I believe - Joseph Stiglitz (Hillary's advisor) or Hillary Clinton?

I think I will believe Nobel Prize winner Stiglitz on how the repeal of Glass Steagall DIRECTLY lead to the 2008 crash and bailout.

[elleng]

44. Nobel prize sounds good,

and Krugman usually is, but it's reasonable to wonder HOW significant Glass-Steagall is.

[berni_mccoy]

45. Krugman was wrong about Obama's economic recovery plan

[LovingA2andMI]

48. Now we know those pesky FACTS don't matter because....

9/11, 9/11, 9/11....Matters Above EVERYTHING else....even giving the Fight for $15 workers $15.00 an Hour --- as they will have to suck it up buttercup and settle with $12.00.....

[BootinUp]

51. Nonsense. nt

[LovingA2andMI]

57. This.....

[BootinUp]

60. I'll pass. nt

[LovingA2andMI]

62. Facts can be amazing things...

Unless they are ignored on purpose.....

[BootinUp]

64. I can't believe you posted that video

to try and prove a fact. Can't you find a reputable source to make your case? I read Krugman quite a bit. From 2003 to 2009 I probably didn't miss a single article. So I know the history.

[LovingA2andMI]

69. Maybe this one is better....

Bernie Sanders and Martin O' Malley support a $15.00 an hour Minimum Wage at the Federal Level, along with the Fight for $15.00 SEIU Supporters.

[MisterP]

55. TPP-until-he-doesn't-anymore Krugman?

[modestybl]

63. The AIG collapse was a crisis because the too-big-to-fail banks...

...were going to be taken down with it. The "shadow banking" sector is a direct consequence of this enormous concentration of wealth and influence in the hands of a very few banks. If there had been a robust system of thousands of banks behaving the way banks SHOULD have behaved, AIG and a few banks would have failed and it wouldn't have mattered to the entire system. I'm rather surprised that Krugman didn't discuss this ... maybe he wants to be Treasury Secretary?

[azmom]

74. And now, they are bigger than in 08.

It's a huge problem.

[SunSeeker]

68. Paul Krugman, American badass.

[Jim Lane]

72. So Krugman, in an October article, assessed the November debate?

Sorry, I don't buy it. Nobel Prize yes, Randi Prize no.

You post a month-old article and refer to "Hillary's answer about regulating Wall Street" -- thus giving the false impression that Krugman was commenting on Hillary's answer last night.

[AdHocSolver]

79. Krugman is a "trickle down" economist.

I am disappointed in Krugman, and I am disheartened by the lack of understanding about economics by many of the people on DU.

The Glass-Steagal act separated investment banks from commercial banks to prevent investment banks from using depositors' money in commercial banks (such as CD's, savings accounts, retirement accounts, etc.) to gamble away those assets on risky and/or fraudulent investments.

When the "too-big-to-fail" banks did gamble the money away, the government should have immediately separated the banks and re-instituted the Glass-Steagal Act. Unfortunately, that didn't happen.

If Pres. Bill Clinton hadn't worked hard to repeal Glass-Steagal, the effective takeover of commercial banks by investment banks would not have occurred, and the melt down of the banking system would not have happened.

[lovemydog]

86. I don't know about Krugman being a 'trickle down' economist,

but I agree with you and Reich about the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act. I believe its repeal most certainly contributed to the financial meltdown.

I haven't followed what Krugman is saying on this matter. Are some here saying that Krugman is saying that it didn't contribute to the financial meltdown? Is Krugman really saying that? Is he is, do you think he's angling for a job in the Clinton Administration?

Also, what to you mean when you say Krugman is a 'trickle down' economist? He isn't calling for even further tax cuts for billionaires is he? I mean, from what I've read of Krugman he would categorically reject 'trickle down economic theory' as its traditionally defined.

[Hekate]

91. I read him throughout BushCheney's admin, and I do not believe that assertion

[Sheepshank]

80. Krugman, the latest bus fatality.

You know your on the correct side of things when .....well, I don't think I need to go any farther.

[Eric J in MN]

82. Believe history. Banks gave mortgages with low intro rates

...which later spike, so that they could sell collections of those mortgages as stocks.

That was a huge factor in the financial problems of 2008.

The banks wouldn't have done it if investment banks and savings banks weren't allowed to merge by repealing Glass-Steagall.

Look at that history and vote for a candidate who wants to restore Glass-Steagall: Bernie Sanders.

[Hekate]

87. That would be my vote too, Cali. The man who wrote "The Conscience of a Liberal" & won the Nobel.

Krugman has always been the voice of sanity for me.

[Blue_In_AK]

89. Never mind.

[lovemydog]

92. I agree with Krugman that repeal of Glass-Steagall was a mistake.

I disagree with him on the economic meltdown. I think its repeal was not the the sole factor but it was a contributing factor.

I agree with Krugman on this:

"If a Democrat does win, does it matter much which one it is? Probably not. Any Democrat is likely to retain the financial reforms of 2010, and seek to stiffen them where possible. But major new reforms will be blocked until and unless Democrats regain control of both houses of Congress, which isn’t likely to happen for a long time.

In other words, while there are some differences in financial policy between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders, as a practical matter they’re trivial compared with the yawning gulf with Republicans."