Nominate Paul Krugman for Treasury Secretary

[gs_gator]

Press reports say President Obama will soon nominate a new Treasury Secretary . Press speculation has centered on candidates likely to support the Wall Street agenda of cuts to Social Security and Medicare benefits and other domestic spending rather than government policies to create jobs. We want President Obama to nominate Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, who opposes austerity and wants the government to focus on creating jobs.

Sign the petition (http://signon.org/sign/nominate-paul-krugman?source=c.url&r_by=1135580)

No better candidate available...lets all hope the potus makes the best choice

[Matthanuf06]

Oh God. If that happens Id recommend racking up tons of personal debt and converting it to foreign currency, the stronger ones.

[QGator2414]

The Greed of some is astounding...keep spending, borrowing and printing.

Nothing like screwing our future generations and the "poor"...

[Minister_of_Information]

This is a joke thread right.

[QGator2414]

This is a joke thread right.

Sadly I don't think that was the intention...

[ChartsandGrafs]

No better candidate available...

By any chance, do you sell by the ounce?

[gs_gator]

nope, just wholesale

ill have a salesman get in touch

[Lawdog88]

Hey, Bob Reich is still out there shilling. Why not a re-Bob ?

[Juggernautz]

Sadly I don't think that was the intention...

Had me fooled, lol.

[texigator]

Krugman is a flaming idiot. I've heard him speak on several occasions and he is either stupid or downright dishonest. So he might be the perfect choice for Obama. Kerry for Secretary of State, Sotomayor for the Supreme Court, Obama excels at making stupid appointments. It's all political and partisan without consideration for what is actually best for our country.

[thedyc09]

If it'll stop him from peddling his Keynesian dogma while looking down his nose at me in print, I'm all for it. He won't destroy America any faster or slower than any of the other idiots we'll end up with.

[gs_gator]

Be Ready To Mint That Coin

Should President Obama be willing to print a $1 trillion platinum coin if Republicans try to force America into default? Yes, absolutely. He will, after all, be faced with a choice between two alternatives: one that’s silly but benign, the other that’s equally silly but both vile and disastrous. The decision should be obvious.

Link (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/07/be-ready-to-mint-that-coin/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto)

problem solved

[FrolfGator]

Krugman is great. He's a smart, talented economist who's nailed the causes of the economic catastrophe, argued for the right remedies and targeted the conservative ideologues and fat-cat banksters who got us into this mess and who have been doing everything possible to keep us from fixing it. But while we definitely need a strong New Keynesian voice in this administration, I don't think Krugman's the person for the job. I think he works better as a rabble-rousing political outsider than a line-toeing insider, and from his blog post this morning he seems to agree.

[wgbgator]

If he really wants to troll conservatives, he should float the idea of appointing James K. Galbraith.

[thedyc09]

Krugman is great. He's a smart, talented economist who's nailed the causes of the economic catastrophe, argued for the right remedies and targeted the conservative ideologues and fat-cat banksters who got us into this mess and who have been doing everything possible to keep us from fixing it. But while we definitely need a strong New Keynesian voice in this administration, I don't think Krugman's the person for the job. I think he works better as a rabble-rousing political outsider than a line-toeing insider, and from his blog post this morning he seems to agree.

LOL. Thanks for the laugh.

[MichiGator2002]

Might as well appoint Jim Jones the Secretary of Beverages.

[Row6]

Krugman has been correct and the "conservative" economists wrong on inflation, European austerity, and the inadequacy of the stimulus. That doesn't mean he should be treasury secretary.

[Minister_of_Information]

http://katrinachowne.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/564311_10150795976101489_1250717505_n.jpg

[FrolfGator]

And Krugman (or rather, Paul McCulley) was correct. That was pretty much the only thing Greenspan could promote to keep the economy inflated. Doesn't mean that they thought it was a good thing to do.

In other words, more out-of-context fail from conservatives.

[thedyc09]

Krugman has been correct and the "conservative" economists wrong on inflation, European austerity, and the inadequacy of the stimulus. That doesn't mean he should be treasury secretary.

Let's just address the bolded and the meaning of the word "correct".

Krugman argued for a larger stimulus, I believe he floated a number around 1.4 trillion. So is he "correct" in the sense that the stimulus didn't help the economy, the sense that a much larger stimulus would have fixed the economy, or some other way?

We have no idea what a trillion plus dollar stimulus would have done to the economy. Given the way our micro-stimulus was disseminated, I think it quite likely the sausage-making would have served only to make a few more well-connected industries and government friends richer.

Economies are constantly in flux. To assume that Krugman was right and someone else wrong, we must all have the same working context. What was the goal of European austerity? Has it accomplished that goal? What other approaches could European governments have taken? Would those approaches have the same goals or different ones? Would they have accomplished those goals or not? Professional economists and messageboard cowboys would all answer these questions differently. Please, lets refrain from describing Krugman's bloviations as the work of an economic savant.

Do you see what I'm saying?

[Minister_of_Information]

And Krugman (or rather, Paul McCulley) was correct. That was pretty much the only thing Greenspan could promote to keep the economy inflated. Doesn't mean that they thought it was a good thing to do.

In other words, more out-of-context fail from conservatives.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/225981/krugmans-posthumous-nobel-donald-luskin#

In 1999 Paul Krugman was paid $50,000 by Enron as a consultant on its “advisory board,” and that same year he wrote a glowing article about Enron for Fortune magazine. But he would change his tune. After Enron collapsed in 2001, Krugman wrote several columns excoriating the company. (One featured what may be the most absurd howler in the history of op-ed journalism: “I predict that in the years ahead Enron, not Sept. 11, will come to be seen as the greater turning point in U.S. society.”) In most of these columns Krugman worked hard to link Enron to the Bush administration, and in one he actually blamed Enron’s consultants for the company’s collapse — while neglecting to mention that he, too, had been an Enron consultant.


Daniel Okrent, while ombudsman for the New York Times, wrote that “Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers.” Indeed. But Krugman’s distortions were so rampant, and his unwillingness to correct them so intransigent, that Okrent — no doubt pressured into service by my Krugman Truth Squad column for NRO — did something about it. Okrent forced the Times op-ed page to adopt for the first time a corrections policy for op-ed columnists. That was in 2004. Later, when Krugman flouted that policy, the Krugman Truth Squad went to work on Okrent’s successor, Byron Calame, who pressed for the adoption of a new, more stringent policy in 2005.

[FrolfGator]

So he was a consultant? Where has there been any link between his work and the systematic book-cooking by the Enron executives? More seeing-what-sticks from conservatives.

[Row6]

Let's just address the bolded and the meaning of the word "correct".

Krugman argued for a larger stimulus, I believe he floated a number around 1.4 trillion. So is he "correct" in the sense that the stimulus didn't help the economy, the sense that a much larger stimulus would have fixed the economy, or some other way?

We have no idea what a trillion plus dollar stimulus would have done to the economy. Given the way our micro-stimulus was disseminated, I think it quite likely the sausage-making would have served only to make a few more well-connected industries and government friends richer.

Economies are constantly in flux. To assume that Krugman was right and someone else wrong, we must all have the same working context. What was the goal of European austerity? Has it accomplished that goal? What other approaches could European governments have taken? Would those approaches have the same goals or different ones? Would they have accomplished those goals or not? Professional economists and messageboard cowboys would all answer these questions differently. Please, lets refrain from describing Krugman's bloviations as the work of an economic savant.

Do you see what I'm saying?

Krugman did not say the stimulus didn't help the economy. He said it obviously did - as do a vast majority of economists who are not hacks as well as several serious non-partisan studies - but that it should have been larger.

The stimulus program was incredibly well and cleanly run. Republican run Congressional investigations came up with nothing. If you want to check on it:

http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/default.aspx

[Minister_of_Information]

So he was a consultant? Where has there been any link between his work and the systematic book-cooking by the Enron executives? More seeing-what-sticks from conservatives.

Krugman's dissembling is an unassailable fact. He is an economist that has become a political hack, nothing more.

[FrolfGator]

Krugman's dissembling is an unassailable fact.

Really? Then post some proof.

[Minister_of_Information]

Really? Then post some proof.

It's already been done.

[GatorEcon]

Krugman co-authored the textbook we are using for International Trade at UF.

[FrolfGator]

You have an odd definition of proof if you think it includes the out-of-context tripe and non sequiturs you've already copy and pasted in this thread. I understand that you hate Krugman for demonstrating that your ideology is utterly wrong and you have no personal ability to refute his claims, but that doesn't make baseless attacks on his character OK.

[Minister_of_Information]

You evidently understand nothing. If you want proof of dissembling, click the link I posted and investigate it further. Or don't. Either is fine with me.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Krugman co-authored the textbook we are using for International Trade at UF.

Is it too late to get your money back? For the book and the course?

[FrolfGator]

You evidently understand nothing. If you want proof of dissembling, click the link I posted and investigate it further. Or don't. Either is fine with me.

Sure, let's do a dissection of your source:

Paragraphs 1-3: Weird character attacks saying Krugman hasn't been an economist for 10 years, but rather a "public intellectual". This article was published in 2008. Krugman had a journal publication re: taxes published in 2004, books on Currency and Macro, Micro, General, and International Economics published in 2000, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007. Oh, and had been a Professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton since 2000.

Oh dear, not a good start for your fraudulent source. Continuing:

Paragraph 4: Characterizes Krugman as a hypocrite for supporting free markets but not criticizing Obama's stance on disengaging from NAFTA. This accusation doesn't take into account that there have been demonstrable issues with NAFTA specifically, involving Mexican problems with poor infrastructure, crime, and corrupt officials, that are not applicable to free market policy in general. So this attack on Krugman is bunk.

Paragraph 5: This paragraph makes no sense. It's basically saying "he can't be a good economist because he's a liberal!" Right-wing fantasy world aside, that claim is bunk.

Paragraph 6: Setting up for more nonsense character assassination.

Paragraph 7: The Enron consultant bit of guilt by association. Yes, he was paid $50K (actually $37,500 because he resigned early). Of course, that consulting gig consisted of just four days in Huston, on a panel that had no apparent purpose and that he now suspects was convened just to give Enron some credibility). That brief, vanity Enron gig is a non-issue.

Paragraph 8, 9, 10: Now the author just starting going off into conspiracy-theory la-la land. Ooh, I harassed the NYT editor about Krugman and forced them to create a corrections policy [doesn't mention what needed correction, how corrections are applied for all Op-Ed writers]! Krugman is flouting the new NYT policy [don't say how, offer any proof]! Krugman's out to get me [don't call his accusation of stacking "slander" or "libel", just call it a "smear" since it's true]!

Paragraph 11, 12: Claim Krugman's influence is waning. Awful lot of energy to spend on someone who's waning. He's still at the Times, still on powerful advisory boards, still talks with the White House. This paragraph starts a bit of a "doth protest too much" where the author tries to convince us that it's Krugman's influence waning, rather than his own.

Paragraph 13: Filler. Paraphrasing: Maybe they did this. But no, they did that, so I guess not. Paid by word count?

Paragraph 14: Non sequitur. Nobel committee didn't overlook Krugman's political extremism, because he's not an extremist. He's a center-left free market New Keynesian, like the majority of the respectable economics field and, based on the results of the last election, the majority of the nation.

Paragraph 15: Same stupid comment right-wingers make about Warren Buffet. The nation doesn't solve its budgetary issues with individual donations, it solves it through sensible tax policy that applies across the board.

There, I investigated your link further. And it was utter, absolute bunk. Mere ravings from the wackadoodle conservative right that's appalled their money grabbing, cronyist, trickle down policies have been abject failures when put in place and are being justly and publicly called out as such by the most respected economists and policy wonks.

[Minister_of_Information]

The reports of tripe shortages appear to be greatly exaggerated.

PS Truman is that you?

[FrolfGator]

The reports of tripe shortages appear to be greatly exaggerated.

PS Truman is that you?

Ah, the fingers in ears, la-la-I-can't-hear-you defense. Continuing the fine tradition of conservative epistemic closure. Don't like that smarty-pants liberals exposed your pet economic theories as frauds? LOL don't care, won't read!

You keep on unskewering economics. I'm sure it will work out as well for you as unskewering election polls.

[madgator]

Is this why Krugman was been brown-nosing everything the Obama administration has been doing for the past 2 years?

[fredsanford]

Is this why Krugman was been brown-nosing everything the Obama administration has been doing for the past 2 years?

He's actually regularly criticized them for doing too little of the right things.

[Row6]

Is this why Krugman was been brown-nosing everything the Obama administration has been doing for the past 2 years?

Krugman has been very critical of the Obama administration.

[MichiGator2002]

He's actually regularly criticized them for doing too little of the right things.

As do many, buy what Krugman thinks are the right things couldn't keep Lucy Van Pelt's $.05 psychiatry practice running, unless she was taking him as a patient.

[wargunfan]

Krugman is a flaming idiot. I've heard him speak on several occasions and he is either stupid or downright dishonest. So he might be the perfect choice for Obama. Kerry for Secretary of State, Sotomayor for the Supreme Court, Obama excels at making stupid appointments. It's all political and partisan without consideration for what is actually best for our country.

You left out Hagel for defense.

[wargunfan]

I hope Obama does nominate Krugman. The confirmation hearings would be a hoot! Sure he would be confirmed by team Reid/Obama in the Senate. He's going to nominate some politically reliable hack anyway so why not this one.

[Minister_of_Information]

Ah, the fingers in ears, la-la-I-can't-hear-you defense. Continuing the fine tradition of conservative epistemic closure. Don't like that smarty-pants liberals exposed your pet economic theories as frauds? LOL don't care, won't read!

You keep on unskewering economics, cute little wingnuts. I'm sure it will work out as well for you as unskewering election polls.

That which is ludicrous provides its own rebuttal.

And I appreciate the name calling.

[GatorEcon]

Is it too late to get your money back? For the book and the course?

I certainly did not pay for the book.

[PSGator66]

Krugman is a liberal D-bag!!

[texigator]

Krugman co-authored the textbook we are using for International Trade at UF.



Wow! We studied Milton Friedman back when I was in business school at UF. It's hard to fathom how far Left UF has sunk to have a hack like Krugman "instructing" young minds with his unadulterated B.S.

[Matthanuf06]

Be Ready To Mint That Coin

Should President Obama be willing to print a $1 trillion platinum coin if Republicans try to force America into default? Yes, absolutely. He will, after all, be faced with a choice between two alternatives: one that’s silly but benign, the other that’s equally silly but both vile and disastrous. The decision should be obvious.

Link (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/07/be-ready-to-mint-that-coin/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto)

problem solved

Why did we just have a massive tax increase if all Obama had to do was print a coin?

[FrolfGator]

Because the economy won't be in the liquidity trap forever. In normal times, increasing the monetary base does lead to inflation, and government borrowing/spending does crowd out private investment. It's only due to the demand-side slump that the rules are different now, but that's transient.

[madgator]

Wow! We studied Milton Friedman back when I was in business school at UF. It's hard to fathom how far Left UF has sunk to have a hack like Krugman "instructing" young minds with his unadulterated B.S.


Today's sign of the coming apocalypse


Krugman replaces Friedman

[ChartsandGrafs]

Today's sign of the coming apocalypse


Krugman replaces Friedman

And Friedman replaces Mises.

[MichiGator2002]

Q. Why shouldn't Obama be encouraged by all those same doods to, instead of the Fed, give one of those coins to China as principal payment on debt to them?

A. Because they know it is banana republic fiat money BS and that China would, of it fit in quarter slots, buy a newspaper with the worthless piece of crap.

[Minister_of_Information]

Just watched Krugman on Bill Moyers, about 30 minutes of it anyway. The problem is not that he is not a brilliant economist with a lot of valid ideas. The problem is how he deals with disagreement and criticism. He just put forward the fairly hysterical notion that the ultimate aim of most republicans is to completely dismantle the social safety net, and left the implication hanging that this serves as proof that rank and file republicans are some combination of stupid, crazy, and evil.

He also implies that conservative and even moderate intellectuals with concerns about the debt (making them his political adversaries) are uninformed, misguided, and vaguely obtuse. This is why he is a hack, because he very clearly accepts the self-evident truth of a dualistic political landscape; his dualism recasts the cardinal virtue of intellectual permeability as the abandonment of principle and intellect. It is ever so clear that it is Krugman's way or the highway. In effect he appears to have rationalized the suspicion that he is always right in economic matters into a political philosophy, and he is willing to dissemble to defend it. I was watching him wondering how a man that intelligent would imagine that this imperious and adversarial approach would produce anything other than rancor and obstinate resistance.

I find that I actually agree with him in a limited way, namely that pressing infrastructure needs can be met cheaply and to our economic advantage in the current monetary and fiscal environment, if we do so carefully. But his pooh-poohing of the debt as a long term problem altogether without relying on anything resembling a coherent argument -- other than, in effect, 'show me' -- is troubling. De-leveraging as a phenomenon does not merit a single moment of discussion. If he is so confident that debt does not matter, as a Nobel winning economist he ought to be able to articulate coherent reasons for thinking so. But apparently in his world nothing truly bad can ever happen as long as the presses keep churning out money. In his view, the public has no option but to believe in the dollar despite any evidence to the contrary, although this seems to depend upon the implicit recognition that the consequences of a massive loss of confidence in the dollar are too catastrophic to contemplate. He seems to feel that people will just slog along cheerfully with their wheelbarrows of currency in front of them on the way to the corner store. This is not a winning argument, because on a visceral level people can feel that it is a lie, a promising of something for nothing, having one's cake and eating it too. And that doesn't work in the real world. So why is he making it? The only reason I can think of is because it's all about him.

[Lawdog88]

Just watched Krugman on Bill Moyers, about 30 minutes of it anyway. The problem is not that he is not a brilliant economist with a lot of valid ideas. The problem is how he deals with disagreement and criticism. He just put forward the fairly hysterical notion that the ultimate aim of most republicans is to completely dismantle the social safety net, and left the implication hanging that this serves as proof that rank and file republicans are some combination of stupid, crazy, and evil.

He also implies that conservative and even moderate intellectuals with concerns about the debt (making them his political adversaries) are uninformed, misguided, and vaguely obtuse. This is why he is a hack, because he very clearly accepts the self-evident truth of a dualistic political landscape; his dualism recasts the cardinal virtue of intellectual permeability as the abandonment of principle and intellect. It is ever so clear that it is Krugman's way or the highway. In effect he appears to have rationalized the suspicion that he is always right in economic matters into a political philosophy, and he is willing to dissemble to defend it. I was watching him wondering how a man that intelligent would imagine that this imperious and adversarial approach would produce anything other than rancor and obstinate resistance.

I find that I actually agree with him in a limited way, namely that pressing infrastructure needs can be met cheaply and to our economic advantage in the current monetary and fiscal environment, if we do so carefully. But his pooh-poohing of the debt as a long term problem altogether without relying on anything resembling a coherent argument -- other than, in effect, 'show me' -- is troubling. De-leveraging as a phenomenon does not merit a single moment of discussion. If he is so confident that debt does not matter, as a Nobel winning economist he ought to be able to articulate coherent reasons for thinking so. But apparently in his world nothing truly bad can ever happen as long as the presses keep churning out money. In his view, the public has no option but to believe in the dollar despite any evidence to the contrary, although this seems to depend upon the implicit recognition that the consequences of a massive loss of confidence in the dollar are too catastrophic to contemplate. He seems to feel that people will just slog along cheerfully with their wheelbarrows of currency in front of them on the way to the corner store. This is not a winning argument, because on a visceral level people can feel that it is a lie, a promising of something for nothing, having one's cake and eating it too. And that doesn't work in the real world. So why is he making it? The only reason I can think of is because it's all about him.


And all the while castigating those, whom he alleges, who cannot offer a coherent reason why debt is bad, and lamenting why we too, couldn't emulate Japan and be happy.

So, to get out of the sidelines' sitting, moneyed fat cats' "clutching currency and won't invest it liquidity syndrome," he proposes Sam jack up the spending - to create more demand, of course - by printing more money (who said inflation ?:huh:) and throwing it out the window of the getaway car.