Krugman for Treasury.

[JackRiddler]

Sounds unlikely, but also like the best we could possibly hope for in this life. I don't want to hear about why a writer and professor is unqualified for not having been a banker. Having been a banker should be an immediate disqualification.

Recommend if you agree. Tell us why.

[davekriss]

1. I vote yes but I doubt he'd want it (nt)

[ProfessorGAC]

2. Ok By Me!

The last thing i want is a banker. An analyst, theoretician, or keen observer of the macroeconomic scene is what i want, and Krugmann fits the bill.
The Professor

[Greyhound]

3. Yes, but I've been told by another DUer that he is not interested. n/t

[hlthe2b]

4. I adore Krugman but mixed feelings on this...

He's an academian and a brilliant one at that. Would make for a great adviser, but unclear that he would be an effective manager. Nor do I think he would want it.

[madokie]

5. You bet

[TexasObserver]

6. No. First, he doesn't want it. Second, knowledge doesn't = executive skills

I see no evidence that Paul Krugman is remotely qualified to run a huge agency.

[JackRiddler]

9. Ah, the old qualifications dodge.

No one is qualified to run a large agency.

Large agencies are run by thousands of people simultaneously. The guy in the top seat can direct, at best.

Those who have run large agencies so far have mostly failed.

In the case of Treasury, the usual "qualification" is to have run a large bank. Those guys shouldn't be allowed anywhere near it. Do you think Larry Summers is a better choice for having held high office at large agencies, even though he has propagated the Rubin-Paulson-Greenspan ideology and policy?

It's true, I see a weakness in Krugman: he makes the impression of a humble, deferent human being who might be pushed around too easily, rather than of a lizard overlord named Kang the Terrible. (The latter is a metaphor, people.)

The first question is what direction, what program will be followed.

I'll take the wise economist over the authoritative bureaucrat.

[TexasObserver]

11. Bullshit. Try to be honest. He's not qualified.

He's got a wonderful mind, but he's not an executive of any kind. Not remotely so. He's a nerdy little guy who writes wonderfully about economic issues. He's the kind of guy hired as a consultant. You don't let him run anything.

Your fascination with him is cute, but no one outside the fringe of DU is considering him for the job. What next, Helen Thomas for press secretary because you really like her?

[JackRiddler]

13. To allow a basis for comparison, please name someone you think is qualified. nt

[TexasObserver]

15. No, I've already dismissed your opinion as ill formed.

Why would I want to discuss the job with you, other than to say that Krugman is a ridiculous choice?

Having determined that your thinking is terribly defective, why would I want to hear more from you about this topic?

[JackRiddler]

16. Okay.

So get the fuck out of my thread.

[TexasObserver]

18. It's not your thread, Jack.

It's a thread you started.

You've got to expect not everyone will humor you.

[JackRiddler]

21. Thanks for the kick.

[vssmith]

29. Come on give us a candidate or two

We'll be waiting :)

[patrice]

7. Krugman's a "Free Trade"er isn't he? One of "ours" albeit, but an FTer nonetheless.

Why not Dr. Ravi Batra?

[Ichingcarpenter]

8. Yes, but I think he said he wouldn't do it because he's not an administrator.

I think it will be Governor John Corzine because of his financial and political background

[TahitiNut]

10. Some folks are better suited for the "Kitchen Cabinet" than the Cabinet.

There's a big difference between subject matter expertise and the management/administrative skills necessary to coordinate the efforts of a large bureaucracy in a consistent policy direction. Obama will be well-advised to have trusted foils/advisors with the ability to discuss/argue complex subject matter in understandable terms. A good TEACHING academician is invaluable n this regard. Not just able to advance the state of the art in a given area, but the ability to evangelize/educate others is essential.

This is what made Richard Feinman and Carl Sagan invaluable - top-ranked subject matter expertise coupled with extraordinary communication and education skills. Neither would be best used in any bureaucratic post.

[JackRiddler]

14. Well, in an ideal world, I agree...

The boring people should run the boring bureaucracy, while the creatives make the policy. Hooray.

The problem is the kitchen cabinet can be so wise, while the guy actually in charge just goes ahead and fucks everything up.

I'm serious, having run anything to do with finance in the past should be an utter disqualification, unless you were screaming against the policies that have predictably led us up to this point (in which case you weren't in charge, were you?)

We need the meek and wise to stand up and be warriors and leaders for a change.

[aquart]

12. Yes. If only to see Paulson's head explode.

Although I frequently feel he gives up too soon and advocates what he knows is not a good thing because he no longer believes any good thing is possible around here.

[suede1]

17. Voted yes.

[Myrina]

19. Yes. Time to 'clear the deadwood' of career-Cabinet-folks ...

... and bring in some 'outsiders' that PrezElect Obama promised us he'd be bringing to the table.
Krugman ain't no joke in the brains department, and that's what this economy needs: smarts over 'political savvy'.

Also, I'm nervous about him emptying the Senate of ranking Dems just to give them comfy Cabinet seats.

[leftchick]

20. 'Having been a banker should be an immediate disqualification'

sorry, not here in the land where corporations come first and call the shots.

[Peace Patriot]

22. No one--NO ONE!--could have fucked things up more than the 'professionals'!

So, experience, administrative ability, former banker, golden parachute baby from Goldman Sachs--all bullshit!

Put somebody in charge who, a) understands economics (Krugman); b) understands the needs and desires of the large majority of the people of this country--the backbone of the economy, the makers of wealth, the workers! (Krugman); c) has historical perspective (Krugman); d) knows what these fuckwads have done (Krugman); and e) isn't part of the problem (too many of the Clintonites--the ones with "experience").

It's time to acknowledge that citizen activists can know more than the politicians, more than "the experts," more than the Bilderburg Group, more than the global corporate predators who rule over us, more than the bureaucrats, and more than the CEO's of any bank, financial institution or other corporation.

Who is that, on economics? Krugman. He is an expert. He is knowledgeable. His understanding of this issue is awesome.

Cabinet secretaries can have LARGE, SKILLED, EXPERIENCED, QUALITY STAFFS, to carry out policy. And there are literally thousands of qualified people who would love to do that job for Paul Krugman. A cabinet secretary does little else but thinking about policy and talking to people about policy. That is Krugman, the thinker, the explainer, the jawboner, the highly articulate advocate. He outlines policy. Others implement it.

The "experts," the "experienced," the bankers and everybody whom conventional wisdom would deem "qualified," HAVE FAILED. And not just ordinary failure--catastrophic failure. Across the board, in all government offices, quasi-government offices and private institutions. The failure is unfriggingbelievable!

And it's time for UNCONVENTIONAL types of people to enter government and solve it. That is Krugman.

He may have said he doesn't want it. But, if asked, would he come to the aid of his country? Yes, is my guess, not knowing the man personally. For the very reason that he is not like the rest of these clowns who have made top salaries looting and destroying our economy. He has a conscience.

That's why I voted yes. He is the best man for the job. He doesn't need administrative experience. Good administrators will flock to him, for the chance to save the country, and to work for the person with the best ideas to do it.

[annabanana]

25. I'd rec this post, if I could.

Thanks Peace Patriot!

[JackRiddler]

27. Wow! Beautifully said! Should be its own post/essay/blog.

[girl gone mad]

23. I admire Krugman greatly.

However, I'd have to vote no.

I don't think his personality is suited to a leadership role. I also think he's been wrong on a couple of big issues, which concerns me.

Of course, the guy in there now has been wrong on every issue, so I'd take Krugman over him or any number of others.

[vssmith]

30. Most of the persons mentioned have been wrong on issues

[joshcryer]

24. Good to see Krugman getting the love he deserves.

Seems like DU was going to write him off at one point.

[JackRiddler]

26. Well, it's not exactly love.

We're not going to get Michael Hudson, are we? Among the even remotely realistic choices (and I know it's remote!), Krugman's the best.

And yeah, he could have a more assertive personality, no?

[Time for change]

28. I agree

I'm not an economist, so perhaps not really qualified to answer this. But I've read a lot of his writings, including a couple of books, and I really like his perspective. He recognizes that the purpose of government is to help ordinary Americans rather than to simply improve various statistics such as the GDP, which may or may not translate into improving peoples' lives. I also think that he has the right answers to just about everything.

[4_TN_TITANS]

31. What about Robert Reich?

Fact is, our side is simply teeming with qualified and competent people. We could make a nice cabinet with all of our guys (and gal) from the primaries. I guess that was why I wasn't so fired up this time over one candidate above another. Compared to what we've had the last eight years, every Dem was appealing.

[JackRiddler]

32. Sometimes "not wanting it" should be a qualification for office.

Those who want it, they're the ones who tend to be the problem!

[Fabio]

33. Great thought leader.

Not effective operating guy. that's my gut with him.