Krugman: What Would I Have Done?

Krugman:

That’s the question Obama’s kinda-sorta defenders keep asking; it’s supposed to be a conversation-stopper.

But the answer is clear: I would have made a statement declaring that giving in to this kind of blackmail would constitute a violation of my oath of office, and that my lawyers, on careful reflection, have determined that there are several legal options that allow me to ignore this extortionate demand.

Now, the Obama people say that this wasn’t actually an option. Well, I hate to say this, but I don’t believe them.

Think about the history here; think about all the misjudgments, all the reasons this administration has come up with not to act — not to act against the bankers, not to act on taxes, and down the line. Think of the colossal misjudgment over Republican intentions on debt. Why, at this point, should anyone trust these people when they say that they did all they could?

It’s much, much too late for Obama and co. to say “Trust us, we know what we’re doing.” My reservoir of trust is now completely drained. And I know I’m not alone.

Source: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/01/what-would-i-have-done/


ANOTHER POST BY KRUGMAN: IF I WERE IN THE HOUSE

I guess I have to be explicit at this point: yes, I would vote no.

What about the catastrophe that would result? Several thoughts.

First, what I keep hearing from people who should know is that Treasury won’t actually run out of cash tomorrow, that it still has a few more days.

Second, the people who claim that terrible things would immediately happen in the markets also claimed that there would be a big relief rally once a deal was struck. Not so much: the Dow is down 121 right now.

Third, the idea that a temporary disruption would permanently damage faith in US institutions now seems moot; if you haven’t already lost faith in US institutions, you’re not paying attention.

Fourth, those legal options are still there. Obama can move now; and even if he eventually loses in the courts, that gives him time.

Sure, it’s risky. But the whole situation is immensely risky, thanks to the extremism and bloody-mindedness of the right. There are no safe options, and trying to play it safe when there is no safety lands you, well, where Obama is right now.

Source: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/01/if-i-were-in-the-house/

He's not alone.

the notion that somehow these critics knew how to better deal with a bunch of economic terrorists. The posturing is that they would have stood firm and not given into the demands of these lunatics. Well, let's imagine the President standing firm not budging as the default date draws nearer, Republicans would have given in right? How does one envisioning that happening: Republicans agreeing to revenue increases? Really?

Any scenario in which the President stands firm as envisioned by the critics means Republicans ride it out (a clean bill was already voted down) to default. Then what: the President uses the 14th Amendment?

In that scenario, does anyone actually see the current critics of the deal, not blaming the President for his failure to reach a deal?

The deal hasn't passed Congress yet. If if fails to do so, then there will likely be a default. What then?

From my comment here

has written something about this, see my addition to the first version of the OP.

It's not about pleading with the Republicans to accept revenue increases, the Republicans agreed to revenue increases as part of the Bush tax cut debacle in the first place. All the Democrats had to do was NOTHING and the tax cuts would have expired. Instead, the acted PROACTIVELY to extend the Bush tax cuts for the ultra-rich to the detriment of our society, and now to the damage of our economic recovery.

Please show a specific link showing me where the Bush Tax cuts are slated to be extended.

Obama's big December gift to the rich.

he could be in Timmy's high chair, no less. You made your case, I do not agree with it, I agree with Krugman. Your case, as always, hinges on characterizing what you think those you do not agree with would say or do in a certain scenario. Krugman's is far more honest.

nothing to you.

He knows something about economics, and he does the research and discussed the issue with constitutional lawyers before making those comments.

Unlike some, Krugman does the research to back up his statements.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

HIMSELF. His Nobel prizes really cheapens that award almost as much as Obama's peace Prize.


Mirror, Mirror

Textbook economics is "a bizarre point of view"--according to the textbook's author!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703915204575103720332317434.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion


Former Enron adviser http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/opinion/05krugman.html Paul Krugman takes note in his New York Times column of what he calls "the incredible gap that has opened up between the parties":

Today, Democrats and Republicans live in different universes, both intellectually and morally.

"What Democrats believe," he says "is what textbook economics says":

But that's not how Republicans see it. Here's what Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, had to say when defending Mr. Bunning's position (although not joining his blockade): unemployment relief "doesn't create new jobs. In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work."

Krugman scoffs: "To me, that's a bizarre point of view--but then, I don't live in Mr. Kyl's universe."

What does textbook economics have to say about this question? Here is a passage from a textbook called "Macroeconomics":

Public policy designed to help workers who lose their jobs can lead to structural unemployment as an unintended side effect. . . . In other countries, particularly in Europe, benefits are more generous and last longer. The drawback to this generosity is that it reduces a worker's incentive to quickly find a new job. Generous unemployment benefits in some European countries are widely believed to be one of the main causes of "Eurosclerosis," the persistent high unemployment that affects a number of European countries.

So it turns out that what Krugman calls Sen. Kyl's "bizarre point of view" is, in fact, textbook economics. The authors of that textbook are Paul Krugman and Robin Wells. Miss Wells is also known as Mrs. Paul Krugman.


snip

On a political forum, you want to complain about someone arm-chair quarterbacking?

Please say you see how inane and silly that is.

and Jared Berstein, former Obama economist says "Obama's people have no strategy to deal with the intransigent factions in the Repub party"--My question is Why the fuck not????

"Fuck you, separate branches of government! Same goes for you, numerous Constitutional scholars who think the 14th wouldn't have ended well! I'm going to rule by fiat!"

Yeah, no. Krugman's opinion changes with the wind, and it's a reflection of his naivete concerning the political process. He is an economist, not a politician.

As someone quoted in another post, Do you get angry with the radicals holding the gun to your head, or with the people who stopped them from pulling the trigger?

That's what we did. It wasn't pretty, but we needed the votes, else we would have defaulted. Yes, we would have, because the tea partiers just don't give a shit about (or even understand) the consequences. Anyone who thinks the Republicans weren't geared up to somehow confront a 14th Amendment move is fooling themselves.

the consequences of defaulting, see the last part of the OP (added later).

But, of course, this is extortion - the minority in government tries to force the majority by threatening to create chaos. It's a scandal, and it won't stop, as long as Obama gives in. And as far as I know, Obama hasn't even made clear to the people that this is extortion. He must be a Democratic President of the Republicans' dreams.

but his position has been very consistent on these issues.

And why did we have Wall Street insiders running Obama's economics team from the start?

That's on Obama and nothing to do with Congress or Republican blackmail as are dozen of Obama's other faulty decisions, like the surge into Afghanistan, hit squads, bombing Libya without a plan, etc.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

Batshit crazy.

Krugman:



Is that the same Krugman who wrote this:

I don't know, but try not to show it:

But in the last quote he wrote about what happens if the limit isn't raised (at all). In the first he talks about a temporary period where the limit isn't raised.

My guess: Obama should use every option against the Repubs, including the legal ones. That gives him time, as Krugman says. During that time, he can explain to the people what is going on. Simply said: One should resist blackmail as much as possible. The blackmail has to cost the Repubs something, or they will never stop.

and he must have changed his mind...

Peace,
Tex Shelters

- in the last quote he wrote about what happens if the limit isn't raised (at all). In the first he talks about a temporary period where the limit isn't raised.

I can't read Krugman's mind, though it would help me know more about economic.

That is possible too.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

Brains combined with balls to say it as it is.

I might add that this kind of discussion should have been going on when Bush was terrorizing America.

I like Krugman the Professional Economist; I have my doubts about Krugman the Amateur Politician.

is the quality of the arguments, not how long one has been in Congress. So if Obama has good arguments on his side, where are they?

to Krugman on the economic crisis back in 2007-8.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

Easy to sit in your chair and criticize when you don't have to do any lifting, or for that matter, anything at all.

people like Krugman "bloggers". But, of course, what matters is the truth, not titles. And if the truth is that Obama did the right thing, there should be some good answers to Krugman's critique. But I haven't seen any. I've seen Krugman being put down in so many ways over the years, but never or almost never by good answers.

writing on DU and you're not even an economist, and if you are, where's your nobel prize, blah blah blah.

Krugman has the right and some credibility when writing about the economy. Where's yours?

Peace,
Tex Shelters

What a lazy sack of shit. What did you have a big cup of stupid for breakfast? :rofl:

this was about economics, by the way.

Can't you come up with an actual comments, or are insults all you know? He's lazy because he makes you angry and you disagree with him? Really?

Peace,
Tex Shelters

Sorry Mr.Krugman, you have no conception of what it is really like to walk the walk.

:thumbsdown:

whaddayaknow? If Obama has good arguments on his side, where are they?

or if they require very long term measurements which ultimately cost the presidency and more Democratic congressional seats across the country.

Thus what good is a "good argument" if the unintended consequences turn out to be disastrous?

- that Obama did, makes reelection more probable. My guess is, Obama would win in a landslide if he followed Krugman's advice. Then Obama would tell people the truth about the Republicans. And the economy would be better. And the debt limit extortion would cost the Repubs something. My guess is that the extortion would be evaded with some legal trick.

of your keyboard.

Are you an economist? That is what Krugman was writing about, wasn't he, and some would call him an expert in the field, right?

It's amazing the number of people that call out Krugman for using a computer and not being part of the process when they themselves are removed from the process and are writing about it.

So, if we aren't in DC, we have no right to write about it? Really?

Peace,
Tex Shelters

much better than the President. Krugman is. There is FAR more to the job of being President than what Mr. Krugman speaks about.- He'd have to manage to get himself elected, for starters. And I don't see that happening.

Mr. Krugmans opinion may be coming from an educated mind, but it's the mind of someone who has the privilege of talking bold, while risking nothing of himself in the process.

My statement was directed TO the person claiming he could do so much better than Pres. Obama- the fact that you are so offended is puzzling, what kind of investment do you have in this mans opinion?

peace to you.

and Krugman knows a lot about the economy.

You are the one who took it to mean he would be a better president, not Krugman. His point was there are better options, or at least other options, than the president took. I wasn't offended, I just thought is strange that an armchair critic of Krugman would blame Krugman for being an armchair critic of the President, even though Krugman is educated in the field of which he spoke, and he never said "I would be a better President".

By the way, I always sign off

Peace,
Tex Shelters

area of expertise.

Really?

Peace,
Tex Shelters

keyboard.

He is an economist who had an opinion about what to do with the debt talks that was different from Obama. Why is that so hard for people to take. You would think he called Obama a n#@!&%r the way you critics are acting.

He never said "I know better than Obama" and in fact, he often has said that Obama was put in a hard place, AND that Krugman hope the President would make better choices.

Wow, the hate for Krugman is a bit overboard here.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

has no idea how to work with the other side or what it is like to negotiate with the insane.

Krugman get over your self importance. You are becoming increasingly irrelevant.

invalid?

You must like the compromise Obama came up with then.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

OMG that is too funny! He thinks THAT is all it would take?

But then, as a start, the people would be told the truth, that this is extortion. The President should resist as much as possible, in every possible way, to make extortion cost as much as possible for the Repubs.

And if no one else says it, no one hears it? And it only needs to be said for all good to prevail on earth?

:rofl:

What is Krugman's plan? How would he have gotten it passed? That's what I want to know.

And of course it's much more important what he says, than what anyone else says.

In addition to the above, I've found this by Krugman (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/29/lawyers-coins-and-money/):

So if something does pass the House, it will demand a constitutional balanced-budget amendment as the price of a second vote next year. I think we can safely say that the political process has failed. Now what?

Well, there do appear to be legal loopholes. Jack Balkin gives us the platinum coin option:

Sovereign governments such as the United States can print new money. However, there’s a statutory limit to the amount of paper currency that can be in circulation at any one time.

Ironically, there’s no similar limit on the amount of coinage. A little-known statute gives the secretary of the Treasury the authority to issue platinum coins in any denomination. So some commentators have suggested that the Treasury create two $1 trillion coins, deposit them in its account in the Federal Reserve and write checks on the proceeds.

And he also gives us the exploding-option option:

The government can also raise money through sales: For example, it could sell the Federal Reserve an option to purchase government property for $2 trillion. The Fed would then credit the proceeds to the government’s checking account. Once Congress lifts the debt ceiling, the president could buy back the option for a dollar, or the option could simply expire in 90 days.

These things sound ridiculous — but so is the behavior of Congressional Republicans. So why not fight back using legal tricks?

And there is the constitutional option. Ronald Dworkin says that it works — or, at the very least, will put the issue into the courts for a while, which is better than destroying the economy next week.

Outrageous behavior demands extraordinary responses. Over to you, Mr. President.

Update: Stan Collender describes both these options and a possible deal in which Boehner passes a bill with Democrats but not the Tea Party as Lord Voldemort options — names not to be spoken, but always there.

and listen to the video and look at other discussions he's had on the debt and you will see his plan.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

So there.

up his ass for all I care. Where are his political credentials? Just another pundit with a keyboard and a big mouth, who thinks that because of this he can predict the future.

/ignore

economics where he has plenty of credentials.

This hatred of Krugman tells me he hit close to the truth.

Yes, swearing and cursing and being vulgar always proves a point well.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

must mean the president is really, really making his points well.

You can have all the economics credentials you like, but hopping up and down and calling the president "President Pushover" and insisting that your way is the only way to prevent mutually assured destruction isn't effective politics. It's throwing a temper tantrum in public.

4 ways to go.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

:thumbsup: :yourock:

The guy is a nutcase.

Krugman was never "for" HCR. He begrudgingly agreed that something was better than nothing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/19/opinion/19krugman.html

and to use that ultimate, begrudging support of the president and Democrats as a character flaw seems bizarre on a Democratic message board.

..Mr. Krugman, you only have two arms "...I don't believe them..."

for having a keyboard, I have a question for you:

Are you satisfied with this compromise? NO, don't tell me it's the best he could have gotten. Answer the question:

Are you satisfied with this compromise?

Do you have any other ideas for what could have been done?

A lot of you mentioned using the 14th Amendment, but you weren't attacked for telling Obama he should have done.

Why all the vitriol now?

And, you are misrepresenting Krugman's post with the unfortunate title,m "What would I have done".

Peace,
Tex Shelters

Others can go ahead and disagree.

It looks like the people in this thread (up to this point) who are anti-Krugman and pro-Obama cannot defend their arguments. ProSense came up with one good point, but refused to address any deeper discussion of the point. Based on that, it is not even worth addressing ProSense's points. (Why have a discussion with a recursive, hit-and-run zombie?)

The others who attack Krugman seem to say that his opinions are not valid since he has no valid credentials. Without engaging them on this point, they should remember that debate is about the argument not about the person making the argument. They seem not to be able to rebut his points and spend most of their time attempting to fill a thread with logical fallacies instead of discussion.

Color me surprised

"My reservoir of trust is now completely drained. And I know I’m not alone"."

You can't drain a reservoir that was always empty to begin with

the talk radio monopoly gives the right the ability to message over anything the left or the white house does. it enables massive amounts of lies and hypocrisy.

yet the left ignores it and has NO organized opposition to it. so the collective left does NOT get obama's back and won't until the challenge talk radio.

the white house needs to point out the RWTR advantage as much as possible- that limbaugh is their true leader and that's where the teabaggers came from- that is their failing- but it is the left that is really fucking up and whining when they could turn this whole thing around.

That's great, genius, but what would you have actually done?