.
If you want to read a Nobel prize winner's hysterical reaction to the budget deal try this.
His position is that we shouldn't be cutting any spending right now because we are in a weak economy. Mindful of that, the deal calls for only 30 billion in cuts this year (of the total of 900 billion over 10 years). That is less than 1% (one %) of the federal expenditures this year.
Nevertheless he includes much of the language that we normally associate with the far right types: abject surrender, raw extortion, banana republic, medieval doctors, blackmail on the part of right-wing extremists, a catastrophe on multiple levels.
.
SEND IN THE CLOWNS
9 hours ago
Mr. Krugman is right in that a relatively small group within one Party puckered up and caused an inordinately large change in the political landscape. Mr. Krugman seems to perceive this as some sort of hostage taking or terrorism. My question to Paul is “what part of the 2010 election did you not understand?”
ReplyDeletePaul Krugman seems to be a somewhat introverted academic type who does not perform with the polished comfort of the other panel members, but his message was not a unique one even among Nobel Economists (see http://w3.epi-data.org/temp2011/7-25-11bud-sig.pdf).
ReplyDeleteAlthough the letter referenced above addresses the Balanced Budget Amendment aspect of the bill, several of the points refer to the consequences on a hobbled national government during an economic downturn. Needless to say "economic downturn" does describe current times and would apply to the de facto effect of the agreement that specifically forswears raising revenues and reduces funds for unemployment insurance while cutting spending. All of these are described as dangerous behaviors during a weak economy.
In this case, however, those expressions of concern do not appear to have affected the final form of the bill decisively if at all. For a group that cautions that stimulus measures are the proper medicine I guess cutting even 30 billion would be worse than doing nothing.
The point of the post was the language that he used puts him in the class of those people who cannot differentiate between a political opponent and a blackmailing extortionist.
ReplyDeleteOne should also keep in mind that these are only reductions from projections. Even with "all of these cuts" the trend on government spending is still dramatically "increasing", so his side is still winning. What kind of paroxysms would he go into if his side were losing and we were actually cutting spending.
I remind the reader that I support roughly the same level of government activity as I think Krugman does. I just don't think that throwing a hissy-fit like some 7th grade girl who just found out that Johnny is taking someone else to the dance is the way to win the debate.
I read an article in Salon today that claimed mentally ill people frequently have greater empathy for others.
ReplyDeleteIt seemed, on my monitor, that Krugman's hands were shaking, or fidgeting so much they seemed to be shaking. I felt his discomfort so perhaps I have an excess of empathy ... and now we know why.
The title of the Salon article: "Why we need more mentally ill leaders."
Maybe I should go into politics?
I know ... off topic. Sorry.