Outrage for the sake of outrage. Krugman today:

[ProSense]

This is from Krugman's blog today:

But the larger story is the absence of a progressive-economist wing. A lot of people supported Obama over Clinton in the primaries because they thought Clinton would bring back the Rubin team; and what Obama has done is … bring back the Rubin team. Even the advisory council, which is supposed to bring in skeptical views, does so by bringing in, um, Marty Feldstein.

The point is that even if you think the leftish wing of economics doesn’t have all the answers, you’d expect some people from that wing to be at the table. Yet I don’t see Larry Mishel, or Jamie Galbraith … Jared Bernstein is it.

link

So Krugman, who supported Hillary (because he "thought Clinton would bring back the Rubin team"), is now complaining that Obama brought back the Rubin team with only one progressive: Jared Berstein?

This nonsensical griping by people who supported Hillary is hilarious. The progressive left isn't being excluded from anything. This is simply BS to stir outrage. At this point, who cares? Obama is the President, and he's doing a fine job despite the pot shots for the sake of pot shots.

[Jim Sagle]

1. Hogwash!

[ProSense]

3. What? n/t

[BlooInBloo]

2. Although Krugman never passes up a chance to snipe on Obama...

I agree with him on the substantive issue. The leftward economists appear to have been correct on the notion that the stimulus should have been bigger. It would be nice if those who were right got a proportionately larger share of Obama's ear for the 2nd go-round.

That said, Krugman would do better to get off the clintoncoaster when he wants to criticize. It makes him less likely to be listened to.

[Occam Bandage]

4. "It would be nice if those who were right..."

The question at the time wasn't so much, "is bigger better," but rather, "is bigger at all politically possible, and if it isn't, how should we treat that in the public debate?" My take on Krugie has always been that he was "right" on the stimulus at the time in that bigger would work better, but that he had an irritating tendency to simply wish away things like "filibusters" whenever it suited his arguments.

[grantcart]

7. Krugie never bothers with what is possible

It is not simply a question of what is possible politically either.


People forget that passing a bill doesn't actually mean that we get the money.


Germany, China and Japan all indicated that they are unhappy with the level of debt.


The real ceiling for the stimulus may have been a ceiling that the lenders have established and a larger stimulus might have meant that we would have to forgo health care change.


These are the kinds of practical considerations that Krugman never faces.

[BlooInBloo]

12. And while all of that may be correct, I would still prefer to see more of the lefty economists...

Get a larger share of Obama's ear. I'm not jumping up and down screaming about it, but I think it would be beneficial.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

5. I agree with Krugman's take.

Ok, we have to deal with Congress. But there should be Progressives at least there to make their arguments.

[ErinBerin84]

6. I think Krugman is saying

that, despite what critics of Hillary Clinton thought, he DIDN'T think that she would bring back the Rubin team? Or something. I red'd that thread for the essential point, in spite of itself. Though sometimes Krugman becomes a proxy for the Hillary/Obama thing by people who had previously identified themselves as moderates, but whatevs....I do think there could be a little more variety on the economic team.

[depakid]

8. Krugman has a valid complaint (as do others who've noted the sane thing)

Deal with it.

[ProSense]

9. BS!

Deal with that.

[depakid]

13. How insightful.

My prediction is that people will look back (and in fact we already look back) and see that excluding progressive economists like Stiglitz, Baker, Galbraith, et al. who got it right- and advocate policies that would improve the situation for ordinary people, main street and the overall economy more effectively than the current set of half measures was a BIG mistake.

[ProSense]

16. As was yours. My prediction is that

the economy will recover, Obama's policy and economic reforms will pass and make a big difference, and you will find something else to be upset about because nothing came of your predictions.

[depakid]

23. Testy today?

Frankly, that's going to be yours and others' little red wagon, either way. The Rudd Government on the other hand, actually listened to progressive economists and acted on their advice.

And through no coincidence, the Australian economy avoided recession and held the line on unemployment. Currently 5.7% and estimates of further increases have dropped sharply due to these policies. Plenty of job opportunities still in the classifieds.

[ProSense]

24. Testy?

Obama is President, doing a great job, and things are improving.

Smacking down BS is fun.

[QC]

10. Krugman is an enemy of the people. n/t

[ProSense]

11. No, Krugman has opinions that not everyone agrees with

I agree with him sometimes. He was right about Obama's budget.

[depakid]

14. You need to separate opinion from fact

Krugman's basically stating FACT. My above post is an opinion.

Big difference.

[ProSense]

17. Nonsense.

Fact: Krugman supported Hillary. See the OP.

[depakid]

21. I could care less about who you thought he suppported

What he stated was predominantly fact.

[ProSense]

22. I could not care less about your predictions. n/t

[depakid]

26. Maybe not, but I sure was spot on about the consequences of Clinton era policies

Including one that he had a veto overridden on:

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/21/business/house-overturns-veto-by-president-of-securities-bill.html?pagewanted=all

Didn't really take a genius to see what would happen, though.

[camera obscura]

15. Not everyone dissatisfied with BHO's economic team supported HRC (who I consider more conservative)

In fact, it doesn't have to be a partisan issue at all. FDIC chair Sheila Bair was appointed by George W. Bush (granted, he may not have known much about her views) and she has been ten times more progressive than Geithner and Summers. She tried to stop the subprime loan crisis and was laughed at, tried to push agaisnt the "too big to fail" idea and was overridden, fought and continues to fight for tougher regulation and is still being treated like a gadfly instead of a part of the economic team. She's met privately with Obama a grand total of one time. Does that seem right to you?

[ProSense]

18. Did I say that? n/t

[masuki bance]

19. Krugman's a troll? nt

[Romulox]

20. I don't see how Krugman can style himself an especially "progressive" economist

Surely, he's a globalist/"centrist", economically.

[zulchzulu]

46. Krugman is against rent control, thinks sweatshops are inevitable and anti-free traders are a joke

Now that's progressive.....


...not.

[Cali_Democrat]

25. Well to be fair to Krugman.....

He said "A lot of people supported Obama over Clinton in the primaries because they thought Clinton would bring back the Rubin team."

Krugman didn't say that was the reason he supported Hillary. For all we know he may have been opposed to the Rubin team.

But I still think your post is interesting because many people on the left complaining about Obama now were Hillary supporters and she ran as the more conservative candidate IMO.

[lumberjack_jeff]

28. My experience is the opposite.

I supported Hillary vigorously, yet I often find that I am defending Obama from the people who were his biggest cheerleaders last year.

Krugman is right about economic advisers. People projected expectations onto Obama that were in direct conflict with his stated intent. The handwriting was on the wall when he chose Austan Goolsbee as his economic adviser during the campaign.

[ProSense]

29. Right, that may not have been his reason, but

he supported Hillary through the ridiculous gas tax and despite some of her advisers, some who make the Rubin team appear far progressive.

The point is, this BS sniping coming from people who supported Hillary is ridiculous. Obama's policies are far more progressive, and people who truly supported Obama from the beginning have no illusions and are quite thrilled with his Presidency. There was bound to be a few disappointments, but it appears some people, including the media, are trying to create the meme of buyer's remorse.

That's ludicrous.

[ErinBerin84]

32. I can see people criticizing Obama from the left who liked Hillary

(even though I supported Obama) but, there are a few people here who really really liked and defend Bill Clinton's economic policies, yet still criticize Obama from the left for having a lot of Clinton people, which is a bit strange. That said, there probably would have been the same kind of posters from the Obama side if Hillary had won, and there are only a few. Oh well. In either case, I agree that dinners with the more progressive wing of economists just isn't going to cut it. Larry Summers just doesn't seem trustworthy, and he seems to have a lot of enemies.

[lumberjack_jeff]

27. Read better.

Krugman is frustrated because his preferred candidate was opposed based on a widespread and false belief that she'd do the very thing her opponent actually did.

[Beacool]

41. Yep, you said it.

;-)

[ProSense]

47. Perfect example of the OP point.

Hillary's advisers were the worst. Mark Penn and others, including a couple connected to the Gramm fiasco.

[ProSense]

48. "based on a widespread and false belief that she'd do the very thing her opponent "

Nonsense, Krugman is frustrated. Obama won based on the widespread belief that he was a better candidate than Hillary. That is still true.

[Zavulon]

30. Krugman is a professional whiner. Nothing Obama could ever do would please Krugman.

I'll bet Krugman actually enjoyed the Bush years just the same way Limbaugh enjoyed the Clinton years - neither is happy unless they're pissing and moaning about something. If Obama were to snap his fingers and suddnely eliminate unemployment, poverty, crome and world hunger, Krugman would still find a way to bitch.

Let's see that asshole make the case that Hillary (or he himself) could have done a better job. We all know what happened with her disastrous attempt at health care.

I used to read Krugman religiously when Bush was pResident. I gave up on him entirely very shortly into Obama's administration. He's a whiny asshole who will never be happy with anything.

[depakid]

33. Krugman's just telling you like it is

but rather than accept facts- you play the juvenile game and blame the messenger. When folks do that enough, out the window goes their credibility.

[Zavulon]

37. Right, anyone who doesn't agree with you is "playing the juvenille game."

If you agree with Krugman's body of work since late January, I can only assume you think Obama is one of the worst presidents who ever lived. Not as bad a Bush, but he must suck a LOT, right? After all, all Krugman does is complain about Obama, and those of you who aren't "playing the juvenille game" think he's "telling it like it is."

[depakid]

38. Hey, some people prefer guys like Martin Feldstein to guys like Stiglitz

They tend to be Republicans, though.

[ProSense]

39. Obama invited Stiglitz to the White House. Note,

Obama is still the President. I doubt Stiglitz wanted to be President. Obama is at least giving him an ear.

Could be more, but this is Obama's administration.

[PVnRT]

34. So, he was good until you disagreed with him

Interesting.

[Zavulon]

36. Blah, blah. He was never that good, it was just easier to

read him when he was bitching about the same guy I hate, because Bush was such a clueless dullard that it was impossible not to agree with almost any criticism of him. Now that he can do nothing but bitch about someone I like and I don't agree as often, his whining is a lot harder to stomach. God (assuming there is one) could be president and Krugman would find a way to complain.

[Jakes Progress]

31. Krugman is the smartest man talking about this.

I think Obama listens more than some think. He's not as touchy or sensitive.

[Political Tiger]

35. "If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a conclusion."

Quote by George Bernard Shaw. Seems fitting.

[izzybeans]

42. +1

[izzybeans]

40. I have to admit it screams of a kind of self-entitlement that does not do Krugman

any favors in the asshole department.

He did, after all, already have dinner with the President, in the President's home. Not many of us get that chance.

Perhaps a more accurate critique would point out that this "team of rivals" thing doesn't really work that well with the idolatry in the Economics profession. The totems and taboos comprising the ideology of both camps don't get along with each other.

[Prism]

43. We need outrage instead of propaganda

Millions of Americans are out of work, about to lose their unemployment benefits, and millions more will join them in the short-term future. President Obama's economic policies must change to address a growing problem and target those workers who need help the most.

Instead of understanding the gravity of the situation and seeking out solutions that will secure our country's future and the livelihoods of average working Americans, we get parlor games and propoganda from some of Obama's biggest self-described supporters.

This is actually detrimental. Supporting the President in wrong policy harms him far more than attempting to pressure him into doing the right thing. The outrage is not born out of hatred, but out of a desire for the President to succeed and secure his legacy. In eight years, I want to look back and say "I'm happy I voted for this man. Look at all he has done for us." That is the spirit out of which this criticism emanates.

Instead, some people would support bad administration policies right off a cliff, carrying banners all the way and proclaim that, verily, they do love the President the most. There is good support and bad support. This stuff is bad support.

The Hillary Clinton supporter dodge is just that - a dodge. I opposed Secretary Clinton in the primaries and supported President Obama precisely because I believed she would bring in a centrist, status quo economic team to tackle a problem that screamed for the need for progressive, radical policies to intervene against a decade of bad economic decision making.

Recognizing that current policies are not working is not "outrage for the sake of outrage", and saying so demeans and belittles the fact that so many Americans are currently suffering, as if all of this is meaningless, a giant game, just politics.

No, it's not. And the sooner more of the President's unquestioning supporters get on board and start pressing for real economic reform, the better off millions of Americans will be. Right now, the sentiment like the OP are the worst kind of enabling, just letting these economic alcoholics go on binge after binge after binge.

Let's not wait until it all hits bottom, ok? Because it won't be the the politicians or the bankers who will bear the greatest suffering. It's always the innocent who bear the consequences most.

[Bluenorthwest]

44. Krugman is very correct on this

Pains you I know, but he is. Obama's advice is one sided and we feel that on Main Street. Wise up.

[ProSense]

45. "Pains you I know, but he is...Wise up." And you are?

You can agree with Krugrman's POV, doesn't mean I have to.

There are progressive voices in the White House. Melody Barnes heads the DPC. Now, there may not be as many as people like, but it's nonsense for Krugman to claim that there are none and Obama isn't when he and others have the President's ear (we know he pays attention in his responses to criticisms and the invitation extended).