December 7, 2022

And let me say that the beauty of a progressive agenda is that it doesn’t require huge progress guarantees to make it work, as a result of the weather of that agenda are good issues in their very own proper. Conservatives want to vow miracles to justify insurance policies whose direct impact is to consolation the snug (slicing taxes on the wealthy) and afflict the bothered (slashing social insurance coverage); progressives solely must defend themselves towards the cost that doing good will one way or the other kill financial progress. It gained’t, and that ought to be sufficient.

Life like Development Prospects, Paul Krugman, as we speak

You. Go. Man!

All is forgiven.  Eh.  Virtually all.

____

UPDATE:  Aaaargh.  Right here’s what I needed to submit simply now within the Feedback thread in response to, effectively, the feedback:

Me

February 24, 2016 11:00 am

Oh, expensive. Virtually everybody on this Feedback thread missed my level. Kris is new right here, so he’s excused for not understanding that for months now I’ve been bashing Krugman for his Hillary shillary that has included, amongst another outrageous statements, misrepresentations of truth about Sanders’ single-payer healthcare plan, which Krugman repeatedly implies would bar employers from offering non-public supplemental insurance coverage as a profit to their staff.

The remainder of you aren’t excused!

A few of you do find out about this submit of mine, from Feb. 19, with regards to Krugman’s feedback in regards to the Friedman research and the Sanders marketing campaign’s references to it, which I up to date twice to incorporate dialogue of the Galbraith letter: [Link.]

I even up to date the title of the submit to notice the 2 updates.

However I stated within the unique submit after which in one of many updates primarily the identical factor that Krugman ays in that paragraph I quoted as the premise for this submit: {that a} progressive agenda—in Sanders’ case, a really progressive agenda–doesn’t require huge progress guarantees to make it work, as a result of the weather of that agenda are good issues in their very own proper. Conservatives want to vow miracles to justify insurance policies whose direct impact is to consolation the snug (slicing taxes on the wealthy) and afflict the bothered (slashing social insurance coverage); progressives solely must defend themselves towards the cost that doing good will one way or the other kill financial progress. It gained’t, and that ought to be sufficient.

I wrote in my Feb. 19 submit that the controversy in regards to the Friedman research and the Sanders marketing campaign’s references to it has been an enormous distraction from the precise functions of Sanders’ coverage proposals and from the truth that they won’t kill financial progress or entrepreneurship, as Clinton herself claimed within the first debate, again in Oct., and are more likely to spur financial progress and entrepreneurship considerably. (Denmark just isn’t a capitalist nation, and has low ranges of entrepreneurship and a low lifestyle. Bear in mind? I certain do.) Sanders badly must proceed to deal with these items, as he has all through his marketing campaign. The very-high-GDP-growth challenge is a distracting sideshow, whether or not Friedman’s methodology is nice or not.

My saying it right here on AB is meaningless. Krugman’s saying it on his NYT weblog just isn’t.

However I wish to say right here additionally that his weblog submit just a few days in the past speculating about Friedman’s motive for doing the research and issuing the report was stunningly defamatory and actually appalling—and straight opposite to Krugman’s repeated complaints about Sanders supporters who accuse Krugman and different progressive anti-Sanders economists of corrupt motive for his or her anti-Sanders writings.

I agree with Ben Johannson: It wasn’t simply Krugman. It was simply Krugman amongst economists participating in vicious advert hominem assaults. However Krugman is the one I comply with religiously and have completely adored for effectively greater than a decade now. So ….

However once more, the remark of his that I quoted on this submit actually issues, too.

Johannson is himself an economist.  Right here’s his full remark:

Wasn’t simply Krugman.

It was simply Krugman amongst economists participating in vicious advert hominem.

And Friedman’s paper is junk.

Argument by assertion.

If you discover “credible financial analysis” that “helps financial impacts of those magnitudes “, let me know.

When you’ll be able to element the issues with Friedman’s methodology, let me know. Do you have to succeed will probably be relatively problematic for Krugman as a result of Friedman used the identical assumptions in lots of New Keynesiam fashions.

That is it for me on this subject.  I’m completed with it.

Added 2/24 at 11:13 a.m.

____

Ooops.  I do wish to add one factor, whereas I’ve your consideration (and—who is aware of?—perhaps even Krugman’s): Krugman’s generally virulent anti-Sanders writings clearly are triggered by his palpable concern of electoral catastrophe in November if Sanders is the Dem nominee.  However as I identified right here and right here—and as William D. Cohan made clear in an article on Politico Journal late final week and as Luke Brinker of Mic illustrated on Monday (my two posts hyperlink respectively to those articles)—it’s Sanders, not Clinton, who might very effectively be the weaker candidate towards the probably Republican nominee: Donald Trump.

I completely suppose that Democrats actually need to begin accepting that the Republican nominee probably shall be Trump, not Rubio (who’s an terrible hybrid of Grover Norquist and Rick Santorum: “All of the solutions are within the Bible”, presumably together with the reply to the query of whether or not we should always finish the capital beneficial properties tax and the property tax).

Rubio, or for that matter Cruz, might be crushed by a monkey. Trump, not a lot.

Added 2/24 at 11:40 p.m.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.