Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Krugman: White House Excluding "Progressive-Economist Wing"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-19-09 04:10 PM
Original message
Krugman: White House Excluding "Progressive-Economist Wing"
Edited on Sun Jul-19-09 04:33 PM by Beacool
The Huffington Post
Rachel Weiner
07-19-09



Newsweek's Michael Hirsch profiled Joseph Stiglitz for next week's magazine, asking why a world-renowned economist who predicted the financial crisis has been left out of the administration.

While he may be a Nobel laureate, in Washington he's seen as just another economic critic--and not always a welcome one. Few Americans recognize his name, and fewer still would recognize the man, who is short and stocky and bears a faint resemblance to Mel Brooks. Yet Stiglitz's work is cited by more economists than anyone else's in the world, according to data compiled by the University of Connecticut. And when he goes abroad--to Europe, Asia, and Latin America--he is received like a superstar, a modern-day oracle. <...>

While he had no great desire to go back into government, friends say he was deeply disappointed when an offer didn't come from Obama last fall. Not surprisingly, Stiglitz believes his old rival was behind it, though Summers denies this.


In a blog post Sunday morning, Paul Krugman said Hirsch "somewhat misses the point." It's not that Stiglitz is being excluded because of his criticism and his tendentious relationship with some Obama officials, Krugman says. Rather, an entire economic perspective is lacking in the White House.

The larger story is the absence of a progressive-economist wing. A lot of people supported Obama over Clinton in the primaries because they thought Clinton would bring back the Rubin team; and what Obama has done is ... bring back the Rubin team.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/19/krugman-white-house-exclu_n_240032.html

Here's the Newsweek article:

The Most Misunderstood Man in America
Joseph Stiglitz predicted the global financial meltdown. So why can't he get any respect here at home?



Anya Stiglitz was in the middle of a Pilates class in Central Park on an April morning when her cell phone rang. Glancing down, she saw "202" pop up—no number attached—and knew it was the White House. An aide to Larry Summers was on the line, looking for her husband, the Nobel Prize–winning economist Joseph Stiglitz. Anya said she'd pass on the message to Joe—then went back to work on her abs. No big deal, she thought. People often call her when they want to talk to Joe, because even though he's spent four decades figuring out how the global economy works, he hasn't quite gotten the hang of voice mail. "He doesn't listen to his messages, so if you want to talk to him, keep calling," Anya says on his cell-phone recording.

Anya figured Summers, Obama's chief economic adviser, was probably just calling to gripe about Joe's latest op-ed in The New York Times. Joe Stiglitz and Larry Summers, two towering intellects with egos to match, are not each other's favorite economist. "They respect each other, but they hate each other like poison," says Bruce Greenwald, Stiglitz's friend and academic collaborator at Columbia. ("I've got huge admiration for Joe as an economic thinker," Summers told NEWSWEEK.) Stiglitz had been hammering at Obama's economic team for its handling of the financial crisis. He wrote that the stimulus program was too small to be effective—a criticism that has since swelled into a chorus, though Obama says he's not adding more money. Stiglitz also had called the administration's bailout plan a giveaway to Wall Street, an "ersatz capitalism" that would save the banks' investors and creditors and screw the taxpayers. "I thought, Larry—he's just going to yell at Joe," Anya recalls.

But Summers's aide soon called back, and this time he said it was urgent: could Professor Stiglitz come to Washington for a dinner hosted by the president—that same night? Anya patched him through to Joe's office at Columbia University; Stiglitz accepted, and jumped on an early train. He was a little miffed: the other eminent economists attending the dinner, like Princeton's Alan Blinder and Harvard's Kenneth Rogoff, had been invited the week before. Stiglitz, a former chairman of Bill Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers, had supported Barack Obama as a candidate as early as 2007. But until that day, four months into the administration, he had heard barely a word from the White House. Even now, when the president was making an effort to hear a range of economic voices, Stiglitz seemed to be an afterthought. (A White House spokesman said only that the president wished to include Stiglitz.)

http://www.newsweek.com/id/207390?from=rss



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-19-09 04:14 PM
Response to Original message
1. "They warned me if I voted for Clinton in the primaries, I'd get tired retreads of failed policies"
"I did, and that's what happened!"

I suppose that's the situation we have now, alas...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-19-09 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. If the whole economic situation wasn't so depressing, this would actually be funny.
Ohhhh, the irony...........

:(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-19-09 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #3
18. I don't know if it is irony, what it means is that we had no real choice economic policy was
the issue. By 2008, there were only three people with a chance to win - and the third was not trustworthy. I really don't know where any of the "second tier" would have done anything differently - Buden was never to the left of the party and Richardson, would also have brought back the Clinton team. Dodd on many issues is the most liberal, but not on banking issues - and many of the worst problems are rooted in banking.

Ironically, given how the "progressives" here treated him, the person most likely to have included Krugman's ideas is the person who quoted Krugman on zombie banks in the Finance committee (this did NOT please Schumer) and how agreed with things Krugman said on the stimulus package. John Kerry, who was stabbed in the back at various times by the Clintons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-20-09 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #1
50. That's an excellent point.
In the early '90s, as a member of Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers, Stiglitz argued (unsuccessfully) against opening up capital flows too rapidly to developing countries, saying those markets weren't ready to handle "hot money" from Wall Street. Later in the decade, he spoke out (without results) against repealing the Glass-Steagall Act, which regulated financial institutions and separated commercial from investment banking. Since at least 1990, Stiglitz has talked about the risks of securitizing mortgages, questioning whether markets and authorities would grow careless "about the importance of screening loan applicants." Malaysian economist Andrew Sheng says, "I think Stiglitz is the nearest thing there is to Keynes in this crisis."

*ehem*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AzDar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-19-09 04:19 PM
Response to Original message
2. And fully embracing the Goldman Sachs Wing.
:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Triana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-19-09 04:21 PM
Response to Original message
4. Brooksley Born predicted the economic crisis too. See/hear her anywhere? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-19-09 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #4
17. I did too. I didnt know that would qualify me to set economic policy
according to anyone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Triana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-20-09 12:38 AM
Response to Reply #17
29. Were you the one who warned Greenspan, Rubin, Summers about it years ago and they
told you to STFU?

That was Brooksley Born. And IMO that does qualify her. However, she'd never be chosen due to the lack of a penis to keep her brain in, and because she's retired already.

So, we ended up with Mr. "Women Can't do Math" Summers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-20-09 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #29
47. +2!!!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freebrew Donating Member (478 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-20-09 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #29
58. Hell, I warned them in 1980
when Raygun started privatizing everything. IMO, that started us down this road.,.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
camera obscura Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-20-09 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #4
41. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wroberts189 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-19-09 04:23 PM
Response to Original message
5. Didn't Obama invite both of them to the Whitehouse for dinner?


I believe he did. Perhaps they need another sit down.


+5
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressoid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-19-09 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Needs to be a hell of a lot more than just dinner,
Give them an office in the White House and some power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wroberts189 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-19-09 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. I am all for that. Amen. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-19-09 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. But neither of them want a government job according to them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jennicut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-19-09 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #11
25. Yes, somehow many miss that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeybee12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-20-09 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #25
51. Yeah, and you missed that he DID want a job, got snubbed, now has
no desire for it...if Obama had offered him one early, he would have taken it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ErinBerin84 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-20-09 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #51
55. Really? I never read that.
I read his quote about not wanting to accept a job before Obama was even elected, where did you read otherwise?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wroberts189 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-19-09 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. Here it is....."Obama's dinner with Stiglitz and Krugman"
Edited on Sun Jul-19-09 04:35 PM by wroberts189


http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2009/05/04/obama_dinner/



Obama's dinner with Stiglitz and Krugman
We know they ate roast beef and discussed the banking system. The rest is a mystery.

Andrew Leonard

May. 04, 2009 |

In David Leonhardt's epic interview with President Obama, published in this past weekend's New York Times Magazine but which actually took place on April 14, the president says he has "enormous respect" for economist Joseph Stiglitz and that "I actually am looking forward to having these folks in for ongoing discussion."

Now we learn from Newsweek, (via Taegan Goddard) that:

On the night of April 27, for instance, the president invited to the White House some of his administration's sharpest critics on the economy, including New York Times columnist Paul Krugman and Columbia University economist Joseph Stiglitz. Over a roast-beef dinner, Obama listened and questioned while Krugman and Stiglitz, both Nobel Prize winners, pushed for more aggressive government intervention in the banking system.

Not even a whisper of this momentous news made it into Paul Krugman's blog, which seems to me to represent a misuse of the medium. I'm sure the conversation was designated off-the-record, which makes it understandable why we have no blow-by-blow from Krugman, but still: I promise all HTWW readers that if I ever have dinner with the president, I will at least mention it in this blog. What else are blogs for if not to tell people about your cool dinner dates?

Oh, but would I have loved to have been a mouse in that dining room.

KRUGMAN: If you do not nationalize Citigroup and Bank of America, you will have proven to the American people that the White House is owned, lock-stock-and-barrel, by Wall Street!

STIGLITZ: The Geithner plan to fix the banking system is outright robbery of the American people, Mr. President!

OBAMA: How do you like your roast beef? Raw and bloody, I presume? Please, have some more.

One thing we do know: Paul Krugman's oppositional stance was not ameliorated by the meeting, at least as judged by his last two blog posts, here and here. Although one does wonder if Obama's harsh attack Thursday on the hedge funds who refused to budge on Chrysler was in any way influenced by the two Nobel Prize-winning economists.

In any case, although I feel inclined to agree with Newsweek's Evan Thomas that "it will take more than a few dinner parties to avoid the fate of presidents who lost touch with reality," I'm still glad to hear that alternate points of view are making it into the White House.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-19-09 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. awesome, thanks for the link. (i missed all that completely.) nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wroberts189 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-19-09 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #15
24. You're welcome :) Wish I had some of that roast beef and listened in ..sounded delicious. nt


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-20-09 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #5
45. Self-deleted post. somebody already covered the dinner.
Edited on Mon Jul-20-09 11:08 AM by bertman
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-19-09 04:26 PM
Response to Original message
6. Summers, wrong man for the job, but the right Gatekeeper
for keeping big name progressives even out of the outer circle (PERAB).

Discussion of this quite a while back (April):

Larry Summers, Wrong Man for the Job

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5389801#top
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tansy_Gold Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-19-09 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. Well, folks, I pegged this one back in November
and I was flamed for it.

(search and archives functions are currently not working or I'd post the link to the relevant thread of 24 November 2008)

There's an old saying about laughing last and laughing best.



Tansy Gold, ain't laughin' at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RandomThoughts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-19-09 04:32 PM
Response to Original message
8. Shrug, I am not worried.
How well does a plane missing a wing fly?

Things will be changed one way or another. It is up to them and us how they want it to go. It might be that the crowd in the White House have had a new look at things and will progress to break up monopolies and big banks, and other actions that need to be done. Or it might be they get done another way.

:shrug:

There is so much to do, at some point it seems things have to be done in a bit of a sequential method instead of all at once, so re-envisioning the financial sector, and the media, and systems of economics, influence, and finance, have to be given a bit of time to get done. It seems progress on health care is being made, and it seems removal of people in the way is continuing.

So personally news stories don't worry me that much. Although I agree with many things the progressive left speaks about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-19-09 04:56 PM
Response to Original message
13. No real surprise there
Obama revealed with one of his very first votes in the Senate that he his economic policies at best would be center right. Could be that hearkens from his days at University of Chicago.

To bad, really, because the country needs solutions for ordinary folks- and a lot of these center right policies have proven to be ineffective- or failures in the past.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-19-09 05:07 PM
Response to Original message
14. "hasn't quite gotten the hang of voice mail"?
This man shouldn't be allowed within breathing distance of our economic issues, as he still hasn't managed to figure out the most simple of modern communication methods.... does he use a typewriter, too?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-19-09 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. -1.

ridiculous and belittling comment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-20-09 05:42 AM
Response to Reply #16
36. I agree and also award a -1.
Not embracing modern communication devices means nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
choie Donating Member (899 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-19-09 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. THAT's how you judge whether Stiglitz would have been
a better choice than the corporate cronies Obama has advising him? Whether he knows how to use voicemail? Are you kidding?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-19-09 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. Being informed on the basics of current society: Essential.
Being uninformed on the basics of society from 30 years ago: Jaw dropping.

It's that kind of technical illiteracy that gives us yesterday's solutions to todays problems. What, is he going to come up with a novel idea for sending documents over telephone wires, thus reducing paperwork churn? Maybe he could propose a new economic and social model, where businesses and organizations link up their "computing machines", to share information?

If he's not keeping up on information, if he's not constantly re-educating himself, he's not an asset as a current advisor, he's a liability, or possibly useful in some ways as a historian.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
destes Donating Member (246 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-20-09 04:21 AM
Response to Reply #14
33.  Plainly, wife speak spoken here.
The guy has carved out a space where he doesn't have to pick up the phone every time it rings. If he doesn't want to fool with a machine, he doesn't.
His wife spins the obstinate side of the man's character into, "well you know how he is". It's a privacy issue. Not a competency issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rpannier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-20-09 05:38 AM
Response to Reply #14
35. In the last five years 3 federal Administrative Law Judges retired who were considered
3 of the more brilliant minds to sit on the bench -- none of them could use a computer or owned a cell phone

I suppose you wouldn't want them near a courtroom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-21-09 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #35
65. Retired.
There's a reason for that.

Before their retirement, I would have expected them to recuse themselves from any case that involved cell phones, or computers, for gross ignorance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-20-09 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #14
46. I hereby nominate this post..
in the category of "most idiotic statement of the week".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raineyb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-20-09 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #14
60. -1
This comment is just plain stupid.

:thumbsdown:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-19-09 05:56 PM
Response to Original message
20. General Electric's Newsweek is showing itself to be true bi-partisan......
by promoting criticism from both side against this Administration as welcomed!

Guess that sowing more doubt in time for the Health Care debate (last time it was done with
Krugman right as we were passing the budget) is key here!

Hope those Newsweek folks have good health care insurance.
In fact, I'm sure that they do.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-19-09 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. It 's not Newsweek's job to support this administration
or any other, for that matter. Their job, and that of the rest of the media, is to report the news. Pity that too many journalists have forgotten their craft. The death of Walter Cronkite reminded me of the dearth of true journalists, almost everybody nowadays is a pundit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-19-09 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. Not, it was only newsweek's job to support the last administration.....
till it couldn't anymore....due to extra low approval rating no matter how they tried to "fix" it.
Newsweek has great timing. Now they play journalist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zenlitened Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-19-09 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #20
26. Newsweek is owned by The Washington Post Company
But don't let that slow ya down... there's a progressive-minded economist getting some ink, and this must not be tolerated!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-20-09 03:06 AM
Response to Reply #26
32. They have a "special" partnership with GE!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Senator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-19-09 09:45 PM
Response to Original message
27. K&+R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democracy1st Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-19-09 10:50 PM
Response to Original message
28. K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gtar100 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-20-09 01:07 AM
Response to Original message
30. The way I see it, progressives had a large part in getting Obama elected.
Until he gives progressives more voice and more power, he's going to continue to sink as the banks and big business chew him up, bite by bite. If he truly believes in getting full health care coverage for all Americans, he's going to have to bring in progressive voices who are not afraid of speaking the truth and acting upon it. He needs to tap into the power of the people that got him elected. That might be his wake up call to realize he has more power than he's using. If he waits too long, he'll squander it. But there is still a tidal wave of people out here just waiting for him to give the signal. He needs to stop talking to all the lobbyists, bankers, CEO's, and republicans and their ilk, and get back out to the people. He had millions of people out to see him on the campaign trail. It's time he tapped into that power source.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grahamhgreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-20-09 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #30
44. He foolishly believes it was the power brokers that got him elected, not us...nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TommyPaine Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-20-09 02:51 AM
Response to Original message
31. Stiglitz makes Milt Friedman look like an infant.
I've been reading Krugman for many years, though I've just recently been getting into Stiglitz. Stiglitz is an honest intellectual and scientist with empathy, not a blind, ideal-driven megalomaniac like Milton Friedman (and the "Chicago School" as a whole).

The Newsweek article is refreshing and candid. I hope--really, really hope--that Stiglitz, Krugman, and economists like them are given more of a chance by this administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-20-09 04:27 AM
Response to Original message
34. everyone but Goldman Sachs seems to have been excluded.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Tiger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-20-09 07:00 AM
Response to Original message
37. "In all recorded history there has not been one economist who has had to worry..."
...about where the next meal would come from." -Peter Drucker
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Douglas Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-20-09 08:48 AM
Response to Original message
38. now this is an article critical of the Obama Administration that I can and will recommend
Edited on Mon Jul-20-09 08:53 AM by Douglas Carpenter
So much of the criticism of the President I have seen here seems to me to be reflexive and frequently comes from people who are not necessarily all that progressive. Much comes from people who simply never liked him in the first place and wouldn't like him a whole lot more if he adopted the same agenda as Dennis Kucinich.

But on this point, I have to agree. There really does need to be a real examination of the basic assumptions of economy that have dominated both parties to varying degrees for at least the last two decades and have failed so miserably - economics which relies on unsustainable and rampant speculation financed by unsustainable and rampant borrowing and dependent on unsustainable and rampant personal consumer debt, rather than investment that actually produces goods and services and seeks sustainable growth instead of short term fixes for whatever latest crisis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-20-09 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #38
57. Most of us did not approve of Obama because we already knew he was owned by the corporations!
Edited on Mon Jul-20-09 03:34 PM by earth mom
If you had done your homework and educated yourself and connected the dots, you wouldn't need Krugman or anyone else to tell you the truth right now!

Well, at least you still aren't in denial like so many around here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Douglas Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-20-09 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #57
61. I always knew that the United States is a corporate-capitalist dominated society. I always knew
Edited on Mon Jul-20-09 05:55 PM by Douglas Carpenter
that anyone who was to become a major political figure in the United States would be someone committed to the corporate-capitalist system. Anyone who did not understand this from the very beginning- does not understand the political-economic system and the political-economic culture of the United States at all.

I have NEVER been in denial. There was nothing to deny except the obvious.

President Obama is doing slightly better than I expected.

As the original far leftist once said, "Government in capitalist society is the executive committee of the bourgeoisie." That is the reality. I believe in working with reality. That which cannot be changed, must be accepted.

Recent economic events which have placed the capitalist system in crisis - not who won an election - provide a plausible opening for a more progressive form of capitalism. I hope President Obama moves more in that direction. Perhaps he will. Either way, the ONLY alternative is one of the most reactionary forces in the history of modern capitalist society. I believe in making choices based on that which is actually available, not that what I idealistically may want, but is not available.

If President Obama fails, we WILL be ruled not by people who think like Dennis Kucinich - we WILL be ruled by people who think like the crazies on Fox News. Anyone who does not accept this as the reality of current American political culture is in denial and living in a naive fantasy. They are in denial of the obvious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-21-09 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #61
66. Don't you realize that many people voted AGAINST Palin & her fundie nut job insanity?
THAT is what drove many people to vote for Obama.

So, I don't think this country is in danger from the likes of Palin unless she picks a REAL rock star as her running mate.

I have a friend who is a rethug, (the nicest one I know really which is why I was shocked when she said she was one of them), who loved Palin initially but within a week or two saw her for what she is and voted for Obama. People do recognize a whack job when they see it.

Eventually people will get a clue that they were sold someone who did not exist and they will either give up or fight for a candidate like Kucinich, or hey maybe Oprah will run because she is so disillusioned with Obama. I've always thought Oprah would be the best prez of all because "ethical" is her middle name AND she is so damn rich she can't be bought off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Douglas Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-21-09 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #66
67. I remember like it was yesterday people scoffing at the idea that Reagan would actually win and
Edited on Tue Jul-21-09 08:56 PM by Douglas Carpenter
become President. In fact, I was one of those people scoffing. We now have a group of crazies who originally came to power with Reagan who would make Ronald Reagan look like a socialist in comparison.

We simply don't know what will happen. But it is well within the range of plausibility that these crazies could win and could come to power. I don't think they will. I certainly hope and pray not.

When Ronald Reagan was on the rise, America had perhaps the most ethical and decent man to ever sit in the Oval Office. But, political realities, not his personal goodness determined what policies could be implemented.

Even if the likes of someone like Dennis Kucinich or Bernie Sanders were President, the entrenched political powers are still there. We still have an economy deeply dependent and interwoven with the military industrial complex. We still have an economy which requires irresponsible speculating to sustain itself - and equally irresponsible lending and borrowing to finance the irresponsible speculating. We still have a mass media dependent upon and interwoven with these entrenched political powers and who see the world through their eyes.

Changing the political culture of society is a long term project that requires a lot more than electing a good person President. In spite of his failings, Barack Obama is no more "controlled by the corporations" than anyone else who has a snowballs hells chance in hell of both winning the Presidency and sustaining their administration in power. And it terms of changing the political culture, he is at least one step in the correct direction.

I do hope that as this article advocates that he will move in the direction of a more progressive form of capitalism. There are a lot of entrenched powers determined to make sure that does not happen. It is possible to advocated for a more progressive agenda without weakening the only thing we have that is standing between the world and an insane click of right-wing nuts anxiously waiting to make their move as soon as they sense weakness and disunity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jonestonesusa Donating Member (630 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-20-09 08:56 AM
Response to Original message
39. Thanks for the post. K & R!
The economic debate has to go on or we'll never get to the root of the finance sector problems or pay sufficient attention to main street. I support Obama on many issues, but there definitely needs to be more attention to progressive views on economic issues. The stimulus was small, rushed, and weighted too far to the side of supply side tax cuts. The President needs to hear these opposing views and take a look at his economic team, and public pressure is the only way to make that happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-20-09 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #39
48. You're welcome.
;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-20-09 10:31 AM
Response to Original message
40. Krugman and Stiglitz are Playing Checkers, Obama's Playing Chess
And he's only had six months.

Besides, some bankers at Citi and BOA have had to sell their fourth vacation "cottages" - it's brutal out there. Once Obama sets that straight, he'll turn his attention to us, you'll see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-20-09 10:59 AM
Response to Original message
42. yes paul...obama is`t fdr.
obama has surrounded himself with grifters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-20-09 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #42
43. "Grifters"... Excellent Characterization.
That's what they are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-20-09 12:17 PM
Response to Original message
49. I never had anything on the front page.
Thank you one and all.

:pals:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-20-09 01:41 PM
Response to Original message
52. Funniest and most ridiculous charge ever
This is from Krugman's blog today:

But the larger story is the absence of a progressive-economist wing. A lot of people supported Obama over Clinton in the primaries because they thought Clinton would bring back the Rubin team; and what Obama has done is … bring back the Rubin team. Even the advisory council, which is supposed to bring in skeptical views, does so by bringing in, um, Marty Feldstein.

The point is that even if you think the leftish wing of economics doesn’t have all the answers, you’d expect some people from that wing to be at the table. Yet I don’t see Larry Mishel, or Jamie Galbraith … Jared Bernstein is it.

link


So Krugman, who supported Hillary (because he "thought Clinton would bring back the Rubin team"), is now complaining that Obama brought back the Rubin team with only one progressive: Jared Berstein?

This nonsensical griping by people who supported Hillary is hilarious. The progressive left isn't being excluded from anything. This is simply BS to stir outrage. At this point, who cares? Obama is the President, and he's doing a fine job despite the pot shots for the sake of pot shots.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllTooEasy Donating Member (540 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-20-09 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #52
53. Is this guy serious?!

The $800 billion stimulous bill wasn't progressive enough for him?!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zipplewrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-20-09 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #53
56. 1.4 trillion
Krugman was part of a group of economists that was suggesting that something on the order of 1.4 trillion was what was necessary. He is a Nobel winning economist. I'd presume he is fairly serious. The real argument is whether 60% of the right solution is "enough" or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-20-09 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #53
62. it wasn't the size as much as where the money went
40% went to tax cuts, not a very "progressive" direction...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-20-09 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #52
63. the one trick pony post -
"nonsensical griping by people who supported Hillary"

or is that one size fits all?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomClash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-20-09 02:11 PM
Response to Original message
54. No kidding
Only Jared Bernstein got a job - in the VP's Office - which is like being in Siberia.

Summers over Stiglitz is . . . well . . . over the top. And I'm being polite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-20-09 03:45 PM
Response to Original message
59. "an entire economic perspective is lacking in the White House". Add the words predictably accurate
and you've summed up the slow-motion clusterfuck we see developing.

But hey it's no problem, the suckers rally is up today, so it all must be alright.

Nothing to see here, move on...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mvd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-20-09 10:38 PM
Response to Original message
64. He would be great for Obama's team
I think it would add a lot of perspective. Get the two sides to work together.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC