Krugman: Those Who Don't Learn From The Past Will Make The Rest Of Us Repeat It
By Susie Madrak Monday Dec 14, 2009 1:00pmPaul Krugman today gives an impassioned refresher on how deregulation of the banking industry led to the Great Depression, notes the Republicans' complete denial of the need for present-day regulation:
Given this history, you might have expected the emergence of a national consensus in favor of restoring more-effective financial regulation, so as to avoid a repeat performance. But you would have been wrong.
Talk to conservatives about the financial crisis and you enter an alternative, bizarro universe in which government bureaucrats, not greedy bankers, caused the meltdown. It’s a universe in which government-sponsored lending agencies triggered the crisis, even though private lenders actually made the vast majority of subprime loans. It’s a universe in which regulators coerced bankers into making loans to unqualified borrowers, even though only one of the top 25 subprime lenders was subject to the regulations in question.
Oh, and conservatives simply ignore the catastrophe in commercial real estate: in their universe the only bad loans were those made to poor people and members of minority groups, because bad loans to developers of shopping malls and office towers don’t fit the narrative.
In part, the prevalence of this narrative reflects the principle enunciated by Upton Sinclair: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” As Democrats have pointed out, three days before the House vote on banking reform, Republican leaders met with more than 100 financial-industry lobbyists to coordinate strategies. But it also reflects the extent to which the modern Republican Party is committed to a bankrupt ideology, one that won’t let it face up to the reality of what happened to the U.S. economy.
So it’s up to the Democrats — and more specifically, since the House has passed its bill, it’s up to “centrist” Democrats in the Senate. Are they willing to learn something from the disaster that has overtaken the U.S. economy, and get behind financial reform?
Let’s hope so. For one thing is clear: if politicians refuse to learn from the history of the recent financial crisis, they will condemn all of us to repeat it.
Login or Register to post comments.
Don't say "poor people." Say "Lazy people."
Krugman Abides.
(Obama, Summers, Geithner, Bernanke, Rubin, Froman, et al.....Don't.)
Can you say double dip on steroids?
and I'm afraid he hasn't learned the lesson either. Also Krugman never saw the crisis coming and admitted it in his column Oct 26 2008.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/the-mother-of-all-currency-crises
In contrast people Peter Schiff, Jim Rogers and Marc Faber have called this crisis every step of the way far more accurately than Krugman has.
Over the weekend old scratch er I mean Greenspan the architect of this entire financial crisis said.
Greenspan: Bernanke Is Out Of Bullets, Now Inflation Is The Big Risk
http://www.businessinsider.com/greenspan-bernanke-is-out-of-bullets-here-comes-inflation-2009-12
It's not like some of us who post here didn't say so for the last year this was coming.
People are so desperate for good economic news, any news for that matter they forget he's one the guys who got us into this mess.
"....he's one the guys who got us into this mess."
How how did he do that...exactly?
He warned everyone about the dangers of a Bubble Economy. But the "Randians" were in charge. And Randism worked --- for them.
I've read his books and articles for over six years, and he never to my recollection ever expoused the so-called fascist government we now have. In fact, Paul and Molly Ivens' readings going back years, are like a pinpoint laser beam on what was to come.
How is that Evet ?
http://cpusa.org/article/view/348/
in this article here.
effect anything that Krugman did? Many companies pay for Krugman's advice, but it doesn't mean they take the advice.
...the article never verifies, explains or gives an alternative reference for the insinuation that Krugman had anything to do with anything.
He received money for his advice, how is that different from receiving money from a political contribution. Other than the cash goes directly into his pocket that is.
What you just stated is nonsense. How about this, just because a company contributed to his campaign fund doesn't mean he votes for them. Isn't that one of the big debates about the health care bill? How many of them have received large contributions from the pharma and insurance comps? Look back through this website and you will find several threads about how much each politician has received from them and how bad it is.
...we can verify that politicians change their tune OFTEN after receiving such contributions. It is bad when the money changes the vote. And it often does.
Aside from which, I don't remember electing Paul Krugman to anything, and therefore don't hold him to anywhere near the same standard. Even that notwithstanding, his warnings and opinions have remained consistent.
"A cynic is not merely one who reads bitter lessons from the past, he is one who is prematurely disappointed in the future."
Sidney J. Harris
... the impending disappointments won't be in the future any longer ;-(
to wars of aggression and torture.
Reslugs always ignore everything even when it bites them in the ass.
different? They ignored the Tech-Credit-Big Box Bubble which came crashing down while they were out windsurfing. And they were out shopping for Bordeaux's and BMW's during the Bush-Gore debacle until the USSC decided someone had to take charge.
That's not the political left. That's the rich. People on the political left actually who work for a living don't have the time or the inclination to windsurf or buy Bordeaux. Don't believe the Weasel News crap.
I didn ignore the housing bubble,or the out of control Stock Market, or the unbelievable greed and stupidity of our "Leaders".
And the trolls come out...
Exactly why would anyone eager to hear good economic news look for this column, its exactly the opposite...
In part, the prevalence of this narrative reflects the principle enunciated by Upton Sinclair: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
In what way does this not characterize the Democrats, who, as candidates seeking campaign cash, seem to be as dependent on the largesse of the rich and powerful and corporate as the Republicans are?
Without a media that does its job as the fourth estate, and without a functional national educational system, and without strong community and civic organizations, this country cannot function as a democracy.
So we're basically screwed.
have Publicly Funded elections, and we will be on the path to restore our Constitution and our Civil Rights.
Know what? Both parties (the politicians not regular people) are amazingly blatant in their utter contempt for "the people".
I really think people (Dems and Reps) are noticing, and that there will be some sort of uprising, or perhaps a general strike would be best. Shut down all business, including Banks, for a week, and see what happens. We must demant Public Health Options, Public Funding for elections, and MAJOR Trust-Busting a'la Teddy Roosevelt.
"The Past is to be respected and acknoledged, but not to be worshiped. It is our future in which we will find our greatness."
Pierre Trudeau (1919 - 2000)
our very distant future.
Not that it was necessary. Anyone with a 90+ IQ could see what was happening and how it would end. Remember the Dot-Com bubble?
Currently, Krugman is persona non gratis at the White House.
to be a member of that cabal of Hoover-wannabes?
This one here:
"The Last tango: Enron and Bush"
http://cpusa.org/article/view/348/
...high top marginal tax rates. It's not to increase revenue, it's to check greed by putting an effective limit on wealth gain.
95% tax on any income over $3,000,000; 10-20% on less. Add a 5% corporate use tax (basically a corporate sales tax; 5% on whatever is spent) to cover entitlements (social security, national health care, unemployment), and a reasonable import tariff to encourage American production. Business growth is kept low, steady, and more local. Wages and quality go up, end consumer cost reduces to a lower tolerable margin. Housing prices will dip, which would require a nationwide draw-down of housing debt, but the end result would be positive.
95% marginal rates on the rich indeed! If some scumbag on Wall Street decides to pay himself a billion dollar bonus, 950 mill of it comes back to the rest of us.
Where is Obama and the democratic leadership on this? They know damn well how totally f**ked-up the wealth distribution in this country is right now.
We cannot afford to fund the most basic services; yet the top 1% has more wealth than the bottom 90%! WTF!
Well we can either pretend that they are ignorant of the situation or we can just accept the fact that they don't care a bit.
Yes, we do need to change our tax structure, but that's not going to happen either. Unless it is tilted even more so in the favor of the ultra-rich, then we may see some movement.
Sooner rather than later, this will be a "dans la rue" issue... if nothing is done. Even we Americans, with our deep tolerance for abuse from our "leaders", can only tolerate majority poverty for so long. The problem is, total revolution would go too far in the short term, and end with the same problems in the future. The other option is to stop voting for democrats altogether if they won't adhere to the wishes of their constituency, which would cause a massive speed-up in the destruction of our economy and way of life in the guise of "fiscal conservatism". Randian and Reaganomic practices can only hold as long as the populace is compliant and the money (consumer base) holds out. Even as economically republican as Clinton was, without him as a break in "fiscally conservative" rule, we'd have revolted (or died en masse in poverty) years ago. Of course, he did sign Gramm-Leach-Bliley...
We need to return the US Senate into a democratic, majority ruled legislative body—right now it's none of the three. There are so many ways for a single Senator to stop or delay a bill that the Senate under Democrat control seems to require a near consensus on anything that is to pass in a reasonable time.
I think that for 2010 we ought to seek to get every Senator up for election to pledge to support "50% + 1" except as provided by the constitution.
It would keep the money inside the corporation where it can serve the shareholders rather than going into the pockets of executives who frequently fleece the corporation and then move on.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=s...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iCRNBGQU00
"So it’s up to the Democrats — and more specifically, since the House has passed its bill, it’s up to “centrist” Democrats in the Senate. Are they willing to learn something from the disaster that has overtaken the U.S. economy, and get behind financial reform?"
Keep dreaming, we are talking about the same people who have been enabling the repukes during the Bush years. The credit card bill anyone? I for one am not very encouraged considering the track record of the "centrists" in the Democratic Party.
Bottom line is that in reality we the people are practically powerless . The corruption and greed so deeply embedded now that even the politicians who created the monster can't stop it . There is only one way , a serious revolution which would also be a civil war , sounds pretty heavy but that's the only way we the ( sane ) people could re-establish power and representation , establish a real democracy and take our country back .
who want to go to war to establish a "democracy" are insane. People who want to establish a "democracy" are insane.
n/t
Those in power have built a system that rewards them in every way legally possible.
If any laws stand in the way of them making more money, they find loopholes, or elliminate the laws.
They WILL NOT change the system that works for them. WILL NOT.
It worked out real well for the last few countries which tried it.
Worked once.
The underlying problem is not the inability to learn but the rather the lack of motivation to care about anything except the wishes of their corporate sponsors—the best politicians that money can
buyrent!Politicians who don't respect the public are destined to doom them.
Trusting the
Republican LiteDemocrats to advocate anything sensible, lip service and good intentions are not the same as an actual action plan.Small wonder Krugman is persona non grata with the Democratic establisment. What we really need is a more sensible establishment that is actually connected to the will of the common people.
Do people really believe there is a 2 party system? Do they still believe that this is all the evil Republicans fault, and the Democrats will save us? Seriously?
No way in hell. The bankers run the show, they own it all, including the government. They have all the money, all the lobbyists, all the power. They control what will get done, period. And there's no way they'll let any change in a system that has made them so stinking, filthy rich.
And for the "free market" people out there, do you still believe in a free market? If you can explain how giving the top banks $700 billion in taxpayer money fits into the free market, Krugman would probably hand over his Nobel.
Login or Register to post comments.