why does this guy keep going on tv when he gets schooled everytime? Anyone see Ben Stein debate him on CNN? I use the word debate loosely, Ben Stein rattled off statistics and Krugman just kept saying "I don't think that's true". Why would Krugman know statistics, I mean he's only the economist for the New York Times. But he also get pwn3d on his own blog in the very first post: http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2008/09/29/opinion/29krugman.html "I have no problem with Mr. Krugman's comments on the Republican deregulatory "brain trust" that has now plunged the U.S. into a major financial crisis. But could someone please explain why Robert Rubin continues to be mentioned -- even by smart and knowledgeable people like Mr. Krugman -- as a "clear-headed advisor," someone we should listen to on economic questions? People in Washington and in the media have short memories, so it's worth recalling a few details. Let us not forget, for instance, that the deregulation of the financial sector was accomplished in large part during the Clinton administration, and with the guidance and support of his treasury secretary Robert Rubin, formerly of Goldman Sachs. Let us not forget, either, that the bill that overturned regulations on the banking industry, Glass Steagall (and which bears the imprint of Phil Gramm in its name, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act), was championed by Robert Rubin. And let us not forget that the great beneficiary of that act was the newly-merged Citigroup, which went on to hire Mr. Rubin, almost immediately after he left the treasury department, for a salary of $15 million (plus stock options and private travel paid for by the bank). Let us not forget that as late as January 2008 Mr. Rubin was insisting the U.S. was not on the verge of a financial meltown. Let us not forget that this financial meltdown which Mr. Rubin failed to foresee has cost Citigroup tens of billions of dollars (poetic justice there) -- and will soon be costing taxpayers hundreds of billions (no poetry or justice there, alas). Only by forgetting all of this is in possible to imagine that Mr. Rubin somehow deserves to be consulted on solutions to a financial crisis he helped to create, and whose existence he continued to deny until it was too late. — Francois, New York"
Krugman has been talking about the very issues that led to the meltdown for months and months and months, while Larry Kudlow was busy explaining how awesome everything would remain forever. Ask Nicephoras about the repeal of Glass Steagall. He's better versed than this stuff than anyone else on this board, and he doesn't believe it played much of a role in the subsequent overheating and meltdown. I honestly can't comment on whether he's right, but he seems to make a good argument.
There is nothing you said about Rubin and the Clinton administration that is untrue. There is also no doubt that the world was changing and that some of the regulation of our institutions had to be reduced or removed. The problem for the republicans is not only that they wanted this deregulation and more, but then they presided over the past eight years (for the most part). Your argument makes the assumption that the Clinton administration set into motion unstoppable events that led us to where we are now. Frankly, I don't really see our current problems being a result of deregulation as much as they are a result of little regulation at the transactional level. It doesn't matter whether the paper is held by a traditional lender or as a security bundle by a big insurance company. You can trace the problem to loans that should not have been made and a lack of mortgage insurance backing those loans that are a bit more risky. I am not attempting to pin this on anyone, just deflecting the urge to say, "it's Clinton's fault."
Wow Krugman has been talking about something for months that the Wall Street Journal has been talking about for years? The best argument in favor of Krugman is that he isn't Larry Kudlow? Krugman is not really an economist, he's a liberal social activist who uses shady statistics to frame arguments against capitalism. In each of his blogs he is refuted by readers who know more than him. There are several websites that point out Krugman's half truths and out and out lies. I'll link some later if I remember. How is Nicephoras well versed in Glass Steagall? It obviously is playing a HUGE part in today's current events. The Democrats were the ones opposed to it (too bad Clinton didn't listen to them) written in 1987: "Securities activities can be risky, leading to enormous losses. Such losses could threaten the integrity of deposits. In turn, the Government insures deposits and could be required to pay large sums if depository institutions were to collapse as the result of securities losses." Chris M, everytime I mention that Democrats had a hand in deregulation or far sinister plots such as HUD or ACORN - you think I am blaming this mess on the Democrats and excusing republicans. I'm not. Phil Gramm has a huge hand in Glass Steagall`repeal. It was a Republican bill. But the Glass Steagall repeal is only a small part in what's going on. Nancy Pelosi is an idiot to go on a rant about a subject she clearly knows nothing about. If people were serious, really serious about a real economy - we would all be voting for Ron Paul. I am not sure how it's even debatable since he's been proven right about everything and he was the only candidate who actually is well versed in economics. But people were more concerned that he is against abortion or that he may or may not have written something racist 15 years ago or whatever superflous reason not to support him.
Paul believes in a return to the gold standard. Look up what happens during deflationary periods. That's why we don't have the gold standard anymore.
Wow! What happens!?!! Under Pauls plans there would be limited fluctuations in inflation and deflation....you know, uh, like how it used to be.....when Banks failed in past times of deflation, gold was the safest commodity. Competing currencies would help by forcing the federal reserve to expand the money supply only at a fixed annual rate approximating the long-run growth of the economy. Competeting currencies is nothing new or odd. I know this is a completely biased site but it deals with the deflation argument against competing currencies, I have this site bookmarked and so should you: http://www.goldensextant.com/ or more specifically: http://www.goldensextant.com/Gold&Deflation.html