Paul Krugman Is Not Making Much Sense

[Ferd Berfel]

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/paul-krugman-flirting-irrelevance

He needs a reality check. His screed against Sanders in the NY Times misses the boat completely.


Paul Krugman has been a voice in the wilderness for liberals for decades. But when he issues screeds in the Times against Bernie Sanders’ alleged lack of policy credentials and Sanders’ “petulant self-righteous” followers, he misses the boat completely.

Krugman needs a reality check: Wonkish policy details about economic reform are irrelevant. Sanders isn’t an economist. Neither is Clinton. As president, his economic initiatives will have more to do with whom he surrounds himself, not with whether or not he gets it exactly right about the role of the “big banks” in the 2007 Great Recession.

And Sanders is right enough. Big banks, with their bloated indebtedness and irresponsible lending and support for risky derivatives that even they didn’t always understand contributed greatly to the meltdown. Further, these bankers took the bailout money they received from taxpayers and gave themselves big bonuses the next year (until they were shamed into temporarily rescinding them). So, Sanders, I expect, will surround himself not with Wall Street insiders like Lawrence Summers and Timothy Geithner (these are more likely Hilary supporters and fellow-travelers) but, instead, with progressive economists like Dean Baker, Joseph Stiglitz, Robert Reich, and Krugman, himself. The economic policy details that Krugman now demands will most likely emerge from this Sanders-led brain trust, not from a candidate interview with the N.Y. Daily News.

Furthermore, I think Krugman should quit being a martyr by repeatedly saying that Bernie supporters are out there accusing him and other anti-Sanders ideologues of being “corrupt or even criminal.”....

(snip)

Krugman should get his head out of his “inside-the-academic economics-blogosphere” and think about real world politics for a change.

(snip)
........ we know when we’re being screwed and we resonate when a candidate acknowledges that fact.

[uponit7771]

1. Or... or, Krugman notices Sanders is full of shit too? tia

[Hortensis]

11. Krugman wants all that Bernie does, as do

most of his colleagues, they just know he is making campaign promises to get elected that he cannot fulfill.

That is shameful. It is a betrayal of all who would vote for him.

Worst of all, expending his political capital on failing attempts to at least get something would be damaging to our nation and put us further in the hole than before. Because that political capital could be used to achieve other goals. It's called "opportunity cost."

[uponit7771]

14. I agree, Sanders is over promising

[Hortensis]

15. The promising part of this is that most

of society, including liberals and some moderate conservatives want all, most, or much of what Bernie followers do. The other promising thing is that a large majority of Bernie voters will support whoever our Dempocratic nominee is. We want progress, whoever leads it.

[Nye Bevan]

2. Have any Nobel Prize-winning economists endorsed Bernie's plans? (nt)

[Ferd Berfel]

6. At least 1 on this list of 171

I guess that makes it "171" Economists Back Bernie Sanders’ Plan to Rein in Wall Street

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1689861

[RantingRooster]

7. Well,

one of the key bank regulators during the Savings and Loan Crisis, that brought over 30,000 criminal referrals, and had over 1,000 felony CONVICTIONS, prosecuting the most white collar financial crimes in history, certainly has endorsed Senator Sanders. I'll take his endorsement above Krugman's Nobel any day of the weak. Krugman's economic models do not include banks or debt (corporate or private).

Steve Keen has already debunk Krugman's bullshit "theories". Krugman buys into the neoliberal economic model, which has been proven, it doesn't work.

"

"

William K/ Black's Tedx Talk about the Financial Crisis

[RepubliCON-Watch]

16. Welcome to DU!!

[pdsimdars]

3. Your picture perfectly summarizes Mr. Krugman's stance.

[Ferd Berfel]

9. a wide stance?

[Autumn]

4. Because he isn't speaking to us, he's auditioning for a job.

IMO

[Ferd Berfel]

5. That seems to be the case.

He's making a Faustian Deal

[CobaltBlue]

8. Stick a fork in him

Paul Krugman is done.

[sketchy]

10. Another article agrees

link:
http://dollarsandsense.org/blog/2016/04/paul-krugman-crosses-the-line.html

[Buzz cook]

12. So no link to what Krugman actually said?

Do we need an interpreter between us like Catholics need priests?

Here's the article that Bader dislikes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/08/opinion/sanders-over-the-edge.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

From the beginning, many and probably most liberal policy wonks were skeptical about Bernie Sanders. On many major issues — including the signature issues of his campaign, especially financial reform — he seemed to go for easy slogans over hard thinking. And his political theory of change, his waving away of limits, seemed utterly unrealistic.

snip

The easy slogan here is “Break up the big banks.” It’s obvious why this slogan is appealing from a political point of view: Wall Street supplies an excellent cast of villains. But were big banks really at the heart of the financial crisis, and would breaking them up protect us from future crises?

Here Krugman gives two citations for his position which follows in the next grap.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/six-doctrines-in-search-of-a-policy-regime/
http://fortune.com/2010/12/23/how-the-roof-fell-in-on-countrywide/

snip

You could argue that policy details are unimportant as long as a politician has the right values and character. As it happens, I don’t agree. For one thing, a politician’s policy specifics are often a very important clue to his or her true character — I warned about George W. Bush’s mendacity back when most journalists were still portraying him as a bluff, honest fellow, because I actually looked at his tax proposals. For another, I consider a commitment to facing hard choices as opposed to taking the easy way out an important value in itself.

snip

This is really bad, on two levels. Holding people accountable for their past is O.K., but imposing a standard of purity, in which any compromise or misstep makes you the moral equivalent of the bad guys, isn’t. Abraham Lincoln didn’t meet that standard; neither did F.D.R. Nor, for that matter, has Bernie Sanders (think guns).

snip

The Sanders campaign has brought out a lot of idealism and energy that the progressive movement needs. It has also, however, brought out a streak of petulant self-righteousness among some supporters. Has it brought out that streak in the candidate, too?

Now here's the final line from Bader's article.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/paul-krugman-flirting-irrelevance

Krugman wishes, I’m sure, that our citizenry would just be more damn rational and understand these allegedly profound distinctions, but they don’t and won’t. But we know when we’re being screwed and we resonate when a candidate acknowledges that fact.

Krugman doesn't mention the rationality of the citizenry. His article is about the growth of personal attacks against Clinton by Sanders himself. He kicks that off with Sanders lack of specificity on his economic claims and has grown into those baseless personal attacks.