The Case Against Obama From Paul Krugman

8 Responses to The Case Against Obama From Paul Krugman

1. 

   Cujo359 July 27, 2012 at 4:39 pm #

   So, liberal economists and conservative economists agree that Obama isn’t handling the economy well. That means that Obama’s policies are just right. Q.E.D.

   Which, I guess, means that all those charts and graphs and things aren’t telling the real story. Don’t believe them!

   [/sarcasm]

   As quite a few economists have mentioned lately, the problem with our economy is not lack of capital. That blue line in the chart is telling us that. It’s lack of demand that is the problem, and with government demand for goods and services having diminished, there is even less demand.

   This is what austerity buys you.
2. 

   secularhumanizinevoluter July 27, 2012 at 5:07 pm #

   ” He had the power, the Congress and the people behind him when he came into office and he had a lot of capital to burn. What he chose to do is compromise with himself and ignore progressive economic policy, with what we’re seeing today the result.”

   Couldn’t possibly agree more…
3. 

   cjoblak@hotmail.com July 27, 2012 at 5:13 pm #

   Just look across the pond.

   See Sweden. Austerity measures are working there.
   • 

     cjoblak@hotmail.com July 27, 2012 at 5:15 pm #

     ttp://critical-thinker.net/?p=1289
     • 

       cjoblak@hotmail.com July 27, 2012 at 5:23 pm #

       oops never mind that. that blog had been updated since I first read it.
   • 

     Taylor Marsh July 27, 2012 at 5:27 pm #

     I don’t think you properly understand what Sweden did & why they did it. I mean that re: details, which few cite.

     One thing conservatives usually never are willing to be honest about is that the way George W. Bush blew through the surplus MATTERS. A. LOT.

     Of course, Obama let Bush off the hook early, so I don’t blame you for not citing it and now it’s too late to do so for Dems.

     Waging war off the books is also something Sweden didn’t do either.

     Do I need to mention the Pentagon budget?

     From the Washington Post, good piece on Sweden’s recovery. (I have family who live in Sweden. The entitlements they provide would make conservatives’ heads explode.)

     2. Fiscal stimulus can be more effective when it is automatic.

     Sweden didn’t do much in terms of special, one-off efforts to spend money to combat the downturn. There was some extra infrastructure spending and a well-timed cut to income tax rates, but the most basic response to the government was to do what the nation’s social welfare system — lavish by American standards — always does: Provide income, health care and other services to people who are unemployed.

     In the United States, the battle over whether to use government spending to cushion the blow of the downturn became a divisive one. Whether to try to stabilize the economy became one more battle in the longer term war over the proper role of government.

     And because the $800 billion fiscal stimulus that Congress and the Obama administration enacted in early 2009 consisted mostly of special, one-time programs, it took months for many of them to begin pumping money into the economy, thus kicking in months or even years after the economy had collapsed, and the spending expired without regard to whether the need remained.

     When spending to cushion economic blows happens as part of a more carefully designed set of programs established during good times, it can be ready to go quickly right when the economy turns, and can be designed to taper off when it makes sense economically, such as when the jobless rate has fallen, rather than on some arbitrary date. And that can be true even for a safety net that is smaller than Sweden’s.

     [...]

     In other words, although bank bailouts might be necessary to save an economy, it’s also important that bankers not be so cushioned from the consequences of their unwise decisions as to go straight back to the old ways as soon as it’s over. They need to at least have their mouths burned.
4. 

   Romberry July 29, 2012 at 12:09 pm #

   When you write “What he chose to do is compromise with himself and ignore progressive economic policy”, my first thought is that you still haven’t quite wrapped your head around who Barack Obama is and what he believes.

   Obama didn’t compromise with himself. Obama went with the conservative economics he believes in. The reason Obama ignores economic policies that are grounded in reality (which seems to be the definition of “progressive economic policy” these days) is because Obama doesn’t believe in progressive economic policy. Check Obama’s speech to The Hamilton Project at Brookings in 2006. Gaius Publius at Americablog linked and excerpted remarks from the video of that speech. And what do we find? We find statements like this:

   “Too many of us [on the left] have been interested in defending programs the way they were written in 1938[.]”

   “Most of us are strong free-traders.”

   Or from The Audacity of Hope:

   “Increasingly I found myself spending time with people of means – lawfirm partners and investment bankers, hedge fund managers and venture capitalists. … As a rule, they were smart, interesting people, knowledgeable about public policy, liberal in their politics, expecting nothing more than a hearing of their opinions in exchange for their checks. But they reflected, almost uniformly, the perspectives of their class: the top 1 percent or so of the income scale that can afford to write a $2,000 check to a political candidate. … They had no patience with protectionism, found unions troublesome, and were not particularly sympathetic to those whose lives were upended by the movements of global capital. … I know that as a consequence of my fundraising I became more like the wealthy donors I met.”

   Got that? Obama says these people he became more like are “liberal in their politics” but “had no patience with protectionism, found unions troublesome, and were not particularly sympathetic to those whose lives were upended by the movements of global capital.” That’s liberal?

   Obama does what Obama does because it’s what Obama believes in. (Note that there is an exception, that exception being CMO, or “Campaign Mode Obama.”) The man is a conservative. We got his conservative economic policies and the result. His response will be to double down. And pay attention to that 2006 quote about “too many of us” defending New Deal era programs…because his push for a grand bargain is alive and well, and Social Security is something that he will again put on the table if he wins in November.

   Obama doesn’t need Krugman’s charts and facts. Obama has his beliefs. Reagan is the “transformative” model he is chasing, and facts will not stand in his way.
   • 

     Taylor Marsh July 29, 2012 at 7:42 pm #

     Are you kidding?

     When I say he’s compromising with himself, I’m talking about the power he has in the presidency.

     Have you ever read what I wrote beginning about Obama? I was on the ground watching him.

     I’ve been calling Obama a conservative for close to 6 years. Do some checking before you ramble off into oblivion. I’ve got a book if you need it compiled for you.