You guys realize that you're being played by Krugman, right?

[Dawgs]

Krugman is no better than Rush, and some of you are no better than dittoheads.

Krugman writes the same thing over and over again, and you guys eat it up without giving it much thought.

As long as Krugman is saying it, you're going to buy it.

Krugman, like Rush, has figured out how to fool the public because many of you are fools.

[tekisui]

1. What is with this obsession?

:banghead:

[Dawgs]

5. Because it's fun.

:shrug:

[NJmaverick]

2. I don't think they want to realize that

he is a useful idiot to some

[BlooInBloo]

3. It's funny. In physics, a pendulum will swing back to its original spot....

On DU, the pendulum swings waaaaay further than the original spot.

:rofl:

[wyldwolf]

4. I agree with Rahm

Krugman is very smart with great ideas but has zero knowledge on how to get a bill passed in Congress.

[Pale Blue Dot]

6. Anyone who says anything even remotely negative about Obama is no better than Rush.

They, like Rush, are simply hoping that Obama fails. They can't possibly have any beliefs or convictions other than that.

The worst ones are the ones that use facts and logic to undermine Obama. They have no shame and should be banned from DU immediately.

[DrDan]

9. exactly! Get rid of those Nobel winners. They have nothing to offer!

[Dawgs]

12. Making shit up ain't going to prove your point.

Try again.

[DrDan]

35. you don't like him because he is offering criticism relative to the administration's economic plan

is that not true?

And he continues to offer criticism.

And you don't care for that. Is that true?

So . . . what would be your suggestion? Perhaps that he be silent?

[Dawgs]

48. Yes, that is NOT true.

I am very disappointed with Obama's economic plans.

I'm not asking for Krugman to be silent. I wish he would off solutions and suggestions, instead of just criticism.

As I said somewhere else, disagreeing with one does not mean I agree with the other.

[DrDan]

63. see 61 for apology

[stillcool]

60. What economic plan?

the 'incomplete' one that was 'leaked'? Is Paul Krugman that good that he can pre-ordain what decisions the Treasury Department, and the Obama Administration came up with as a result of a few weeks ascertaining the depth of the problem and the solvency of all the global entities involved?

[Dawgs]

10. Huh? I have no problem with anyone criticizing Obama.

Why would you?

[Phx_Dem]

42. Remotely negative?? More like CONSTANT harping and

complaining without any concession that the guy has been President for 60 days and is facing a situation that has never been faced by this country -- at least not in modern history and not the same magnitude. No one offers better suggestions, and those that do, don't have the credenitals to be taken seriously. Krugman has the credentials, but no suggestions.

Plenty of economists and financial experts -- like Warren Buffet -- agree with Geithner's plan, but since Krugman doesn't like it that's all that matters.

If you had voted for McCain and Palin, maybe you'd be happy now. Or maybe you did vote for them.

[Pale Blue Dot]

55. ...

:rofl:

[Phx_Dem]

66. You just proved my point.

[PVnRT]

88. "Never been faced before"? Huh?

Situations like this have been faced numerous times, most notably in the 1880's and the Great Depression.

Besides, if it fails and people criticize it then, you fanbois will be whining about how people should have spoken up quicker, they're just bitching on a message board, they don't know anything, blah blah blah.

Is the choice for you people really between unquestioning adulation of everything Obama does and voting for McCain? Can people really be that obtuse?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

7. You talking about Paul Krugman? Here's why I think Paul Krugman is a talking ass-h

Paul Krugman is just another WORLD TRADE proponent. What is world trade? World trade is the name for an economic model that will allow the rich in all nations to control all the goods and wealth on this planet. How? By being able to always move their businesses AWAY from where they might be, to whereever there's great poverty, to partake of near-slave wages.

In fact, Krugman won a Nobel prize for promoting world trade, didn't he? It behooves him to ENCOURAGE anything that will keep the elite in power, which is basically what WORLD TRADE is for and about.

WORLD TRADE smoothed our way into the current depression in this country, and what is a depression if not the culmination of moving the wealth to the already-rich and impoverishing the rest to a degree where there's mass hunger and devastation?

[elleng]

16. WORLD TRADE enables every country in the world to participate

in enterprises all over.

Wealth is moved and people are impoverished when there are no reasonable constraints on the way business is done, as has been the case for the past 30-40 years.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

19. UH not exactly. Mobility is expensive and the ones therefore running the show are the RICH

World trade is another scam perpetrated on the middle class and poor, exactly like trickle down, voodoo economics, and all those other bullshit scams benefiting the rich, which were sold to the poor and middle class.

[elleng]

31. Yes, mobility is expensive, and

if there are no reasonable constraints on the way business is done, those who 'run the show' will take advantage of everyone else in the world. Reasonable rules/regulations must be promulgated and enforced around the world; more likely successful, imo, than a world without commerce.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

33. Yep, regulations are good, however, you can't enforce regulations in other countries

And since that's the case, world trade is a way around regulations.

[elleng]

38. I suggested that

reasonable rules/regulations must be promulgated and enforced AROUND THE WORLD. This should include commercial, environmental and labor rules. This seems to me more likely to occur than a prohibition against world commerce, tho neither option would be easy to achieve.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

40. No way you can enforce rules and regulations in another country

We need to go back to the way it was before the elite and wealthy got the brilliant scam idea of world trade without tariffs. Period!

[elleng]

49. WE would not enforce;

each country would enforce, along with international agencies.

You advocate tariffs for everything, all over, punitive tariffs, is that your proposed solution? So we'd constantly have tariff wars?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

50. Oh yes of course - relying on other countries for our jobs and well being - how nice

I thought we were already in the process of trying that and it's been about as successful as our having allowed the financial elite to run our country. In other words, it isn't.

The answer is, world trade has to be stopped.

[elleng]

54. The answer to that is,

it will NEVER happen!

The cotton gin has been invented, and the aeroplane, the railroad, and the steam ship, and people will NOT revert to more isolated times.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

56. Isolated? When were isolated? And you want to know what?

This is a crisis caused by the world trade, in case you haven't noticed. It will go back. It's already going back. You seem to need to believe that world trade constitutes "progress." All it constitutes is the elite getting richer on the backs of the poor.

[elleng]

59. I don't 'need to believe' anything but what I see.

The 'crisis' is caused by lack of useful international institutions and leadership.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

64. Oy vey. Do you work in some capacity that is benefited by world trade without tariffs?

Besides, we've always had world trade. Just not without tariffs. Tariffs have to go back. No ifs ands or buts.

[elleng]

67. No, I'm a retired attorney.

Worked for the Interstate Commerce Commission, regulating railroads. Its pretty distressing having had this conversation, being 'charged' that my position is based on my self-interest; sounds like much of the trash talk that goes on here.

Tariffs are a huge pain, they insert politics into virtually every commercial transaction. I'm willing to consider their usefulness, but I don't think that anything will end international commerce. I think we all, the people of the world, should devise means to assure fairness.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

70. Tariffs may be a huge pain, but it's been that way until recently when

the bright capitalistic idea was brought up to fill the pockets of the already-rich with even more money by removing tariffs.

[elleng]

71. So commerce could run more freely,

unencumbered by politics at every turn.

What is YOUR business?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

73. Paralegal - recently unemployed - my firm is currently...

restructuring, which is more like crashing and burning in their case.

[elleng]

80. Good luck to you and them.

.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

94. Thank you. It's already looking bad for the firm, and me, I've been looking for over 1 month and

no luck. Many neighbors have had their homes foreclosed. Some have ended up with literally nowhere to go. Capitalism. Love it. :cry:

[elleng]

98. Just saw this!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=367x18591

[mix]

45. Weird angle of attack on Krugman

World trade, globalization, etc. this is one area where Obama and Krugman agree.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

76. Obama hasn't spoken too much on that, but you're probably right....

However, I don't agree with Obama on everything. Further, I think we can shape a presidency if the presidency is an open one like Obama's. I want this country to move left and I'm doing my part to get it there.

[HamdenRice]

89. "Krugman won a Nobel prize for promoting world trade, didn't he"--uh, NO

He won the Nobel prize for CRITICIZING the then current proponents of "free trade" by showing that world trade could lead to a few winners who produced the same advanced industrial products. While subtle, it was a criticism of free trade doctrines.

[amandabeech]

97. And you think that Geithner and Summers aren't enthusiastic supporters

of globalisation?

Please check the two of them out a little further.

Krugman would support a plan similar to the one used by Sweden in the 1990s. He is terrified that the current plan will leave us like Japan, with a stagnant economy and zombie banks for years.

[SanchoPanza]

99. Oy Vey

- World trade is an international framework, and only that, for laws governing tariffs on imports and exports. What it promotes is entirely up to whatever instantiation is being put forward. You can have world trade frameworks that promote labor rights and world trade frameworks that do not.

- Krugman won the Nobel Prize for his work on calculating how economies of scale can be integrated into Trade Theory's equilibrium models. Or, without the economics jargon, how expanding industries impact the transfer of goods and services between nations.

Saying he wants to "keep the elite in power" because of this academic work is like saying Milton Friedman wanted a massive increase in unemployment insurance and public employment programs because of his work on the Structural Employment Rate.

[DrDan]

8. shades of the bush administration

do not disagree, do not speak evil of the Pres, get in line and blindly support Obama

Why don't you post a Krugman concern and offer a rational argument.

lets get beyond the hero-worship.

[Dawgs]

13. Where did I say anything about Obama?

I have a lot of problems with Obama and his economic team.

But, I guess making up shit makes you feel better.

:shrug:

[DrDan]

32. so exacly what is it that you don't like about Krugman?

If what says has merit, then he should be repeating it over and over and over . . . until folks start to listen.

Or is it because he has issues with Obama's economic plan?

[Dawgs]

46. I'm very disappointed with Obama's economic plan's.

That doesn't mean I have to agree with Krugman.

You can't assume that one is right because the other is wrong; like you just did.

[DrDan]

61. ok - I was wrong in my assumption - there has been so much Krugman bashing

the past few days - and most of it based on nothing more than one should not criticize Obama.

I apologize - I should have asked earlier.

[elleng]

11. We guys READ it, and THINK about it regularly.

I can't speak for YOU, Dawg.

[Dawgs]

15. Then maybe you guys should concentrate on WRITING.

I've seen nothing from Krugman supporters that has convinced me of his genius.

[Pale Blue Dot]

21. Yeah! When are the anti-Obama forces going to realize

that since we're on DEMOCRATIC Underground, and since WE are the ones who support Obama, then we're the only ones who can accuse people of things with no facts or logic to back it up!

Time to get my alert finger working!

[Dawgs]

34. Why do you guys keep bringing up Obama?

My criticism is with Krugman. That doesn't mean I agree with Obama.

[elleng]

22. I don't think its my job to 'convince' you of anything.

If you have reasons to disagree with his positions, you may explain them.

[OHdem10]

14. I smell an effort to marginalize Krugman. You will hurt Obama

in the long run.

Krugmen can say one thing and Obama can say another. Believe
me the world is not going to end.

[Dawgs]

20. I agree.

It's just my opinion.

And, I have just as much criticism for Obama.

[Warren Stupidity]

17. "Krugman is no better than Rush"

I really wanted to read and understand your undoubtedly brilliant OP but I sort of got stuck at the first line.

[MercutioATC]

18. I'd rather be "played" by Krugman than be "played" by Obama.

No, I don't think either one is "playing" anybody, but Krugman has a better handle on what's needed for an economic recovery than Obama does.

[Dawgs]

24. Curious. Why do you think Krugman has a better handle on the economy than Obama?

:shrug:

[MercutioATC]

27. I believe Obama is doing two very dangerous things right now.

1) He's still trying for a soft landing by pumping tons of money into failed institutions instead of biting the bullet, breaking them up, and selling them off. That's trillions of dollars completely wasted.

2) He's coupled huge bailout spending with huge social program spending. The "stimulus bill" spent a lot of money, but was light on actual stimulus.

The combination of these two things will, IMO, result in very little economic improvement with the added bonus of runaway inflation beginning in the next 2-3 years.

[Dawgs]

29. Okay. Now give me two SPECIFIC Krugrman ideas that are better.

Because, my original question was 'why should Krugman be trusted more than Obama?'.

[MercutioATC]

47. 1) Temporary nationalization of failed banks.

I'm not as generous as him, I'd let 'em fail and sell off the bits...but it's better than Obama's cash giveaway bonanza.

2) More spending on actual stimulus programs like infrastructure.

Make stimulus plans provide actual stimulus...at the greatest bang for the buck.

[Jennicut]

23. Oh geez. Can we stop with the Krugman threads already?

Its been beaten to death. He is in no way shape or form Rush, he is not a Freeper, he criticized Bush on a regular basis. Nor is the ultimate one and only god of economic wisdom. Why is he so damn important to people anyways? One economist sends all of GDP into a tizzy??? Does he have that much control over our lives? I am getting paranoid that I will see a Krugman following me on every street corner, Krugman clones stalking my every move.

[Dawgs]

25. You don't find this fun?

I agree with your post, but I was feeling left out.

Comparing Krugman to Rush seemed like a good way to drive people nuts.

Seems like it worked.

[Jennicut]

26. LMAO! Yeah, it really worked everyone up. I could give a crap

less about Krugman. Krugman this, Krugman that. I guess it is kind of fun. I am desperately trying to make myself really hate him or love him and I just cannot do it. Maybe I need some serious drugs.

[Dreamer Tatum]

28. It's interesting how some people's credibility has an exact expiration date

Krugman's, evidently, was Jan. 20, 2009.

Was that date printed on his birth certificate, his PhD diploma, his John Bates Clark award, or his Nobel medal?

Just curious. Oh well - his every utterance was valid when we had the exact same problems barely three months ago.
I guess he has that.

[Dawgs]

30. Maybe for other people, but not for me.

I've always thought he was a hack.

[Dreamer Tatum]

36. Look, if you don't like what he has to say, that's fine

but he's not a 'hack.' He's a Nobel Prize winner. A John Bates Clark winner. He's published more peer-reviewed scholarship than 98% of academic economists.

Maybe you should go read some before you show more of your own ignorance. Not even Krugman's worst ideological nemeses would call him a hack. The hack, based on the absence of a rationale for your opinion, is you.

[Dawgs]

39. Fair enough. Maybe hack was a little harsh.

I still don't like him.

And, being a journalist is great, but when has he ever created policy?

It's easy to be right and critical when you're not responsible.

[RandomKoolzip]

52. Yeah, but i bet you loved him when he was hammering Bush for most of Bush's administration.

Now that he's criticisng Obama, all of a sudden Krugman's a pariah. What the fuck? Krugman's message has been consistent throughout Bush's administration and Obama's two months in office.

[Bjorn Against]

68. When have you ever created policy?

Just because someone is not a politician who writes legislation does not mean they can't have an opinion.

[Onlooker]

37. Your are the one being played, not by Obama, but by the corporate special interests

Krugman is brilliant, liberal Nobel prize winner. His logic is very sound. He's basically been saying all along that we need to be tougher on corporations and need to spend more money (an amount more comparable to that spent on WWII, which got us out of the Great Depression). Instead, without evening offering any sort of analysis or fact, you compare Krugman to Rush? You're the one who sounds like a fool. Obama is trying to navigate the waters of the entrenched business interests in DC, and Krugman is among those giving him political cover to be more aggressive. You are the one being played for the fool because you are playing into the hands of the corporate interests. If you are going to post such ignorant nonsense, at least try throwing in a fact or two; otherwise you merely sound like an Obama sycophant.

[Dawgs]

43. I'm being played by the hands of the corporate interests?

You seem to have me confused with someone else. I've said nothing about Obama or my opinion on economics. As a matter of fact, I am very disappointed with Obama's economic policies. But, you wouldn't know that until now.

[Onlooker]

58. No, because you said nothing

Your post was merely a whine, and all I know now is that you don't particularly agree with Obama, Krugman, or Rush on economics, and I doubt you favor the largely libertarian approach that brought about this mess.

[mix]

41. You realize Wall Street is playing you, right?

Like a harp.

[Dawgs]

44. How are they playing me?

I haven't given my opinion on wall street.

[mix]

51. You lie about Krugman, question his motivation,

and smear him with the Rush comparison...because he has correctly diagnosed the cancer within the Obama presidency: Summers, Geithner and Wall Street lobbyists are making policy at the expense of the rest of us.

True, you haven't given your opinion of Wall Street, but by making such outlandish and false accusations against Krugman and his supporters, you do the work of the plutocrats at the grassroots.

[chascarrillo]

62. Yes, you have.

[Celebration]

53. Face the facts

We are owned lock, stock and barrel by Goldman Sachs. They wanted to take care of AIG by paying themselves off 100% on the dollar, with our tax money. Obama can't buck them, and neither can we. End of story.

[liberalmuse]

57. I respect both President Obama AND Paul Krugman.

I've read the guy for years. He's been right more than he's been wrong about what has been going on with the economy. He predicted a lot of this before anyone even had a clue as to what was coming. While I do not like what I feel is the overly harsh way he's criticizing President Obama, I don't think we should completely discount what he's actually trying to get across. I also believe that President Obama is doing the best he can with the knowledge he has.

[The Backlash Cometh]

65. I've criticized Krugman when I thought he was wrong.

He once went on this mission to prove that New York paid out more in taxes than it took in, and then in a post, I clipped the wings of his argument by pointing out he has to count all that money that's going into Wall Street, all of our savings, that we never get to see because the market was bottoming out more frequently and our money was being diverted to New York employees in the way of bonus money. So, I mentioned he had to include that money into the formula.

This was years, and years ago.

But, I agree with him on this latest point.

[MarjorieG]

69. Enough with Krugman. How about reasonable plus and minus with any policy. All have risk.

[camera obscura]

72. Funniest thread ever. It is a parody, right?

I'm sure you just forgot to mention it was sarcastic.

[Dawgs]

74. Possibly.

;)

[cadmium]

75. You are on the money - so to speak n/t

[La Lioness Priyanka]

77. yes, dr, krugmans phd from MIT, very similar to rush's 2 terms in college

where he flunked everything

[Dawgs]

82. And yet they both chose to do the same(sort of) thing.

:shrug:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

83. one offers an intelligent critique of policy. the other incoherent ramblings. exactly the same. nt

[Dawgs]

84. Writing and/or saying bullshit and getting paid for it.

Yes. The exact same thing.

[bicentennial_baby]

92. Thank you!

:crazy:

:hi:

[GeorgeGist]

78. Of course, he's a capitalist ...

like Obama.

[burythehatchet]

79. you DO know he compared Obama supporters to NIXON's PEOPLE right???

[ShortnFiery]

81. No, I think Krugman falls on the in between. Krugman has many excellent points but he does NOT

try to work it "within the system." Krugman's arrogance reminds me of my Thesis Chair who felt a need to constantly remind me how much more intelligent and gifted he was than mere mortal "masters level" students.

Simply put, he's an "know it all" who COULD achieve/contribute a great deal of good for our nation, but instead, is blissful in the role of a heckler.

In that sense, Krugman is almost as destructive as the GOP.

Sometimes I wonder if these self-important players within The Beltway don't orchestrate their actions as some sort of all encompassing "surreal waltz" in order to keep us little people fighting amongst ourselves. :shrug:

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

85. He has always had a disdain for Obama and made no secret of that

When Obama first hit the political scene, Krugman went after him. I agree with him on most things, but I'm beginning to think that this is personal and he just wants to attack Obama any chance he gets. He was also a huge Hillary Clinton fan, which is odd because she's more of a corporatist than Obama, being a member of the DLC. Again, it's getting a bit personal now.

[cadmium]

86. The Times is losing money hand over fist. Note on one day

4 of their pundits Krugman, Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich, and Thomas Friedman all went after Obama. Screw them.

[Forkboy]

87. Jesus Christ, this place is fucking stupid sometimes.

Krugman is no better than Rush

Yes, they're exactly the same. :eyes:

Is there anyone in GD-P who can actually think in terms that aren't the most basic, either/or crap online anymore?

[democracy1st]

90. idiots called him a freeper also

[QC]

96. This is what passes for astute political analysis in our new & improved DU. n/t

[leftofthedial]

91. you realize that's nonsense, right?

[Political Heretic]

93. Well there's 10 seconds of my life I'll never get back.

[JeffR]

95. You're equating Krugman with Limbaugh???

What planet did you just arrive from?

And do your people have pie?