Until his NYT column I really admired his writing and valued his voice. Now he's just another outrage-peddling huckster in the journalism game. Or he's nuts...
The issue isn't the math, it's the madness. Yes, we are running a huge deficit, and yes, the bush tax cut targets the rich. And by gum, the administration is not honest about it! Welcome to life. And y'know, democrats will be less than explicit about the cost of govenrment programs, or about how much they rely on public sector unions. Ginning standard political hooey of this sort into evidence of a cabal to bring down the welfare state is deranged.
Also, there's some delightful tone deafness here. Here's a key quote: "It's odd that the better things get if you are rich or a fundamentalist Christian, the more angry they get." Oh, yeah, those fundamentalist Christians, they are livin' large! This comment is almost a parody of blinkered northeast center-left cant.
I'm with Magik here. Before NYT, Krugman was a interesting, useful -- if somewhat slippery -- voice. Now he's degenerated into partisan hack, and not a particualrly interesting one (like Will or Kinsley)
I don't see how the madness and the math are separable. Isn't Krugman's description of his own "radicalization" tied to his realization that the administration wasn't just fudging, but simply lying about its numbers? And isn't his worry about the welfare state explicitly tied to the three scenarios he outlines: increased taxes, cuts in programs, or a credit collapse?
In my book, he's not nuts unless he's wrong. He does make the mistake of all partisans, which is to impute motives for an opponent's actions (when motives are almost always unknowable), but I don't really care about his tone if his predictions are accurate.
His predictions aren't accurate. How do they accord with Bush & the republicans pushing prescription drug coverage?
The humdrum truth is that Bush is just another run-of-the-mill panderbear politician. He'll compromise by supporting drug coverage the same way Clinton compromised by supporting welfare reform (and claiming credit for it!). That dynamic is the one that keeps the ideologues in check -- they can't get elected directly; they have to back political comprisers; their ideology does not drown out the voices of the rest of us.
You guys aren't exactly convincing me here: Krugman is predisposed to believe one thing about Bush's motives, you two another. The prescription drug bill is very unconvincing evidence, given that it's an immediate boost that will also need to be cut back or eliminated if Krugman's numbers are correct. Really, I haven't seen anyone (except Brad DeLong) even try to argue with Krugman's economics.
the numbers being what? again, the current bush budget will cause a big deficit. so far, all agree with PK. but the move from deficit to 'huge financial disaster like argentina' is *not* accepted broadly. how do we know? the market hasn't tanked, and people aren't globally short the US. will we cut programs or raise taxes in the future? Yup. Just like we did when reagan's big deficits plunged us into a disasterous argentina like melt-down.
Not just like, because the boomers will be retiring this time. Krugman accounts for the market's current stability by pointing to attitudes such as the one you express: we've been here before, we'll be ok this time too. But his point is precisely that we haven't been here before--that the projected debts and prospective costs leave only bad options--and that, sooner or later, markets will realize this. This is partly unknowable, of course. And there's no doubt he's partisan. But he's only wrong if he turns out to be wrong. And, given the "starve the beast" rhetoric that isn't exactly a secret, why are you so sure that bankrupting the massive social programs isn't on the agenda?
If krugman feels that a forced trade-off between tax cuts and massive entitlements (drugs) + 5%/year growth of discretionary income will wreck the US economy, he's less anti-bush than he is anti-representative government. GWB is trying to buy a re-election with deficit spending. This is objectionable. But if we face financial oblivion, tax cuts can be repealed. Perhaps spending can be cut, but I'm less certain. Bush senior took on some of the Reagan cuts, but we're still spending money on mohair subsidies.
As I understand what he's saying, a repeal of the tax cuts won't be enough. They'll need to be raised even beyond the repeal. Let's be fair. He doesn't say collapse is the only possibility: collapse, massive tax increases, or massive cuts in entitlements. I understand he's convinced this is all deliberate and that makes him sound loony, but I haven't heard anyone give a convincing argument that we will not have to choose among those three--all seemingly unlikely and decidedly unpleasant--alternatives.
We will need to choose between cuts in spending and cuts in taxes. This was true before the Bush tax cut vis-a-vis the unfunded entitlement programs, but his tax cuts have made it worse. Is this a uniquely terrible situation in the history of american state finance? Here's where I think Krugman is anything but convincing. Can I rebut him forcefully? No, I'm not an economist. But I don't see most economists reacting as he does, nor do I see the market reacting. In addition, those of my acquaintnaces who are more informed will note that our ratio of NPV of debt to GDP is not disastrously high. So all those things make me comfortable in ignoring Krugman's apocolyptic predictions. Also, Krugman radiates lunacy like a frickin' lighthouse -- "where elections may be a formality," "a revolutionary power," "no matter how good it gets for christian fundamentalists." These are phantasms of a kook. So that also gives me confidence.
BAA is right on here. I would add that Bush does not just advocate tax cuts. He also advocates massive increases in entitlement spending -- the prescription drug benefit. It is not credible to argue that Bush is systematically pursuing a policy of destroying the social safety net by expanding the social safety net. Entitlement programs -- even the worst of them -- are far stickier than tax cuts. If Bush increases entitlement spending & cuts taxes, the likely outcome is that we will raise taxes in the future.
And the truth is that our entitlement programs were already unsustainable without tax increases. The recession & Bush's tax-cut & spend policy have only moved up the date when the trendlines cross. We should already have been discussing raising the retirement age to 70 over a series of years; means-testing benefits; controlling US drug costs etc. Let me be clear: at the end of the Clinton administration, we were already programmed to face a financial crisis over entitlement programs.
& what makes Krugman extra silly is that there are great, non-insane reasons to vote against George W. Bush:
-- Repealing the estate tax would contribute to the development of a hereditary power elite, undermining our democratic and meritocratic aspirations.
-- His conduct of foreign policy has been indefensible, needlessly weakening our relations with key allies.
-- He solves every problem by spending more money or cutting taxes.
That's good enough for me. If the Dems put up a half-way decent candidate, I'm voting for him. Maybe then Krugman will calm down...
Krugman has lost it.
Until his NYT column I really admired his writing and valued his voice. Now he's just another outrage-peddling huckster in the journalism game. Or he's nuts...
-Magik
Posted by Magik | Link to this comment | 09-16-03 7:46 PM
I'll ask you what I ask the right-wingers on their sites. Where does his math go wrong?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 09-16-03 7:49 PM
"and — possibly — in which elections are only a formality"
He's just another outrage-monger.
-Magik
Posted by Magik | Link to this comment | 09-16-03 9:27 PM
The issue isn't the math, it's the madness. Yes, we are running a huge deficit, and yes, the bush tax cut targets the rich. And by gum, the administration is not honest about it! Welcome to life. And y'know, democrats will be less than explicit about the cost of govenrment programs, or about how much they rely on public sector unions. Ginning standard political hooey of this sort into evidence of a cabal to bring down the welfare state is deranged.
Also, there's some delightful tone deafness here. Here's a key quote: "It's odd that the better things get if you are rich or a fundamentalist Christian, the more angry they get." Oh, yeah, those fundamentalist Christians, they are livin' large! This comment is almost a parody of blinkered northeast center-left cant.
I'm with Magik here. Before NYT, Krugman was a interesting, useful -- if somewhat slippery -- voice. Now he's degenerated into partisan hack, and not a particualrly interesting one (like Will or Kinsley)
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 09-16-03 9:55 PM
I don't see how the madness and the math are separable. Isn't Krugman's description of his own "radicalization" tied to his realization that the administration wasn't just fudging, but simply lying about its numbers? And isn't his worry about the welfare state explicitly tied to the three scenarios he outlines: increased taxes, cuts in programs, or a credit collapse?
In my book, he's not nuts unless he's wrong. He does make the mistake of all partisans, which is to impute motives for an opponent's actions (when motives are almost always unknowable), but I don't really care about his tone if his predictions are accurate.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 09-17-03 12:05 AM
His predictions aren't accurate. How do they accord with Bush & the republicans pushing prescription drug coverage?
The humdrum truth is that Bush is just another run-of-the-mill panderbear politician. He'll compromise by supporting drug coverage the same way Clinton compromised by supporting welfare reform (and claiming credit for it!). That dynamic is the one that keeps the ideologues in check -- they can't get elected directly; they have to back political comprisers; their ideology does not drown out the voices of the rest of us.
-Magik
Posted by Magik | Link to this comment | 09-17-03 1:27 AM
You guys aren't exactly convincing me here: Krugman is predisposed to believe one thing about Bush's motives, you two another. The prescription drug bill is very unconvincing evidence, given that it's an immediate boost that will also need to be cut back or eliminated if Krugman's numbers are correct. Really, I haven't seen anyone (except Brad DeLong) even try to argue with Krugman's economics.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 09-17-03 7:48 AM
the numbers being what? again, the current bush budget will cause a big deficit. so far, all agree with PK. but the move from deficit to 'huge financial disaster like argentina' is *not* accepted broadly. how do we know? the market hasn't tanked, and people aren't globally short the US. will we cut programs or raise taxes in the future? Yup. Just like we did when reagan's big deficits plunged us into a disasterous argentina like melt-down.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 09-17-03 9:43 AM
Not just like, because the boomers will be retiring this time. Krugman accounts for the market's current stability by pointing to attitudes such as the one you express: we've been here before, we'll be ok this time too. But his point is precisely that we haven't been here before--that the projected debts and prospective costs leave only bad options--and that, sooner or later, markets will realize this. This is partly unknowable, of course. And there's no doubt he's partisan. But he's only wrong if he turns out to be wrong. And, given the "starve the beast" rhetoric that isn't exactly a secret, why are you so sure that bankrupting the massive social programs isn't on the agenda?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 09-17-03 9:51 AM
If krugman feels that a forced trade-off between tax cuts and massive entitlements (drugs) + 5%/year growth of discretionary income will wreck the US economy, he's less anti-bush than he is anti-representative government. GWB is trying to buy a re-election with deficit spending. This is objectionable. But if we face financial oblivion, tax cuts can be repealed. Perhaps spending can be cut, but I'm less certain. Bush senior took on some of the Reagan cuts, but we're still spending money on mohair subsidies.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 09-17-03 3:00 PM
As I understand what he's saying, a repeal of the tax cuts won't be enough. They'll need to be raised even beyond the repeal. Let's be fair. He doesn't say collapse is the only possibility: collapse, massive tax increases, or massive cuts in entitlements. I understand he's convinced this is all deliberate and that makes him sound loony, but I haven't heard anyone give a convincing argument that we will not have to choose among those three--all seemingly unlikely and decidedly unpleasant--alternatives.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 09-17-03 3:16 PM
We will need to choose between cuts in spending and cuts in taxes. This was true before the Bush tax cut vis-a-vis the unfunded entitlement programs, but his tax cuts have made it worse. Is this a uniquely terrible situation in the history of american state finance? Here's where I think Krugman is anything but convincing. Can I rebut him forcefully? No, I'm not an economist. But I don't see most economists reacting as he does, nor do I see the market reacting. In addition, those of my acquaintnaces who are more informed will note that our ratio of NPV of debt to GDP is not disastrously high. So all those things make me comfortable in ignoring Krugman's apocolyptic predictions. Also, Krugman radiates lunacy like a frickin' lighthouse -- "where elections may be a formality," "a revolutionary power," "no matter how good it gets for christian fundamentalists." These are phantasms of a kook. So that also gives me confidence.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 09-18-03 6:18 AM
BAA is right on here. I would add that Bush does not just advocate tax cuts. He also advocates massive increases in entitlement spending -- the prescription drug benefit. It is not credible to argue that Bush is systematically pursuing a policy of destroying the social safety net by expanding the social safety net. Entitlement programs -- even the worst of them -- are far stickier than tax cuts. If Bush increases entitlement spending & cuts taxes, the likely outcome is that we will raise taxes in the future.
And the truth is that our entitlement programs were already unsustainable without tax increases. The recession & Bush's tax-cut & spend policy have only moved up the date when the trendlines cross. We should already have been discussing raising the retirement age to 70 over a series of years; means-testing benefits; controlling US drug costs etc. Let me be clear: at the end of the Clinton administration, we were already programmed to face a financial crisis over entitlement programs.
& what makes Krugman extra silly is that there are great, non-insane reasons to vote against George W. Bush:
-- Repealing the estate tax would contribute to the development of a hereditary power elite, undermining our democratic and meritocratic aspirations.
-- His conduct of foreign policy has been indefensible, needlessly weakening our relations with key allies.
-- He solves every problem by spending more money or cutting taxes.
That's good enough for me. If the Dems put up a half-way decent candidate, I'm voting for him. Maybe then Krugman will calm down...
-Magik
Posted by Magik | Link to this comment | 09-18-03 2:26 PM
http://www.i5net.net/~i5pages/i5pagesnonaccount/ilosaki/shemales/zcmaxt/giant.html searchingsoftstraining
Posted by fiery | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 9:08 PM