Notes Tagged ‘krugman’

Krugman on Sachs

July 17th, 2009
674. 

So Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and Chase all reported multi-billion dollar profits during the second quarter this week. The NY Times’ Paul Krugman weighed in on Sachs:

First, it tells us that Goldman is very good at what it does. Unfortunately, what it does is bad for America.

Second, it shows that Wall Street’s bad habits — above all, the system of compensation that helped cause the financial crisis — have not gone away.

Third, it shows that by rescuing the financial system without reforming it, Washington has done nothing to protect us from a new crisis, and, in fact, has made another crisis more likely.

The rest of his column is a must read.

Tags: , , , , ,
Noted in Politics    |    Permanent link

Can they really be this dumb?

March 11th, 2009
557. 

I can’t help but think the current Republican Party really is Beavis and Butthead, as Krugman stated a week or so ago. The more I read about their take on the current economy and other issues, I consistently come to the conclusion they are either really dumb, clueless people OR they are just playing dumb to act as a counter to Obama’s proposals. I’d like to give them the benefit of the doubt and go with the second option, but either way it’s a no win situation for the United States.

On the economy…

Sen. Richard Shelby, the ranking member of the Banking Committee on insolvent banks:

“Close them down, get them out of business. If they’re dead, they ought to be buried,” he said. “We bury the small banks; we’ve got to bury some big ones and send a strong message to the market. And I believe that people will start investing [again] in banks.”

And related, the Johns (McCain and Boehner) have both been echoing the ‘let them fail’ mantra and speaking out against nationalization. Do these fellows not know about the FDIC? The FDIC taking over banks (which they have to do, since they guarantee deposits — as well as all the other guarantess that have come through the bailouts, TARP, etc.) and putting them in receivership IS effectively nationalization.

Luckily Krugman is out in the media, putting the story straight:

On Shuster today, Krugman very calmly explained that if what they mean by “letting them fail” is that we put them into receivership, then they’re right. After all that’s what the FDIC is doing about twice a week now with banks all over the country. If it makes these bozos feel better to call it “letting them fail” rather than “nationalization” that’s fine with me. Maybe that’s a good way to phrase it. Unfortunately, it’s pretty obvious that they don’t understand it that way. They think these banks can go “bankrupt,” just close the doors and stop operating like the corner hardware store. Apparently they don’t understand that the government has to take over banks that are deemed to have failed.

And on “spending restraint” — Boehner and the Repub’s latest brilliant idea — Krugman effectively dismisses that

First, the Boehner quote:

“It’s time for government to tighten their belts and show the American people that we ‘get’ it.”

And Krugman:

What’s insane about Boehner’s remark? He’s talking about the current economic crisis as if it were a harvest failure — as if we faced a shortage of goods, so that the more you consume the less is left for me. In reality — even most conservatives understand this, when they think about it — we’re in a world desperately short of demand. If you consume more, that’s GOOD for me, because it helps create jobs and raise incomes. It’s in my personal disinterest to have you tighten your belt — and that’s just as true if you’re “the government” as if you’re my neighbor.

Plus, who is “the government”? It’s basically us, you know — the government spends money providing services to the public. Demanding that the government tighten its belt means demanding that we, the taxpayers, get less of those services. Why is this a good thing, even aside from the state of the economy?

Again, this is what the leaders of a powerful, if minority, party think. Can this country be saved?

Amen, Krugman.

Then to pile on, my favorite quote on the Repub’s economic “theories”:

I think it’s actually quite clear that these self-professed guardians of the free market and the capitalist system know less about economics than the average high school sophomore. And that is profoundly disturbing.

Then we move on to health care non-sense:

Seriously? Being healthy, fighting disease and sickness, etc. is a want or a privelage in our modern society? That is utterly ridiculous. I am fine if you don’t agree with nationalized healthcare (even though virtually every other industrialized country provides it to their citizens), but to swing so far in the opposite direction? I mean, owning a really fancy car or a mansion or even buying really expensive shoes can be classified as a want or privelage… but health care? Come on. They can’t be serious!?

And finally, the whole “I hope Obama fails” meme going through the Repubs. How is this not treason? Actively hoping and campaigning that the leader of your country fails?  In essence that your country fails? The Repubs called out the Dems for far less than that during the Bush years… and yet, they get away with this in the media. It’s purely strategic politics and selfish. Especially in times like this… but, I guess when all you have are really bad ideas, it’s all you have left.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Noted in Politics    |    Permanent link

Krugman on the Return of Depression Economics

March 4th, 2009
554. 

Today on Krugman’s blog:

I was alerted to this Media Matters post, revealing that people still don’t get why the current slump is different from the early 1980s, and why fiscal policy is necessary this time. Yes, I know, it’s Joe Scarborough; but still …

Anyway, it’s the zero lower bound, stupid. And here’s the picture to make the point:

rode

It reminds me of his post from a few days ago where he pointed to another Media Matters article that detailed how ABC News was reporting on income tax wrong… shouldn’t these “news” organizations hire people who actually understand what they are covering?

Tags: , ,
Noted in Politics    |    Permanent link

Cost of the Stimulus

February 2nd, 2009
510. 

Personally, I am getting really sick of the negative commentary about Obama’s stimulus package. From calling it socialism or too expensive or talking about Keynesian economics as if only young children actually believe it… it’s all ridiculous. And it seems that most can’t really refute the numbers or economic models – they just fall back to the usual ‘tax cuts’ platform. You know the strategy Reagan and Bush used to pretty much destroy the middle class to the benefit of the top 1% of earners?

Dean Baker and Paul Krugman have thankfully started calling out these folks… starting with the Washington Post, who have categorized the stimulus as “staggering” and “breathtaking in size and scope.”

Baker was the first to comment on the Post:

It might be helpful to tell readers that the collapse of the housing industry has lead to a $450 billion falloff in the pace of annual residential construction, the loss of $8 trillion in housing wealth will reduce annual consumption by around $450 billion, with the loss of $8 trillion in stock wealth leading to a further decline in annual consumption of $250 billion. In addition, the collapse of the non-residential real estate bubble will likely reduce annual demand by another $200 billion. This gives us a total decline in annual demand of around $1350 billion or $2,700 billion over two years.

Next to a demand loss of $2,700 billion, an $825 billion stimulus package seems rather small. The Post might try to look for reporters who are better at arithmetic and more sure in their footing.

Krugman added to the discussion, comparing the “staggering” cost of the stimulus to Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy, which will cost about $2 trillion over the course of a decade. Noting that the tax cut lacked “anything like the economic rationale for the stimulus.”

Krugman also pointed out that:

Dean (Baker) is quite right to point out that reasonable estimates of the shortfall in private demand are on the order of three times the $800 billion package. (Jan Hatzius at Goldman, using different methods, arrives at more or less the same number.)

Tags: , , , ,
Noted in Politics    |    Permanent link

Krugman on the economy

November 8th, 2008
473. 

<object width=”512″ height=”296″><param name=”movie” value=”http://www.hulu.com/embed/jdRRl4K9zjY9pffKK4r99Q”></param><embed src=”http://www.hulu.com/embed/jdRRl4K9zjY9pffKK4r99Q” type=”application/x-shockwave-flash”  width=”512″ height=”296″></embed></object>

UPDATE: And some more on New Deal economics on his blog.

Tags: , ,
Noted in Politics    |    Permanent link

The Bush Economy

July 7th, 2008
210. 

Today’s Krugman goodness… Op-Ed Column and Blog.

From the blog, a graph comparing the ‘expansion’ during Bush to other post-WWII expansions. The only winner? You guessed it… corporate profits.

Tags: , , , ,
Noted in Politics    |    Permanent link

Krugman on the proposed gas tax holiday

April 30th, 2008
198. 

Krugman and every other economist/analyst I’ve heard over the last few days come to the same conclusion when talking about McCain and Clinton’s proposed gas tax holiday.

Pointless and borderline pandering for votes.

Here’s Krugman’s take:

Why doesn’t cutting the gas tax this summer make sense? It’s Econ 101 tax incidence theory: if the supply of a good is more or less unresponsive to the price, the price to consumers will always rise until the quantity demanded falls to match the quantity supplied. Cut taxes, and all that happens is that the pretax price rises by the same amount. The McCain gas tax plan is a giveaway to oil companies, disguised as a gift to consumers.

And on Clinton’s plan, specifically:

The Clinton twist is that she proposes paying for the revenue loss with an excess profits tax on oil companies. In one pocket, out the other. So it’s pointless, not evil. But it is pointless, and disappointing.

And who’s the only canidate with the guts to stand up against this useless plan (even when it sounds so good at first listen)? That’s right, Obama.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Noted in Politics    |    Permanent link

More Krugman Goodness

December 28th, 2007
161. 

The man is on a roll!

* “On the Bhutto assassination”:http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/27/its-not-about-you/
* “On The Effects of Trade”:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/28/opinion/28krugman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin [Plus: "Background":http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/28/a-bit-of-background-on-todays-column/]

If you aren’t reading him, why not?

Tags: , , ,
Noted in Politics    |    Permanent link

What Boom?

December 13th, 2007
160. 

Percentage gains in after-tax income from 2003 to 2005:

Bottom quintile: 2%
Next quintile: 2.4%
Middle quintile: 3.9%
Fourth quintile: 3.7%
Top quintile: 16%

Top 10%: 20.9%
Top 5%: 27.7%
Top 1%: 43.5%

According to “Krugman’s analysis of the CBO’s _Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates_ report”:http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/13/bush-boom-bah/ released recently.

bq. It was a boom, all right — but only for a few people.

Yup.

Tags: , , ,
Noted in Politics    |    Permanent link

Krugman on the faux social security crisis

November 28th, 2007
155. 

I, like most Americans (I suspect), followed the media and politician’s constant drum beat that Social Security was doomed. “Baby boomers are going to retire”, “the ratio of workers paying in to retirees getting benefits is getting lower”, “we need to privatize the program” they said. On the surface the argument seems logical, except for one thing… the problem doesn’t exist, at least according to economist and NYT columnist Paul Krugman.

As Krugman says, “socialsecuritymedicareandmedicaid” is in trouble, and that’s what these reports have been referring to the entire time. When you focus strictly on Social Security, Krugman points out the program is actually projecting to fair much better than the government’s debt, as a percentage of GDP. Medicare and Medicaid, on the other hand are set to explode – due mainly to increasing (skyrocketing) health care costs.

Now we just need the folks running for President and the clueless folks who question them at debates to get a clue.

Here’s Krugman’s latest blog posts on the subject:

“The Social Security Obsession”:http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/the-social-security-obsession-again/

“Long Run Budget Math”:http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/17/long-run-budget-math/

“Socialsecuritymedicareandmedicaid”:http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/socialsecuritymedicareandmedicaid/

“Why Barack, Why?”:http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/why-barack-why/

As I’ve said before, I loves me some Paul Krugman. The man tells it like it is!

Tags: , , , ,
Noted in Politics    |    Permanent link