General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsKrugman strikes a nerve- "Very Sensitive People"
When it comes to inflicting pain on the citizens of debtor nations, austerians are all steely determination hey, its a tough world, and hard choices have to be made. But when they or their friends come under criticism, suddenly its all empathy and hurt feelings.
We saw that in the case of Olli Rehn, whose friends at the European Commission were outraged, outraged when I pointed out, using slightly colorful language, that he was repeating an often-debunked claim about economic history. And today we see it in Anders Aslunds defense of Reinhart and Rogoff against what he calls a vicious critique by Herndon et al.
Aslund praises R-R for providing
an important corrective to the view that fiscal stimulus is always right a position that is common across the Anglo-American economic commentariat, led by Paul Krugman in the New York Times.
This is a curious thing for him to say, because its an outright lie; as anyone who has been reading me, Martin Wolf, Brad DeLong, Simon Wren-Lewis, etc. knows, our case has always been that fiscal stimulus is justified only when youre up against the zero lower bound on interest rates. I cant believe that Aslund doesnt know this; why, then, would he discredit himself by repeating an easily refuted falsehood?
But then, why would he describe Herndon et al as vicious? Their paper was a calm, reasoned analysis of how R-R came up with the famous 90 percent threshold; it came as a body blow only because of the contrast between the acclaim R-R received and the indefensible nature of their analysis.
What I think is happening is that austerians have put themselves in a box. They threw themselves and their personal reputations completely behind the various elements of anti-Keynesian doctrine: expansionary austerity, critical debt thresholds, and so on. And as Wolfgang Munchau says, the terrible thing was that their policy ideas were actually implemented, with disastrous results; on top of which their intellectual heroes have turned out to have feet of clay, or maybe Silly Putty.
more
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/22/very-sensitive-people/
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Always on the vicious attack on others and alway whining like spoiled children at the slightest criticism no matter how well founded.
IrishAyes
(6,151 posts)reformist2
(9,841 posts)Their only argument was that the rich shouldn't have to pay for it, or nitpicking about how it should be spent. They knew that was unpopular, though, hence all the lies...
mopinko
(69,806 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)They are "Very Serious People" that are also "Very Sensitive People".
They hold consistently wrong economic views and sport delicate thin skins that cause their feelings to be hurt at the very thought of valid criticism.
The poor creatures should be wrapped in cushioned gauze and placed gently on a pile of soft pillows.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,157 posts)Yes, Peter G. Peterson, the guy spending hundreds of millions to get social security, Medicare and Medicaid slashed:
The bipartisan luminaries will be carrying on a discussion to a large extent framed by Peterson, who has spent lavishly to shape a national conversation focusing on the deficit rather than on jobs and economic growth.
...
According to a review of tax documents from 2007 through 2011, Peterson has personally contributed at least $458 million to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation to cast Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and government spending as in a state of crisis, in desperate need of dramatic cuts. Peterson's millions have done next to nothing to change public opinion: In survey after survey, Americans reject the idea of cutting Social Security and Medicare. A recent national tour organized by AmericaSpeaks and largely funded by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation was met by audiences who rebuffed his proposals.
But Peterson has been able to drive a major shift in elite consensus about government spending, with talk of "grand bargains" that would slash entitlements, cut corporate tax rates and end personal tax breaks, such as the mortgage deduction, that benefit the middle class.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/15/peter-peterson-foundation-half-billion-social-security-cuts_n_1517805.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Aslund
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)and you cannot actually prove any of the things you believe, but you really, really believe it's all true. You have a very delicate threshold for disagreement.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)&u&g&m&a&n