If Obama appointed Paul Krugman as WH advisor...

[MannyGoldstein]

How much would that affect your enthusiasm for Obama?

12 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	I'd be much more enthusiastic and active in Obama's reelection effort
	11 (92%)
	I'd be somewhat more enthusiastic and active
	1 (8%)
	Wouldn't particularly affect my actions
	0 (0%)
	I'd be somewhat less enthusiastic and active
	0 (0%)
	I'd be much less enthusiastic and active
	0 (0%)
	Other (please elaborate below)
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[cthulu2016]

1. I would hate to see that happen

It would co-opt one of the most valuable voices we have.

Now if Krugman were speaker of the House that would be different.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Perhaps

But I'm not so sure. Hiring a clearly forthright Liberal like Krugman would be totally out of character for Obama, so, to me, it would signal the possibility of change.

Also, I don't think Krugman could be co-opted - it's not in his nature.

[cthulu2016]

4. Co-option was probably not the right word. Silenced is closer to it.

Krugman would have to give up his blog, his column, his book-writing, his appearances speaking for nobody but himself.

And what would be gained?

If Krugman was Obama's constant companion for a month or two Obama might start to actually understand the economy enough to chose better between differing advice.

But if Krugman was in an office writing up proposals for the WH to look at and reject he is already doing that. He proposes stuff all the time. The WH reads him and rejects him.

But at least the way things are now you and I (and the WH) get to read what he has to say.

[MannyGoldstein]

7. Good points.

Frustrating!

[unkachuck]

3. I would be much more enthuiastic....

....but I'm not holding my breath....for four years they've been telling me that me and my enthusiasm doesn't matter; that I suffer from 'no where else to go' syndrome....

[coalition_unwilling]

10. Obama said my wife and I should 'have our heads examined' (on "60 Minutes")

for daring to question the circumstances under which Osama bin Laden was extra-judicially assassinated. This after his first chief of staff (Rahm Emmanuel) called us 'retarded' for trying to primary Blue Dogs.

I'm still going to vote for Obama, make no mistake (that 'nowhere else to go' syndrome), but money and time? Fuh-ged-a-bout it. Won't get fooled again.

[Webster Green]

15. Ditto.

I don't like him much. He's slicker than Willie. I was so excited when he was elected, because I didn't know who he really was.

I will vote for him again though. The alternative is unthinkable.

[coalition_unwilling]

17. That's it in a nutshell. There are times, though, in human affairs when selecting

the lesser of two evils is not cynicism but rather a civic duty. I believe this is one such time.

[limpyhobbler]

5. I like Krugman but it would be just symbolic unless it was backed by real policies,which it won't be

[MannyGoldstein]

6. Do you think Krugman would accept or keep the position

unless it was legit?

[limpyhobbler]

12. Dunno

It's not like he needs the money or a crappy job.

He's wicked smart, so I'd guess he wouldn't accept the job unless he was lead to believe it was a role to help set policy.

But after he gets there the reality could be different than the expectation.

[girl gone mad]

8. Krugman is still too wrapped up in neoclassical thinking.

Someone like Galbraith or Wray could push for legitimately populist (and effective) economic policy. Krugman accedes to the banks too often.

[MannyGoldstein]

11. Well, can we agree that compared to the current riff-raff,

Krugman would be an astonishing improvement?

[cthulu2016]

14. The neoclassical economist is much like the Darwinian

(I am just typing here because it's a slow night. I am sure I will be ineact or flat wrong in some thing I say here, but typing is a useful kind of thinking aloud.)

Take supply and demand. It seems to imply that raising the minimum wage must increase unemployment. Since it does not always do so a person can, 1) ignore the evidence in favor of the dogma, 2) announce that supply and demand is not a sound underpinning to economics, or 3) recognize that our understanding of how supply and demand operates in different environments and in synergism or opposition to other fundamental psychological/economic forces is limited, and needs more work.

One could characterize #3 as clinging to S&D to defend old economics for the sake of defending old economics, or one could recognize that given our lack of understanding of complex dynamic systems it is hardly surprising that we get things wrong and that the over-confidence of past economists is not really evidence of the underling worth of the classical.

In the case of the minimum wage, for instance, is it right to assume that business always spends the maximum it can spend on wages? Is a fixed supply of wages being chased? I would guess it likelier that hiring a new worker is a bigger deal than paying an existing worker more so there is usually some underemployment and an excess ability-to-pay-wages. I have no idea what is really at work (I was just making that up), but the point is that the problem with S&D is likelier to be a defect in defining supply and defining demand.

The problems with the classical frame are most likely problems of subtlety and implementation. And the arrogance of any old guard will always infuriate the young turks (with reason) and encourage radicalism to get attention, when what is need is a less static examination of some basic truths.

And folks end up over-playing differences. Look at Dawkins vs. Gould. Gould said some ridiculous things to get attention (and because he was a geologist/paleontologist who overvalued the importance of the fossil record), and when called on them by a neo-classicist like Dawkins back-pedaled to say that of course he wasn't proposing any radical deviation from Darwin because Darwin really is fundamentally right.

There are always people pretending to overturn Darwin when they really mean make sensible refinements with an open mind.

And without someone who isn't a complete fool minding the classical store the most exciting thinkers will upend some very important stuff.

It is ironic that the selfish-gene, maybe the deepest idea of our life-times, is merely the result of taking Darwin seriously. Because we knew nothing of genetics there were endless attempts to "fix" Darwin 1900-1950 that were just wrong. The classical Darwin was waiting for genetics. By the time genetics came along there was so much back-log of erroneous thinking about species selection and mutation and such that it took a generation for people to say, no dammit. Darwin was right! This stuff operates on the level of the individual, as it must.

Long story short, Darwin is more "right" today than in 1970.

Radical economic thinking is valuable... indispensable. But just because classicism or neoclassicism is clearly incomplete does not mean that solutions can only lie in radical change.

And radical theory often over-states it radicalism. One would get a lot more press "overturning S&D" but nobody is ever going to un-do the 90% of S&D that is unexceptional, uncontroversial basic sense.

Regarding Krugman, in specific, he has come a long way toward (admirable) agnosticism on some ideas, which is probably a good place to be.

And even if we posit that a neoclassical approach is wrong will yield better results than 99% of competing theory. There may well be better approaches, but as policy the average different approach will be spectacularly wrong. So as informing policy there are worse things indeed.

Krugman's position as high-profile public defender of the basics of the dismal science field from the intellectual anarchy of radical RW theory is invaluable, and more than justifies his relative conservatism. (In the right meaning of the word.)

[coalition_unwilling]

9. Monkeys would fly out of my butt too, but hell yeah I'd be

hyper-enthiasitic. Same goes for Stiglitz. One can always dream

[Jamaal510]

13. It wouldn't be a bad idea I guess,

but I really don't see how it would change much. Plus, I doubt that Krugman would be interested since he's been busy speaking out and writing his blogs. I'm sure that PBO is probably surrounded by all sorts of intellectuals who are perfectly capable of doing their jobs and advising him, but I get the feeling that he doesn't always follow their advice. For example, as much support there is for legalizing 420, there's no way you can tell me that there's absolutely nobody in his circle recommending that he change his stance on this issue.

[TheKentuckian]

16. It depends on if he was going to be a real influence or just a way to assimilate him

and shut him up from the public sphere.

[msongs]

18. no, we should keep the same wall street insiders who caused the mess lol nt