Krugman: Lacking All Conviction (updated)

[ProSense]

Lacking All Conviction

Mark Thoma directs us to an appalling story — apparently Obama held a meeting after the midterm to debate whether our unemployment problem is cyclical or structural.

What I want to know is, who was arguing for structural? I find it hard to think of anyone I know in the administration’s economic team who would make that case, who would deny that the bulk of the rise in unemployment since 2007 is cyclical. And as I and others have been trying to point out, none of the signatures of structural unemployment are visible: there are no large groups of workers with rising wages, there are no large parts of the labor force at full employment, there are no full-employment states aside from Nebraska and the Dakotas, inflation is falling, not rising.

More generally, I can’t think of any Democratic-leaning economists who think the problem is largely structural.

Yet someone who has Obama’s ear must think otherwise.

No wonder we’re in such trouble. Obama must gravitate instinctively to people who give him bad economic advice, and who almost surely don’t share the values he was elected to promote. That’s what I’d call a structural problem.

This is something Clinton said a couple of months back, and Krugman objected.

Why Krugman is surprised that someone in the Obama administration is making this case is beyond me. There are many Clinton people in the administration. President Obama had a meeting, he listened to people.

Updated to add: The Mark Thoma piece Krugman links to cites an article by Richard Wolfe: Obama could learn from Bush

Wolfe claims:

As one senior Obama advisor told me the day after the disastrous midterms: "It was hard to find a single economic message when the economic team couldn't agree on a single economic policy."

The Thoma piece is updated with a response from Brad DeLong:

Can we please get the White House back on message? ...

Let me point out that I think that the senior Obama advisor quoted is a liar.

Given who they were and what I know of how they all think, all the members of Obama's original economic policy team--except, I suspect, Peter Orszag--did indeed have different views of what would be the best policy to try to generate jobs in the short run, but they all agreed that anything was better than nothing. (Peter thought, I think, that only policies that promised credible long-term deficit reduction were better than nothing.)

Oh, the friggin drama.

[pscot]

1. Your lede suggests

you don't have much of a sense of irony. There are many who would say that it's Mr. Obama who seems to lack conviction.

[ProSense]

2. Irony:

A meeting being used to show lack of conviction.

And more anonymous sources.

[Radical Activist]

3. It appears that Krugman will oppose something simply because it's said by Clinton or Obama.

It's almost as if he'll change his views to dissent for the sake of dissenting from any action by an authority figure. Wow.

It also looks as though he's caught in a ridiculous exaggeration regarding Obama's economic team. It reaffirms the obvious fact that Krugman's personal biases against Obama make it impossible for him to provide objective commentary on his policies.

[ProSense]

4. I agree that the problem isn't structural, but

still, what's the point of hyperventilating over a meeting? Also, note how Krugman frames his objection to Clinton

And so Clinton, despite what I believe to be genuine concern about the plight of the unfortunate, finds himself parroting the structural unemployment line, probably quite unaware until he opened his paper this morning that it’s a fantasy spun to justify inaction.

[Confusious]

8. Really how so?

Since I have been reading him, he's been against bush policies, which drove the country into a ditch, and against lackluster policies which keep us driving down the same ditch. We're not getting out of the ditch.

And the same people Obama gets his advice from push the same stupid policies from Regan, bush I and Bush II.

Don't do anything about the banks, give tax cuts as stimulus, FDR failed.

And he listens to them and worse, implements their advice.

If they are talking about unemployment being structural, that means they are giving up. 15% unemployed and 20% underemployed is the new normal.

[Radical Activist]

9. The OP made it clear.

Krugman criticized Clinton for saying it's a structural issue.
Later, he criticized Obama for possibly NOT believing it's a structural issue. Those are two contradictory positions.

You wrote: "Since I have been reading him, he's been against bush policies, which drove the country into a ditch, and against lackluster policies which keep us driving down the same ditch."

Interesting. You're reinforcing my impression that it's Krugman's personality to always be opposed to what those in power are doing no matter what. That's the common pattern.

And Obama did do something about the banks.

[JTFrog]

10. Standard Krugman MO.

All depends on which way the wind is blowing.

[Confusious]

16. I don't know where you got that from

It's not in the OP.

He's been criticizing people who believe it's structural, including obama.

[jpgray]

17. Please read words more carefully. It is useful in discovering their meaning.

Krugman criticized Clinton for saying it's a structural issue.
Later, he criticized Obama for possibly NOT believing it's a structural issue.

You're quite sure about this? Read over the passage that seems to indicate this to you again, and see if you still think so.

[Union Scribe]

11. Like when he supported Obama's HCR plan?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/opinion/12krugman.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

"This is a reasonable, responsible plan. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise."

[OHdem10]

5. I do not know how he is using structural. Since a lot of the job

loss is due to trade policy and outsourcing and not just
the housing and banking problem, I might think it to be
structural. People's incomes are being harmonized downward.
creating more equal standards of living around the world.
Poor mgmt of Trade Policy, permitted the Middle Class Jobs
to be hollowed out. We are going to have to start a new
economy practically if we put people back to work.

When I think cyclical, I think of the Business cycles
that can go boom bust. IMO, much more involved here
than the business cycle.

Krugman is the economist so he understands the terms better
than I.

[ProSense]

6. Here:

Krugman: Structure of Excuses

[cornermouse]

12. Thanks for the link.

I don't think it says quite what you think it says. :evilgrin: In fact it appears to support OHdem10.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/opinion/27krugman.html
"None of these things exist. Job openings have plunged in every major sector, while the number of workers forced into part-time employment in almost all industries has soared. Unemployment has surged in every major occupational category. Only three states, with a combined population not much larger than that of Brooklyn, have unemployment rates below 5 percent.

Oh, and where are these firms that “can’t find appropriate workers”? The National Federation of Independent Business has been surveying small businesses for many years, asking them to name their most important problem; the percentage citing problems with labor quality is now at an all-time low, reflecting the reality that these days even highly skilled workers are desperate for employment."

[ProSense]

13. No, it says exactly what I think it says

and it's the same point he's making in the OP:

Well, I’d respectfully suggest that Mr. Clinton talk to researchers at the Roosevelt Institute and the Economic Policy Institute, both of which have recently released important reports completely debunking claims of a surge in structural unemployment.

After all, what should we be seeing if statements like those of Mr. Kocherlakota or Mr. Clinton were true? The answer is, there should be significant labor shortages somewhere in America — major industries that are trying to expand but are having trouble hiring, major classes of workers who find their skills in great demand, major parts of the country with low unemployment even as the rest of the nation suffers.

None of these things exist. Job openings have plunged in every major sector, while the number of workers forced into part-time employment in almost all industries has soared. Unemployment has surged in every major occupational category. Only three states, with a combined population not much larger than that of Brooklyn, have unemployment rates below 5 percent.

Oh, and where are these firms that “can’t find appropriate workers”? The National Federation of Independent Business has been surveying small businesses for many years, asking them to name their most important problem; the percentage citing problems with labor quality is now at an all-time low, reflecting the reality that these days even highly skilled workers are desperate for employment.

Krugman is taking issue with the structural unemployment argument, which he defines as an underskilled workforce.

Structural Impediments

[moondust]

7. Definitions.

I, too, would call massive offshoring a structural problem created over the past 30 years but I'm not an economist either.

[olegramps]

15. Our industrial base disappeared while the workers slept.

Corporations have only one goal and that goal is to maximize profits. It is a entity without a soul. The only thing that has demonstrated control over this insatiable beast are unions. They very thing that could have saved their jobs from being outsourced they abandoned when they swallowed the management's propaganda. Do I feel sorry for the workers; absolutely. However, they will have to take constructive action since wringing their hands in despair isn't a solution. When unemployment has reached 20% and workers' wages are at a bare subsistence level perhaps they be forced to take some dramatic action and organize before starvation takes hold.

The wealthy 2% of Republicans who control their party has a Final Solution. That is the enslavement of the working class. Starvation wages, no health insurance, no property, higher education restricted to the wealthy and the pitiful workers owning the souls to the company store. Who suffered during the depression. It certainly wasn't the wealthy. In fact their wealth increased vastly as they bought out everything of value for ten cents on the dollar. When recovery came their value increased a hundred fold. The workers will have to become as vicious and demanding as their greedy masters if they what a fair share of the pie. Yes, it is class warfare and the workers are losing big time.

[impik]

14. So now the president can have a simple discussion about different viewpoints

without it being "appalling" and almost a treason? Jesus.

[jpgray]

18. It is akin to a debate over whether Obama was born in this country or not

One side is supported by reams of evidence, the other supported by exactly zilch. Should Obama host a discussion on such an issue, or would that be ridiculous?

[JamesA1102]

19. Well said

I think you nailed it regarding Krugman.