Paul Krugman In The New York Times

[Guest]

I'll post Krugman's most rescent column here with two risks. First, you may require a subscription to the New York Times online to access the article, I'm not sure. Secondly, I know there will be some outrage exhibited in replies. But the reason I've decided to post it here is because Krugman states pretty much the way I feel. I'm not happy about reaching the conclusions I have; I wish it were different. But what Krugman says, in case you can't actually read the article, can be paraphrased in just a few sentences...
There are too many in Washington who ignore the economic facts of life and still criticize any and all government programs by mounting arguments no more detailed or thoughtful than it must be bad, it's run by the government.
That sort of argument was what was cited by President Reagan.
Krugman describes the Reagan economic philosophy as a "zombie doctrine". It's been repeatedly proven that it hasn't worked, yet it keeps on coming, even though dead.
Krugman presents the following evidence of the failure of the Reagan doctrine...While the income of the wealthiest Americans rose seven-fold since the Reagan years, the median income of middle-class families has risen only one-third of that amount. And since the two George Bush terms, the middle and lower class families have experienced no income growth at all.
He explains the financial disaster of the last two years as the result of politicians committed to the Reagan ideology dismantling all the financial regulations that protected the banking system since the 1930's, maintaining that the free markets could take care of themselves.
Explaining the current financial crisis Krugman quotes FDR as saying in 1937, ”We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals...we know now that it is also bad economics.”
He is critical of those now criticizing the "public option" as not presenting any provable, coherent arguments other than "government can't run anything right".
He asks, rhetorically, "why won't these arguments die when they've been proven so wrong?" He goes on to quote the author Upton Sinclair, "“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary”...or, Krugman adds, his campaign contributions...“depend upon his not understanding it.”
He finishes the article with a statement of hope that a crucial opportunity is not missed because of the inability of our elected officials to do the right thing.
Hopefully, you'll be able to read the article at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/opinion/24krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Of course, you all know that Paul Krugman is not a fly-by-night columnist. He is the winner of the 2009 Nobel Prize in Economics. He is an admitted liberal in his economics as well as his writing.

Please consider this post as an effort on my part to get people to consider different points-of-view before reaching political conclusions. By posting this, I'm not trying to convince anyone to agree with the conclusions I've reached. Everyone has a right to form their own opinions. I'm just hopeful that people will consider a lot of the information that's available before either locking in on or maintaining a particular political opinion. Times and circumstances change and we should be prepared to do the same.

[Guest]

If Paul Krugman told me it was raining outside you better believe I'd go out to check. He's not just liberal, he's way, way left. Personally, I'll take Reagan's economic policies anyday. Just because Krugman said they didn't work doesn't mean they didn't work.

[Guest]

If Paul Krugman told me it was raining outside you better believe I'd go out to check. He's not just liberal, he's way, way left. Personally, I'll take Reagan's economic policies anyday. Just because Krugman said they didn't work doesn't mean they didn't work.

I would appreciate it if you would list as many reasons as you can for why you think it's good for this country, present and future, that:

1) incomes of the wealthy have increased by a percentage three times greater than incomes of middle and lower class families, and,

2) regulations of the banking industry and other financial institutions have been systematically dismantled during and since the Reagan era.

[Guest]

...Please consider this post as an effort on my part to get people to consider different points-of-view before reaching political conclusions. By posting this, I'm not trying to convince anyone to agree with the conclusions I've reached. Everyone has a right to form their own opinions. I'm just hopeful that people will consider a lot of the information that's available before either locking in on or maintaining a particular political opinion. Times and circumstances change and we should be prepared to do the same.If Paul Krugman told me it was raining outside you better believe I'd go out to check. He's not just liberal, he's way, way left. Personally, I'll take Reagan's economic policies anyday. Just because Krugman said they didn't work doesn't mean they didn't work.
I had hoped that some would read the column cited and at least think about what the columnist, a Nobel prize-winning economist, had to say. Again, I wasn't trying to convince people to change their minds, just consider a different point-of-view. Times have changed a lot since Reaganomics was the vogue. Students of the theory should probably review economic history in the context of the political environment to decide the effectiveness of that economic theory. One needn't get involved in partisan discussions to determine whether or not it worked.

[Guest]

VK-- I read Krugman's column all the time, on a different web site. You keep emphasizing that he is a Nobel prize winner, which he is, however, that prize has become very politicized. Krugman mentions that in the last two years politicians with Reagan idealogy dismantled all financial regulations. the democrats have been in control of congress since January of 2007. The Democrats are the ones who insisted the banks give loans to risky home buyers. He is upset with people being against the "public option." Why, when 85% of the people are happy with their health care we are going to destroy the whole system and start over. The 47 milion of uninsured is an inflated number. A Nevada congresswoman admittted it was more like 10 million.
I just lovit--- My point with Reagan's policy as compared to Obama's is that you don't raise taxes when you are in a recession. Reagan doubled revenue, unfortunately, the Democrat congress spent even more. Seven of his eight proposed budgets called for less spending. They were DOA when they hit congress. As for the rich getting richer if they get it honestly I don't have a problem. The middle class has gained, also, according to the article. People move in and out of financial levels all the time.

[Guest]

VK-- I read Krugman's column all the time, on a different web site. You keep emphasizing that he is a Nobel prize winner, which he is, however, that prize has become very politicized. Krugman mentions that in the last two years politicians with Reagan idealogy dismantled all financial regulations. the democrats have been in control of congress since January of 2007. The Democrats are the ones who insisted the banks give loans to risky home buyers. He is upset with people being against the "public option." Why, when 85% of the people are happy with their health care we are going to destroy the whole system and start over. The 47 milion of uninsured is an inflated number. A Nevada congresswoman admittted it was more like 10 million.
I just lovit--- My point with Reagan's policy as compared to Obama's is that you don't raise taxes when you are in a recession. Reagan doubled revenue, unfortunately, the Democrat congress spent even more. Seven of his eight proposed budgets called for less spending. They were DOA when they hit congress. As for the rich getting richer if they get it honestly I don't have a problem. The middle class has gained, also, according to the article. People move in and out of financial levels all the time.

Sally Jo, I too quote a Nobel Prize winning economist, Milton Friedman, who is very conservative. It just goes to show that one can find support for their argument in Nobel Prize winners, whether liberal or conservative. I personally believe Friedman to be right and Krugman wrong.

I also feel that it was the move to a centrist position by the republicans, trying to placate the liberals drumming about how "life's not fair for people with low income and no credit" that cause the housing debacle. Conservatives caved in, relaxed the lending rules, and opened the floodgate of poor lending practices. Now we see that the Republicans SHOULD NOT HAVE appeased the Democrats in relaxing the banking rules that resulted in a huge amount of bad loans.

The 85% of Americans who have health care benefits DON'T want the government to create a new, expensive, health care system for the 15%. Yes maybe they would like to see health care costs be brought under control, but they don't want their (health care) baby thrown out with the bath water to do it.

Your Reagan VS Obama point is right on.

Lastly. There seems to be this liberal ideology that people of wealth always achieved their wealth on the backs of poor and middle class workers and should be taxed to death, because they don't deserve to have done so well. Liberals want to play Robin Hood and "take from the rich and give to the poor", for their viewpoint is that they have to make life "fair" for everyone. Life isn't fair! Bill Gates grew his wealth from personal sacrifice, hard work, superior intelligence and business sense, so he should be penalized with confiscatory tax rates to appease a liberal social agenda? All of us receive from life what we put into it. The wealthy have only their own personally derived obligation to help their fellow man and most do spread the wealth. Mr Gates has given away billions of his own money to the people HE wants to support. It's not our right to tax (take) his money away from him to provide for someone else s social agenda.

[Guest]

I'm glad to see that a few of us at least, are exposing ourselves to different sources of information--in this case economic. That's the point I was trying to make in posting the initial message in this thread.

In my case, I'd like to believe that Friedman's economic theory would continue to work, but given the societal and political changes that have occurred in the country since he first began to espouse his theories the better part of a half century ago, I have my doubts. I'm also not as far to the economic left as Krugman, although I respect his writing.

The choice of an economic theory by voters is little more than a factor in choosing the representatives we send to Washington. In the case of the last decade or a bit more, regardless of what they said, what party the belonged to or what they campaigned on, the majority of our representatives have been closet followers of the Krugman school of economists...much to the detriment of the country. It won't change until we change the system that makes election to Congress so financially attractive to those that choose to be national politicians, Maybe then we could get them back to doing the "business of the people".

[Guest]

The choice of an economic theory by voters is little more than a factor in choosing the representatives we send to Washington.

I think that it's greater than a little factor. People always vote their pocketbook. The problem is that too many people think that the US treasury is THEIR pocketbook. When you have a political party that offers to give away someone else money, people respond with "I want some". Our population, since the depression, has gotten accustomed to looking for government to provide for their needs. Liberal economic thinking.

People that are self supporting, independent and know they are responsible for their own way in life, believe in conservative economic thinking. Whether some realize it or not their economic theory dictates who they send to Washington to represent us. Therefore the polarization of economic, social and political thinking continues.

Some want everything given to them and some say "I'll make my own way, thank you".