He's a pretty bog standard economist, except in those handful of places where he espouses Keynesian economics instead of the more "traditional" (barf) economist trend of full on Hayek-style "invisible hand" rhetoric. That doesn't make him a "leftist" by any stretch. It just makes him "The saner one" among economists. Which is less praise of Krugman than it is a frightening realization about other economists, really.

Nah, a leftist economist would... sound very different from Krugman.

Also, if you look carefully, I'm pretty sure this article has been discussed at length at least once a week, every week, since october 16th.

He has no friends in Congress and that's where laws come from

He has less than 1/3 support among Dems

He will go back to being a Senator or resign but He is no economist and has no plan.

You are entitled to your opinion. And that's all there is.

Krugman would be "left" enough if he had painted a more flattering portrait of Sanders.

These terms have actual definitions and meanings, and those definitions and meanings are largely static. It's not a matter of perspective. Being "to the left of" right-wing psychopaths doesn't actually make you part of 'the left," for instance. Mitt Romney has more of a leftward tilt than Scott Walker, but this does not make Mitt any kind of leftist, see?

Krugman is not "left." A leftist economist would promote and argue from a position of - get this - leftist economics. Krugman is a Keynesian capitalist. While this makes him a better economist than the ones we usually have in the US - the hayek-style "deregulate everything and let the invisible hand sort it all out" - this does not actually make him "left."

Also as I point out, this is hardly the anti-sanders piece you guys have been trying to pass it off as. Krugman flatly states that both the democratic candidates (I dunno if he forgot O'Malley or is just writing him off) would do great vs. Wall street, and certainly better than the Republicans. So I dunno why you're angling for that to defend your own poor understanding of what "left" means

... that will both strongly fund student debt relief, and at the same time make far more expensive the high volume speculative trading practices that have arguably been damaging to traditional Wall Street trading that used to provide more of a measure of real value assessment of companies and the ability to invest in them, rather than turning Wall Street in to a Casino, where those not on the "inside" of this sort of trading, whether it be casual investors or our 401k fund investments have been the ones getting screwed.

What is Hillary's plan there?

It was Bernie that worked with Ron Paul and others to pass legislation to do the first ever audit of the Fed earlier. Where was Hillary's plans on dong that sort of necessary action to monitor the actions of that body?

You can give your opinionated rants about Bernie "having no plan", but those who know his history know that's a bunch of BS the way you're characterizing him.

You can bring in big bucks with talking points at rallies.


The steps to change are these:

Retain the White House

Regain a majority in Congress

Pass progressive legislation

Place liberal justices on the SCOTUS

Overturn Citizens United.

Establish public campaign financing



Talking points are not change

Hillary Clinton claiming she'll reign in Wall Street would be laughable if it weren't so tragic. If you want status quo, vote for Hillary Clinton or any other Republican. If you want real action on these issues, vote for the only candidate who has the will and backbone to fight the special interests ... Bernie Fucking Sanders!!!

Give you an idea what Hillary's plan is and why Krugman supports it.

with the weapons of yesterday's failed battles ... without consideration of whether those weapons, actually made a difference in the failed battles.

It's, also, like going to the doctor with a cold, demanding antibiotics; the doctor will likely relent ... just to make you feel like she has done something to treat your cold ... But the doctor knows, you'll still be blowing your nose, tomorrow.

DUCK!

BTW ... That is what Krugman has been saying since ... 2010. It was, largely, accepted then; but, is now unaccepted because ... well ... primary season distinctions.

She's indebted to Wall Street. No way you can be naive enough to believe she will go against her bundlers.

will she re-establish G/S, probably not ... but, as Krugman and other economist of the left have indicated, her plan is comprehensive and is shaped to address the regulatory gaps at the root of the "Great Recession", and goes farther to address the regulatory gaps that likely will cause the next.

funded his campaign he made sure he took care of them. He's also getting ready to force through this monstrosity called TPP. Wall Street and public industries on Wall Street approve this, and so does Hillary or at least she will again after the election is over.

But its an important step in thevright direction.

And if it was such an obsolete "weapon" why was there so much effort to get rid of it? Once again the baby was deliberatly thrown out with the bathwater in the name of "financial modernization."

I can agree that it is a step in the right direction ... though, I would argue its importance, relative to current economic threats.

We basically need to go after monopoly power in every sector of the economy, and restore a more brosdly based and less centralized system.

Wall St. is one symptom of that, but it reflects what has happened throughout all industries through mergers, aquisitions and the destruction of "the middle" and smaller businesses and institutions.

One result, as we saw in 2008, is that we become too dependent on the actions and decisions of too few players.

Anything that leads to the breaking up of that is a step in the right direction.

which is EXACTLY what his supporters have said about Obama these past many years.

Wall Street is giving most of its money to Republicans. They think any Democrat is bad news for them.

Seems to me there's plenty if Wall St money making its way into the Clinton campaign and/or PACs.

They may prefer a Republican...But I don't think they're quaking in their boots at the thought of another Clinton administration.

sow piggy, wall street feeding trough?

Donate to both sides. Which candidate, on each side, gets the most Wall St money? I don't know for sure, but I'd guess it's a Bush and a Clinton and I don't wonder why.

in the coming year. Are you willing to state right now that you'll agree with anything he says between now and November, 2016?

I'm guessing the answer is no.

P.S.

This item is over two months old. Catch up already.

On the other hand, there was another thread about Glass-Steagall, so I figured this was relevant to that.

What Hillary was up to nearly a half a century ago.

Go figure, eh?

Bernie supporters seem to have no problem with ancient history when it comes to attacking Hillary.

claiming that Sanders bank regulation plan is better than hers, without addressing Krugman's points.

And nothing has changed since Krugman wrote this in October.

between now and the GE?

Just wondering. If the question gives you the jitters, I'll understand your failure to respond.

as long as his views support your own.

That's obvious.

Bookmarking this. Stay tuned.

I get the sense you just "know" something ... perhaps, a Krugman endorsement of Bernie (or, O'Malley ... if, Krugman hasn't already come out for a candidate), if not, a Krugman kind word for Bernie, so that you can bring it up later ... but are hold off and "bookmarking" agreement with Krugman; that way, when it doesn't happen as you "know", you will just forget about the sub-thread, moving on to the next "thing."

Delayed gratification can be difficult to deal with, I know.

But my point was ... I think you are speculating that something will occur; but, don't want to come out with it ... so, when/if it doesn't occur, you will be free to ignore this sub-thread, while moving on to the next thing.

the thread.

You should do the same.

will you come back and say, "Damn ... What I thought was going to happen, didn't happen. I thought, {insert speculation here}. Oh well! "

It's all the same to me.

This was good, though:

I'm pretty sure, Krugman will say something stupid...

Have a Happy and safe New Year.

If you have evidence that the youngest recipient of the John Bates Clark Medal and a Nobel Prize in Economics is deficient in the topic for which he was bestowed those honors would you please adduce it.


Thank you in advance.



Happy New Year
DSB

"I've got a secret"

Chinese curses notwithstanding, here's to an interesting 2016!

his writings on politics, however ... not so much!

Though the way they lump individual employee donors together, under a corporate label, doesn't tell us much. My husband works for a corporation, so our donations get lumped under that corporate name, but no one tells us who to vote for.

I have trouble believing that there are no non-management employees of Wells Fargo, Chase, etc. who have given cumulative gifts of $200 or more to O'Malley or Sanders.

in both parties. Especially, ones they think can win.

from these legitimate organizations ... they, however, also, tend to be the lagging candidate.

Just an observation.

What do you expect the American Media to say about a candidate who cares not for their interests but our interests?
Even if Krugman decides to "change his tune", it's apparent that people shouldn't take these economists' opinions as gospel. Voters have to really analyse for themselves the policies set forth by each candidate and construe their own views that way.

first off who is it we trust? if history is any judge, all democrats and all politicians are not alike. Many if not most have not been consistent in supporting the platform they expressed since comng to office. Bill Clinton is one in particular and his private life also shamed our party. Hillary on guns goes as the polls go. Her support of economic wars and strongmen in the middle east over democracy should tell us that she supports the economic elite over soldiers who die in n those wars. Obama too has deviated to the right of his campaign promises for whatever reason but he to has done it. So to tell us since Hillary is not getting money from Wall Street to the extent as in past, democrats, she and husband received,to tell people like us who remember politicians who deviated from their promises and platforms, Nixon, Reagan Bush senior, Clinton, Bush jr. and to a smaller extent Obama, that any democrat is okay is defnding a horrible lie that trustowrthiness can be assumed.
Krugman is letting his popularity and access to parts of the oligarchy allow him to support their favored candidate. Krugman is certainly not a leftist economist and has offered little analysis of many important issues of the day instead retreating to more civilized can't we all get along commentary.
He should be ashamed for not recognizing the difference in platform and promises and the genuine authenticity of Warren and Bernie Sanders on these matters. I am sure after review and understanding of Hillary,s plan to reign in shadow banking , that if Warren or Bernie agree with it, they would gladly introduce into legislation as both take the high road and refrain from the not invented here mentality. By the way, if Sherrod Brown widely recognized for work in these areas of banking and financial regulation supports Hillary, why does she not ask him to introduce legislation against the shadow banking? I am sure if he agrees with the position she has taken he would be glad to sponsor it and Bernie and Senator Warren absent a compelling disagreement with its provisions would sign on as co-sponsors. But Hillary is too busy campaigning to work for her platform right now? This makes me trust her less, Bernie and Warren consistently demonstrate their support for people over politics all the time and even as sitting members of Congress will never be to busy to offer important legislation. Clinton could support this now visibly validating her claims of getting things done but then she waits and like she said on the TPA, elect me and you can find out what I would do. Right now we voters have the most chance on influencing Clinton but we se lack of actions on important areas like this from her supporters in Congress and ask why we expect her to favor people over donors. Bill did not, and cozy relations between donors even make us question Obama. Krugman is denying this important issue to reach a foregone conclusion which would support Clinton and stifle real debate and enthusiasm in the democratic party to do so.
Krugman lost a lot of respect by doing this and I am sure his disregard of the blow back from such beside the point commentary, spouting opinion without considering the impact of the words will appropriately lessen readership of his columns and his credibility. In many ways, this column is the reverse of the one about the person falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater. In this case Krugman is yelling remain in your seats and do not worry while our democracy is burning.
Hillary can demonstrate authenticity now? Will she? Bernie does!

rather, you embark on tarring him as a friend of the oligarchs, i.e., C/T stuff.

fan Krugman has to say on the issue.

We should start a pool on how many former Goldman Sachs employees she'll have working in her administration should she win.

President Obama. He was once for healthcare, now he's for heritage care. This piece ignores the fact that Mrs Clinton is owned by the banksters, and, if she takes office, the people who caused the great recession will be again be in charge of the economy.

The left has so few voices in Big media, it's disastrous when one of them gives up and joins the conservatives

And those are very serious charges-- you're basically accusing him of being corrupt.

It's true he defends the ACA, and does so vociferously. But he does so by saying it has been successful in its goals, not by saying it's the best thing that could ever happen. I mean, shouldn't Democrats be proud of the ACA, even if there's more work to do?

And the whole point of the last paragraph, and much of the rest of the column, is to point out that Wall Street certainly believes they'll be much better off under the Republicans than any Democrat.

we have Obamacare if we can't get European style health care. He also said the stimulus should have been larger and there should have been more of them. Pretty much everything Obama started out wanting but couldn't get.

He gets in the weeds, but I am thankful I had at least one Econ course to understand some of the basic principles Krugman foundational to some of his arguments...

He gets in some humor with his "Ma, he looking at me funny!" category of capitalists on why they don't invest more...it's hilarious...

bubbly

After all Mr. Krugman has only won a Nobel Prize in Economics and the John bates Clark Medal. I am informed on economics by the denizens of this board as they are steeped in it.

I still have them on 3x5 diskettes. Sometimes I share them with my really, really close friends to show them how cool I am. Would you like to hear my take on the Classical School of Malthus and Ricardo? If not, I do a pretty good Galbraith...hey, don't leave...I gotta fab one on Marx...here, I got hard copies...

Last Christmas my gf's gf was dating a guy who was a Economics professor at USC. Of course I am going to pay attention to what he has to say as he has earned it.

Marx is a interesting political theorist. I don't know how much heed he is given in Economics departments. I know in Econ 101 and 102 we used the textbook written by Paul Samuelson.

It was "a while" back...I hate to admit...but I was proud of all the work I did and ended up with an A- in the course.

I liked Marx. At least he was funny! But my all around favorite was the Marginalists. Weren't those the guys who said "supply creates its own demand'?
I laughed when I heard W pretty much talk like that...

And yeah, I still have all those papers in my files...

Even capitalists would agree with much of his description of capitalism. The problem with replacing capitalism is the great majority of folks respond to incentives and in the absence of incentives, both positive and negative , won't do much of anything. It's more fun to go the movies than it is to go to work.

Money, power, status, and sex are great motivators. How many young men picked up a guitar because they wanted to meet girls?


I want to use some of the profits capitalism create to ameliorate social ills.

and as for your stated goal, there are more and more of us and will be even more, just you wait...

"But is Mrs. clinton's promise to take a tough line on the financial industry credible? Or would she, once in the White House, return to the finance-friendly, deregulatory policies of the 19902?"

Krugman goes on to state that the financial industry seems to be donating more to republicans while conveniently forgetting all the other perks and benefits they have extended to Hillary for the last few years.

To his credit Krugman does discuss the how cozy the banks were with some democrats but that things somehow changed in 2008. He points out that some of us thought the Obama administration was too lenient (and really proves it to be true in my opinon)

He states that the president was remarkably constrained but that wallstreet was very petty and took terrible offense to mild comments....

So his argument, other than Hillary stating she is going after "shadow banking," there really is just Wallstreet being petty about a party that has really not gone after Wallstreet.

I get that Krugman is trying to stay above politics. But shadow banking is just a means to hide risks and losses. The real problem is the credit default swaps that are sent to that system and that really is created by mixing investment banking and personal banking. Shadow banking was just a way to get around whatever fragmentary, tattered regulations remain.

We still need the goddamned regulations back!

Glass-Steagall is going to take care of the "shadow banks". I think G-S is going to take care of me!

It puts my money and your money back in safe banks. Smaller and with enough FDIC to cover our loses without bailouts. Not to mention that this money in the deposit banks is invested locally and not in some risky foreign venture. Thus it works as a local stimulus.

Those who are calling for the return to G-S are not expecting it to fix the risky moves of the investment banks. But it is making sure they are gambling with their own money and not our.

I would like to see Paul Krugman talking to Robert Reich about this issue. They are not on the same page. And basically I think that Paul is missing the real point.