Paul Krugman: Obama's Economic Policy Failed To Deliver

nytimes.com:

If Democrats do as badly as expected in next week's elections, pundits will rush to interpret the results as a referendum on ideology. President Obama moved too far to the left, most will say, even though his actual program -- a health care plan very similar to past Republican proposals, a fiscal stimulus that consisted mainly of tax cuts, help for the unemployed and aid to hard-pressed states -- was more conservative than his election platform.

Read the whole story: nytimes.com

Comments

[OrionStar]

12:18 PM on 11/09/2010

Good.

[dcoyote]

04:44 PM on 10/28/2010

WHY DOES HUFF POST HAVE SUCH MISLEADING HEADLINES?
I am frequently stunned by the flagrant dishonesty in your headlines. Completely misleading. What's up with that?

Surely you realize many people will only read the headline and walk away thinking they have a great new bit of info and soundbite: "Yay Obama Failed! I read it on the Huff Post."

I followed the link to Krugman's article and it did not make that claim as its primary premise. It described the stimulus as not big enough. And in fact, it stated clearly:

"The tragedy here is that if voters do turn on Democrats, they will in effect be voting to make things even worse."

Are you more interested in inflaming the people and acting like the NY Post rather than informing people with facts and the truth? Clearly that is the case here. And it is not the first time.
SHAME ON YOU!!

[Sendil Nathan]

02:27 PM on 10/27/2010

Careful, Krugman! Obama delivered well for your jewish bankers and you're dissing them. Wall Street will throw you into gas chamber if you follow this line of argument.

[Wisco-libertarian]

11:23 AM on 10/27/2010

Krugman is an eggheaded liberal. When is he going to realize that after a certain point the government just can't keep spending? These programs cost money, and someone is eventually going to have to pay for it. The private sector can more effectively spend money than government ever will. Every dollar taken out of the market is just putting a damper on recovery.

[Michael GE]

10:46 PM on 10/27/2010

But you are aware that one of today's highlights is that US economy/ companies are hoarding/ saving money. If I take your "can more effectively spend money than government" for real, than this means "Good night, US economy", since they don't see any profitable production, industry, Main Street investment in US economy.
Secondly, at least the hoarded/saved money means there is no need for tax cuts, at least not based on the arguement that 'tax cut' results in money available which will be spent/ invested to create jobs. There is money available and it's not invested.
Wouldn't, if you want them to start investing, it be a smart move to announce a tax increase for saving accounts from 2012 onwards?

[TheCarCzarsPage]

09:46 PM on 10/26/2010

BO is BK. Vote GOP Nov. 2

[jmpurser]

09:55 AM on 10/27/2010

I will never loathe America enough to vote for a Republican.

[therealist2000]

12:31 PM on 10/26/2010

Unfortunately, Krugman is correct.
Obama's economic policies failed.
He appointed a team of economists with
traditional economic backgrounds that lacked
the training to deal with the news economic
tsounami hitting the USA.

Obama's economic team basically consisted
of throwback economists from the Clinton years.

[iqfinsvcs]

03:50 PM on 10/26/2010

Try telling that to the millions of investors who are reaping big rewards from a rising stock market and the numerous corporations that are showing big profits. Do you believe that rick folks are stupid?

The stock market is not a thermometer its is a barometer. It is telling us the investors are betting on a sustained US economic recovery. And, if you do not believe this you will be all the poorer for it.

[TheCarCzarsPage]

09:46 PM on 10/26/2010

Agree.

[iqfinsvcs]

10:49 AM on 10/26/2010

Krugman's idea is dead wrong and unhelpful:

Krugman's "a much large stimulus package" is based on the application of Keynesian theory that calls for massive infusions of fiscal (government spending) stimulus to spur greater economic activity, which in turn will lead to lower unemployment. Fair enough, as Keynes's theory worked to end the Great Depression in the US during the 1930s.

What is different this time? The great recession is not only confined to the US: the Euro Zone, except Germany, and Japan are also affected. And this time around, unlike the 1930s, the major problem is massive debt loads by all, which threatens to plunge each into greater economic depression if their lenders lose hope of ever being repaid with constant currencies that have retained their values.

More US government SPENDING will lead to lower unemployment but WILL NOT SOLVE the major PROBLEM that the US MANUFACTURES very LITTLE. Any larger STIMULUS will eventually END UP in the hands of the CHINESE.

Krugman's IDEAS are also UNHELPFUL to OBAMA as it stands absolutely NO CHANCE of being approved by CONGRESS.

[maninal]

01:38 PM on 10/26/2010

Wrong as usual. Had the stimulus been distinctly targeted and tied to a strategic industrial plan we would be building manufacturing instead of continuing to watch it being exported. Had the administration put through executive orders to demand US goods only as procurement measures the money that was available would have been more productive. Keynesian was proven correct. Our current situations backs it up.

[iqfinsvcs]

03:25 PM on 10/26/2010

This reply is gobbleygook! Strategic industrial plan? What, you think that we live in CHINA?

[jmpurser]

09:59 AM on 10/27/2010

Actually the Great Depression was a world wide economic phenomenon as well. There's no reason to assume something is magically different this time that would stop Keynesian economics from working. In fact what very little Obama did had exactly the effect Keynesian analysis predicted as Krugman points out.

We are EXACTLY where Krugman said we would be nearly two years ago. He's right. If he's "unhelpful" it is only because he, like all other serious economists, were ignored for political convenience.

[TurgidCaterwauling]

10:32 AM on 10/26/2010

For all the high priced brilliance we're apparently awash with, almost none of that brilliance has translated into anything worthwhile for average workers.

[maninal]

01:38 PM on 10/26/2010

Thank the GOP and the Blue Dogs

[jmpurser]

10:00 AM on 10/27/2010

Actually Obama is responsible for a share of it as well. On the stimulus he GOT exactly what he asked for.

There are no "good guys" right now.

[ran6110]

09:52 AM on 10/26/2010

Reading the story a random idea struck me (no, it didn't hurt) about the problems and fixes.

Could most of the problem be that we have put a bunch of managers in place when we needed leaders? Managers are generally interested in going out on a limb to fix a problem, they would rather tweak things to maintain as much of the status-quo as possible.

I know all of the Washington politicians claim to be leaders but really, do any of them act like what your mental image of a leader should be?

I would expect a true leader to be willing to do whatever is needed to fix things and make it work for as many followers as possible.

With politician never accepting the blame for their mistakes and always blaming someone else along with doing everything they can to protect themselves and their friends even when it hurts millions of others they don't seem much like leaders to me..

As with all of my personal blasts, I'm talking about both the Democrats and Republicans...

[maninal]

01:40 PM on 10/26/2010

I haven't seen a leader in politics in decades... Alan Grayson had some fire but look at what's happening to his re-election. The same goes for Rus Fiengold. People don't want leaders anymore.

[ran6110]

02:14 PM on 10/26/2010

It might not be so bad if the managers realized that that's what they are and stopped trying to be something they have no skills for...

Faved

[TheFriendlyAtheist]

05:15 PM on 10/27/2010

That's for sure maninal. We haven't had a real leader since Ronny Raygun ruled the roost. How I long for days when the mighty Raygun supreme
Lavished gold upon the war-machine,
And brandished the sharpened butcher knife
To cut short the welfare mother's life,
While upon the international stage
He layed lovely flowered garlands gay
Upon the graves of SS soldiers bold and brave.
Oh yes, those were the days.

[rebel9999]

09:19 AM on 10/26/2010

Obama's Economic policies have failed? Really? Who knew?

[bmike]

09:51 AM on 10/26/2010

I didn't know.I thought he made sure we still had Banks and we could make more than just foreign cars.

[Michael Lindley]

08:57 AM on 10/26/2010

I have to say he's right. Obama has governed by olive branch rather than leading. He's wrong on health care ( should have had a model similar to France), wrong to appeal the DADT and DOMA decisions and hasn't done enough to lower the ratio of CEO:employee pay differences. And Harry Reid should have let the R's really filibuster like they did against the 1964 civil Rights Act to show all America how their side is in the back pocket of very special conservative interests.

[SwimUpstream]

08:56 AM on 10/26/2010

What did you think was ging to happen when you took a guy who had never run anything more complex than a lemonade stand and let him play at running the country in between campaigns?



.

[tck29]

12:19 PM on 10/26/2010

Well, some of us who voted for him hoped he had the ba//s to take on the repubs and special interests like he said he would.

Do you really believe an "insider" would have done better? Or perhaps your insider would have fought tooth and nail to preserve the status quo because it is so lucrative?

[LCDTV]

07:41 AM on 10/26/2010

krugman implied that obama played nice with the rethugs:
"a health care plan very similar to past Republican proposals"
a third of the stimulus package was tax cuts.

when will dems develop a spine. Will they ever learn that you can not work with the rethugs, because they will stab you in the back and they hate America.

a note to the next dem president: pnch the rethugs in nose and tell them foff. it not rocket science.

[GunnyJ]

06:23 AM on 10/26/2010

Paul is so smart, so gifted and so informative.....but he never has anything pleasant to say, EVER! There is something wrong with someone who NEVER says anything encouraging or upbeat, always doom and failure. Some say the truth hurts and it does, but this guy is always critical and saying what "should" have been done. Maybe this is why he's writing for the NYT instead of helping in DC.....

[Chicagofan1]

01:19 PM on 10/26/2010

What about "OMG"? He is good at it.

[PhilipTaylor]

02:05 AM on 10/26/2010

HAVING FRAUDULENT FED and WALL STREET BANKSTERS MAKES NO SENSE IN AMERICA!

AMERICA’S FIRST 100 YEAR HISTORY = CONTROL THE VAMPIRE SQUID CORPORATIONS!

NOW HIDING BEHIND the CURTAIN that is the Chamber of Criminals!

When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade.

After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country's founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role.

Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight control of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate.

Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws.

Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.
_________________

Our Forefathers would hang today's International Banksters in the Square for their Crimes!"