General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMorning Joe panel is beating up Paul Krugman today...
Furious pushback on PK because of Tory victory in the UK. That victory "proves" that austerity SAVED the UK from becoming Greece or some such thing. They must be mad as hell at this blog of Krugman's in the NYT today
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/?_r=0
Krugman deftly explains AGAIN why austerity didn't save them: unlike the Euro currency of the rest of Europe, the UK borrows in its own currency. He's always pointing that out and it has made the conservatives in the U.S. livid.
Katty Kay at least pointed out that British conservatives are different from U.S. conservatives: in the UK conservatives support government run health care and does believe that climate change is a real problem.
Jeffrey Sachs is particularly snotty today...he was in full on attack mode regarding the Clinton Foundation as well as jumping on the austerity wagon. I haven't figured out his game...
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)No one else will have him on.
Mike Nelson
(9,954 posts)DON'T WATCH "MORNING JOE"!
let's get it off the air!
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)CTyankee
(63,912 posts)it seems to me that they are in a panic over the change in the public's mind about distribution of wealth in this country. They don't really know what to do about it. So they pick their battles over turf like Krugman's NYT columns and blogs. At the same time they have to do something to stop the juggernaut of Hillary Clinton. They are terrified that we'll have a perpetually Dem White House.
Romeo.lima333
(1,127 posts)but then they watch and give them ratings. like the people who listen to rush then make posts about the awful things he says
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)I think it helps knowing.
and I don't give them anything. My watching has nothing to do with their ratings.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)From Krugman's column:
What nonsense am I talking about? Simon Wren-Lewis of the University of Oxford, who has been a tireless but lonely crusader for economic sense, calls it mediamacro. Its a story about Britain that runs like this: First, the Labour government that ruled Britain until 2010 was wildly irresponsible, spending far beyond its means. Second, this fiscal profligacy caused the economic crisis of 2008-2009. Third, this in turn left the coalition that took power in 2010 with no choice except to impose austerity policies despite the depressed state of the economy. Finally, Britains return to economic growth in 2013 vindicated austerity and proved its critics wrong.
Now, every piece of this story is demonstrably, ludicrously wrong. Pre-crisis Britain wasnt fiscally profligate. Debt and deficits were low, and at the time everyone expected them to stay that way; big deficits only arose as a result of the crisis. The crisis, which was a global phenomenon, was driven by runaway banks and private debt, not government deficits. There was no urgency about austerity: financial markets never showed any concern about British solvency. And Britain, which returned to growth only after a pause in the austerity drive, has made up none of the ground it lost during the coalitions first two years.
Yet this nonsense narrative completely dominates news reporting, where it is treated as a fact rather than a hypothesis. And Labour hasnt tried to push back, probably because they considered this a political fight they couldnt win. But why?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/08/opinion/paul-krugman-triumph-of-the-unthinking.html?_r=0
One party that wasn't saying 'moar austerity!' was the SNP, which took 56 of the 59 Scottish seats. They haven't exactly been spending extravagantly in Scotland, but it's not as bad as in England.
On the whole, the discussion of why most economists don't think austerity helped economies has been appalling; both the voters and politicians are ignorant about it, and resort to the incorrect "we must tighten our belts like a household" argument.