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

[jekyll]

Krugman is a fan of Federal Reserve, IMF, and World Bank policy. These private cartels are run and controlled by the very elites he supposedly is against. Pure hypocrisy!

[jozzie]

Why don't you post some facts.

[jekyll]

How many facts would you like? Krugman has always been a fan of the FED's artificially low interest rate policies during economic downturns. He has always felt that the FED did not do enough during the Great Depression. He is advocating for more stimulus now (where do you think we will get the money?). He also just defended Stiglitz who was VP of the World Bank for goodness sake!!! I could go on and on and on.....ope­n your eyes please!

[JudgeMoonbox]

"Krugman is a fan of Federal Reserve, IMF, and World Bank policy. These private cartels are run and controlled by the very elites he supposedly is against. Pure hypocrisy!"

This makes me think of Upton Sinclair's statement, "Most people vote for the party of their grandfathers; therefore we must have parties with grandfathe­rs."

Would you argue that his saying so makes him a hypocrite?

[Lilith33]

Krugman In '02: 'Greenspan Needs To Create A Housing Bubble'The Krugman piece was written during Bush's reign and Greenspan isn't exactly a Democrat. .... Krugman is clearly criticizing the move to lower interest rates to ..... though by far the most critical were--and continue to be--the size ... The stock market low was reached a couple of months later in ...
www.businessinsider.com/krugman-in-02-greenspan-needs-to-create-a-housing-bubble-2009-6 - Cached - Similar

[jekyll]

How is Krugman criticizing the move to lower interest rates when he is also advocating for the FED to create a housing bubble? By the way....the housing bubble worked out great didn't it?

[MSaxe]

Just what makes this news?

Krugman has been grousing about being left out of the White House economic conversation since last year. We all know he thinks we need a much larger stimulus.

What about national politics does he not get? Like there was any way to make that happen and hope there would be any possible conversation on health care reform? Was there?

So Paul, be patient. Give the stimulus some time to do whatever it will do. Get out of the way for the next couple of months. Open your mouth again AFTER whatever version of health care comes down the line. I'm sure we could both find fault in it. Quit being such an ego about. Your humility is overdone.

[jmpurser]

He's also consistently right. Both about the economics and about the politics.

Obama has avoided any hint of listening to anyone on the progressive/liberal side of the spectrum. The nation has paid for it and will continue to pay for it.

[jekyll]

He has been right? When did this happen?

[Viledems]

Krugman consistently right? I can only laugh at this statement.

[MSaxe]

You guys can't even respond to the comment.

I'm not questioning Krugman's knowledge or correctness. That's for others to figure out.

I am questioning whether there is or was any political will to take action on his recommendations. There hasn't been and there isn't any. Obama was lucky to get $785B passed and his supporters in swing districts are all going to be under threat in 2010.

He was elected to get a health care plan through. Don't any of you Krugman disciples and true believers realize that Obama would not have been able to move any form of it through Congress if the stimulus was sized like PK wanted it.

Get over it.

This isn't just a country where what you want or say can magically come true. This is the world of legislation. Better get used to some sausage. That is what is happening. You aren't getting filet. But maybe we all can get passed the health care debate in one piece with a public option in place.

Krugman isn't helping by carping from the progressive side, whether he's g-d's gift, within the ballpark or just plain wrong. All he wants is to be heard and pad his reputation.

[Lilith33]

We have crooksLike Summers and Giethner and Rubins running the show and you want honest brokers to shut up?

[ReedYoung]

I believe you are literally correct. Dishonest brokers always wish that about honest ones.

[ContraEgoiste]

ummm, Krugman is not talking about him being left out of the WH. He is commenting about Joseph Stiglitz or progressive voices being left out of the conversation.

[Lilith33]

And Paul Volker....­hes been left out.

[calichic]

Krugman considers himself one of those voices. Do you read his times column every week?

[jozzie]

Goldman Sachs has found a goldmine in your ignorance.

[ReedYoung]

(Sheeple's) ignorance is (corporatists') bliss.

[VikingQuest]

This guy always talks a BIG GAME from the sidelines but has never had the guts to get in and make the decisions himself.

Run for something Paul, show us something.

[jmpurser]

He's an economist, not a foot ball player. He's doing EXACTLY what he's supposed to.

[MyNameIsJames]

Exactly - He is an expert and his advice is SOUND!

[Lilith33]

Your kidding right?
Wadda jock....

[mozara]

Like Summers has ran for anything..­. but we are still stuck with him.

[ReedYoung]

Yes, isn't that curious?

[scoops2]

HisPetGoat I'm a Fan of HisPetGoat I'm a fan of this user permalink
I like to imagine a world of co-ops in which the workers share in management and profit.

Posted 08:08 PM on 07/19/2009


bbaaaaaa you just decribed wall st. :)

[HisPetGoat]

I mean real co-ops, not a criminal syndicate.

[HisPetGoat]

Besides, Wall St. corporations hardly qualify as co-ops.

[lazercat2008]

I despise that goat.

[HisPetGoat]

How about this view?

http://thethirddegree.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/goatballs.jpg

[Lilith33]

With the stroke of a pen, Bill Clinton ended an era that stretched back to William Jennings Bryan and Woodrow Wilson and reached fruition with FDR and Harry Truman. As he signed his name, in the whorls and dots of his pen strokes William Jefferson Clinton was also symbolically signing the death warrant of Liberal America and its core belief in the level playing field that had guided the Democratic Party. But it was the gift of the pen to Sanford Weill and its assuming an honored place on the Wall of Me that rubbed salt in the wound.

In his famous First Inaugural Roosevelt asserted:


Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.
Clinton not only repealed the act Roosevelt had put in place to curb those practices, but presented one of the pens used to sign it to one of those "money changers."


Since repeal of Glass Steagall in 1999, after more than a decade of de facto inroads ... It is too bad Bill Clinton did not have their wisdom when he made his .... I'd be curious if there were enough votes to override a veto. .... Isn't it convenient for Republicans to blame Bill Clinton for passing ...
www.progressivehistorians.com/.../bill-clintons-role-in-mortgage-crisis.html -

[HMDMSR]

The Democrats in the Senate had enough votes to protect Clinton's veto, had he made it.

[Lilith33]

Republicans cotnrolled congress in 1998. Republicans repealed the act by a veto proof majority. Democrats had no power to stop it.

"The bills were introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (R-TX) and in the House of Representatives by James Leach (R-IA). The bills were passed by a 54-44 vote along party lines with Republican support in the Senate[1] and by a 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives[2]. Nov 4, 1999: After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. The final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90-8-1 and in the House: 362-57-15. This veto proof legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999. "

Source(s):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach…

[vanmungo]

You're "curious," but not curious enough to do the basic research, which would take you five minutes on Google?

The final version of the repeal of Glass Steagall passed 90-8 in the Senate. "38 of 45 Senate Democrats voted for the repeal, including some famous names commonly associated with "progressive" politics by the easily gulled: Dodd, Kennedy, Kerry, Reid, and Schumer."

In the House, Pelosi and most Democrats also voted for the repeal.

The repeal was signed into law by a Democratic president.

Time to cast aside childish illusions about the corporate-owned Democrats. In office, they ALWAYS implement the corporate agenda. It's only when in the minority that the mouth phony progressive pieties to foster the illusion of "differenc­es."

For example: Rangel and Waxman were co-sponsors of Conyers' single-payer House bill until the Dems took the Whilte House. Now they are one with Obama in trying to bury it.

Can't people figure this shell game out?

[HMDMSR]

Thank you. For a minute I thought I'd lost it!

[Lilith33]

Thats because it had already paseed brainiac..­.


."The bills were introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (R-TX) and in the House of Representatives by James Leach (R-IA). The bills were passed by a 54-44 vote along party lines with Republican support in the Senate[1] and by a 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives

[Coltrane1234]

Yes, exactly, there are no progressives in congress and Obama is not a progressive, anyone who has done research would know that. ( Okay we still have Kucinich.)

[vanmungo]

The final version of the repeal of Glass Steagall passed 90-8 in the Senate. "38 of 45 Senate Democrats voted for the repeal, including some famous names commonly associated with "progressive" politics by the easily gulled: Dodd, Kennedy, Kerry, Reid, and Schumer."

In the House, Pelosi and most Democrats also voted for the repeal.

The repeal was signed into law by a Democratic president.

Time to cast aside childish illusions about the corporate-owned Democrats. In office, they ALWAYS implement the corporate agenda. It's only when in the minority that the mouth phony progressive pieties to foster the illusion of "differenc­es."

For example: Rangel and Waxman were co-sponsors of Conyers' single-payer House bill until the Dems took the Whilte House. Now they are one with Obama in trying to bury it.

Can't people figure this shell game out?

[lazercat2008]

By that thinking, raising the speed limit above 55 makes Reagan responsible for killing millions of people and wasting billions in gas.

[flossophy]

As he liberated 100 million in Europe... so I guess it all balances out.

[TJCole]

Our very system is corrupted completely, until we get the money out of politics, we will fail to progress..­as a people and lift all boats!

We have a system of legalized bribery...­!

We must end Corporate "Personhoo­d..!"

Which the Federalist Society members of our corrupted Supreme Court will soon expand the parameters of in September.­..!

[scoops2]

HisPetGoat I'm a Fan of HisPetGoat I'm a fan of this user permalink
So, you don't believe in social justice?

That is a very broad, generalized statement/question. I would need more detailed and specific situations to make a judgement.

[HisPetGoat]

Let's try...

You said "progressives will not be happy until everyone makes the same amount of money regardless of the job people have."

Then I said "progressives will not rest until our society is equitable.­"

Then you said "you proved my statement.­"

Then I asked "So, you don't believe in social justice?"

Then you said "That is a very broad, generalized statement/question. I would need more detailed and specific situations to make a judgement.­"

So: equity is an essential element of "social justice" the demand for which is admittedly against your thesis.

[HisPetGoat]

P.S. My question was a question, not a statement.

[flossophy]

The Pr0gressives brand of social justice means that a political class redistributes wealth from one minority to another minority to level the playing field or balance things out.

Which means that government must use coercion to enact social justice... that's not healthy in a free society.

[dillydawg]

As brilliant as Krugman is in economics, he seems to have some serious' Issues'.

[HisPetGoat]

He's probably very frustrated. But smart guys are quirky anyway.

[mozara]

That is code for he is not bought by Wall Street

[dillydawg]

This is a Capitalistic society, we are all bought by Wall Street. Think about it.

[jozzie]

No, he's got very cogent points. And a pretty good soap box from which to share them.

[JudgeMoonbox]

"As brilliant as Krugman is in economics, he seems to have some serious' Issues'."

Are you saying there's something wrong with having serious issues? Or are you twisting the word, "Issues" to insinuate that he's crazy?

Paul Krugman is just about the only columnist in a mainstream publication who I'd rate as honest.

[jmpurser]

Yes, he has the issue of being right, honest, and rather well spoken.

[jekyll]

He has been right? When did this happen?

[Lilith33]

Having Geithner ...Summers , Rubins and Bernake in charge is having the foxes rule the henhouse.

[jekyll]

Amen to that!

[jozzie]

In broad day light.

[CaptainStormfield]

This is a travesty. Read Matt Tabi's article in Rolling Stone about Goldman Sachs.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29127316/the_great_american_bubble_machine

Matt is now being attacked for having the temerity to speak out.

[John Robert]

The Canadian Press and Obama “A shallow, manipulative and egotistical amateur who is in over his head” The Canadian Press. (excerpted)

Daniel Greenfield Thursday, June 11, 2009

In the sixth month of his presidency, Obama has turned an economic downturn into an economic disaster, taking over and trashing entire companies, and driving the nation deep into deficit spending expected to pass 10 trillion dollars.

Abroad, Obama seems to have no other mode except to continue on with his endless campaign, confusing speechmaking with diplomacy. It is natural enough that Obama, who built his entire campaign on high profile public speeches reported on by an adoring press.


While the press is still chewing over Obama’s Cairo speech, this celebrity style coverage ignores the fact that Obama’s endless world tour is not actually accomplishing anything. Instead his combination of ego driven photo op appearances and clueless treatment of foreign dignitaries have alienated many of America ’s traditional allies. Those who aren’t being quietly angry at Obama, like Brown, Merkel or Netanyahu, instead think of him as as absurdly lightweight, as Sarkozy, King Abdullah or Putin do.







.



Obama has tried to play Lincoln, Reagan, JFK and FDR– but in the end he can only play himself, a shallow, manipulative and egotistical amateur who is in over his head, and trying to drag the country down with him. Obama’s White House is falling down and while the flashbulbs are still glittering and the parties are going on in D.C. and around the world.

[jozzie]

Watch your spacing, pal. But yes Obamam is, "A shallow, manipulative and egotistical amateur who is in over his head."

BTW, his Sun Sign is Leo and his Moon is in Gemini. Two of the most shallow signs in the zodiac.

[scoops2]

interesting. I was talking to a friend that is still in the military and people are losing respect for him. Many people in the military voted for obama and are deeply disappointed in him.

[JudgeMoonbox]

"BTW, his Sun Sign is Leo and his Moon is in Gemini. Two of the most shallow signs in the zodiac."

Do you speak from personal experience? You seem to be a shallow person yourself.

[dillydawg]

Silly comment. Your not to be taken seriously.

[MyNameIsJames]

Jozzie - considering the state of the nation - after GW Bush who WOULDN"T BE IN OVER THEIR HEAD?

answer: Al Gore!

[Lilith33]

Hes a zionistneo­con...

[vanmungo]

I'm no fan of Obama's, but this ad hom spew from a right-wing Canadian rag (Canadian Free Press ("A Conservative Free Press") should not be mistaken for serious commentary.

The problem with Obama is that he has been too subservient to corporate interests, not too independent of them, as Krugman shows.

[haridoa]

i'm not a fan of this guy. how the heck do i get my name off his fan list?!?!

[TJCole]

Never trust anyone with two first names...!

[onepotatotwopotato]

Most Americans are very leery of academics with leftist reputations. I doubt Prez. Obama wants to be associated public with those kinds of controversial figures.

[HMDMSR]

Stiglitz and Krugman aren't controversial.

[jozzie]

They'll be leery of everything after this meltdown goes from bad to worse.

The vast majority of people's unemployment extensions will run out at the end of this year. Do you see 20 million people suddenly getting hired? Anywhere?

[TJCole]

Dr. King was controversial as well..!

[olephart]

The Americans you’re speaking of couldn’t pour pizz out of a boot and you’re right, they wouldn’t associate with Nobel Laureates.

[vanmungo]

Ya' mean like suspicious Nobel-prize winners like Stiglitz?

Get a clue, sir.

[harriscrl3]

THere is so much whining going on from the left and the right its hard to figure out who is who.

[lazercat2008]

I think you have hit it on the head.

[cdembrey]

For those with selective memory ... The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, (Pub.L. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338, enacted November 12, 1999) is an act of the 106th United States Congress (1999-2001) which repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933,

Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) --Not a Democrat!!!
Jim Leach (R-Iowa) -- Not a Democrat!!!
Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-Virginia) -- Not a Democrat!!!

[Robert Cantor]

so .... basically you are saying it's the democRATs fault?

[cdembrey]

Do you have poor reading comprehension skills???

[jozzie]

Clinton signed it, so I'm not seeing this as a partisan issue.

[Lilith33]

It would have passed anyway....­..

[HMDMSR]

Isn't it the case that, if Clinton had vetoed it, the Democrats in the Senate could have prevented an override?

[CaptainFailmore]

Even more importantly, the final form of the bill enjoyed wide bipartisan support in the House of Representatives; so wide that even if Clinton vetoed it, it would likely have been overridden. That Clinton didn't veto GLBA just goes to show where his priorities really were, but it's important to remember that our nation's problems extend far beyond the Executive Branch. Mistakes like the GLBA are not made alone.

Not to accuse you of doing this yourself, but maintaining the common notion held among the American people that sole leadership of our country rests on the President turns him into a dictator in the eyes of the public - as well as a fall-boy for the House, whose activities go increasingly unnoticed. It is a very dangerous myth.

[vanmungo]

What's your point? The Democrats in the Senate voted ovewhelmingly for the repeal of Glass-Stea­gall--incl­uding phony liberals like Kennedy and Kerry--and it was signed into law by the Democratic president Bill "The Corporate Shill" Clinton, whose secretary of the treasury, Robert Rubin, was among the chief pushers of this atrocity.

Again--what's your point?

[Lilith33]

and the repugs contro;;ed both houses....­.

[vanmungo]

The majority of Democrats in BOTH houses voted for the repeal of Glass-Steagall, by a substantial margin, including Kennedy, Kerry, Reid, and Pelosi. Go look up the votes--the vote was 90-8 in the Senate, with 38 of 45 Democrats voting FOR the repeal.

You seem determined not to let the facts contradict your stubborn illusions about the Democrats.

[scoops2]

progressives will not be happy until everyone makes the same amount of money regardless of the job people have.

[vanmungo]

And this preposterous falsehood has exactly what to do with the topic of the article?

Where did you get you last academic degree: At Glenn Beck Community Junior College?

[scoops2]

academic degree, do you not realize those finacial/economic degrees are set up to try to work within an alread fixed economy. Exept the people who regulate the economy keep changing the rules. Thats why we continue to go round and round with THEORY"S. Do yourself a favor and think outside of the box for once.

[HisPetGoat]

Progressives will not rest until our society is equitable.

[scoops2]

you proved my statement.

[Robert Cantor]

how about getting rid of money?

[HisPetGoat]

I will hold it for everyone. Deal?

[Ajita]

The rich will always be deluded into believing that they somehow deserve their positions of power that they hold despite the fact that both genes and the environment are beyond our voluntary control.

[scoops2]

I agree. there will always be humans struggling for power and control. It is an instinct. no law or regulation can stop that force.

[JudgeMoonbox]

"progressives will not be happy until everyone makes the same amount of money regardless of the job people have."

Do you have the courage of your convictions to say that by the same measure, Conservatives won't be happy until they're the only ones making any money?

[scoops2]

first, im a libertarian. I know many progressives who are very fically conservative with their own money.

[flossophy]

Conservatives want everyone to make money... and pay less in taxes to the government.

Where have you been these last 60 years?

[mozara]

I would feel a lot better if progressiv­e-economis­ts had a seat at the table. That they don't, is just preposterous; the de-regulators should be begging for a seat at the table, and not the other way around. This makes you wonder who is really in charge. Very powerful interests must have a lot of money on the table right now, and it must be a matter of survival, because they seem to not care about appearances. Perhaps, they don't want anyone to see what really is going on. People like Krugman and Stiglitz must be a threat to their interests.

[HisPetGoat]

I agree except that I don't wonder about any of this. It's just the logical consequence of self-interest at work while the sheep graze.

[Kaviraj]

And the goats?