Paul Krugman appears to have painted himself into a corner

[NJmaverick]

at this point it appears Paul Krugman has not choice but to undermine the publics confidence in the economy. Since he took such a strong and absolute stand, against Geitner and OBama, his reputation and credibility will be completely destroyed should the economy improve. So it seems like Krugman is making a major PR blitz to try and scare people and convince them not to have any confidence in the economy. After all a scared public will not make major purchases or invest their money in a constructive manner. He is attempting a self fullfilling prophesy.

[soothsayer]

1. or he's just calling it as he sees it.

[NJmaverick]

6. If he wasn't appearing in as many places as possible, I would agree

but no one would dispute that he is all over the news and appearing almost every where.

[Jack Rabbit]

18. If Dr. Krugman had political ambitions, I might agree

However, there is no reason to believe he does. That brings us back to "calling it as he sees it." He may be wrong or he may be right, but that is what he's doing.

[NJmaverick]

21. He doesn't need political ambitions, he can just be seeking personal glory

it's a very common motive

[earthside]

36. Yup ... That's What He Was Doing ...

... when he was challenging and criticizing Bush ... just seeking personal glory.

Somehow I don't think that was your critique of Krugman's motivations then.

The truth is that it is Obama and Geithner that have painted themselves in a corner by allying themselves with the Wall Street gamblers' crowd.

Obama should listen to Krugman's advice, fire Geithner and Summers, and then follow the David Korten plan for the economy.

[MadHound]

38. A man who just won the Nobel prize, who is at the pennacle of his profession

I seriously doubt that he's seeking personal glory.

[NJmaverick]

85. like wealth, there are some people who can never get enough

[flyarm]

77. Oh please..such childish crap!!!!!!!!..grow up..Krugman doesn't need a damn thing for BS.. glory!

Like I said grow the hell up!

good god ..how hard some of you try to cover up incompetence!

or is it incompetence, but actually more than that?

some of you act exactly like the bushbots..geez..grow up!

[NJmaverick]

87. I am thinking that irony is lost on you

[lumberjack_jeff]

33. Blasphemer. n/t

[soothsayer]

45. lol, thanks!

[soothsayer]

46. lol, thanks!

[DJ13]

2. Krugman is not alone in his criticism of Gethner's corporate welfare

He has more esteemed economists on his side than you know.

[NJmaverick]

8. Yet wouldn't that esteem take a major hit, if Obama succeeds?

[MercutioATC]

3. ...or maybe he's just calling it as he sees it.

Saying that Krugman's primary motivation is to undermine confidence in the economy is as ridiculous as saying that Obama's primary motivation isn't to improve things, it's to make Bush look bad.

[NJmaverick]

9. Why so many appearances? It's one thing to call it

it's another to push one's views.

[MercutioATC]

28. Of COURSE he's "pushing his views"...he believes we're headed toward the abyss.

Outspokenness is not proof of sinister motive, especially when you're warning of catastrophe.

[NJmaverick]

92. as another poster pointed out, the decision has been made

so what is his motive now?

[MercutioATC]

101. Bush made the decision to go into Iraq. Did that stop us from talking about the dangers of doing so?

Are you seriously arguing that since Obama has chosen a path, nobody should now express concerns?

[NJmaverick]

110. Different situations and different motives

so you really can't compare the two.

[MercutioATC]

112. I disagree. The statement was that Obama has decided so dissenters should shut up.

Both Iraq War dissenters and Obama economic policy dissenters have the responsibility to speak up when they feel the government isn't serving the public interest.

[LooseWilly]

106. Maybe it's just the media choosing him...

Maybe the media loves the story of an economist from the "left" criticizing Obama...
An angle of the left tearing itself apart... it'll grab the public's attention (grabbed yours).
The story of the Republicans tearing themselves apart is losing appeal, it's getting stale.
Steele is just a buffoon and that story's getting old too.

Obama criticized from the left though... that could be leveraged, if enough appearances are made to give the story some legs... then the blogosphere will run with it...
(synergy...)

Or maybe he is... (drum roll please) calling it as he sees it, and hoping to spur Obama and Geithner, in the case that the stimulus turns out to not get much going, to consider going all Keynesian on the economy's ass, rather than letting Mr. Boner (Boehner, whatever) push them into going Hoover. And maybe he's taking advantage of the opportunity to spam his message across the airwaves that the media sales people are handing him on a silver platter...
(synergy...)

[Zenlitened]

4. Paul Krugman is watching you through the window Right Now.

:scared: :yoiks: :scared:

[enough]

5. We need to keep in mind the possiblity that Krugman believes what he says,

that he thinks the current administration is making a serious mistake based on a serious misjudgment of the situation, and that this mistake is going to lead to a very bad result for the country. He may think it is his duty to speak out and say what he thinks in this dire situation.

I see no reason to have to assume selfish psychopathic motivation on the part of Krugman simply because he doesn't agree with current policy. Nobody here blamed him during the time he was extremely critical of the Bush administration.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[NJmaverick]

17. Thinking he is right, doesn't explain his PR blitz. Why is he appearing every where?

[soothsayer]

48. cuz he sees that we are being taken for a ride and is doing his best to warn us?

altho I guess he doesn't point out the criminality

[NJmaverick]

95. The decision has been made, more debate is pointless

The only thing the further criticism/attacks serves, at this point, is to scare people and undermine consumer confidence.

[Babel_17]

100. We're only at stage one

Afaik, the nearly trillion dollars that are estimated to be involved in the next stage haven't been allocated yet.

Those monies can be invested in a much different manner.

[Dr.Phool]

56. Because he's invited?

Who the hell let Paul Revere in here anyway?

[chimpymustgo]

96. This is insane. Krugman just won a Nobel, writes twice a week in the newspaper of record,

is a regular on "This Week" - all BEFORE he decided - AS HAVE MANY OTHER NOTED ECONOMISTS - that the Obama/Geithner plan sucks. Also he's used his platform to call out Bush (and his Bushbots) for years.


The man calls 'em like he sees 'em. The personal attacks are vile.

[bornskeptic]

103. Because he's invited to appear.

I don't see why any other reason should be needed.

[BlooInBloo]

20. You're not disagreeing with the OP. They can both be true.

[FrenchieCat]

7. I would have preferred if he had said his negative piece,

but co-mingled it with what the administration was doing right, in his view.

I've read little about the Budget from Krugman, which according to the couple times he did bother to mention it, he liked-
and I have heard even less about the proposed regulatory framework, that he certainly knows about.

What I have read of Krugman after his landing the cover of Newsweek with a simple "Obama is wrong" quote, is that he is concerned about how that will affect his reputation.

I hope though that he realizes that there is much more at stake here than his reputation,
and that he starts mixing what he does like with what he doesn't like as much, in order
to not be seen as one who doesn't see the broader view.

So in him getting into a pissing contest over one leg of the tool as opposed to all of them,
yes....it leaves him in a position that being proven right means failure for the administration, which by extension means failure for this country.

I find that tragic, and more political than Krugman should have ever wished to be,
considering that he does not take into consideration political realities.
The saddest still is that President Obama doesn't own a magic wand,
and Mr. Krugman damn well knows it.

[NJmaverick]

15. You're right Frenchie. Had he taken a more balanced approach

He wouldn't have to be doing what he is doing. As you correctly pointed out, he is neglecting the positive, in favor of a completely negative message.

[FrenchieCat]

29. That's the problem with a whole lot of folks.

Krugman calls for nationalization,
but doesn't dwell on the fact that nationalization of such companies as AIG,
and hedge funds are not part of what this President can do based on the laws,
but something that congress has to pass.

He calls for nationalization as a first resort,
not understanding that this President has already been labeled a socialist,
and his political enemies are just waiting to pounce on him for any indication that this is what he is,
and congress attempting to pass rules to nationalize free enterprises under such an atmosphere of accusations
would be hampered in defending their actions from being the same,
since of course our media would be there to fan the socialist fire...
and that this could tie Obama's hands on doing all that we voted for him to do,
namely pass a budget, bringing onboard meaningful policies that brings more benefits
to the people than we have had the joy of experiencing in a long, long time.

Obama has just announced a regulatory framework that would give him a hand
at possibly getting to what Krugman proposes,
but let us all remember that 1/2 of the 700 Billion had already gone out of the door,
before Obama even got there, and Krugman specifically oked that bailout as forced at the time.

So Mr. Krugman who is quite willing NOT to take political considerations into account,
makes him not ready for a political stage,
but in all truth, Mr. Krugman did set foot on that stage,
when he endorsed, defended and criticized politically the candidates,
throughout election season...

yet now he fails to acknowledge at every turn of his criticism of this administration,
the very real political limitations that exist in how Barack Obama is to deal
with the very real economic situation that we currently face.

In otherwords, Krugman set himself up for being viewed as political,
but uses the defense that that his not his job.
Problem is he took the job long ago willingly, even if he now rejects it.

[uberblonde]

58. I suppose you missed the column...

He wrote praising Obama's budget? Or when he talked about it on This Week??

[Name removed]

49. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BlooInBloo]

11. (a) I think he's right, (b) I think you're right.

[PM Martin]

12. He's just calling it as he sees it.

[FrenchieCat]

16. his is still an opinion and not a fact.

and he still understands that his solution,
is also not guaranteed.

[HereSince1628]

27. Yes, but the opinion of a nobel prize winner, within his field of expertise, isn't

just an idea from an average chat-board dwelling ideologue pushing nothing more intellectual than populist support of a president's plan.

Certainly everyone gets to have an opinion, but not all opinions are equal.

Arguing Krugman's authority makes him more likely to be right on any given argument is a logical fallacy. Yet, there is this thing about the historical record of the rhetorical strength of informed scholarly opinion compared to populist delusions (we watched this for 8 years) that isn't very easily set aside.

Over many opinions, Krugman has gotten more things more right than wrong. Is he right this time? Only time will tell.

[AZBlue]

35. Granted, he's a nobel prize winner - for international trade and economics (New Trade Theory).

That's his area of expertise. And if he knows so much about the domestic situation, why has no President ever called upon him for help? Clinton considered him and decided against it - and only then did Krugman say he wasn't interested. He's commented on the disparities between the classes in the US and took Bush to task for his role in it - but what half-intelligent American hasn't?

He's a smart man and a good economist, but he's also has always acted like someone with a chip on his shoulder, he spoke out regularly against Obama during the primaries and hasn't gotten over Hillary not being the Dem candidate, and loves the limelight.

So we're supposed to take his word as golden now? I don't think so.

[w4rma]

83. Why? Because he's not in the pockets of anyone. And Rahm and the DLC probably hate him. (nt)

[JTFrog]

102. He was in the Reagan administration '82-'83. Council of Economic Advisers.

How's that for a reference?

Oh and don't forget he was also for Enron before he was against them.

:rofl:
:rofl:

[FrenchieCat]

41. I point to you that Krugman has no Nobel Prize in politics......

and yet politics has everything to do with how
this President has to calculate his every decisions and movements....
including making a determination as to what will work,
not just for Main Street, but for Wall Street,
because success of both are needed, not just the one.

Krugman is looking at his theories in a vaccum,
and that is as equally dangerous as if Obama did everything
only based on political calculation and not on what is good for this country.

In otherwords, the President is charged with coming up with proposals,
that satisfy both the economic AND the political consequences of his actions,
as that is his job.

Krugman doesn't want to acknowledge that part of the President's job,
and that is where the problems start.

It would be one thing if Krugman hadn't been political for the past couple of years,
but indeed he has been. Him ignoring that fact of his behavior doesn't make it go away.

[HereSince1628]

98. So presidential economic decisions must be political rather than economic issues

I think I am beginning to see why folks on DU have a hard on for Krugman as an economist.

[cliffordu]

13. The question then becomes:

Who hired him? who benefits? who profits??

[NJmaverick]

19. He is a columnist, he didn't need anyone to hire him. He seems to have decided to push all his

chips in. He seems to have decided that he can be proclaimed as brilliant (if Obama fails) or a fool (if Obama is successful).

[pretzel4gore]

14. the saintly Che (Guevera) once said

"A little learning takes you away, but alot of learning bring you back!"
believe this- the newsmedia is an outright liar, and nothing it attempts can be anything but more of the 8 year long bushevik horrorshow, brought to you by foxnewscnnpbsabcbsnbciaomgkkketc aka the voice o amerka (:shrug:)
Paul Krugman aint the only one saying that the pig is just a buncha weiners, needing a goddam cook, AFTER it's put down like the rabid hyena it is...

[applegrove]

22. He will not be destroyed. Being an economist is like flying a plane only on instruments. Everybody

knows it isn't an exact science. This is his opinion. And who says the economy would have not improved faster than it does if his plan had been put into place.

I don't know who is right in this. But I do know economics is never exact and everyone on this board should know that too cause it is important.

[NJmaverick]

31. Krugman is pretending (or giving the impression) it's an exact science

which I think is also telling

[applegrove]

32. He is definitely panicked.

[Dr.Phool]

Economics is pretty much bunk science anyways.

From Scientific American.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-economist-has-no-clothes

The 19th-century creators of neoclassical economics—the theory that now serves as the basis for coordinating activities in the global market system—are credited with transforming their field into a scientific discipline. But what is not widely known is that these now legendary economists—William Stanley Jevons, Léon Walras, Maria Edgeworth and Vilfredo Pareto—developed their theories by adapting equations from 19th-century physics that eventually became obsolete. Unfortunately, it is clear that neoclassical economics has also become outdated. The theory is based on unscientific assumptions that are hindering the implementation of viable economic solutions for global warming and other menacing environmental problems.

The physical theory that the creators of neoclassical economics used as a template was conceived in response to the inability of Newtonian physics to account for the phenomena of heat, light and electricity. In 1847 German physicist Hermann von Helmholtz formulated the conservation of energy principle and postulated the existence of a field of conserved energy that fills all space and unifies these phenomena. Later in the century James Maxwell, Ludwig Boltzmann and other physicists devised better explanations for electromagnetism and thermodynamics, but in the meantime, the economists had borrowed and altered Helmholtz’s equations.

The strategy the economists used was as simple as it was absurd—they substituted economic variables for physical ones. Utility (a measure of economic well-being) took the place of energy; the sum of utility and expenditure replaced potential and kinetic energy. A number of well-known mathematicians and physicists told the economists that there was absolutely no basis for making these substitutions. But the economists ignored such criticisms and proceeded to claim that they had transformed their field of study into a rigorously mathematical scientific discipline.

Strangely enough, the origins of neoclassical economics in mid-19th century physics were forgotten. Subsequent generations of mainstream economists accepted the claim that this theory is scientific. These curious developments explain why the mathematical theories used by mainstream economists are predicated on the following unscientific assumptions:

(more)

That being said, someone whom I admire more than Krugman, Noriel Roubini, who has been dead-on-balls accurate in his forecasts for the last two years, is pretty much in agreement with Krugman.

You can read his stuff at. http://www.rgemonitor.com/blog/roubini

Free subscription to read everything. Just register.

This is a guy that Bill Gates and Warren Buffett stand in line to hear speak.

[uberllama42]

86. That article exaggerates the importance of utility theory. Greatly.

First of all, just because economics adopted the functional form of an equation from physics and subbed utility in for energy doesn't mean that the utility theory is wrong. The math used by the physicists of the 19th century might not have applied to physics, but that doesn't mean the math itself was bogus. Energy is concrete, while utility is an abstraction. There are physical laws governing energy, but utility is purely psychological. You can't sit down with a calorimeter and try to measure utility.

Furthermore, utility doesn't have anything to do with macroeconomic policy. No one takes it as seriously as we do Maxwell's equations, for instance. Utility is introduced in basic microeconomics to clarify concepts like marginal cost and marginal productivity. No one sets out to make a sophisticated macroeconomic model, thinks back to their first two weeks of micro, and says, "Wow, we don't need to worry about resource depletion. Kewl."

The scarcity of resources is the bedrock of economics. I guarantee you, if you read the first three paragraphs of any econ textbook, it will point out that resources are finite, and furthermore that that is why we study economics. Our refusal to acknowledge that we are depleting our natural resources has much more to do with political practice than with economic theory.

[MannyGoldstein]

23. He SHould Have Said That The Paulson/SUmmers/Geithner Plan Would Work

Because disagreeing with Obama is simply painting yourself into a corner.

OK, got it.

[PBS Poll-435]

26. When it does work, Krugman will look irrelevant.

Bank nationalization is looking less and less likely every passing week.

[Jim Sagle]

34. It won't work, so he'll still be relevant.

[PBS Poll-435]

40. We will have to disagree on that

It is already working.

The big banks are going to repay TARP by 3Q, 4Q at the latest.


And they are building significant reserves to deal with some of the under-performing assets on their books.

[Jim Sagle]

63. Timmy G, is that you?

[PBS Poll-435]

No. Just a private citizen

nt

[Leopolds Ghost]

64. They're going to repay TARP, therefore, they don't need the $1 Trillion in free money

Because they're "building significant reserves to deal with"
the under-performing assets on their books.

Ergo, PBS Listener, they don't need the Geithner plan. They have
other sources of money and don't need to sell the toxic assets since they aren't worth anything, anyhow.

You do understand simple math, right?

[PBS Poll-435]

67. The Geithner plan is the whipped cream and cherry.

nt

[Leopolds Ghost]

72. LOL! So banks have all the $ they need, it's just that last little trillion they can take or leave.

[PBS Poll-435]

73. Not at all

They are working on building the reserves they will need for to remain solvent.

Not every under-performing asset has been classified as "toxic."



The Geithner plan will further alleviate fears of bank failures while improving credit conditions.

[JTFrog]

107. Rush is that you? n/t

[Jim Sagle]

114. Idiotic comment at best. Krugman and Rush have nothing in common.

[JTFrog]

115. Idiotic comprehension at best.

Rush shares in your commitment to failure.

[Jim Sagle]

117. Idiotic stretch at best. Neither Krugman nor I want Obama to fail.

If he's on our side.

[Raineyb]

43. Yeah except for the part where it won't work.

And Krugman isn't the only economist who dislikes this plan.

Regards

[NJmaverick]

30. As FrenchieCat pointed out he should have talked about the good and the bad

secondly he doesn't have to appear in as many media outlets, as possible, pushing his negative views. That's what got him painted into the corner, not his opinion.

[Phx_Dem]

59. It must be nice to see things so simply that you have only 2 choices,

agree or disagree. Well that's not really the issue. Krugman has every right to disagree with Geithner, Obama or God for that matter. What is at issue is his constant harping long after the decision has been made, and it makes him look like a sore-loser. He sounds petulant and upset that his "nationalize all the banks" idea isn't the one the administration chose to implement. He doesn't have to support Geithner's idea, but he could simply accept that the decision has been made and say, "I don't agree with it, but let's all hope it works" and then move on to another topic.

What could he hope to gain by trying to poison public confidence in the plan that has been selected?

At some point you just have to realize that you lost. Accept that you idea wasn't chosen and move on. Unless you're Paul Krugman and you can still squeeze out a little more media attention.

[Leopolds Ghost]

69. Do you believe in moving on and not harping on theft from government coffers?

When I apply for a capital improvement grant, I am not allow to overvalue my estimates (assets) in order to fund my operations with government money, much as we could use the money in this economic climate. It's called a kickback and is a form of theft.

[leftofthedial]

24. or not

[PBS Poll-435]

25. Krugman wants his own TV show

He already is the Jerry Springer in his field.

[depakid]

37. and here I thought the OP was over the top...

[AZBlue]

39. He certainly enjoys and seeks the limelight whenever he can, I'll say that much.

[acmavm]

47. I do believe he shares that trait with every public figure out there.

If it's Obama & Company, the compliments run out of the mouths of the true believers like like water over Niagra Falls.

If it's someone who disagrees with Obama, why they're just attention starved hacks.

[AZBlue]

50. It's not that cut and dry.

You really should look at a person's history before condemning them either way. Stereotyping and jumping to conclusions are absurd. The one comment you responded to has only one facet of Krugman mentioned, but if you want to label him based on one thing only, go ahead.

[FrenchieCat]

51. There is a great deal of difference between what Krugman's function ought to be,

and that of President Obama's.

You compare the two as if they are on par, when they are not.

Obama has the ability to affect the life of each and every single one of us,
including folks who don't even live in this country.

Krugman, not so much.

[Leopolds Ghost]

70. So the function of private citizens is to shut up?

Or be asked to defend why $10 Billion is too much money for, say, a subway system in Kansas City
(as numerous supposedly "environmentalist" DUers have asserted?)

[Zen Democrat]

42. I support Obama --- and I'm glad he's getting pressure from the left.

Without it, any left of center policy positions are called extreme left and communist by the wingnuts (who still have a microphone no matter how batshit crazy they are)and with pressure from the left Obama has more breathing room for change. I don't agree 100% with either Obama or Krugman, but I think voices to the left gaining traction in the media can't hurt.

The media is playing up G20 protests in London by anarchists as opposition to Obama. That's so hilarious. Anarchists are getting media coverage they never would have if Bush were attending a foreign conference.

[Leopolds Ghost]

71. Good for the kids in London. The nonprofit I work for recently got called

"communistic" by a former board member because we are volunteer run, and don't pay anyone. He and his neighbors (aging hippies all) insisted we sell out to a commercial business because we are located in a storefront that would be a "perfectly good location for a business". No, I'm not joking.

[Truth2Tell]

44. Right. That must be it.

He wants the economy to collapse to save his reputation.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Leopolds Ghost]

74. Don't you believe in the Manifest Destiny economic steamroller of the American economy?

:sarcasm:
Lead, follow or get out of the way! Anyone who "causes a panic" by pretending that it's not sustainable is holding back every American from the profits that are rightfully theirs (but especially the banks') by a return to the status quo ante 1977-2007, consuming 75% of global resources on credit, backed by 25% of global assets, like we've been doing since Reaganomics (who Clinton and Obama have not criticized nor attempted to reverse, indeed Clinton, with a little help from Gingrich & Gramm, extended it far beyond what Reagan was capable)

[truedelphi]

52. Those of us who have spent the needed time understanding

The sleight of hand going on in the "Perfectly Friendly Transfer of Wealth from The Average Person to the Crooks at the Top" support Krugman.

Economic truths are economic truths. Period.

If Krugman is trying to stir up America's middle class before their extinction, good for him.

A really bad plan is a really bad plan. Krugman can mention it, and he can stir people up, or he can avoid mentioning it. But in any event The Toxic Asset Buyout Plan stinks to high heaven, and it will badlly hurt this economy whether or not anyone speaks up about it.

My new worry is what have we come to as a society when most economics people do not even understand the Shell Game that is The Federal Reserve and the Shell Game that is the FDIC etc. A close family member graduated from a ivy tower university, with a degree in economics, and he says they spent about ten minutes on the Federal Reserve.

[NJmaverick]

84. If "economic truths were economic truths" they wouldn't constantly be reinventing their science

after the fact. The truth of the matter is that economics is to inexact a science for Krugman to be taking the strong and certain positions that he has staked his reputation to.

[truedelphi]

116. Some economic truths are common sense if not exact science:

1) Don't trust the same people who gypped you (once before) a second time
2) Establish the value of an object up for sale before wasting time developping a plan on its purchase.
3) If a government leader is looking for approval from the middle class, he should not transfer wealth away from that class.

[stevietheman]

104. Nobody is correct all the time. Krugman may well be wrong this time. n/t

n/t

[lame54]

53. He'd have to be one evil motherfucker...

to sink the economy just to save face...

and I don't think he is

[FrenchieCat]

55. He doesn't have that power.

[girl gone mad]

54. This is eerily reminiscent those freepers..

who said that critics of the Iraq war were rooting for America to lose.

[KittyWampus]

66. I just posted the exact same sentiment. The OP'er has no idea how fucked up their post

really is.

[NJmaverick]

79. I don't think not agreeing with you="fucked up"

[NJmaverick]

80. I think you have found a variant of Godwin's law

[Phx_Dem]

57. That's exactly what I think. If he were simply "calling it like he sees it,'

he wouldn't continue to harp on it long after the debate has ended. It's OVER. There is no longer a debate; the administration has heard Krugman and rejected his advice of nationalizing the banks outright. They still may nationalize some, but it's not going to be their first option, which is what Krugman wants. So why continue to beat a dead horse, except to try to undermine public confidence in Geithner's plan. And, IMO, that makes Paul Krugman a big horse's ass.

[PBS Poll-435]

60. +1 brazillion

:thumbsup:

[girl gone mad]

61. Yeah, and all those Iraq war critics should have just shut the fuck up..

after we invaded, since the decision had been made!!!1!!1

:sarcasm:

Damn, this thread is creepy.

[uberllama42]

94. Should have read this before I posted #94. +1, I guess. nt

[NJmaverick]

91. yes, exactly

[uberllama42]

93. The debate on the Iraq War ended six years ago last week. Why don't

you fucking shut up about that? Are you trying to undermine our troops? :eyes:

[Runcible Spoon]

62. I see you have taken a strong and absolute stand against critical thinking and logic

:nuke:

[NJmaverick]

88. Actually I have taken a strong stand against thinking that isn't motivated by the quest for truth

or doing the right thing.

[KittyWampus]

65. the Opening Poster has just used the NeoCons technique. If you don't support Bush or his

failed policies, that means you want the USA to fail.

[NJmaverick]

89. Isn't this a varient of Godwin's law?

[Odin2005]

68. That is a ridiculous assertion.

Krugman is praising Obama's budget fer Christ's sake, I don't think he has any bad intentions. My issue with him is that I think he doesn't understand the politics surrounding the bank bailout plan, an out-n-out nationalization would never make it through Congress. Which is understandable, Krugman is an economist, not a politician or political scientist.

[uberblonde]

75. Or maybe he doesn't accept the argument...

That because something is politically difficult (even though it's absolutely the right thing to do), a politician shouldn't be expected to show, you know, leadership and actually advocate for that correct solution.

As Krugman has stated many, many times, his biggest concern is that if Obama's first attempt to fix things fails, he will face much stronger resistance from Congress if he has to go back later and ask for more money.

[lamp_shade]

76. Back to OP's point. Unless Krugman admits that he "could be wrong" and Obama

"could be right" he has only one option, and that's to stick to his guns and try to rally the rest of the people around to his way of thinking. Using fear as a lure isn't very grown-up (I have an 8-yr-old nephew who does it all the time), but he apparently thinks it might work. Who knows... it might. Then again, it might not.

[NJmaverick]

78. Yeah that's pretty much it

He is going for broke

[WinkyDink]

81. Is this thread somehow related to Our Lady of Guadelupe?

:)

[pnwmom]

82. You have a point. It's human nature when you've taken a strong position

to continue to look for evidence that supports your original position, rather than the other way around.

But I wouldn't argue that he's doing this on purpose or "attempting a self fulfilling prophesy." I don't think he consciously wants Obama to fail, unlike the Rethugs.

[NJmaverick]

90. It's possible it's more a subconscious thing. As an economist, I have to think

he is more than aware of the critical nature of consumer confidence and the affects of fear.

[Igel]

97. Define "improvement".

"Should the economy improve," you write.

Now, it's likely to do that without the stimulus. It's one of the main problems with the stimulus: I take a class, my teacher says my work needs improvement, it's up to him to specify how--greater ability to regurgitate facts, more detail in my project, a longer bibliography, more coherence in my papers? What does "improvement" mean? More creative use of smilies?

So we'll know the stimulus worked because the economy improved, huh? Growth at 1% 0% 9% Define the level of improvement that the $780 billion stimulus will create: How many billions of dollars it'll add to the GDP, how many millions of jobs it will create and how many million it'll save.

How many jobs did TARP save? Would the rate of growth for 4th quarter 2008 have been -6.5% without it? -6.7%? Would unemployment be 8.5% now?

Problem is, Geithner says that there's a lot of uncertainty in the numbers, and he's probably understating it.

As for undermining confidence in the economy, prior to passing the stimulus "crisis" was the mot du jour, we might have a long-term depression if nothing was done. It was chanted repeatedly. After the stimulus passed, Romer said the fundamentals were strong and Obama said we had to stop listening to fear mongers and, like him, acknowledge that things could be much worse and things weren't as bad as they were billed. One person's fear monger is another person's realist, apparently, even when all 3 participants in that clause are the same person.

So will Krugman's rep be undermined? Depends on the analysis that is done after the economy improves, if the economy improves. After all, the economy might improvement even with the stimulus--to say that any improvement that happens must have resulted from the stimulus is post hoc reasoning unless there's some indication of causality.

[JayMusgrove]

99. Krugmann is so YESTERDAY.........time to move on

To people who understand politics.

Obviously he does NOT. He only wants to make sure he is somehow relevant 5 years from now when we experience SOME losses from Obama's less than perfect agenda and actions.

Geesh, why didn't you Krugmann fans run him for President?

Oh wait, you were waiting for the Nobel prize awards?

[Frank Booth]

105. Hyper-agressive self-promotion always backfires eventually.

[JI7]

108. do most people know who Paul Krugman is ?

people like us know who he is. but we already have strong opinions.

[FrenchieCat]

109. No......so he's about to get some superstardom.

Now, he could do a headfake, and just start lauding Obama's budget, or pushing regulation reform....
or he could continue to show no confidence, which doesn't help the stock market, the Nation, Barack Obama, or anyone else at all.

So we shall see what happens.

[ClarkUSA]

111. It's fun to watch Krugman spin like a top while economic indicators continue to prove him wrong.

Soon, the MSM will treat him like a grumpy crank with a chip on his shoulder because his broken-record doom and gloom
will be so at odds with what's really going on as the economy continues to recover. Maybe he'll get a regular gig appearing
on Sean Hannity sitting next to Dick Morris while all three diss President Obama's policies.

[GeorgeGist]

113. Insatiable greed ...

is the bottomless denominator of capitalism.