Went to a Paul Krugman Speech

[themadchemist]

I went to a speech by famed NYT columnist and Princeton economics professor Paul Krugman today. I also met him, which was awesome. Some notes, if disjointed, from the speech:

-There is NOTHING good about the Bush administration
-Our economy is looking like Argentina with respect to deficits and foreign debt; the only thing that is helping us is that there is more confidence in a first world country--but it won't last forever if America acts irresponsibly
-We'll have a Wile E. Coyote moment when we're off the cliff and we realize we're off the cliff and we'll be in deep trouble
-It's going to get worse before it gets better--Bush will move even further to the right
-Bush dismissed those who were correct and kept those who were incorrect
-He won't change this because there is no political cost (apparently) to lying and being wrong
-It's not that the debt and deficit will catch up with us so much as it is that the dollar will collapse
-While China and Japan are probably too deeply invested in the dollar, smaller central banks like that of Singapore might pull out of the dollar and lead the way to the collapse
-Alan Greenspan has switched positions dramatically and, what's worse, has politicized the position. He used the weight and honor of his position to find some way to justify support of Bush, and thereby betrayed the country.
-While he professes he is not well-versed on these issues, he believes the draft will be reinstated, the way we're going.
-Neocon foreign policy will continue (making the draft necessary)
-Hillary Clinton in '08? Obama-Spitzer would be incredible, but it's a little early
-The Bush admin is destroying the environment and though most individuals are in favor of the environment, the extent of the Bush admin's poor performance is not being well communicated. The admin has these Orwellian names for their bills, like the Clear Skies Act that loosens regulations.
-There is nothing wrong with Social Security; as it is, it will last for the next 40 years; with a small investment, it will continue for the next 75
-The social security deficit is between 1/6 and 1/3 of the revenue lost from the tax cuts--very modest
-Social Security is still in surplus
-Privatizing social security is now called 'personal accounts' because focus groups said that privatization is not a word people like
-The partial privatization of social security will have huge transition costs. Something like 2 trillion dollars
-Transition cost is the money to pay for the previous generation when you switch over
-Bush doesn't have a solution for paying for it, which means we'll just dip in and borrow more money
-The income tax system isn't broken--why fix it?
-The problem with a national sales tax is it would essentially be a tax hike for the poor and a tax cut for the rich
-All progressive sales tax schemes he has seen seem impractical
-The Republicans' desire to dismantle social security, the environment, etc. is NOT popular with people
-The administration uses war and fear as an aid to encourage people to vote for them
-It is possible that the conservatives WANT to take apart social security and do so by blaming it on a huge deficit and debt (to make it seem as if it is inevitable)
-Why? Because social security is politically viable for the democrats and are expensive, the latter hindering conservative interests
-Something about taking down "the beast," which is what one think tank called these social programs
-The television media does a very poor job of calling out the administration
-CNN is more dangerous than Fox News because they are both one-sided, but CNN has preserved its guise of credibility

This is what I can remember. Enjoy!

edit: More of Krugman's discussion, now that I've remembered it

[zimv20]

has he said what he's been up to? he hasn't put out a column in over two weeks!

[themadchemist]

has he said what he's been up to? he hasn't put out a column in over two weeks!

He didn't say, but apparently he's not going to be publishing for a while...Or so I gather. But maybe I'm wrong.

[Thomas Veil]

-Bush dismissed those who were correct and kept those who were incorrect
-He won't change this because there is no political cost (apparently) to lying and being wrong
Yeah, his re-election proved that. He even thinks he has "political capital".


-Alan Greenspan has switched positions dramatically and, what's worse, has politicized the position. He used the weight and honor of his position to find some way to justify support of Bush, and thereby betrayed the country.
Terrific. Bush somehow manages to either kick his good people out or turn them into ass-kissers.


-There is nothing wrong with Social Security; as it is, it will last for the next 40 years; with a small investment, it will continue for the next 75
Sorta blows a hole in Dubya's rationale for letting people take out their money and invest it instead. (Not to mention that that's a dumb idea. You invest it, you could lose it.)


-All progressive sales tax schemes he has seen seem impractical.
Now that's an interesting take. Did he say why?

[blackfox]

has he said what he's been up to? he hasn't put out a column in over two weeks!
According to the NYT, he is on "book leave" until January. Whether this is to promote a book or research one, I do not know. If he did write a book, I might be interested....fwiw

[stubeeef]

-There is NOTHING good about the Bush administration


With a comment like that who needs to read the rest. It loses any credability, it is like Rush saying all democrats are idiots and worthless.

[skunk]

I agree, that is a bit of a conversation killer :rolleyes:

[IJ Reilly]

With a comment like that who needs to read the rest. It loses any credability, it is like Rush saying all democrats are idiots and worthless.

Which, in effect, he and others do every day. So are you saying you never listen to them?

[stubeeef]

So are you saying you never listen to them?

I stopped listening to Rush in the late 90's, I have stated it in this forum at least 2 or 3 times.
I have listened to boortz once, his rethoric is lost in the anger, as some here.
There are no political radio programs I listen to anymore, unless it is audio of a meet the press or something.

I find lack of humility on a program to be a big turnoff. It is like the TV evangelicals with the opulent sets, big hair, lots of makeup, can't stand'em.

When I get wind of the samething from the left, it makes me as ill.

[themadchemist]

With a comment like that who needs to read the rest. It loses any credability, it is like Rush saying all democrats are idiots and worthless.

Well, the difference is, Krugman followed it up by a pretty thorough treatment of the administration's policies...And he's being honest. This administration is pretty extreme and it's quite possible that people might not be able to find anything positive in it. Almost every policy that I have thought was good has, with more information, proven itself questionable. I have trouble finding anything positive, besides the fact that Bush has spoken of an independent Palestinian state.

Edit: It also made a lot more sense in context...But I can see where this sort of talk is distasteful to you. However, I think the arguments here were a little more cogent and that Krugman has more of a right than most to speak on the economic issues, at least.

[stubeeef]

krugman is a hack (http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/kts200406170833.asp) .

I say that to display IRONY.
My comment being so strong will turn most off to even reading the article.

[themadchemist]

krugman is a hack (http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/kts200406170833.asp) .

I say that to display IRONY.
My comment being so strong will turn most off to even reading the article.

I don't know enough economics to endorse or rebut this argument but...Calling Krugman a hack based on one memo? That seems a little harsh. Heck, I can accuse most people in the Bush administration of being hacks on a lot more evidence than that.

You seem to have a lot lower tolerance to the mistakes of Democrats than to those of Republicans.

[IJ Reilly]

I stopped listening to Rush in the late 90's, I have stated it in this forum at least 2 or 3 times.
I have listened to boortz once, his rethoric is lost in the anger, as some here.
There are no political radio programs I listen to anymore, unless it is audio of a meet the press or something.

I find lack of humility on a program to be a big turnoff. It is like the TV evangelicals with the opulent sets, big hair, lots of makeup, can't stand'em.

When I get wind of the samething from the left, it makes me as ill.

I've asked many times why conservatives fail to disown Limbaugh et. al., and this is the closest to a repudiation I've seen yet. So I will take it.

[skunk]

That was almost gracious.

[stubeeef]

IJ, to that end, why do liberals listen to the right reverand sharpton or jackson. It is the samething, grant me that please.

The hollywood types make me laugh as hard, striesand? I don't by all the swartzanager stuff, but at least he is in politics now. He was doing alot with kids programs before, and not just sending money, and slinging it to ted kennedy at holiday gettogethers. :p Boy would I pay to see that, like watching the osbornes. :p :p :p

I could never understand why they were embraced so by liberals, oh yea now I remember, the money....thats it. Of course embraceing groups for their money is bad when it is a repub, but good for a dem? Cause repubs mow down the enviornment and hate poor people, while dems make the world in balance and hate rich people.

Glad we got this out, I am straight now, conservatives love rush, and liberals love franken.

[themadchemist]

Glad we got this out, I am straight now, conservatives love rush, and liberals love franken.

The difference is that Rush doesn't back his rhetoric up with facts, but Franken does. Franken calls people like Rush out for their lack of involvement in what the Bush administration calls the "reality-based community." Michael Moore might be a more fair comparison, but even he's not as off the mark as Limbaugh. Show me an instance when a prominent liberal wrapped his/her arms around something as wildly false as that swift boat crap.

[stubeeef]

Kerry's war record is all conjecture, he still won't sign the form 180. Why you ask? Well me too! So I have to guess it shines bad light on the war hero crap. Maybe he is waiting for a few more key vets to croak, then he will release the records without anyone to counter'em.

So, embracing his record, is an act of faith. Liberals were embracing it without all the facts. The only counter to this is W's record, which still doesn't answer kerry's lack of upfrontness and honesty about his record. We can go round and round, the fact that you want to refute the facts doesn't change that they are facts. Many believe Rush, and very often he is right (pun intended), I just can't stand him, not his arguments.

The swifty's are not crap.

[themadchemist]

Kerry's war record is all conjecture, he still won't sign the form 180. Why you ask? Well me too! So I have to guess it shines bad light on the war hero crap. Maybe he is waiting for a few more key vets to croak, then he will release the records without anyone to counter'em.

So, embracing his record, is an act of faith. Liberals were embracing it without all the facts. The only counter to this is W's record, which still doesn't answer kerry's lack of upfrontness and honesty about his record. We can go round and round, the fact that you want to refute the facts doesn't change that they are facts. Many believe Rush, and very often he is right (pun intended), I just can't stand him, not his arguments.

The swifty's are not crap.

I'm not going to get into this argument, because it's absolutely ridiculous. If you believe that Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were on the money after it was demonstrated that those who said they were with him were not and those who said they treated him didn't, then I can't help you.

Enjoy your world. Go create some realities. As for me, I'll stick to the "reality-based community," if you don't mind.

[IJ Reilly]

IJ, to that end, why do liberals listen to the right reverand sharpton or jackson. It is the samething, grant me that please.

Do they? I don't, and you will notice that neither one has much of a political following. And you have also failed to demonstrate any similarity between the two people you've referenced (the ones who "liberals listen to"), and the hate-filled rhetoric of a Limbaugh, Hannity or O'Reilly. People on the Right indisputably listen to them, and they've got the ratings to prove it. So no, I will not grant you this point.

[SPG]

This administration is pretty extreme and it's quite possible that people might not be able to find anything positive in it. Almost every policy that I have thought was good has, with more information, proven itself questionable. I have trouble finding anything positive, besides the fact that Bush has spoken of an independent Palestinian state.

Spoken of it to get support, then put all his support behind Sharon and not done anything to create a state that the Palestinians could ever live with, but that's another thread. I just wanted to point out the irony that even the exception to your rule wasn't one at all.

[SPG]

Oh yeah, the (not so)Swift Boat Veterans for (obscuring) Truth are the lowest of the low. They were pissed that someone would question the value of the war they fought in and were personally insulted by it and I don't blame them for feeling that way, it hurts to think that something you thought was right was really wrong. Whether the war in Vietnam was right or wrong can be debated and you can debate the things that Kerry said about it after coming home and fighting to bring the war to an end so others wouldn't have to die for it, but the swifties didn't do that. They attacked the man to make themselves feel better about their past. They made up lies and stretched fragments of the truth to try to undercut his credibility and stature, not to make the Vietnam war seem more justified or valiant a fight.
Oneil, the guy who led this smear campaign was recruited by Nixon to do the same when Kerry was speaking out against Vietnam then. Rove just dusted off the same crew of disgruntled vets for his own purposes.

[themadchemist]

Now that's an interesting take. Did he say why?

Unfortunately, he didn't elaborate. I know it disappointed at least one of my friends, who is a fan of the progressive sales tax. Krugman pretty much categorically dismissed the idea.