Krugman on the financial reform bill that the Senate just passed

[NJmaverick]

FinReg: what do I think? I think Ed Andrews has it right: not all it should have been, but better than seemed likely not long ago, thanks to a changed climate. Wall Street in general, and Goldman in particular, provided scandals at just the right time. Thank you, Lloyd Blankfein.

What’s good? Resolution authority, which was sorely lacking last year; consumer protection; derivatives traded through clearinghouses; ratings reform, thanks to Al Franken; tighter capital standards for big players, although with too much discretion to regulators.

What’s missing? Hard leverage limits; size caps; not much in the way of restoring Glass-Steagall. If you think that too big to fail is the core problem, it’s disappointing; if you think that shadow banking is the core, as I do, not too bad.

Now, the truth is that we won’t know how good a reform this is until the next crisis (which is very different from health care, where there will be ample opportunities to learn from experience.) And the new system clearly won’t be robust to really bad leadership: once President Palin appoints Ron Paul as Treasury Secretary, all bets are off.

But I still think this counts as a qualified win.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/thank-you-lloyd-blankfein/

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. I trust Krugman...

I feel a little better about this now.

[NJmaverick]

3. This is Krugman's area of expertise, so I think his thumbs up means a lot

[pampango]

59. I trust him, too. It will be interesting to see how the Progressive Caucus votes on this when it

gets to the House.

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. "once President Palin appoints Ron Paul as Treasury Secretary ..."

:wow:

There's an image you don't want to think of often ...

[pinboy3niner]

4. That cracked me up

I think Krugman clearly was being facetious, but still managed to make his point about the role of leadership.

[NJmaverick]

5. Leadership is a good point. No matter how well laws are written if you allow the Republicans

to run things the laws are not enough. You can't make up for poor, incompetent or willfully reckless political leadership.

[nichomachus]

11. It's not about Republicans

I don't care which party someone is registered in if they are a corporatist. All we have running the show now are corporatists -- and that is why there will be no substantive change -- merely window dressing.

The minute someone gives you the "it's not perfect, but it's an important first step, and we can improve it later" line, you know you're being served a shit sandwich.

The US is becoming a corporatist dictatorship -- and the corporatists are in both parties.

[NJmaverick]

19. That intellect killing "corporatist" term makes my ears bleed!

Of course it means giving up crutch words like corporatist

[MadHound]

21. Well, as they say, the truth hurts. n/t

[NJmaverick]

23. "truth"?

:spray: :spray: :rofl:

[pinboy3niner]

28. +100 nt

[TheKentuckian]

30. That shouldn't mean too much suffering for you then

Processing power and the ability to actively listen don't seem to be too crucial to your operational status. Rahm, Timmeh, Gates, and Obama seem to do the lion's share of your thinking.

[NJmaverick]

32. I think for myself. I invite you to try it, I think you might like it.

[pinboy3niner]

26. "Politics is the art of the possible"

In a two-party system, it's not that often that one party can take a "my way or the highway" approach and ride roughshod over the other. (Not to mention that we value the principle of protecting the minority against "the tyranny of the majority".)

What you see as a "shit sandwich" from your partisan viewpoint is likely to mean things that are quite different as seen from other perspectives.

[nichomachus]

61. Actually

I don't have a "partisan viewpoint." I think both parties have been bought and paid for.

[NJmaverick]

66. good point

[NJmaverick]

6. Agreed, that's a scary thought

[HillbillyBob]

12. That made me shudder.

nt

[MadHound]

7. "Now, the truth is that we won’t know how good a reform this is until the next crisis"

I would say that Krugman is being very qualified in his analysis on this. Not to mention that the failure to rein in the size of banks, credit card rates and the payday loan industry, along with the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall leave us all still very vulnerable to the financial industry.

What this bill does is provide incremental change, and political cover, when what is needed is serious reform. The public will for such serious reform was there, but this Congress and administration are listening more to what corporations want than what the public wants.

[NJmaverick]

8. I think Krugman's comments about a "win" shows you are distorting his words rather

badly. He knew this would happen, so that's why he provided the proper summary to prevent this sort of spin.

[MadHound]

9. Would you care to address the deficiencies in this bill that I pointed out?

Or are you going to continue to play mindless semantics games about an author who you throw under the bus every time you disagree with him?

The fact is that under this bill, banks can still be too big to fail, credit card companies can still gouge the consumer, as can payday loansharks. Not to mention that we still don't have the protection of Glass-Steagall, which means that we're setting ourselves up for another huge fail where we get to bail out the banksters again.

Care to address any of that?

[NJmaverick]

10. Krugman already has and (unlike you) you he balanced it with all the positives

and came to the REASONED and QUALIFIED opinion that this is a good bill. Like anything coming out of Congress it may not be perfect but it can best be described as a good thing.

[MadHound]

13. Again, would you care to discuss the matters that I brought up?

Or would you simply rather spin?

Oh, and Krugman isn't the be all and end all of opinions in this matter, you should know that all too well, given how many times you have belittled him.

But as I pointed out upthread, even Krugman admits "Now, the truth is that we won’t know how good a reform this is until the next crisis." Don't you think it will be a little late to be finding that sort of thing out?

[NJmaverick]

14. If you wanted a balanced discussion of the positives and the negatives

we can discuss. However all you are pushing is a one sided propaganda position that refuses to discuss anything but negatives.

[MadHound]

17. IE, you are trying to sidestep the issues,

Question for you, do you think that we should reinstate Glass-Steagall?

Do you think we should curb credit card rates?

Do you think that we should limit the size of banks?

Do you think that we should regulate the payday loan industry?

[NJmaverick]

18. Hmm a Noble Prize winning economist says the bill is a win

and you (someone that clearly doesn't like the Dems or our President) tries to tell me it's bad. Who should I listen to....

[MadHound]

20. Well, as you've previously shown, you listen to Krugman only when you want to

Do you really want me to dig through the archives to link your numerous posts where Krugman criticizes Obama and you promptly throw him under the bus? Where was his Nobel prize then?

So I ask again, do you want to discuss the issues, bank size, credit card rates, payday loan regulation, Glass-Steagall? Why do you keep ducking those issues?

[NJmaverick]

27. I must have missed the part where you explained why I should listen to you

and ignore Krugman

[MadHound]

34. Trying to twist the words in my mouth so you can try and twist your way out of this, eh?

Never said that you should listen to me. What I'm asking is whether you want to discuss those issues I brought up, you know, the ones that you keep ducking.

Nor have I said you should ignore Krugman. What I am doing is pointing out your hypocrisy, as are others in this thread, concerning your own relation with Krugman. When Krugman criticizes Obama, you damn him to hell. When he even faintly praises the Dems and Obama, he's a god. Hypocrisy much? You can't have it both ways and expect to be taken seriously.

So again, back to the questions I keep asking and you keep ducking. Do you wish to discuss bank size, credit card and payday loan regulation, reinstating Glass-Steagall, etc. Or do you simply want to continue to duck these issues using strawmen, insinuation, and twisting my words?

[NJmaverick]

35. What your are trying to do is distort and twist a "win" into a loss

[MadHound]

42. Thank you for your response, you have now answered my question

You don't want to discuss the issues, but rather continue your defense of the indefensible using every trick you know possible. Typical, that's all you can do, the next time I get into a discussion of the issues, any issues, with you will be my first.

Sad, pathetic really. One is left to assume that you're just fine with payday loan sharks, unbridled credit card rates, too big too fail banks and the root of this current mess, the repeal of Glass-Steagall. You haven't said otherwise so :shrug:

Have a nice day, I'm going to move on since you can't discuss anything of substance:hi:

[bvar22]

57. +1000...Nailed It.

:patriot:

[Selatius]

50. That's a cop-out response to a person trying to get at the heart of the issue.

It obviously isn't about Obama winning or losing on a piece of legislation anymore. It's about stone-cold policy.

Either you are for or against reinstating Glass-Steagall. Either you are for or against anti-trust measures regulating bank size. Either you are for or against hard, definable leverage limits. You could simply answer those with simple yes or no responses and be done with it.

[NJmaverick]

51. I'm thinking someone that has his own OP calling this bill a "dog and pony show"

is not looking for a reasoned, fair or balanced discussion. So I see little point in wasting my time pretending.

[Selatius]

15. Saying the bill is "good" or "bad" sort of oversimplifies, and I think, steps on a lot of toes.

If you cast the bill as a first step, it's a lot easier to swallow than to go to the default zero-sum game of either winning or losing. Krugman was right in asserting the bill isn't all it could be, and the bill likely was the best we could hope for in a money-influenced and--some say--corrupted institution.

Anti-trust regulation has been sorely lacking in the United States post-Reagan, and a lot could be said for ensuring investment banks never get to the size that they're simultaneously originating loans and repackaging them with "AAA" ratings to be sold as securities; however, as Krugman said, bringing derivatives trading under clearinghouses to allow for easy monitoring is a good thing.

This is the exact same framing problem that occurred with the health care debate as far as the bill ultimately being a net positive or net negative. The only difference was the howls of disapproval were much louder because a lot of people were misled into believing the Public Option was the compromise instead of a full-blown Medicare For All program.

[NJmaverick]

16. Krugman did an excellent job of breaking out he pros and the cons

the good or bad was simply a judgment formed after balancing all of those things out. I don't think of this as a framing by Krugman. Rather he looked at what was accomplished what wasn't accomplished and considered it a net gain. Hence the "win" summary.

[Selatius]

24. Of that, I'm in agreement, yet it is rather difficult not to take sides in this argument.

From the old-school perspective, this wasn't what FDR would've been satisfied with, and Senators Glass and Steagall would be rolling over in their graves, yet the reality of the situation is we probably couldn't get anything better than this through this Senate. As far as my own economic views, this bill wasn't enough; I hail from the older strand of the party that FDR and Truman drew their support from, the regulators and the people who pushed working class interests, and the point should be driven repeatedly if nothing but for the sake of standing up for one's position.

With that said though, it's obviously a better situation to end up with an earthen levee as opposed to a steel and concrete levee whenever a hurricane comes. However, I wouldn't be caught near the coast whenever another hurricane arrives.

[JHB]

25. It's not distorting his words to point out the qualifiers

It IS, however, distorting the record to hail Krugman whenever he gives so much as qualified approval of administration actions but viciously attack him (ad hominem) when he is critical of it. You do have a track record of that, Mav.


42. Krugman is a hack that is looking for any excuse to bash Obama
the guy has ZERO credibility
http://216.158.54.197/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8253287&mesg_id=8253682


4. Krugman compared Obam supporters to Nixon's hatchet men
Krugman is only a bitter PUMA that is exploiting his economic credentials as cover for his anti-Obama credentials.
33. He is wrong quite often, because he bends the facts to fit his agenda
instead of studying the facts to come to a reasoned and intelligent conclusion.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8281427#8281438

12. Only if there was a Nobel prize for lying or being an asshole
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8280904#8281059

I know Krugman hasn't changed much over the last year. So can you explain why your opinion of him has done a 180?

[MadHound]

29. Thank you for doing that digging so I didn't have to

I find it laughable how the OP cites Krugman as some sort of God when Krugman says something he likes, then turns around and damns him to hell for daring to criticize Obama. The hypocrisy is mind-numbing.

[Flaneur]

62. Totally predictable. The OP is a party line hack, nothing more.

[NJmaverick]

65. I am proud to be a Democrat. What party are you affiliated with?

[donco6]

52. snort!

That made my day.

[bvar22]

58. Oh SMACK....

THAT will leave a mark.
Nicely done.
"By their works you will know them."
.
.
.
.
:spray:

[donco6]

40. Yes.

I normally agree with him, but I think he's really downplaying the "too big to fail" problem that is not addressed at all in this "reform."

[NJmaverick]

45. Did you agree with him when he declared health care reform a great victory?

or sang the praises of all that has been accomplished by Congress?

[donco6]

47. Nope, butI didn't blacklist him, either.

Unlike your compatriots who revel in adding names to your list of verboten sources.

[NJmaverick]

56. You mean sources like Glenn Beck, Free Republic, Rush Limbaugh

and the like?

[Stinky The Clown]

22. How many posts have you made citing Krugman when he disagrees with Obama?

You can't have it both ways.

[NJmaverick]

31. Some people like Krugman have adjusted their views in light of the facts

others cling to their wrong headed views. You should consider following Paul's example.

[MadHound]

36. IE, he now agrees with your POV, so all's good

Hypocrisy, rank hypocrisy.

And when Krugman criticizes Obama again, what will your reaction be? Yeah, that's right, he'll go back under the bus.

[NJmaverick]

39. Well I could point out you are doing the exact same thing

but I would prefer that you follow Krugman's example and start giving the Dems and the President the credit they are due.

[MadHound]

46. Really? Find a post of mine where I throw Krugman under the bus in the same manner you have

Oh, that's right, you can't. I disagree with Krugman some of the time, but that is not the same thing as what you've done, which is to completely insult the man and damn him to hell for criticizing Obama. Hell, there are even links in this thread for you to check out your previous words.

Whereas I sometimes simply disagree with him, you engage in rank hypocrisy.

Have a good day, further discussion with you on this issue (as many discussions with you about issues) has become pointless. :hi:

[NJmaverick]

53. It took you long enough to realize I wouldn't get sucked in

:hi:

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mmonk]

33. While I usually don't think much of Lincoln,

her amendment was a bright spot.

[backscatter712]

69. She did the right thing for the wrong reasons.

The Senate was getting ready, at her behest, to kill that amendment as soon as her primary was over, acting under the assumption she would win.

But now that it's gone to a runoff, she's forced to pretend to be a progressive for a while longer, so this amendment stays.

[donco6]

37. I thought Krugman was on you guys' no-no list?

Or is that only when he isn't?

[NJmaverick]

43. Krugman adjusted his views in light of events and new facts

it's a good example that many, like yourself should follow. I am thinking Krugman is no longer your hero as you can't use his works to bash the President.

[donco6]

48. If he needs bashing, I'm sure Krugman will supply what's needed.

Unlike you, Krugman and I have principles that don't waver according to whether they make the President look bad or not.

[Greyhound]

38. Amazing how much Krugman has learned in the last 18 months or so.

To go from an attention seeking blowhard that doesn't have a clue what he's talking about, to the guru we should listen to.
:rofl:

[NJmaverick]

44. Have you considered following his example? He adjusted his mistaken views on the President

in light of the facts. It's a shame more people haven't done the same.

[Greyhound]

49. LOL!

Have you?

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."
Einstein forgot to consider hypocrisy.

[NJmaverick]

54. It appears you are not listening

[TheKentuckian]

55. See this is why policy based politics trumps personality driven politics

People can be disagreed with and agreed with depending on how they come out on the issues.

[NJmaverick]

60. This is a good example of the ability to see both the good and the bad

and being able to appreciate the good can out weigh the bad. Far too often I see posters that will only focus on one side of the issue, or people like yourself who will ignore an issue when it doesn't please them. This is a article is a perfect example of the balanced approach that achieves the best results.

[TheKentuckian]

63. Is there some policy area you think I won't touch? Let's roll it out and see

I think you me mixed up or think ignore means disagree or insufficient.

Still, I guess its is fair to say we all have our blind spots and alleys we don't like going down.
It might also be true that in order to function and remain somewhere in the vicinity of sane that there might have to be things left out of sight and mind for each of us.

Balance is something to strive for but I make no effort to artificially create it with false equivalence. Trade offs are more than a simple minded game of tit for tat and that means sometimes and maybe even often that getting something doesn't mean you got enough return on investment to have achieved anything.

More importantly, sometimes "the best you pragmatically can do" just simply isn't good enough and new ways and perspectives must be attempted.

If the house is on fire a glass of water isn't going to put it out, I grant that's what you have handy, I understand that even that much water will extinguish some percentage of the fire.

True enough, tossing that water on the flames might quench a little but guess what the whole motherfucker is still coming straight down. Some of our solutions to the problems of the day are roughly like painting or putting in new insulation in the house that is on fire.

Trust me that I'm not ignoring that. I generally don't disagree with the painting and am big on getting that R factor up but spreading flames don't logically allow for proper appreciation of those needed improvements.

I'm here for structural change, you can pick out blinds once those are squared away or at least started, not before.

[NJmaverick]

64. To flush out your fire and glass of water analogy

the pragmatists will throw that glass of water on what is burning (assuming it is not electrical or chemical) and then go look for more water

the purist will refuse to throw the water because it can't put out all the fire and instead takes off looking for something that will put out the fire in one shot

[TheKentuckian]

68. What's the issue I'm avoiding? I'll toss the water too but I don't claim the fire is out

and there is nothing to worry about.

If by purist, you mean someone who seeks legitimate and workable solutions to problems then I'm guilty as charged. If you mean I will only accept one ultimate solution to each problem then you're talking out of your ass.

Look, I understand that pragmatic probably does well in test response but that doesn't mean you're or leadership are pragmatist.

A pragmatist has to account for what must be done and what actual solutions exist to get to at least the "must do" point.
This new "pragmatism" doesn't concern its self with actual reality very much just the wishes of "stakeholders" and corrupt, chumpish, complicit, soft, and lazy (gotta wrap up for break/we're tired of dealing with____ for so long/It's late) politicians.

[NJmaverick]

74. No what you describe as a purist is the definition of a pragmatist

[Stinky The Clown]

67. Kick

[backscatter712]

70. There's a lot of focus amendments that didn't make it, but there's a lot of good stuff that did.

The audit-the-fed amendment made it, the derivatives amendment made it. There's a lot of good in this bill.

[TheKentuckian]

71. Audit the Fed's scope was greatly reduced and the derivatives enforcement was stripped

Is there good? Sure, but the fundamental and systemic problems that created this crash and this economy are pretty much untouched which makes the bill a failure.

BETTER IS NOT ALWAYS GOOD ENOUGH. Not when you effectively leave the threat in place.

[NJmaverick]

73. yes, yes there is

[Stinky The Clown]

72. Kick again

Kicking for the overt hypocrisy in the citation of Krugman.