Eliot & Mary debate how a bad bet in London -- shades of AIG! -- produced "told you sos" from those wanting a strong Volcker Rule. Is Regulation still evil? Then: the two debate opening partisan attacks on Bain and Debt.
Greece is a convenient excuse. Let's correct our own weaknesses, starting from public indebtedness, rather than pointing the finger towards Europe.
Why is this recession different from all other recessions? There is a simple answer: the austerity fetish. The bizarre notion that cutting is healing.
Paul Krugman's book is called End This Depression Now! (exclamation point included). If that sounds like a self-help book -- the sequel to Listening to Prozac, maybe, or something by Dr. Wayne Dyer -- that's not altogether inappropriate in this age of collective near-despair.
Let's coordinate a mass rehiring of workers on a voluntary basis by asking all large and medium-sized employers to increase their employment by 5 percent.
Improving their health care system is the first step taken by underdeveloped countries on their path to entering the modern world, while U.S. conservatives seem bent on returning the U.S. to a less-developed status to enhance their already wealthy supporters.
I know what you are thinking: "Who cares?" Well, try to keep reading, because this does have implications beyond the sprawling soybean farms in the Argentine province of Cordoba. What does it mean to have a "commodities boom," or growth driven by the export of commodities?
Remember that unemployment problem we used to have? The one that politicians, pundits and policymakers used to talk about on a regular basis, debating how we might fix it? Well, forget about all that, because the problem is structural, meaning nothing can be done. So sayeth a loud slice of the econo-pundit class.
If you have any familiarity with the world, in short, you know that involuntary unemployment is very real. And it's currently a very big deal. How bad is the problem of involuntary unemployment, and how much worse has it become?
OWS takes the traditional Marxist notion of class, simplifies it and inflates it into two cartoons -- the 99 percent and the 1 percent. In the process, it manages to ignore about 150 years of Marxist discussion and debate.
Just like central banking, economics wants to speak politically, but doesn't necessarily welcome a response. In Krugman, it sometimes comes across as condescension. At the Fed, it can appear more sinister.
In arguing the case for the primacy of economic action, Krugman blithely ignores the difficult situation of central banking in the modern world.
What was the situation in Spain? The construction bubble was widely recognized, discussed, worried over and even acted upon in the years before the bust.
This year, if you say "Tax Day" and "social movement," the Tea Party isn't necessarily the first thing that comes to mind. And if you go looking for a protest, you'll likely find folks protesting against the tax evaders of the top 1 percent.
A year ago I wrote about the odd love being shown for Rep. Paul Ryan and his shockingly regressive, budget-busting tax and spending plans. Some of them apparently learned their lesson and have kept quiet this time. But not many.
I was struck by the juxtaposition of this unfortunate analysis of Rep. Paul Ryan's budget by New York Times columnist James Stewart and Paul Krugman's op-ed today.