(Please welcome author Paul Krugman, who is with us today in the comments -- jh)
Paul Krugman’s Conscience of a Liberal is required reading for progressives. heading into the 2008 election year. Here, in lucid prose and compelling logic, is a core narrative that every progressive should master.
Krugman, one of the most gifted economists of his generation, and now a prize-winning columnist at the New York Times, focuses on the return of Gilded Age inequality in America -- the unimaginable wealth of a few and the stagnant wages and growing insecurity experienced by most of us. He shows that this is not an act of nature, the result of technological invention or of globalization. It is the result – the predictable and predicted result – of policy wrought by the movement conservatives who have dominated our politics for the last three decades.
Krugman begins by showing how middle class America was not a natural outgrowth of industrialization, but was constructed in a very short time by the policies of the Roosevelt era coming out of the Depression and World War II. Government raised taxes on the wealthy, created a public safety net for working families – Social Security, unemployment insurance – and fostered a private social contract – strong unions that exacted family wages, health care, pensions, paid vacations and more from corporations. This helped produce twenty-five years of prosperity in which America grew together (except for those who were locked out, like Blacks in the apartheid South)
That era ended, Krugman argues, not because of globalization or technology but because movement conservatives captured our politics and systematically succored the wealthy while skewering the rest of us. Tax burdens were shifted, corporations and capital deregulated, unions decimated, greed celebrated. By 2007, at a time of low unemployment and inflation, rising profits and productivity, most Americans thought the country was in or on the verge of a recession, even before the housing bubble burst.
How could a program designed to benefit the few win popular support? Krugman reviews the oft-told story of the rise of the right, the building of its infrastructure of politics and ideas, its use of national security, and social backlash to find a popular base.
But he cuts through much of the mystification to show how central racial prejudice -- the white backlash to the civil rights movement – was to this project. It was Nixon’s southern strategy – race-bait politics that flipped the South – that enabled movement conservatives to capture and consolidate their hold on national power.
Now this conservative era is running on empty. The debacle in Iraq has stripped Bush of the security club he wielded against Democrats in 2002 and 2004. Race bait politics is turning Republicans into a white-only, reactionary regional party in a nation of increasing diversity and social liberalism. And as demonstrated in 2006, if Democrats stand up for working Americans, they have the opportunity to forge a new reform majority.
If they do, Krugman suggests their core agenda is clear. Start with universal, affordable health care, paid for by raising taxes on the wealthy. Raise the minimum wage, empower unions, particularly in the industries less exposed to global competition. Succeeding in these reforms will set the stage for more.
In this compelling narrative, much necessarily is left on the cutting room floor. I wish Krugman had placed more emphasis on how central the aggressive corporate political mobilization in the 1970s was to the rise of the right, as well as how business succeeded in buying Democrats as well as fueling the reaction. Conservatives would have had a harder time had not Democrats lost their voice. A Democratic Party in thrall to Goldman Sachs politics of corporate trade and fiscal austerity still sounds an uncertain trumpet to most Americans.
Similarly, Krugman doesn’t discuss how the US global economic strategy used by companies to bludgeon workers and unions. His argument would have been strengthened by detailing how that strategy – by, for and of the multinationals – was also the expression of policies and politics, not nature. Rebuilding an America of shared prosperity will require a very difficult struggle to forge a new national strategy.
But Krugman has told a strong, clear, powerful story of conservative failure and progressive promise, and arrayed facts and logic to support it. In the battle of ideas, this book provides live ammunition for progressives.
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
2
Is it true that 60% of stocks are owned by one percent of the people?
Hi, just to let the host know that I’m here.
Very, very happy to have Prof. Krugman here at FDL. I have enjoyed reading his work for decades now; I think he’s the only good thing I can recall from the Reagan years.
Thanks for this opportunity, Jane, and to Robert Borosage for hosting.
Paul Krugman @ 3
Welcome, Paul. So great to have you here.
I love the book. It’s been a fabulous read and has informed my blogging all week.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 2
I don’t have the data right in front of me, but that shouldn’t be too far off. The top 1 percent have around 40 percent of all wealth, and a higher share of financial assets (as opposed to home equity — though that’s kind of vanishing now anyway)
Thank you FDL for putting together the awesome Book Salon, and thanks Paul for joining us here.
Paul, my question to you: why do Democrats have such trouble speaking directly and truthfully? For example, when people like Dick Cheney or George Bush make “knowingly false statements”, why don’t leading Democrats and journalists call those statements, “lies”?
As someone who is part of the elite opinion class, have you ever talked about this with colleagues on either side of the spectrum? What is the explanation for lack of clarity?
Thank you for your time and insight.
Welcome Prof. Krugman!
Hello Paul,
How many Congressional cycles do you think it’ll take to repair the damage of the last 7 years? Have Americans really woken up and smelled the right wing sludge, or will the 30 percenters return to prominence?
Paul - You and Frank Rich are my last “hopes” at the NYT. How do people respond to you at the paper itself?
If we got out of Iraq, would you think it a good idea to put the savings into WPA infrastructure type projects, environmental projects, health care and education, and couple these objectives with tax increases?
Welcome Mr. Krugman. I am glad you stopped by. I was wondering what effect has the DLC had on the corporatization of the Democratic Party? Why has it gotten away from its roots as the champion of the little guy? And what do you see as 2 or 3 keys of taking back the reins of this country from the corporatists?
Dr. Krugman, welcome, and thank you for all that you do. I haven’t received my copy of your book yet, but I am looking forward to it.
Yo, Prof!
I don’t have a question, but I just want to thank you for being the only sane member of the NY Times editorial page. No wonder they’re trying to stick a shiv in your back over this book.
Actually, I do have a question: how do you put up with it? Why do you stay? I can’t imagine you couldn’t find another national publication to run you regularly. Is it inertia on your part, or do they treat you better than it seems to the public?
Thanks again for all the great work over the years!
Welcome Paul Krugman, we appreciate your taking time to visit us. I haven’t read your book yet, but have been a NYT reader for a long while. My grandfather was an economics professor at U of Ky in the earlier 20th century and he would be ashamed of my poor knowledge of the subject. I will lurk and listen, and thanks again.
I am not sure how book reviews are assigned but it’s not by random. These targeted “hit pieces”, two in a row for Dr. Krugman, show how deep the Republican Criminal enterprise has infected the MSM. After we retake the Govt, serious regulatory reform is needed to address media consolidation and conflict of interest. The present situation is not what was intended by the First Amendment. Any thoughts?
First of all, I’m a ringer - if I’m part of the “elite opinion class,” it was all because of a mistake — I’m supposed to be a boring economist.
But basically, among the media I’d put it down to timidity. Being even-handed is safe. I wrote way back in 2000 — long before criticizing Bush was being pro-terra, or something — that if Bush said the earth was flat, the headlines would read “Opinions differ on shape of planet”. Calling out the right on lies is especially scary — they’ll sic a stalker on you, make threatening calls to management, etc..
About the Democrats: I think they’re afraid of the pundits, who go into fainting spells if a Dem uses strong language. Of course, IOKIYAR.
Welcome, Paul Krugman! You are a personal hero for me, I wish I could shake your hand. Would that the MSM had even a few more people with your insight, analytical ability, progressive leanings, and the ability to express it all so clearly. Bravo to you!
Ok, after all those kudos, you are probably expecting a question *g*. So here it is: How worried are you about fascism, or something like it, in the US?
Dr. Krugman, a great honor to have you here at FDL.
Calling out the right on lies is especially scary — they’ll sic a stalker on you, make threatening calls to management, etc..
About the Democrats: I think they’re afraid of the pundits, who go into fainting spells if a Dem uses strong language. Of course, IOKIYAR.
How do you suggest we combat that? Out in “crazy netroots land” the whole depressing spin cycle is so easy to see- it’s pretty much media training 101, and yet I can’t get anyone in the democratic leadership to listen to me.
Professor, welcome to the lake.
Do you see any hope, even slim, of truly reforming the financing of elections? Is there even a small chance of tying FCC licenses to the public good once more?
Oklahoma kiddo @ 11
There isn’t THAT much money — as a share of the economy, Iraq is still only half a Vietnam, and around a fifth of a Cold War. But we need to take the savings from Iraq, plus letting the Bush tax cuts expire, and use it for progressive projects that yield real results. Universal health care, first stop: if we get that, it will act as proof of concept for progressive policies in general.
Paul Krugman says
October 20th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Of course, IOKIYAR.
Hey - have you been lurking here?
(or do I just need to get out more?)
LOL.
I can’t tell you how glad I am for the “mistake”.
The Fighting Keyboardists are good at something, I guess. Helps us figure out who needs primary challengers.
Calling out the right on lies is especially scary — they’ll sic a stalker on you, make threatening calls to management, etc..
Does that happen very often to you - when you call attention to the lies, misdeeds and miscalculations of BushCo?
Prof. Krugman, thank you for all your great columns. My question is:
What is the one thing that most needs to be changed in our corporate economy?
(My own thought is the emphasis on quarterly reports over long term health, but I’m no economist)
“First of all, I’m a ringer - if I’m part of the “elite opinion class,” it was all because of a mistake — I’m supposed to be a boring economist.”
LOL! It’s comments like this that prove you are not a boring economist.
For FirePups who aren’t familiar with Prof. Krugman’s work pre-NYT column, you can visit his “Unofficial Website” through which you can find the “Official Website” (via Links in left navbar).
Wanted to ask if Prof. Krugman has read Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine, and if he’s got any comments about it if he has.
(I remember in particular a piece he wrote about George Soros and the global capital market — how the IMF’s power to wreak havoc made speculators a lot of money, but was not necessarily a constructive force. Klein’s commentary about the IMF certainly clarifies what Soros might have been insinuating.)
Since you know the excellent acronym “IOKIYAR,” allow me to introduce you to another most excellent phrase.
“Whiny ass titty baby.”
Feel free to use it whenever you like.
Welcome, Prof. Krugman:
Is there something bigger, but only implicit to the S-CHIP debate– that is, that it papers over the cracks in the middle-class American lifestyle? Even the supporters of an expanded S-CHIP won’t usually admit that it’s treating a symptom and not the cause. And is there a dovetail between SCHIP and the AMT, and the downward pressure on the second quartile of household incomes?
Mr. Krugman,
Welcome to the Lake and glad you have finally been released from behind the iron curtain/pay wall. As you can tell, you have many fans at this site. And also welcome into the blogging world! It’s fun seeing what catches your thoughts on a more random platform.
My concern is about the inevitable shift of corpo money from the reps. to the dems. which is now taking place in a furry. The FISA bill with retro immunity is just the first salvo that we are seeing as a result of the dems being bought and paid for—so far it seems like chump change, $22K for Rockefeller and Reid, but I’m sure that is a down payment for services that the telcos anticipate will be rendered.
Are we looking at more of the same if a dem really is elected to the WH with a dem congress to boot?
Paul Krugman @ 22
I think it will take a long time to achieve universal health care, given the entrenchment of Congress in the insurance industry as well as the uncertainty of a real Progressive majority. Do we have that kind of time? And how can we (I.E. the little people) best move the process, from your perspective?
four legs good @ 20
Pushback from sites like this is at least part of the answer. On my main domestic issue, health care, it’s been obvious that the blogs plus the progressive infrastructure (the tiny left-wing conspiracy) have been pushing the Dems into taking a much stronger line. When Edwards came out with a serious plan, it became clear that Obama and Clinton had to match, or face a firestorm.
And media criticism helps too. I can see how upset some colleagues get at facing criticism from Media Matters, The Horse’s Mouth, Brad DeLong, and others. They’d reached a sort of accommodation: play by the right’s rules, and you won’t get yelled at. Now the yelling is coming from both sides, and they’re mad — but that’s good. I can see visible results from progressive pressure.
Dr. Krugman, a serious question- wouldn’t universal healthcare be good for american businesses? Wouldn’t it help them to be more competitive?
Why doesn’t anyone ever make that argument? It seems so ridiculous to me- the republicans are against universal healthcare because government handouts are “against their principles” but they have no problem with industry bailouts.
Any reaction over at the NYT that Valerie Wilson was working to prevent Iran from getting nukes???? Any tidbits???? You know, watercooler stuff…Just asking???
Also, what do you make of all of the talk of “Puts” on Friday? Just regular business? What’s going on?
Prof Krugman, thanks for being a rational voice in the darkness of the last seven years. One question, and this might seem silly, but how hard was it really to sit next to that idiot Tucker Carlson and listen to him spew that litany of right-wing talking points and craptastic nonsense the other night on Bill Maher?
Did you want to run off the stage and take a shower when you left? I would have that’s for sure.
Thanks again for all you words and wisdom, please keep on writing.
four legs good @ 29
IOKIYAR fits Times rules. WATB does not. The Grey Lady is rather Victorian: when I filed my recent Blackwater column, “Hired gun fetish”, the system flagged it as pornography …
“Universal health care, first stop: if we get that, it will act as proof of concept for progressive policies in general.”
Yet, the simplest arguments for universal health care are overlooked. All the right has to do is whisper “socialism” and the politicians fall apart in terror.
Why is it they can’t speak of a “return on investment”? Tax dollars pay for SChip so why shouldn’t taxpayers reap the benefits?
This is an argument that applies to many situations, yet no one argues it. Is it just that insurance companies are so powerful they’ve undercut the will of the opposition?
I don’t get it.
You are one brave dude…even from the begining ,you spoke truth to power,that is why i sent you candygrams (hahahaha,didnt know what else to do)…i salute your bravery!!!
Dr. Krugman, big honor to have you here.
Your Nobel-winning Princeton colleague Eric Maskin made some comments this week about the limitations of the free market, specifically its inability to reliably provide for public goods, the improvement of which underlies the work that won him a share of the prize.
I find it interesting that while hundreds of US newspapers reported on his win, taking obvious pride in an American victory, virtually none picked up the wire story in which he explained that his work is necessary because free market orthodoxy is flawed.
Do you have any thoughts to share here — either about Maskin’s work and mechanism design in general, or perhaps the media’s unwillingness to discuss it?
Thanks!
Now the yelling is coming from both sides, and they’re mad — but that’s good. I can see visible results from progressive pressure.
Well, that’s a good thing.
Now, how do we convince the media that the progressive net roots aren’t a bunch of dirty hippies living in communes?
For the record, I work for a large university and have pretty good benefits and no children, but I want unversal healthcare because it’s the right thing for society.
It makes me sick to think of all the people without it.
IOKIYAR fits Times rules. WATB does not. The Grey Lady is rather Victorian: when I filed my recent Blackwater column, “Hired gun fetish”, the system flagged it as pornography …
Oh, damn.
Well, feel free to use it next time you’re on RealTime with Bill Maher.
I have high hopes of getting someone like Stark to call the republicans that on the House floor- just to see their heads explode.
four legs good @ 34
yes, this is a real puzzle. The Big 3 auto makers are, in fact, enthusiastic supporters of single-payer health care — in Canada. (They send letters to the Canadian government warning that any tampering with the system would greatly hurt their competitiveness.) So why don’t they do the same here?
My take is that it’s two things. One, fear of retribution: as I wrote in my last column, for about a decade Tom DeLay and his friends did a pretty good job of turning K Street into an appendage of the GOP, not the other way around, and big companies were probably afraid to challenge the free-market line.
The other thing may be the difference between the interests of the company and those of its executives. Advocating universal health care might save GM, but get its CEO blackballed from the country club. Decisions, decisions.
Watch what you say, folks! Our honored guest speaks blogger!
Seriously, welcome, Paul, and thanks for giving voice and depth to some very necessary truths in your book.
LS @ 35
LS or Paul, could you explain “Puts”?
Thanks
It is indeed an honor to have you here, Prof. Krugman.
These right-wing outrage attacks and smears seem to have a common thread: don’t speak out against the right wing, or we’ll go after you. Doesn’t matter if you’re a congressman, CIA agent, injured 12 year old boy, or respected academic.
My question: is this intimidation ultimately going to work, or will Americans rediscover their anti-authoritarian streak and stand up to say, “no, you can’t silence us?” Will people resist the extreme bullying behavior we’ve come to expect as normal?
Dr. Krugman,
One of my lingering concerns about universal single-payer is that if we uncouple the cost of health care from individual purchasing decisions, people will come to see it as free and demand will spiral out of control. If you were Health Care Czar, how would you address this potential problem?
zennurse @ 45
Put options…hope Paul can explain…I heard the financial media say yesterday, as the market fell -366 points that “Puts” were the were heavy….and I wonder why????? Iran?
Advocating universal health care might save GM, but get its CEO blackballed from the country club. Decisions, decisions.
Americans putting their personal self interest above the common good will be the death of us.
Maybe the argument is that if they save GM, it will improve their bonuses (though it’s hard to see how CEO compensation can get higher).
I hope Edwards gets some more traction- I believe he has talked about this issue some.
O Shrill One, did you happen to see Glenn Greenwald today?
Pretty good analysis of Howie Kurtz, The Devil, and the MSM in general…
Paul Krugman @ 43
But wouldn’t it help the other businesses as well? Do businesses really want to be in the health care business? Having to provide health care as part of employment?
Dr.Krugman…I dont see the point of letting almost 50 million people withouthealthcare benefits walking around with communicable diseases,why dont the so called conservatives think about that…People with insurance get treated ,others DONT
Welcome Prof. Krugman. We are honored to have you here.
I wonder if you have had a chance to read Naomi Klein’s new book “The Shock Doctrine” and what your reaction is to her take on Milton Friedman’s “unfettered capitalism” projects, especially as they have impacted developing nations.
One of my lingering concerns about universal single-payer is that if we uncouple the cost of health care from individual purchasing decisions, people will come to see it as free and demand will spiral out of control.
I’m sorry, but that just makes no sense. Your children aren’t going to run out and get more measles and you’re not going to choose to have an extra heart attack because you have universal coverage.
Will people “choose” to get more preventative care? probably, which should reduce the demand for more expensive, late stage emergency treatment.
IMHO, anyway.
I’m worried about that, and talked about it in yesterday’s Times. An even stronger example is Chuck Schumer’s foot-dragging over closing the giant tax loophole for hedge fund managers. The thing is that Schumer is a good guy, personally squeaky clean as far as I know — he only has the party’s interest at heart — but that means vacuuming up as much money as possible.
I think and hope that progressive pressure will prevent an abject sellout by the next Dem president — and I’d also hope that ambition will lead him or her to achieve more than another Clinton-like era of triangulation. But I’m not sure.
As I put it — in COAL I talk a lot about history, and it’s worked its way into my head — we hope we’re about to elect FDR, but there’s a chance all we’ll get is Grover Cleveland.
oh boy did they hate FDR,they never got over him,and try everyday to dismantle all he did.
An even stronger example is Chuck Schumer’s foot-dragging over closing the giant tax loophole for hedge fund managers.
That one ticked me off.
I believe a small part of the problem is the number of people who report on business and economic issues who have never taken an economics or an accounting class in their life.
If you can’t understand the problem, it’s tough to report on it. Or to keep yourself from getting bamboozled.
Professor Krugman, I’d like your take on a concern I have with centralized government-run healthcare. While I support universal access, I am concerned about the government (scarred as I am but Bush et al) making decisions about what and who it will cover. For instance, I fear what a Republican administration would do about access to birth control.
I appreciate countries who do have government run health plans have not done this, but they don’t have our special brand of fundamentalists.
jayt @ 23
That’s been around since the early days of Salon’s Table Talk. ;-)
four legs good @ 54
OK, on all this: the health care choices people make for themselves basically involve pocket change; visits to the doctor, minor surgery, are not where the money is.
The big stuff is in hugely expensive procedures: heart bypasses, dialysis, etc.. These things either get paid by insurance, or they don’t happen at all.
So making sure that everyone has insurance won’t lead to significantly higher spending on care — and it will save huge amounts on bureaucracy (Medicare has overhead of 3 percent; private insurance companies have overhead of 14 percent)
Conservatives love the “moral hazard” argument that people consume too much care because they don’t pay for it, but when you do the numbers it turns out to be basically nonsense.
Is there even another FDR out there? Looking at the candidates, I have my doubts.
So which of those running has the most potential to be the next FDR?
four legs good @ 53
Fully agree with FLG, if there are people “demanding” care, it is the insured who want every new test and treatment available, in spite of the worth or benefit. Also, it is much cheaper to provide care early in a non-preventable illness (cardiac disease, diabetes) than it is to do episodic, high-tech and expensive emergency care. Insured folks also have the benefit of rehabilitation and home care which decreases the number of repeat hospitalizations.
we hope we’re about to elect FDR, but there’s a chance all we’ll get is Grover Cleveland.
Even Grover Cleveland would be better than the Herbert Hoover/King George III hybrid we’ve suffered for the past seven years.
Thanks for all you do to inform those who still think rationally, sir.
it’s not really running empty, the fruits of the policy are comming ripe but they have maintained their incursion into the middle classe’s point of view
just about everyone, even the middle class, actually look at unions as bad things for the economy
jsut about everyone, even the middle class, actually think there should be equal tax burden for the wealthy and the average
just about everyone, even the middle class, actually believe regulation is a bad thing
just about everyone, even the middle class actually believe large law suit settlements hurt the middle class and prices, though in fact those settlements protect the middle class, yet most see it the other way
even still, just about everyone, even the middle class actually think the republicats are the party of family values
and they actually believe the republicats are the party of law and order
and they actually believe the republicats are the party of strong national defense
the same, they actually believe the republicats are the party of strong economy
so no, “this conservative era” is not running on empty, it has been an illusion, it has always been an illusions
and the illusion stands strong as ever if not stronger
the republicats call every “commons” project “soc*al*sm” and they are able to sway the middle classe’s point of view so the middle class actually believe these vital services should be “privatizied”
it’s all about marketing, the republicats own the media and they have even convinced the majority of the middle class that the media is liberal…the middle class buys that
they can market, they can say whatever they want and no matter how bizzare, it becomes part of the dialogue which in itself adds credibility to the incredible
this conservative era is not running on empty, their fruit shown itself to be sour but the middle class still does not attribute that sour fruit to the policy, they attribut that sour fruit instead to something that was inevitabel rather then something that was brought on by cause and affect
I just walked in the door to this discussion, so I haven’t even read above. Excuse me is this has been discussed.
Will capitalism be able to survive without self destructing without some regulation? The unregulated version so much in vogue with the right seems to be distorting democracy into a more fascist or oligarchical type of government which is good for capital but not so good for people.
Will it consume itself by sucking all the wealth to the top and give us essentially a new feudalism?
Paul - isn’t it true that the policies we see coming from this administration are created outside of the administration - our chimperor, cheney, rove, and gang are just following someone else’s agenda.
The thing that corporations behind this understand is dollars and cents - for many American’s, (especially urban poor and people of color) the only “vote” they have that counts is the dollars they spend.
If we want to see meaningful change, shouldn’t we be willing to do more than blog our opinions to the choir?
Don’t we really have to also take meaningful action?
Wouldn’t organized support for economic boycotts of the top corporations that own and support the mainstream media be infinitely more effective than trying to somehow “counter” the obvious distortions and lies that are used to “catapult the propaganda”?
I am worried about this as well. I do not understand the disconnect between opposition to abortion and birth control.
“we hope we’re about to elect FDR, but there’s a chance all we’ll get is Grover Cleveland.”
Would we agree that Grover Cleveland would be better than George Bush?
perris #63
thank the liberal media
Paul Krugman @ 17
Battered wife syndrome again! I figure the only way to stop it is to start calling them cry babies and make fun of every hissy fit! Once that’s repeated fifty million times, they will figure out that it makes them look weak and find another way to beat us. Perhaps they’ll take up rubber hoses instead of just using us as a punching bag with their bare fists. By then, maybe we’ll figure out a way to not let the scars show and regain some dignity instead of constantly capitulating.
noblejoanie @ 58
Excellent point, and I am equally concerned about the prospect that the funding of medical research would become a political football.
Bilbo @ 53
Haven’t read her yet — I’ve got my own book to promote!
There’s no question that free-market fundamentalists have taken advantage of disaster — and in Iraq, the lust for privatization played a big role in preventing the Bushies from noticing anything real.
My personal peeve — it plays a role in the story I tell in COAL — is the way the right has managed to spin a few bad years in the late 1970s US, mainly the result of oil shocks, into “proof” that progressive policies don’t work — this in spite of the fact that the 30 years after the New Deal were the best economy America has ever had.
Yesterday, I heard a lot of talk about the “Global” economy beginning to eclipse the “US economy”…is this a transition period toward a massive global economy that will render “states”..all equal ultimately in the big picture??? I thought it was a bit alarming….as if the US economy is somehow being sacrificed to produce this massive megloeconomy.
Well, yes. But even my kitten would be a better preznit than chimpy.
Edwards strikes me as the closest to FDR. I especially liked what he had to say last night on Bill Maher’s show.
RevDeb @ 61
The original FDR didn’t look like much until he took office, so there’s hope.
Seriously, the Dem contenders are clearly smart, and they have good plans that are more progressive than I would have imagined possible 2 1/2 years ago, when we were fighting to save Social Security. Whether they have the necessary guts is another question. Beyond that — well, Times rules don’t allow endorsements, so in principle you don’t even know which party I favor in 2008.
Health care is provided by doctors and nurses in hospitals etc. Single payer is not a health care system, but a means to get the services paid for so everyone can get it. Now we have private insurers handling the cash flow.
A government is perfectly capable or that and it has nothing to do with health care. Insurance companies don’t provide health care, but may provide ACCESS to it.
seems like an awfully big “if” to me.
any suggestions for how to help that along?
RevDeb @ 61
fdr could have exposed the dynasties in power today but he made a back door deal with the devil. we need a smedley butler.
LS @ 73
“global economy” translates into one thing;
exporting the workforce from where the employer was expected to pay all their own expenses, to a country where they get other people to pay the corporate expenses
(corporate expenses are health care for their labor force, lving wage enough to provide food health and education for their family, savings for their retirement, the roads to travel to and from work, the means to travel to and from work…these are all things that corporations require to survive and they are corporate expenses though they make believe they are private expenses)
Economics question for Professor Krugman: Many of us were concerned when the Fed dropped the prime a few weeks ago. It doesn’t seem a good idea to drive down the value of dollar-denominated holdings, at a time when we’re relying on half a trillion dollars or so of fresh foreign financing every year. You worked with Ben Bernanke until his recent “promotion”. Can you shed any light on the thinking? Have you written anything on the matter of foreign-held debt? Are you concerned?
the bloated US healthcare system is no longer the best in the world,like so many conservatives say
Paul,
So very nice to have you here at The Lake!
In regard to your earlier response on Chuck Schumer, it does seem that while he has a very powerful position as Assistant Majority Leader (I admit, that’s my title for him *g*), he rarely steps into the “issues” limelight.
Like Rahm Emanuel in the House, I agree that Chuck is where he is because of his principal skill as a Party Bagman (i.e. he knows where the money is buried).
And since “issues” are what most concerns Americans (Iraq, the Economy, Healthcare, etc.), do you think the Party Leadership seriously understands their own disconnect?
Well, my cat is named Doris Lessing, so she beats everyone.
I do very much like Edwards’ rhetoric — he sounds most like FDR, who talked about how the bad guys were “united in their hatred,” and said “I welcome their hatred.” Rhetoric aside, Edwards has done a great job forcing the pace on policy proposals. Without him, I doubt we’d have Democrats advocating universal care in the near future.
Seriously, the Dem contenders are clearly smart, and they have good plans that are more progressive than I would have imagined possible 2 1/2 years ago, when we were fighting to save Social Security. Whether they have the necessary guts is another question.
Agreed on both points. They’re none of them as liberal as I’d like, but they’re head and shoulders better than the other option.
Mine is named Ripley, so she can take on the aliens. ;-)
four legs good @ 67
It’s because it isn’t about the precious babies. It’s about sex and who can and who can’t have it without consequences. Lakoff goes into it at length.
Dr. Krugman, thank you again for all your work.
I saw you on the tour for The Great Unravelling and recall your stressing that the Bush administration has a great deal to hide and are very motivated to remain in office. Should a Democrat make it into the WH, and even if they do not destroy every bit of evidence, do you believe we will ever find out the truth of the multitude of crimes of the Bush/Cheney regime? Does anyone have the guts to hold them the accountable?
My sense is the Fed is a top down approach to running the economy. They try to keep the big boys humming so that it can… trickle down… to the unwashed masses. It is definitely not a market phenomena and it is what seems to be driving inflation and then trying to slow it down. Ain’t that a weird way to drive and economy? This underscores the dependency of capitalism on continued growth and expansion… and so.. print money!
It would take a longer post than you’d want to read for me to express my thanks for the sanity you’ve added to the national media, Pr. Krugman, but thank you.
I believe it will be harder and harder to stop this decades-long steamroller to concentrate more and more economic AND political power into the de facto hands of a tiny group of corporations and the ultra-wealthy, so I hope you’ll long continue to point out the need to do so.
Paul Krugman @ 43
I’m a Michigander watching the UAW contract negotiations with great interest. It strikes me that if UAW were to leverage the position they’ll have as one of the country’s largest health care purchasers in the country, they 1) might be able to recruit independent members and grow union numbers, and 2) pressure health care providers to change.
That’s a big “if” in the first place, since we’re talking the UAW. But I’m curious whether you think the UAW might act differently as a health care provider than the Big Three?
I_M_bobo @ 80
You can see me wearing my economist hat on that subject