Monday, February 09, 2009

I like Krugman more each time I read him

Maybe it's because he agrees with me (or, as he is the Nobel laureate economist, I should say I agree with him, or most accurately that our opinions are in agreement as there is no one from another here).

This stimulus is tepid at best, and is as weak as it is because Obama (whom I voted for and support) decided that the fanciful notion of "bipartisanship" was more important than being effective and, as far as the American people are concerned based on how they voted, correct.

(And, yes, I know other economists have issues with Krugman, and I don't blame them, but he does do something I wish more academic/science types did: leave the academic side out of mass media public discourse. Incidentally I really don't think that either the free market people or Keynesians are correct, but that there is a happy middle ground between them.)


Michael L. Heien said...

Im going to have to comment on this "bipartisanship." The house republicans were locked out of drafting the bill by Pelopsi...that's not very "bipartisan." It is, by definition, a partisan bill. It may be more Pelopsi's bill than Obama's, but it's certainly not bipartisan.

Jacob said...

Sorry, Michael, bunch of GOP BS. The problem is that the bill started out, from Obama, as a compromise. Besides, it is Pelosi's prerogative to lock them out. Even still, Obama forced her to acquiesce to their demands which puts this firmly in the realm of a compromise bill. Republicans are essentially saying that any bill that makes Dems even a little happy must be bad.

The House, Senate and nation are about 60:40 D:R right now. The bill is probably about the same. It is a compromise. It is not bipartisan only because GOP Reps did not vote for it, therefore they made it partisan.

Of course, at the same time, I think that bipartisanship is a load of crap anyway.

Jacob said...

I suppose I should clarify:

If a bill has GOP concessions and they do not vote for it, there is zero impetus to have ANY concessions in future bills. It does a disservice to their party, their constituents, and their ideology to vote against a compromise bill.

The next one may have 0 tax cuts and twice the spending, GOP have just given the Dems the excuse they need to show zero constraint in the future.

Michael L. Heien said...

Jacob, it's not a bunch of BS. I, think "bipartisanship" is a bunch of BS, however, this bill was negotiated behind closed doors in the house, bipassed the normal process for passing bills. Nancy did remove a few items which were complained about (birth control funding, etc) which even she couldn't justify as "stimulus." THe senate did compromise to get three senators on, but it's nowhere near 60/40.

I just think we should debate a one trillion dollar bill a little more than a week. Now it seems like a catch all wish list, with the majority of it not being spent for a while. Most people won't read it before they vote on it. How did that work out for the Patriot act people love to complain about?

Michael L. Heien said...

It is Pelopsi's perogative to lock them out. But by locking them out, it's her being partisan. That and statements like "I won" don't exactly sound "bipartisan."

They are statements of fact which end debate and do not foster dialog.

They also seem to make claims of "bipartisanship" shallow.