"Call me naïve, but I actually hoped that the failure of Reaganism in practice would kill it. It turns out, however, to be a zombie doctrine: even though it should be dead, it keeps on coming. "
You are naive, Paul Krugman. There, it's been said. Now that we have that over with, I feel like shouting at you: Reaganism isn't over! Most people [who aren't liberal blabs] don't like taxes. Even if the Laffer Curve's concavity isn't as sharp and the benefits garnered aren't as strong as we would have liked, it doesn't rebut the fact that people liked the tax cuts!
"And then there’s the small matter of the worst recession since the 1930s.There’s a lot to be said about the financial disaster of the last two years, but the short version is simple: politicians in the thrall of Reaganite ideology dismantled the New Deal regulations that had prevented banking crises for half a century, believing that financial markets could take care of themselves. The effect was to make the financial system vulnerable to a 1930s-style crisis — and the crisis came. "
Wow. It must take a lot of guts to put these words in a major American newspaper. I seriously doubt that you actually believe what you have actually written. For one thing, it is an extreme oversimplification of a complex topic.
No, you should never think criticize Bill Clinton for signing into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which essentially permitted Citigroup to exist and allowed financial firms to consolidate. Nope, Reaganites get all the blame. No harsh words for Bill Clinton, who allowed two bubbles to form (stock and housing). That blame lies with Alan Greenspan (who was appointed by Reagan). Nor should we bring up the fact that Clinton applied pressure on Fannie and Freddie to increase the amount of loans going to subprime borrowers. That has to go to the Republican majority in Congress under the throes of that nasty Reaganite doctrine.
I have news for you: the world isn't one big conservative conspiracy. The left marches astep and is more complicit in the crisis than you would have us believe.
Paul Krugman is an inane goof who masquerades as a savior of the poor but he is really a typical academic apologist that made his name by striking a contrarian position [for an economist], found an warm, receptive audience, and ran with it. All the way to the bank. By the way, nice new place, Paul.
JDW
(note: I don't hate Krugman. I dislike his politics because he reads like an overbearing liberal, but I read a lot of his work. He is very intelligent and funny, thought provoking, and a great read. Proof: here, here, and here.)
No comments:
Post a Comment