Sqrl said:
Akvod said:
Sqrl said:
Personally? Yes I am against extending benefits to 126 weeks. But that is not what I was saying here.
What I have said is that this article opens my eyes to how much of a political hack Krugman is (or at least can be), and that I had prior to this respected him as someone I disagree with but whom was reasonable and worth considering. That unfortunately is no longer the case.
Why has this article changed my mind?
1) Krugamn happily explains to the reader that normally jobless benefits terminate after 26 weeks and that right now the average unemployment lasts 35 weeks. What Krugman doesn't say is that the current duration of benefits is already extended past the normal 26 weeks to 99 weeks in the states with >8.5% unemployment (and 93 weeks or more everywhere else). In short we are already well beyond the average duration of benefits and nearly 4 times the 26 weeks he implies to his readers the current duration is. This isn't the kind of missing context that he simply forgot to give, the whole article is crafted to attack the right and republicans specifically for blocking the extension and this impression that they need to be extended is central to that idea, it is in fact the crux of the issue. And since he can't achieve that goal nearly as effectively if people know that jobless benefits already are lasting for just shy of 2 years he misrepresents the truth.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/11/06/unemployment-extension-adds-up-to-99-weeks-of-benefits/
2) Krugman says "By the heartless, I mean Republicans who have made the cynical calculation that blocking anything President Obama tries to do including, or perhaps especially, anything that might alleviate the nation’s economic pain improves their chances in the midterm elections. ", ignoring the fact that Republicans have said, and are still saying that they are willing to support and vote in favor of extending benefits if we will simply find the money in the budget to cover the costs associated with doing so. And in fact a GoP bill was put forth to use unallocated funds from the Stimulus and has received zero backing from Dem leadership. Considering how dire Krugman and others have made this issue out to be, and considering Obama supported and signed the Pay-Go provision..you would think this would be a reasonable request, no? Well apparently not, because Krugman neglects to mention it (presumably because Krugman personally disagrees with Pay-Go).
3) Next, Krugman rails against Sharron Angle (ie Krugman writes "By the clueless I mean people like Sharron Angle") for making the case that unemployment benefits are seen as preferable to getting a job for some people. But in doing so he ignores that this view is hardly the exclusive domain of the right and instead focuses his ire only on members of the GoP. Just look at Obama NEC director Larry Summers who has made the exact same arguments Krugman attacks Angle for:
"To fully understand unemployment, we must consider the causes of recorded long-term unemployment. Empirical evidence shows that two causes are welfare payments and unemployment insurance.
[. . .] by providing an incentive, and the means, not to work. Each unemployed person has a "reservation wage" -- the minimum wage he or she insists on getting before accepting a job. Unemployment insurance and other social assistance programs increase that reservation wage, causing an unemployed person to remain unemployed longer.
[. . .] Unemployment insurance also extends the time a person stays off the job.
. . . Another cause of long-term unemployment is unionization. High union wages that exceed the competitive market rate are likely to cause job losses in the unionized sector of the economy.
. . . There is no question that some long-term unemployment is caused by government intervention and unions that interfere with the supply of labor."
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Unemployment.html
4) At the end of an article spent laying into the GoP he finally acknowledges that there are Democrats who take issue with these benefits. But he doesn't enumerate their reasons and attack and/or berate them as he does with Angle and the GoP in general. In fact they aren't every categorized as part of the "coalition of the heartless, the clueless and the confused", they are left to a passing mention at the end of the article and spared the insults leveled at people who are apparently much more outrageous because they have the gall to have those views while also having an (R) next to their names. Based on the structure of the article, this is presumably because Krugman thinks by ridiculing the GoP he can instill in those Dems who side with the GoP some desire to abandon their positions in order to continue to avoid those insults in the future.
===========
In total it's a transparently partisan attack piece that not only neglects to inform the reader of key information that could change their view on the bill currently being discussed, but actually weaves the information it does give the reader in a way that leads them into believing benefits are currently only 26 weeks so that he can juxtapose this number with a 35 week unemployment average to paint the grisly picture he wants them to see so he can jump up and down shouting about evil republicans who want to hurt the poor and kill kittens.
|
1. You missed the "normally" part.
Do you actually think saying "normally" makes the reality of the situation clear to even 10% of the people who read the article? If you think this isn't misleading I don't know what to say to you..it's kinda painfully obvious once you know the benefits go to 99 weeks and then read how he tap dances around that fact. Do you honestly think Krugman forgot that the current benefits go to 99 weeks? Or do you think he just found that fact somehow irrelevant? I mean really, why would he not include that fact if not because it was inconveniant to his argument?
Sorry but it comes off to me like you are just making excuses here and you're doing so by pointing to the exact carefully crafted language he used cover for himself. Plain and simple, smart people like Krugman don't leave out critical details on accident, especially when they're giving you every piece of information above and below the inconveniant piece. I don't know that I've seen a more clear case of lying by omission in the last few years than this one.
2. Krugman obviously thinks the Republicans are heartless, because he thinks that compromise is crap. It's a strategic move to eat up the stimulus money. Krugman thinks we need the stimulus PLUS unemployment benefits.
If this were the case then Krugman could simply just say that couldn't he? But no he avoids pointing it out because it undermines the image of obstructionists he is trying to reinforce.
People with honest disagreements don't make their point by refusing to acknowledge what it is they disagree with. That you even think this is the case while Krugman avoids dealing with it is mystifying to me. How is it obvious that Krugman thinks the comrpomise is crap when Krugman doesn't even acknowledge that there was an offer to compromise let alone what the offer is?
3&4. At the end of the article he also mentions that there are Centrist democrats that are pounding the austerity book...
wait wait wait
I know...I said that in point 4...I'm not sure how repeating it addresses it =P My point was that he lambasts the GoP for doing it and he mentions the Dems doing it in a "But these are the smart guys so we can change their mind" sort of light. Sure it is his opinion, but it is called being partisan and I haven't seen it this blatantly from Krugman in the past. Thus it is my opinion that this is Krugman being a douchebag like all the other political hack douchebags that litter the political landscape.
It's a fucking OPINION section. If he thinks that the GOP are demons, fine with me.
As long as he also backs up those claims with real, not pseudo, economic theory then I'm cool.
Not sure why you're throwing the "opinion" defense at me. My major complaint is Krugman playing fast and loose with the facts to advance his opinion...not that he has an opinion or even what that opinion is.
Like I said I have disagreed with but still respected Krugman for a while...so just saying "opinion!" really doesn't cover what I am talking about...like at all. I don't need people to parrot my views to respect them..I just need them to be honest about their position and acknowledge and account for all of the fact in reaching their views. After that honest people can disagree while still respecting each other.
==============================================================================
As for unemployment benefits increasing unemployment. Yes, that's true. But that's why I emphasized the EXTRA-ORDINARY part.
It's not like these 10% are the scammers who want to get checks, or people who will become lazy and stop searching. It's simply that THERE ARE NO JOBS, that they can't GET JOBS.
So, knowing there's no way for the 10% to get employment, what do we do?
EDIT: That is, unemployment benefits or not, these people are not going to get jobs, simple as that, end of stories. There's simply none.
You say that you don't want to increase unemployment, but I believe that if we let these people completely fall, the people who are desperately trying to taking stupid ass excel courses and training courses to get any job, they will become long term unemployed (discouraged workers). I mean, if it were absolutely fucking desperately necessary, I will allocate the stimulus to them. But that's such a fucking nut grabbing move, when the stimulus is needed so that we can end the recession quicker, and let the 6% from the 10% get employed again.
Then they can find it somewhere else in the budget. I think your faith in the stimulus is laughably misguided but that's a whole other discussion really so I won't get into it. Suffice it to say that the republicans haven't said "we are only ok if you pay for it with stimulus funds" but instead suggested it as one option. If that is objectionable then we can pay for it another way...but considering the dems passed pay-go it is patheticly partisan of Krugman to rail on the GoP for holding Dems to the standard they set for themselves. Wouldn't you agree? I mean you and Krugman can sit their and say it is a political ploy but then it is easy for the Dems to call their bluff...and really what could you think the political ploy is? Evil GoP Strategist: "Ahah! will make the dems do what they said they would.../cackle damn we're evil!"...I mean is that really what you're envisioning?
Once the economy is normal, once there are actually jobs there to be searched for, I will want to decrease unemployment benefits. I will want to raise taxes and interest rates. I will want to lower spending.
I mean it's so fucking simple.
Everybody thinks that their worldview is simple and obvious. At the risk of sounding condescending (and I truly and honestly don't mean to be) once you get passed your first major worldview kick you start to see that a lot more clearly. Some learn it a little faster than others of course =P
Why the fuck, will you want to depress the economy even more, when it is already depressed?
How is not further indebting the US government an act of depressing the economy? Its plainly and clearly not that at all. It's not getting involved. Raising taxes would be an active depression of the economy, not opting to spend more on a program of arguable usefulness that is already extended to nearly 4 times its normal capacity is FAR FAR away from depressing the economy.
It just makes me fucking rip out of my hair when people start singing as if it were a GIVEN FACT "entrepreneurial" spirit will magically lift us out, "business wil 'invest'". Those two don't make sense, if you depress the economy, businsesses aren't going to increase their production capabilities, but probably do the opposite and liquidate.
Actually entrepreneurial spirit will lift us out, but it isn't magic and your view that the people who subscribe to this think it is magic is a straw man argument at best. It will take a little time and a lot of pain to get to the point where the environment is ripe for it to happen, and most of the pain will be businesses that never should have been allowed to survive previous economic downturns finally meeting their justified end and making waves as they sink.
But the worst worst worst, is this "we have to endure" or "we have to ride it out". People start talking about the excessive lifestyles we had like some kind of religious nut, and then masochisticly want to hurt themselves. There's no reason to hurt yourself. Punishing yourself isn't the most logical solution.
I agree, but where we disagree is that building the debt to the levels we have by always using the latest crisis as justification to spend some more is what I consider to be punishing ourselves and being fiscally conservative to begin with is for me the logical solution. Obviously we disagree on this point, but what I'm saying is don't just assume your view is correct and then state your view....give me an argument of why your view is correct otherwise all you get is a "nuh uh".."uh Huh!" ping pong match.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_thrift
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaritaville_(South_Park)
Watch that episode, it should be on the website. This is the fucking masochistic attitude that makes no fucking sense.
I'm an avid South Park fan, and have seasons 1-13 on DVD and I loved the margaritaville episode. But that still doesn't mean I take my politics from a cartoon.
|
see my comments in bold above
|
1. So what did you want Krugman to do? Specify every state's unemployment benefits? Also, I'm sure Krugman wants the states that DIDN'T extend their unemployment benefits to do so, which needs to be done by the federal government. This isn't a state issue, but a national, federal one.
There have been many people who've been unemployed for more than a year, and are still looking.
2. But it's such a shitty compromise that there needs to be no mention of it. Obviously we're not going to fucking eat up our stimulus money in exchange for unemployment benefits. It's not a compromise at all, it's the same as blocking it.
But fine, I'll agree that it's better to always give more information, even though I think it would have made little difference in this article.
3. All I'm saying is I DON'T FUCKING CARE ABOUT THE POLITICS! I DON'T CARE IF REPUBLICANS OR DEMOCRATS ARE TO BLAME!
We've been fucking playing this blame game, and this fucking word play for too long. Meanwhile we have dipshit European leaders that want to fucking shut down the world economy (plus Japan, plus fucking Canada).
I like Paul Krugman, because he's fucking shouting the obvious and providing actual economic graphs and statsitcs to back it up. I understand you don't like his political talk and wordplay, and I'm telling you that I don't care about it at all.
What I do care about, is the core of his article and argument. EXTEND UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS.
4. From what I understand, there is a filibuster in the senate, that's about to be broken with a new senator being sworn in. That's all my political knowledge. Fine, the democrats are to blame, I don't care, just fucking DO IT.
5. No comment
6. ??? Since when did we talk about raising taxes? I want to lower them, especially for the poor who will be the ones buying more stuff. In debting the US government is not depressing the economy, lowering government spending, and raising taxes are.
------------------------------------
Depression Debt
Brad DeLong does the necessary on Niall Ferguson; no need for me to pile on. But I think there’s more to be said about Depression-era debt. To get the full picture, you need to go all the way back to 1929.
If you were ignorant of basic facts about the Depression — or if you didn’t know that movements in a ratio can reflect changes in the denominator as well as the numerator — you might think that it’s possible to summarize fiscal policy by looking at the federal debt-GDP ratio, which looks like this from 1929-41:
Clearly, then, Herbert Hoover was a wild deficit spender, while FDR was much more cautious. Right?
OK, we know that’s wrong. Here’s what nominal debt, the numerator in the debt ratio, looks like:
So Hoover ran up very little debt — only about 6 percent of 1929 GDP. FDR, on the other hand, ran up a lot of debt, about 47 percent of 1933 GDP. But Hoover presided over a shrinking, deflationary economy, while FDR presided over a rapidly growing (from a low base) economy with rising prices.
I’ve been careful to use the term “presided over”: you don’t want to attribute all the differences in the two sub-eras to policy, let alone fiscal policy. Nonetheless, the fact that virtually all the deterioration in the US debt position from 1929 to 1939 took place under the tight-fisted Hoover rather than under FDR is an object lesson in the crucial importance of growth in dealing with debt. And the Hoover experience also provides a nice illustration of self-defeating austerity — not only didn’t austerity produce economic recovery, it didn’t even improve the fiscal position.
It’s too bad that people who don’t understand any of that seem to have the upper hand in policy.
-------------------------------------
7. The way to support entrepeneurs are to have low interest rates and easy credit. We have that already. And I don't want to bet on entrepeneurship, when 9 out of 10 new businesses fail. And businesses invest when they expect more demand for their products, which means they need to increase their inventories. It's not fucking complicated. Seperate R&D and inovation investment from normal investment spending.
8. Yeah, but you don't give any economic reasoning. Why will fiscal responsibility help our economy? Do you agree that we will face fucking DEFLATION if we continue to let our economy fall? Do you agree that deflation is a shitty shitty ass experience vs inflation? Do you agree that it'll be harder to pay off our debt, if our GDP shrinks?
Look here's my reasoning:
1) Inflation is not a risk, when we're facing a demand shock. When there's a demand shock, there's disinflation. Like I posted before, we even had a brief bout of deflation last year. As of June... I believe (?) [from the top of my head] we're at about 1% inflation levels again.
2) Eating up credit is not a risk. We've pumped as much money into the banks, and at the momment, we can't even pump any more money to lower interest rates. Interest rates are at 0% already. We're in a liquidity trap. Fuck the crowding out argument.
3) Because we're in a liquidity trap, the only option is fiscal policy. The best fiscal policy IMHO is stimulus and unemployment benefits. We help out people in most need, and we also get the bigger bang for buck. I'm unsure about infrastructure building projects as an effective stimulus. I never learned specifics. However, to me it doesn't sound that great because the money seems to go to a few people. However, building is part of business investment, which will eventually become consumer spending.
But what did you think about the content in that cartoon? Don't you think the paradox of thrift is retarded?
