Friday, February 28, 2014

The increasingly tiresome Paul Krugman

On the surface it may seem that the liberal economist Paul Krugman would be viewed favorably here.  He supports key initiatives like immigration reform and ramped up infrastructure spending, among other issues, that are incredibly important.  Unfortunately Krugman is so politicized that he pushes every argument too far and even stretches the truth as if we readers are all imbeciles.

In his regular op-ed column today in the NYT he throws cold water on the Trans Pacific Partnership, a deal that would bind 11 Asian nations together with the U.S. to increase free trade and abide by patent laws.  That the TPP deal has its limitations and its detractors is not unexpected, but just as another way to increase communication and information exchanges it would be a net plus, an excuse for nations to work together.

Here comes the Krugman hyperbole.  "both Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, and Nancy Pelosi, the top Democrat in the House, have come out against giving the President fast track authority, meaning that any agreement can receive a clean, up or down vote."  He goes on to say in the next paragraph, "So what I wonder is why the president is pushing the TPP at all.  The economic case is weak at best, AND HIS OWN PARTY DOESN'T LIKE IT."

One could question his hypothesis about the economic case and the part that was put in caps here is not uniformly true at all.  This is a centric issue that is opposed by tea party types on the right and the Carl Levin's, Harry Reid's, and Nancy Pelosi's on the left.  Many business aligned and internationally sensitive Republicans and Democrats support it.  The real misstatement here by Krugman is that he obviously is suggesting that Reid and Pelosi represent all or most Democrats, and that is absolutely incorrect.

True, Reid and Pelosi were elected to their positions by their colleagues, but that doesn't mean that they are liked or that their opinions are at all representative.  They have power through long term relationships and horse trading, and if they are challenged and still win, the challengers will be doomed to impotent committee assignments and calls not returned.  They keep power because they have power.

With the Democrats ascendent in the House from 2006 to 2010, Pelosi then makes Boehner today almost look like a reasonable guy.  She took a brutal attack dog approach to Republicans, seeking no compromises, and undermined Obama's first two years in office in a major way.  Harry Reid took roughly the same approach and then some.  The following quote from Robert Gate's brilliant, balanced, and highly, maybe overly, detailed book "Duty"(still working on it as I read other things as well) is unfortunately emblematic of the out of control Reid.  "With all the major issues we had to deal with, my personal contacts with the Senate Majority Leader Reid were often in response to his calls about Air Force objections to construction of a windmill farm in Nevada(his home state) because of the impact on their radars.  He also once contacted me to urge that Defense invest in research on irritable bowel syndrome.  With two ongoing wars and all our budget and other issues, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry."

The biggest problem with Krugman is that he knows when he is exaggerating or not being straight for political impact.  He is read or scanned here because it seems necessary to keep up with him, and not because it is, generally speaking, worthwhile reading.  His analysis seems to be compromised by his agenda.


0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home