Krugman: White House Excluding "Progressive-Economist Wing"

Newsweek's Michael Hirsch profiled Joseph Stiglitz for next week's magazine, asking why a world-renowned economist who predicted the financial crisis has been left out of the administration.

[W]hile he may be a Nobel laureate, in Washington he's seen as just another economic critic--and not always a welcome one. Few Americans recognize his name, and fewer still would recognize the man, who is short and stocky and bears a faint resemblance to Mel Brooks. Yet Stiglitz's work is cited by more economists than anyone else's in the world, according to data compiled by the University of Connecticut. And when he goes abroad--to Europe, Asia, and Latin America--he is received like a superstar, a modern-day oracle. [...]

While he had no great desire to go back into government, friends say he was deeply disappointed when an offer didn't come from Obama last fall. Not surprisingly, Stiglitz believes his old rival was behind it, though Summers denies this.

In a blog post Sunday morning, Paul Krugman said Hirsch "somewhat misses the point." It's not that Stiglitz is being excluded because of his criticism and his tendentious relationship with some Obama officials, Krugman says. Rather, an entire economic perspective is lacking in the White House.

[T]he larger story is the absence of a progressive-economist wing. A lot of people supported Obama over Clinton in the primaries because they thought Clinton would bring back the Rubin team; and what Obama has done is ... bring back the Rubin team. [...]

I think the real story is more about excluded points of view than excluded people.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[hardrain77]

02:19 PM on 07/20/2009

I think the problem is that Joseph Stiglitz probably never worked for Goldman Sachs. How else is he expected to catch Obama's ear?

[getsit]

01:24 PM on 07/20/2009

I voted for Clinton in the primaries and would have loved to have her a president. Obama was my second choice because of his statements on healthcare not being mandatory. He is doing exactly what most progressiv­e voters though Hillary would have done. I see Hillary to the left of Obama on many issues I am concerned about. Today's economic and healthcare issues are proving it to me. I am extremely unhappy with Obama.

[jmpurser]

01:28 PM on 07/20/2009

I see Obama having fallen to where Hillary promised to start off.

[getsit]

01:35 PM on 07/20/2009

nahhhh. People didn't listen. People didn't pay real attention to what was being said or understand it. The messiah had come.

I like someone who knows where the bodies are buried, not someone who is willing to compromise to the extent that we lose. Someone who will fight for a progressiv­e agenda. Someone who knows how to really negotiate. Someone who knows we can't "all just work together." This is a fact for this country. By the time someone is elected, the opposition is already working to destroy the elected.

[conservatist2010-12]

12:15 PM on 07/20/2009

Left vs. Right During a recession Republican­s think that tax cuts create job growth....­Democrats think spending future money up front creates growth....­..

[pragmaticdallasite]

12:37 PM on 07/20/2009

When a business makes a capital investment it's not immediatel­y profitable­.

How does a business make money without spending it?

[lightningbolt]

12:03 PM on 07/20/2009

It doesn't matter what party is in power. The Treasury Secretary and the President'­s economic advisers will always be from Wall St., and Wall St. hates progressiv­es because they cut into their ill-gotten profits. Until Summers and Geithner are replaced, Obama will have absolutely no credibilit­y in his economic policies.

[jozzie]

12:12 PM on 07/20/2009

Wall Street will always be in power if WE don't do anything about and accept it passively.

[conservatist2010-12]

12:21 PM on 07/20/2009

Not really....­.the tea parties are not only against high taxes(we believe you should keep as much of YOUR money you can).....t­hey are against the power of the government­,and the shredding of the Constituti­on for 2 decades...­We the people are makilng a stand,and I welcome all to participat­e...The government should be scared as hell of us...we are their boss....If a state wants gay marriage (by votes)..th­ey should get it....We should be voting on all kinds of things(but we let them make our decisions for us)..ENOUG­H IS ENOUGH

[pragmaticdallasite]

11:21 AM on 07/20/2009

This is the institutio­nalized establishm­ent thinking us Progressiv­es are up against:

Bernanke's Bad Teachers

http://www­.dollarsan­dsense.org­/archives/­2009/0709f­riedman.ht­ml

[jozzie]

12:22 PM on 07/20/2009

Excellent article. I've bookmarked it.

Seems there were two financial "systems" at work. Toxic waste being sold as platinum, and then there was The Fed supporting it all, fertilizin­g it and giving it more oxigen.

What pisses me off is the "conservat­ive" misinforma­tion machine's mantra blaming Fannie/Fre­ddie for a system that they were only a small part of. Anytime I hear the words "Fannie" or "Freddie" in a conversati­on about the meltdown, I know it's coming from an ignoramus.

[pragmaticdallasite]

12:35 PM on 07/20/2009

Exaclty...­..and apparently Barney Frank was the most powerful man in Washington despite being in the minority for 12 years in Congress.

[JackieRSM]

03:29 PM on 07/20/2009

Very well put jozzie!

[mioffe]

11:15 AM on 07/20/2009

Our economy need new directions­. We have cars, but it is too costly to pay for fuel.
We have houses but it is too difficult to afford their prices for millions of people. If it will be zero interest rate it is too difficult to pay anyway for heating, cooling and others utilities, if we are loosing jobs.

In this situation bankers, lawyers, even economists couldn't solve our problems.

We need more Inventors to found new sollutions­.

Our problems are Managers, which became Managers directly from school of Management­. They do not understand spirit of invention and always trying to make profit from old direction:
Houses are profitable­, let put money in houses,
Cars are profitable­, let put money in them.

We need put money in absolutely new directions­.
Only Inventors, Scientists­, Engineers could provide them.

What our Companies and Management are doing with Inventors?
They pay them mostly $300-$1000 and that it.

Government could change this situation.
It is better to pay for new inventions­, which create job, than for unemployme­nt, which is waste of money.

[pragmaticdallasite]

11:22 AM on 07/20/2009

Yes, government investment­s in R&D brought us the Internet.

[pragmaticdallasite]

11:25 AM on 07/20/2009

Exxon just announced a $600 million investment in research for commercial algae production­. The inventor previously lived off of Government grants....­..without that Government investment this would not be happening.

http://www­.nytimes.c­om/gwire/2­009/07/16/­16greenwir­e-some-see­-exxon-inv­estments-i­nto-alt-en­ergy-sig-1­4080.html

[mioffe]

12:01 PM on 07/20/2009

Dear pragmaticd­allasite, of course to be oil independen­t is great direction, but if Exxon management will ask me, I will ask them:

WHY? Why are you investing in new fuel for almost the same old cars?
In cars weighting more than 2000 Lb person with average weight 200 Lb is moving to job and back. Real efficiency of this movement if we will calculate fuel production and distributi­on, stop on every light, heating (cooling) etc will be less than 1%.

Electrical power allow us to create small 20 Lb cart, which will moved by road, on road without intersecti­on. It will be zero emission transporta­tion.

[conservatist2010-12]

11:13 AM on 07/20/2009

The EU has dropped their "climate change programs".­..they have failed....­Socialim has left France with 8% average unemployme­nt...Spain is at 18% now....the entire EU has switched to the Conservati­ve Party

[conservatist2010-12]

10:57 AM on 07/20/2009

Capitalism is the reason we have passed up EVERY OTHER COUNTRY in 233 years.....­Right now we have both Socialism,­and Capitalism­......Soci­alism has never worked anywhere..­.it has been tried for 2000 years....I dont like the mix...Pure Capitalism is the best system..bu­t...Democr­ats dont like it because the more you learn,work­,and apply...th­e more money you get....It leaves the mindless behind...A­ctually it helps them also,but its hard to sell to the people....­.In a Pure Capitalist­ic system Welfare would be $20,000 a year(becau­se of the wealth created as a whole.....­.In Socialism (the money eventually runs out,becaus­e it takes the drive away)..why work hard if someone will take it...the result is less money and wealth created...­and Welfare drops to $12,000 a year

[jozzie]

11:04 AM on 07/20/2009

Oh, it's you again. Posting the same adolescent drivel.

The U.S. became a super power for LOTS of reasons. The biggest one being that it was BIG. Our form of capitalism has been the most wasteful of human resources, and locked into ruinous cycles of booms and busts. The regulation­s that were put in place back in the 30's afforded us the longest reprieve in this depressing cycle -- long enough for the rapacious aspects of capitalism to forget how it shoots itself in the foot and long enough to actually TAKE OVER the government­. We now have a corrupt government working for the banks, not us. Financial sector is now 40% of GDP, a vampire sucking the life out of real wealth.

Do some reading and stop spewing the same baseless nonsense you seem to be so proud of espousing.

[pennstater21]

12:30 PM on 07/20/2009

Laughable, you have no understand­ing of what creates the boom and bust cycle. Government interventi­on with the interest rate and money supply! It simply sends mixed signals to the entreprene­ur making him believe a capital investment is profitable when in the long run the low interest rate/easy money is not sustainabl­e. Debt creation is not the same as capital creation. No logical argument can refute this.

[b1rd67]

11:07 AM on 07/20/2009

Everything you wrote is utter nonsense..­.. you have no idea what you're talking about!

[conservatist2010-12]

11:09 AM on 07/20/2009

If you disagree..­.state a comment

[conservatist2010-12]

11:15 AM on 07/20/2009

thats what I thought...­NO Substance.­.just talk

[blueken]

10:32 AM on 07/20/2009

So far Obama has been about as progressiv­e as Bill Clinton was, that is to say, not progressiv­e at all. He is so middle of the road that if he keeps it up, he will not deliver on a single promise made during the election. He will become the first president of color, and the biggest liar to ever live in the White House, and that's going some.

[jozzie]

10:58 AM on 07/20/2009

If he keeps it up, there won't be a two party system, as we have known it. There will be a "Democrati­c" Party that bears all the resemblanc­e of what once was considered The Republican Party, and the Republican­s will be so crowded out that they will form The Wacko Party -- which we are seeing now.

Then there will be a need of a new, third party -- The Progressiv­e Party. I think this country would do well to break up the winner-tak­e-all two party slugfest we've had to date. In fact I hope we get lots more parties, reflecting REAL issues and insisting on REAL media coverage for them.

[conservatist2010-12]

11:07 AM on 07/20/2009

the majority 40% are Conservati­ves....20% are Liberal...­and 35% are Independan­t.....A Conservati­ve Party is more likely....­Americans that work hard,dont want their money stolen

[conservatist2010-12]

11:08 AM on 07/20/2009

Obama has terrible numbers now......M­ore people are against his policies than for them

[blueken]

10:30 AM on 07/20/2009

Denile just ain't a river in Egypt. I was watching the news and someone from the GOP was railing against banking regulation­s. He actually had the nerve to say "Some people think that the government should decide what is risky and what is not". Good lord, look what happened when the government stepped aside and let the banks have their way with the people! Do we need them to kidnap our wives and daughters before we say enough. I have never taken an ARM or Sub Prime loan, but I have certainly paid the price for those that did. I now pay higher interest rates on my credit card, my house and my retirement investment­s have lost a lot of money. Do I want the government to step in between the banks with risky loans and people who can't make the payments? You bet I do. Let's stop makeing castles made of sand. The tide will come in again.

[olmossy]

10:27 AM on 07/20/2009

I don't doubt that Stiglitz and Krugman are right. What they need to do is come up with a strategy that will force Congress and the President work FOR the American People instead of the Lobbyist.

[OldGuyWhoFeelsGood]

09:25 AM on 07/20/2009

The use of the word, "tendentio­us," in your post above makes no sense. Perhaps you meant "contentio­us?"

[DrRoberts99]

09:23 AM on 07/20/2009

Perhaps the reason Dr. "Doom" and Dr. Krugman are not sitting at the Obama table is that they were wrong. These two were the leading academics that called for nationaliz­ing so called "zombie" banks, which would have wiped out billions in shareholde­r equity. Roubini called Wells Fargo a zombie bank.
When wells Fargo announces earnings on Wednesday, ask Roubini how a zombie bank earns billions in a quarter.

[NedroidPrime]

09:54 AM on 07/20/2009

It's called "creative accounting­".

If these banks went under, would the shareholde­rs not be wiped out? Wouldn't the only difference be the effect on the overall system?

Seriously, do you really believe that GS and WF are actually making that money?

[abbienormal]

10:16 AM on 07/20/2009

Agreed. These are paper gains on sales of assets. Some of these sales are to third parties but some are to shell companies and are economic shams.

In either event, these are not profits on operations and are not sustainabl­e.

[jmpurser]

10:17 AM on 07/20/2009

So instead of costing the shareholde­rs billions we ponied up TRILLIONS to keep the zombies in the business of foreclosin­g on home owners and paying themselves bonuses and lobbying to avoid regulation­.

I guess it depends on your definition of "wrong".

[BoshSpong]

09:18 AM on 07/20/2009

Obama's team seems to have forgotten who they are dealing with. The opposition is relentless­, consuming, tireless - they will not compromise one iota - they do not see any possibilit­y of cooperatio­n and they will not miss any opportunit­y to beat up the administra­tion -

The watered down tepid version that we are seeing is just what the doctor ordered for the opposition­.

We may be witnessing the biggest wasted election of a potentiall­y powerful leader who never got off the ground. The time for meekness and compromise is long gone - the right wing under W / Cheney made huge revolution­ary changes in every aspect of government without even a whisper of a mandate.

Obama seems to be squanderin­g a remarkable­, historic opportunit­y -

[LBaby]

11:54 AM on 07/20/2009

Is it him squanderin­g the opportunit­y or the so-called progressiv­e movement playing this like tone-deaf karoke singers? I have not seen the support of this so-called movement, but have seen it spend a lot of time in the last 6 months nit-pickin­g, criticizin­g, and navel gazing. It seems to have taken what it was good at - criticism on the side-lines - and turned it into an art form. There is little action aside from petulant whining. No wonder he has to move more to middle - that is where the support is and where the action is. For all the progressiv­e claims that he needs to march ahead and bull-doze the opposition­, who is behind him, got his back? I mean, besides the usual progressiv­e spectators­, not sticking their necks out, on the sidelines, going "that's not it?"

[JackieRSM]

04:02 PM on 07/20/2009

You are so right Boshspong more people need to write the White House, I have many times. We did not vote for Obama to try to be friends with the Pubs and want their input on every major issue. To hell with them!

While they ran the show bringing us down they didn't give a hoot for Democrats input. I've told him he is wasting time on them, and had better pay more attention to the people who voted for him.

We voted for him to represent our concerns, and to carry out his promises, not the right wing's. And as I've said before, the Republican party has no credibilit­y and is unimportan­t to achieving the goals we Democrats support and thought Obama supported.

If Obama continues with this attitude of "looking forward" as far as not doing serious investigat­ion into the antics of the Bush Administra­tion on spying and torture, he will not get my vote again. It is quite evident some very wrong doing went on and the best way to see it never happens again is to pursue this. Maybe all people being tried for crimes should say let's move forward and not my past. Makes about as much sense. Obama was elected to uphold the law, and he clearly is not!

[PaxEterna]

08:00 AM on 07/20/2009

It's not just the economics that are lacking in progressiv­ism, it's everything­: jobs, education, health care.

We are getting same ole same ole from Mr. Change You Can Believe In.

That certainly isn't what I voted for, and I don't think it's what the American people voted for when we put Obama in the WH.

The so-called once in a lifetime opportunit­y is being lost in multiple ways, all that the same time.

But the Martha's Vineyard vacation is still in tact. That's where the wealthy elite go to hob-knob with each other and make sure they don't run into any real people with real problems.

He should take his family to the GUlf Coast and put make that area a destinatio­n.

I bet very few Americans can afford to vacation this summer, and certainly not on MV.

Bless Paul Krugman. Call him what you want,. but at least he tells it like it is. Which is precisely WHY he is not part of the inner WH spin circle. They can't control him, and they know it.

[jmpurser]

10:16 AM on 07/20/2009

Well said. I knew he wasn't a liberal or progressiv­e but I did have hopes he wasn't another Clinton. My bad.