Krugman: Size Does Matter
By Susie Madrak Monday Mar 09, 2009 9:00amThere are now three big questions about economic policy. First, does the administration realize that it isn’t doing enough? Second, is it prepared to do more? Third, will Congress go along with stronger policies?
On the first two questions, I found Mr. Obama’s latest interview with The Times anything but reassuring.
“Our belief and expectation is that we will get all the pillars in place for recovery this year,” the president declared — a belief and expectation that isn’t backed by any data or model I’m aware of. To be sure, leaders are supposed to sound calm and in control. But in the face of the dismal data, this remark sounded out of touch.
And there was no hint in the interview of readiness to do more.
A real fix for the troubles of the banking system might help make up for the inadequate size of the stimulus plan, so it was good to hear that Mr. Obama spends at least an hour each day with his economic advisors, “talking through how we are approaching the financial markets.” But he went on to dismiss calls for decisive action as coming from “blogs” (actually, they’re coming from many other places, including at least one president of a Federal Reserve bank), and suggested that critics want to “nationalize all the banks” (something nobody is proposing).
As I read it, this dismissal — together with the continuing failure to announce any broad plans for bank restructuring — means that the White House has decided to muddle through on the financial front, relying on economic recovery to rescue the banks rather than the other way around. And with the stimulus plan too small to deliver an economic recovery ... well, you get the picture.
Sooner or later the administration will realize that more must be done. But when it comes back for more money, will Congress go along?
My guess? No.
Republicans are now firmly committed to the view that we should do nothing to respond to the economic crisis, except cut taxes — which they always want to do regardless of circumstances. If Mr. Obama comes back for a second round of stimulus, they’ll respond not by being helpful, but by claiming that his policies have failed.
The broader public, by contrast, favors strong action. According to a recent Newsweek poll, a majority of voters supports the stimulus, and, more surprisingly, a plurality believes that additional spending will be necessary. But will that support still be there, say, six months from now?
Also, an overwhelming majority believes that the government is spending too much to help large financial institutions. This suggests that the administration’s money-for-nothing financial policy will eventually deplete its political capital.
Yeah, politicians don't seem to recognize that most people have grasped the difference between economic stimulus (Good!) and the never-ending banking bailout. (Bad!)
So here’s the picture that scares me: It’s September 2009, the unemployment rate has passed 9 percent, and despite the early round of stimulus spending it’s still headed up. Mr. Obama finally concedes that a bigger stimulus is needed.
But he can’t get his new plan through Congress because approval for his economic policies has plummeted, partly because his policies are seen to have failed, partly because job-creation policies are conflated in the public mind with deeply unpopular bank bailouts. And as a result, the recession rages on, unchecked.
O.K., that’s a warning, not a prediction. But economic policy is falling behind the curve, and there’s a real, growing danger that it will never catch up.








Login or Register to post comments.
"Krugman: Size Does Matter"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYlDbv7MqE8
HA!
For some reason I can't find the link to Young Frankenstein's enormous schwanzstucker.
for a link to schnitzengruben instead.
Sorry, hadn't followed your original link yet!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9V-_I5X7fI&fe...
B/W
But he went on to dismiss calls for decisive action as coming from “blogs”.
Gee, and here I was thinking that the Obama campaign was so slick in part because they read the blogs (grassroots) and worked the internet.
Guess that was just rubbish.
Rubbish sounds so ooh la la French.
Here in Texas we call trash trash.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iKcW7fSdMQ
Or we could scrap the rubbish and trash and just call it what it is and that would be BULLSHIT.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KI-8hst0bho
What is that? You are cracking me up. :)
but you can be happy if you've a mind to.
Daddy.
http://pcpodcast.blogsome.com/images/pcp188.jpg
Dang me!! - that was fun!
*
Rubbish is British-sounding.
Trash is, well all-American sounding, you are correct :-)
O.K., that’s a warning, not a prediction. But economic policy is falling behind the curve, and there’s a real, growing danger that it will never catch up.
My brother called me last week asking my opinion on what is going on.
I told him that my biggest fear, and I may have mentioned it on C&L, is that we may be very close if not at, what I call, the tipping point.
That is, the point where the crisis has gotten so bad, that we've taken on so much water, that it's only a matter of time before we sink...and no amount of bailing is gonna make a difference.
BUFFETT: ECONOMY HAS 'FALLEN OFF A CLIFF'
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Buffett_Economy...
fighting a raging state wide forest fire.
With a GARDEN HOSE.
The concept of bailing means you have to remove more water than is coming in through the hole in the boat. But it's a losing battle unless you can keep bailing.
What we need to be thinking about is fixing the fracking hole. If that means taking on a little water while we slap a patch over it, that's okay. If it means evacuating the compartment and closing the water-tight doors, then we do that.
But ultimately, we won't be able to bail, patch, or pump our way out of this problem. We're going to have to pull into a drydock, put the economy up on stilts, possibly even cut through part of the hull to replace damaged facilities. And that means the ship (for argument's sake, call it an aircraft carrier) isn't in the water, isn't fulfilling its mission role of projecting power or protecting America's assets abroad. 'Too big to fail' doesn't enter into it.
is getting annoying. I wish he would stop being a critic and offer his ideas and suggestions in some way other then this "I know it all" mentality trap he's falling into.
... how, exactly?
Krugman is an actual economist, as opposed to the assortment of talking heads like CNBC's Rick 'The White House Threatened Me' Santelli. He does know what he's talking about, and he has, while we were listening to Bush and pals talk about how sound our economy was, warning that we were heading for problems, and what we needed to do to fix it.
has offered ideas since last year...and continues to.
His ideas are shouted down by the noise of the crooks, the Kudlows and Cramers and Santellis of the world, that don't want to look in the mirror and face reality.
Actually one can look in the mirror and still not see reality.
My mirror still says I have a 47" shoulders, a 45" chest and a 33" waist.
talking to the damn thing and just look, instead.
Krugman for Sec. of Treasury.
we're beyond that now, we've crossed the frontier. and left that all behind, and we'd better get our heads straight about it.
If we continue consistently lying to ourselves about what reality demands of us, then we are a mortally deluded nation.
Um, yes, that would be us.
We are in freefall.
Call Tom Petty!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FqA2WINPF4
Call Art Laffer! Tell him he needs another napkin!!
Krugman is an academian. He's also a Liberal first and an economist second. He believes that throwing good money after bad makes good business sense - but I wouldn't expect anything different from an Enron consultant.
he said on tv...openly quoted...not anonymously...that the STIMULUS package...NOT the bailout...was too small.
Your putting words in his mouth. That comment you mentioned is related to the bank bailout.
Apples and oranges. Please...if you made a mistake..fine. But if your here to muddy the water by throwing around double talk in typical right wing/Fox News fashion, don't waste our time.
And he'd still be wrong. It's bread and circuses; unemployment goes up so let's throw money at the problem.
Once again, Krugman loves loves LOVES the Welfare state, so it's unsurprising that he supports giving more of your money away.
That's the repug strategy - keep the working class under water and distract them with entertainment and gossip.
"welfare state"...what's next..."welfare queens"? "get government off our backs"? "government is the problem"?
Get new material. Those talking points are as dead and decomposed as St. Ronnie.
I recognize you're an idiot, so I'll make it easier for you:
http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/incidents....
"It was, in a way, strange for me to be part of the Reagan Administration. I was then and still am an unabashed defender of the welfare state, which I regard as the most decent social arrangement yet devised."
This is just more of the same - it's never going to be enough money because if it fails, the answer is "We didn't throw enough money at it." It's no different than the Republican line of "We didn't cut taxes enough."
"It was, in a way, strange for me to be part of the Reagan Administration. I was then and still am an unabashed defender of the welfare state, which I regard as the most decent social arrangement yet devised."
So, you used Reagan and the GOP's description in his sentence...so what. You are inferring something that isn't there.
and I'll continue in a bit.
Do you even read?
"The Reagan Administration was, of course, full of people who hated the welfare state and had very little interest in the truth. "
By all means, continue, but don't sit here and flap you gums without something subsntantial to say.
I do read.
But comprehension is a bit beyond your grasp I see.
many powerful people prefer to take advice from those who make them feel comfortable rather than from those who will force them to think hard. That is, those who really manage to influence policy are usually the best courtiers, not the best analysts. I like to think that I am a good analyst, but I am certainly a very bad courtier. And so I was not tempted to stay on in Washington.
Self affirmation that he is NOT a politician...but an academician that lives in the REAL world.
Academicians don't live in the real world any more than politicians do. Do we all make $20,000 an hour in speaking arrangements? No - but Krugman does.
Oh...so your for government control of salaries?
Ok...works for me.
Mon, 03/09/2009 - 10:58 — adammon
But isn't the just utilizing genetic fallacies as well as argumentum ad reductio?
I think all politicians are genetic fallacies ;)
I was talking in rhetorics, I suspect you're doing so in biology.
"I was then and still am an unabashed defender of the welfare state, which I regard as the most decent social arrangement yet devised."
He's correct.
Many of the problems we are living through today are directly related to the fact that conservatives haven't invested in society.They have left it up to the market,and the result is staring you right in the kisser.
And the GOP/Bush policies we've had for the past eight years - tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts - those have done so well!
You're kidding yourself if you think NOT spending is going to fix anything.
Funny, a major part of the stimulus IS tax cuts. In fact, a large majority of it is.
And the economy STILL crashed.
Your premise still appears to be: tax cuts = good, spending = bad.
Try paying less on your mortgage, for your groceries, your family's healthcare, your children's education, the maintenance on your car. See where that gets you.
Does homeless, starving, sick, and dumb ring a bell?
And if tax cuts - the effective equivalent of LESS PAY - works to sustain government, let's see some bank executives, even lawmakers (particularly those with millionaire heiress wives) cut their pay. Oh, wait - no, we're going to hear that it's necessary because they work hard.
Incidentally, if government 'doesn't work,' the answer is not 'give it less money,' but to rethink and reform how it spends the monies we provide.
"Incidentally, if government 'doesn't work,' the answer is not 'give it less money,' but to rethink and reform how it spends the monies we provide."
The converse is also true, don't give it MORE money for failing.
WTF are you talking about?
Welfare state, eh? You mean for the banks and corporations?
Construction companies, light rail transit - more 'big digs' financed at your expense for the express purpose of providing temporary 'jobs'.
Want to STIMULIZE the economy? Subsidize education. Add 2 years of post-secondary education to anyone who wants it. Diplomas for all.
Is stimulize even a word?
And infrastructure repairs top Obama's wish list, but they always attract accusation of pork, from those who didn't get their bacon.
Sounds like a barbarism of stimulate and subsidize.
Stimulize and subsidate?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ye5Jo1I4XXc
I'm going to patent it if it's not.
Infrastructure repairs are a necessity, creating a high speed train link between San Diego and Vegas or Minneapolis and Chicago? A project that would probably take 5 years to complete is not an effective use of labour, skills, or time and money. What happens when the economy recovers and those people move off the job? Or it's no longer politically popular to throw money at the project?
there is money in there for education.
The PROBLEM is that it falls short in replacing what the Bush Administration cut.
So ADD it back instead of building trains which only provide a short term stimulus. Provide the population with the resources to succeed over a longer term which is a far better use of money.
Aren't people still riding the train lines built in the 50s?
Don't they generate revenue? Jobs? Tax receipts?
And please...keep bouncing around, you're bound to hit on something. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Besides, I'm enjoying the exercise.
On top of that trains increase tourism and their attendant industries, relieve the over-crowding of our air-space, form an additional method of shipment, and are a form of alternative energy we can all immediately utilize (the fuel isn't, but the sharing of the fuel between passengers.)
My preference would be to see a merging of long range with rush hour distances.
You probably needed the exercise anyways.
Between Plano and Irving, Texas and New York?
I notice you don't have anything substantial to say about your refutation.
I don't really. If you believe that trains like Amtrak generate revenue instead of consistently produce deficits, those figures are readily disproven through a simple google search.
From http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/t/144069.aspx:
"A passenger traveling from Los Angeles to New Orleans on the Sunset Limited in FY 2008 received an average federal subsidy of $947.63 before interest and depreciation. A business class seat on AirTrans would have cost approximately $539. Amtrak could have bought the passenger a business class ticket on AirTrans and saved the taxpayers more than $408.63 per LA to NO passenger by discontinuing the train. "
But we're creating jobs. No one in the right mind is going to argue against creating jobs.
You did at 11:02.
Additionally, are your prices set for 2009, or when fuel was cheaper? And even then we're talking continued crowded air spaces. And we don't have to create another Amtrak, just have the government invest in a new system, and make the taxpayers share holders, until the initial investment is paid back.
1) Obama & the Dims' policies fail majorly and the nation falls into a deep, dark, bloody depression, or
2) there's another terror attack on USer soil on Obama's watch, in which case he'd be impeached (or lynched, byt the Dittoheads) before the ashes have cooled, but not before he imposed martial law...
The Dow is now down 66 Points! It's a 132 point turnaround! It's Armageddon!
Ohh..oh...please Mr. Cramer...tell me what to doooo!!
Whatever Cramer tells you to do, do the opposite instead. Trust me on that...
wants everyone to use IMF measures. Bigger. More. More. Get it so damn huge, you'll never pay it. Don't worry, if the US was just to spend a few more trillion, all would be great.
Perhaps someone should ask all these economic geniuses some questions. This is global. Global trade has everyone tied together. So if one nation spends trillions and the rest do not, how does that fix anything? It doesn't. Like Republicans, Krugman has the easy way out. Doesn't matter one way or another to him, because, hey, he really has no fish in this sea. How are those IMF policies been working in third world countries Paul? Oh ya, they DO NOT. They end up with massive tax increases and massive cuts to social programs to satisfy the IMF. The only real winners doing this type of strategy are corporations and Wall Street.
Start ignoring the yacking repubs in congress. Pretending like we (Obama & dems) care what they think is preventing real and substantial action that could save this place.
lets stop reminding ourselves of what went wrong, and think of what we need.
to throw up their failed ideas. And quit covering Limballs as if he were a missing blonde coed in Arruba!
when we are all in the street, their safety will be of concern. if we all have nothing to do accept grab torches and pitch forks, it's their safety.
Krugman and many other economists say 1930s prescriptions are right for today.
Problem is, this aint the 1930s.
Spending money we don't have today is only going to make things worse down the road, IMO.
Let's all just sit back and watch American Idol until the cable gets turned off!!
It's a healthful choice.
to keep up with our EMPIRE, you see. How many trillions of dollars in projected debt are we already in today thanks to Bush Co. with their illegal wars and ridiculous tax cut to the top 2%?
How about cutting that whopping Military Industrial Complex budget where 56% of our taxes are going to? There's a thought.
n/t
Even mentioning the trillions invested in the illegal occupation of Iraq once in awhile in the "Liberal" media would be a start.
Agreed. Military spending, which is probably the most wasteful form of the broken windows fallacy, should be dramatically slashed.
You do understand that deficit spending is the norm for America?
That the budget 'surplus' is not the same as 'no deficit'?
That the Bush Administration was pumping money out the door and actually LOST TRACK OF billions of dollars in Iraq?
But, sure, let's go on the Reaganesque principle that government is bad, and big government is an evil of colossal proportions. Roads will collapse. There will be no agency overseeing air traffic, let alone security at an airport. Trucks dependent upon federally-funded highways will soon be driving on pothole-filled, broken down roads. Healthcare is a privilege? You really think that you're going to be among the privileged? Food safety? The salmonella outbreak is going to look minor compared to what will happen in your kind of 'we don't need no stinking government' world.
What part of the Preamble to the Constitution don't you understand? (No, not 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,' like Rush misquoted - the part about 'providing for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do hereby ordain and establish this government of the United States.')
at a problem never helps" when and only when:
The folks who have lots of money stop throwing it at their problems.
Til then just shut the fuck up about it...
Mon, 03/09/2009 - 10:52 — adammon
Construction companies, light rail transit - more 'big digs' financed at your expense for the express purpose of providing temporary 'jobs'.
Want to STIMULIZE the economy? Subsidize education. Add 2 years of post-secondary education to anyone who wants it. Diplomas for all.
... means that you end up with a lot of educated unemployed people.
What about investing in Education, Research, and Infrastructure? Provide also low interest public investment funds reserved solely for the creation of business.
Good god almighty, Obama had a hell of a time just to get this much spending accomplished. What if he had asked for twice as much? Every economist has had ideas on how to fix this mess and many of them disagree on some or all aspects. How is anyone to know EXACTLY what it is going to take to fix this?
There's never been a problem that more money hasn't liked.
how about "waste"?
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=197...
we have no idea where it's going to come from but yes let's spend it anyways. Why does Paul never consider that? Never ever ever.
He doesn't have to, he's an academian.
Wrong again,
The term is academician.
You're on a roll
*sigh*
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/academian
I don't Wikpedia anything, that and it's dictionary counterpart are hardly authoritative.
Please don't follow the Liberal AND Proud model of ignorance, it's unbecoming. It is a word and it was used correctly.
http://www.answers.com/topic/academian
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Academian
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Academian
http://dictionary.babylon.com/Academian
http://www.allwords.com/word-academian.html
you've got your own trail of bread crumbs they can follow.
Obviously you still have problems with comprehension.
I didn't say the word doesn't exist, but if I must explain it like I would to a 5 year old, it's imprecise.
That's pathetic, really. "It's imprecise."
Academician definition, Dictionary.com:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Academ...
A member of an academy for promoting science, art, or literature
Academian definition, Dictionary.com:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Academian
A member of an academy, university, or college.
Just admit you were wrong and move on.
And when economics is considered a social science or a soft science the first is technically more correct.
there is no such thing as a "soft" science. There is also no such thing as "social science" either :-)
Economics aint' a science, it is based on scientific principles... but that is still not enough to make it a science.
Not that is a bad thing, I have no problem with arts. I have a problem when arts and humanities try to take the easy route and hijack the achievements of science regarding its rigidity and validity, in order to add "gravitas" to their positions.
Sorry for the rant, I know it has little to do with the current discussion thread.I just had to get it off my chest. Carry on...
As an economist (Yes, my degree is in economics, and I work as an economic analyst), I'll both agree and disagree.
It's like being an astronomer studying the origins of the universe. There's very little physical experimentation to be done, just observations that fit hypothesis.
There is some experimentation that can be done, but because economies aren't closed systems and they have infinite numbers of variables, it will always remain an observational science built on history and philosophy than an experimental science built on empiricism.
I know that in a closed economy if I increase the money supply by A, the cost of goods will rise by B unless X,Y and Z. I know that a small business owner can raise profits by increasing prices up to a certain amount where demand for their products will fall. These are all repeatable, but unscientific.
But then again, so much of it is monetary psychology that I could toss a dart at a dartboard and have a better chance of coming up with predictive behavior.
Actually there is plenty of experimentation to be done in astrophysics. Be careful about making such a statement.
Unlike economics, physics is based on full validation. Since Economics depends on human behavior, it can never be validated (in a rigorous systemic matter). Ergo it can never be a science.
This does not make economics better or worse, it just simply means that it is not a science. That being said, psychologists throw the same hissy fit when they are reminded of the same... :-)
Basically, for a discipline to be a science, it has to be able to observe, model, and validate, the phenomena it studies. The fact that said discipline uses other sciences, does not necessarily make it a science per se.
That's my problem with the Loeffler curve. More often than not it's not used for positive economics, but normative, usually conservative, on government subsidies, minimum wage increases etc.
But I'm sure the creaters of the giant Plasma HDTV used the curve to determine what quantity supply was needed, and what quantity demand was needed to charge a certain price, and therefore a certain profit.
But odds are they didn't anticipate that humans would be facinated with downloaded movies on their laptops, their cell-phones etc, much smaller screens, and that unexpected development skewed all their calculations.
Pardon my ignorance, but what is the Loeffler curve and how does it relate to supply and demand?
If you're referring to the Laffer Curve, it has nothing to do with supply and demand and wasn't worth the napkin it was written on.
Maybe he's a macadamian.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oSMTzdDeIs&eu...
I think I'll end it with Wimpy Krugman will gladly pay you 200 trillion hamburgers Tuesday for 50 trillion burgers today!
if I have to chose between him and a broken record :-)
broken records are a lot less expensive. I'm broken on the correct verse, no one has good answer for the question. They all just seem real comfy with the idea the money is going to magically fly out Bernanke's ass like they we're Lucky Charms.
we DO know where it's coming from.
You're bitching and moanin' because you know where its coming from too.
to pay their fair share?
That is crazy talk! :-)
we're in a hole we can't escape so what is our solution? Keep digging until we reach China. I hope they don't get pissed off when we get there.
It's more expensive to fix anything, including economies, than to maintain them.
It's like that major brain surgery you need. Sure it may be more affordable later, but you're dead.
New Poll Reveals 56 Percent Of Americans Favor Bank Nationalization
Now, don't bash me, because I am a liberal. But I'm getting tired of some of the pundits I respect most (Greenwald/Krugman primary examples) reading the tea leaves, looking behind the comments, and than offering their opinions on someone else's motives or what someone else believes. Krugman has no idea what Obama does or does not know based on some interview he didn't even conduct himself. So instead of building up this false sense of urgency by criticizing the administration based on his own strained interpretation of what their comments may or may not have meant, why doesn't he report on what is actually happening. You know, explain coherently why the bail out needs to be bigger.
Instead of writing this paragraph -
"Yet many economists, myself included, actually argued that the plan was too small and too cautious. The latest data confirm those worries — and suggest that the Obama administration’s economic policies are already falling behind the curve."
- and following up with a bunch of guesses about what Obama is thinking and what could happen if he is thinking the way Krugman say's he is thinking (yeesh) why doesn't he explain the latest data to us? You know, educate the public. Let us join the debate as well.
is quoted continually because he is: 1...a Dem and 2.. agrees with Dems. No other reason. His entire thinking is to do with the economy what the IMF says to nations to do. That has consequences. BIG consequences. Down the road, you don't just repay those loans. You spike taxes and slash any and all social programs. It is inevitable.
Dear President Obama:
Not listening to the experts ISN'T going to make this situation better.
YOU SAID YOU WOULD LISTEN TO THE EXPERTS. Were you lying to us?
*
Obama thought Krugman was right, he would be a part of his cabinet. I haven't heard anyone say he was even offered a job. Pays more than just being an economist if that is all that Krugman is interested in.
How can you listen to all experts if everyone disagrees?
How did Krugman turn into an expert on public sector economics if his specialization is in international trade?
is due to the collapse of American financial exports. I would assume that people who understand how international trade works, and financial packages are an integral part of that trade, would be fairly versed on the issues and tribulations we're experiencing.
If size really does matter that explains why their Reslug leader, LimpDick Blimpo, is divorced three times, but he still has his huge Lard-Ass that does matter.
Login or Register to post comments.