Tuesday, March 25, 2014

Shots Fired: Greg Mankiw on Classic Paul Krugman

Mankiw writes:
Today's column by Paul Krugman is classic Paul: It takes a policy favored by the right, attributes the most vile motives to those who advance the policy, and ignores all the reasonable arguments in favor of it.
I think Mankiw is generally correct here about "classic Paul," but he makes this point as a counter to a Krugman argument that is actually correct. Krugman writes in the column referenced by Mankiw:
Despite the frantic efforts of some Republicans to pretend otherwise, most people realize that today’s G.O.P. favors the interests of the rich over those of ordinary families. I suspect, however, that fewer people realize the extent to which the party favors returns on wealth over wages and salaries. And the dominance of income from capital, which can be inherited, over wages — the dominance of wealth over work — is what patrimonial capitalism is all about...The important point to remember, however, is that the people inside the bubble have a lot of power, which they wield on behalf of their patrons. And the drift toward oligarchy continues.
Of course, the remedy for all this is lower taxes across the board, which Krugman most certainly would not be an advocate of (Nor would Mankiw).

Mankiw takes particular notice of this Krugman commentary because Krugman takes a specific shot at the George W. Bush administration, when Mankiw was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers .Krugie write:
It’s generally understood that George W. Bush did all he could to cut taxes on the very affluent, that the middle-class cuts he included were essentially political loss leaders.
Bottom line: You have a left-wing interventionist, Krugman, and a right-wing interventionist, Mankiw,
shooting at each other. And both scoring direct hits! Nice.


  1. What to me is more ignorant is this belief by Democrats (assuming Krugman is one) that their party isn't also the party of the rich or connected elite. What is utterly laughable is that the economic policies pushed by Democrats, namely Keynesian economics almost entirely benefits the wealthy. Ask yourself why so many bank executives and investment managers on Wallstreet are Democrats. Why are so many of the extremely wealthy in the US Democrats? Are these people just that ignorant or don't care about their wealth?

    My guess is they know where the money and power is. If I ran a business that employed lots of people and was very weak competitively, I and all my top brass would be big time Democrats. Not that the Republicans aren't good at their own version of crony capitalism and hypocrisy, but with the Democrats you don't even need to hide the crony capitalist back room deals since they will be celebrated by them as a deal for the people.

    I guess if you like the spin on crony capitalism, then the Democrats are far better at it than the Reps. What always makes me chuckle is when their minions (usually people that barely have a pot to piss in) fight to get the government to give subsidies and free money to green companies run by wealthy investors that play the game. These fools will fight for the rich to the point where they are willing to look the other way when it is exposed that they were taken. I'm sorry, but you have to be a real dolt to believe the the Democratic party isn't a party of the rich. I guess the big difference is that, the Democrats at least make an effort to lie to the average guy in the street so they don't feel so ripped off. When it comes to working for the rich, I see the Republicans are best for the entry level rich while the Democrats are best for those that are extremely rich who would like to prevent others from becoming so wealthy and diluting their power base.

    Oh and why doesn't Krugman who has all the answers risk his capital and start a company that employs working people? Why is that someone elses responsibility when he clearly believes he has all the answers?

  2. Krugman is a self deluded, arrogant and hypocritical jackass. Both the Stupid Party and the Evil Party are merely venues whereby the ultra rich exert their control over the rest of us. For every Mit Romney there is a George Soros and for every Koch Bros. there is a Tom Steyer. This archaic and romanticized notion that the Evil Party represents the little guy is ridiculous, and can only be believed by the sort of zombified idiots who take Obama at his word.

    When will people learn that choosing Tweedledum over Tweedledee doesn't change anything?