I can’t believe I’m writing this again. But The Paul Krugman Bernie Sanders Giving Game continues and it is again time to donate to Sanders!
About as soon as he possibly could, Paul Krugman wrote, Post-Iowa Notes. And in it, he made the point that really doesn’t need to be made — that Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, and Marco Rubio are all horrifying. But that wasn’t really what the article was about. It was another swipe at the “Bernie bros” and to say, “To be blunt, I think Sanders is selling an illusion, but it’s an illusion many people want to believe in, and there’s no easy way to counter that.”
Donate to Sanders!
Attention Paul Krugman: you aren’t being anymore blunt than you have been for the last two weeks. We get it! Bernie is an idealist who is selling a lie and Clinton is a realist who will produce. Thus far, he has not provided a shred of evidence that Clinton actually would be more successful on a practical level than Sanders would be. This is just an unstated assumption — something Krugman “knows” just as sure as Ted Cruz “knows” that Jesus walks with him and tax cuts pay for themselves.
Look: I don’t care. I think Krugman means to say something else. I think he means to say that Sanders won’t win in the general election. He could make the quite reasonable claim that a Republican president would be so disastrous at this point that we can’t take the chance. He could write a reasonable article like Erik Loomis’s Bernie Skepticism. But he doesn’t. Krugman is just embarrassing himself at this point.
Donate to Sanders!
You may not know this but there is this thing called The Two Rules of Paul Krugman: “Rule number one: Paul Krugman is right; rule number two: if you think Paul Krugman is wrong, refer to rule number one.” And there is a reason for that. Krugman has always been a very careful thinker. He is not inclined toward saying outrageous things. Just the same, he doesn’t back away from saying things that are clearly true but “just aren’t said.” But I’m beginning to think that rule number two needs to be changed to: “If you think Paul Krugman is wrong, and it doesn’t involve Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, refer to rule number one.”
This isn’t just a matter of politics. Check out what Krugman has to say about financial reform, “Substantively, her financial reform ideas are as tough as his, just different in focus.” Oh, is that right?! Well, to start with, they’ve gotten tougher because Sanders is in this race. (Thanks Bernie!) But there just so happens to be an economist I find far more credible on economic matters than Krugman: Dean Baker. Baker has not only been right about just about every important economic issue over the last 15 years, he’s also a very creative thinker.
About a week ago, Baker wrote, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, and Wall Street. He points out how much wiggle room there is in all the proposed regulations. He ended by asking the serious question of which of the candidates would actually be willing to break up the too-big-to-fail banks. I think we know the answer to that.
But more important, there is one thing that we absolutely should do: enact a financial transaction tax. Sanders has been very strong on this. Clinton has only proposed such a tax on high frequency trading. Why?! I think if you look at the last question, you can see that there is one candidate that is more beholden to Wall Street.
Does any of this matter if Republicans still have control of the House in 2017? No, I don’t think it does. I’ve said many times before: I don’t think there would be much a difference between a Clinton administration and a Sanders administration. But to glibly claim that Clinton’s financial reforms “are as tough as his, just different in focus,” is just wrong.
Krugman wants to have it both ways. He wants to claim that Clinton is the practical choice. And then, he wants to claim that Clinton is just as ideologically keen as Sanders is. Which is it Krugman? Because The Paul Krugman Bernie Sanders Giving Game is getting really expensive.
Donate to Sanders!
If you would like to donate to Sanders: This is YOUR movement.
*gives to the Frank Likes Haagen-Daz Dulce De Leche Ice Cream fund instead*
Yes, the Frank fund is much more important than the Sanders’ fun. Let me be very clear about that!
I obviously think so.
Indeed! You are one of the top donors!
I feel so special. Like I should wear a t-shirt that cost more to make then the actual donation.
I should make t-shirts that say, “I Frankly Curious what the f*@k this guy thinks he’s doing!”
I’d buy it. You could use Zazzle I suppose.
Might need to clean up the language though. “I am” sounds so much better than “I frankly” And I am so glad I am eight hundred miles away from your smack for that snark.
On the t-shirt front, Will has iron on stuff so I may be able to put, “But I’m fond of Clinton too” on the back of my Sanders shirt.
Which you are too scared to wear. Maybe if we gave you a cane?
I’m not afraid of being beaten up. I’m afraid of being boxed up as a certain kind of person. That’s a major hang-up of mine.
Most people initial impression all sorts of people and immediately ignore them after the first meeting unless they have to or choose to keep getting to know you.
Then they just assume you are a good natured sweetie.
Well, the founding principle of this blog was that interesting people are interested in stuff. I tell that story about the professor we all thought was boring when it was actually us being boring.
I assume most people seeing a Sanders t-shirt would think, “Who is Sanders again?”
Yes you did tell us that story.
I thought you lived in an area of the country that was all agog for Sanders?
It’s the first article of the blog…
The county I live in is pretty liberal. And on issues where the state goes conservative, we tend to be one of the few counties that goes liberal. But I haven’t noticed much evidence that people are paying attention to the election at all. I don’t go out much, but still: I haven’t seen a single bumper sticker or sign for either Clinton or Sanders. I’ve seen a bit of Trump stuff. I can guarantee that we will go Democratic in November, however. (Interestingly: our Representative, Mike Thompson, is a good deal more conservative than the area would indicate.)
I remember Haagen-Daz. Yes, O Best Beloved, in the High and Far Off Times, pints were much bigger than they are now. Then the sun grew warmer and everything melted – the pint size, and the quart size and the really, truly half-gallon size. And that’s why we’re all so much thinner now.
Here’s the thing about Krugman. He got a reputation as a truth teller by being one of the few establishment voices willing to point out the lies of the Bush gang (a tenured voice, but credit where due). However one of the reasons he was an establishment voice to begin was his ardent embrace of “free trade” and as far as I know he hasn’t changed, in spite of all the economic damage that followed deals such as NAFTA/GATT/WTO. So it’s really no surprise at all that he’s doing his best to support the current neoliberal, establishment candidate.
It’s not that bad. The Haagen-Daz pint is now 14 oz. I know bars that sell 12 oz pints on beer.
I agree. I’ve been saying for many years that Krugman is a good deal more conservative than I am, but that things are so out of wack that you rarely see it.
But he’s out of line here, because this isn’t really his area of expertise. He tends to tread more gently on these kinds of subjects. But not here!
Paul Krugman is a Very Serious Democrat, this year. He doesn’t need to show why Hillary could implement an agenda better than Bernie – it’s self-evident. Obviously.
Ouch! I wonder if Krugman has heard that from anyone. I’d like to think that his sense of humor would appreciate it. Regardless, I agree with you. He’s gotten very ‘conventional wisdom” on us recently.