Tag: krugman

Brian Williams, Fucktard

“Jon [Stewart] has chronicled the death of shame in politics and journalism,” says Brian Williams, the NBC Nightly News anchor who is a frequent Daily Show guest. “Many of us on this side of the journalism tracks often wish we were on Jon’s side. I envy his platform to shout from the mountaintop. He’s a necessary branch of government.

I see, so being the Nightly News anchor for a major network, which recently drew 8,040,000 viewers and regularly leads the "National Nightly News” pack, doesn’t actually constitute a “platform” to “shout from the mountaintop.” Then what the fuck is it for? I’d seriously like to know.

Stewart, on the other hand, gets “about 1.8 million viewers each night.” What a mountaintop he has. Truly the envy of someone with more than 8 times as many viewers; more than Stewart, CNN, FOXnews, msnbc, and probably a few other notables combined in that time slot. Every night. But that doesn’t constitute a “mountaintop” from which to do silly things like inform people with rigor and insight. Oh my no. That sort of thing only happens over on Comedy Central where the corporate overlords apparently aren’t quite so twitchy about letting a little actual information seep into the nightly colorcast. Which is fine by Williams, if these quotes are to be believed.

This attitude, this ceaseless and unstoppable form of pseudo-intellectual nihilism is killing the country. Measurably. It’s what Krugman calls “Invincible Ignorance.” Oh, and that kooky rube Stewart knows about it and has long recognized it:

The pettiness of it, the strange lack of passion for any kind of moral or editorial authority [from the MSM], always struck me as weird. We felt like, we’re serious people doing an unserious thing, and they’re unserious people doing a very serious thing.

Brian Williams, case in point. Pettiness and lack of passion of any kind incarnate. Tonight on NBC Nightly News!

[All quotes from this excellent profile]

No, this has nothing to do with sound economic policy. [It’s] about a dysfunctional and corrupt political culture, in which Congress won’t take action to revive the economy, pleads poverty when it comes to protecting the jobs of schoolteachers and firefighters, but declares cost no object when it comes to sparing the already wealthy even the slightest financial inconvenience.

Paul Krugman summarizing in 50 words or less exactly why all of us on drugs out here are dispirited.

Pause

unsolicitedanalysis:

I’m a fucking nihilist, because the thought of saving all of this evil from itself makes me shudder.  Let’s hasten our own demise, for the good of the rest of the world.  Stop listening to people like Paul [Krugman] who can’t seem to get it through their thick skulls that a functioning American economy is no more likely to serve the poor than it ever has been, but it’s certain to oppress the planet.  And that just isn’t acceptable to me, even considering the alternatives.

[…]

Bye.

Say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, but at least it’s an ethos…
And: goodbye, Unsolicited Analysis. Your writings and general willingness to engage issues on the merits using the facts at hand were appreciated; here’s hoping this is ultimately more of a pause than an end.

At Mr. Ryan’s request, [the CBO] produced an estimate of the budget effects of his proposed spending cuts — period. It didn’t address the revenue losses from his tax cuts.
The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has, however, stepped into the breach. Its numbers indicate that the Ryan plan would reduce revenue by almost $4 trillion over the next decade. If you add these revenue losses to the numbers The Post cites, you get a much larger deficit in 2020, roughly $1.3 trillion.

And that’s about the same as the budget office’s estimate of the 2020 deficit under the Obama administration’s plans. That is, Mr. Ryan may speak about the deficit in apocalyptic terms, but even if you believe that his proposed spending cuts are feasible — which you shouldn’t — the Roadmap wouldn’t reduce the deficit. All it would do is cut benefits for the middle class while slashing taxes on the rich.

And I do mean slash. The Tax Policy Center finds that the Ryan plan would cut taxes on the richest 1 percent of the population in half, giving them 117 percent of the plan’s total tax cuts. That’s not a misprint. Even as it slashed taxes at the top, the plan would raise taxes for 95 percent of the population.

[…]

So why have so many in Washington, especially in the news media, been taken in by this flimflam? It’s not just inability to do the math, although that’s part of it. There’s also the unwillingness of self-styled centrists to face up to the realities of the modern Republican Party; they want to pretend, in the teeth of overwhelming evidence, that there are still people in the G.O.P. making sense.

Paul Krugman grinding the aforementioned Paul Ryan into a fine powder-like substance.

The Media’s Obsession with Tax Reform

KRUGMAN: No, I think it’s fair enough. But, you know, let me ask — there’s something I don’t understand about this whole thing. There are actually two major investigations of members of Congress underway right now. There’s Charlie Rangel, who’s accused of some fairly petty, although stupid and wrong, ethical violations, and there’s Senator John Ensign, who’s facing a criminal investigation and which actually — it’s even a story that involves sex. And you get no publicity whatsoever on the Ensign investigation. Why is Rangel getting all this attention?
AMANPOUR: Is that fair, George?
WILL: Well, Rangel is much more important, because he’s chairman of an important committee. And in fact, Rangel’s misfortune is a national misfortune, because we desperately need — and after the deficit commission reports in December, we might have had — serious tax reform in this country. That requires a cooperative member leading that committee in the House.

What, me worry?

In which Krugman and I disagree:

Republicans, by the way, seem less susceptible to this delusion. Since Mr. Obama took office, they have engaged in relentless obstruction, obviously unworried about how their actions would look or be reported. And it’s working: by blocking Democratic efforts to alleviate the economy’s woes, the G.O.P. is helping its chances of a big victory in November.

I think Krugman is being too kind by half. The GOP is unworried because they know their actions will not be reported; they therefore needn’t worry about appearances at all. There is, outside the blogoshpere, precisely zero coverage of across-the-board GOP obstruction. And, why should there be? The Democrat won’t mention it either. Obama is, even still, apparently heralding in a wonderful new day in which everyone works together.

And don’t for a second entertain the thought that, should the GOP capture the House in November, things will change because (why) they’ll have to start taking positions on policy. They certainly will take positions, but it will all be:

  1. The Tax elimination act of 2011
  2. The forced birth bill of 2011
  3. The immigration cessation bill of 2011
  4. The drill everywhere bill of 2011
  5. The Social Security “Personalization” and Welfare Elimination Act of 2011

And etc… That, of course, is ignoring (for now) all the weekly impeachment proceedings. Each of these will, of course, die a quick death in the do-nothing Senate. Well, except for that last one. Democrats will likely take it up in hopes of creating the appearance of bipartisanship. That and, we’ll see a high-minded compromise on #1; there we’ll raise taxes on the bottom 15% in exchange for deep cuts in social programs and an across the board tax decrease on the top 10% as well as elimination of capital gains and estate taxes. It’s win/win!

How do you stop it? Well, you know about it. You thus start talking about it. Now. Repeatedly. Every time a microphone is switched on and several times when one isn’t yet.

That, however, would be shrill.

Where’s My Belt?

John Boehner, March 2009: It’s time for government to tighten their belts and show the American people that we ‘get’ it

Barack Obama, yesterday: “At a time when so many families are tightening their belts, he’s going to make sure that the government continues to tighten its own,” Obama said.

Paul Krugman, today: We’ll never know how differently the politics would have played if Obama, instead of systematically echoing and giving credibility to all the arguments of the people who want to destroy him, had actually stood up for a different economic philosophy. But we do know how his actual strategy has worked, and it hasn’t been a success.

As I understand the structure of the argument, [Josef] Joffe ridicules me because

  1. I have written a number of articles opposing fiscal austerity right now. This shows how foolish I am, because good economists never return to or elaborate on points they’ve made before. Milton Friedman wrote one article about the virtues of free markets, and never mentioned the subject again.
  2. European political leaders aren’t taking my advice. This also shows how foolish I am, because politicians always make the right decisions about economic policy.
Paul Krugman politely responds.