Paul Krugman.... It would be nice if he proposed SPECIFIC plans for a change

[rhombus]

It's easy to criticize the Geithner bank plan from the sidelines. Paul Krugman is too fond of petty sniping at the margins. Can he for once write a detailed column with SPECIFICS on how to address the banking problem? It's not enough just to say you favor nationalizing the banks. How the heck do you go about nationalizing complex global financial institutions like CITI and AIG? Sheila Bair, the FDIC Chair, stated in her senate testimony on Thursday that the US government doesn't have the legal authority to nationalize these global behemoths.

I'm tired of the armchair quarterbacks yelling at the Obama administration without offering specific solutions.

NB. If Krugman et al want a concrete example of what we want to see from him, here is one -- http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/opinion/01holmes.html

[amborin]

1. he provides specific plans daily...on his blog...wonkish and not

[rhombus]

2. no he doesn't

I read his blog, and all I see is him saying, "do this, do that", ie a framework of criticisms without diddly squat of specifics.

[AllentownJake]

4. Krugman better be careful

If Geithner goes...he may get a phone call to serve.

[amborin]

5. for past several months, his daily blog has specific plans...doubt you've read it

[rhombus]

11. He talks in theory but never gets into the nuts and bolts

Like I said, I read his column and his blog, but I've yet to see a detailed and comprehensive solution from him. He needs to boil his message down to practicality.

[democracy1st]

43. i've got nuts and bolts for ya,the same wall st insiders are trying to protect wall st from hardcore

regulation! I'll never trust people who pushed deregulation to regulate a market

[stillcool]

49. Who says you should trust any one person..

to have the answers? Especially with a problem as complex as this global financial crisis? Is everyone who has worked on Wall Street, the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, or a global financial institution corrupt because of their association? Should I believe what someone else says about you?

[uponit7771]

47. Exactly, it would be nice to see the return on investment and the premises behind them in regards to

..why he favors nationalization

[Bjorn Against]

50. Read one of his economics text books

His newspaper columns and blogs are written in a way that is meant to reach those who are not experts in the field of economics, you don't reach people with long detailed and comprehensive solutions because most people won't read or understand all the fine details. His economics text books are written for an audience that knows a lot more about economics and therefore there are a lot more details, you can't expect him to write a detailed and comprehensive solution in a one column article in the New York Times as that format does not allow the space to offer a detailed and comprehensive plan.

[AllentownJake]

3. Krugman is an economist not a politian

The quicker people understand that the better off we'll all be.

Krugman can propose anything he wants, doesn't mean there is the political will out there to get it done. Krugman doesn't have to navigate the waters of special interest, party politics, a hostile media, 30% of the populace that are going to hate you no matter what and support your opposition (see Bill Clinton).

[amborin]

7. there was/is huge pol will to nationalize: even freshwater economists were on the nationl'n band wag

[AllentownJake]

16. It doesn't translate to the Senate/House

I can tell you why in one word...money.

[lamp_shade]

6. His nose seems a little bent out of joint lately. I wonder why. n/t

[Lord Helmet]

8. PUMAs are more interested in snark than constructive ideas.

[amborin]

10. ad hominum attack! Krugman is not a puma

when you can't argue on economic terms, then all you have is personal attack??????

[Lord Helmet]

14. he's not credible what with that bug up his ass about Obama personally for a long time now

[Dawgs]

48. "Krugman is not a puma"

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Larkspur]

24. And Obama fanatics prove once again that they are no different than Bushies

Both go on vindictive and irrational rants against those that dare criticize their idol of worship.

[Lord Helmet]

26. lol, and your hyperbole is no different from the wingnuts and PUMAs

[Larkspur]

30. I voted for Obama in CT's Feb. 5, 2008 primary and on Nov. 4, 2008

so I was NEVER a PUMA, but I'm also not an Obama fanatic. I was an "Anybody but a Clinton and a Republican" voter.

Again, you prove my point that Obama fanatics only care about protecting the idol of their worship and not about facts and honestly debating policy issues. You are no different than the Repukes who supported suppressing dissent against Bush and calling such dissent unpatriotic.

[Lord Helmet]

32. so you think using RW/PUMA talking points bolsters your self-righteous indignation?

[Larkspur]

36. Actually, it is you and your fellow Obama fanatics who are borrowing from the RW

You have continually demonstrated the same totalitarian mentality that the Bushies have. You clearly can not acknowledge that Obama is human and therefore he has flaws and Geithner is a big flaw.

[Lord Helmet]

37. I'm a Kooch fanatic and you're using RW/PUMA talking points calling O supporters Bushies.

get over yourself and quit trying to categorize people when you clearly have no clue what you are talking about

[Larkspur]

41. You are using RW talking points to call anyone who will not worship Obama like you

Puma's. I have never been a PUMA. I despise the Clintons and never supported Hillary in her Prez primary bid.

You and your fellow Obama fanatics need to get over yourselves and stop branding those who dissent from some of Obama's policies RW/Puma's.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

39. Wow... That's more a cry for psychiatric intervention than a post

[Lord Helmet]

40. wow ... that's more of a lame personal attack than a post

[zulchzulu]

9. Put it this way, if Krugman was Treasury head, Wall Street would be reeling even worse

Wall Street has people in charge who were part of the reasons why Wall Street is in the shape they are in. These guys know where the bodies are and also are not going going to just keep feeding them barrels of money.

Krugman has some good ideas, but sneering at Obama's plans only play into the GOP's hands at wanting to blame Obama for Bush's economy in 2010.

As someone has mentioned here, if we had spent the same scrutiny on KBR and its corruption as AIG, Cheney would have been arrested in 2005.

[amborin]

12. um

"not keep feeding them money"

like not feeding Goldman Sachs?

which was one of the recipients of aig's second round of bailout funds......

[zulchzulu]

15. I meant even MORE money...

That was what Geithner said in his first bout with Wall Street. I'm for giving him at least 6 months to give the economy a shot... I'm not a bandwagon jeerer.

[LittleBlue]

13. He's proposed the Swedish model of nationalization.

People will just keep repeating this mantra "you have given us no details! blublublub" until he writes a 300 page bill and submits it to congress. Unlike Geithner's failed proposition (which historically has failed in Japan), we have a model demonstrated to have worked (Swedish).

It's absurd, but keep demanding more details, by all means.

[AllentownJake]

17. Does Sweeden have 9 trillion dollars of debt being held in Asia?

[LittleBlue]

19. Your point is what?

Simply contrasting Sweden with us using irrelevant facts does not disprove the Swedish model.

How do our outstanding treasuries have anything to do with nationalization?

[AllentownJake]

23. The problem is alot more complex than any other country has ever faced

There is no magic bullet. No great model to follow. You can compare us to Japan but Japan was a net saving and producing nation. You can compare us to Sweeden but Sweeden doesn't have the international debt we have.

Honestly I don't know how our leaders don't look at this and have their heads explode...so many bad unintended consequences no matter what you do.

[Kdillard]

27. That's the truth.

[LittleBlue]

29. I've never seen such hysteria

You are just contrasting irrelevant facts and then claiming it's too complex to be understood except by our leaders.

Here are some facts for you:

Our national debt is meaningless in this debate, except if you're talking about running up further deficits. Geithner's plan has/will cost trillions (at least 3 so far). The nationalization plan, if you bought the common of the top 2 troubled banks (BOA and Citi), would be under $100 billion.


Japan a net saving nation... okay, so what does this have to do with bank nationalization? Why don't we try what has worked (Sweden) instead of what hasn't (Japan). If it is a complete failure, we're out maybe $250 billion. If Geithner's plan is a failure, we're out (including this newest POS he proposed) ~$4 trillion.

[AllentownJake]

33. The banking issue is a symptom of the disease not the cause of the disease

In the past 30 years we have gone from a nation that lent money to other nations to a nation that consumes 80% of the world's savings.

We went from a net exporter of finished goods and an importer of raw materials to a nation that exports raw materials and imports finished goods.

We have financed this lifestyle on massive debt. Governmental, Buisness, and Personal and the system is collapsing. The past 30 years of prosperity were a giant myth. It was all purchased on a credit card. It cannot be sustained.


All this bank crisis is showing is that the emperor has no clothes.

[LittleBlue]

34. I 100% agree with you on that.

The Age of Excess and currency whoring needs to end. Stronger legislation like Bernie Sanders' usury law (capping credit card rates @15%) needs to be passed. The U.S. has been living in an opium/credit dream for the last 30 years (especially the last 10), as you've said.

The main thing I'm trying to avoid her is her Whoreness Sarah Palin becoming president. If we don't find some demonstrable way to show the economy is improving in 3 years (the time Palin will start campaigning), we're going to slide down an abyss worse than Bush. IMO we need a financial team who can accomplish this.

But you're right, changes need to come.

[AllentownJake]

35. FDR saved the rich from themselves in 1933

If Sarah Palin were to become President...I fear that the chaos of the French Revolution would soon be upon this once great nation. People are angry, and her policies and basic belief structure would make things even worse overnight for everyone from the upper middle class down to the poor.

The upper middle class tends to be where revolutions are sprung. Once the educated local leaders start to feel pain, the masses tend to follow them against the elites quite quickly basically because they follow them everyday (managers, doctors, business owners, etc)

Also adding that our counties loose gun control laws don't help that possibility.

[amborin]

42. all the more reason to nationalize....our debt holders want our banks healthy, not sick for a decade

[rhombus]

18. The swedish banks were not multinational giants like CITI and AIG

This is not apples to apples. It's a far different ballgame on an unprecedented multi-trillion dollar scale.

Applying the 'Swedish model' is not a real solution until you can work out the nuts and bolts. And this is where Krugman needs to do a much better job providing specifics.

[LittleBlue]

21. Nonsense. No matter how large the corporation

they all have common stock.

No matter their operations, purchasing common will give control of the corporation to the purchaser.

Again, why are people so desperate to throw irrelevant facts into the debate? Nobody is suggesting the government OPERATE these companies with a new bureaucracy; simply purchasingte common, guaranteeing the debts, and holding it until the storm passes is what we're talking about.

[Larkspur]

22. That's why these institutions, a.k.a. trusts, need to be busted up

Geithner is a Wall Street toadie and his chief of staff was a Goldman Sachs lobbyist, so they will bend to Wall Street's bidding while they spank Main Street for wanting our small wages increased.

[AllentownJake]

31. Its a little more complex than that

All I can say is it took us 30 years to economically destroy this country. This crisis is the build-up of 30 years of bad policy. The even worse things is that those 30 years have alot of people have acquired too much power and too much money and they have no interest in returning things back to the way they were prior to 30 years ago.

We aren't going to get out of it overnight and honestly I don't know how we get ourselves out of it, or what will replace it.

[AllentownJake]

25. Iceland is a more apt comparison for the US right now

If your looking nations to compare us to too.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

20. How does the stupid claim made in this OP keep getting repeated here?

If you don't read him or cannot understand him that doesn't make it his fault you don't grasp that he proposes things every damn day.

[Zenlitened]

44. I think it's part of a right-wing smear campaign, honestly. - n/t

[Skink]

28. Krugman's always months to years ahead.

Read the great unraveling then match the dates to say the Enron fiasco. He told us what they were doing 6 months ahead of time.
He's right btw when he says if Obamas plan falls flat there also isn't going to be any political capital left. People might even start voting for the opposition again which then is going to bring armageddon.

[Phx_Dem]

38. That's his only solution -- nationalize the banks. No thanks. n/t

[Igel]

45. I criticize him on two points.

And only two. AIG bonuses aren't one of them.

The first is when he tries to be a politician because his boss is. When he says he didn't know the size and extent of the bonuses but seems to be want us to think he didn't know of the bonuses, it's offensive. Speak clearly or don't speak. He should say unpleasant things even if they're politically unpopular if he wants to retain any credibility.

The second is that he should be talking, and talking hard, with Congress to get his staffing levels up. He cannot do it alone, he should not think he should do it alone, and if he thinks he *can* do it alone then I have a serious criticism #3 that makes criticisms #1 and #2 pale to inconsequence.

[NJmaverick]

46. Krugman compared Obama's supporters to Nixon's people

He is a bitter PUMA that is using his economic credentials as cover for his Anti-Obama vendetta

http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2008/20080211150350.aspx

[WeDidIt]

51. Krugman v.s Geithner

it's pure science vs. applied science.

Any engineer who's ever taken the theoretical and implemented it in the real world will tell you, Pure Scientists may be brilliant, but they couldn't design their way out of a wet paper bag.