[Vision2020] Nobel Laureate Economist Krugman on Debt Deal: ThePresident Surrenders: "a catastrophe on multiple levels"

[Ted Moffett]

Are you implying that Noble laureate economist Krugman, who I think
represents the thinking of many democrats on debates regarding economic
policy, does not  "debate reasonably?"

If he were addressing this list serve regarding economic policy,  the
serious limitations in logic and fact displayed by some who pontificate on
economics and politics would become glaringly apparent.

Which is not to say there are no reasonable grounds based on a in-depth
knowledge of economics to disagree with Krugman.

But I don't think it fair to imply Krugman, and many democrats, do not
"debate reasonably," that they display a surfeit
of unreasonableness compared to those who identify as republican or tea
party.

Furthermore, I do not think George Will possesses the academic competence in
economic theory required to rebut Krugman.

He's no Milton Friedman, that's for sure!

A Krugman/ Friedman debate at this point in history regarding
US economics would be a treat!

Is this the Krugman and Will discussion you are referring to?
 Paul Krugman, George Will Spar About Debt Ceiling Deal On 'This Week'
(VIDEO)

First Posted: 8/1/11 09:01 AM ET Updated: 8/1/11 09:25 AM ET

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/01/paul-krugman-george-will-_n_914760.html
---------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:35 AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:

> Krugman is wrong on almost all points except that it is a bad deal. Given
> the make of congress is is probably the best that can be expected. The cut,
> cap and balance bill would have been much  better. See George Will's
> rebuttal. The Democrats do themselves a disservice by shouting jihad and
> terrorist. Lets calm down and debate reasonably.
> Roger
>
> -----Original message-----
> From: Ted Moffett starbliss at gmail.com
> Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 17:28:09 -0700
> To: Moscow Vision 2020 vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: [Vision2020] Nobel Laureate Economist Krugman on Debt Deal:
> ThePresident Surrenders: "a catastrophe on multiple levels"
>
> >
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/01/opinion/the-president-surrenders-on-debt-ceiling.html
> >
> > The President Surrenders By PAUL
> > KRUGMAN<
> http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/paulkrugman/index.html?inline=nyt-per
> >
>  > Published:
> > July 31, 2011
> > A deal to raise the federal debt ceiling is in the works. If it goes
> > through, many commentators will declare that disaster was avoided. But
> they
> > will be wrong.
> >
> > For the deal itself, given the available information, is a disaster, and
> not
> > just for President Obama and his party. It will damage an already
> depressed
> > economy; it will probably make America’s long-run deficit problem worse,
> not
> > better; and most important, by demonstrating that raw extortion works and
> > carries no political cost, it will take America a long way down the road
> to
> > banana-republic status.
> >
> > Start with the economics. We currently have a deeply depressed economy.
> We
> > will almost certainly continue to have a depressed economy all through
> next
> > year. And we will probably have a depressed economy through 2013 as well,
> if
> > not beyond.
> >
> > The worst thing you can do in these circumstances is slash government
> > spending, since that will depress the economy even further. Pay no
> attention
> > to those who invoke the confidence fairy, claiming that tough action on
> the
> > budget will reassure businesses and consumers, leading them to spend
> more.
> > It doesn’t work that way, a fact confirmed by many studies of the
> historical
> > record.
> >
> > Indeed, slashing spending while the economy is depressed won’t even help
> the
> > budget situation much, and might well make it worse. On one side,
> interest
> > rates on federal borrowing are currently very low, so spending cuts now
> will
> > do little to reduce future interest costs. On the other side, making the
> > economy weaker now will also hurt its long-run prospects, which will in
> turn
> > reduce future revenue. So those demanding spending cuts now are like
> > medieval doctors who treated the sick by bleeding them, and thereby made
> > them even sicker.
> >
> > And then there are the reported terms of the deal, which amount to an
> abject
> > surrender on the part of the president. First, there will be big spending
> > cuts, with no increase in revenue. Then a panel will make recommendations
> > for further deficit reduction — and if these recommendations aren’t
> > accepted, there will be more spending cuts.
> >
> > Republicans will supposedly have an incentive to make concessions the
> next
> > time around, because defense spending will be among the areas cut. But
> the
> > G.O.P. has just demonstrated its willingness to risk financial collapse
> > unless it gets everything its most extreme members want. Why expect it to
> be
> > more reasonable in the next round?
> >
> > In fact, Republicans will surely be emboldened by the way Mr. Obama keeps
> > folding in the face of their threats. He surrendered last December,
> > extending all the Bush tax cuts; he surrendered in the spring when they
> > threatened to shut down the government; and he has now surrendered on a
> > grand scale to raw extortion over the debt ceiling. Maybe it’s just me,
> but
> > I see a pattern here.
> >
> > Did the president have any alternative this time around? Yes.
> >
> > First of all, he could and should have demanded an
> > increase<
> http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/31/tax-cut-memories/?scp=1&sq=krugman%20conscience%20tax%20cut%20memories&st=cse
> >in
>  > the debt ceiling back in December. When asked why he didn’t, he
> > replied
> > that he was sure that Republicans would act responsibly. Great call.
> >
> > And even now, the Obama administration could have resorted to legal
> > maneuvering to sidestep the debt ceiling, using any of several options.
> In
> > ordinary circumstances, this might have been an extreme step. But faced
> with
> > the reality of what is happening, namely raw extortion on the part of a
> > party that, after all, only controls one house of Congress, it would have
> > been totally justifiable.
> >
> > At the very least, Mr. Obama could have used the possibility of a legal
> end
> > run to strengthen his bargaining position. Instead, however, he ruled all
> > such options out from the beginning.
> >
> > But wouldn’t taking a tough stance have worried markets? Probably not. In
> > fact, if I were an investor I would be reassured, not dismayed, by a
> > demonstration that the president is willing and able to stand up to
> > blackmail on the part of right-wing extremists. Instead, he has chosen to
> > demonstrate the opposite.
> >
> > Make no mistake about it, what we’re witnessing here is a catastrophe on
> > multiple levels.
> >
> > It is, of course, a political catastrophe for Democrats, who just a few
> > weeks ago seemed to have Republicans on the run over their plan to
> dismantle
> > Medicare; now Mr. Obama has thrown all that away. And the damage isn’t
> over:
> > there will be more choke points where Republicans can threaten to create
> a
> > crisis unless the president surrenders, and they can now act with the
> > confident expectation that he will.
> >
> > In the long run, however, Democrats won’t be the only losers. What
> > Republicans have just gotten away with calls our whole system of
> government
> > into question. After all, how can American democracy work if whichever
> party
> > is most prepared to be ruthless, to threaten the nation’s economic
> security,
> > gets to dictate policy? And the answer is, maybe it can’t.
> > ------------------------------------------
> > Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20110802/ba847cf0/attachment.html