Back to the Dark Ages of Feudalism

The Crushing Force of Capitalism
by GILBERT MERCIER


History never repeats itself, but from time to time, consciously or not, some influential men attempt to force us into the monstrosity of their imaginary time machines to try to reverse decades, and in the case of feudalism, almost a millenium of social progress. The mid-20th century brought the years of collective psychosis of Adolf Hitler’s “thousand year Reich,” and more recently what can be viewed as the United States of America’s imperialist manifesto or so-called “Project for the New American Century”, concocted in 1997 but still in effect today under the current administration, with the self-proclaimed objective to “promote American global leadership” resolutely and by military force, if necessary.

Montesquieu and his colleagues of the mid-18th century, such as Voltaire, Diderot and Rousseau of the Age of Enlightenment, denounced feudalism as being a system exclusively dominated by aristocrats who possess all financial, political and social power. During that time, which incubated the French Revolution and built its ideological foundations, feudalism became synonymous with the French monarchy. To the Enlightenment writers, feudalism symbolized everything that was wrong with a system based on birth privilege, inequality and brutal exploitation. In August 1789, shortly after the takeover of La Bastille on July 14, one of the first action of the Assemblee Constituante was to proclaim the official abolition of the “feudal regime.”

Ironically, feudalism is making a comeback in the latest evolution and under the impulse of predatory global capitalism. After all, Karl Marx, in the mid-19th century, considered feudalism to be a precursor of capitalism. Typically a feudal system can be defined as a society with inherited social rank. In the Middle Ages, wealth came exclusively from agriculture: the aristocracy strictly assumed ownership of the land while the serfs provided the labor.

The feudal system of the Dark Ages was the social and economic exploitation of peasants by lords. This led to an economy always marked by poverty, sometimes famine, extreme exploitation and wide gaps between rich and poor. The feudal era relation of a serf to his lord is essentially identical to the relation of a so-called WalMart associate to a heir of the Walton family. If one looks objectively at the power stratum in the US circa 2013, and the one of, let’s say, France circa 1750, it is hard to ignore the startling similarity. For example, attendance at Ivy-League schools in the US is principally an inherited privilege; the same can be said for elected positions in Congress. The concept of dynasties rules, not personal merit.

A powerful network of oligarchs worldwide seems to be pursuing the objective to set back the social clock to before the era of Enlightenment so as to return us to the Dark Ages of lords and serfs: a new era of global slavery to benefit Wall Street’s “masters of the universe.” Compared to the Middle Ages, today’s servitude is more insidious: the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and many private banks operate like mega drug dealers. The IMF and World Bank do so with countries, while the banks do so with individuals. Once Greece, Detroit or John Doe is addicted to its fix — loans in this case — the trick is done. After a while, money must be borrowed even to service the debt.

In a recent cynical opinion piece titled “Detroit, the New Greece”, New York Times columnist and Nobel-prize winning economist Paul Krugman reasoned more like a callous Wall Street operator than someone with the self-proclaimed humanist “conscience of a liberal” by casually calling Detroit a “victim of market forces.”

“Sometimes the losers from economic change are individuals whose skills have become redundant; sometimes they are companies serving a market niche that no longer exist; and sometimes they are whole cities that lose their place in the economic ecosystem,” writes Krugman, forgetting Greece in his laundry list of “innocent victim of these mysterious “market forces.” Krugman concludes his paragraph with: “Decline happens,” as if this is a physical phenomenon, like gravity or magnetism. Like most of the leading international economists, Krugman has adamantly supported the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). Detroit and Greece are not some sort of collateral damage of “market forces” in Krugman’s “decline happens” scenario. Detroit was demolished wholesale by NAFTA, and Greece was enticed to borrow money to join the EURO zone.

The IMF itself recently conceded that the policies it has implemented for Greece resulted in “notable failures.” The IMF failed to push for an immediate restructuring of Greece’s debt, but didn’t prevent money owed by the country before 2010 to private-sector creditors from being fully repaid at the onset of the fiscal crisis. Greece’s overall debt level remained the same, except it was now owned to the Euro-zone taxpayers and the IMF instead of banks and hedge funds. Both Greece and Detroit were targets of a predatory capitalism that sought to downgrade and then shut down all public sectors of an economy.

The “market forces” are not physical phenomena; they are the hyenas and vultures from Wall Street who dismantle and then feed on the carcasses of a city or country. Decline does not just happen; it is engineered by the corporate entities of global capitalism to maximize profit without regard for human costs. It is ultimately up to us, for the common good of human kind, to put wrenches into the well-oiled wheels of this global corporate machine that is breaking our backs by grinding and crushing our accomplishments of more than 250 years to return us to the servitude of feudalism.

No Austerity Has Helped Any Economy

Sunday, 03 February 2013
By Gaius Publius, America Blog | News Analysis

Paul Krugman’s recent column looks at the romance between the “austerians” — the promoters of austerity for economically troubled nations — and the need to inflict pain to get economic gain. His bottom line — no country that has tried austerity has seen a major economic benefit.

My bottom line — add “to its people” to the end of Krugman’s bottom line and you’ve got it exactly. There is an obvious economic benefit, but only for a few.

Let’s start with Krugman. He begins:

Looking for Mister Goodpain

Three years ago, a terrible thing happened to economic policy, both here and in Europe. Although the worst of the financial crisis was over, economies on both sides of the Atlantic remained deeply depressed, with very high unemployment. Yet the Western world’s policy elite somehow decided en masse that unemployment was no longer a crucial concern, and that reducing budget deficits should be the overriding priority.

That’s a familiar story, one we’ve detailed before. The answer to economic crisis is always budget cuts and austerity. Then he pivots to austerian attempts to find an example.

In recent columns, I’ve argued that worries about the deficit are, in fact, greatly exaggerated — and have documented the increasingly desperate efforts of the deficit scolds to keep fear alive. Today, however, I’d like to talk about a different but related kind of desperation: the frantic effort to find some example, somewhere, of austerity policies that succeeded. For the advocates of fiscal austerity — the austerians — made promises as well as threats: austerity, they claimed, would both avert crisis and lead to prosperity.

The column is interesting because it lays out that history. First the example was Ireland, which the head of the European Central Bank said in 2010 was “the role model for all of Europe’s debtor nations.” But events proved them wrong; Ireland is worse off today than it was back then. So then the U.K. became the touted model, until it wasn’t. Then little Latvia, which has recovered some, was pushed forward; but Latvia still has 14% unemployment. Hmm.

Krugman’s conclusion — nowhere in the world is there an example of austerity that works as the austerians said it would. The policy is “wrong on all fronts.” Yet they (Our Betters) still promote it.
 
“All your money are belong to us” — the song of the predator class

Krugman stops there, but I’ll continue with the obvious question. Why do they still promote it? Krugman’s answer, from elsewhere, is the Beltway Bubble and its international equivalent:

my side of the debate is actually paying attention both to the numbers and to the arguments of the other side, while the Very Serious People only listen to each other.

In other words, the poor darlings are just deluded, bubbled, sealed from understanding.

Those whom he calls Very Serious People, I call Our Betters. This difference in language (between his and mine) is indicative of the difference in analysis between Krugman and people like me. The language “Very Serious People” speaks to their role as pundits, opinion-generators and insider-echoists. “Our Betters” speaks about their power role — the role these people play in running our lives (at the Obama and Robert Rubin level) or in serving those who run our lives (at the David Gregory and Joe Scarborough level).

In other words, it’s certainly true that the baronial class and its servants and administrators listen only to each other, and thus reinforce in each other the comforting cover story that they’re only doing what’s in our ultimate good.

But the baronial class is also the predator class and they know precisely where the benefit (for them) always lies. This is the predator class in operation:

The Predator Class in action. If you added the Top .001% to this chart, it would have to be taller than you are.

If you added the Top .1%, the Top .01% and the Top .001% to that chart, you’d need a chart as tall as your room. What the chart calls the “Highest Fifth” includes what I call the “retainers” — administrators, enablers (that’s you, CNN producers) and professionals needed to keep the system working. Everyone else is workers, and look what their hard work got them.

All of the gains of worker productivity (the harder smarter computer-enabled work of the lowest four-fifths) have gone into the pockets of the highest fifth and especially the very top earners. Note that these are individual incomes, not corporate incomes; as I’ve argued elsewhere, the corporation is just the collection device, the force extender, for the CEO class that wholly controls it; shareholder-ownership is the comforting cover story.

This is what James Galbraith calls “the predatory state” — and he means that economically. The predatory state is a state that enables and is controlled by economic predators, extremely wealthy vampires who feed on their fellow citizens. Galbraith (my emphasis):

That the looming debt and deficit crisis is fake is something that, by now, even the most dim member of Congress must know. The combination of hysterical rhetoric, small armies of lobbyists and pundits, and the proliferation of billionaire-backed front groups with names like the “Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget” is not a novelty in Washington. It happens whenever Big Money wants something badly enough.

Big Money has been gunning for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid for decades – since the beginning of Social Security in 1935. The motives are partly financial: As one scholar once put it to me, the payroll tax is the “Mississippi of cash flows.” Anything that diverts part of it into private funds and insurance premiums is a meal ticket for the elite of the predator state.

By “elite” of the predator state, Galbraith means “owners” of the predator state, the top predators themselves. It’s that predatory feeding that produces policies, promises and pronouncements like these that Krugman describes:

Not only have we been ruled by fear of nonexistent threats, we’ve been promised rewards that haven’t arrived and never will.

They’ll say and do anything to get at more dollars; they’ll destroy the planet’s ability to support life itself, all for more dollars. Look again at the chart above. They’ve been looting the country, the government, the schools, the pension plans, your wages, the equity in your home, everything they can get their hands on since Reagan Days. Their only goal — All your money are belong to us. These are true monomaniacs, in the clinical sense.

So yes, they’re self-deluded. But like every feral beast, they also know where the food is. That food is us unless we stop them. And stopping them starts (in my most humble opinion) with naming them and shaming them.

An example of naming — does Obama serve the predators who finance his elections and his looming Legacy & Library Project or does he serve the people who elected him? Ask it loud and proud. The “debt ceiling–sequester” deal is his next chance to show us. As is Keystone, for those who are watching at home. But he can’t show us if we don’t ask him to, and in no uncertain terms.

My advice — dare to be bold, progressives. This game has a fourth quarter, and we’re in it. At some point, the predator will destroy all the prey and then die. Justice for the beast perhaps, but no fun for the already dead.

Paul Krugman Debunks the GOP's 'Confidence Fairy'

New York Times' Paul Krugman talks about the Lesser Depression and the confidence fairy's effect on the American economy.

Krugman Slams Budget Deal: 'There's No Light at the End of This Tunnel'

08.01.11 - NYTimes
If I Were In The House...

Paul Krugman writes this morning:

I guess I have to be explicit at this point: yes, I would vote no.

What about the catastrophe that would result? Several thoughts.

First, what I keep hearing from people who should know is that Treasury won’t actually run out of cash tomorrow, that it still has a few more days.

Second, the people who claim that terrible things would immediately happen in the markets also claimed that there would be a big relief rally once a deal was struck. Not so much: the Dow is down 121 right now.

Third, the idea that a temporary disruption would permanently damage faith in US institutions now seems moot; if you haven’t already lost faith in US institutions, you’re not paying attention.

Fourth, those legal options are still there. Obama can move now; and even if he eventually loses in the courts, that gives him time.

Sure, it’s risky. But the whole situation is immensely risky, thanks to the extremism and bloody-mindedness of the right. There are no safe options, and trying to play it safe when there is no safety lands you, well, where Obama is right now.

The Market and Inequality

Progressives Lose When They Accept the Right's Framing
By DEAN BAKER

Paul Krugman joined a debate on the morality of markets, arguing that the United States has not met the fundamental condition of equality of opportunity that libertarian conservatives agree is necessary for fairness. While this is true (only in looney tune land does a kid growing up in Anacostia have the same opportunity as a kid growing up in Chevy Chase), this argument wrongly cedes the main point to the right.

It is ridiculous to argue that the inequality in the U.S. is simply the result of free markets. Markets are structured by governments, and the rich have used their control of the government to structure the market in ways to make themselves richer.

The mechanisms for upward redistribution can be seen everywhere. Most recently the government bailouts of too big to fail banks meant that the top executives of Citigroup, Goldman, and the rest could continue to draw paychecks in the tens of millions of dollars. The implicit government guarantee enjoyed by these institutions amounts to a subsidy of tens of billions each year that is divided among their higher paid employees and their shareholders.

Patent and copyright monopolies are another way in which the government redistributes income upward. The income from these government granted monopolies flows overwhelmingly to people in the top 10 percent of the income distribution. These interventions in the market serve a purpose, but there are other ways to support research and creative activity that are more efficient and lead to less inequality.

The pattern of trade pursued by the United States over the last three decades, in which less educated workers are placed in competition with low-paid workers in the developing world, while the most highly educated workers are largely protected, also increases inequality. This effect is increased as a result of the over-valued dollar.

Federal Reserve Board policy that explicitly sacrifices employment in order to insure against inflation also has the effect of redistributing income upward. When the Fed raises interest rates to keep the unemployment rate from falling too low it is factory workers and store clerks who lose their jobs, not doctors and lawyers. Of course, the main beneficiaries of lower inflation are bondholders who would see their wealth eroded by higher inflation.

Governments also write the rules of corporate governance. In the United States these rules allow top executives to pilfer their companies. The top executives of Toyota, Hyundai, KLM and other huge foreign corporations all get well paid. But their compensation is likely to be measured in the low millions, not the tens or even hundreds of millions pocketed by CEOs in the United States. The difference is that the laws of corporate governance apply more of a check on the behavior of top management in other countries.

The role of government in determining market outcomes is easy to see for those who bother to look. It is understandable that conservatives, who want to like to see more income flowing to the top, would argue that inequality was just the result of the natural workings of the market. It far more difficult to see why progressives would ever accept such nonsense.

An Economic Disaster

Redefining "Small"
By DEAN BAKER

The economy is a goddamn disaster and President Obama deserves as much of the blame as anybody. Sorry, I am not on the Dems' payroll so I couldn't contain myself when I read Bernard Avishai's trashing of Paul Krugman.

Avishai's basic narrative is about 150 percent wrong. He describes the differences between Krugman and the Obama Administration as "small." Right, and it depends on what your definition of "is" is.

Let's pick just a few of these differences.

Krugman loudly and clearly complained that the stimulus package was too small from the onset. Avishai tells us that the brilliant political strategists in the Obama Administration calculated the maximum amount that they could get through Congress and adjusted their request accordingly.

Perhaps this is true; perhaps there is no way that Obama could have gotten another dime out of Congress. But every person who knows economics knew that the stimulus was less than half the size it should have been. Given this, why on Earth did Obama and his minions start running around with their talk of "green shoots of recovery," instead of laying the groundwork for more stimulus?

The line the day after the stimulus passed should have been: "This is a good start, but we lost $1.2 trillion in annual demand from the private sector because of the collapse of the housing bubble. The net stimulus from the government sector will be $150 billion a year ($300 billion from the federal government, minus $150 billion in cutbacks at the state and local level). Since $1.2 trillion in lost demand from the private sector is much larger than our $150 billion net stimulus from the public sector, we can't expect to get back on our feet without doing more."

Would Obama have been able to prod Congress for more stimulus by telling the truth? Who knows, but at least then he would be putting forward a coherent story on the economy.

What is his story now? He has managed to completely discredit the idea of stimulus even to millions of Democrats when this is the only force that can be counted on to restore the economy to full employment any time soon.

Avishai claims that Obama took steps to keep people in their home. Really? The most obvious effect of HAMP is to keep people paying their mortgages to the bank until they get foreclosed.

If Obama was actually interested in keeping people in their homes the obvious tools would have been cramdown legislation or Right to Rent. Obama has not been seen in the neighborhood of either since he took office. In fact, his latest line is that the government should not do anything to slow the robo foreclosures. He claims these are necessary for the stability of the housing market. Yet there is already a huge shadow inventory of foreclosed homes that are being held off the market until the supply diminishes. It is hard to see any end being served in this story than the banks' desire to clean up their cesspool as quickly as possible.

Avishai seems to take pride in his ignorance: "It is still not clear just what state action will produce the kinds of sustainable jobs and wages Krugman takes for granted when he speaks about, say, the Japanese government acting against the liquidity traps of the 1990s."

Sure it's clear. The government needs to spend money. People work for money - it's an old economic principle. In the long-term we have to get the dollar down so that our trade deficit gets closer to balance. The high dollar and the resulting trade deficit led to the fundamental imbalances that provided the basis for the stock bubble in the 90s and the housing bubble in the last decade. Of course the high dollar policy was designed Robert Rubin and Larry Summers back in the 1990s, which may be part of the reason that President Obama is reluctant to ever present a clear picture of how we got into our current economic morass.

If he wants to go after the rich and combat inequality why isn't President Obama pushing a financial speculation tax. The financial sector is a gigantic source of economic waste and a main promulgator of economic inequality. Even the IMF has argued that the financial sector is a source of economic rents and should be taxed more.

Instead of going after the financial sector, President Obama sets up a deficit commission where the Democratic co-chair is a board member of a bailed-out bank who gets paid $340,000 a year for having lunch four times a year. Immediately after being appointed, Erskine Bowles, the Morgan Stanley board member, announced that he wants to cut Social Security benefits for ordinary workers.

The differences between a progressive economic agenda and President Obama's policies are hardly small, at least measured in terms of the range of U.S. political options. They are a gigantic chasm. Krugman has tried to educate people on the key economic issues facing the country. He has consistently been fair and even generous to the Obama Administration. (He even has repeated the nonsense about preventing a second Great Depression.) The truth might hurt sometimes, but that doesn't make it any less true.

Obama Economic Team Bails, System Fails to Generate Jobs

Are the Causes, Um, 'Structural'?
by Danny Schechter | Monday, August 9, 2010 by CommonDreams.org

In Washington, the Obama economic team has sprung a leak. First, Budget Director Peter Orszag, the calculating numbers savant, bailed. And now, "distinguished" economist Christina Romer, the only woman in that inner circle boys club has quit too. (Would you want to be around Larry Summers all day long?)

Why this crew of losers wasn't fired eludes me despite their claims of having prevented a worse collapse. No doubt, they know more than they are saying, and, perhaps, now that they are no longer selling, they may be willing to do some telling on just how bad it is and what went wrong.

Who's next? Could Ben Bernanke be leaving the Fed for Fed-Ex?

Economist Max Wolfe has none of the political restraints of power. At the news of another 131, 000 jobs gone, at all the talk of permanent unemployment as the "new normal," he sighed with a tinge of optimism:

"We have been in the present labor market swoon since December 2007. We are 30 months into the process. Nearly everything is not getting worse fast. Most economic indicators have seen slow, uneven progress. We are a weary nation and hope, is running low. All lethality is dosage and we have received a massive dosage- an overdose- of bad economic news since the winter of 2007. Things are getting ever so slightly less bad in the aggregate.

"The sheriffs of this rough economic neighborhood are running low and out of ammunition. The populace is fed up. Our Sheriffs are The Treasury and The Fed and they have spent, cut taxes, slashed rates, bought securities and ballooned their balance sheets. They have made the bad less worse, but not appreciable better enough for many. All that economic toxin still pumps the blood of this economy. Now, the state is having a contractionary direct impact on employment."

"Contractionary"? I am a first-time contractionary word user so I will leave it to Stephen Colbert to take that term apart, but it can't be a good thing.

The bigger surprise is being buried. The more serious problem is more systemic and rooted in the structure of our economy. These structural problems used to be referenced to show how deep the rot goes and why more fundamental reforms are needed, but now, as Paul Krugman has argued, this very idea is now being used to encourage acceptance of the problems because they are beyond repair, as in, "we can't change that because it is, so, um, 'structural'!") Thus, the existing power relations can't be questioned because they are the existing power relations

Makes sense, doesn't it?

Part of the problem is that while the livelihoods of workers and homeowners are sinking, the economic and political elite is doing just fine, as the Automatic Earth Website explains:

"Perhaps what we witness is an ongoing and deepening chasm that divides the world of finance and politics on the one hand and the world of everyday people on the other, as Rasmussen Reports indicates: 67% of Political Class Say U.S. Heading in Right Direction, 84% of Mainstream Disagrees. This chasm was greatly facilitated by governments relying on policies based on the notion that too-big-to-fail -financial- institutions needed to be bailed out at any cost. Later in the year, as a direct consequence of these policies, we will see another round of insane banker and trader bonuses, just as citizens' sentiments and incomes fall, and unemployment and poverty keep rising."

When you create and enable a casino economy, the public becomes a player too, taking risks they shouldn't at the behest of bankers and finance companies who assure them all is fine.

Last week, Countrywide, the country's mortgage fraud factory, reached a settlement with the SEC for more than Goldman Sachs settled its last complaint for a whopping $600 million. Their shark-in-chief, Anthony Mozillo, still facing a criminal investigation, later said he was pleased when the federal regulators admitted that the investors were not defrauded, because they knew what kind of projects they were funding. How reassuring!

So the circle of complicity widens. We now learn that the companies and individuals that invested in the subprime/subcrime mortgages KNEW people were being ripped off but did it anyway because there was so much money to be made.

And because security laws only protect investors, who were defrauded, many have no case. What about the borrowers, the homeowners now facing foreclosure? They are apparently not worthy of protection. This is comparable to the Madoff investors who profited in his illegal scheme and knew his returns were too good to be true but shoveled money to him anyway. They became partners in the ponzi, not just "victims" trying to be made whole.

Is anything changing? The banks say they will not change the way they finance mortgages so it is still buyer beware. The Wall Street Journal reports another instant crash of the markets is possible. And General Motors that was down and on the way out is back thanks to the government's largesse but sniping at its rescuers, insisting an end to government ownership would be good for their image and "employee morale." Huh?

"We want the government out period," blusters GM's ungrateful CEO Edward E. Whitacre Jr. This same company recently spent $3.5 billion buying a new subprime lending company to replace GMAC, the GM lender whose bad loans sunk GM. On top of that, these geniuses just produced The Volt electric car that sells for $40,000, hardly a brilliant move in this economy. Of course they blame all their problems on the government, never themselves.

Like so many others, they seem to be banging on Obama, everyone's target of choice. If that's your inclination, let's blame him also for what he has not done.

He hasn't led a consistent push back against Wall Street, perhaps because he hopes in vain that big business will create private sector jobs and wants to show naysayers how pro-business he really is. This has turned him into an inversion of FDR.

As Ezra Klein of the Washington Post observed:

"The reality is that America's supposedly anti-business president has led an extremely pro-business recovery. Businesses are sitting on about $2 trillion in cash reserves. Business spending jumped 20 percent last quarter, and is up by 13 percent against 2009. The Obama administration has dropped taxes for small businesses and big ones alike."

So much for that canard.

Is there anything to be done? There is no shortage of proposals for jobs programs and taxes on transactions, for tougher rules on derivatives, and imposed compensation limits. In most cases the US, with pressure from Wall Street and its political allies, has opted for easily maneuvered around and malleable regulations.

One small reform has been proposed by the much-maligned Ralph Nader for those of us who live in the appropriately named "Empire State," one that currently shelters a Wall Street where hedge fund managers make billions.

Nader notes, "Low-moderate and middle-income New Yorkers already pay a higher percentage of family income in state and local taxes than do the richest one percent of New Yorkers!

"Surprisingly, there is a simple way to eliminate the state deficit and prevent tens of thousands of layoffs and large service cutbacks.

What most New Yorkers do not know is that for about a century there has been a state stock transfer tax on purchases of securities. This year, this tax, similar to ones imposed in 30 other countries, will amount to about $16 billion. Amazingly, since 1979, this tax has been instantly rebated by New York State back to the brokers or clearinghouses who paid it. A 100% rebate every year for the bailed out industry that caused the recession and its immense human damage."

Putting a stop this sleazy practice could be as important in phasing out the Bush tax cuts but so far it's not on anyone's agenda, Dems, Repugs or Media.

Maybe because they think of it as "structural."

Paul Krugman Gives Up

(I waffle on my regard for Krugman. At one point in 2008, I was hoping Obama would pick him for Treasury Secretary. But his cheerleading for Obama's economic team's horrible decisions which have indefinitely postponed any sort of recovery for everyone except corporations and banks--who are doing fine but not hiring--left me questioning what I saw in him previously. Then, he'd write an excellent column in which I agreed point by point with him, then something else in the negative column attributed to him would pop out of nowhere. I honestly consider Paul Krugman mostly enigmatic at this point.--jef)

***

By Fred Douglass | August 03, 2010

A marvelous thing happened over on Paul Krugman's blog at the New York Times last week. Krugman effectively conceded defeat on a range of economic debates. Who defeated him? People who posted comments on his New York Times blog. Mere commenters.

For those who do not know, Paul Krugman is one of the few who still claim that Keynesian progressivism is the answer to America's (and Europe's) problems, not their cause. He repeats that claim many times each month. Amid these repeated expressions of his "progressive" faith, he now also repeatedly expresses grim despair because his progressive policy prescriptions are being accepted less and less in the public square, even by the Obama administration.

Krugman is an academic. He has never run a company. He has never created a job. The closest contact he evidently ever had to "business" was as an adviser to Enron, where (in his own words) he was paid $50,000 to help build Enron's "image."

This, perhaps, explains the dozen or so points that Krugman makes over and over. Here are a few: Obama's stimulus was too small. Debt is good. Austerity is bad. Deflation is coming. Ken Rogoff,Greg Mankiw, Alberto Alesina (all at Harvard), and other serious economic scientists do not understand economics as well as he does. Those who do not agree with him are "mass delusional." And perhaps Krugman's favorite line: "I was right, of course."

Befitting his ideology, Krugman has only one policy to propose, regardless of topic: Transfer more resources from the discipline and dynamism of markets to the inefficiency and cronyism of government.

Government-run health care. Government-controlled banks. Government bailouts. High taxes. High spending. Krugman wants it all, just like in Europe (which, in 2008, he called "the comeback continent"). And Krugman has no problems denying economic science and current events to advocate it.

With the meltdown in Europe so obviously the consequence of too much Krugmanism and U.S. unemployment near 10% after a trillion dollars in stimulus, Krugman has attracted some criticism.

For example, Robert Barro, the distinguished Harvard economist, noted that Krugman "just says whatever is convenient for his political argument. He doesn't behave like an economist." The New York Times ombudsman Daniel Okrent observed that Paul Krugman has "the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults." James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal, after listing the falsities in Krugman's latest piece on climate last week, hazarded that perhaps "Krugman makes himself ridiculous merely to make our job easy."

But no matter how low Krugman's fallacious fruit hangs, Krugman has long been comfortable among the acolytes who frequently post on his blog. A representative post is: "Paul, you are a God-send for those of us who appreciate a superior intellect with common sense! Thanks for applying your brilliance." Or this: "Paul, dig deep dude. You are brilliant." It was hardly surprising that last January, Krugman declared, "I love my commenters."

No longer.

For just as Krugman was declaring his love for his blog commenters last January, people started posting serious rebuttals of Krugman's standard claims about economics. These commenters were not obviously Republican stooges. They were not obviously members of "the political class." They were not obvious ideologues.

Rather, the posters simply knew some economic science and how jobs are created and economies grow, perhaps because they were members of "the productive class." And they came prepared to support their rebuttals of Krugman's ideology and his singular policy prescription by facts and peer-reviewed economic science.

For six months, they made Krugman's blog one of the more informative and interesting places to hear economics debated. In part, this was because they gave Krugman a serious run. Their posts were long, near the 5,000-character limit set by the New York Times. They were reasoned. They were knowledgeable. They carried citations to economic science literature that one might expect in a Ph.D. dissertation.

And so their rebuttals were often decisive.

For example, when Krugman a month ago drew one of his famous "trend lines" based on a single point, a blogger named rjh immediately responded, "These trend lines you are drawing all over the place. Pardon my French, they are complete garbage." And nearly half of Krugman's commenters joined to point out that Krugman was arguing junk. Krugman was forced to make two defensivereplies; both were immediately refuted.

Responding to Krugman's praise for the high taxes in Europe and his repeated denial that tax cuts might stimulate an economy enough to make up for revenues lost, a European posting under his initialsjg pointed out that the low Reagan-Clinton tax rates made "being an entrepreneur interesting again. All those internet startups like eBay, Amazon or Netscape would probably never have been created if it weren't possible for the inventors to get rich." This anti-progressive notion that the "evil rich" might actually create growth if they were not taxed -- on his "personal" blog, no less -- must have made Paul spit up his morning coffee.

But things got worse for the professor. Matching Krugman's repeated claim that the "stimulus" was too small, Sean produced peer-reviewed economic science from Alesina, who examined 92 attempts at stimulus since 1970 in OECD countries and found that tax cuts, but not spending, stimulated. Krugman stammered a reply, but the damage was done; his acolytes had learned that economic science existed that contradicted Krugman's claim (central to Obama's "stimulus" legislation) that government's spending your money helps an economy.

Matching Krugman's claim that government can "create wealth by printing money," several posterscited the latest economic science showing that the "multipliers" that Keynesians use are wrong. They further noted that Krugman had used these wrong multipliers seventeen months ago to predictincorrectly that Obama's stimulus package would keep unemployment below 9%.

And so Krugman's blog presented the most unforgivable conclusion: Krugman had actually been wrong. As he had been when he advocated low interest rates and the creation of a housing price inflation in 2001, one of the causes of current economic difficulties.

Things then got still worse. When Krugman repeated his claim that Bush's tax cuts had "caused" the deficit and damaged the economy, commenters first taught Krugman how to count. They then citedtwo papers by the Romers showing that tax cuts help economies. Christina Romer is, of course, the chief economic advisor to President Obama.

When Krugman repeated one of his "debt is good" posts, posters linked to the economic science from Reinhardt and Rogoff showing that high debt is inimical to economic recovery.

Occasionally, Krugman attempted a reply. For example, he dissembled that Reinhardt and Rogoff had "highlighted" a single postwar American experience, which he dismissed as "spurious." The commenters did not let him get away with it. Within 24 hours, Sean had pointed out that Reinhardt and Rogoff had found similar effects of debt in six countries on three continents over four decades, including Canada, Japan, Greece, and Belgium. Krugman then struggled to find something "spurious" about each of these. Sean's rebuttal showed that Krugman was refusing to meet any burden of proof. Still worse, Samuel showed that Krugman's reasoning, if applied generally, would forever insulate Krugman's ideology from any refutation of any kind.

...Which is perhaps what Paul Krugman wants, but it is not economic science.

Krugman's blog commenters were especially relentless in pointing out his inconsistencies. In one post, Krugman admitted that "politicians will always find ways to shield the powerful." Posters piled on, pointing out that Krugman's universal policy prescription gave politicians more power under the assumption that they would defend "the proletariat." Krugman replied that he was "sure that there's a large literature" on government cronyism and corruption. Secure in his big-government ideology, he admitted that he had never read that literature. But like the ideologue that he is, Krugman then expressed his faith (the only word appropriate) that "bureaucracy will do a heckuva job" if it is not "downgraded and devalued." Bloggers responded by citing the latest economic science showing the impossibility of Krugman's "utopian dictatorship-by-bureaucracy."

Paul Krugman has spent his career as a pundit advocating that government bureaucrats and political process replace markets. He knows that there is a large literature that says that this is a bad idea. That literature is transparently relevant to Krugman's only policy proposal. And yet Krugman has not read it...and admits that he has not read it, without embarrassment.

By July, Krugman had lost his "Battle of the Blog." On July 23, Latrina commented, "Who is this Sean from Florida? He takes everything that [the] Professor [says] and shreds it, piece by piece. He shouldn't be allowed to post his comments on this blog since he seems to be winning all the debates. We progressives need to stick together and embellish our talking points without someone from the outside pointing out fallacies in our ideology."

Krugman had also had enough. On July 23, Krugman showed that he was clearly no longer "in love" with his commenters. Now he called them "ranters" and "trolls." On July 28, Krugman changed his comment moderation policy. Claiming that "ranters ... say the same thing every time," Krugman announced that he was going to throw away posts longer than "three inches." His thinking must have been thus: Three inches are sufficient to write "Krugman is brilliant," but not sufficient to present a documented and persuasive rebuttal to whichever of Krugman's standard arguments he was peddling that day.

Within 24 hours, those outside the Times had taken notice. Stephen Spruiell at the NRO noted the absurdity of Krugman's complaint that bloggers might use the same responses to rebut Krugman's repeated statements of the same ideology. Wrote Spruiell:

This [is] from the guy who has spent the entire summer rewriting the same blog post", Spruiell went on to point out that "Krugman's sycophants ... also say the same thing every time." "Krugman's policy seems geared to limit comments to "Yay Dr. K!" "Way to go!" "Keynes was right!" etc.

As indeed it has. Krugman's blog the day after the policy change had just six comments the last time I looked. "Hurray," said one. "Awesome!!" said another.

In his appearance on Sunday on "This Week," Krugman repeated his attack on Rogoff. He repeated his claim that he, a deflationista, "was right." Regulars could go to Krugman's blog and download the economic science that showed that Krugman was blowing smoke on "This Week," a gig that may pay Krugman more than even Enron.

And so after his ride back to Princeton, Krugman pulled the plug. He twice scolded "whiners," claiming that this blog under the New York Times masthead was "a personal not-for-pay venture." He claimed that he was burdened by needing to see if posts contained "obscenities" (none had, other than the "French" cited above). And he declared that he has "no obligation to provide" space for "ranters" and "whiners" who might rebut the ideology that he routinely markets.

Of course not. It is his blog. But it is newsworthy that after years of allowing 5,000-character responses consistent with Times policy, Krugman pulled the plug just as he was so obviously losing the debate. The academic world and the business world share something: They both view this as an admission of defeat.

Krugman is also "losing the audience." Eighteen months ago, Krugman's progressive ideology that was the consensus of the president, the House, the Senate, and not a few Republicans. Now, the Obama administration is evidently worried that it bought economic snake oil from Keynesians like Krugman. Even Ezra Klein is beginning to question the Keynesian economic models of Blinder and Zandi that "got it so wrong."

And so a six-month episode of enlightening economic debate has come to a close. Will Krugman respond to posts on other blogs? We do not know, but routinely in the past, he simply refuses to do so. He is clearly unable to do so, and, surrounded now sycophants and acolytes who tell him how brilliant he is, why should he even bother to try?

Blaming the blogosphere for Democratic Failures

(Boy, if nothing else does, this TOTALLY epitomizes the cliche of the "whiny Democrats." 

"Whaaaaaaa! The left-wing blogs are trying to make us keep our campaign promises! Whaaaaa! They won't let us be centrist and inneffectual. Whaaaaaaa! They don't want us to do the bidding of our corporate masters! Whaaaaaaa!" 

Boy, I know a certain "party of pussies" who's about to get their asses handed to them come November. Ouch!--jef)

***

By Ian Welsh Friday Jul 16, 2010

So. In response to a Politico piece in which the authors and White House whine about the left wing blogosphere not being happy with all of Obama's "wins" and not caring about potential losses in 2010, Kevin Drum writes:

Here's the good news: this record of progressive accomplishment officially makes Obama the most successful domestic Democratic president of the last 40 years. And here's the bad news: this shoddy collection of centrist, watered down, corporatist sellout legislation was all it took to make Obama the most successful domestic Democratic president of the last 40 years. Take your pick.

Here's the thing. What matters is whether policy works. It does not matter if what Obama did was more left wing than anything that's been done in a while (though in absolute terms I would argue it mostly wasn't left wing, the health care plan, for example, was essentially a Republican plan from the 90s), what matters is if it was left wing enough (big enough stimulus, smart enough health care plan) to improve people's lives enough that they noticed.

It wasn't, and that's all that matters. Policies such as the stimulus were not done well enough, and everyone from Nobel prize winners with good predictive records like Stiglitz and and Krugman, down to nobodies like me, predicted it at the time. The President hired the wrong people to give him advice, didn't even do as much as many of them wanted, and now we all pay the price.

Sometimes half doesn't work. Half-assed rarely does. All Obama's half assed "left wing" policies have done is discredit the left for another generation. Combined with the ability of the media, Republicans and hysterical Tea Baggers unable to use a dictionary to define him as a "socialist" this means that Obama's policies are seen as left wing, and left wing policies are seen to have failed.

I don't want Obama doing anything I agree with, because he will screw it up and discredit it. In this respect he is like Bush. He is poison because he is incompetent at policy.

As for the original Politico post, the hysterical ranting at the peanut gallery the authors clearly don't even read, says more about them and the White House than it does about the left wing blogosphere they try to blame for Democrats own failures.

Pass the Damn Unemployment Benefits!

by steve benen | July 5, 2010

This post originally appeared on Washington Monthly.

Senate Democrats have spent quite a bit of time lately trying to pass extended unemployment benefits, but to no avail — Senate Republicans and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) refuse to let the chamber vote because, as they see it, the deficit is more important than the economy.

All available evidence suggests this is a terrible mistake, not only for the added hardship on struggling families, but also for the economy, that benefits from stimulative jobless aid which is invariably spent. For decades, extended unemployment benefits during difficult economic times, financed through deficit spending, was a political no-brainer that enjoyed bipartisan support. As the GOP moves sharply to the far-right, those days are over.

Republican arguments vary, though most simply conclude “deficit = bad,” but one approach is especially problematic. Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), the Senate’s second-highest ranking Republican, believes that extended aid for the jobless makes unemployment worse, “continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work.”

Paul Krugman considers whether this makes any sense at all.

Do unemployment benefits reduce the incentive to seek work? Yes: workers receiving unemployment benefits aren’t quite as desperate as workers without benefits, and are likely to be slightly more choosy about accepting new jobs. The operative word here is “slightly”: recent economic research suggests that the effect of unemployment benefits on worker behavior is much weaker than was previously believed. Still, it’s a real effect when the economy is doing well.

But it’s an effect that is completely irrelevant to our current situation. When the economy is booming, and lack of sufficient willing workers is limiting growth, generous unemployment benefits may keep employment lower than it would have been otherwise. But as you may have noticed, right now the economy isn’t booming — again, there are five unemployed workers for every job opening. Cutting off benefits to the unemployed will make them even more desperate for work — but they can’t take jobs that aren’t there.

Wait: there’s more. One main reason there aren’t enough jobs right now is weak consumer demand. Helping the unemployed, by putting money in the pockets of people who badly need it, helps support consumer spending. That’s why the Congressional Budget Office rates aid to the unemployed as a highly cost-effective form of economic stimulus. And unlike, say, large infrastructure projects, aid to the unemployed creates jobs quickly — while allowing that aid to lapse, which is what is happening right now, is a recipe for even weaker job growth, not in the distant future but over the next few months.

Someone really ought to let Jon Kyl and his GOP colleagues know. Unless their goal is to hurt the economy, they’ll no doubt want to reverse course and allow the Senate to vote on extended unemployment benefits the moment lawmakers return next week.

Paul Krugman Vs. Alan Greenspan On Deficits

June 18, 2010 by Huffington Post

Krugman Predicts Painful Road if Deficit Hypocrites Prevail 
by Ryan McCarthy

We don't know for sure that New York Times columnist Paul Krugman and former Federal Reserve chief Alan Greenspan had each other in mind when they penned diametrically opposed op-eds, both of which ran today. But, we can hope.

Start with their titles. Greenspan's Wall Street Journal piece is dubbed "U.S. Debt and the Greece Analogy" (You can guess where that piece is headed.) Ever the Keynesian, Krugman's piece is titled, "That '30s Feeling."

The key issue for both Krugman and Greenspan, of course, is deficits and spending. For Krugman, the world's recent turn toward austerity, evinced by Congress's recent refusal to extend unemployment benefits and cutbacks in social services across Europe, is a sign that governments are afraid to spend enough to stimulate economic growth. "Suddenly, creating jobs is out, inflicting pain is in," he writes.

Greenspan, for his part, is more concerned with looming pain than current economic hardships. Noting that in the last 18 months, the U.S. deficit has ballooned to 8.6 trillion from $5.5 trillion, Greenspan argues that the world needs "tectonic shift in fiscal policy." And, growth, he posits can't and won't come from government spending. (Though, to be fair, other than budget cuts, Greenspan offers no alternative to government spending to boost the economy.) Here's Greenspan:

"We cannot grow out of these fiscal pressures. The modest-sized post-baby-boom labor force, if history is any guide, will not be able to consistently increase output per hour by more than 3% annually. The product of a slowly growing labor force and limited productivity growth will not provide the real resources necessary to meet existing commitments. (We must avoid persistent borrowing from abroad. We cannot count on foreigners to finance our current account deficit indefinitely.)"

Krugman -- nor any major economist following the crisis -- has ever argued that we can continue to borrow cheaply from foreign countries indefinitely. The larger problem, he suggests, is that here in the states politicians are deeply inconsistent about which benefits get cut in the continuing push to trim Federal spending. Here's Krugman.

"In America, many self-described deficit hawks are hypocrites, pure and simple: They're eager to slash benefits for those in need, but their concerns about red ink vanish when it comes to tax breaks for the wealthy. Thus, Senator Ben Nelson, who sanctimoniously declared that we can't afford $77 billion in aid to the unemployed, was instrumental in passing the first Bush tax cut, which cost a cool $1.3 trillion. "

Greenspan warns of "growing analogies to Greece" -- a comparison Krugman has refuted more than once. The economic recovery should, in fact, bring the deficit down,Krugaman wrote in May, adding in an interview NPR that austerity should come only after the economy has begun to trend upward.

The Big Break Up

Why Paul Krugman is Wrong on Too Big to Fail
By DEAN BAKER

It’s not often that I disagree with Paul Krugman, but there are occasions where at least one of us is wrong. And the treatment of too-big-to-fail (TBTF) banks is one of them.

Krugman argued in a column last week that breaking up the TBTF banks is not a necessary part of financial reform. Krugman pointed to the example of Canada as a country with a well-regulated financial system. Canada did not experience a financial crisis in 2008 in spite of the fact that five big banks essentially account for the whole of the Canadian banking system. On the other side, Krugman noted that the collapse of large numbers of small banks can also create a crisis, pointing to the chain of bank collapses at the start of the Great Depression.

These are valid points, but to paraphrase Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz: “We’re not in Canada anymore.” While Canadian banking regulation appears to have been effective thus far (we may want to see how they cope with a yet-to-deflate housing bubble before pronouncing it a success), Canada is a very different country from the United States. In Canada, they have had universal Medicare for 40 years. As the first President Bush used to say, it is a kindler, gentler country.

This matters for financial regulation, because there is a level of independenceand integrity on the part of the regulators in Canada that does not exist in the United States. The line in Washington is that if you want to talk to someone from Goldman Sachs, call the Treasury Department.

The close connection between the industry and the regulators matters because regulation will always require judgment calls. It also matters because regulation means limiting bank profits. The regulations are by definition about preventing banks from carrying on lines of business that are profitable.

Going back to the last crisis, our regulators should have cracked down on the junk mortgages that were being issued by the millions to buy homes at bubble-inflated prices. But this would have meant clamping down on banks that were making huge profits issuing the loans. It also would have meant clamping down on the investment banks that were making huge profits packaging them into securities and selling these securities all over the world.

To take an even more extreme case, the recent analysis of the Lehman bankruptcy showed that the New York Federal Reserve Bank helped to hide Lehman’s insolvency for months. It accepted Lehman’s junk as collateral for short-term loans. This was a direct violation of the Fed’s charter, which only allows it to accept investment grade assets as collateral, a definition that clearly did not include Lehman’s “Repo 105s.”

In these cases, our regulators instead used their judgment to decide that everything was just fine and looked the other way. Remarkably, no regulator was fired for these astounding failures in judgment. In fact, there was probably not even a single regulator who missed a promotion.

In the United States it will always be easy for regulators to look the other way, even when the ultimate consequences prove to be disastrous. By contrast, cracking down on politically connected banks is difficult for regulators. The banks’ executives will call their friends in the administration and Congress to complain about the crazy regulator who is trying to keep them from running their business.

And, you can be sure that the banks will have a story. They pay smart people lots of money to develop those stories. The banks’ mouthpieces will make a conscientious regulator look like a crazed vigilante who just doesn’t understand modern finance. Just ask Brooksley Born, the head of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission who was stopped in her effort to regulate credit default swaps back in 1998.

Krugman is right that breaking up the banks does not guarantee good regulation. In addition to his Great Depression example, we also have the S&L disaster of the 80s. The S&Ls were overwhelmingly small institutions with even the largest being far below any conceivable TBTF threshold.

However, a break-up of the big banks will at least give the country some hope that things can change. As it stands now, the big banks are back on their feet, and in some cases more profitable than ever, feasting on the now explicit government guarantee of support in the event of a crisis. By my calculations, this guarantee could be worth as much as $34 billion a year, more than one-third of the gross cost of the health care bill.

There are many aspects of regulatory reform that involve technical issues that the public will not follow. If we have to say what is different the day after financial reform is passed, rules on leverage limits and exchange-traded derivatives will not mean much, especially if they are enforced by people who accept Repo 105s as investment grade collateral.

If we break up Citigroup, Goldman, JP Morgan and the other giants, then we will know that something has changed. This break-up, along with a financial speculation tax, will lead to a qualitatively different financial industry.