Paul Krugman Hits the Nail on the Head

Sometimes Paul Krugman cuts to the heart of some issue in a way that few people can. His December 17 Op Ed in the New York Times is an example. He compares the positions of John Edwards and Barack Obama on medical care, and finds Obama to be severely wanting.

As Krugman points out, their official positions are dramatically different: Obama advocates getting all sides (consumers, doctors, hospitals, drug companies, health insurance companies, hospitals) together around a "big table," and hammering out a satisfactory universal health care program; Edwards attacks big business and says they have to be defeated to get anything done.

The media makes Obama look like the good guy--he advocates a new, non-confrontational type of politics that can work on our underlying agreement that health care needs repair, whereas Edwards' "harsh anti-corporate rhetoric would make it difficult to work with the business community to forge change."

But Krugman points out that Obama's vision is unrealistic and therefore worthless. As he puts it:

It's actually Mr. Obama who's being unrealistic here, believing that the insurance and drug industries -- which are, in large part, the cause of our health care problems -- will be willing to play a constructive role in health reform. The fact is that there's no way to reduce the gross wastefulness of our health system without also reducing the profits of the industries that generate the waste.

As a result, drug and insurance companies -- backed by the conservative movement as a whole -- will be implacably opposed to any significant reforms.

Krugman only implies it, but this same logic extends to the war in Iraq. The three major Democratic candidates (including Populist Edwards) and every Republican save Ron Paul advocate that we extract ourselves only after we safeguard "America's vital interests" in the Middle East. This is just code for the imposition of a client regime that supports U.S. Middle East policy, including the doubling of regional oil production and the ongoing campaign for regime change in Iran. The regime must also welcome an imposing American (military and political) presence in the country to protect ongoing US interests there (eg, the facilities of US oil companies), and to help extend those policies to the rest of the region. This program, needless to say, guarantees ongoing wars and ongoing crises and ongoing sacrifice of the already depleted economic, political, and moral resources of this country.

Make no mistake about it; the industries with entrenched interests in sustaining "America's vital interests" in the Middle East are far more powerful than those defending our decrepit system of medical care. In order to abandon "America's vital interests" in the Middle East, the US must abandon the underlying energy policy of claiming privileged access to the world's remaining oil resources, and move decisively to conservation and to alternative sources of energy. And, to paraphrase Krugman: "that there's no way to reduce our dependence on hydrocarbons without also reducing the profits of the industries that depend on them for their privileged place in our economy."

The key industries which would have to endure these decreased profits extend well beyond the "usual suspects"--oil, coal, oil service, petrochemicals, and plastics--who actually extract, process, or sell us our hydrocarbon products. The list also includes other basic industries, like automobiles (which would have to invest billions in alternatives to the internal combustion engine), electrical power (which would have to finally figure out wind, thermal and other power, instead of just dismissing them as impractical), construction (which would have to include energy efficiency into basic building design and construction processes) and even finance (which would have to make risky investments in alternatives, instead of the much "safer" bets they now make on increasingly scarce and therefore highly profitable hydrocarbons).

So...no wonder all Democratic and Republican candidates for the presidency--including John Edwards--with any support from the financial backers are adamant about defending "America's vital interests" in the Middle East: the major industries in the U.S. economy would lose billions in profits if we "fail."

As Krugman implies, but does not explicitly state, in order to change the direction of U.S. government policy, the electorate has to do more than look for the "best" of the candidates--the lesser of evils. We need to insist on specific policies that take on the interest of these dominant industries, and force them to give back some of those ill gotten profits in order to move the country into a direction that serves the interests of the people instead of the interests of the bloated, inefficient and consummately greedy corporate establishment. This means we have to stop the current trend, in which ALL the candidates "with a chance to win" advocate policies in Iraq (and in other realms) that simultaneously protect and enhance the ill gotten gains of major corporations, contribute to the moral, physical, and economic decay of American society, and annihilate the lives of millions of people around the globe.

Comments

[emerywood]

In order to change the healthcare system or any other system in this country, first and foremost would be to get rid of the Congrssional lobbying system. Our politicians are controlled by the lobbyists hired by the major corporatio­ns/industr­ials. They are calling the shots in foreign and domestic policies, not our elected representatives.

[emerywood]

No candidate says anything about getting rid of the Congressional lobbying system. Everybody knows the lobbyists are controlling all the major policies of this country regarding healthcare, military industrial spending and what-have-you. Without getting rid of this horrible and corrupt system, nothing will be accomplished and politicians will do whatever that benefits the industries at the expense of the average people.

[mickrussom]

If you want the standard of living you are used to to exist, and you to be paid in real money, vote for Ron Paul.

If you do not, well, the 1900's are filled with examples on what a faltering currency and war does to countries.

Ron Paul!

[castlerider]

Krugman accurately predicted the Housing market crisis back in February when the yuan fluctuated in the Shanghai markets... Why hasn't anyone brought this up?

It was the first episode where banks started gatting scared of buying loans from each other because of our severe debt to China that made us cash poor and lacking foundation to respond, and Wall Street tanked over a bumpy stretch of days. Immediately after this Sub-prime loans started to evaporate like dew in a hot early summer sun. Then April came with its big shakeup, then July and August. Ouch!! Why is it he was virtually the only one who remarked that when we look back on the mess, this would be the first big hit? I've been looking everywhere for that article that I cut out, but I remember it very well.
Krugman is right to take these politicians to task, and the general public should appreciate him for doing so. I sure as hell do.
Let Obama answer the damn questions, and lets see if he can truly work with these snake charmer CEO bastards. After all they've done, I prefer to take things with a grain of salt as well, and question whether Obama is simply wanting to follow the old Reagan path of saying whatever the big boys want, then sitting back and watch yourself get elected.

There are those of us who feel we have a right to know the full story.
For that, Krugman's in our corner.

[onlinesavant]

So tell me TELLME. How is Obama polarizing? Do you mean that white people like YOU won't vote for him because he's black? If that's the case, then it sounds like a personal problem, and has nothing to do with Obama's history in public life, his accomplishments, and most obviously, his intelligence. So tell me tellme.

[Doofus]

You do have to wonder how much can be accomplished
towards universal healthcare if efforts are stymied because
Big Insurance & Big Pharma are 'implacably opposed' to
measures that will reduce their profits.

Apparently Paul Krugman is allowing that healthcare mandates
are not only necessary but sufficient to solve the 'problem' of
universal coverage. One suspects that Big Whoever would
agree. So we would CONTINUE to have the most expensive
healthcare on the planet.

There's probably something wrong with that picture, no?

[flatus]

HHumphrey/­JMcCarthy/­GMcGovern/­MDukakis/B­Obama/HCli­nton.



Edwards '08

[HanFeiTzu]

Paul Krugman should be mandatory reading by all Americans. As someone who voted for Obama for Senator I would encourage him to dropout immediately and support John Edwards for President. Together, they could mount a successful campaign to defeat the Clintons.

This country cannot afford another Clinton in the WH. Just listen to Bill these days. If he's not out back with some slut he mouthing as if he is still important.

Hey Bill, instead of modeling yourself after the Bush's try, just try, to act and behave like Jimmy Carter.

[Countess]

Krugman is not only wrong on this and has completely distorted Obama's position but what else is new for the old line Clinton gang. At least he refrained from the racial or religious smears that are the highlight of their dirty campaign.

[literate]

If drug companies are too powerful to even feel the need to negotiate, what makes Edwards believe he can defeat them? Who is being unrealistic? Are these corporations going to disappear? What is unrealistic about suggesting that ALL sides will need to work out some sort of system that will work? To call a carefully considered, sincerely presented, reasonable proposal "worthless" is condescending and offensive. There is no guarantee that anyone's plan will solve the problem. There are flaws with all plans probably - and they are just that - plans. At least Obama believes in flexibility and negotiations to find a solution. But, of course, Krugman knows everything apparently. Why doesn't he run?

[Merlin7]

Good points. The problem is that most Americans are becoming more conservative, not less. Ironically, the insecurity that fuels this trend is caused in part by conservative policies that have screwed up our economy, bankrupted our Treasury and soiled our image around the world.

But liberal policies tend to be complicated while conservative strategies tend to be simple and fit on a bumper-sticker. That's why conservatives keep winning elections -- and continue to ruin our nation. It's easy to say "Fight terrorism," but much more difficult to explain that fighting terrorism effectively requires imagination and restraint.

If Democrats lose next year's presidential election -- which is very possible -- we progressives will have to accept the bitter fact that America is slouching toward fascism, and little can be done to stop it. A nation that is capable of electing a Bible-thumping Republican to the presidency is literally capable of anything -- as the past seven years have taught us.

[SamanthaJaneSalem]

You couldn't find a bigger fan of Paul Krugman than I am-- or was.

After listening to Barack Obama's stump speech where he talks about everyone having a seat at the table when it comes to fixing the health care system, the difference between what he *actually* said and what Krugman reported he said was so great I had to sadly admit: Krugman was just writing hit-pieces with some strange ulterior motive.

Krugman has written *four* negative columns about Obama. Why? That's what I'd like to know. After all, none of the so-called "major" candidates has the single-payer system Krugman favors.

If Krugman wants to be the voice of sanity and reason on the crisis in our health care system, he should criticize all the Democratic candidates and not use his column to smear one particular candidate.

Then I could trust him again.