Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« The Brutal Side Of George Stephanopoulos | Main | Assemble The Circular Firing Squad »

October 31, 2003

Comments

Jon Henke

Good points. Thanks for saving me the trouble...I'll just link to you, instead.

Krugman HAS GOT to know that the manufacturing slide in industrialized countries, plus the bubble, and resulting over-capacity, of the late 90s creates a unique job-problem for the economy.
And he HAS GOT to know that it had nothing to with the President.

Now, he can talk about the deficit all he likes, (although he assigns far too much blame to Bush, with regards to tax cuts) but pretending that Bush was responsible for the state of employment is just.....well, if some average joe blogger said it, I'd say he was deluded.

Since Krugman should know better, I'm gonna have to go with "intentionally misleading".

Presidents deserve neither as much credit as they get for the economy, nor as much blame.

Jim Glass

"To put it more bluntly: it would be quite a trick to run the biggest budget deficit in the history of the planet..."

Yes, yes, the US and Japan and lots of others.

But let's be fair to Professor K. He's writing *rhetorically* in an op-ed column just as all other opinion writers do -- you know, Bob Herbert, Molly Ivins, etc. He's not writing as any kind of rigorously thoughtful economic analyst in an op-ed column.

And there's nothing wrong with that.

Just remember it about all his columns.

Perosonally, my favorite rhetoric from his recent columns remains:

"the revenue that will be lost because of the Bush tax cuts ... would have been more than enough to 'top up' Social Security and Medicare, allowing them to operate without benefit cuts for the next 75 years."

Not enough, *more* than enough.

Gosh, if Bush's dummy economic advisors had realized that in back 2000 they could have used it as justification for the tax cuts! "Hey, we have *more than enough* money to run SS and Medicare for the next 75 years..."

No wonder Hubbard and Lindsay are gone.

ScrapOfCat

"All of which the Earnest Prof knows, but evidently forgets when he is excited."

Perfect.

TM

Thanks very much. If I bitch about him twice a week, lightning will strike.

Jon Henke

"But let's be fair to Professor K. He's writing *rhetorically* in an op-ed column just as all other opinion writers do -- you know, Bob Herbert, Molly Ivins, etc. He's not writing as any kind of rigorously thoughtful economic analyst in an op-ed column."


- - -I think we are keeping that in mind, and we don't like it. Or respect it.

And that's fair.

Why would one hire a rigorously thoughtful economic analyst to write a column, if not for the aforementioned qualities?
And why do we rarely see anything but rhetoric?

R Davis

You're correct that it's not the "biggest budget deficit in the history of the planet". However, this whole focus on the deficit is misplaced. We should be focusing on the DEBT as a percentage of GDP, not the DEFICIT. It is the DEBT that we have to pay back or pay interest on forever. On this subject, see the article at the attached URL ( https://home.netcom.com/~rdavis2/luskin4.html ).

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame