Paul Krugman: Why would anyone bother to listen to him?

The deal was done, and the US promptly had it's credit rating downgraded by S&P. Almost unthinkable. Elections next year- and you can bet the Dem's will be pushing this to the max. Obama has probably assured his reelection, but in my eyes he is still a lame duck President.

the SEC is now investigating S&P for their "model" as it seems that opinions and politics was more important in S&P decision than actual data and unbiased stats

Dysfunctional politics was indeed important in their decision- why shouldn't it be? That is a risk factor, in fact historically a very big risk factor.

Quote:

---

Mr. KRUGMAN: You know, to a large extent, it's more important that it gets spent somehow than where it gets spent.

---

Doesn't it pretty much sum up the ecomonic philosophy of the Left? Spread alot of money around and if it sloshes over the sides, well, the wasted money is not actually wasted because it stimulates the economy too. Spread the wealth around. Waste is actually good according to people like Krugman. What he fails to consider or what he "pragmatically" ignores
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2011/08/3508.jpgis the corruption waste encourages. All those people scrambling to catch that sloshing money. And all those politicians channeling money to their cronies and the self-glory legacy programs their cronies hide behind while the politician appears glorious. Going on for years so people become accustomed to the waste. Waste becomes natural. It becomes expected. Corruption becomes natural. It becomes accepted.

A little inconvienent history here, eh? :)


Blast From Paul Krugman’s Past: “Social Security Is A Ponzi Scheme And Will Soon Be Over.”

Quote:

---

Mr. KRUGMAN: You know, to a large extent, it's more important that it gets spent somehow than where it gets spent.

---

The Solyndra scandal comes to mind. Why does a Solyndra scandal happen? It happens because of the mentality expressed by Krugman. Do they ever consider the consequences of "it's more important that it gets spent somehow"? Do they ever consider the corruption it breeds? I think their so-called "pragmatism" allows them not to consider the consequences and their so-called "pragmatism" allows then not to take responsibility for the consequences. They always stumble forward never looking back. Their pragmatism is actually a form of denial.

^The GSA scandal is another example of this sort of mentality.

This election is, in substantive terms, about the rich versus the rest, and it would be doing voters a disservice to pretend otherwise. – Krugman July 17, 2012

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/16/op...-personal.html

Translation: Romney. He’s not one of us. And you know what that means.*









*The President Obama re-election campaign encourages you to associate your own fears, your own ignorance, your own superstitions, your own hatred, your own prejudices, bigotry and even racism with this statement.



EXCUSE OBAMA IN 2012

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by attaboy

The President Obama re-election campaign encourages you to associate your own fears, your own ignorance, your own superstitions, your own hatred, your own prejudices, bigotry and even racism with this statement.

---

As in, with this statement (the meat of the article linked above):-

Former President George W. Bush pushed through big tax cuts heavily tilted toward the highest incomes. As a result, taxes on the very rich are currently the lowest they’ve been in 80 years. President Obama proposes letting those high-end Bush tax cuts expire; Mr. Romney, on the other hand, proposes big further tax cuts for the wealthy.

The impact at the top would be large. According to estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, the Romney plan would reduce the annual taxes paid by the average member of the top 1 percent by $237,000 compared with the Obama plan; for the top 0.1 percent that number rises to $1.2 million. No wonder Mr. Romney’s fund-raisers in the Hamptons attracted so many eager donors that there were luxury-car traffic jams.

What about everyone else? Again according to the policy center, Mr. Romney’s tax cuts would increase the annual deficit by almost $500 billion. He claims that he would make this up by closing loopholes, in a way that wouldn’t shift the tax burden toward the middle class — but he has refused to give any specifics, and there’s no reason to believe him. Realistically, those big tax cuts for the rich would be offset, sooner or later, with higher taxes and/or lower benefits for the middle class and the poor.


The logic or justification behind the Bush tax cuts was based on the much hyped 'trickle down effect'. The problem is, there was no trickle down effect- the tax cuts certainly enriched the already Rich, but had no discernible effect on domestic investment or on employment. As a result of this policy, the unfunded Iraq & Ghan wars, and the politically motivated (and unfunded) Medicare boost to seniors, the Bush administration left the US government in a dire financial position- massive debt and a rapidly growing annual Deficit. The USA had been the worlds largest creditor at the end of the Clinton administration- now, only eight years later, it was the worlds largest debtor. The icing on the cake, of course, was the Global Financial Crisis, truly dubya's legacy. So whilst Obama has in fact increased government spending by less than any President since Eisenhower, government debt has continued to increase at an alarming pace (due to the considerable drop in government tax revenue), and the US governments debt and Deficit position is more parlous than ever.

You say this is all about class envy, and I say that is nonsense- this is all about money, specifically how to fund the US government and contain it's blossoming debt & deficit. Romney is pushing measures that totally failed during the Bush era, and will make the governments debt position far worse, untenable even. It really is voodoonomics, and dangerous for the whole world economy.

So, if you are pushing a highly discredited and irresponsible position, and point blank refuse to even provide any specifics, what is a good Republican to do? The usual, of course. Blame Obama- commie, muslim, he'll 'take away your guns', etc. Blame 'class envy'. Paying for the US government and maintaining it's various vital roles (defence, education, infrastructure etc) has nothing to do with either class envy or communism- and everything to do with Economics.

The GOP is assiduously avoiding the real Issue's and playing every populist non sequitur in the book. That is what it has become- nothing more than a sick joke, and it does sadden me. It now represents something quite the opposite of traditional Republicanism, and is in fact a dangerous Right Wing party, with no affiliation to the national interest. Not so long ago, it was the Dem's who were the party of populism and demagoguery, and the smart kids at Uni- ie those who were going somewhere- were mainly Republican leaning. Them times is gone. I would remind you I was VC of a conservative party (the National party) in Sydney in the late 80's, and a Republican supporter most of my adult life. Them times is most surely gone. Why did the GOP go so lowbrow, and what did the USA do to deserve them?

I think what's significant to note is Krugman lowering himself to scapegoating.

I suppose there is Krugman the economist, and Krugman the columnist.
As a columnist & media figure, call him a blowhard if you like- but he is in good company with Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity et al. Unlike them though, he is qualified to comment about economic matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sabang

I suppose there is Krugman the economist, and Krugman the columnist.
As a columnist & media figure, call him a blowhard if you like- but he is in good company with Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity et al. Unlike them though, he is qualified to comment about economic matters.

---

Krugman 'the columnist' I don't like. He is, a blow-hard. He also writes his columns at a very low level of English. This makes the articles easier to be picked up by the AP and distributed to other papers.

Yes, qualified to talk/write about economics, but this 'economic talk' is in his Op-Ed pieces.

So he's taking his economic pedigree (oh, Nobel prize winner) and using that to be a political blow-hard.

Can't stand the guy, now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sabang

I suppose there is Krugman the economist, and Krugman the columnist.
As a columnist & media figure, call him a blowhard if you like- but he is in good company with Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity et al. Unlike them though, he is qualified to comment about economic matters.

---

He's more qualified to talk about anything than those assholes. Yes, he writes about politics, but the idea that politics can be separated from economics is a peculiar one.

Tricke down? More like trickle to the Cayman Islands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Guardian

£13tn: hoard hidden from taxman by global elite
• Study estimates staggering size of offshore economy
• Private banks help wealthiest to move cash into havens

Heather Stewart, business editor
guardian.co.uk, Saturday 21 July 2012 21.00 BST

A global super-rich elite has exploited gaps in cross-border tax rules to hide an extraordinary £13 trillion ($21tn) of wealth offshore – as much as the American and Japanese GDPs put together – according to research commissioned by the campaign group Tax Justice Network.

James Henry, former chief economist at consultancy McKinsey and an expert on tax havens, has compiled the most detailed estimates yet of the size of the offshore economy in a new report, The Price of Offshore Revisited, released exclusively to the Observer.

He shows that at least £13tn – perhaps up to £20tn – has leaked out of scores of countries into secretive jurisdictions such as Switzerland and the Cayman Islands with the help of private banks, which vie to attract the assets of so-called high net-worth individuals. Their wealth is, as Henry puts it, "protected by a highly paid, industrious bevy of professional enablers in the private banking, legal, accounting and investment industries taking advantage of the increasingly borderless, frictionless global economy". According to Henry's research, the top 10 private banks, which include UBS and Credit Suisse in Switzerland, as well as the US investment bank Goldman Sachs, managed more than £4tn in 2010, a sharp rise from £1.5tn five years earlier.

The detailed analysis in the report, compiled using data from a range of sources, including the Bank of International Settlements and the International Monetary Fund, suggests that for many developing countries the cumulative value of the capital that has flowed out of their economies since the 1970s would be more than enough to pay off their debts to the rest of the world.

Oil-rich states with an internationally mobile elite have been especially prone to watching their wealth disappear into offshore bank accounts instead of being invested at home, the research suggests. Once the returns on investing the hidden assets is included, almost £500bn has left Russia since the early 1990s when its economy was opened up. Saudi Arabia has seen £197bn flood out since the mid-1970s, and Nigeria £196bn.

"The problem here is that the assets of these countries are held by a small number of wealthy individuals while the debts are shouldered by the ordinary people of these countries through their governments," the report says.

The sheer size of the cash pile sitting out of reach of tax authorities is so great that it suggests standard measures of inequality radically underestimate the true gap between rich and poor. According to Henry's calculations, £6.3tn of assets is owned by only 92,000 people, or 0.001% of the world's population – a tiny class of the mega-rich who have more in common with each other than those at the bottom of the income scale in their own societies.

"These estimates reveal a staggering failure: inequality is much, much worse than official statistics show, but politicians are still relying on trickle-down to transfer wealth to poorer people," said John Christensen of the Tax Justice Network. "People on the street have no illusions about how unfair the situation has become."

TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said: "Countries around the world are under intense pressure to reduce their deficits and governments cannot afford to let so much wealth slip past into tax havens.

"Closing down the tax loopholes exploited by multinationals and the super-rich to avoid paying their fair share will reduce the deficit. This way the government can focus on stimulating the economy, rather than squeezing the life out of it with cuts and tax rises for the 99% of people who aren't rich enough to avoid paying their taxes."

Assuming the £13tn mountain of assets earned an average 3% a year for its owners, and governments were able to tax that income at 30%, it would generate a bumper £121bn in revenues – more than rich countries spend on aid to the developing world each year.

Groups such as UK Uncut have focused attention on the paltry tax bills of some highly wealthy individuals, such as Topshop owner Sir Philip Green, with campaigners at one recent protest shouting: "Where did all the money go? He took it off to Monaco!" Much of Green's retail empire is owned by his wife, Tina, who lives in the low-tax principality.

A spokeswoman for UK Uncut said: "People like Philip Green use public services – they need the streets to be cleaned, people need public transport to get to their shops – but they don't want to pay for it."

Leaders of G20 countries have repeatedly pledged to close down tax havens since the financial crisis of 2008, when the secrecy shrouding parts of the banking system was widely seen as exacerbating instability. But many countries still refuse to make details of individuals' financial worth available to the tax authorities in their home countries as a matter of course. Tax Justice Network would like to see this kind of exchange of information become standard practice, to prevent rich individuals playing off one jurisdiction against another.

"The very existence of the global offshore industry, and the tax-free status of the enormous sums invested by their wealthy clients, is predicated on secrecy," said Henry.

---

£13tn: hoard hidden from taxman by global elite | Business | The Observer

Solyndra: trickle down government.

Waste and fraud at GSA more trickle down government.

Krugman is not credible as an economist (unless you're a commie) nor a polit commentator (even worse). The guy's a nut job; fits right in with all the NYT bongo blips.