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

[Shake-A-Spear]

How 'bout at Obama's next press conference someone asks why he's locking out such guys as Stiglitz, Krugman, and Roubini? (Please note: "Roubini" is NOT a variant of "Rubin.") Isn't the counsel of the guys who saw disaster coming better than that of the guys who caused it?

[Pierpier]

When Krugman comes up with sensible solutions with some chance of being passed by legislators he will be listened to. Angry and bitter over his own exclusion. I doubt he really cares about the fate of other "progressive" economists.

[texanna]

Krugman has come up with plenty of solutions -- you can find them in his posts here and in his op-eds for the NYT. The reason you're unaware of them is that they get short shrift from the Obama Administration, since usually they do not take Goldman Sachs' well-being into account before that of the country.

[jmpurser]

Agreed on all points.

[sonofsamphm1c]

What solutions? All he ever does is describe the problem after just about everybody else has figured it out.

What is Krugman's solution to double-digit unemployment. Simple: more consumption. he wants a bigger stimulus to create greater consumption.

[jozzie]

Krugman is using a euphemism. He doesn't actually mean "progressive" economists. I don't think there is such a thing yet defined.

What he is really saying is code for "non-Goldman Sachs" economists.

[attyrose3]

What Obama needs to do is fire Geithner and Summers and hire Paul Krugman and Robert Reich. He warned against the Summers/Geithner way of doing business for years and predicted exactly what was going to happen to the economy for all of the precise reasons it happened.

[GOPBossLimbaugh]

Obama needs all perspectives. Therefore, it is a problem if he doesn't have progressive economic advicers.

[venusvictrix]

Obama made a deal with the Banksters a long time ago. How do you think he knew he could raise so much money "spontaneously" for his Presidential campaign, and forgoe public funding? No one outside of Illinois had heard of this man, and suddenly he had money flowing in from all over the place - with Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and JP Morgan Chase leading the pack.

We've been sold into serfdom to his Banksters in perpetuity, along with our children, and their children, and their children’s children, etc.

Obama has no interest in hearing from progressive economists, or anyone else who might challenge the pathological grandiosity of the banking cartel which currently runs our government.

Welcome to the New World Order.

[LemonMeringue]

Krugman should have been in Obama's cabinet.

[1088]

No, because Krugman cannot compromise and listen to others. His ego is too big! He acts like a child when he doesn't get his way, and Obama need people who he can trust. Krugman will be stabbing Obama in his back every day.

[jmpurser]

Telling the truth and being right isn't stabbing anyone in the back.

[We-Are-The-Ones]

Indeed.

He has already show an amazing amount of immaturity and lack of restraint. He needs to remain on the out. He need attention and does not seem to recognize that work has to be done behind the scenes.

[LemonMeringue]

He is a journalist now, not a cabinet member. His current job description does not include compromise. Get it?

[Ping]

Why?

He spent the entire primary bashing Obama for Clinton. He'll never get a job in the Obama administration.

[jmpurser]

He never "bashed" Obama. He made intelligent comments about their campaign promises.

[LemonMeringue]

That has not stopped Obama from inviting others into his circle.

[Tackora]

Then how did Hillary Clinton get a job in the Obama administration? How about some logic and thinking?

[KarmaTheDog]

And how would that explain Stiglitz, Roubini, or Reich joining the administration?

[Dragash]

If "progressive" economists are only those who seek another bailout for and on behalf of Goldman Sachs, then - perhaps - Krugman does not belong in Obama administration.

[jmpurser]

You're confusing the stimulus for the bailout.

[minusjason]

Krugman himself has said he doesn't have the temperament needed for politics.

[jmpurser]

Agreed. Indicating humility and the capacity for self criticism. Kind of undermines the "he's an egomaniac" theme we got going here.

[saysay]

you don't have to be in someone cabinet to serve.....some people do better alone where there's no temptation to idolize others or fend for attention....krugman is an idolizer of people...its difficult for him to have a common ground with others...either you're above him or below him and he treats each extreme unfairly.....he has a lot of books sense but little people sense....this Ive noticed from his interviews and printed works....

[Helzapoppin]

I've already given up on Obama as well as all the sycophantic cheerleaders that continue to make lame excuses for him.

[jmpurser]

I haven't quite given up. I just don't think we can afford to. But I am beginning to despair.

[1088]

Go back to your Sarah Palin blog!

[Dragash]

I am just about there myself. If he does not succeed on universal health insurance, I am out of here. He can have the whole White House (plus Rahm Emmanuel and Diane Feinstein) to himself.

[jmpurser]

The really alarming thing is the Bush sycophants made the same cracks about Krugman when he was in power.

[sonofsamphm1c]

he you gave up in the first year, then you gave up before the party even started. You're a professional giver upper.

[Ranta]

Just because you have dinner with Krugman doesn't mean you can eat his lunch.

[Wonderwheel]

It's obvious that Obama is ignoring progressive economists because Obam is not and never has been a progressive. It's just that simple. Not only does Obama have no interest in listening to progressive economists, he doesn't listen to progressives on health care or on the two fronts of the financially and morally bankupt spurious "war on terror" being conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan.

[jmpurser]

I knew he wasn't a progressive. I hoped he was willing to listen. No such luck. The same failed policies of the last 30 years will get another 4 years to run amok.

[1088]

If it's not Krugman way, it's no way! That is the problem and Obama knows this!

[jmpurser]

If only reality would stop making Krugman think he was right all the time.

[MyNameIsJames]

He tried REALLY hard to look and sound like a progressive during some stints of his Presidential campaign. His early strategy was to run to the left of HRC in Iowa -- in doing so -- he gave progressives the false impression that he was a REFORMER. This was not who President Obama really is...

He believes that the truth lies somewhere in the middle! He will spend lots of energy trying to broker a national consensus -giving special attention to Republicans and Conservatives- However, to no avail.

He assumes that the status quo has some inherent legitimacy - because it has been around for such a long time.

He has played "fast and loose" with his progressive base- let's see how that works out for him.
He surrounded himself with Clinton triangulators -- I smell bacon frying!

[GOPBossLimbaugh]

I am progressive, but I am pragmatic. I think Obama is doing a great job. I don't want an extremist, neither a conservative nor a progressive extremist.
You should have voted for Kucinich. He was on the ballot, wasn't he?

[Mike Barden]

maybe it's not Obama, but everyone else who's not listenin'.

[seanseamour]

Of course we are all frustrated that he is not tackling ALL the problems, but in reality he knows he is working his way through a minefield with very few chances to make it to the other side unscathed. The forces already unleashed, let alone those still in the wait are formidable, yes he made compromises on Wall St. because without peace on that front the entire agenda would be stopped in its tracks. Yes as Krugman states many progressives are not being addressed as they represent a scarecrow he already embodies.
I enjoin all to view Robert Reich' interview by Bill Moyers in which he coined "capitalism has swamped democracy" http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/06122009/watch.html
We need to win heath care now, take the next elections to throw out politicians that are either obstructionist or sold out to the special interests, again I enjoin all to view another Moyers interview of a heath care industry insider, Wendell Potter who discovered he had a conscience to understand the forces at play : http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/watch2.html

[jmpurser]

We're not going to "win" health care. We never even tried. We took single payer off the table before we began so now we're stuck with the same system we had.

[LemonMeringue]

We should keep asking for what we want.

Single payer.

http://whitehouse.gov/contact

We'll never get anything if we just give up.

[october2009]

For those who believe a word Krugman says:

From 2002: "To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble." (Emphasis added.)

That"s right, in 2002, Krugman prescribed a government-induced housing bubble " the very thing that, by artificially driving up home prices with seemingly no end in sight, encouraged exorbitant home purchases, encouraged reckless lending, encouraged reckless borrowing, encouraged reckless securities based on reckless lending and borrowing, etc.

More:

From 2001: "KRUGMAN: I think frankly it"s got to be " business investment is not going to be the driving force in this recovery. It has to come from things like housing... Will the Fed cut interest rates enough? Will long-term rates fall enough to get the consumer, get the housing sector there in time? We don"t know."

Also from 2001: "The good news about the U.S. economy is that it fell into recession, but it didn't fall off a cliff. Most of the credit probably goes to the dogged optimism of American consumers, but the Fed"s dramatic interest rate cuts helped keep housing strong even as business investment plunged."

Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html

http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/ML071801.html

http://www.pkarchive.org/column/122801.html

[pragmaticdallasite]

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2009/06/defending_what.html

[jmpurser]

And he was right. And they did it. And it worked exactly the way he said it would. Though I have not seen an single link to Krugman column where he calls for a "housing bubble". Instead he calls for the fed to adjust interest rates to stimulate housing in late 2001 and 2002. Of course, every other economist on the planet was saying the same thing at the time so it wasn't exactly controversial.

[pragmaticdallasite]

Exactly. And he didn't say to keep interest rates low forever and to make bad loans and merge investment and commercial banks that securitize every asset in the world with a revenue stream.

[october2009]

jmpurser:

You must have not read Krugman's article...

Here's the NYT link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html

End of 7'th paragraph. Read it and you'll see where he wrote:
"Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble."

[spiffarino]

And you totally miss the point. How unsurprising.

[mrh3]

I read the articles. This is cherry picking and out of context. A misrepresentation.

[sonofsamphm1c]

Tools straight out of Krugman's toolbox.

[MyNameIsJames]

OMG OMG OMG!!!!!! You have totally misinterpreted Krugman's point. He is MOCKING the idea that Greenspan may be trying to replace the NASDAQ bubble with a "Housing Bubble"

I am trying very hard to remain civil. I would suggest that you reread - carefully this time- the article and then apologize to HUFFPOST readers for your misinterpretation of this article and what Krugman actually said and meant by his statements.

[pragmaticdallasite]

thank you

[gemswinc]

The economic fix is one area in which
I am unsure of the policy. Too much
deference to big$$$ but $$$ is powerful

[kasinca]

Irony is that rethuglicans never think of fiscal responsibility unless we have a democratic administration or majority. What did the rethugs do fiscally responsible when they controlled all branches of the government under the W crime family?

[Lilith33]

The bush crime family made sure to have China own us .... and theyll profit big time too.

[lazercat2008]

The Bush family is the mafia.

[lazercat2008]

All the Rethuglicans did during their near dictatorship was line their own pockets and set things up to remain in power permanently,

No health care plan.
No environmental stewardship
No plan for controlling the housing crisis.
No tax relief, except for themselves.
No plan to limit imports of oil.
No plan to bring jobs back to America.
No control over Wall Street.
No control over government spending..

What did they do? Kept us safe? How safe do you feel?

[pragmaticdallasite]

The conservative politicians (yes you Obama) will start listening to Krugman and Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren when the negative effects of supply-side economics get severe enough.........in the meantime we'll suffer more.

"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else."
- Winston Churchill

[jmpurser]

This isn't "severe enough" for you?

There's no theoretical limit to denial and self interest you know.

[Lilith33]

Its just the beginning.....wait till unemployment runs out.Then well see real pain.

[pragmaticdallasite]

Relax. It's severe enough for me......but it hasn't begun to really sink into their country club-lifestyles until people are beating down the door for food.

I'm just saying that in instances like healthcare.....eventually they'll have no choice but to institute a single payer-style system, because the skyrocketing costs of keeping health care a commodity will become even more painful soon.

[pragmaticdallasite]

Other post got scrubbed....

It's severe enough for me.......but not for the country club elites - yet.

[lazercat2008]

Listen to Krugman at your peril.

[jmpurser]

Yeah. It's depressing to see the future and know you can't do anything about it.