(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.
Related posts:
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Paul Starobin, After America: Narratives for the Next Global Age
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes, Paul Davidson: The Keynes Solution: The Path to Global Economic Prosperity
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Paul Tough, Whatever It Takes: Geoffrey Canada’s Quest to Change Harlem and America
- Paul Krugman on “This Week”: “The Argument Against the Public Option is Sheer Nonsense”
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes, Marc J. Hetherington and Jonathan Weiler, Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics






Spotlight








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

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 here (pdf, and very technical)
Basically, although I’m worried about a lot of things, this one’s low on my list. Even if the dollar falls a lot, it’s not too big a problem — because our debt is in dollars, and falls along with it.
This is not a question, but I just want to give a big stand up and shout out to Prof Krugman for focusing the debate about America onto questions of race. Perhaps the worst indictment that can be made of the Village mentality is its doughy whiteness, with people of color allowed in only if they’re useful to the mainstream narrative.
Like Stephen Colbert, I don’t see race, but people I trust have told me that you’re white. If so, even more kudos to you for getting those issues out there.
JeffCO @ 86…
No, we will never see the depth and scope of all their criminality.
When have we ever? And especially THIS administration. Even sh*t that gets exposed does not receive attention like the missing $9BB in Iraq.
My question is, how worried should we be that China and/or the rest of our creditors will start dumping our dollars in favor of a more lucrative currency? Also, if they do start dumping wholesale, could they do it for the purpose of disciplining us for perceived bad behavior, or does that put them at too much risk? Or do they not hold enough to make such a power play effective?
Dr Krugman,
I have no comment other than a hearty thank for doing what you do: without your strong voice there really would be little reason for reading the New York Times. I am deeply appreciative of your efforts on the behalf of America and Reason.
Thank you so much. (God, I feel like a school girl gushing!)
Thanks again.
On “Why don’t big corporations back single-payer health care”:
(1) Although it may decrease corporate costs, it also may increase worker strength and independence — i.e., it could become easier for workers to leave, strike, etc., if they were unlikely to lose their health car;
and
(2) Corporations in general fear any new government program using democracy to help the economy assist the majority — because they are always afraid that such thoughts may bleed to other areas.
Dr. Krugman,
Welcome and thanks for coming. Congratulations on another “dismissive review in the NYT”! Have you had any response from David Kennedy regarding the Kansas “birthplace of Prohibition” flap?
I am really enjoying your new blog! Who knew there was such an imprisoned blogger’s soul behind the Times Select all those years?
yes we are repaying the Chinese in cheap dollars,except,for Merkins leaving the country it makes for one very expensive vacation.
Welcome Prof Krugman. Glad you are here.
This question kind of echos a couple of others on this thread, but maybe with a more techno-wonky twist. What do you think is the best way to handle accuations of being a partisan hack whenever you (or any moderate) tries to present a reasonable discussion of complex issues. Two examples I can think of right now are increasing income inequality and social security ‘crisis’.
Seems to me that reactionaries make an extreme claim. If you present a reasoned argument about the weight of evidence, but there is no ’slam dunk’ either way, you either get labeled as a partisan hack, or accused of boring genreal audiences with wonky ‘details.’
Then a media star saye one of two things:
’some say earth is flat, others don’t’ or
‘more partisan bickering by partisans’
I think this is a deliberate bad faith strategy by the reactionaries. But what is best response? Call them on it or try to muddle through with a reasoned discussion?
JeffCO @ 87
Another good question. There will be a howl from the Very Serious People inside the Beltway about how wrong it would be to go over trivial past things like lying the country into war — and there’s a risk the next president will listen. I’ve long thought that Bill Clinton’s biggest mistake was to let the evidence on Iran-Contra lie, out of fear of seeming vindictive.
This time, I hope we’ll all demand a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, or the equivalent thereof. I don’t want vengeance — but I do want the American people to know what was done in their name.
Isn’t China now in the market to buy up US corporations with all the dollars? Are we endanger of selling the store here?
Mahalo, Dr Krugman, for appearing at the Lake!
I read today, that Shrub is cutting LIHEAP’s budget, from $2.17 Bil to $1.68 Bil! LIHEAP serves 30 million families and is operating at the same funding level as 1981, when it was enacted! With the record levels in the price of oil, why on earth would he cut their budget?
Dr. Krugman,
Wouldn’t a Democratic administration that just enforced the regulations already on the books and the antitrust laws be a huge step forwards? The California Electricity Crisis, for example, would never have happened if FERC had followed the Federal Power Act.
Oh, I do too, and a question just arose over at Eschaton, since you now have a blog, and a cat, when will you start cat blogging? (sorry, a little off the topic)
Okay, no vengence, but I would settle for some actual justice.
Unless someone in office is held accountable, these jokers will continue to do these things if they’re ever returned to power.
Paul Krugman @ 99
This time, I hope we’ll all demand a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, or the equivalent thereof. I don’t want vengeance — but I do want the American people to know what was done in their name.
given the heinous nature of what’s been done in our name, i see nothing wrong with some much-deserved vengeance.
Paul — I’m most of the way through your book, and will be doing my level best to help sell a few for you by word-of-mouth and DKos :-)
One topic you cover extensively is the importance of unions as the core defenders of income equality. Would you comment a bit about what needs to happen to revive the union movement in the US, both in politics and by the unions themselves?
I’d also be interested in hearing what you think about an odd trend I’ve noticed in the recent auto company contracts, where the unions have started to take over retirement and some health care benefits from the companies. Is a union-based benefit system a possible competitor to single-payer health care (say, on the model of the Israeli Histadrut of a generation ago)?
I think Russ Feingold has the true conscience of a liberal.
I look forward to reading this book!
Henry the K, is pretty much a criminal who never got his day in court and was even proposed to head the 911 commission.
Don’t expect to see these thugs in orange jumpsuits.
I’m old enough to remember Ford encouraging everyone not to dwell on the past (i.e., yesterday) but start the healing by letting the criminals of the Nixon administration go free. The results? Iran-Contra and the Cheney/Rumsfeld catastrophes. I shudder to think what a future administration packed with Bush lackeys may bring.
Well, I am white — though Ann Coulter says I need to be perfected.
Seriously, when I started researching Conscience of a Liberal, I had no idea race would play such a huge role in the story. But it just jumps out of the cold, hard data. Without the white backlash against civil rights, and especially the great southern switch to the GOP, none of the right-wing triumphs of the past 30 years would have happened.
And once you start to look at modern American political economy with that in mind, the picture you see is nothing like the happy legends. I spend a lot of time in COAL on the real Ronald Reagan; he wasn’t an avuncular old fellow who advocated true conservatism — for most of his career, he was primarily a clever, insinuating race baiter, who found ways to appeal to racist sentiments — welfare queens driving Cadillacs, etc.. — without actually using the n-word.
Paul Krugman @ 100
Yes!!! Oh, and thanks for the pdf.
four legs good @ 104
What! I love this question, and I love cat blogging!
Charles Tuttle @ 102
Because the public programs people like Bush hate most are the ones that work, and prove to people that government works. That’s why he vetoed S-Chip, and tried to privatize Social Security.
“Another good question. There will be a howl from the Very Serious People inside the Beltway about how wrong it would be to go over trivial past things like lying the country into war — and there’s a risk the next president will listen. I’ve long thought that Bill Clinton’s biggest mistake was to let the evidence on Iran-Contra lie, out of fear of seeming vindictive.”
And didn’t this also lead to the (correct) assumption by the Republicans that they could stage the Brooks Brothers Riot, violate federal law and suffer no repurcussions?
I’m still mad that Janet Reno did nothing.
Amplification of question 99: The reason I said I think it is a deliberate bad faith strategy, using example of free trade agreements. Some economists will give very unrealistic optimistic arguments about free trade agreements (some of with are mostly not about trade at all, but internataional IP or free corporate investment insurance) becuase they ‘know’ free trade is good, and ANYTHING that that they think furthers is it therefore good, and the ends justify the means, even dishonest arguments. So it is OK to lie about about how much we know. So, OK to wildly generalize 2×2×2 trade models to real world in every way, giving best scenario always.
That really steams me. I wish some one would just say those people are full of it and are dishonest.
Paul Krugman @ 113
You left out the other reason- he’s also a mean spirited little asshat. Oh, wait, I think that was uncivil of me. So sorry.
Paul Krugman @ 110
It’s almost as though the next election — assuming the Republicans are finally trounced — will finally signal the end of the Civil War, after 140 plus years.
When the Times makes it easier to post images. It’s been a huge pain, and my ability to put images in even with difficult apparently disappeared this afternoon, just as I was about to post a really neat map.
I spend a lot of time in COAL on the real Ronald Reagan; he wasn’t an avuncular old fellow who advocated true conservatism — for most of his career, he was primarily a clever, insinuating race baiter, who found ways to appeal to racist sentiments — welfare queens driving Cadillacs, etc.. — without actually using the n-word.
I’m going to buy the book tonight. I think getting a real look at and reminder of Reagan is going to be very important since the GOP clearly plans to run his spirit in a willing body in 2008. And their next target will be the middle class, which is more than obvious from the SCHIP debate.
Paul Krugman @ 118
Huzzah! In the meantime, feel free to email me pics of Doris and I’ll post them for you.
Paul Krugman @ 100
i’d only agree to that if they were ordered to give back the fortunes they’ve made.
Paul Krugman @ 100
amen to that. it’s not about revenge, it’s about being truthful with ourselves and learning from our mistakes.
hope that when the time comes, you will write some columns in favor or this kind of process.
The Ronald Reagan, latter day demi-god of the modern republican party who started his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi a race-baiter? Oh my, I’m havin’ vapahs!
emptywheel @ 89
I call this “the traditional Israeli health care model”. Israel had (and still has) a huge union federation called the “Histadrut” (roughly, “The Federation”). Until rather recently, a very large part of both the Arab and Jewish population belonged to the union, mostly because the union ran a public health care system. Health care was to a large extent the hook that led people to join the union and pay dues to it.
I’m not suggesting this as an approach for the US, but there are two things in favor of it: (1) It does not require a lot of cooperation from the government or the political system, and (2) the threat of a very large, very well funded union movement might scare Organized Money into getting religion on single payer.
selise,
It wasn’t OUR mistakes… it was the mistakes of our government and our 4th estate the MSM, our corporations and their lobbyist shill.
What mistakes did progressive make?
Oh yeah we did nothing and blogged.
SanderO @ 126
Essentially. We did not riot in 2000, which I expect to have to explain shamefacedly someday to my ancestors. We should have.
Simple questions:
Are you a believer in capitalism?
If so how is that different from what we have now?
Very important question.
The key point I make in the book is that the decline of unionization in the US was not a necessary consequence of the changing economy. Sure, manufacturing is a smaller part of the economy, and there’s more global competition, but there’s no good reason why, to take a nonrandom example, WalMart shouldn’t be unionized.
In fact, I was stunned by what I learned about union trends elsewhere. Aside from the US and Thatcher’s Britain, there hasn’t been a decisive downward trend. Canada and the US had about the same percentage of workers in unions back in the 1960s; Canada still has a highly unionized work force, while the movement is a shadow of its former self here.
The explanation is, of course, politics. From the late 70s onward, Washington basically announced open season for union-busters.
The point is that this can be reversed. Right now unionization is back at roughly its levels of the early 1930s. Give us a pro-union government, like FDR’s, and we might be very surprised at how fast the movement springs back.
Mr. Krugman, thanks for all that you do — when sanity returns to the US and this era is looked back upon with disbelief and dismay, you’ll be one of the few who will be spoken of with admiration.
Here’s an enthusiastic thumbs up from a Canadian reader!
SanderO @ 126
we = citizens of the usa
does that get me out of trouble?
SanderO @ 128
Um, there’s capitalism and then there’s capitalism. Sweden is capitalist — most of the economy is market-driven, profits are a key signal driving investment decisions, etc, etc.. But there’s also a strong safety net so that nobody goes without adequate food, shelter, and necessary health care; there are institutions like strong unions that police excesses in the private sector; and so on.
I’ve got the conscience of a liberal, not the belief system of a socialist. I think markets are a great way to organize a lot of what goes on in the economy. But the market system is a tool to be used when appropriate, not a deity to be worshipped without question.
Selise,
You’re never in trouble. Heck I knew what your meant, but you don’t want to be quoted like that!
Paul Krugman @ 128
Certainly, it will be nice to see someone other than Elaine Chow (aka Mrs. Mitch McConnell) handling labor issues. It will also be nice when the NLRB stops trying to break unions, and helps promote unionization.
Dr. Krugman, FDR came to power due to the Great Depression, and was able to do much of what he did due to the realization that strong remedies were needed. Can someone be an FDR without another depression?
On a semi-related note, what’s your view of official inflation numbers vs. the pain regular people are feeling? How much (if any) do you feel inflation numbers are understated and how badly do you feel the housing bubble’s burst will hurt regular people.
And will it actually get into a reduction in consumer spending. I have been repeatedly amazed by the American consumer’s ability to keep spending…
(And let me add my thanks to those of others, especially for your writing after 9/11. It must have taken some guts to keep pointing out that the Emperor had no clothes, and in those days when it seemed no one was doing so, it was a comfort to have someone at the Gray Lady doing so.)
Welcome, Prof. Krugman.
Could you please comment on the significance of the estate tax on the distribution of wealth?
If the “throw Momma from the train” scenario of an infinte exemption, i.e., no estate tax, were to be continued past 2010, how much worse would the wealth gap become?
Conversely, if the exemption were set to some reasonable level ( $2 million?) and indexed for inflation, would that help reduce the wealth gap?
Paul Krugman @ 132
Very well put.
my bold
Rob From Santa Cruz @ 134
This goes to my earllier question. Just having the regulations already on the books get actual, you know, enforcement, would, I’d guess, go a long way towards improving things.
Rob From Santa Cruz @ 134
Just remember who one the main advisors to Hillary Clinton is!!
OK markets can work. But how do you separate the market driven segements of the economy from the others?
If we think of health and housing and pensions as safety nets can for profits be part of the safety nets?
How do we reign in Phara and for profit hospitals and so forth?
Or induce affordable less profitable affordable housing to be built? Affordable housing doesn’t seem to fit the ROI model for developers does it?
Whoo – someone has been reading the textbooks!
Actually, even the standard textbook models of international trade — that’s what the 2×2×2 stuff is about, for you Gentiles out there — suggest that globalization isn’t necessarily a good thing. You have to think it through case by case. I was pro-NAFTA, on political economy grounds, and I still am, though the results have been disappointing. But CAFTA, the Central American version, looked like a raw deal, because there was so much protection for drug companies involved.
if this is all too technical, please disregard. Sometimes my professorial alter ego takes over.
Paul — is there any extent to which we should credit the Bush Jr. Republican absolute control of all branches of government (esp. 2002 – 2006) for (maybe) finally souring the public on the Reaganite / New Right myths of the last 30 years?
I.e., because they had absolute power, they could no longer really convince the public that if only the liberals hadn’t held them back or been in their way that they would have brought about their long-promised crazy revolution?
Having “good credit” became the replacement for having “savings”… simply because banks could sell credit!
And everyone said… heck what’s the difference as long as I can pay for what I want. Buy now and pay later.
Big mistake.
allan_in_upstate @ 136
The estate tax has been a big factor in limiting the growth of dynasties. If it really does expire permanently, that’s a major step back toward an fully oligarchic society.
Getting it reinstated with a $2 million or $3 million exemption won’t do much to make things more equal — remember, we had an effective estate tax until 2001 — but it would stop the trend we should fear.
Professor Krugman, thanks for joining us at the Lake and for your years of powerful advocacy.
I’m late to our discussion – and even later to start your book, so please forgive me if you have addressed this or if it is too off topic to answer.
One structural aspect of our political economy that clearly favors authoritarian/Rethug rule is the relentless economic pressure that forces both partners into the work force and forces all but the wealthiest college students to work ’til they drop (even with loans and the remaining grants).
IIRC, before he joined the Supremes one of the Justices (Potter Stewart?) wrote a very influental memo for the National Assn of Manufacturers (or national Chamber of Commerce or the like). The time was the late sixties (early 70’s?) – when public participatioon really did threaten the megacorps’ goals.
In the memo (IIRC, the “Stewart Memo”), good ‘ol Potter described how to stop the threat we cheeky citizens posed to megacorp power:
1) Remove the economic supports allowing college students the free time to particiapte in public life.
2) Remove the familial affluence that enabled households to survive with only one wage-earner (leaving the other adult free to do subversive things like participate in public life).
This memo sure looks to have been an effective blueprint for crushing the time for political engangement out of most Americans’ lives.
If you have any observations on this (or if the “Stewart [?] memo” rings any bells for you), I’d be mos grateful for your thoughts.
I want to take this opportunity to tell you how much I enjoyed your column on Oct. 8th – “Same Old Party”.
Loved this:
Now, as they survey the wreckage of their cause, conservatives may ask themselves: ”Well, how did we get here?” They may tell themselves: ”This is not my beautiful Right.” They may ask themselves: ”My God, what have we done?”
But their movement is the same as it ever was. And Mr. Bush is movement conservatism’s true, loyal heir.
So true!! And, the GOP hopefuls are still sticking by Bush’s failed policies for the most part. They really haven’t distanced themselves from him yet (with the exception of Ron Paul).
It’s gonna be interesting to see them try to redefine the conservative movement after the primaries – when they need to win over independents and moderates. I really can’t see it happening.
ps – sorry for my
suasagesauasage finger typing – no disrespect intended.“The white backlash …”
Is it in a nutshell. If you know them, it is a constant undertone drumbeat. If you are a member of a family in the south (even highly educated), that you see only once every few years, political arguments eventually devolve into “but the blacks voted for him”.
Rob From Santa Cruz @ 125
That’s a very compelling thought.
Right now we’re putting a lot of energy into building bridges with organized labor, trying to find a way for the netroots to work with the unions and healthcare seems to be an arena of mutual concern. I’m going to try and nudge Andy Stern into coming on and talking about it soon, and I think this is certainly something I’d like to discuss.
Paul Krugman @ 143
Sorry, again, I haven’t read your book yet, but do you address the fundy attitude (which is quite prevalent in Texas) that if you are doing extremely well, even if it is at someone else’s expense, it’s because you are “right” with jesus, and therefore deserving. And of course there’s the corallary to that, that if you aren’t doing well, if you’re poor, it’s because you’re probably spiritually lacking?
Paul Krugman @ 100
do you really think not exposing iran contra was a mistake? the “worried about losing congress” excuse doesn’t hold water. bill clinton was a political animal and knew exactly what he was doing. the dems lost congress and the dlcers started to flourish beneath the wings of the republican party.
El Cid @ 142
Very definitely. With a little luck (and an effective Democratic Party), W will be the Herbert Hoover of the 21st century — the man who dispelled the myth of Republican competence.
And one of the things I emphasize in Conscience of a Liberal is that the incompetence runs much deeper than W’s personal inadequacy. For example, the inability of the Bushies to run a war wasn’t just a matter of a few mistakes — running a war the way FDR did would run counter to everything they stand for. They can’t police contractors to prevent corruption, because that’s the kind of thing liberals do. They can’t help appointing unqualified cronies, because that kind of patronage is what holds movement conservatism together. They had to believe that the war could be fought on the cheap, because serious, expensive wars always lead to calls for shared sacrifice.
As I say in the book, the plan was for a blitzkrieg, a victory parade, and another round of tax cuts. And it was basically unacceptable even to consider the possibility that things wouldn’t work out that way.
Hi Prof Krugman:
Do you support public financing of federal elections as a way of diminishing corporatist influence in our politics?
Keep up the great work at the NYT-you’re one of the few actual liberals at that so-called liberal newspaper.
Paul Krugman @ 141
The funny thing about NAFTA, which I don’t think anyone predicted (though I certainly could be wrong), is how bad it has been for Mexico, actually. And, part of what seemed to cause that is that it removed the ability of the Mexican government to control its own industries, so, for example, two companies (both US owned) now control the majority of the taco shell industry and even before the ethanol subsidies, had both raised prices and reduced the nutrition of staple food items. And small individual farms have been just devestated by NAFTA, leading (ironically) to a lot of the illegal immigration we’ve seen.
What seems to happen in a lot of these trade deals is that they remove government monopolies and subsidies and open up the possibility of private oligopolies, which seem to be even more harmful than the government monopolies were.
Which is to say, it seems that the political side of the “political economy” needs more emphasis in these deals – the worst part of NAFTA is probably the ability of corporations to sue for losses (takings) – like those they take when forbidden to put cancerous additives into gasoline.
Paul Krugman @ 141
i don’t know about 2×2×2 (guess there are some text books i need to read). but i do know that i HATE chapter 11 of nafta and i hate the process by which the trade deals get written – big corporations have a seat at the table while unions, environmentalists, democracy and human rights advocates are kept behind the fence with tear gas, pepper spray, rubber bullets and beatings.
Are we getting to the point where the people will be voting their pocket books.. are you better off today than you were 8 years ago and all the other stuff… GWOT and so forth won’t matter much?
At the time of its propaganda campaign, I was working very hard to block NAFTA’s fast-track passage, and originally my concerns came through my Mexican (and Latin American) solidarity links with Mexican workers and unions.
They knew very well at the time what effects the anti-democracy, anti-regulation NAFTA regime would have on domestic industry, regulation, and indigenous food & subsistence production.
But at the time, the Very Serious Liberals I debated were convinced that any American who opposed NAFTA were crazy anti-Mexican Perot-inspired Luddites, so they made sure only to listen to well-heeled Mexican spokespeople who spoke in vague terms about “modernization” etc.
About 70% of the population of Mexico has expressed interests in polling to renegotiate NAFTA, so there is no need to give in to the propaganda notion that being pro-NAFTA is somehow an act of international solidarity. It’s not.
Paul Krugman @ 131
Gee, you say “socialism” as if it’s a bad thing :-)
It’s probably a safe assumption that you saw SiCKO, who makes a better case for a more “socialized” society than I’ve heard in public for a long spell.
Certainly, markets work well when the General Equilibrium assumptions line up: people profit from what they invest, and they actually pay for the costs they impose upon the economy. The corollary also holds: markets can work very badly when those two assumptions do not hold.
In your book, you talk about the Edwards health care proposal as a way of “simulating” single payer — what you used to describe yourself as a “Rube Goldberg” approach.
At what point is Michael Moore right here: that we’re better off dealing with the politics of socializing activities where it is very difficult to structure markets to do the right thing?
I enjoy a good Rube Goldberg contraption as much as the next guy; I’m just not sure I need to get my health care out of a system with 5 mice on a treadmill and 50 or 60 cascading dominoes.
start_beating_around_the_bush @ 148
One of the themes in Conscience of a Liberal — based on reading a lot of political science research — is that the “values” issues are much less important than claimed, while race is much more important. In fact, a lot of the supposed switch of religious/values voters to the GOP is really just the switch of southern Whites — they don’t call it the Bible Belt for nothing.
And I think the continuing front-runner status of Rudy Giuliani confirms this thesis. On values issues — well, he’s had about as many divorces all by himself as the entire Dem field. But there’s never been any question about his willingness to crack down on you-know-who when they get uppity.
El Cid @ 157
Interesting. My thanks for the info. I followed the US/Canada side closely (or rather, on the original FTA I did. NAFTA was a given up north, after losing an election on the original deal), but not the Mexican side. It seemed, from the mainstream press, that the main concern was the “giant sucking sound” of jobs going to Mexico, not jobs lost by Mexico.
But there’s never been any question about his willingness to crack down on you-know-who when they get uppity.
Oh, ain’t that the truth- I lived in NYC for about 15 years, a bunch of it under Rudy!
He’s an ass.
Right now we’re putting a lot of energy into building bridges with organized labor, trying to find a way for the netroots to work with the unions
IMHO, a big problem that the unions had/have was sexism. I agree completelly w/ Prof. K. that it’s been open season in DC on unions, but as more and more women entered the workforce, the unions often weren’t able to get over their sexist attitudes. Lots of women don’t consider unions relevant to or helpful to them.
David Kennedy’s Hoover Institution-like review of Mr. Krugman’s book seems mostly snark. In essence, he defines as an economist only those who believe exclusively in laissez-faire, conceding only that unregulated markets have occasionally led to minor and ignorable defects. Hence, in Kennedy’s view, Mr. Krugman’s more inclusive and less conventional perspective is as shrill as a Limbaugh rant.
To me, unregulated capitalism seems as inherently defective as “social” Darwinism. Both put a thin gloss on and elevate to demi-god status unrestricted selfishness. Both describe contingent, temporary outcomes as inevitable and inherently good for a few – and ignore imperfections and gaming and the negative outcomes for so many. That view ignores the rational and moral choices society must make that “nature” can ignore.
One of Mr. Krugman’s great contributions is to legitimize competing interests – to give them seats in the front of the bus – that are as important as a manager’s bonus.
But the perfect can be the enemy of the good. What sold me on the Edwards plan was that it requires competition, on a level playing field, between private insurers and a public, Medicare-type plan. As I explain in Conscience of a Liberal, that’s a competition the public plan would probably win, so that the system would evolved into single-payer. And even if it didn’t, private insurers would have to spend a lot more money providing health care, rather than trying to cherry-pick healthy clients.
And the thing is that I can see a way that the Edwards plan and its imitators (Obama, Clinton) can actually happen in the next few years. So I’ll take an imperfect hybrid approach that gets the principle of universal insurance established, rather than see another long wait before people are ready to vote in single-payer.
1199 has a heck of a lot of women… and a mighty union it is!
FICO credit scores are causing people who can least afford it to pay high interest rates. They’re faulty and they’re secret. How can they be stopped from being used in mortgage underwriting?
Can we get rid of the predatory credit card industry or is it here to stay?
It seems to be getting nasty each year.
SanderO @ 156
FWIW, the polls suggest that the GOP advantage on national security is gone — although most of my colleagues in the commentariat don’t seem to have noticed, and that the public hugely favors Dems on Iraq and on domestic issues, especially health care.
I do think it’s important for Dems to snap out of their cringe on GWOT and all that — the truth is that the Bushies are terrible at fighting terror. Osama must thank Allah every night that he has George W. Bush in the White House.
Hecate Demetersdatter @ 161
I don’t know if the union movement in Our Fair City is representative or not, but I do think this is starting to change, at least in SEIU. And when you’re talking about health care, the Nurses rock.
In all, the union movement looks a lot more gender balanced than it used to be.
SanderO @ 76
I can’t believe it! Someone has actually stated the obvious! Every time I hear one of these wingtards decry single payer as ’socialized medicine’ I want to scream.
Thanks for spending some time with us.
In regard to your lack of interest in “vengeance” (at 100) following the alleged improper activities of GWBush and colleagues, do you discount the value of “deterrence?”
If Richard Nixon (following Watergate) and Ronald Reagan (following Iran/Contra) had continued their public service as involuntary long-term guests of the federal government, do you see any possibility that Bush and colleagues would have given more consideration to the possible consequences of their actions?
Professor Krugman may be too modest to point it out, but you can catch him on tour for COAL. I’m pleased to see he’ll be out my way in 2 weeks. He is as engaging as he is erudite.
Don’t miss him!
SanderO @ 165
I worked there for a while in the summer of 1970. Not, alas, out of idealism — I was a Kelly Girl, um, person, working temp during summer break, and spent part of the time at 1199. (Every other summer in college I was a mailman.)
before the end of the book salon, i just want to add my thanks.
paul, you’ve made such a helpful contribution to my thinking and to our public conversation… i’m very grateful, especially knowing that writing a regular column has got to be a big headache (as well as make you a political target)… many, many thanks for your op-eds at the nyt and for writing your non-textbook books. and especially thank you for taking the time to be here today.
progressive @ 171
Not at all. It would be salutary to put at least one of these people behind bars. But I do expect mass pardons 15 months from now.
Oh man! Just swishing through and Paul Krugman’s here?!?! Get out!
Dude, Bill O’Loofah can’t hold a falafel to you. Just wanted to let you know you have A LOT of support out here. Rock on.
Hey, Paul. Late to the party here. You mentioned you were surprised at the role race ended up playing in the story. What else surprised you in your research? What do you know now that you didn’t know two years ago?
I think the GWOT has become the boy who cried wolf. Horrible as it was we haven’t really caught any of these nasties in any proportion to the fear mongering and billions spent.
And all that hooey about religion seems to be more like wizard of oz theatre. And then we have lapel pins. Isn’t the public growing tired of being fed all that hooey and want grown up who can run the country in office?
How do you feel term limits would change things? I used to oppose them, but they could solve a lot of the problems we face now… cronyism… corruption and money having so much influence in politics.
Thanks for all you are doing, Professor Krugman.
impeachment = 0 pardons
One more exhortation — if you haven’t done so, buy the book! It’s great, very readable and entertaning as well as informative.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/03930…..PFBD9M957&
Oh and that Kennedy guy? Jackass.
Also, our little island of true socialized medicine – the VA system — is actually terrific.
Ignorance is a problem, for sure. Every health care wonk knows the story of the constituent who yelled at John Breaux, “Senator, don’t let the government get its hands on Medicare!”
Dr. Krugman, I believe you are still teaching, correct?
What kind of political attitudes towards progressive issues are you seeing from the youngsters at Princeton these days?
Or does the subject come up?
In all, the union movement looks a lot more gender balanced than it used to be.
Which is a v. good thing, but it could suck bigtime and still be 100% better than it used to be. My dad was a union official; I’m a huge fan of unions. But they’ve got a long way to go vis a vis women, who, let’s face it, really could use unions (cough 76 cents cough).
Paul Krugman @ 175
Maybe sooner than you expect…
OT
Gonzales could be prosecuted, McKay says
By Bill Morlin
Staff writer
October 20, 2007
The U.S. Inspector General may recommend criminal prosecution of departed Attorney General Alberto Gonzales at the conclusion of an investigation, possibly as early as next month, the fired former U.S. attorney for Western Washington told a Spokane audience Friday.
-Snip-
McKay said he was summoned to Washington, D.C., in June and questioned for eight hours about possible reasons for his firing by investigators with the Office of Inspector General, who will forward their final report to Congress.
“My best guess is it will be released sometime next month,’’ and likely will include recommendations for criminal prosecutions of Gonzales and maybe others, McKay said.
http://www.spokesmanreview.com…..p?ID=12036
I too want to thank Dr. Krugman for his voice of reason and wonderful columns.
He was the ONLY reason I used to buy the NYT and he certainly presents the most cogent arguments in the public square for rational public policy.
He will one day win a Nobel prize.
Thanks Dr. Krugman!
Oh. My.
Of course he’ll be pardoned in a nano-second.
four legs good @ 187
Let’s hope for a long trial (more than 15 months).
Rick Perlstein @ 177
I think the other, maybe even bigger, surprise is how politics seems to lead economics. In particular, I’d thought that the right-wing movement of the GOP was a response to rising inequality: crudely, as the rich got richer, they bought themselves a party. But the takeover of the GOP by movement conservatives took place first; the skyrocketing incomes of the elite followed. So in Conscience of a Liberal I end up telling a story that runs from movement conservative takeover of the GOP, to political victories won largely by exploiting white backlash, and only then to spiralling inequality as the institutions that sustained a middle-class society — like strong unions — were dismantled.
Paul Krugman @ 43
I think this explains a lot about why our economy is headed where it is. People who think “what’s good for me is good for General Motors” shouldn’t be running General Motors. Short term thinking to inflate profits, and thus their bonuses and options, made us techies grind our teeth in the ’90s and would still do it in this decade if we had any teeth left.
Steve-AR @ 16
Mr. Krugman!
Before I discovered FDL, I ’satisfied’ my urge to communicate by writing essays to you. There got to be half a dozen or more, but eventually I stopped, because I had no place to send them. Then, too, the essays were usually about things that I saw in the making, and by the time I had finished them, events had generally proven them right, so the point of writing them was rather lost. (My crystal ball does not have a long lead time: weeks and months, not years.)
Welcome!
Prof. Krugman –
Honor to have you here!
Many Atriots are hoping that you will be at EschaCon 08 in late march since you helped inaugurate the original! (Where I was delighted to meet you & your lovely wife).
Re: pardons — thanks to the Patriot Act, can’t President Hillary (or whatever Dem — assuming that the Electoral College ever allows a Democratic presidency) just declare all those people “enemy combatants” (I would prefer “traitor,” but needs must) & ship ‘em to Gitmo?
LS @ 48
Wasn’t there a surge of put-options bought a couple months before 9/11? Maybe it means there’s talk behind the scenes by the players on the market that another hit is coming? Could be. Ya nevah know…
four legs good @ 187
Assuming it ever gets to trial. We’re still waiting for Harriet Miers’ indictment for contempt of Congress. DoJ’s really busy right now.
What companies were the puts made against?
Ian’s up with a new thread…
http://www.firedoglake.com/200…../#comments
four legs good @ 183
It’s mixed. I teach a freshman seminar, and had to stifle my responses when some of my students talked (last year) about how much they loved John McCain. I don’t conceal my own views, but I’m really careful to be fair and balanced.
Right now I’m teaching courses in which the students mainly want to hear about CES utility functions and stochastic calculus. So, not much politics.
And with that, I’m afraid, I have to sign off! Thanks to everyone for showing up!
Oh dear.
I jumped right to the bottom so i hope I’m not repeating and hope I’m not breaking a rule if I make a comment rather than ask a question.
Just wanted to say to Mr. Krugman good job putting Carlson in his place on Real Time, especially re: the legislative history of funding SCIPA.
SCHIPA
Paul Krugman @ 198
Thanks so much for being here today, Paul. It was a delight.
Dr. Krugman,
Joo speak of seeing pressure from progressives having a positive impact een some areas.
Are there any areas that joo see wheech are particularly vulnerable to thees kind of pressure, or seem ripe for such concentrated efforts?
Gracas.
Large number of puts on a few companies is suspicious of insider trading… that there’s news of some company taking a dive.
And why were the 911 puts not looked into more thoroughly?
Thank you for taking the time to speak with us. What a pleasure!
Good luck with the book.
Cujo359 @ 190
As a current techie (and casualty of the AOL/Netscape merger) with dental bills, let me say I feel your pain.
But RE those poor CEOs and their country clubs, let no one say that class solidarity has no role in American society.
maldiciones.
I’d like to thank Paul Krugman for remaining the honest and principled editorialist he has been for many years.
One of far too few with national exposure these days.
Keep up the great work.
Paul Krugman @ 175
I don’t think George Bush or Dick Cheney could handle 15 hours in prison (though they publicly try to act like the tough cowboys. Ha! Not even close!), let alone 15 months in prison. It would be fun times for the American people knowing these two were crying “torture!” when they didn’t get their morning coffee.
Prof Krugman–
As a non-economist, I have watched the last 6 yrs with alarm and when I read economists as well as politicians, I get two broad messages:
1) The US as an economic power is in serious decline (which is to say China and India and the EU are rising constantly)
2) and implicit in this is some dire consequence for the US which looks vaguely like England after World War 2.
How seriously in decline is the US economy and how seriously connected to our political influence is that?
Hecate Demetersdatter @ 162
I knew it wouldn’t take long to read the “what’s wrong with unions” crap. There has been a war against union organizing by every Republican president. There has evolved a profitable union busting industry, union busting lawyers making $300 per hour, hired by non-profits! For shame and by corporations as you would think. They come in a teach employers how to fight a union organizing attempt – yes in our local YWCA! They threatened social service workers there with loss of one kind or another. They were careful to not threaten job loss – but some people were fired for “other” reasons. Me. Most workers would join unions if they weren’t afraid. Union organizing these days takes a lot of courage and the failure to thrive is the failure of companies and non-profit agencies to obey the law.
four legs good @ 34
Business is increasingly making that argument. Looking to get health care costs off their balance sheet. But no significant lobby has developed for universal health care yet.
perris @ 64
You’re inaccurate about where the public is. On most of these issues, the majority stands with progressives. The sole exception tends to be continued suspicion about taxes and government spending — this is the great conservative success — disseminating the belief that govt can’t do anything. Bush’s catastrophes — Katrina etc – only reinforces that attitude. Government programs that work, like Social Security, too often get treated as exceptions.
selise @ 77
Organize, organize, organize. Progressives have been driving the debate – pushing the candidates to stronger positions on Iraq, on energy, on health care. Hillary started the campaign not wanting to commit to a date certain on Iraq, but had to vote for it; not wanting to commit to more than insuring children, but had to put out a universal plan; not wanting to stray from free trade mantra, but had to express public doubts about where we are going.
Voters count, particularly in primaries when we still have a choice. Unions will reach 25% of voting households this year, that will make a big difference. But sites like this and others that organize progressives also have big role to play.
Paul Krugman @ 164
Concern posed by the Edwards et al plans is the insurance lobby then demands massive subsidies to compete with public plan, as did in Medicare Advantage. That may end up being the big fight, with Ds caving to buy in insurance companes, thus ruining the effect of public plan choice
Somehow I don’t think the Dem’s will rise to the occasion. They’ve been drifting to the right for so long that I’m not sure they’re capable of moving back on their own. I think it’s going to take a whole lot of work push them to a good place.
Dr. Krugman, I’m a huge fan. Your short, succinct NYT columns pack a huge amount of information into a tiny little space.
My question is this: who is moderating your NYT blogs? I can never get any comments posted. Very frustrating.
Thanks!
Matthew Simmons wrote that the “oil shocks” of the seventies weren’t all they were cracked up to be, because even as oil prices sky-rocketed, demand increased, and that “the magnitude of the demand increase strongly suggests that the world economy was growing and expanding during this period, when the GDP was more heavily dependent on oil use than it is today, despite this unexpected, almost astonishing price increase.”
How does one resolve these conflicting narratives?
Ian Welsh @ 154
El Cid @157
Hi, Ian! What strikes me about Mexico-USA relations is how very little most of the USA, even otherwise knowledgeable people, know about this country which borders the USA to the south. Knowledge of Japan is more widespread than of Mexico. Given that, the failure to predict the impact of NAFTA on Mexico was almost inevitable. The failure to respond to NAFTA’s problems, on both sides of the border, is another kettle of fish.
And thank you, Prof. Krugman. Maybe sometime I’ll notice one of these discussions in time to say something cogent in time for you to respond.
Paul Krugman @ 43
Thanks for pointing this out. It’s easy to forget that divided loyalties (and realistic, sophisticated fears) are so common. Yes, the Republicans’ middle name (or is it their first principle?) is Retribution. Toe the line, or else! The movie Enemy of the State displays the panoply of punishments they’re eager to resort to. Of course most of the time, their methods are necessarily more low-tech than the ones in the film.
Paul Krugman @ 100
Yes, oh yes. Thank you for calling for this.
Paul Krugman @ 111
Again, thanks. In the sixties a great many white people were absolutely unashamed about expressing their racist sentiments. Now most people soft-pedal their racism in conversation but not in the voting booth.
Paul Krugman @ 132
Again, yes and thanks.
Paul Krugman @ 132
“the conscience of a liberal, not the belief system of a socialist”
Paul Krugman @ 175
Those mass pardons should be accompanied by a deep investigation of everyone that receives such a pardon and mass distribution of the results.
A public airing of the crimes of this administration would be at least as much a deterrent to its recurrence as would prison time.
It would also make a hell of a good book. “Criminals pardoned by criminals and a description of their crimes.”
Cujo359 @ 190
A large part of this has to come from the practice of giving CEO’s stock and stock options so that their performance is tied to — actually to their own personal wealth rather than to the performance of the stockholders. CEOs should be wage slaves like the rest of the employees of the corporations. Then they would be less likely to lie to the stockholders.
Hello Dr. Krugman,
Two points, what you said in 164 has been the situation in Australia for the last 20 years. About 30 percent of the population have private cover for things that are not covered by medicare and the federal goverment has tried to boost that with such things as tax rebates.
Second, what do you make of Chairman’s Hu speech in China where he said that from now on, China will rely less on exports and more on increasing its domestic market. To me, that spells trouble for the US economy because that implies they would have less incentive to buy our debt. What do you think ?
Paul Krugman @ 72
Probably too late to get a reaction but….this has been a particular pet peeve of mine too. Not only is it unfair to hold a four-year, OPEC-driven slump against Carter as proof of the “failure” of liberalism but, as the Times emeritus columnist Russel Baker once pointed out, Carter was a conservative Democrat.
But idealogues have never let facts get in the way of a good story.
Paul Krugman @ 60
But isn’t it that people don’t spend the “pocket change” on primary and wellness care and instead spend it on bacon cheeseburgers and Big Gulps that leads to the bypasses and dialysis?
It seems to me that making primary care in-your-face available is where our opportunity to reduce overall healthcare cost (aside from administration) really lies, by simply keeping people healthier. Besides spreading risk and cost as widely as possible, this seems like the best practical reason to do single-payer universal.