Skip to main content

Economics and Politics - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/

Paul Krugman

February 10, 2010, 10:59 am

Clueless
I’m with Simon Johnson here: how is it possible, at this late date, for Obama to be this clueless?

The lead story on Bloomberg right now contains excerpts from an interview with Business Week which tells us:

President Barack Obama said he doesn’t “begrudge” the $17 million bonus awarded to JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon or the $9 million issued to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. CEO Lloyd Blankfein, noting that some athletes take home more pay.

The president, speaking in an interview, said in response to a question that while $17 million is “an extraordinary amount of money” for Main Street, “there are some baseball players who are making more than that and don’t get to the World Series either, so I’m shocked by that as well.”

“I know both those guys; they are very savvy businessmen,” Obama said in the interview yesterday in the Oval Office with Bloomberg BusinessWeek, which will appear on newsstands Friday. “I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of the free- market system.”

Obama sought to combat perceptions that his administration is anti-business and trumpeted the influence corporate leaders have had on his economic policies. He plans to reiterate that message when he speaks to the Business Roundtable, which represents the heads of many of the biggest U.S. companies, on Feb. 24 in Washington.

Oh. My. God.

First of all, to my knowledge, irresponsible behavior by baseball players hasn’t brought the world economy to the brink of collapse and cost millions of innocent Americans their jobs and/or houses.

And more specifically, not only has the financial industry has been bailed out with taxpayer commitments; it continues to rely on a taxpayer backstop for its stability. Don’t take it from me, take it from the rating agencies:

The planned overhaul of US financial rules prompted Standard & Poor’s to warn on Tuesday it might downgrade the credit ratings of Citigroup and Bank of America on concerns that the shake-up would make it less likely that the banks would be bailed out by US taxpayers if they ran into trouble again.

The point is that these bank executives are not free agents who are earning big bucks in fair competition; they run companies that are essentially wards of the state. There’s good reason to feel outraged at the growing appearance that we’re running a system of lemon socialism, in which losses are public but gains are private. And at the very least, you would think that Obama would understand the importance of acknowledging public anger over what’s happening.

But no. If the Bloomberg story is to be believed, Obama thinks his key to electoral success is to trumpet “the influence corporate leaders have had on his economic policies.”

We’re doomed.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by Pogo142:
Economics and Politics - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/

Paul Krugman

February 10, 2010, 10:59 am

Clueless
I’m with Simon Johnson here: how is it possible, at this late date, for Obama to be this clueless?

The lead story on Bloomberg right now contains excerpts from an interview with Business Week which tells us:

President Barack Obama said he doesn’t “begrudge” the $17 million bonus awarded to JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon or the $9 million issued to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. CEO Lloyd Blankfein, noting that some athletes take home more pay.

The president, speaking in an interview, said in response to a question that while $17 million is “an extraordinary amount of money” for Main Street, “there are some baseball players who are making more than that and don’t get to the World Series either, so I’m shocked by that as well.”

“I know both those guys; they are very savvy businessmen,” Obama said in the interview yesterday in the Oval Office with Bloomberg BusinessWeek, which will appear on newsstands Friday. “I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of the free- market system.”

Obama sought to combat perceptions that his administration is anti-business and trumpeted the influence corporate leaders have had on his economic policies. He plans to reiterate that message when he speaks to the Business Roundtable, which represents the heads of many of the biggest U.S. companies, on Feb. 24 in Washington.

Oh. My. God.

First of all, to my knowledge, irresponsible behavior by baseball players hasn’t brought the world economy to the brink of collapse and cost millions of innocent Americans their jobs and/or houses.

And more specifically, not only has the financial industry has been bailed out with taxpayer commitments; it continues to rely on a taxpayer backstop for its stability. Don’t take it from me, take it from the rating agencies:

The planned overhaul of US financial rules prompted Standard & Poor’s to warn on Tuesday it might downgrade the credit ratings of Citigroup and Bank of America on concerns that the shake-up would make it less likely that the banks would be bailed out by US taxpayers if they ran into trouble again.

The point is that these bank executives are not free agents who are earning big bucks in fair competition; they run companies that are essentially wards of the state. There’s good reason to feel outraged at the growing appearance that we’re running a system of lemon socialism, in which losses are public but gains are private. And at the very least, you would think that Obama would understand the importance of acknowledging public anger over what’s happening.

But no. If the Bloomberg story is to be believed, Obama thinks his key to electoral success is to trumpet “the influence corporate leaders have had on his economic policies.”

We’re doomed.


Glad to see you're finally waking up.
The point of my post is Obama is not a Socialist but a conservative economist who believes in trickle down theory, expecting the banks to stimulate the economy, but it is not.

The "waking up" has to come from both blinded Liberals and the Conservatives. The Right Wing Media has you calling Obama a socialist when in reality he is not and his conservative approach to the problem of recession is not working for the average person, only the rich. It was the same with Clinton but he was a little fairer to the middle class.

Obama is relying on Reaganonomics and it's a failure for the average worker now, as it was back then and ever since. The rich continue to to get richer and the rest of us poorer. The Wealth Gap continues to grow.

It was Reagan who coined the phrase, "when your neighbor is out of work it is a recession, when you are out of work it is a depression." And it is still true.

As I explained in a previous post Joy to say "Redistribute the Wealth" may sound socialist but it is not always so. A fair tax system would also redistribute the wealth.

In the Democratic debates the candidates where asked who would Martin Luther King endorse, who was for real redistribution of the wealth, Obama answered "None of us."
quote:
As I explained in a previous post Joy to say "Redistribute the Wealth" may sound socialist but it is not always so. A fair tax system would also redistribute the wealth.


There is no such thing as a fair, legitimate way to redistribute wealth. What is a fair tax system? Income taxes? That's theft no matter what the percentages are.
quote:
Originally posted by Pogo142:
The point of my post is Obama is not a Socialist but a conservative economist who believes in trickle down theory, expecting the banks to stimulate the economy, but it is not.

The "waking up" has to come from both blinded Liberals and the Conservatives. The Right Wing Media has you calling Obama a socialist when in reality he is not and his conservative approach to the problem of recession is not working for the average person, only the rich. It was the same with Clinton but he was a little fairer to the middle class.

Obama is relying on Reaganonomics and it's a failure for the average worker now, as it was back then and ever since. The rich continue to to get richer and the rest of us poorer. The Wealth Gap continues to grow.

It was Reagan who coined the phrase, "when your neighbor is out of work it is a recession, when you are out of work it is a depression." And it is still true.

As I explained in a previous post Joy to say "Redistribute the Wealth" may sound socialist but it is not always so. A fair tax system would also redistribute the wealth.

In the Democratic debates the candidates where asked who would Martin Luther King endorse, who was for real redistribution of the wealth, Obama answered "None of us."


Do you really believe all this stuff or are you just messing with the forums? Obama is NOT a conservative economist. He's a novice economist. There's no such thing as a fair tax system.
Obama a socialist? I suspect that he has more in common with Mussolini than Marx. I believe he supports the hybrid middle-way that delivers the blessings of capitalism to a select few (rich folks who support the Obamites) while delivering the miseries of socialism to the masses. But, then again we have more or less been saddled with a corporatist system since the New Deal with some some periods of time having a more capitalist appearance while other times tilting more to to the socialist side.
quote:
I believe he supports the hybrid middle-way that delivers the blessings of capitalism to a select few (rich folks who support the Obamites) while delivering the miseries of socialism to the masses. But, then again we have more or less been saddled with a corporatist system since the New Deal with some some periods of time having a more capitalist appearance while other times tilting more to to the socialist side.


You have accurately described the attitude of every presidential administration of the 20th and 21st centuries. "Socialism" started getting thrown around more as Obama took office, but no one really ever acknowledges how similar our government has been to the ideas Mussolini espoused.
Mussolini beleieved in the mergering of Corporations and the State with the workers having as little rights as possible. He is credited with coining the phrase and system to be Fascist, although I have read some believe he took it from an earlier writer.

That is modern day Corporate Globalization with two classes, the very rich and the very poor, which we are heading toward under the Corporate Representatives we have in government.
quote:
Originally posted by Pogo142:
The point of my post is Obama is not a Socialist but a conservative economist who believes in trickle down theory...


Wow...just Wow! Obama is the farthest thing from a conservative economist...unless you are doing some sort of "progressive" re-working of the language and are actually saying Obama wants to "conserve" the current economic policy of big governmetn spending...then yes I guess he is "conservative".

Obama had no problem demonizing the AIG bonuses...to my knowledge these were actually a part of a contract to compensate their managers that the government gave it's approval to.

To understand what Obama is doing and the difference in demonizing AIG bonuses and these, re-read his quote:

*****
“I know both those guys; they are very savvy businessmen,”
******

I KNOW BOTH THOSE GUYS...you are the one constantly lamenting the influence of big money in politics...there it is...
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Renegade Nation:

[quote]Wow...just Wow! Obama is the farthest thing from a conservative economist...unless you are doing some sort of "progressive" re-working of the language and are actually saying Obama wants to "conserve" the current economic policy of big governmetn spending...then yes I guess he is "conservative".

Obama had no problem demonizing the AIG bonuses...to my knowledge these were actually a part of a contract to compensate their managers that the government gave it's approval to.

To understand what Obama is doing and the difference in demonizing AIG bonuses and these, re-read his quote:

*****
“I know both those guys; they are very savvy businessmen,”
******

I KNOW BOTH THOSE GUYS...you are the one constantly lamenting the influence of big money in politics...there it is.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

If you look into Obama's past you will find he was an Economic's Proffesor and was conservative. He believes in the Free Market and his continuation of Bush's Bank Bailouts shows what he believes in, as does the article.
quote:
Originally posted by Pogo142:
If you look into Obama's past you will find he was an Economic's Proffesor and was conservative. He believes in the Free Market and his continuation of Bush's Bank Bailouts shows what he believes in, as does the article.


Bush and the bailouts, huge government spending, and constant government intervention...IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF FREE MARKET...
quote:
Obama was a Conservative Economics Professor before he went into Politics.


No he wasn't.

quote:
All those posters who ask me what is a fair tax system lets start with, "do you think we have a Fair Tax System Now"?


Of course not, especially the income tax. If you don't pay it, you can be taken to jail. I know of no other situation where forcing people to hand over their money is called anything other than theft, and that's exactly what the income tax is - legalized theft. Not fair at all.
If you do a search into Obama's life you will find he was a Conservative Economics professor but I forget at which collage.

He believes in the Free Market which is why he has not repeated the massive New Deal programs and policies but continued Bush's policies. He has a weak stimulous plan for main street but it has kept things from getting worse.
quote:
Originally posted by Pogo142:
He believes in the Free Market which is why he has not repeated the massive New Deal programs and policies but continued Bush's policies. He has a weak stimulous plan for main street but it has kept things from getting worse.


Where do you get your news...the Cartoon Network?

Do you even know what a "The Free Market" is?

Here's a great big gigantic hint: Bush's policies WERE NOT "Free Market". Bailing out banks, huge government spending (stimulus packages), taking over private business (GM), etc. is very much in the tradition of the New Deal.

And here's another great big gigantic hint: The New Deal was a Colossal failure.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Renegade Nation:


[quote]Where do you get your news...the Cartoon Network?

Do you even know what a "The Free Market" is?

Here's a great big gigantic hint: Bush's policies WERE NOT "Free Market". Bailing out banks, huge government spending (stimulus packages), taking over private business (GM), etc. is very much in the tradition of the New Deal.

And here's another great big gigantic hint: The New Deal was a Colossal failure.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bush's Bailout of the banks were Corporate and not Conservative, that is correct. I was pointing out that Obama is not a Socialist and he did not Nationalize the banks but stuck the people with the bill.

Same with GM but he forced major changes and cut backs.

The New Deal was a success and kept America going as it climbed out of the depresion, which was caused by Free Market Capitalism.

Same as today.
quote:
If you do a search into Obama's life you will find he was a Conservative Economics professor but I forget at which collage.


This is not true. Please provide your evidence.

quote:
The New Deal was a success and kept America going as it climbed out of the depresion, which was caused by Free Market Capitalism.


Completely untrue. We did not have a free market prior to the New Deal, and the New Deal did not save us from anything.

The New Deal Debunked
quote:
Originally posted by Pogo142:
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Renegade Nation:


[quote]Where do you get your news...the Cartoon Network?

Do you even know what a "The Free Market" is?

Here's a great big gigantic hint: Bush's policies WERE NOT "Free Market". Bailing out banks, huge government spending (stimulus packages), taking over private business (GM), etc. is very much in the tradition of the New Deal.

And here's another great big gigantic hint: The New Deal was a Colossal failure.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bush's Bailout of the banks were Corporate and not Conservative, that is correct. I was pointing out that Obama is not a Socialist and he did not Nationalize the banks but stuck the people with the bill.

Same with GM but he forced major changes and cut backs.

The New Deal was a success and kept America going as it climbed out of the depresion, which was caused by Free Market Capitalism.

Same as today.


Once again a cartoon network rendering of history...follow dolemitejb's link and learn something.

But I have a sneaking suspicion that actually learning facts is not your motivation.
quote:
Originally posted by Pogo142:


The New Deal was a success and kept America going as it climbed out of the depresion, which was caused by Free Market Capitalism.



That may be your most brainless statement yet! I know some of you will accuse me of saying that about more than one of your posts but you just keep topping yourself. Smiler
quote:
Originally posted by Pogo142:
Bush's Bailout of the banks were Corporate and not Conservative, that is correct.


Yes...we have strayed from our founding principles, and from Lincoln, Wilson, FDR...to Bush and Obama...have led us to the corporate Washington we have today, an unconstitutional club of business and government bureaucrats and lobbyists responsible to no one but themselves, with force, threats, and intimidation being the order of the day.

This is considerably at odds with the ideas of our founders...and in NO way resembles any FREE Market idea.

The root of the problem is the increasing centralized power in Washington...and the solution is not...as you continually seem to suggest...is not MORE of the same. But the de-centralization of power in Washington. And returning that power to it's source..."We The People".
quote:
Our government big or small, has been corrupted by money and power. All governments are open to lobbyists and they work the state governemnts too.

The challenge is to get people to vote in there best interests and choose candidates who will represent us instead of monied interests.


Yet, you want to nationalize the banks, nationalize health care, give everyone free housing and anyone who prospers will be punished when the government takes a huge chunk of their earnings.

So if you realize that governments can be corrupt by money and power, why do you want to give them more money and power through socialism?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________


NashBama:
[quote]
Yet, you want to nationalize the banks, nationalize health care, give everyone free housing and anyone who prospers will be punished when the government takes a huge chunk of their earnings.

So if you realize that governments can be corrupt by money and power, why do you want to give them more money and power through socialist.


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Becuse governments are elected by the people to protect our rights, if we do't like what they are doing we vote them out.

Private Business is not a denocracy
quote:
Becuse governments are elected by the people to protect our rights, if we do't like what they are doing we vote them out.

Private Business is not a denocracy


There was not a candidate in 2008 with a platform that didn't involve stealing my money. No matter who got elected, they promised to steal from me and give away to someone else. I couldn't vote for the person who wouldn't, but I am forced to live with the results.

There is no private business in this world that has ever forced me to do business with them or stolen my money.

Do you see the difference?
"Yet, you want to nationalize the banks, nationalize health care, give everyone free housing and anyone who prospers will be punished when the government takes a huge chunk of their earnings."

Already happened. The undeserving rich - Wall Street and the banks - were given my money.

If I pay for something, shouldn't I own it?

Oh, sorry, those folks shouldn't have to do wihout their incredible bonuses, big fancy boats, houses etc. Welfare for the rich is OK, right?

BTW I paid a greater percentage of my income to taxes than Cindy McCain did. But that's OK, right?

We are witnessing a redistribution of wealth all right - from the havenots to the haves.
quote:
Originally posted by Freida:

BTW I paid a greater percentage of my income to taxes than Cindy McCain did. But that's OK, right?

No. It's not okay. That's another reason we need a flat tax. But the liberal Democrats won't go for that. Instead, they want someone ELSE to pay a higher percentage because they make more. Then those people who are expected to pay more look for ways to get around paying taxes on all of their earnings and the silly cycle continues. Everybody pay a 10% rate - no deductions.

quote:

We are witnessing a redistribution of wealth all right - from the havenots to the haves.

If you really believe that, then you just don't "get it". Obama is now already floating the idea that he may now raise taxes on those he stated he'd NOT raise taxes for. Where do you think the vast majority of this money will be spent?
Old Bush has been out of office for 13 months now. The old excuse of it's Bush's fault is beginning to get a little old. You need to do a little research on "Largest National Debt", I think you have the wrong president. How many soldiers have died in the last 13 months. What was that campaign promise? Bring the troops home?
Bush ran up the largest debt to that time by borrowing to pay for his war for the Oil Corporations, the Military Industrial Complex and US power and dominance of the Mideast region. While other important issues like road, bridges, jobs, health care and people were neglected.

His "Free Market" little oversight of Wall Street led to the greatest collapse and recession since the Great Depression.

Obama had to borrow to undo the disaster Bush left but he will not stand up the the Military Industrial and Croporate Complex alone and has continued Bush's policies in the Afghanistan and the region.

He has bailed out the banks and given Main Street and the people a weak stimulous bill. He is a conservative economists that believes in the Free Market.
quote:
Old Bush has been out of office for 13 months now. The old excuse of it's Bush's fault is beginning to get a little old.


There are many lasting problems that realistically can't be tied directly to GWB, but that doesn't mean that every problem we are dealing with began after Obama was inaugurated. Bush's administration caused plenty of mischief, and 13 months is not necessarily enough time to undo it.
quote:
His "Free Market" little oversight of Wall Street led to the greatest collapse and recession since the Great Depression.


I'm going to at least give you a little credit for putting the quotation marks around "free market." Hopefully, you realize that virtually none of GWB's policies were true free market policies.

quote:
Obama had to borrow to undo the disaster Bush left but he will not stand up the the Military Industrial and Croporate Complex alone and has continued Bush's policies in the Afghanistan and the region.


He didn't have to borrow, he chose to. Delaying the inevitable financial correction will likely only make it worse.

quote:
He is a conservative economists that believes in the Free Market.


You forgot the quotation marks this time. First, Obama does not support anything that resembles a free market...not even close. Second, he is not an economist. He's a lawyer. Never has been an economist, never will be.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×