More from Krugman

[Magox]

I was watching Morning Joe and Paul krugman was being interviewed.

 

Krugman suggested Medicare and Medicaid shortfalls should be ignored. Krugman also stated that since we couldn't predict the future, that there was no need to worry until the programs became insolvent..

 

Yep, until they become insolvent.

 

 

You have to be a real nincompoop to subscribe to Krugman's theories.

[B-Man]

More Krugman nonsense.

 

 

Krugman sees a "major rhetorical shift" from Romney's campaign to Bobby Jindal's recent speech.

 

Krugman's column is titled "Makers, Taker, Fakers." Here's one thing that seemed off to me:

Mr. Jindal posed the problem in a way that would, I believe, have been unthinkable for a leading Republican even a year ago.

“We must not,” he declared, “be the party that simply protects the well off so they can keep their toys. We have to be the party that shows all Americans how they can thrive.”

After a campaign in which Mitt Romney denounced any attempt to talk about class divisions as an “attack on success,” this represents a major rhetorical shift.

 

There are 2 propositions: A. Those who are successful should be able to keep the fruits of their efforts, and B. All Americans should have the opportunity to work toward their own success.

 

Krugman comes close to saying Romney only said A and Jindal only says B.

 

But Romney continually said both things. His opponents worked constantly — and successfully — to make people feel that he was only saying A. And Jindal is also saying both things. That's the function of the word "simply."

 

Jindal — in the quoted sentence — isn't saying Romney only said A. He's talking about the way people think about the Republican Party, which is in A terms, because that's the way Democrats have successfully framed them. Jindal is saying the B frame is better political rhetoric.

 

Krugman goes on to explain why B rhetoric doesn't properly apply to what Jindal and the rest of the GOP are really doing. That is, he's continuing the process that was used so successfully in the campaign to defeat Romney — pushing A, obscuring B.

 

There is no major rhetorical shift. Not from Jindal and not from Krugman. Everyone is doing, rhetorically, what they've been doing all along.

 

 

.

Edited January 28, 2013 by B-Man

[dayman]

Topic prompted me to watch...video here:

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/ns/msnbc_tv-morning_joe/#50613650

 

Seems his basic point is that we're too focused the possible need to cut benefits in in 2025 that all our energy if focused on creating a plan to cut benefits in 2025 now...when he would rather have more political energy devoted towards doubling down on what he thinks distinguished us from Britain during the crisis which is stimulus.

[Magox]

Except that's not what he said, what he said was that since we can't predict the future that we shouldn't address the entitlements until they become insolvent.

 

The issue at hand is not about cuts in discretionary spending, or added stimulus, but what should we do about our unfunded liabilities? What can we do to curb the overall trajectory?

 

Here is Steve Rattner's take on Krugman's nonsense:

 

"We are putting millions of tons of carbon in the air every day; we are also adding billions of dollars to our future entitlement obligations every day. We are borrowing (stealing?) from our children to pay far more in benefits to seniors than we are paying into the system.

We have something like $60 trillion in unfunded liabilities to Medicare and Social Security. Paul Krugman would like us to just wait until those programs run out of money, at which point those unfunded liabilities would be just that much larger."

[keepthefaith]

I was watching Morning Joe and Paul krugman was being interviewed.

 

Krugman suggested Medicare and Medicaid shortfalls should be ignored. Krugman also stated that since we couldn't predict the future, that there was no need to worry until the programs became insolvent..

 

Yep, until they become insolvent.

 

 

You have to be a real nincompoop to subscribe to Krugman's theories.

 

 

 

How is it that this guy Krugman has an audience? I already know the answer and it's painful.

[dayman]

Except that's not what he said, what he said was that since we can't predict the future that we shouldn't address the entitlements until they become insolvent.

 

The issue at hand is not about cuts in discretionary spending, or added stimulus, but what should we do about our unfunded liabilities? What can we do to curb the overall trajectory?

 

Here is Steve Rattner's take on Krugman's nonsense:

 

Hehe, I mean I don't know what to tell you I just watched the video. I heard what he was saying throughout the interview. He doesn't imply that we should simply ignore it, his point is that the priority should be jobs not locking into benefit cuts that take place in the future.

 

And in his opinion, once again just stating his opinion since I just watched it, is that the climate change analogy is terrible b/c "every year we don't do something we put 35 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the air, what exactly are doing this year that will make it harder for us to deal with healthcare costs in 2025?" He just saying that saying that we have to lock in healthcare changes now that we think we will have to make in 15 years is not comparable urgency....and in fact he would put job simulating measures ahead of locking in healthcare changes for 15 years from now in terms of urgency...

Edited January 29, 2013 by SameOldBills

[meazza]

On Bloomberg

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/walker-spending-too-much-on-defense-mPPznM9rTyaabGd_g~Dyag.html

[dayman]

He's basically just expressing a similar feeling as I did here;

 

http://forums.twobil...of-the-sameimo/

 

In saying that being totally focusing on budget and long term fiscal issues and proceeding form crisis/showdown to crisis/showdown over that we aren't getting anything done regarding more urgent issues such as ways to stimulate the economy now. And at least a few people, including those who often disagree with me, managed to muster a "I don't disagree with you" in that topic...I mean it's easy for people (certainly conservatives) to pile on Krugman but it might be interesting to give it some thought with an open mind as to why he says what he says...

Edited January 29, 2013 by SameOldBills

[Magox]

Yes he did imply it. How did you not get that?

[dayman]

Yes he did imply it. How did you not get that?

 

Look if you want to fixate on it that's fine. His point was simple...that fixating on locking in cuts we think we'll need in 15 years is less important than applying brain power to growth now...and he say at some point that if we were run by philosopher kings it would be fantastic to do both now but given that we can't seem to the one of the two to pick is obvious...

[Alaska Darin]

Look if you want to fixate on it that's fine. His point was simple...that fixating on locking in cuts we think we'll need in 15 years is less important than applying brain power to growth now...and he say at some point that if we were run by philosopher kings it would be fantastic to do both now but given that we can't seem to the one of the two to pick is obvious...

I had no idea the government was unable to more than one thing at a time.

 

Krugman's "point" is the same as it's always been: The Federal Government should be spending WAY more money it doesn't have to get the economy moving in the short term, long term consequences be damned. Heaven forbid we take a look at why the economy is really tanking and take steps to fix those.

 

Lather, rinse, repeat.

[dayman]

I had no idea the government was unable to more than one thing at a time.

 

Krugman's "point" is the same as it's always been: The Federal Government should be spending WAY more money it doesn't have to get the economy moving in the short term, long term consequences be damned. Heaven forbid we take a look at why the economy is really tanking and take steps to fix those.

 

Lather, rinse, repeat.

 

Except it's mere projection to suggest that it's do this forever in his opinoin w/ long term shifts in policy contrary to this be damned. He says himself in that interview right there...he would turn into a fiscal hawk once jobs hit their stride and interest rates go up. And as for what happened to the economy...I think he might disagree with you as to why it tanked and has since had only modest bounce back....

Edited January 29, 2013 by SameOldBills

[3rdnlng]

One unadultered crock of schit! More artificial stimulus and forget about tomorrow? One more excuse to kick the can down the road.

[Magox]

The only one fixating on anything here is you. Just because you're too much of a hard head to recognize that his insistence of not addressing the entitlement programs at this point is a reflection of your partisan views. He doesn't believe that we need to address our unfunded future liabilities, and that it's not necessary to deal with them, because from his perspective, there is no danger. That's his views, and just about every single sane non ideological person that has an inkling of knowledge regarding the economy understands that you can't just wait till later to address these issues, because the longer you wait, the more difficult it will become to reform them, and the later you reform these program, the more draconian the cuts will have to be.

[IDBillzFan]

Look if you want to fixate on it that's fine. His point was simple...that fixating on locking in cuts we think we'll need in 15 years is less important than applying brain power to growth now.

 

Someone should ask Krugman if things like Medicare and Social Security are good for the next 15 years, then why does President Obama keep telling everyone that if we don't raise the debt ceiling that Medicare and SS payments will be delayed? Sounds to me like we need to borrow money to pay those entitlements. Maybe Krugman should call up Barry and have a chat.

[Magox]

“My message is, we’ve got a coming collapse if we don’t take care of our entitlements,” Scarborough remarked.

“It’s a long way off, it’s not necessarily even true,” Krugman replied. “All you’re saying is that we should lock in now the health care changes that we think we would have had to make within 15 years.”

 

“Not just lock in changes,” Haass interrupted. “We’ve got to make real cuts over the next decade.”

“No we don’t,” Krugman shot back.

 

 

Here it is for everyone to read.

 

 

krugman doesn't believe we need to make any changes in our entitlements over the next decade. He doesn't even believe there is any danger and that the status quo can continue. Nevermind what the credit rating agencies or Medicare actuaries are saying, Krugman knows best and his dim witted followers will believe him no matter what the math says.

[dayman]

The only one fixating on anything here is you. Just because you're too much of a hard head to recognize that his insistence of not addressing the entitlement programs at this point is a reflection of your partisan views. He doesn't believe that we need to address our unfunded future liabilities, and that it's not necessary to deal with them, because from his perspective, there is no danger. That's his views, and just about every single sane non ideological person that has an inkling of knowledge regarding the economy understands that you can't just wait till later to address these issues, because the longer you wait, the more difficult it will become to reform them, and the later you reform these program, the more draconian the cuts will have to be.

 

Once again, to repeat myself, it's about the priorities/emphasis and what we should be most concerned with (not purely concerned with) today. Why is it if you had to make a to do list you would put addressing an estimated 15 year cost challenge ahead of growth today when we know we have to pick up growth today and address healthcare costs of the future?

 

 

 

 

Here it is for everyone to read.

 

 

krugman doesn't believe we need to make any changes in our entitlements over the next decade. He doesn't even believe there is any danger and that the status quo can continue. Nevermind what the credit rating agencies or Medicare actuaries are saying, Krugman knows best and his dim witted followers will believe him no matter what the math says.

 

 

The basic truth is the entire video is there for anyone to watch...they can see the entire interview and actually listen to what he says which btw is heavily edited in the quote you just posted...

[Magox]

Once again, to repeat myself, it's about the priorities/emphasis and what we should be most concerned with (not purely concerned with) today. Why is it if you had to make a to do list you would put addressing an estimated 15 year cost challenge ahead of growth today when we know we have to pick up growth today and address healthcare costs of the future?

 

No one agrees with you, not the credit rating agencies, Bowles simpson, Conservative think tanks, mainstream economists, most liberal think tanks, but more importantly, math doesn't agree with you. The problem is that you have a hard time comprehending what is being said. I provided the quotes up above, it's clear to everyone that he doesn't believe that the entitlement programs need to be reformed in the next decade and in his words doesn't even believe there is a problem with our future unfunded liabilities.

[dayman]

No one agrees with you, not the credit rating agencies, Bowles simpson, Conservative think tanks, mainstream economists, most liberal think tanks, but more importantly, math doesn't agree with you. The problem is that you have a hard time comprehending what is being said. I provided the quotes up above, it's clear to everyone that he doesn't believe that the entitlement programs need to be reformed in the next decade and in his words doesn't even believe there is a problem with our future unfunded liabilities.

 

Well while after watching the entire interview less than an hour ago, just not what I saw. No doubt you can easily rail against him for being totally soft on the urgency of those problems and probability of not avoiding them, but it's a little disingenuous to say that he flat wouldn't do anything since he says in the interview if we were dealing with some all powerful King that could just do things with a snap of a finger he would.

 

In any event, as for me, I do believe we need to do something. I also believe Krugman is right when he says right now if you are comparing the two...growth now is more important.

Edited January 29, 2013 by SameOldBills

[meazza]

No one agrees with you, not the credit rating agencies, Bowles simpson, Conservative think tanks, mainstream economists, most liberal think tanks, but more importantly, math doesn't agree with you. The problem is that you have a hard time comprehending what is being said. I provided the quotes up above, it's clear to everyone that he doesn't believe that the entitlement programs need to be reformed in the next decade and in his words doesn't even believe there is a problem with our future unfunded liabilities.

 

Since when does consensus actually mean anything?

 

Not that i agree with Krugman but I have a hard time seeing how America borrowing at historically low levels will ever cease as long as they remain the cleanest dirty shirt. Capital has to flow somewhere and with the near collapse of the Euro and the lack of history behind the CNY, it will be decades before someone emerges which will, in my opinion, keep the US safe from having to borrow at high interest rates.