Paul Krugman: Washington Is "Ruled by Reaganism"

Let's see if I've got this straight: George W. Bush, irrefutably, expands the size of both the federal government and the federal government's regulations (including financial regulations) more than any president since before the Designated Hitter rule was adopted. He and his party are bounced out of office in 2008 by a Democratic party which, even though the president campaigned (after the financial crisis hit) on a "net spending cut," nevertheless telegraphed their left-of-Bill-Clinton economics well in advance of taking office. They promptly boost government spending and debt to levels not seen since World War II, throwing corporate welfare at such wholly non-essential companies as American Axle. Krugman's conlusion?

Washington, it seems, is still ruled by Reaganism — by an ideology that says government intervention is always bad, and leaving the private sector to its own devices is always good.

It really is an ugly thing, isn't it, when people on the winning team don't get everything they want?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Tomcat1066||

    Krugman won't be happy with anything short of 100% pure socialism.

    Krugman can also kiss my ass.

  • ||

    Did Krugman suffer a severe brain injury?

    That's pretty much the best explanation I can come up with.

  • Mike in PA||

    Washington, it seems, is still ruled by Reaganism - by an ideology that says government intervention is always bad, and leaving the private sector to its own devices is always good.

    Reaganism? Really? I thought that idoealogy was Jeffersonian.

    And no matter where I look, I cannot find it in Washington. Krugman's an idiot.

  • Mike in PA||

    Ideology

  • ||

    It's beyond delusional, to state that "ideology that says government intervention is always bad" has anything at all to do with the current administration. Clearly the poor guy isn't all there.

  • Kyle Jordan||

    Thus continuing the streak...

    Most of what I've read from Krugman is up there with some of the stupidest comments ever uttered by a human being.

  • ||

    I think Krugman needs to get laid, big time.

  • Xeones||

    Shut the fuck up, Paul Krugman.

    Are they giving away Nobel prizes in boxes of Froot Loops now?

  • ||

    I think Krugman just needs to move to Russia.

  • ||

    Krugman says this "In particular, vast amounts of insurance industry money have been flowing to obstructionist Democrats like Mr. Nelson and Senator Max Baucus, whose Gang of Six negotiations have been a crucial roadblock to legislation.

    He then suggests that this government intervention is a signal that Washington still believes that govt intervention is bad. WTF. Am I real stupid or does this make no sense?

  • ||

    Did Krugman suffer a severe brain injury?

    That would correlate well with his extremely punchable face.

    You guys have changed the way I see the world.

  • ||

    But it's hard to avoid the sense that a crucial opportunity is being missed, that we're at what should be a turning point but are failing to make the turn.

    A comment which puts you squarely in the "disaster socialism" camp, Professor.

    And then there's this:

    To be sure, the wealthy benefited enormously: the real incomes of the top .01 percent of Americans rose sevenfold between 1980 and 2007. But the real income of the median family rose only 22 percent, less than a third its growth over the previous 27 years.

    I saw Krugman on the teevee yesterday, claiming people receive a quarter or a third of their compensation in the form of health insurance. Do the numbers above reflect that, or are we jumping back and forth between non-cash and cash compensation as it suits our argument?

  • New World Dan||

    I think Krugman has a disconnect between soundbites and reality. Everyone, even the Dems, talks about the importance of free markets and the problems with government programs. Reality, however, is that once they get off the TV, pretty much everyone is a regulator and a spender.

  • ||

    Washington, it seems, is still ruled by Reaganism - by an ideology that says government intervention is always bad, and leaving the private sector to its own devices is always good.

    Really? Outstanding! That means we can get a good chunk of that 2010 $3.6 trillion Federales budget back? I mean, if they're not going to use it by leaving the private sector to their own devices....

  • ||

    I think Krugman has a disconnect between soundbites and reality.

    I'd say Klugman's official Team Blue Wingnut Tin Foil Hat™ is sized a bit too snugly and it's starting to chafe at the frontal lobes.

  • ||

    I only recently gained access to "local" (Billings) channels; thanks, DISH. Yesterday, I was privileged to see an ad paid for by the pharmaceutical industry giving a big thumbs-up to Senator Baucus and his fine work on the health care front. I was briefly overwhelmed with an intense desire to put a big hole through my brand new Vizio.

  • Alabama Getaway||

    If one rearranges the letters in Paul Krugman, I wonder what they'd get?

  • ||

    I think Krugman needs to get laid, big time.

    He won't until the High Evolutionary gets around to making him a mate from another norvegicus.

  • ||

    Alabama Getaway,

    Unplug Karma

  • ||

    No, no Sug, it's Anal Pug Murk

  • Meta4||

    "If one rearranges the letters in Paul Krugman, I wonder what they'd get?"

    U Anal Grump

  • ||

    Washington, it seems, is still ruled by Reaganism

    This statement could be replaced by:
    Washington, it seems, is still ruled by Cannibalism
    with no noticeable effect on the correctness of the claim.

  • Meta4||

    Forgot the K...

  • ||

    I think Krugman just needs to move to Russia.

    Make that North Korea, where things purr along so smoothly due to 100% ownership by the central state, surely a Krugmanian utopia.

  • ||

    If you use his full name... (His middle name is Robin. Snerk.):

    Abnormal Pink Guru

    "Dr. Paul Krugman Phd" yields:

    Plump Drunkard Hag

  • The Frith™||

    Could someone tell me how Paul "Singlehandedly devaluing the Nobel Prize" Krugman can keep a damn job when he gets everything, and I do mean EVERYthing, wrong.

  • robc||

    I thought that idoealogy was Jeffersonian.

    Ive often wondered how the Dems have a Jefferson/Jackson dinner with a straight face.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Krugman practices the exact opposite of what he is deriding in his latest screed:

    Government is always good; private sector is always bad.


    Cue Tony post in 5...4...3...

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    "But some of the blame also must rest with President Obama, who famously praised Reagan during the Democratic primary, and hasn't used the bully pulpit to confront government-is-bad fundamentalism."

    Hi-fuckin'-larious. Obama doesn't need to confront it - he just steamrolls over everything in his path.

    Obama lives and breathes government-is-always-goodism. Krugman knows this, so his "critique" of Dear Leader is unnecessary fluffing.

  • ||

    That's it! Tony IS Paul Krugman. It explains all the retarded comments.

  • ||

    unnecessary fluffing

    No such thing, buddy. Why don't you want me to be at my best?

  • Mike M.||

    This is so rich. Scumbags just like Krugman have already pretty bankrupted most of the big states and the country as a whole, and he whines about "Reaganism".

  • The Angry Optimist||

    I think (hope) that Tony has been flamed out of existence.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Sug, it's unnecessary when the fluffer (in this case, Krugman) is fluffing something that's already at its best (the current crop of criminal masterminds known as the Obama administration).

    Perhaps I should have used "unnecessary fellating", but in Krug's case it is ALWAYS necessary. It's how he earns his evil profit.

  • ||

    Now hear this -

    Paul Krugman is a blooming idiot.

    That is all.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    Are they giving away Nobel prizes in boxes of Froot Loops now?

    Almost. Keep in mind Adolf Hitler was nominated for the Peace Prize in 1939.

    Take the Nobel prize with a big grain of salt.

  • ||

    Krugman is one of the dumbest "smart" people I've heard about.

  • ||

    What I love about these statists most is how in love with the Big Lie they are. Krugman is fully aware that he's not only spouting bullshit, he's positing almost precisely the opposite of what is true.

    What we're learning is that while the American populace wants to have its cake and eat it, too, the desire for at least a somewhat limited government--particularly when it comes to government spending--still exists, just like it did during the Reagan years. To Krugman et al., the U.S. would be great if it weren't for those meddling bourgeoisie.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Tony = Krugman actually makes some sense. Hmmmmmm.... *ponders*

  • Mike Spinney||

    Let's face it, people. Paul Krugman is smart and the rest of us are not. Once we can get that simple fact straight, things will be right with the world.

  • ||

    while the American populace wants to have its cake and eat it, too, the desire for at least a somewhat limited government--particularly when it comes to government spending--still exists

    Most people, despite the best efforts of the Degreed Educator Class, still know two plus two equals four (and only four). And that money does not grow on trees.

  • hmm||

    Seriously. He needs to be treated like Lonewhacko. He just needs to be told to STFU and generally ignored. He's off the reservation. Dancing in the fields. Fucking mental. Disillusion. Retarded. Drunk on Obama jizz. Fuck! He just needs to be ignored.

  • joseph||

    "Why government? Because the passions of men will not submit to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint."--Alexander Hamilton

    We need some regulation to prevent price gouging and financial meltdowns. The problem with the town hall hillbillies is that they just see government as a bunch of varmints, no matter what they do. And the problem with Washington is they don't often have backbone when dealing with the hillbillies. That's what Krugman is talking to.

  • Hillbilly||

    Fuck ya'll, joseph.

  • ||

    joseph -

    After 45 years of war we should have ended the scourge of poverty by now. How's that working out?

  • ||

    Fine, then lets go back to Carter's last budget, when the Dems held Congress, and erase Reagan's slashing of the budget.

    Deal?

  • Bill R||

    Krugman probably takes the Trotskyite line on the Soviet Union. If only the USSR was really socialist then things would have worked out. Obama is engaging in counter-revolutionary activity!

  • ||

    I pulled this off of Wikipedia. It seems particularly relevant in Crudmann's case:

    "In Atlas Shrugged, Rand tells the story of the U.S. economy crumbling under the weight of crushing government interventions and regulations. Meanwhile, blaming greed and the free market, Washington responds with more controls that only deepen the crisis. Sound familiar?"
    -Yaron Brook, "Is Rand Relevant?"
    The Wall Street Journal, March 15, 2009

  • ||

    Washington, it seems, is still ruled by Reaganism - by an ideology that says government intervention is always bad, and leaving the private sector to its own devices is always good.

    Given the amount of federal intrusion into every conceivable aspect of humanity since Reagan left, this has got to be about the dumbest thing I have ever hear. I almost went apoplectic.

  • Joe M||

    Abnormal Pink Guru

    Perfect!

  • robc||


    Fine, then lets go back to Carter's last budget, when the Dems held Congress, and erase Reagan's slashing of the budget.


    Im even willing to do a CPI and population adjustemnt.

  • Tony||

    Anyone willing to talk about the points made in the column?

    Nahhh.... "Krugmerman is a jzerk and a doodoo head!!!!!" Do I fit in now?

  • Mike M.||

    Anyone willing to talk about the points made in the column?

    OK. Let's talk about the main thesis of the column:

    "Washington, it seems, is still ruled by Reaganism - by an ideology that says government intervention is always bad, and leaving the private sector to its own devices is always good."

    If this is true, then how the hell does he explain the TARP bank bailouts, the auto industry bailout, the omnibus spending bill, and the stimulus package?

    No, Krugman doesn't have any point at all, except for the one on top of his head.

  • RF||

    I'm betting that Democratic attempts at passing health care legislation would be faring far better if ARRA had not passed. Less government-addicted individuals, I know, would support, or mute their opposition to, the current legislation if ARRA had not been such a boondoggle. But, when you've got the government incentivizing car purchases, ill-advised home loans (so much for learning our lesson), and other largely-private behaviors, people are going to yell "STOP" at some point. Unfortunately, for the left, it happened when they were on the verge of health care nirvana. Needless to say, I've been surprised at some of my leftie-oriented friend's opposition to the health care legislation, based now on the assertion that we can't afford it.

    Pick an area in which to intervene and stick with it. Don't try to do too much at once... kind of demonstrates the Obama Administration's sheer lack of skill at governing.

  • Tony||

    Mike M.,

    Krugman actually gives Bush credit for being willing to spend to rescue the economy despite his demonstrable devotion to Reaganomics.

    Let's not give Reagan too much credit, though. Sure he worked under the assumption that low taxes and less regulation would make everything better, but for some reason this fairy tale economics always comes with a large dose of corporate welfare and deficit (mostly military) spending.

  • ||

    It really is an ugly thing, isn't it, when people on the winning team don't get everything they want?

    And everything they want is, well, . . . . everything.

  • ||

    ...this fairy tale economics always comes with a large dose of corporate welfare...



    Tony, I'd appreciate you furnishing one piece of corporate welfare that Reagan initiated. Across the board tax cuts don't count. Targetted taxcuts of the types that the Democrats always propose do.

    Reagan may have signed bills containing corporate welfare but they came from Tip O'Neil and Ted Kennedy. Funny how it's never "corporate welfare" welfare though, it's always about creating jobs and stimulating the economy.

    And oddly it's the Republicans that are always the bad guys for questioning it.

  • Anonymous||

    Don't treat him like LoneWacko, who's like a dog who always pisses on the carpet, but sometimes licks your face. Treat him like an incontinent hamster: plastic garbage bag.

  • ap||

    "Krugman actually gives Bush credit for being willing to spend to rescue the economy despite his demonstrable devotion to Reaganomics."


    too much! too much! ...i thought Bush was a reckless spender? now he is demonstrably devoted to the idea of limited government? and you use the last spending spree of bush as evidence that Krugman is reasonable in his assessment. dude, you are fucking stupid.

  • Mike M.||

    And everything they want is, well, . . . . everything.

    Exactly! In several previous columns, Krugman vociferously argued that the trillions of (borrowed) dollars the government had poured in to "rescue" and stimulate the economy weren't enough, and he was pushing for trillions more. Ironically though, many other liberals now are claiming that the economy is already on its way to recovery, which if true, means that he was wrong.

    Krugman and other elite socialists like him are whiny ass little babies who want to get everything in the world they demand right now, and if they perceive that they might not get it, react just like a baby would.

    Honestly, I'm not sure any level of government spending or intervention would ever truly satisfy the guy. All he would do would be to increase his already outrageous demands even further.

  • ||

    As another economist once said, Krugman is proof that even idiots can get a Nobel Prize.

  • ||

    Johnny Longtorso | August 24, 2009, 11:45am | #

    Fine, then lets go back to Carter's last budget, when the Dems held Congress, and erase Reagan's slashing of the budget.

    Deal?



    This is the perfect way to argue with people like this.

  • JB||

    Krugman is a lying stupid cunt. I hope that fucker dies a slow death.

  • Urkobold™||

    YOU ARE ALL DYING SLOWLY, FOOLISH MORTAL!

  • Tony||

    Exactly! In several previous columns, Krugman vociferously argued that the trillions of (borrowed) dollars the government had poured in to "rescue" and stimulate the economy weren't enough, and he was pushing for trillions more. Ironically though, many other liberals now are claiming that the economy is already on its way to recovery, which if true, means that he was wrong.



    Wow. Okay the economy is in recovery because of the stimulus, but that doesn't mean more stimulus won't be needed to prevent another dip, which is all Krugman has been saying.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    The economy is in recovery by what measurement Tony? And if you want to listen to someone who isn't completely insane talking about the economy who's not an Austrian - go look at Nouriel Roubini. He is actually warning of a double-dip recession, except he's not retarded.

    Why do you keep shilling for Krugman? The guy is a piece of shit with less than that in his mind.

  • Adam||

    Tony:
    "Wow. Okay the economy is in recovery because of the stimulus, but that doesn't mean more stimulus won't be needed to prevent another dip, which is all Krugman has been saying."

    So how do you square that with the revelation that the vast majority of stimulus money hasn't been spent yet?

  • Urkobold™||

    ADAM, YOU FOOL, KNOW YOU NOT OF THE GOVERNMENT'S MAGIC MULTIPLIER EFFECT? FOR EACH BILLION DOLLARS SPENT BY GOVERNMENT, AMERICA GAINS ONE TRILLION IN GDP.

  • Tony||

    Adam,

    Since the only spending that could be connected to the recovering economy was government spending, that means the stimulus theory worked. Maybe Krugman was too pessimistic, but he's still more right than you assholes who probably think reducing the Walton family's tax burden would have been more useful.

  • Zeb||

    the only spending that could be connected to the recovering economy was government spending

    And how, exactly, have you reached this conclusion?

  • Tony||

    And how, exactly, have you reached this conclusion?



    With fucking FACTS.

  • Urkobold™||

    FINE ART CARE and TREATMENT STANDARDS?

  • ||

    Tone - It would be nice if you could supply the facts, fucking or non-fucking as the case may be.

  • Anonymous||

    If you fuck a fact, does it bear a truth?

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Tony never, ever, EVER supplies facts - the problem is guys, the "facts" are either whatever Krugman says, or what is fabricated out of Tony's foggy mind.

    You're expecting too much of the boy.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Oh my I didn't even quite read what Tony said upthread there... He actually thinks that SPENDING is the measurement of a strong economy!

    LOLZ!

    I guess it makes sense to shill for Krugman if your weak mind is incapable of realizing how stupid he is at that basic a level.

  • Tony||

    Google has facts. I simply don't respect any of you enough to go to the effort. I know facts are on my side and that you live in a bizarre, insular little cultish world and that's good enough for me. I've long ago realized you guys aren't amenable to facts that don't prop up your cherished cult beliefs, so why should I bother?

  • ||

    Reading Tony reminds me of this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

  • ||

    Okay the economy is in recovery because of the stimulus, but that doesn't mean more stimulus won't be needed to prevent another dip,

    Which is it? The economy is in recovery, or it needs government support? I don't think you can have it both ways. I think we have three possibilities here:

    (1) The economy is in recovery, and would have recovered anyway as part of the business cycle, so the stimulus was a huge waste, and more stimulus would be an even bigger waste.

    (2) The economy is in recovery due to the stimulus, so no more stimulus is needed.

    (3) The economy isn't recovering, the stimulus has failed so far, so there seems little reason to double down on a failed policy with more stimulus.

  • ||

    R C Dean,

    You goddamned capitalists--always burying hapless consumers with too many choices.

    I'd like to vote one, but I'm afraid there might be another shoe dropping, though, hopefully, not as hard as when this recession first got started. Cycle-wise, we're more than due for a recovery, but I have a bad feeling that this spendathon is going to have a nearer term comeuppance.

  • ||

    Could someone tell me how Paul "Singlehandedly devaluing the Nobel Prize" Krugman can keep a damn job when he gets everything, and I do mean EVERYthing, wrong.

    He keeps a significant portion of the population secure in advocating for political policies that will ultimatly harm themselves.

  • The LIbertarian Guy||

    "Let's face it, people. Paul Krugman is smart and the rest of us are not."

    That's the basic liberal mantra:

    "How dare you call us elitists, you stupid fucking hillbillies?!? We won, now bend over and stop your bitching, because we know what's best for you! Inbred racist ingrates!"

  • ||

    If I ever swing a Nobel Prize--in Peace or Literature, maybe--I intend to milk it for all it's worth. Including of course, making absolutely batshit insane pronouncements that some people will accept because I'm a Nobel laureate.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    "I've long ago realized you guys aren't amenable to facts that don't prop up your cherished cult beliefs, so why should I bother?"

    Hypocrite much, Tony?

  • Sean W. Malone||

    That's funny... Talking to Tony always reminds me of this

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Tony "knows" the facts support him... You know... without bothering to look any of them up.

  • ||

    Pro Lib, so basically, your writing will stay the same?

  • Mr. Chartreuse||

    With fucking FACTS.

    You have Jack and shit, and Jack left town.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Tony is probably waiting for his welfare check to hit the mailbox before replying to this thread.

  • Birther Gun Toting Evil Monger||

    he's gotta wait till next monday then. in the mean time he'll be raping produce that's been slowly rotting in the back of his fridge. the anti-psychotic prescription is done and he can't get a re-fill. if the mail is late he'll be sitting on his front steps naked and masturbating as the kiddies walk home from their first day of school.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Wow, BGTEM... you're being way too easy on ol' Comrade Tonyi. Say what you're REALLY feeling... you're blocking. Open up and shaaare your feeeeeeelings.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Man, I gotta get bifocals. I coulda sworn it said "more than any president since before the Designated Hitler rule" up there in the column.

    Feel... fuzzy... faint... like Paul... Krugman... is in...filtrating... mind...am doing... poor... job of...impersonating... William... Shatner...

    Jägermeister. Must... reach for... Jägermeister...

  • ||

    I have to disagree with his comment regarding American Axle. As much as I hate to admit it; they are important to the auto industry. My husband lost his job (that he had for 14 yrs) at AAM. Prior to the plant closure there was a 14 week strike. That strike shut down GM. If AAM were to go under it would cripple GM again.

  • Tony||

    Which is it? The economy is in recovery, or it needs government support? I don't think you can have it both ways.



    Why not? If the only spending propping the economy up (i.e., causing the recovery) is government spending, it's entirely plausible that the private sector is not yet capable of sustaining the recovery without support. This is a lesson learned in the first great depression. The lesson was don't listen to deficit hawks until the economy is supporting itself again.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Tony.

    You fucking moron.

    Spending cannot "prop up" an economy. Spending does not cause a "recovery". Spending cannot improve credit worthiness or solvency.

    You cannot spend your way to prosperity.

    Neither can a government.


    Shut the fuck up. You retarded amoeba.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Do you not even have the slightest clue how economies function Tony? I mean... I know you don't really get economics at all in general, but are the basics this far out of your grasp? Really? I keep wanting to give you the benefit of the doubt but every time I do, you say something stupid to the point of parody.

    I don't understand why you're not embarrassed and ashamed of your ignorance. The things I don't know anything about, I always make as much of an effort to learn as possible, and I certainly don't flaunt my ignorance, but jesus man... you just let it all hang right out.


    I think I've said this to you before too... But, arguing from authority (which is the only thing you're capable of) is a tremendous fallacy to begin with, but if you're going to do that, then at least fucking pick an authority who actually knows what they're talking about. Krugman has been wrong about literally everything he's ever written about... Especially in the last several years. And when you shill for him, all you're doing is exposing how criminally ignorant you are on the subject at hand and how easily you are manipulated by completely asinine ideas just because you think the guy who said it is on the Blue Team. Why aren't you ashamed?

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    Hmm, either Krugman's talking points need a lot of help, or he's a satirist and a damn good one.

  • ||

    brotherben,

    That goes without saying--I'm a libertarian and ipso facto insane.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Tony, why should you give half a shit if the economy recovers? The private sector is your enemy, remember.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    "You cannot spend your way to prosperity."

    Can't tax your way to prosperity, either. Two hard lessons the left never seems to grasp.

  • JF||

    I was never a Krugman fan, but he is worse than ever. When did he turn into a complete hack?

  • ||

    Professionally speaking, if most of you actually had a synapse that fired, you'd be even more dangerous than the brownshirted, jackbooted hooligans that you have hanging out at Town Hall meetings shouting "Sieg Heil!".

    Wait a second ... you ARE those brownshirted, jackbooted hooligans!

    Go Galt Yourselves!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement