Paul Krugman is a jackass (2 Viewers)

[bueno]

More jobs reduce the deficit. We can grow our way out of negative debt to GDP ratios. You might disagree but I certainly don't see what's preposterous about that policy option. Your prescription is basically mirrored in the Japan 10 year economic slump.

As the "too small" $1T stimulus clearly and uncontrovertibly showed, government spending is not a panacea for a lack of long term job growth. Never has been, never will be. When the spending goes away, so do the jobs. Endless spending to maintain the jobs over the long term is inarguably unsustainable.It's a model that does not work.

Stimulus, at least as advocated by Krugman, is not intended to be a long-term job growth solution.

Turns out, it isn't a good short-term solution either.

 

[Soonerman]

I don't know. I seem to have misplaced all my copies of the relevant top secret national security briefings from that time.Seriously, what kind of question is that? You are just admitting that you are willing to accuse someone of one of the most terrible crimes imaginable based on nothing but speculation. My standards require something a little more substantive than that.

I'm saying that people act through their own biases. And just perhaps Bush got the (flimsy) evidence he was looking for to support a preconceived notion. And I'm also saying I don't buy every story fed to me by the government. They all have a motive. What makes you so prepared to believe whatever they say? Are you really naive???

I'm not "believing whatever they say". I'm asking for proof before I will accuse someone of being a war criminal. Krugman just throws out there that Bush is guilty of terrible crimes. Let's see the proof.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I don't know. I seem to have misplaced all my copies of the relevant top secret national security briefings from that time.

Seriously, what kind of question is that? You are just admitting that you are willing to accuse someone of one of the most terrible crimes imaginable based on nothing but speculation. My standards require something a little more substantive than that.

I'm saying that people act through their own biases. And just perhaps Bush got the (flimsy) evidence he was looking for to support a preconceived notion. And I'm also saying I don't buy every story fed to me by the government. They all have a motive. What makes you so prepared to believe whatever they say? Are you really naive???

I'm not "believing whatever they say". I'm asking for proof before I will accuse someone of being a war criminal. Krugman just throws out there that Bush is guilty of terrible crimes. Let's see the proof.

Where in that quote did it say "war criminal?" My understanding is that the stuff about using 9/11 to drum up support for the Iraq war was pretty well documented in Bob Woodward's book. I have not read the book, though, I've just read news accounts of the book.

 

[urbanhack]

no 9/11, no war in Iraq.

pretty simple.

 

[Glass Joe]

I'm not "believing whatever they say". I'm asking for proof before I will accuse someone of being a war criminal. Krugman just throws out there that Bush is guilty of terrible crimes. Let's see the proof.

"The source was an eyewitness, an Iraqi chemical engineer, who supervised one of these facilities. He actually was present during biological agent production runs. He was also at the site when an accident occurred in 1998. Twelve technicians died from exposure to biological agents," Powell said at the U.N."Colin powell's direct quote as representative of the bush administration. Referring to Curveball.Given that this was such an obvious bogus source, what more evidence do you need???

 

[Soonerman]

I don't know. I seem to have misplaced all my copies of the relevant top secret national security briefings from that time.

Seriously, what kind of question is that? You are just admitting that you are willing to accuse someone of one of the most terrible crimes imaginable based on nothing but speculation. My standards require something a little more substantive than that.

I'm saying that people act through their own biases. And just perhaps Bush got the (flimsy) evidence he was looking for to support a preconceived notion. And I'm also saying I don't buy every story fed to me by the government. They all have a motive. What makes you so prepared to believe whatever they say? Are you really naive???

I'm not "believing whatever they say". I'm asking for proof before I will accuse someone of being a war criminal. Krugman just throws out there that Bush is guilty of terrible crimes. Let's see the proof.

Where in that quote did it say "war criminal?" My understanding is that the stuff about using 9/11 to drum up support for the Iraq war was pretty well documented in Bob Woodward's book. I have not read the book, though, I've just read news accounts of the book.

He accused them of rushing to "cash in on the horror". What could that be but war profiteering?He also accuses them of starting a war under false pretenses. That comes close to treason.

 

[Soonerman]

no 9/11, no war in Iraq.pretty simple.

Well, it must be nice to live in such a simple world.

 

[Soonerman]

I'm not "believing whatever they say". I'm asking for proof before I will accuse someone of being a war criminal. Krugman just throws out there that Bush is guilty of terrible crimes. Let's see the proof.

"The source was an eyewitness, an Iraqi chemical engineer, who supervised one of these facilities. He actually was present during biological agent production runs. He was also at the site when an accident occurred in 1998. Twelve technicians died from exposure to biological agents," Powell said at the U.N."Colin powell's direct quote as representative of the bush administration. Referring to Curveball.Given that this was such an obvious bogus source, what more evidence do you need???

I don't know. Perhaps you should write the Justice Department and tell them of this bounteous evidence you have uncovered. I'm sure an indictment of the whole neocon conspiracy will soon follow.

 

[urbanhack]

no 9/11, no war in Iraq.pretty simple.

Well, it must be nice to live in such a simple world.

Yea...yellow cake, WMD, etc. would have been much more convincing had 9/11 not happened.

 

[Soonerman]

no 9/11, no war in Iraq.pretty simple.

Well, it must be nice to live in such a simple world.

Yea...yellow cake, WMD, etc. would have been much more convincing had 9/11 not happened.

Ok, I guess you got me there. Or something.

 

[urbanhack]

no 9/11, no war in Iraq.pretty simple.

Well, it must be nice to live in such a simple world.

Yea...yellow cake, WMD, etc. would have been much more convincing had 9/11 not happened.

Ok, I guess you got me there. Or something.

You think we still invade Iraq if 9/11 never happens?

 

[Soonerman]

no 9/11, no war in Iraq.pretty simple.

Well, it must be nice to live in such a simple world.

Yea...yellow cake, WMD, etc. would have been much more convincing had 9/11 not happened.

Ok, I guess you got me there. Or something.

You think we still invade Iraq if 9/11 never happens?

No I don't. We also probably wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan if it wasn't for 9/11. Holy crap, I think we're on to something here.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Where in that quote did it say "war criminal?" My understanding is that the stuff about using 9/11 to drum up support for the Iraq war was pretty well documented in Bob Woodward's book. I have not read the book, though, I've just read news accounts of the book.

He accused them of rushing to "cash in on the horror". What could that be but war profiteering?He also accuses them of starting a war under false pretenses. That comes close to treason.

Well, there were three names Krugman listed -- Kerik, Giuliani and Bush. Bush was the only one of those three involved in the decision to go to war, and I've never heard anyone accuse him of doing so for financial reasons. So I don't think it makes sense to read the "cash in on" language as an accusation of war profiteering. I read it as an accusation that those three used 9/11 to promote themselves or help themselves politically.Treason isn't a war crime (neither is war profiteering as far as I can tell).

 

[Soonerman]

Where in that quote did it say "war criminal?" My understanding is that the stuff about using 9/11 to drum up support for the Iraq war was pretty well documented in Bob Woodward's book. I have not read the book, though, I've just read news accounts of the book.

He accused them of rushing to "cash in on the horror". What could that be but war profiteering?He also accuses them of starting a war under false pretenses. That comes close to treason.

Well, there were three names Krugman listed -- Kerik, Giuliani and Bush. Bush was the only one of those three involved in the decision to go to war, and I've never heard anyone accuse him of doing so for financial reasons. So I don't think it makes sense to read the "cash in on" language as an accusation of war profiteering. I read it as an accusation that those three used 9/11 to promote themselves or help themselves politically.Treason isn't a war crime (neither is war profiteering as far as I can tell).

I've never heard someone use the term "cash in" where financial rewards weren't involved. If I'm not mistaken though, some on the left have accused Cheney before of profiteering, so it's not a stretch to think Krugman is extending that charge.I'm not sure why you think profiteering would only be the province of people directly involved in going to war.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Well, there were three names Krugman listed -- Kerik, Giuliani and Bush. Bush was the only one of those three involved in the decision to go to war, and I've never heard anyone accuse him of doing so for financial reasons. So I don't think it makes sense to read the "cash in on" language as an accusation of war profiteering. I read it as an accusation that those three used 9/11 to promote themselves or help themselves politically.Treason isn't a war crime (neither is war profiteering as far as I can tell).

I've never heard someone use the term "cash in" where financial rewards weren't involved. If I'm not mistaken though, some on the left have accused Cheney before of profiteering.

Right, I have heard that allegation. So the fact that Kerik, Giuliani and Bush are mentioned, but Cheney (and Halliburton) aren't, suggests to me that's not what he was talking about.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I'm not sure why you think profiteering would only be the province of people directly involved in going to war.

Well, he said the "cash in on" thing but he also said the "go to war" thing. Kerik and Giuliani weren't involved with the "go to war" part.

 

[Hilarity Ensues]

What a POS

 

[Widbil83]

Scary to think "The New York Times" actually take him seriously.

 

[adonis]

http://krugman.blogs...ugman&seid=auto

The Years of Shame

Is it just me, or are the 9/11 commemorations oddly subdued?

Actually, I don't think it's me, and it's not really that odd.

What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful. Te atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.

A lot of other people behaved badly. How many of our professional pundits — people who should have understood very well what was happening — took the easy way out, turning a blind eye to the corruption and lending their support to the hijacking of the atrocity?

The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it.

I'm not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons.

Wow. Krugman sinks to a new low, even for him.

No, this is pretty much standard Krugman. He's a slimeball.

It is writing like that above that makes me discount everything he says even within his field of expertise (and that is said in that I have enjoyed some of his books).

Why does that bother you guys so much? Sure, it's a pretty partisan/liberal opinion, but it's fairly commonly held, that the conservative leadership used these attacks to carry out nation building in the middle east, under the guise of a war on terror. They co-opted the memory of 9-11 to do so, and in that light, Krugman can't look at the events the same.

Only to a very small degree do I agree with him, and it's mainly on the issue that the 9-11 event was used as a pretense to go to war with Iraq, but I don't look back on it with shame, and I think he's off-base mentioning that aspect of it. But, all things considered, I don't find his comments to be particularly "slimeballish".

That's the biggest bunch of BS I've seen from your posts yet. It's a commonly held belief by liberals so out of touch with reality that they would believe anything as long as it made conservatives look bad.

It sounds like you're saying my post was a big bunch of BS yet you are agreeing with me.

 

[adonis]

Seriously? If it a "commonly held" belief on the left that Bush and Giuliani are basically war criminals and war profiteers, then that means a big percent of the population is tinfoilers that make the birthers look like the model of comity.

I think you read into what I say too much.It's a commonly held belief on the left that Bush et al, took advantage of the political situation post 9/11 to promote an agenda they had wanted to promote for some time, but didn't have the justification for. 9-11 provided that justification, and thus the Iraq war was born. It's not about literal profits being made, although some on the left believe this too, but it's mainly just about co-opting the tragedy for political purposes to push an agenda that otherwise would never have been pursued.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Seriously? If it a "commonly held" belief on the left that Bush and Giuliani are basically war criminals and war profiteers, then that means a big percent of the population is tinfoilers that make the birthers look like the model of comity.

I think you read into what I say too much.It's a commonly held belief on the left that Bush et al, took advantage of the political situation post 9/11 to promote an agenda they had wanted to promote for some time, but didn't have the justification for. 9-11 provided that justification, and thus the Iraq war was born. It's not about literal profits being made, although some on the left believe this too, but it's mainly just about co-opting the tragedy for political purposes to push an agenda that otherwise would never have been pursued.

Glad you clarified it. The way you brought it up sounded like it was a commonly held belief by most people which, of course, would have been wrong.

 

[Daywalker]

The 9/11 tributes and ceremonies this past weekend have been a bit off to me. Too much focus on the military.

Should be more focused on those in the Towers, Pentagon, flight 93, FDNY, NYPD and first responders.

Yes, the military has sacrificed the most for our country post 9/11. But 9/11 was not about the military.

That and the Budweiser commercials of the clydesdale's paying their respects was pathetic.

 

[Daywalker]

Seriously? If it a "commonly held" belief on the left that Bush and Giuliani are basically war criminals and war profiteers, then that means a big percent of the population is tinfoilers that make the birthers look like the model of comity.

I think you read into what I say too much.It's a commonly held belief on the left that Bush et al, took advantage of the political situation post 9/11 to promote an agenda they had wanted to promote for some time, but didn't have the justification for. 9-11 provided that justification, and thus the Iraq war was born. It's not about literal profits being made, although some on the left believe this too, but it's mainly just about co-opting the tragedy for political purposes to push an agenda that otherwise would never have been pursued.

Glad you clarified it. The way you brought it up sounded like it was a commonly held belief by most people which, of course, would have been wrong.

But not that far off. A large % of the country doesn't believe we went into Afghanistan nor Iraq, especially, to fight terrorism.

 

[Soonerman]

Seriously? If it a "commonly held" belief on the left that Bush and Giuliani are basically war criminals and war profiteers, then that means a big percent of the population is tinfoilers that make the birthers look like the model of comity.

I think you read into what I say too much.It's a commonly held belief on the left that Bush et al, took advantage of the political situation post 9/11 to promote an agenda they had wanted to promote for some time, but didn't have the justification for. 9-11 provided that justification, and thus the Iraq war was born. It's not about literal profits being made, although some on the left believe this too, but it's mainly just about co-opting the tragedy for political purposes to push an agenda that otherwise would never have been pursued.

Glad you clarified it. The way you brought it up sounded like it was a commonly held belief by most people which, of course, would have been wrong.

But not that far off. A large % of the country doesn't believe we went into Afghanistan nor Iraq, especially, to fight terrorism.

Then a large percent of the country is worse, way worse, than the birthers could ever have been.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

That and the Budweiser commercials of the clydesdale's paying their respects was pathetic.

I really hated that commercial.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

no 9/11, no war in Iraq.pretty simple.

We were actually at war with Iraq on an on-and-off basis from 1991 all the way through the invasion. I think you're right that we probably wouldn't have invaded Iraq had it not been for 9/11 (an event that showed us the danger of sitting around complacently and rightly changed our attitudes about doing so IMO), but then we'd be sitting around right now wondering what to do about Saddam Hussein.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

no 9/11, no war in Iraq.pretty simple.

We were actually at war with Iraq on an on-and-off basis from 1991 all the way through the invasion. I think you're right that we probably wouldn't have invaded Iraq had it not been for 9/11 (an event that showed us the danger of sitting around complacently and rightly changed our attitudes about doing so IMO), but then we'd be sitting around right now wondering what to do about Saddam Hussein.

Sitting around and wondering about stuff isn't all that bad.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Also, I like how adonis does such a nice job of re-writing Krugman's post to remove all the bile, partisan hackery, and general hatefulness so he can pretend that Krugman's saying something other than what he's plainly saying. That's good shtick, and I look forward to seeing him put those skills on display again during the upcoming campaign.

 

[timschochet]

What I believe is this: largely because of the impact 9/11 had on our foreign policy, we made the well-meaning, good intentioned, but terribly wrong-headed decision to invade Iraq. I regard that decision as the single worst foreign policy decision in American history, but I also believe that, had a Democrat (such as Al Gore) been POTUS, it still would have happened, and for the same ill thought out reasons.

Where Krugman and other progressives err is when they attempt to paint the Bush Adminstration as villains rather than incompetent on this matter (not that Dems would have been any more competent.) However, this tendency to paint the other side as evil rather than foolish is a trait that is all too popular on both sides of the political aisle.

 

[pantagrapher]

What I believe is this: largely because of the impact 9/11 had on our foreign policy, we made the well-meaning, good intentioned, but terribly wrong-headed decision to invade Iraq. I regard that decision as the single worst foreign policy decision in American history, but I also believe that, had a Democrat (such as Al Gore) been POTUS, it still would have happened, and for the same ill thought out reasons.

Where Krugman and other progressives err is when they attempt to paint the Bush Adminstration as villains rather than incompetent on this matter (not that Dems would have been any more competent.) However, this tendency to paint the other side as evil rather than foolish is a trait that is all too popular on both sides of the political aisle.

That is insane.

 

[timschochet]

What I believe is this: largely because of the impact 9/11 had on our foreign policy, we made the well-meaning, good intentioned, but terribly wrong-headed decision to invade Iraq. I regard that decision as the single worst foreign policy decision in American history, but I also believe that, had a Democrat (such as Al Gore) been POTUS, it still would have happened, and for the same ill thought out reasons.

Where Krugman and other progressives err is when they attempt to paint the Bush Adminstration as villains rather than incompetent on this matter (not that Dems would have been any more competent.) However, this tendency to paint the other side as evil rather than foolish is a trait that is all too popular on both sides of the political aisle.

That is insane.

You think so? Of course there's no way I can prove it. However, I think I have studied enough American history to be fairly confident that this is the case. There has actually been very little difference in modern history between the actions of Republican administrations and Democrat administrations with regard to foreign policy. The rhetoric is certainly different, but the actions have not been. Neither side ever seems eager to hear this. .

 

[pantagrapher]

An Impeccable DisasterBy PAUL KRUGMANPublished: September 11, 2011 On Thursday Jean-Claude Trichet, the president of the European Central Bank or E.C.B. — Europe’s equivalent to Ben Bernanke — lost his sang-froid. In response to a question about whether the E.C.B. is becoming a “bad bank” thanks to its purchases of troubled nations’ debt, Mr. Trichet, his voice rising, insisted that his institution has performed “impeccably, impeccably!” as a guardian of price stability.Financial turmoil in Europe is no longer a problem of small, peripheral economies like Greece. What’s under way right now is a full-scale market run on the much larger economies of Spain and Italy. At this point countries in crisis account for about a third of the euro area’s G.D.P., so the common European currency itself is under existential threat.And all indications are that European leaders are unwilling even to acknowledge the nature of that threat, let alone deal with it effectively.I’ve complained a lot about the “fiscalization” of economic discourse here in America, the way in which a premature focus on budget deficits turned Washington’s attention away from the ongoing jobs disaster. But we’re not unique in that respect, and in fact the Europeans have been much, much worse.Listen to many European leaders — especially, but by no means only, the Germans — and you’d think that their continent’s troubles are a simple morality tale of debt and punishment: Governments borrowed too much, now they’re paying the price, and fiscal austerity is the only answer.Yet this story applies, if at all, to Greece and nobody else. Spain in particular had a budget surplus and low debt before the 2008 financial crisis; its fiscal record, one might say, was impeccable. And while it was hit hard by the collapse of its housing boom, it’s still a relatively low-debt country, and it’s hard to make the case that the underlying fiscal condition of Spain’s government is worse than that of, say, Britain’s government.So why is Spain — along with Italy, which has higher debt but smaller deficits — in so much trouble? The answer is that these countries are facing something very much like a bank run, except that the run is on their governments rather than, or more accurately as well as, their financial institutions.Here’s how such a run works: Investors, for whatever reason, fear that a country will default on its debt. This makes them unwilling to buy the country’s bonds, or at least not unless offered a very high interest rate. And the fact that the country must roll its debt over at high interest rates worsens its fiscal prospects, making default more likely, so that the crisis of confidence becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. And as it does, it becomes a banking crisis as well, since a country’s banks are normally heavily invested in government debt.Now, a country with its own currency, like Britain, can short-circuit this process: if necessary, the Bank of England can step in to buy government debt with newly created money. This might lead to inflation (although even that is doubtful when the economy is depressed), but inflation poses a much smaller threat to investors than outright default. Spain and Italy, however, have adopted the euro and no longer have their own currencies. As a result, the threat of a self-fulfilling crisis is very real — and interest rates on Spanish and Italian debt are more than twice the rate on British debt.Which brings us back to the impeccable E.C.B.What Mr. Trichet and his colleagues should be doing right now is buying up Spanish and Italian debt — that is, doing what these countries would be doing for themselves if they still had their own currencies. In fact, the E.C.B. started doing just that a few weeks ago, and produced a temporary respite for those nations. But the E.C.B. immediately found itself under severe pressure from the moralizers, who hate the idea of letting countries off the hook for their alleged fiscal sins. And the perception that the moralizers will block any further rescue actions has set off a renewed market panic.Adding to the problem is the E.C.B.’s obsession with maintaining its “impeccable” record on price stability: at a time when Europe desperately needs a strong recovery, and modest inflation would actually be helpful, the bank has instead been tightening money, trying to head off inflation risks that exist only in its imagination.And now it’s all coming to a head. We’re not talking about a crisis that will unfold over a year or two; this thing could come apart in a matter of days. And if it does, the whole world will suffer.So will the E.C.B. do what needs to be done — lend freely and cut rates? Or will European leaders remain too focused on punishing debtors to save themselves? The whole world is watching.

 

[pantagrapher]

What I believe is this: largely because of the impact 9/11 had on our foreign policy, we made the well-meaning, good intentioned, but terribly wrong-headed decision to invade Iraq. I regard that decision as the single worst foreign policy decision in American history, but I also believe that, had a Democrat (such as Al Gore) been POTUS, it still would have happened, and for the same ill thought out reasons.

Where Krugman and other progressives err is when they attempt to paint the Bush Adminstration as villains rather than incompetent on this matter (not that Dems would have been any more competent.) However, this tendency to paint the other side as evil rather than foolish is a trait that is all too popular on both sides of the political aisle.

That is insane.

You think so? Of course there's no way I can prove it. However, I think I have studied enough American history to be fairly confident that this is the case. There has actually been very little difference in modern history between the actions of Republican administrations and Democrat administrations with regard to foreign policy. The rhetoric is certainly different, but the actions have not been. Neither side ever seems eager to hear this. .

Never mind. I forgot I was arguing with someone who thinks that when you lack actual evidence it's "safe to assume" a bunch of ridiculous things about liberals.

 

[Phil Elliott]

I imagine Krugman would be blaming 9/11 on "W" if "W" he had the chance to take out Bin Laden like Clinton did.

 

[timschochet]

What I believe is this: largely because of the impact 9/11 had on our foreign policy, we made the well-meaning, good intentioned, but terribly wrong-headed decision to invade Iraq. I regard that decision as the single worst foreign policy decision in American history, but I also believe that, had a Democrat (such as Al Gore) been POTUS, it still would have happened, and for the same ill thought out reasons.

Where Krugman and other progressives err is when they attempt to paint the Bush Adminstration as villains rather than incompetent on this matter (not that Dems would have been any more competent.) However, this tendency to paint the other side as evil rather than foolish is a trait that is all too popular on both sides of the political aisle.

That is insane.

You think so? Of course there's no way I can prove it. However, I think I have studied enough American history to be fairly confident that this is the case. There has actually been very little difference in modern history between the actions of Republican administrations and Democrat administrations with regard to foreign policy. The rhetoric is certainly different, but the actions have not been. Neither side ever seems eager to hear this. .

Never mind. I forgot I was arguing with someone who thinks that when you lack actual evidence it's "safe to assume" a bunch of ridiculous things about liberals.

I assume "ridiculous" things about everyone, not just liberals.

 

[glumpy]

What I believe is this: largely because of the impact 9/11 had on our foreign policy, we made the well-meaning, good intentioned, but terribly wrong-headed decision to invade Iraq. I regard that decision as the single worst foreign policy decision in American history, but I also believe that, had a Democrat (such as Al Gore) been POTUS, it still would have happened, and for the same ill thought out reasons.

Where Krugman and other progressives err is when they attempt to paint the Bush Adminstration as villains rather than incompetent on this matter (not that Dems would have been any more competent.) However, this tendency to paint the other side as evil rather than foolish is a trait that is all too popular on both sides of the political aisle.

I don't believe any other Presidant would have gone into Iraq--Democrat or Republican. I think GWB went into it because his father hadn't 'finished the job' and he saw it as an opportunity while we were gearing up for Afghanistan--and it was indeed SO wrong-headed I really have trouble with any 'good intentions'. I expect as fast as we ever pull out of there that country is no more; Shiites and Sunnis will split and Kurds will disappear.

 

[adonis]

An Impeccable DisasterBy PAUL KRUGMANPublished: September 11, 2011 On Thursday Jean-Claude Trichet, the president of the European Central Bank or E.C.B. — Europe’s equivalent to Ben Bernanke — lost his sang-froid. In response to a question about whether the E.C.B. is becoming a “bad bank” thanks to its purchases of troubled nations’ debt, Mr. Trichet, his voice rising, insisted that his institution has performed “impeccably, impeccably!” as a guardian of price stability.Financial turmoil in Europe is no longer a problem of small, peripheral economies like Greece. What’s under way right now is a full-scale market run on the much larger economies of Spain and Italy. At this point countries in crisis account for about a third of the euro area’s G.D.P., so the common European currency itself is under existential threat.And all indications are that European leaders are unwilling even to acknowledge the nature of that threat, let alone deal with it effectively.I’ve complained a lot about the “fiscalization” of economic discourse here in America, the way in which a premature focus on budget deficits turned Washington’s attention away from the ongoing jobs disaster. But we’re not unique in that respect, and in fact the Europeans have been much, much worse.Listen to many European leaders — especially, but by no means only, the Germans — and you’d think that their continent’s troubles are a simple morality tale of debt and punishment: Governments borrowed too much, now they’re paying the price, and fiscal austerity is the only answer.Yet this story applies, if at all, to Greece and nobody else. Spain in particular had a budget surplus and low debt before the 2008 financial crisis; its fiscal record, one might say, was impeccable. And while it was hit hard by the collapse of its housing boom, it’s still a relatively low-debt country, and it’s hard to make the case that the underlying fiscal condition of Spain’s government is worse than that of, say, Britain’s government.So why is Spain — along with Italy, which has higher debt but smaller deficits — in so much trouble? The answer is that these countries are facing something very much like a bank run, except that the run is on their governments rather than, or more accurately as well as, their financial institutions.Here’s how such a run works: Investors, for whatever reason, fear that a country will default on its debt. This makes them unwilling to buy the country’s bonds, or at least not unless offered a very high interest rate. And the fact that the country must roll its debt over at high interest rates worsens its fiscal prospects, making default more likely, so that the crisis of confidence becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. And as it does, it becomes a banking crisis as well, since a country’s banks are normally heavily invested in government debt.Now, a country with its own currency, like Britain, can short-circuit this process: if necessary, the Bank of England can step in to buy government debt with newly created money. This might lead to inflation (although even that is doubtful when the economy is depressed), but inflation poses a much smaller threat to investors than outright default. Spain and Italy, however, have adopted the euro and no longer have their own currencies. As a result, the threat of a self-fulfilling crisis is very real — and interest rates on Spanish and Italian debt are more than twice the rate on British debt.Which brings us back to the impeccable E.C.B.What Mr. Trichet and his colleagues should be doing right now is buying up Spanish and Italian debt — that is, doing what these countries would be doing for themselves if they still had their own currencies. In fact, the E.C.B. started doing just that a few weeks ago, and produced a temporary respite for those nations. But the E.C.B. immediately found itself under severe pressure from the moralizers, who hate the idea of letting countries off the hook for their alleged fiscal sins. And the perception that the moralizers will block any further rescue actions has set off a renewed market panic.Adding to the problem is the E.C.B.’s obsession with maintaining its “impeccable” record on price stability: at a time when Europe desperately needs a strong recovery, and modest inflation would actually be helpful, the bank has instead been tightening money, trying to head off inflation risks that exist only in its imagination.And now it’s all coming to a head. We’re not talking about a crisis that will unfold over a year or two; this thing could come apart in a matter of days. And if it does, the whole world will suffer.So will the E.C.B. do what needs to be done — lend freely and cut rates? Or will European leaders remain too focused on punishing debtors to save themselves? The whole world is watching.

Damn fine article here.It's sad that many on the right cannot read the excellent economic analysis from Krugman because they disagree with his political views. It's like not admiring an oscar-worthy performance from an actor because you disagree with who they support politically.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

It's sad that many on the right cannot read the excellent economic analysis from Krugman because they disagree with his political views.

While I appreciate your pity, you can rest assured that I have nothing but respect for Krugman as an economist, and I find his economic columns consistently engaging. Thanks for looking out for my well-being though.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

What I believe is this: largely because of the impact 9/11 had on our foreign policy, we made the well-meaning, good intentioned, but terribly wrong-headed decision to invade Iraq. I regard that decision as the single worst foreign policy decision in American history, but I also believe that, had a Democrat (such as Al Gore) been POTUS, it still would have happened, and for the same ill thought out reasons.

Where Krugman and other progressives err is when they attempt to paint the Bush Adminstration as villains rather than incompetent on this matter (not that Dems would have been any more competent.) However, this tendency to paint the other side as evil rather than foolish is a trait that is all too popular on both sides of the political aisle.

That is insane.

Yeah. The reason why we know this is insane is because the previous Democratic president before Bush lived in complete peace with Iraq and never came anywhere near a full-blown war. And no Democrats supported the invasion in 2003 either. Good historical recollection here.

 

[pantagrapher]

What I believe is this: largely because of the impact 9/11 had on our foreign policy, we made the well-meaning, good intentioned, but terribly wrong-headed decision to invade Iraq. I regard that decision as the single worst foreign policy decision in American history, but I also believe that, had a Democrat (such as Al Gore) been POTUS, it still would have happened, and for the same ill thought out reasons.

Where Krugman and other progressives err is when they attempt to paint the Bush Adminstration as villains rather than incompetent on this matter (not that Dems would have been any more competent.) However, this tendency to paint the other side as evil rather than foolish is a trait that is all too popular on both sides of the political aisle.

That is insane.

Yeah. The reason why we know this is insane is because the previous Democratic president before Bush lived in complete peace with Iraq and never came anywhere near a full-blown war. And no Democrats supported the invasion in 2003 either. Good historical recollection here.

I don't think Democrats would have ever been in a position to support invading Iraq in 2003 had Gore been president. I don't believe for a second he would have gone that route. But I digress. This thread will be much less constructive if it veers off into arguing this dull, illogical point.

 

[adonis]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/the-years-of-shame/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto

The Years of ShameIs it just me, or are the 9/11 commemorations oddly subdued?Actually, I don’t think it’s me, and it’s not really that odd.What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful. Te atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.A lot of other people behaved badly. How many of our professional pundits — people who should have understood very well what was happening — took the easy way out, turning a blind eye to the corruption and lending their support to the hijacking of the atrocity?The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it.I’m not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons.

Wow. Krugman sinks to a new low, even for him.

No, this is pretty much standard Krugman. He's a slimeball.

It is writing like that above that makes me discount everything he says even within his field of expertise (and that is said in that I have enjoyed some of his books).

It's sad that many on the right cannot read the excellent economic analysis from Krugman because they disagree with his political views.

While I appreciate your pity, you can rest assured that I have nothing but respect for Krugman as an economist, and I find his economic columns consistently engaging. Thanks for looking out for my well-being though.

Wasn't really thinking of you when I typed that. You're one of the more level-headed people that I regularly disagree with.

 

[tommyGunZ]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/the-years-of-shame/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto

The Years of ShameIs it just me, or are the 9/11 commemorations oddly subdued?Actually, I don’t think it’s me, and it’s not really that odd.What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful. Te atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.A lot of other people behaved badly. How many of our professional pundits — people who should have understood very well what was happening — took the easy way out, turning a blind eye to the corruption and lending their support to the hijacking of the atrocity?The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it.I’m not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons.

Wow. Krugman sinks to a new low, even for him.

No, this is pretty much standard Krugman. He's a slimeball.

It is writing like that above that makes me discount everything he says even within his field of expertise (and that is said in that I have enjoyed some of his books).

Perhaps yesterday wasn't the day to have the discussion, but it's certainly a discussion worth having. Calling him a slimeball and suggesting all of his work is tainted because you believe yesterday wasn't the right day to have a much needed, adult conversation about how the nation's emotions were manipulated and used to justify what turned out to be a foreign policy and fiscal train wreck is ridiculous.

 

[RCon]

Perhaps yesterday wasn't the day to have the discussion, but it's certainly a discussion worth having. Calling him a slimeball and suggesting all of his work is tainted because you believe yesterday wasn't the right day to have a much needed, adult conversation about how the nation's emotions were manipulated and used to justify what turned out to be a foreign policy and fiscal train wreck is ridiculous.

Haven't we had the "why we went into Iraq" discussion a hundred times? And by "we", I refer both to the FFA and the general public at large.

 

[Chadstroma]

Why does that bother you guys so much?

Sure, it's a pretty partisan/liberal opinion, but it's fairly commonly held, that the conservative leadership used these attacks to carry out nation building in the middle east, under the guise of a war on terror. They co-opted the memory of 9-11 to do so, and in that light, Krugman can't look at the events the same.

Only to a very small degree do I agree with him, and it's mainly on the issue that the 9-11 event was used as a pretense to go to war with Iraq, but I don't look back on it with shame, and I think he's off-base mentioning that aspect of it. But, all things considered, I don't find his comments to be particularly "slimeballish".

It is a great example of what you just said. This guy shows an incapability of being anything but partisan with a strong liberal bias so when it comes to a subject where he is a noted expert in, I can not take what he says without a truckload of salt. I do not care if all liberals think this, it is just a red flag that screams that this persons worldview is skewered.

 

[Chadstroma]

What makes you think that Bush didn't take advantage of 9-11 to wage war on a country - Iraq - having little to do with it?

Besides learning about the actual history of the decisions made, why they were made and what was happening at the time?

 

[adonis]

Why does that bother you guys so much?

Sure, it's a pretty partisan/liberal opinion, but it's fairly commonly held, that the conservative leadership used these attacks to carry out nation building in the middle east, under the guise of a war on terror. They co-opted the memory of 9-11 to do so, and in that light, Krugman can't look at the events the same.

Only to a very small degree do I agree with him, and it's mainly on the issue that the 9-11 event was used as a pretense to go to war with Iraq, but I don't look back on it with shame, and I think he's off-base mentioning that aspect of it. But, all things considered, I don't find his comments to be particularly "slimeballish".

It is a great example of what you just said. This guy shows an incapability of being anything but partisan with a strong liberal bias so when it comes to a subject where he is a noted expert in, I can not take what he says without a truckload of salt. I do not care if all liberals think this, it is just a red flag that screams that this persons worldview is skewered.

Perhaps his world view is informed by his view of economics? Perhaps what he sees in the underlying economy, vs what people in one party or another are saying, makes him a bit biased against that party?Regardless, dude is an elite economist, and he has some pretty entertaining opinions that spawn discussion. If you simply stuck with the conservative "economists" with their conservative ideologies, you'd have believed we'd be experiencing high inflation right now, along with other issues they got wrong, while Krugman and his liberal leanings, correctly predicted.

 

[adonis]

Why does that bother you guys so much?

Sure, it's a pretty partisan/liberal opinion, but it's fairly commonly held, that the conservative leadership used these attacks to carry out nation building in the middle east, under the guise of a war on terror. They co-opted the memory of 9-11 to do so, and in that light, Krugman can't look at the events the same.

Only to a very small degree do I agree with him, and it's mainly on the issue that the 9-11 event was used as a pretense to go to war with Iraq, but I don't look back on it with shame, and I think he's off-base mentioning that aspect of it. But, all things considered, I don't find his comments to be particularly "slimeballish".

It is a great example of what you just said. This guy shows an incapability of being anything but partisan with a strong liberal bias so when it comes to a subject where he is a noted expert in, I can not take what he says without a truckload of salt. I do not care if all liberals think this, it is just a red flag that screams that this persons worldview is skewered.

Additionally, you say he's incapable of being anything but partisan, yet he's been blasting the Obama administration on economic decisions for months and years now. From before the stimulus was passed, he was criticizing it. Sure, the criticism is coming from the "left" but still, he's got his values and he doesn't simply tow a party line.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/the-years-of-shame/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto

The Years of ShameIs it just me, or are the 9/11 commemorations oddly subdued?Actually, I don’t think it’s me, and it’s not really that odd.What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful. Te atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.A lot of other people behaved badly. How many of our professional pundits — people who should have understood very well what was happening — took the easy way out, turning a blind eye to the corruption and lending their support to the hijacking of the atrocity?The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it.I’m not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons.

Wow. Krugman sinks to a new low, even for him.

No, this is pretty much standard Krugman. He's a slimeball.

It is writing like that above that makes me discount everything he says even within his field of expertise (and that is said in that I have enjoyed some of his books).

Perhaps yesterday wasn't the day to have the discussion, but it's certainly a discussion worth having. Calling him a slimeball and suggesting all of his work is tainted because you believe yesterday wasn't the right day to have a much needed, adult conversation about how the nation's emotions were manipulated and used to justify what turned out to be a foreign policy and fiscal train wreck is ridiculous.

Just for the record, I'm the one who called him a slimeball, and I stand by that. This is the guy who didn't even wait for the blood to dry in the Giffords shooting before he was out there blaming it all on on Republicans, with never even a hint of a retraction or apology. And then there's yesterday's blog post in which he politicizes the 9/11 anniversary while blasting others for (allegedly) doing the same. And the general pattern of day-to-day hate that he serves up for his readers. Unlike most people in this thread, I'm pretty well-positioned to have a take on Krugman's economic views, and I generally agree with him when it comes to his overall philosophy of how the macroeconomy works and how to build and interpret economic models. (I'm a microeconomist, not an macroeconomist, but it's not like I haven't had some training in that part of the field). But that doesn't change the fact that he really is a loathesome person.

 

[dickey moe]

Probably the most vile thing Krugman (and the New York Times) have ever published.

I imagine plenty of hard leftists (maybe even some Ron Paul supporters) were nodding their heads and smiling as they read this.

No shame.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Probably the most vile thing Krugman (and the New York Times) have ever published.

I'd argue that the Giffords thing was even worse, but that's probably splitting hairs. And to be fair, we're talking about blog posts, not NYT opinion columns. I don't think the NYT oversees what Krugman posts on his blog.