Paul Krugman, "Cranks on Top": Psychiatric Tests for All Presidential Candidates!

Tweet

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "Cranks on Top," Paul Krugman begins by savaging Ted Cruz and Donald Trump:

"The thing is, one of the two men who may still have a good chance of becoming the Republican nominee is a scary character. His notions on foreign policy seem to boil down to the belief that America can bully everyone into doing its bidding, and that engaging in diplomacy is a sign of weakness. His ideas on domestic policy are deeply ignorant and irresponsible, and would be disastrous if put into effect.

The other man, of course, has very peculiar hair."

But Krugman saves most of his venom for Marco Rubio:

"In short, Mr. Rubio is peddling crank economics. What’s interesting, however, is why. You see, he’s not pandering to ignorant voters; he’s pandering to an ignorant elite."

Mind you, this denunciation of Marco is coming from someone who wrote in an October 6, 2011 New York Times op-ed entitled "Confronting the Malefactors":

"Occupy Wall Street is starting to look like an important event that might even eventually be seen as a turning point.

. . . .

It’s clear what kinds of things the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators want, and it’s really the job of policy intellectuals and politicians to fill in the details."

Mention by Krugman of the repeal of Glass-Steagall by Bill Clinton, the effect of its repeal on the US economy, or Hillary's position on its reinstatement? Not a chance. Again, consider what Robert B. Reich, Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley and Senior Fellow at the Blum Center for Developing Economies, has to say about this matter:

"Hillary Clinton won’t propose reinstating a bank break-up law known as the Glass-Steagall Act – at least according to Alan Blinder, an economist who has been advising Clinton’s campaign. 'You’re not going to see Glass-Steagall,' Blinder said after her economic speech Monday in which she failed to mention it. Blinder said he had spoken to Clinton directly about Glass-Steagall.

This is a big mistake.

It’s a mistake politically because people who believe Hillary Clinton is still too close to Wall Street will not be reassured by her position on Glass-Steagall. Many will recall that her husband led the way to repealing Glass Steagall in 1999 at the request of the big Wall Street banks.

It’s a big mistake economically because the repeal of Glass-Steagall led directly to the 2008 Wall Street crash, and without it we’re in danger of another one."

I agree with Reich. Moreover, it is no wonder why Hillary is unwilling to release the transcripts of her speeches to Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street firms.

More to the point, are we to understand that Hillary, who claimed she came under sniper fire in Bosnia, is not a "crank"? I proposed in my prior blog entry that all remaining US presidential candidates undergo psychiatric testing and that the results be published. Indeed, let's see who are the "cranks"! I am confident the list extends to both parties.

Thomas Friedman, "Who Are We?": Hands Off Hillary!

Tweet

Yesterday, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "The Roosevelt Approach," David Brooks trashed Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. Today, in a Times op-ed entitled "Who Are We?," Thomas Friedman lambastes Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz. Friedman begins his opinion piece by observing:

"I find this election bizarre for many reasons but none more than this: If I were given a blank sheet of paper and told to write down America’s three greatest sources of strength, they would be 'a culture of entrepreneurship,' 'an ethic of pluralism' and the 'quality of our governing institutions.' And yet I look at the campaign so far and I hear leading candidates trashing all of them.

Donald Trump is running against pluralism. Bernie Sanders shows zero interest in entrepreneurship and says the Wall Street banks that provide capital to risk-takers are involved in 'fraud,' and Ted Cruz speaks of our government in the same way as the anti-tax zealot Grover Norquist, who says we should shrink government 'to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.'"

Okay, I have no love for Trump, Sanders or Cruz, but how the heck does Tom Terrific make reference to "the quality of our governing institutions" without making reference to Hillary's installation of a home email server in flagrant disregard for America's national security?

Friedman continues with regard to Sanders:

"Sanders seems to me like someone with a good soul, and he is right that Wall Street excesses helped tank the economy in 2008. But thanks to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, that can’t easily happen again."

Unfortunately, Dodd-Frank addresses past financial abuses, while ignoring newer manipulative and predatory tactics devised by hedge funds to line their pockets. With the cancellation of the Uptick Rule in July 2007 and the advent of high-frequency trading, it can happen again, yet the Obama administration has done absolutely nothing to address this problem.

Also, consider what Robert B. Reich, Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley and Senior Fellow at the Blum Center for Developing Economies, has to say about the repeal of Glass-Steagall by Bill Clinton:

"Hillary Clinton won’t propose reinstating a bank break-up law known as the Glass-Steagall Act – at least according to Alan Blinder, an economist who has been advising Clinton’s campaign. 'You’re not going to see Glass-Steagall,' Blinder said after her economic speech Monday in which she failed to mention it. Blinder said he had spoken to Clinton directly about Glass-Steagall.

This is a big mistake.

It’s a mistake politically because people who believe Hillary Clinton is still too close to Wall Street will not be reassured by her position on Glass-Steagall. Many will recall that her husband led the way to repealing Glass Steagall in 1999 at the request of the big Wall Street banks.

It’s a big mistake economically because the repeal of Glass-Steagall led directly to the 2008 Wall Street crash, and without it we’re in danger of another one."

I agree with Reich.

It is sickening how The New York Times - with the notable exception of Maureen Dowd - is determined to ignore Hillary's transgressions in order to grease her way into the White House.

Question: If the FBI recommends indicting Hillary, will the Gray Lady push its coverage of this story onto one of its back pages? Actually, news concerning the demise of Hillary's candidacy might well belong on the obituary page.

Paul Krugman, "Plutocrats and Prejudice": Bill Clinton's Repeal of Glass-Steagall?

Tweet

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Plutocrats and Prejudice," Paul Krugman tells us:

"Until recently you could argue that whatever the motivations of conservative voters, the oligarchs remained firmly in control. Racial dog whistles, demagogy on abortion and so on would be rolled out during election years, then put back into storage while the Republican Party focused on its real business of enabling shadow banking and cutting top tax rates."

Fascinating. "Shadow banking" is only the Republicans' fault. But consider what Robert B. Reich, Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley and Senior Fellow at the Blum Center for Developing Economies, has to say about the repeal of Glass-Steagall by Bill Clinton:

"Hillary Clinton won’t propose reinstating a bank break-up law known as the Glass-Steagall Act – at least according to Alan Blinder, an economist who has been advising Clinton’s campaign. 'You’re not going to see Glass-Steagall,' Blinder said after her economic speech Monday in which she failed to mention it. Blinder said he had spoken to Clinton directly about Glass-Steagall.

This is a big mistake.

It’s a mistake politically because people who believe Hillary Clinton is still too close to Wall Street will not be reassured by her position on Glass-Steagall. Many will recall that her husband led the way to repealing Glass Steagall in 1999 at the request of the big Wall Street banks.

It’s a big mistake economically because the repeal of Glass-Steagall led directly to the 2008 Wall Street crash, and without it we’re in danger of another one."

I agree with Reich.

Objectivity from Krugman? Not a chance.

Robert Reich: Unemployment Figures to Determine Obama's Fate

Robert Reich, Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, former Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration, and one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century according to Time Magazine, says that the US presidential election will be determined by the unemployment situation after Labor Day. In a July 6 HuffPost blog item entitled "The Jobs Doldrums and Obama's Future" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-jobs-doldrums-and-oba_b_1654082.html), Reich writes:

"In Ohio yesterday, Obama reiterated that he had inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression. That's true. But the excuse is wearing thin. It's his economy now, and most voters don't care what he inherited.

. . . .

Yet he has to show he understands the depth and breadth of this crisis, and is prepared to do large and bold things to turn the economy around in his second term if and when he does have the votes in Congress. So far, his proposals are policy miniatures relative to the size of the problem.

But the real political test comes after Labor Day. Before Labor Day, Americans aren't really focused on the upcoming election. After Labor Day, they focus like a laser. If the economy is moving in the right direction then -- if unemployment is dropping and jobs are increasing -- Obama has a good chance of being reelected. If the present doldrums continue -- or worse -- he won't be."

Obama now owns the economy? "Policy miniatures relative to the size of the problem"? I agree, but I don't see any "bold" proposals on the horizon.

However, there is an alternative scenario in which the election is not decided by the state of the economy.

Tensions continue to mount in the Persian Gulf as Iran threatens to sink US aircraft carriers, block the Strait of Hormuz, and destroy 35 neighboring US military bases. The US has responded to Tehran's saber rattling by quietly bolstering the level of its forces in the region (see: http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=276589).

Note also that a major US-Israeli anti-missile exercise, Austere Challenge 12, is scheduled for the fall (see: http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=275764).

My belief remains that Obama's handling of this crisis with Iran, when it comes to a head in the coming months, could well tip the results in November one way or another.