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

[jimrs6]

Krugman does not blink. Very creepy.

[jmpurser]

Yeah, but I like the fact that he's both able to explain why he's making the prediction he's making and he's generally right. A rare gift to get both in one package in my experience.

[jekyll]

He is rarely right.

[lazercat2008]

Fortune cookies are generally right.

[HisPetGoat]

I've noticed very smart people and very du.mb people often have a funny way of blinking.

[Never-The-Less]

Yea, that’s creepy, the world is going to hell in a hand basket, but his blinking irregularity is your concern, we are so screwed.

[lazercat2008]

We can all agree on the creepy eye thing.

[ReedYoung]

Please don't feel bad, Mr. Krugman. He hasn't singled out your profession, President Obama ignores everybody Progressive.

[jmpurser]

True. They keep trying to use political power to help people instead of to protect wealth as it was meant to be used.

[ReedYoung]

"They" who?

[dhinds]

People are wealth.

[MyNameIsJames]

Over the past 6 months since the Obama Presidency I have noticed that NOTHING splits Democrats/libs/Progressives like Krugman's criticisms of President Obama.

I believe that this split reveals a critical issue; Reform Politics vs. Party politics

Many Dems & Obama fans want Progressives to be quiet and go along with President Obama's pragmatic/bi-partisan approach to governing.

During the Primary season - Krugman revealed Obama as a candidate who spouted the word "CHANGE" too loosely while in reality not having an agenda that was truly progressive in nature.

Ironically- President Obama won the nomination in large part due to the support of the Progressive Wing of the Democratic Party.

Progressives were entralled with his language of "Change" - BUT I feel they didn't read the fine print. President Obama was NOT a REFOMER.

If you remember candidate Obama avoided the word REFORM during the campaign- choosing instead to use the "market -tested word" CHANGE

Krugman wanted then and still wants Pres. Obama to be a REFORMER not just a typcial liberal Democrat who doesn't have the spine to bring about real change (like Bill Clinton)

Progressives have a right to demand a lot from Obama because without their votes during the Democratic Primaries - HRC would MOST CERTAINLY have been the Democratic nominee.

This fight is going to continue - and President Obama is going to feel the heat - as he should- because he got Progressive votes under the promise of bringing "CHANGE" to our nation.

[ReedYoung]

Maybe in 2012, with more Progressives and fewer conservatives in Congress, President Obama will support more reformist agendas. A more Progressive President would be pretty useless right now, with such conservatives in the Legislative Branch, anyway.

[Lilith33]

See what ENRON did to california.........did they get more progressive?


Thats what theyve done to the rest of the country.........

[ContraEgoiste]

Fully agree. When we blindly trust, we transfer all our power to that individual. We continue to loose our say in the game and greatly diminish what a democracy is meant to be, we stop being a country of "WE the people" and this is not what the founders intended.

As you stated, our founders stated in many ways that the population MUST be educated, informed and most definitely involved, or the GW Bushes will continue to occur.

Not sure that we do this out of laziness or apathy. That because it is too much work to be involved, we just cede all our power to the individual we elect and turn away hoping that everything will turn out fine. And to sleep better at night we imbue this individual with god like qualities and infallible.

Well, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And as someone else said: Power cedes nothing with out demand. And our best elected representatives are still human with human weaknesses and faults.

[jozzie]

We voted for a sock puppet. Much to our chagrin.

[emncaity]

Yup. So far. I don't see it changing, either.

If we ever needed evidence that corporations own the country, all of that evidence is in.

[jmpurser]

Bipartisan means you get both parties to agree and "pragmatic" means it works. Obama has failed at both. He's a corporatist. He's great at protecting the wealth of the wealthy and not much else.

[Never-The-Less]

sad but very very true, so far

[ReedYoung]

Republicans and conservadems have failed at both. President Obama has gotten the best he could out of a largely crooked Congress.

[calichic]

I was never under the illusion that O was going to govern as a progressive. But I did like his message that we are the change we seek (something like that). So let's take him up on that.

[ReedYoung]

You mean the hard work doesn't end with getting him elected? It only began on Inauguration Day? I agree, let's take him up on that.

[HisPetGoat]

Who was responsible for Glass-Steagall which Gramm-Leach repealed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act

[Ping]

According to the article:

Senate 90-8 (one not voting) and in the House: 362-57 (15 not voting),

------------------------------------------------------

The non voting Senator the one who did not have the guts to vote yea or nay was John McCain.

The 57 Congressmen were mostly members of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Barney Frank voted nay but so did Richard Shelby.

[ReedYoung]

Thanks for the data, I hadn't known Richard Shelby ever got anything right. That's one.

[lazercat2008]

The bill that ultimately repealed the Act was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa) in 1999. The bills were passed by Republican majorities on party lines by a 54-44 vote in the Senate[12] and by a 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives

Write this down Repubs, you seem to always forget.

[Ping]

More partisan bullsh*t. The vote that counted was the November 12 1999 everything else is a distraction and irrelevant.

[lazercat2008]

I think it say's "ultimately"

[HMDMSR]

The post-Crash-of-29 history of the Democratic Party should be broken into three phases. Phase one started with FDR and ended with LBJ. This was the phase many progressives reminisce about. Phase two included Carter and the Tipster. The third phase began with the creation of the Democratic Leadership Council. This is the phase we are stuck in. Phase three saw the Democrats swing toward the Republicans, with a full embrace of neoliberalism. Obama was supposed to relieve us from this.

[ReedYoung]

We will need to do a little more work than winning two elections (2006 & 2008) to repair 30 years of damage to our government, culture and society.

[HisPetGoat]

I was talking about who sponsored Glass-Steagall in the first place.

[vanmungo]

One of the key catalyzers of the repeal was Robert Rubin, Clinton's treasury secretary. If he and Clinton and the other major Democrats hadn't been pushing for it, it might never have been passed.

This was, as usual, a BIPARTISAN atrocity.

[Dustee]

Say it Krugman, say - " he should have chosen ME"!

[jmpurser]

Krugman has repeatedly said he could do more good outside of government. He was also a critic of Bush for 8 years and the same attacks on him were made. He's also been right for a decade or so.

[Dustee]

Yep, that's a safe place to be, "outside of government". That way no one will ever blame him.

[Lilith33]

Anything would have been better than Summers ,Rubins And Giethner they are crooks.

[Dustee]

Agreed!

[ContraEgoiste]

Again, Krugman has not said anything about himself. He advocated for Joseph Stiglitz and progressive voices to have a place at the table. Read.

[Dustee]

Uh huh. yep, that keeping a safe distance away from the action. That way he can be the voice of reason.

[lazercat2008]

Krugman has all the sincerity of a fortune teller.

[mac03m]

"Low interest rates, which promote spending on housing and other durable goods, are the main answer. [Emphasis added.]"

"To fight this recession the Fed needs … soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. [So] Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble."

--Paul Krugman

He was clearly characterizing a housing bubble as an object of optimism, whether or not he thought it was possible. In other words, at best, Krugman could be interpreted as saying that it would be great if Greenspan could pull off a housing bubble, but that he, Krugman, doubts whether he'll be able to accomplish such a worthy feat.

So it should be clear that the Fed causing a housing bubble in order to bring about "soaring household spending" was Krugman's optimal situation, whether or not he thought it was doable at the time. Given the consequences of the housing bubble that did ultimately happen, that alone should be enough cause for the public to stop listening to this fellow.

[jmpurser]

He never called for a housing bubble and you have NOTHING to show he did. His posts in 2001 called for normal fed rate adjustments to deal with a recession. This was as controversial as saying you should take an umbrella if you go out in the rain.

Give it up.

[jekyll]

Do we seriously have to prove this fallacy wrong AGAIN. Yes he did call for a housing bubble!!!!! Not just once....but 8 seperate times!!!!!

[lazercat2008]

Anyway the wind blows.

[Ping]

Who was responsible for Gramm-Leach?

Well it was the politicians who worked out a "compromise" with Clinton. And those politicians were NOT Republicans.

Let's be very clear, this finacial crisis was created in Congress primarily by the politicians who represent the Northeastern states of Delaware, New York and Connecticut where the financial and insurance companies are head quartered. Gramm-Leach was going to be vetoed, it was the Dems who made sure it passed with a veto proof majority.

It was signed into law by Clinton. Any attempt to shift the blame of Gramm-Leach onto the Republicans is being disingenuous.

[jozzie]

Yeah, Graham-Leach is a non-partisan issue.

Just like this Dem Prez. He's in the pocket of big finance.

[cbates]

Yep, we are screwed and it is over unless we , ...what?

[cbates]

Yep we are up the creek unless we ....What?

[lazercat2008]

Clinton passed every Republican bill that George the First could not get through during his short stay.

[Lilith33]

he was the best republican president ever.

[lazercat2008]

Let's really be honest, this disaster was brought on by a system that rewards politicians to do the work of thieves with briefcases full of cash. Don't blame the people, blame the system that elects and promotes the people. We all know people are basically dishonest. That's why deregulation will never work.

We need campaign finance reform pronto.

[dhinds]

And an end to the Electoral College.

[Billy Hell]

Phil Gramm, Jim Leach and the financial sector lobbies had nothing to do with it?

[Ping]

It was Dodd and Schumer.

[jozzie]

Matt Taibbi writes about Goldman's announced windfall profits this past quarter:

This is the final evidence that the bailouts were a political decision to use the power of the state to redirect society"s resources upward, on a grand scale. It was a selective rescue of a small group of chortling jerkswho must be laughing all the way to the Hamptons every weekend about how they fleeced all of us at the very moment the game should have been up for all of them.

"...what all of this means is that Goldman"s profit announcement is a giant"fuckyou" to the rest of the country. It is a statement of supreme privilege, an announcement that it feels no shame in taking subsidies and funneling them directly into their pockets, and moreover feels no fear of any public response. It knows that it"s untouchable and it"s not going to change its behavior for anyone. And it doesn't matter who knows it."

http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/07/16/on-goldmans-giganto-profits/

An important follow up to his great article on Goldman in Rolling Stone.

[cbates]

What do we really know?

[jozzie]

READ!

[Lilith33]

this....

Economy May 2009 Atlantic
The crash has laid bare many unpleasant truths about the United States. One of the most alarming, says a former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, is that the finance industry has effectively captured our government—a state of affairs that more typically describes emerging markets, and is at the center of many emerging-market crises. If the IMF’s staff could speak freely about the U.S., it would tell us what it tells all countries in this situation: recovery will fail unless we break the financial oligarchy that is blocking essential reform. And if we are to prevent a true depression, we’re running out of time.
by Simon Johnson

The Quiet Coup - The Atlantic (May 2009)The Quiet Coup .... Simon Johnson, a professor at MIT's Sloan School of Management, was the chief economist at the International Monetary Fund during 2007 ...
www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice - Cached - Similar

[steppenwolfsayshi]

I thought Rubin was a "progressive." I think I don't understand very well what progressive economics is, or is there in-fighting in the party over the definition? Could someone explain to me what the disagreement is about exactly? I am familiar with Krugman.

[Lilith33]

Rubins and summers are greedy cretins who helped bring down the economy.Rubins went off to work for Citi right after he got his repeal of the laws ..............Hes no progressive, hes a corporatist.

[HMDMSR]

This might not help, but progressives are just populists. They seem to vote Democrat. They almost never call for fundamental changes in our socioeconomic system. Usually they just want to patch up the old system so it can run for a little while longer.

[ContraEgoiste]

An economic system that benefits the entirity of the people not just the top 1%. In other words, the opposite of the trickle down, voodoo, Reaganomic that we have been following since then and what put us on the edge of the abyss.

[flossophy]

Government intervention caused this economic crisis... I already schooled you on this the other day.

Please stop spreading misinformation.

[flossophy]

"Pr0gressive" is just the new name they gave to Liberalism after it became tarnished over 60+ years of failed policies. It harkens back to the early days of the Eugenicist / Pr0gressive movements of the early 20th century... but even there, the track record is less than desirable.

In the end, it sounds nice... everyone wants to be pr0gressive. But just because that's what the label says on the package, does not make it so.

[HisPetGoat]

Were you abused as a child?

[ContraEgoiste]

The "track record" of Cons is quite visible by just looking around our economic state now sparky.

[dhinds]

Progressives emphasize the need to manage shared resources rationally and consider collaboration to be more valuable than competition, cooperation more valuable than greed.

It matters not who said what, when.

Obama used the internet (a distributed owner-less medium) to implement community organization techniques and build a political machine that never-the-less is hierarchal and supports many of the powers-that-be that form the root of the problem.

Thats substance, not historically anecdotal data.

[johnmorris]

Progressive is an ambiguous term used, in general, to avoid the poison term"liberal'. Because it has so little meaning, it provided cover for a transition in the Democratic party, from blue collar union working class, family farm, small business populism to "identity politics", cultural issues and the takeover of the party by Wall Street and Hollywood. Rubinomics was a system in which everything was aimed at defending value in the bond market. We sacrificed almost all of our beliefs to gathering up money. Rubin is pro abortion and pro affirmative action, I'm not sure what else he believes in except he believes he really earned all those millions he ripped off. This economic collapse is Rubin's party.

[cbates]

I'm not sure any of you will ever be happy with an elected official. Obama is doing just fine and the economy is slowly turning positive. Hopefully, we will all soon see the sprouts of growth and then share in the harvest.
On one hand some say we shouldn't worry about how others view us and others say the opposite. I really haven't heard much about foreign disdain for the President. We are not the bully country anymore. Yet, I have the feeling that it wouldn't be wise to screw with us under this President.

[Lilith33]

The "sprouts' are the too big to fail banks getting bigger and the markets playing the same games that got us here.

[cbates]

My hope is that the Federal Reserve stop giving money away because it is keeping the interest rates down on certificates of deposits.

[jmpurser]

In what sense and/or category is Obama doing "just fine"? Certainly not war crimes where he's become Bush's accomplice after the fact. Civil rights? Defended DOMA by comparing gay marriage with incest. Finance? Bailed out the banks and went to bat to make sure our bailout dollars could go directly to the bankers pockets as bonuses. Economy? Asked for much too small a package and then wasted it on tax cuts in an utterly failed effort to achieve "bipartisanship". Health care? Took single payer "off the table" before the conversation even started and with it any real hope for health care reform. Now we're looking at a package that makes the world's most expensive health care system and MAKES IT MORE EXPENSIVE while STILL not covering everyone.

Nice garden. Cute dog. Done wonders for putting mustard on burgers.

[NYUKULELE]

Please offer some proof, other than comments by the Obama administration and their Wall Street masters, that the economy is "slowly turning positive". Do you mean the unemployment numbers? The number of non-Wall Street failed banks? The number of foreclosures?

As to it not being "wise to screw with us under this Prresident" -- great news, that. It means that when he ran as a peace candidate, he was lying about that, too, if you're right.

Obama is no worse, and certainly no better, than any other hack politician.

[cbates]

My military comment was more motivated by Clinton and Gate than Obama. Yet I do recognize he is saying we are a people like all else and we will defend our interest.

[Rogman66]

Even if the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was "veto proof", Clinton still should have vetoed it and let the others take the blame now for passing it. He could have at least then said that he tried to stop it but was unable to. He was lame duck anyway so it wouldn't have mattered for the future.

[HisPetGoat]

Here is the Wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act

[Lilith33]

He was getting his wisdom from Summers and Rubins....criminals -both.

[jozzie]

Yeah, he could have if he hadn't been 1,000% in the lap of Goldman Sachs back then.

[HMDMSR]

It was veto-able. The veto would have been "override proof".

[CaptainFailmore]

I brought this to your attention in another post, but I'll repeat it here since it's already fallen off the first page.

Over three quarters of all Democratic representatives supported the bill at the time. 38 Democrats in the Senate, 155 Democrats in Congress. That, plus virtually all Republican representatives in both houses, equals veto-proof support.

Clinton vetoing the bill would have been, at best, a symbolic gesture. With support like that, I really doubt that enough representatives would have just changed their minds on either side of the aisle if it was vetoed. Since it wasn't, we can surmise Clinton was in favor of its passage as well.

[HMDMSR]

We need to finish up a digression which was made earlier. There were enough Democrats in the Senate to protect Clinton's veto of Gramm-Leach-Bliley in 1999, had he made such a veto.

[cbates]

I think there has been enough public discussions to provide enough information for any economist worth there weight to have a chance at proposing a better/different way to resolving our current economic opportunities. Therefore, I propose that the progressive wing of the economy, whatever or however that is defined, develop a plan to resolve the difficulties we face and then present it to the public or the President. We then can judge his or their input versus what the Presidents men are proposing.

If there is a national complaint group then I would like to say I want a part time consulting job that is based in my work experience. I am a progressive scientist and I think the consulting world is leaving us progressives out of the national debate or workforce.

[ReedYoung]

Please pay attention. Mr. Krugman offered his input about the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and was ignored, because it was the opposite of what Republicans wanted. He is one of the worst examples of President Obama pursuing his bipartisanship fetish over the interests of average Americans, more of whom want Progressive policies than conservative more-of-the-same.

[cbates]

Was Krugman input ignore or was it not accepted. I think we are closer to being a divided country than most recognize and this President is trying to prevent further splitting. I like having the Democrats and Republicans at the appropriate times going at each other

[lazercat2008]

It's just one more thing that proves the President does not have enough change for a car wash.

[emncaity]

You said it. I just wrote (in a column last week) that if change is ever going to come, it's not going to be from the "change candidate," who appears to be like too many other Dems: just a Republican who's a little more human, a little smarter, and a little smoother around the edges. If it comes, it'll be from congressional Dems who put him on the spot--but that's not likely to work either, since it only gives him an opportunity to be in the "middle" again.

This is what you get after three decades of Democrats who can't bow and scrape to Reaganism enough, who end up as Republican Lite, and who can't be bothered to articulate a way of governing that differs radically from the something-for-nothing GOP philosophy. When you've spent nearly 30 years backing away from what you ought to be supporting unapologetically, you're just setting yourself up to look like a radical down the line if you advocate sane policy.

[HisPetGoat]

Our choices are to push for progress or for chaos. I'm open to both.

[lazercat2008]

I'm not seeing the Dem part at all.

[TJCole]

Obama squandered his mandate for change, and outsourced his fiduciary responsibilities to Goldman Sachs and the other ghouls that will prey upon America for decades to come..!

[cbates]

Please explain.

[dhinds]

The bailouts went to companies connected with the top members of Obamas economic staff and banks rather than home owners.

He has also appointed people close to Monsanto to head the USDA and the FDA.

He was far better than the one other possible winner of the Presidential election but not as smart as I thought in relation to the environment and habeas corpus.

[Ping]

What a completely stupid thing to say.

[Lilith33]

President Obama Compares Big Banks, AIG, to Suicide Bombers ...President Obama Compares Big Banks, AIG, to Suicide Bombers ... The president said that if the local community bank, Fullerton Community Bank, failed, ...
blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/.../president-ob-14.html - Cached - Similar

What do you think that means?