Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why not Paul Krugman for Secretary of the Treasury?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Cyrano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-08 04:19 PM
Original message
Why not Paul Krugman for Secretary of the Treasury?
He's a professor of economics at Princeton and, from his NY Times column, we know where he stands on economic policies.

As far as I know, he has no political debts to anyone and could therefore go into a political office as pure as anyone could possibly be.

So why haven't we heard his name being mentioned?

(I haven't been on DU much lately, so excuse me if this topic has already been discussed.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-08 04:20 PM
Response to Original message
1. He doesn't want it. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lapfog_1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-08 04:21 PM
Response to Original message
2. I think he would be better as Chairman of the Fed.
And I suspect that is what he will get someday.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
soothsayer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-08 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Obama should ABOLISH the Fed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
margotb822 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-08 04:22 PM
Response to Original message
3. I was thinking the same thing
Maybe they think he won't be confirmed. AFAIC, the Nobel is a good confirmation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DFW Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-08 04:25 PM
Response to Original message
4. Good, qualified people with common sense AND a sense of humor? Get real.
That's the most preposterous suggestion I've heard since someone suggested Howard Dean for HHS.

Oh, wait......

Never mind :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-08 04:25 PM
Response to Original message
5. He's "temperamentally unsuited for that kind of role."
Edited on Mon Nov-17-08 04:26 PM by jobycom
When Bill Clinton came into office in 1993, he considered Krugman for a leading post; Krugman was flown out for a meeting in Arkansas. Krugman's outspokenness was reported to be "the main reason the Clinton administration didn't offer him a job."<8> Krugman says he would not have been interested in such a job; he told Newsweek, "I'm temperamentally unsuited for that kind of role. You have to be very good at people skills, biting your tongue when people say silly things."<8> In his New York Times blog, Krugman repeated that statement, saying that he was "temperamentally unsuited to politics".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman

----------------

He would be a good choice if he could be persuaded.

I also like James K Galbraith, at the University of Texas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_K_Galbraith
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-08 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. We need someone "temperamentally unsuited to politics"
Edited on Mon Nov-17-08 04:34 PM by JJ
in that role. Since our nation's economic policy for the last 28 years has been based on an outright fraud. (trickle-down, supply-side, voodoo economics) It's time we had someone who will call a lie a lie.

Not all ideas are equally valid.

"Reality is a bias." - Can't Remember who said it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-08 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. I agree in part, but it's not me you have to convince.
It's Krugman. He's the one who said it. And Galbraith fits that description as well as Krugman.

And I don't agree with this revisionist lumping of Clinton with Reagan and Bush. He reversed Reagan's supply-sided nonsense, and that's what made the 90s boom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-08 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. I wouldn't say so. The 1990s economy boomed for the top people.
Everybody else in the bottome like 90 percent saw wages that did not keep up with inflation, and if wages did rise, it only rose to match inflation, while the people at the top were growing well and beyond the rate of inflation. In the 1950s and 1960s, the gains of the economy were more evenly spread out. Clinton was certainly more moderate than Reagan, but he wasn't the Anti-Reagan. You would need a strong leftist like FDR or Truman to reverse what Reagan did. Clinton never ran that far left.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mike 03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-08 04:26 PM
Response to Original message
7. He is certainly qualified, but gauging his words carefully over the past two months, I
seriously doubt he would want this job. My thought was that perhaps he could advise whomever Obama selects.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-08 05:25 PM
Response to Original message
10. He'd Be A Fantastic Adviser. The Best!
But running a bureaucracy? Not his thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
librechik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-08 05:59 PM
Response to Original message
11. not crooked enough
He couldn't get anything done with his staff of finance industry crooks, and would wind up a mysterious "suicide."

I like him too much to wish that on him.

We need a guy with a reputation as a harsh regulator. Don't know where you'll dig one up after the last three decades.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amitta Donating Member (50 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-08 06:03 PM
Response to Original message
12. same reason as Dean, Spitzer
they are too good, too democratic in this post-partisan country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gman2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-08 06:05 PM
Response to Original message
13. He is doing what GOD told him to do. Be the ombudsman!
Why cant you allow the man to reveal his genius? He is the checker of fact, like Waxman. Natural order and all!!!!!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 01:27 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC