Krugman: This is all too reminiscent of Japan in the 1990s

[johan helge]

Krugman (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/opinion/13krugman.html?_r=1):

By any normal political standards, this week’s Congressional agreement on an economic stimulus package was a great victory for President Obama. He got more or less what he asked for: almost $800 billion to rescue the economy, with most of the money allocated to spending rather than tax cuts. Break out the Champagne!

Or maybe not. These aren’t normal times, so normal political standards don’t apply: Mr. Obama’s victory feels more than a bit like defeat. The stimulus bill looks helpful but inadequate, especially when combined with a disappointing plan for rescuing the banks. And the politics of the stimulus fight have made nonsense of Mr. Obama’s postpartisan dreams.

(..)

For while Mr. Obama got more or less what he asked for, he almost certainly didn’t ask for enough. We’re probably facing the worst slump since the Great Depression.

(..)

So far the Obama administration’s response to the economic crisis is all too reminiscent of Japan in the 1990s: a fiscal expansion large enough to avert the worst, but not enough to kick-start recovery; support for the banking system, but a reluctance to force banks to face up to their losses. It’s early days yet, but we’re falling behind the curve.

And I don’t know about you, but I’ve got a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach — a feeling that America just isn’t rising to the greatest economic challenge in 70 years. The best may not lack all conviction, but they seem alarmingly willing to settle for half-measures. And the worst are, as ever, full of passionate intensity, oblivious to the grotesque failure of their doctrine in practice.

There’s still time to turn this around. But Mr. Obama has to be stronger looking forward. Otherwise, the verdict on this crisis might be that no, we can’t.

[democracy1st]

1. I'm researching the lost decade this weekend thanks for sharing

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. You could do worse than look at some of Gillian Tett's work

She worked for the Financial Times for 5 years in Japan; and wrote a book about the attempts to turn around a Japanese bank with bad loans. Then she was one of the first mainstream financial journalists to see the crunch coming in the US and UK, a couple of years ago.

Back in 2004, Tett asked a colleague to sketch her a map of the City to show how every part fitted together. "Because one of the things I learned as an anthropologist is that to understand how a society works you need to not just look at the areas of what we call 'social noise' - ie what everyone likes to talk about, so the equity markets and M&A and all the high-profile areas everyone can see. But you need to look at the social silences as well." When she looked at the map, she realised how much of the City was ignored.

Tett's doom-mongering did not make her tremendously popular. Largely, her cautions were ignored, and when they weren't ignored they were subject to criticism. "We had enormous kickback from the bankers in the City saying, 'Why are you being so critical of the industry? Why are you being so negative?' All that kind of stuff." On a trip to the economic forum Davos in 2007, she was even denounced from the stage. "One of the most powerful people in the US government at the time stood up on the podium and waved my article, the article that predicted the problems at Northern Rock, as an example of scaremongering."

But in 2007, people finally began to pay attention. "I had been aware for two weeks that something very serious was building," she recalls. Tett was Japan correspondent for the FT during the country's financial collapse, and wrote a book about it, Saving the Sun. "The behaviour and the psychological mood of the markets in late July was almost identical to what happened in the autumn of 1997 in Japan." The similarities worried her. "I was busy cancelling holidays and things. But it came out of the blue for many people - investors, policymakers, bankers, our readers were suddenly completely at sea, at a loss to make sense of it." The financial system, she says, is "so dysfunctional, so tribal, that people just don't communicate with each other".

[democracy1st]

66. thanks for the valuable info

[wyldwolf]

2. You're correct, Mr. Krugman... this does sound like the 90s

When President Clinton succeeded without doing it the way the Right or the Left wanted him to - and neither side has ever forgiven him.

The question is: When Obama succeeds without your advice, will you applaud him or pout about it?

[Kdillard]

3. I think you know the answer to that.

[johan helge]

4. I can understand

that people react to Krugman's critique of Obama.


But distinguish between two things:

A Your feelings for the good and great man Obama, the first black President, a fantastic achievement, and

B What Krugman is actually saying.


It's possible to agree with B, without reducing A! Noone, and definitely not Obama himself, thinks that Obama is perfect. Krugman simply tries to help him to do a better job.

[Teaser]

5. OF course, it's possible to reject B).

Which I do.

[johan helge]

10. Tell me

why .... great Beatles song!

[Teaser]

11. I reject B for several reasons,

here's a couple.

The case for more is being presented on the basis of "argument by authority" alone. Krugman is a nobel laureate. 30 years from now I may be at the point in my career where I'm one too. That wouldnt' be a reason to accept my arguments on faith then. It isn't enough for me now with Krugman. Appeals to authority represent a logical fallacy,and a good enough reason to reject an argument if no other evidence is presented.

Krugman has done some back of the envelope calculations on the size of the stimulus needed and has concluded that it's too small by half. However, He has used a lot of hand waving and approximation to get to his number, and hasn't adequately justified to me that his handwaving and approximations are at all correct. There are an infinte number of scenarios for these approximations, and no reason to choose the region of parameter space he's selected. On this basis alone, it is more likely that his scenario is incorrect than correct.

So we're faced with doing a little less now, but leaving room to do more later, in the face of fuzzy information, or shooting or entire load now (which still might not work) and leaving no room for adjustment later. The prior strategy seems more rational to me.

[johan helge]

21. I disagree

"The case for more is being presented on the basis of "argument by authority" alone. Krugman is a nobel laureate. 30 years from now I may be at the point in my career where I'm one too. That wouldnt' be a reason to accept my arguments on faith then. It isn't enough for me now with Krugman. Appeals to authority represent a logical fallacy,and a good enough reason to reject an argument if no other evidence is presented."

** The case for more is of course based on estimates (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/opinion/13krugman.html?em): "Officially, the administration insists that the plan is adequate to the economy’s need. But few economists agree." From http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/07/what-the-centrists-have-wrought/: "So the original $800 billion plan was too small, especially because a substantial share consisted of tax cuts that probably would have added little to demand. The plan should have been at least 50% larger."

"Krugman has done some back of the envelope calculations on the size of the stimulus needed and has concluded that it's too small by half. However, He has used a lot of hand waving and approximation to get to his number, and hasn't adequately justified to me that his handwaving and approximations are at all correct. There are an infinte number of scenarios for these approximations, and no reason to choose the region of parameter space he's selected. On this basis alone, it is more likely that his scenario is incorrect than correct."

** How can you say that there is "no reason to choose the region of parameter space he's selected"? He's an expert, and most experts agree (at least roughly, see above).

"So we're faced with doing a little less now, but leaving room to do more later, in the face of fuzzy information, or shooting or entire load now (which still might not work) and leaving no room for adjustment later. The prior strategy seems more rational to me."

** Krugman (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/opinion/12krugman.html): "Now, economic forecasting is an inexact science, to say the least, and things could turn out better than the report predicts. But they could also turn out worse. The report itself acknowledges that “some private forecasters anticipate unemployment rates as high as 11 percent in the absence of action.” And I’m with Lawrence Summers, another member of the Obama economic team, who recently declared, “In this crisis, doing too little poses a greater threat than doing too much.” Unfortunately, that principle isn’t reflected in the current plan." (If they do too much, they can just increase the Fed interest rate. But if they do too little, they can't decrease it, it's already zero.)

[Teaser]

31. Yes, you provide several quotes by Krugman

Very few of which provides any evidence to support his conclusion. Instead they merely state that he is correct and that most of his colleagues agree with him.

I want his data for those statements. No data, no reason to believe.


I can take any math or numbers he dishes out.

Further more, regarding the "parameter space" problem, he is making estimates about a truly multivariable problem. Really an economy has almost an infinite number of degrees of freedom. Furthermore, we're in a very non-equilibrium situation now, and most economic models are tuned to work on situations where the economy is functioning at equilibrium, or close enough to it that the departures are negligible. I want to know what models he's using, how he's modified them to work in this situation, and what variable's he has determined to be important and why. Therein lies the parameterization problem. If he nelgects an important parameter, or too heavily weights an unimportant one, the model and his predictions may be grossly wrong. On the basis of that fact alone he, and any one else making a prediction, is *more likely* to be wrong than right, given that no one knows the true weighting of econometric parameters.

[johan helge]

37. If most experts, including Krugman,

think that the stimulus should have been larger, we should have some reason to disagree with that conclusion, but we don't. Here' a reason why the conclusion probably is right: The "centrists" in Congress are conservatives, and would probably not have agreed to a big enough stimulus.

[Teaser]

38. But I don't know that "most experts"

have said anything. I know that Krugman has said that "most experts" agree with him. Maybe they do, maybe they don't....how can I know?

If I saw a poll, or even an informal survey of economists and economic modelers that showed this, I'd be rather more inclined to give his objections another hearing.

[johan helge]

40. I don't think Krugman would have said

that most economists agree with him, if he wasn't pretty sure about that! Krugman has written about some of the economists that have disagreed with him, and they make obvious mistakes (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/the-sorrow-and-the-pity-wonkish/).

[Stargleamer]

41. Yeah, I never understood. . .

why they didn't release it as a single (to my knowledge). I always thought it could have been a mega-hit for them.

[johan helge]

42. I still remember how much I liked it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKl4ufehjpA

[wyldwolf]

6. I can understand your point.. but..

.. you're talking to wyldwolf... not exactly Obama's biggest fan during the primaries.

In 21 days, has gotten two major pieces of legislation and two pretty significant ones passed - not only this stimulus bill but also an expansion of children’s health care and a wage antidiscrimination law and avoided a showdown over bank bailout funds. And at various times, both the conservative blue dog faction and liberals in congress have threatened to revolt.

Obama gets done what needs to get done and if he ruffles the feathers of the various ideologies and egos in the Congress, so be it.

[johan helge]

8. Is the stimulus the best stimulus

Obama could have gotten from Congress? Perhaps, I don't know. But he got approximately what he asked for, and that may be an indication that he asked for too little.


But assume that asking for more would not have given him more: When "the worst slump since the Great Depression" comes, Obama can't say: See, you should have given me more. Instead, he has to take the responsibility for the mess, instead of giving the responsibility to those who should really have it - the Repubs and the centrists in Congress.

[wyldwolf]

14. with all due respect, your reply is an example of what I was talking about

Is the stimulus the best stimulus Obama could have gotten from Congress? Perhaps... But he got approximately what he asked for, and that may be an indication that he asked for too little.

Could it be that Obama knew what the limitations were and asked for approximately everything he wanted that could pass congress? I think so.

[johan helge]

19. Perhaps you're right,

or perhaps Krugman is right(http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/09/opinion/09krugman.htm... ):

"So Mr. Obama was reduced to bargaining for the votes of those centrists. And the centrists, predictably, extracted a pound of flesh — not, as far as anyone can tell, based on any coherent economic argument, but simply to demonstrate their centrist mojo. They probably would have demanded that $100 billion or so be cut from anything Mr. Obama proposed; by coming in with such a low initial bid, the president guaranteed that the final deal would be much too small."

Even if you are right: If Obama had asked for more, he could have given the responsibility and the blame to those who deserve it. Now he has to take it.

[wyldwolf]

20. on the other hand..

had Obama asked for more, he may not have gotten it or (worse) the bill might have been defeated - something that could set back a Presidency.

[johan helge]

25. Reminds me of Vietnam

You may be perfectly right, but it reminds me of something John Kenneth Galbraith wrote in his autobigraphy ("A Life in Our Times", p. 469) about his Vietnam discussions with President Kennedy: "I had little doubt as to Kennedy's agreement. It was nearly complete. The problem, as ever, was the political pressure .... Referring to the Bay of Pigs and the acceptance of a neutral Laos, he said, "You have to realize that I can only afford so many defeats in one year."" So Kennedy didn't stop the Vietnam development, and the rest is history.

Anyway, what can really set back Obama's Presidency, I guess, is having to take the responsibility and the blame for "the worst slump since the Great Depression" (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/opinion/13krugman.html?em). That blame he should be very careful to give to those who deserve it!

[Better Believe It]

27. Obama only needed 51 Senate votes to pass any economic plan he proposed

One problem is he didn't present a clear plan to Pelosi and Reid. He let them write their own plan with 3 Republicans finally writing the Senate plan which the House pretty much adopted.

Didn't and don't need 60 votes in the Senate to pass legislation if the Senate leadership adopts new rules. That can be done easily. All they need to do is change the rules which the Republicans threatened to do in 2005. The mere Republican threat sent Harry Reid and his conservative (moderate) Democratic friends running for the hills!

[grantcart]

17. Of course it is possible to agree with B without reducing A

But that is not what Krugman is about.


Krugman is trying to use B to reduce A and flaunt C.


C = Paul Krugman.


To start with because of the psychological factor involved in business owners making decisions on cutting expenses and employees to go into a survival mode or just continue business at their current level NO ONE KNOWS WHAT THE EXACT OPTIMUM AMOUNT is necessary for the stimulus to be effective. There is no precedent. Niether Krugman nor any other economist has published a peer review equation that has any consensus of what is going to work. Krugman makes that point when he talks about how the economic crises is tied to the liquidity crises.

More to the point Krugman talks about 'kicking the can down the road'. This is absolute nonsense. He is speaking like it is the last inning of a 7 game world series rather than the frist month, THE FIRST MONTH, of a 4 year term. What is gas prices going to be? what is the housing market going to be like in 6 months. The facts are that the system can only absorb so much stimiulus at one time and Congress is only going to approve so much power to a President at one time, and that's not a bad thing either.

If Obama is able to generate several million jobs in 18 months he can go back and get more money, and that is simply good policy and good politics, not "kicking the can down the road".

Krugmans basic attack on Obama is not that he doesn't understand economics, is that he doesn't have enough moral courage to think big. Krugman is making an ass out of himself.


Also comparing Japan's lost decade with what is happening here is a lot like the idiots that compare the Vietnam War with everything else. You expect it from idiot talking heads on CNN but not from an esteemed economist. The fundamental difference between the two is that Japan has always had an ongoing agreement between the government and the banks to hide real losses so that banks don't fail. More banks have failed in the last 6 months in the US than in the first 5 years of Japan's collapse. They hid their losses remained undercapitalized and took forever to come back. Washington Mutual, US's largest retail bank chain had 2 bad weeks and the FDIC walked in and wiped out all of the investor equity and handed the bank to a Chase, nothing like that happened in Japan.

Krugman never has to put into the equation political reality and actually getting votes. Now his rhetorical flourishes, like comparing it to Japan's lost decade are making him look like the gadfly he is working so hard to become.

[AtomicKitten]

29. Your nuanced opinion is way too adult for GD-P.

And I agree with every word.

Krugman's input has devolved into that of a bitchy gadfly, entirely self-inflicted.

[johan helge]

30. Krugman's not perfect,

sometimes he is a little too harsh towards people, including Obama. But the important thing, of course, is whether he is right.


"If Obama is able to generate several million jobs in 18 months he can go back and get more money, and that is simply good policy and good politics, not "kicking the can down the road"."


Krugman (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/opinion/12krugman.html):

"I’m with Lawrence Summers, another member of the Obama economic team, who recently declared, “In this crisis, doing too little poses a greater threat than doing too much.” Unfortunately, that principle isn’t reflected in the current plan." (If they do too much, they can just increase the Fed interest rate. But if they do too little, they can't decrease it, it's already zero.)

[grantcart]

33. the tenor of his criticism is approaching 'gadfly' status

somehow his status as an economist gives him credentials to have an opinion on the surgeon general selection.


The current plan is based on what can get passed through Congress. If more is needed in 12 months and they have used the money to good effect they can get more.


Nothing shows how far Krugman has gone from his academic roots that he compares this situation with Japan in the 1990s. Is it really necessary to go into detail on how land in Japan is priced by decameter and whose balloon was 30 times bigger than the US housing balloon? (the average little house in Japan rising to more than $ 1 million). Or do we have to talk about how Japanese manufacturing was decimated in a single decade when tens of thousands of Japanese manufacturers took advantage of the opening of China, a couple of hundred miles away and is much more integrated into their daily life than it is here? Or about the Japanese open conspiracy between government and private sector that makes bankruptcy rarely used? Or the insular culture of Japan that actually allowed innovation to fall behind until Sony couldn't find a Japanese to lead it but hired a Brit?


He is not trying to make a strong academic point but is trying to outflank Obama on the left and his examples and arguments are becoming more and more "I told you so". When Obama comes back next year for additional stimulus Krugman will have positioned himself for his "I told you so" collumn even though a bigger package in the first month of an administration is not only unprecedented but impossible to achieve politically.

[johan helge]

36. "The current plan is based on what can get passed through Congress."

Perhaps you are right, and Obama couldn't have gotten a larger stimulus. But you wrote that the stimulus is not only "good politics", but also "good policy". Krugman (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/opinion/13krugman.html?em): "Officially, the administration insists that the plan is adequate to the economy’s need. But few economists agree."

[grantcart]

45. again this is based on Krugman's assessment that this is the one and only

bill that will be aimed at stimulating the economy, and obviously that is not the case.

There is going to be a lot of other legislation including legislation on energy and health care that will also have a stimulus effect. Also once the administration is able to document real job growth it will become easier to pass additional stimulus action.

Krugman sounds like it is the bottom of the 9th inning of the last game rather than the 4th week of a 4 year administration. At no point does Krugman indicate that it is a good 'first step' but rather it was a 'missed opportunity' and that Obama is simply 'kicking the can down the road'.

I don't agree with his economic observation (although there is absolutely no consensus among the economists that he refers to what is the magic number that does guarantee perfect stimulus) but his understanding that it is 'all or nothing - now or never'. That combined with his increasing appetite to criticize Obama on issues that have nothing to do with economics at all is seriously undermining his value IMHO.

I would be interested in seeing a link where Krugman lays out the 'perfect number' he has calclulated for a guaranteed stimulus effect, and how his calculations are received by his fellow economists.

[johan helge]

65. Krugman about your points

From (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/happy-stan/): "Stan Collender offers the most cheerful assessment I’ve seen for a while — not about the economy, or about the disappointing stimulus plan, but about Obama’s prospects for getting more on a second round. Collender says that in the months ahead there will be several opportunities to introduce new spending in a way that isn’t subject to a filibuster.

I hope he’s right, and that Obama has not shot his bolt. Because what’s coming out of the current deliberations is really, really inadequate. I’ve gone through the CBO numbers a bit more carefully; they’re projecting a $2.9 trillion shortfall over the next three years. There’s just no way $780 billion, much of it used unproductively, will do the job."

[Hawkowl]

69. He means Japan in the 90's

You know? Besides Clinton had a hand in the present crisis by passing the revocation of the Glass Steagal Act and keeping on the idiot charlatan Greenspan among other things.

The only thing in the US reminiscent of the 90's right now is Obama's ham handed fumbling for a "third way" and "bipartisanship" while the rethuglicans try and beat the hell out of him. I'm anxiously looking forward to when Obama comes back to his Chicago political upbringing and takes the fucking gloves off already. I believe it will happen, but it is going to take time and a lot of sheer financial agony for middle class and poor Americans.

[high density]

7. I don't know how a larger stimulus could've been passed

We've just watched how the $800 billion went down. (Well, it's almost done at least.) I can't imagine how it would've worked with an amount two or three times that. I suspect Obama will be back before congress in mid-summer telling them we need another $800 billion in spending. I just wish the Democrats would do a better job at questioning why the Republicans do not support a strong American economy. During the previous administration most of these same politicians were orgasmic over spending hundreds and hundreds of billions for tax cuts and war.

[johan helge]

9. I agree with you regarding

the Dems. Regarding the $800, see post 8 plus the following from Krugman (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/09/opinion/09krugman.html):

"So Mr. Obama was reduced to bargaining for the votes of those centrists. And the centrists, predictably, extracted a pound of flesh — not, as far as anyone can tell, based on any coherent economic argument, but simply to demonstrate their centrist mojo. They probably would have demanded that $100 billion or so be cut from anything Mr. Obama proposed; by coming in with such a low initial bid, the president guaranteed that the final deal would be much too small."

[high density]

12. Much too small?

At a certain point we'd start losing the idiot "centrist" Democrats. Krugman seems to forget the handshake deals in the senate where everything of any importance needs 60 votes. Obama knows how the game has to be played with these people but I don't see any evidence that Krugman does. Obama proposed $775 billion and the result of the conference committee is $789 billion. I don't see the supposed pound of flesh here. Even the allocation of the funds was improved (from the senate version) during conference.

[johan helge]

34. Perhaps you're right

but even so: If I were Obama, I would say clearly the truth, that this stimulus probably is too small. Then the responsibility and the blame would go to those who deserve it, the Repubs and the centrists in Congress, and not, as it does now, to Obama.

[Phx_Dem]

15. Apparently, Krugman is clueless about politics.

Obama is not a King who gets to do whatever he wants. I'm getting a little sick of Krugman's incessant whining. If he wanted to enact economic policy, he should be a practicing economist instead of a newspaper columnist.

Our current state is depressing enough without listening to his daily diatribe.

[Barack_America]

18. Not apparently, DEFINITELY.

And I'm getting a bit sick of him too.

[Better Believe It]

22. Another clueless personal attack on Krugman

Krugman understands the economy. You don't.

CASE CLOSED!

[SoxFan]

24. He's still a prick

I don't care how brilliant the man is. He's a petty and vindictive prick. he was on the Hillary Clinton bandwagon very early. When Obama gained traction, he used his column to smear and slime him on a weekly basis.

Nobel laureates can be disgruntled PUMAs, too.

[Better Believe It]

53. Nonsense: Provide some links to the alleged anti-Obama smears

He's smarter than you so Krugman doesn't have to lower himself to your level.

In any case, your juvenile personal attack on Krugman isn't worth spit on DU.

You like others never explain what in Krugman's article you actually disagree with and why.

Guess that must be pretty hard to do.

[SoxFan]

54. Jeezus, you're gonna need a GPS to find your way out of his ass

Krugman has had a hair across his ass for Obama for years. He looks like a bitter, cranky old hack. He can run all of the regression analyses he wants, but he still comes off as a grumpy PUMA.

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2884

http://obamapolitics.com/node/26

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html?_r=1&ex=1359867600&en=a51a8e02bbf07b79&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/obama-does-harry-and-louise-again/

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/opinion/30krugman.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/17/krugman-obama-has-become_n_77074.html

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/open_university/archive/2008/02/11/why-is-paul-krugman-so-hostile-to-barack-obama.aspx

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/01/26/opinion/26krugman.html?

[Better Believe It]

55. Still can't provide any credible links about the alleged personal attacks against Obama

I didn't think you could.

However, you did provide some links in which Krugman is critical of Obama's policies (how dare he!) and a link to a smear job against Krugman.

Sorry kid, but I can't really waste anymore time responding to someone who enjoys engaging in trash talk and is incapable of a civil and intelligent debate or discussion of political issues.

Perhaps you can find some nice board where other political novices can satisfy your need for trash talk.

Oh .... since you have nothing serious, such as meaningful ideas, to contribute to this discussion board that would interest me and other political people I've put you on ignore. Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously on DU?

Take care kid. Have fun with your endless schoolyard trash talk somewhere else.

[SoxFan]

63. "political novices"

Spend three terms in the legislature, chair a fiscal oversight committee on the city council, write and pass some legislation into law, organize a successful floor fight that passed ethics reform legislation over the wishes of both parties leadership teams.

When you do that, then you can come back and call me a "political novice", you pompous ivory tower twit.

[firedupdem]

67. Dammit, I should have given you a heart before I ran out! LOL

You summed Krugman up perfectly. He can go to hell! He's definitely out to smear the President. His word isn't golden.

[Ikonoklast]

28. I understand political reality and what is realistically attainable through the process.

Krugman obviously has no clue to what a meatgrinder the legislative process is, even if he had an
unassailable majority in both houses of Congress.

Or he is being deliberately obtuse about it in order to make a point.

President Obama does not have the fiat powers of a dictator.

[paulk]

32. actually, he is a practicing economist

they don't give Nobel prizes to newspaper columnists...

I don't understand why you think a Nobel prize winning economist trying to push Obama more to the left in his economic policies is a bad thing.

[themaguffin]

59. jesus, should krugman only comment on the political prospects or economics of which he knows a lot?

[omega minimo]

16. POLITICAL PRESSURE/WILL.

[SoxFan]

23. Krugman's sour grapes act is tiresome

He hitched his wagon to the Hillary campaign early on. Now he's pissy because, after smearing Obama countless times in the pages of the Times, the White House won't kiss his ring.

Screw him.

[themaguffin]

62. oh I thought I was in DU, not Freeperville

[freemarketer6]

26. Yeah, Krugman is right. But it's not Obama's fault. It was natural

for him to reach accross the isle. As for the market reaction to the House passing the stimulus package, it is my opinion that had not Geithner screwed up so badly in his delivery of the TARF plan, it would have gone up significantly today. I have a lot of respect for Krugman, who thinks on his feet.

[zulchzulu]

35. If so, what do we do? Nothing???

Everybody seems to have a friggin' crystal ball...

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[Avalux]

43. Japan chose to do NOTHING in the 90s.

I hardly think a comparison is valid. Passing this stimulus bill is action and really - quite an accomplishment. There will be more to come from President Obama.

I really love Paul Krugman but his "Debbie Downer" act is really starting to piss me off.

[johan helge]

44. I don't think Krugman

does this because he enjoys it. He is simply worried.

[Avalux]

46. I know he's worried; he also has an ego that's been bruised.

Not saying he'd intentionally let that influence his opinions but I wonder. :shrug:

[johan helge]

"Bruised", how? (nt)

[AtomicKitten]

47. Is that you, Paul? Because you certainly speak authoritatively as if you are. n/t

[johan helge]

49. Paul is God, I am Jesus (nt)

[AtomicKitten]

51. No, you're a Krugman bible-thumper in that analogy. n/t

[johan helge]

52. It's not an analogy, it's the truth! (nt)

[grantcart]

48. They not only did nothing the government openly conspired with the banks

to keep 'toxic assets' in play. The comparison is stupid and a cheap shot that I am sure got a laugh from his fellow economists.

[Avalux]

50. That's true.

I agree the comparison is stupid and a cheap shot. :hi:

[firedupdem]

61. It was a cheap shot....the comparison and his ending

no, we can't crap.

[firedupdem]

56. If he's so concerned, I wonder why he wouldn't offer this help to

the administration when they invited him to do just that? Now adding the "no, we can't" part to his article just showed him for exactly who he is. Obama will be fine without him on the team just as he was in during the election. He can continue to be a hero to those who want to listen to him.

[johan helge]

71. What do you mean, "he wouldn't offer this help"? (nt)

[Better Believe It]

57. Krugman and Roubini Are Pretty Much On The Same Page

What we need now is a stimulus plan from President Obama (the Republican written one won't get the job done) that can create at least a million and a half real public works jobs in the next 2 years.

[firedupdem]

58. If the republicans wrote this one, why wouldn't they vote for it and

accept the credit?

[Better Believe It]

70. The Three "moderate" Republicans did write it with slight modifications by the House

[Still Sensible]

60. If this is all there is Krugman may be right, but

I expect the President and the democratic majorities in both houses to start passing individual "stimulating" initiatives once this first package is passed. I don't see a flurry right now, but I expect steady progress. Many if not most of the items that have been dealt out of this bill can be passed separately.

And of course, the next battle will most likely be over the budget. It will be interesting to see how the fighting goes and what gets thrown out there by both sides.

[Raineyb]

68. I suspect that when it comes down to it, we're going to hear that we don't have the money to do more

Which is generally how the so called centrists usually play these things. I wouldn't trust these people to revisit the stimulus and it's entirely likely that this was the only shot.

God help us if it was because it wasn't enough and there were too many stupid tax cuts which do nothing to stimulate anything.

:shrug:

I hope I'm wrong.

Regards

[SoxFan]

64. Better Believe It sounds angry and bitter

Don't be upset. The Hoff loves you.