I am probably repeating an earlier comment (not going to check all 527 previous comments), but it should be noted that the top one-or-whatever-small-percent is doing much better as well in spite of the slightly-higher tax rates, thanks to the stock market rise, dividends and other company paybacks, and increasing high-end salaries. It really *is* trickle-up!
1
Job creators happen on the DEMAND SIDE - not supply side - of the economy. They can't seem to let go of "the big lie".
28
I'd really like to believe the information in this article, that a tootsie roll lasts forever and that the real unemployment rate is somewhere around 5%. But it's just not possible anymore. President Obama, with his party's full and never ending support and praise has done more to damage the credibility of the Feds than all the other presidents put together. We can't trust him, we can't trust the Secretary of State, we can't trust the IRS, we can't trust that if a red line is drawn in Syria that crossing it will not be tolerated and we certainly can't trust the recent Census Bureau report that everyone's income is "going up fast". Baloney
13
Mr. Krugman, you have just angered every Rightwing, Conservative, Supply-sider in the entire country. You have just given justification to end the 1% and their Conservative Right's long held argument about giving free money to rich people.
The Conservative Right always said that giving tonnes of free money to rich people was a counter-intuitive way of making the economy work, and Liberals were just too incompetent to understand. Now, you have exposed their lie. What will happen next?
The Conservative Right always said that giving tonnes of free money to rich people was a counter-intuitive way of making the economy work, and Liberals were just too incompetent to understand. Now, you have exposed their lie. What will happen next?
16
Back when it was first made public, the Laffer curve was laughable. Now one entire political party accepts it. If we gan get trickling out of our economic and political discourse, so much the better. It always sounds like a bathroom noise.
6
You Go! Mr. Prez!
14
Less poverty? From 14 to 13%. One percent less poor people--about 7% of the poor. WE STILL HAVE NO SAFETY NET, and Hillary Clinton is against having one. Democrats are now to the right of your colleague Milton Friedman, who said that capitalism could not take care of poverty, that the government would have to do that, and he proposed a negative income tax.
More insurance? No real health insurance for most people--absurdly high and rising premiums, deductibles, copays and exclusions make this "insurance unusable for most.
Rising incomes? Not much for the working poor. For the rest, increased health costs will take up most of it, except for the very healthy.
We have to do better.
More insurance? No real health insurance for most people--absurdly high and rising premiums, deductibles, copays and exclusions make this "insurance unusable for most.
Rising incomes? Not much for the working poor. For the rest, increased health costs will take up most of it, except for the very healthy.
We have to do better.
19
The average American has no idea what's going on in this country or the world - only what Fox News tells them and they believe everything. And Fox knows it. Between Fox and the Wall St. Journal we are about to elect a certifiable lunatic to be our next president.
22
Um, you forgot to mention that the number of 18-34 year olds living with their parents went up significantly. In New Jersey (the leading state) almost 50% of them live with their parents. So, 18-34 year olds can't afford to form their own household (student debt, costs of housing, low wages), stay home, and household income goes up because there is an additional wage in that household. Great news, eh Mr. Krugman? This type of selective reading of reality, and how it doesn't square with people's everyday life is what is driving our society nuts (and into the arms of Trump). Please stop cherry-picking data to craft an unreal assessment of what is really going on, just because it puffs the "legacy" your preferred politicians.
30
But how to account for this particular one-year surge?
It has to be explained to me well why cutting taxes on the personal income of high earners will create jobs. That's not money they're using to build their companies, that's money they're putting away in the bank and buying personal property with. Wouldn't the creation of jobs be something you'd achieve by cutting corporate tax rates, not personal tax rates?
8
To Mitch McConnell -- put this in your pipe and smoke it!
12
Nevertheless, "average" Americans still keep settling for less and less, while allowing the one percent to take more and more.
The issue shouldn't be "is your salary higher than it used to be?".
It's: Do you earn enough to pay all of your bills and have enough left over to save, without having to resort to credit cards at the end of the month to buy necessities?
Without having to cheat your children of music lessons, without having to work so much that you never have time to see your family or socialize with friends?
Do you have enough to take a good vacation every year? Do you earn enough to be able take time off if you or your children or parents are ill and need care?
Can you afford to hire a tutor for your kid who's having trouble with high school math? Can you afford to send your children to college if they don't qualify for full-ride scholarships?
Can you afford to get cancer and not lose your home? Do you earn enough to save for retirement, for a down-payment on a home?
Do you earn enough so that a big rent increase will not force you to move and take your kids out of their school?
If the answer to any of those questions is no, then you are not earning enough.
It's great if some people are making more money, but making more means nothing if the cost of living a middle class life remains out of reach, no matter how many hours you work or how many jobs you hold down.
At some point your health, your children's well-being, and the social fabric breaks down.
The issue shouldn't be "is your salary higher than it used to be?".
It's: Do you earn enough to pay all of your bills and have enough left over to save, without having to resort to credit cards at the end of the month to buy necessities?
Without having to cheat your children of music lessons, without having to work so much that you never have time to see your family or socialize with friends?
Do you have enough to take a good vacation every year? Do you earn enough to be able take time off if you or your children or parents are ill and need care?
Can you afford to hire a tutor for your kid who's having trouble with high school math? Can you afford to send your children to college if they don't qualify for full-ride scholarships?
Can you afford to get cancer and not lose your home? Do you earn enough to save for retirement, for a down-payment on a home?
Do you earn enough so that a big rent increase will not force you to move and take your kids out of their school?
If the answer to any of those questions is no, then you are not earning enough.
It's great if some people are making more money, but making more means nothing if the cost of living a middle class life remains out of reach, no matter how many hours you work or how many jobs you hold down.
At some point your health, your children's well-being, and the social fabric breaks down.
14
Obama's policies had a lot less to do with the positive income and job creation numbers than Krugman would like you to think. He's more of a wanna be politician than an economist, constantly looking for numbers that support his leftist political agenda. Someone with this much of an agenda should be presented by NYT as a biased political writer, not an economist.
7
"When Americans are asked how the economy is doing, many of them just repeat what they think they heard on Fox News: By large margins, Republicans say that unemployment is up and the stock market is down under Mr. Obama, the opposite of the truth."
"If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." Sir Isaac Newton
"If I possess but a myopic, distorted vision of the ground below, it is by standing on the shoulders of trolls who hold before me a warped prism." Numerous members of today's GOP base.
"If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." Sir Isaac Newton
"If I possess but a myopic, distorted vision of the ground below, it is by standing on the shoulders of trolls who hold before me a warped prism." Numerous members of today's GOP base.
15
Krugman continues to show his mild-mannered racism towards people of color, most of whom have not experienced and increase in their incomes.
10
Talking about trickle up, we should spend some money on the IRS staff. They bring in much more money than we spend on them - I've read numbers of the order of magnitude of $10 received in taxes for every $1 added to their budget.
With a starvation IRS budget, one of the GOP's goals, the IRS doesn't have the manpower to go after suspicious looking returns filed by the well-to-do, who have the wherewithal to fight long drawn out battles to protect their complicated and opaque tax avoidance maneuvers.
The GOP has demonized the IRS - just one more feather in their anti-democratic cap.
With a starvation IRS budget, one of the GOP's goals, the IRS doesn't have the manpower to go after suspicious looking returns filed by the well-to-do, who have the wherewithal to fight long drawn out battles to protect their complicated and opaque tax avoidance maneuvers.
The GOP has demonized the IRS - just one more feather in their anti-democratic cap.
16
My understanding from other reporting (not NYT) is that much of these gains in purchasing power are due to low inflation, low commodity prices, and increases in hours of work. These gains are not gains in wages, then. I wish Dr. Krugman would try to shed at least a little of his partisanship. We get that he supports the President over the Republicans' laying and obstructionism, as do most readers. How about a more nuanced analysis of what is happening here? And maybe some recognition that single-payer, as advocated by Sanders, will eventually be the only rational solution left?
8
You need to show some documentation that the Census Bureau somehow missed factoring in your objections. The Census Bureau has centuries of data to assist in analyzing data, so I would be leery of discounting their conclusions.
2
News Flash: Trump just announced his economic policies: Voodoo II.
9
The last time economic growth benefited lower- and middle-class families was under the prior Democratic president, Bill Clinton. During the 2000 campaign the ignoramus in the race, George Bush, was able sow doubt about the validity of those gains with his claim that it was all just "fuzzy math." It was a sound bite much loved by the media, and something Al Gore, with all his deep policy knowledge and detailed, well-substantiated arguments, was unable to overcome.
We're seeing the same thing today. Trump calls the numbers "cooked," a more colorful term than Bush's, and one can understand why. In his experience, any time one sees a positive financial report, the books are probably cooked. After all, that's how he runs his businesses. Why would he think the government works any differently? And his pals at Fox are only too happy to support him in that view.
It's a lie that's very difficult to overcome, because those who believe it do so because they are ideologically predisposed to believe it and to disbelieve facts that are contrary to their worldview. And, as happened in 2000, because the media seems predisposed to challenge Clinton on details and let Trump just be his outrageous self, America may find itself in an Orwellian fantasy world where a proto-Fascist can be the leader of the free world and the parasitic top 1% are considered the job-creators. If Trump wins the Fox-Brietbart bubble will have captured us all.
We're seeing the same thing today. Trump calls the numbers "cooked," a more colorful term than Bush's, and one can understand why. In his experience, any time one sees a positive financial report, the books are probably cooked. After all, that's how he runs his businesses. Why would he think the government works any differently? And his pals at Fox are only too happy to support him in that view.
It's a lie that's very difficult to overcome, because those who believe it do so because they are ideologically predisposed to believe it and to disbelieve facts that are contrary to their worldview. And, as happened in 2000, because the media seems predisposed to challenge Clinton on details and let Trump just be his outrageous self, America may find itself in an Orwellian fantasy world where a proto-Fascist can be the leader of the free world and the parasitic top 1% are considered the job-creators. If Trump wins the Fox-Brietbart bubble will have captured us all.
14
Mr. Obama's trickle up economics has most certainly worked. Wealth has trickled out of our pockets and into the pockets of the billionaires who funded him. Since Obama has taken office, the 1% have had the highest income growth, while the working class has seen real wages declined. Stop this madness.
22
For sure, the news is fantastic. I agree the stimulus after the crisis should have been stronger. My brilliant idea was a one time building fund to every school district in America that could only be used for remodeling. This would have immediately benefited every local community in America, especially very depressed communities.
2
Krugman's points in countering the absurd Republican arguments are valid. But although things have improved somewhat for low- and middle-income people, they have improved much more for those at the top. Inequality continues to increase. What Krugman calls progressive policies have not worked in that respect. The next economic downturn (and one is inevitable sooner or later) will probably deal another setback to working people which it could take years to recover from. Of course what Obama and Democrats could do was obviously limited by mindless Republican opposition, but if Democrats want to win over the white working-class voters who are still dissatisfied with their economic rewards, they may need to aspire to more than just continuing the Obama policies.
6
No word on the private sector debt is ever uttered here or anywhere else because it's at around 180% of GDP and this is at depression levels.
Capitalism runs on credit and when debt is to high credit is hard to get for the masses. Even the FED doesn't understand this. They pumped money into the banking reserves but banks don't lend money from their reserves they sit on it.
The economy needs a QE for the people not for the people who already have it all and are using it to lend to the 99% and inflating assets and not creating real businesses that hire people.
They've created a foe economy that thrives on rent-seeking off of the working class. In times past this was equivalent to wage slavery.
Capitalism runs on credit and when debt is to high credit is hard to get for the masses. Even the FED doesn't understand this. They pumped money into the banking reserves but banks don't lend money from their reserves they sit on it.
The economy needs a QE for the people not for the people who already have it all and are using it to lend to the 99% and inflating assets and not creating real businesses that hire people.
They've created a foe economy that thrives on rent-seeking off of the working class. In times past this was equivalent to wage slavery.
11
I don't feel the optimism that Mr. Krugman expresses. My diversified 457 plan has been flat now for years...it would have performed better in a savings account at 1% interest. And I'm asking people who are paying for health insurance what their premiums are under Obamacare. The rates are as outrageous as ever. And with a daughter set to start college next year, I am overwhelmed what college tuition and housing expenses will do to my retirement savings. The trifecta affecting my life is dismal and oppressive. I'm not feeling any economic joy at all.
16
The ability of money to make money for anyone when deposited in banks really is instrumental to equitable capitalism.
2
It's not surprising that putting money in the hands of people who also are healthier through better healthcare insurance (or any, if they had none) helps the economy grow. The poorer people are, the more likely they spend all of their money, which is recirculated numerous times quickly. But subsidies to the rich through lower taxes doesn't mean they will build companies and provide more jobs. They can also choose to save it or invest it, rather than creating jobs.
5
There is a proper name for 'trickle up' economics. It was invented by Keynes and it has been proven to work quite well. Perhaps Republicans and corporate presidents like Obama, Clinton, Bush, Reagan etc. should have been educated on it. They probably were but ignored it because their agenda has always been to line the pockets of their billionaire donors and friends.
14
Obama has enacted some "trickle down", but he has also been involved in establishing or maintaining some "gush upwards" policies such as: enlarging the pool of customers for the health insurance sector, reneging on his campaign promise of '08 to fight to allow Medicare/Medicaid to bargain with big pharma for lower drug prices, and reneging on another promise to re-negotiate NAFTA (he ended up proposing NAFTA on steroids, instead).
12
Dr Krugman, now please tell us about "Trump Campaign Offers Conflicting Message on $1 Trillion Tax Cut Plan" and how this "plan" would compare with the tax-cutting decisions in Kansas.
i never thought I would live to see the day when I would say, "We live in a post-truth world."
But it is painfully true. Look at the number of Americans who believe Donald Trump is "more trsutworthy" than Hillary Clinton. Given the unambiguous data on the difference in credibility between these two candidates--orders of magnitude not subtle shades in difference--I question the relevance of Mr. Krugman's analysis. He is right, of course. Anybody who knows basic economics knows now and knew years ago when Republicans were attacking Obamas moderate plans, that Republicans were wrong.
The point is being wrong (and by that I mean, being wildly wrong, consistently wrong, repeatedly wrong and with no admission of being wrong) does not matter. Why? Because we live in a post-truth world.
In football, coaches are fond of saying, "You are what your win-loss record says you are." Not so though outside of football. You are what you say you are and you can re-write your record, despite a whole string of losses, to be all wins. That's bad enough. What is new, is that the American people believe the liar despite mountains of freely available evidence that definitively counters their preposterous assertions.
We must ask ourselves whether a democracy can function when truth and facts no longer inform decision making. Of course, it cannot. I guess this is the ultimate example of what "winning at all costs" means. The GOP had to destroy America to save it.
But it is painfully true. Look at the number of Americans who believe Donald Trump is "more trsutworthy" than Hillary Clinton. Given the unambiguous data on the difference in credibility between these two candidates--orders of magnitude not subtle shades in difference--I question the relevance of Mr. Krugman's analysis. He is right, of course. Anybody who knows basic economics knows now and knew years ago when Republicans were attacking Obamas moderate plans, that Republicans were wrong.
The point is being wrong (and by that I mean, being wildly wrong, consistently wrong, repeatedly wrong and with no admission of being wrong) does not matter. Why? Because we live in a post-truth world.
In football, coaches are fond of saying, "You are what your win-loss record says you are." Not so though outside of football. You are what you say you are and you can re-write your record, despite a whole string of losses, to be all wins. That's bad enough. What is new, is that the American people believe the liar despite mountains of freely available evidence that definitively counters their preposterous assertions.
We must ask ourselves whether a democracy can function when truth and facts no longer inform decision making. Of course, it cannot. I guess this is the ultimate example of what "winning at all costs" means. The GOP had to destroy America to save it.
12
Why do you think the 1% hates him and Hillary? Why the news media is on some kind of forced march to try to get a Republican in the White House to stop all the progress? Plain as the nose on your face.
8
Henry Ford was smarter than you suggest.
He understood that by paying his workers double the going market rate, it would force other employers to raise wages - broadening the base of his consumers.
He did not have to set wages so much higher than competitors to settle a strike, so I take issue with your historical interpretation of events.
He understood that by paying his workers double the going market rate, it would force other employers to raise wages - broadening the base of his consumers.
He did not have to set wages so much higher than competitors to settle a strike, so I take issue with your historical interpretation of events.
7
In this grim political landscape where the American electorate is in a state of flux, even a bit of good news is treated with cynicism. I welcome your analysis with thanks.
Unfortunately, a positive view of the economic picture will not penetrate the anger, and will not alleviate the contrariness, pique, and the "it's not good enough" feelings, that's out there, and more's the pity. It's said that the people want 'change' - and are looking for it, perhaps by willing to accept something radical rather than a steady elevation of the status quo. But deciding which candidate will bring the "best" change to to improve their lot, would best be made by listening to expert analysis and information, and not in a fit of resentment and anger.
We have clear choices - very different in policy and character. It should be an easy choice, if only the emotions get out of the way, and clear reasoning prevails. And, importantly, a bit of fore-thought and forecasting of what may lie ahead if we made the wrong choice.
Unfortunately, a positive view of the economic picture will not penetrate the anger, and will not alleviate the contrariness, pique, and the "it's not good enough" feelings, that's out there, and more's the pity. It's said that the people want 'change' - and are looking for it, perhaps by willing to accept something radical rather than a steady elevation of the status quo. But deciding which candidate will bring the "best" change to to improve their lot, would best be made by listening to expert analysis and information, and not in a fit of resentment and anger.
We have clear choices - very different in policy and character. It should be an easy choice, if only the emotions get out of the way, and clear reasoning prevails. And, importantly, a bit of fore-thought and forecasting of what may lie ahead if we made the wrong choice.
7
How could our economic situation NOT improve after 2008? When you hit rock bottom, things can only go one direction: up.
Our deficit is still worse than it was 10 years ago. It's easy to prop the economy up with borrowed money. If you look at the ratio of deficit to GDP, Obama is at the top of the list.
Bill Clinton should not be used as an example of successful implementation of democratic economic policy because he reigned over a unique period of time. Simple put: the 90's were booming no matter who was in charge.
Our deficit is still worse than it was 10 years ago. It's easy to prop the economy up with borrowed money. If you look at the ratio of deficit to GDP, Obama is at the top of the list.
Bill Clinton should not be used as an example of successful implementation of democratic economic policy because he reigned over a unique period of time. Simple put: the 90's were booming no matter who was in charge.
6
Deficit to GDP is exactly the OPOSIT of your statement. You evidently believe that if a lie is repeated often enough it begins to resemble truth. It does not, except in the republikan blogosphere and right wing media.
5
The biggest disservice to American citizens has been the myth of supply side economics and the trickle down effect. The "real" job creators are you and me, every time we spend a dollar. The business owners have no incentive to expand their enterprises unless their is demand for their products and services. Low interest rates may encourage some business owners to expand their businesses and thus strengthen the economy, but it generally only works for those businesses that flourish in economic downturns. Krugman is correct, the stimulus should have been bigger and more sustained. Government's job is to be countercyclical. Stimulate a down economy and slow an expanding one to avoid inflation. The Republican led sequestration was exactly the wrong thing to do and hampered the recovery. While the national debt is of concern, it is not something to focus on in a recession. Income inequality has been shown to have a much bigger negative impact on the economy than the debt and in good times the debt can be paid down if congress does their job.
12
September 16, 2016 "Information Clearing House" - "The Intercept" - The total U.S. budgetary cost of war since 2001 is $4.79 trillion, according to a report released this week from Brown University’s Watson Institute.
One would have to spend $10 billion dollars everyday for 273 years to spend $4.79 trillion dollars. Now if you like the fact that Obama and Clinton are ready to start another war after losing the last seven (7) wars for empire, vote for the war mongers and be happy. I myself am not interested in Obama and Clinton empire building, this country would be fine with me just the way it is without those two.
One would have to spend $10 billion dollars everyday for 273 years to spend $4.79 trillion dollars. Now if you like the fact that Obama and Clinton are ready to start another war after losing the last seven (7) wars for empire, vote for the war mongers and be happy. I myself am not interested in Obama and Clinton empire building, this country would be fine with me just the way it is without those two.
3
Who is this fellow? Clinton and Obama creating war? Did you forget Bush making things up about Iraq so they could invade it? Talk about creating war! Another Fox News Republican.
13
I never thought the true issue is that there were those that thought it would hurt the economy but rathjer that they disagreed with the principle as it being a form of weath redistribution.
2
As an engineer I like reading your columns Paul because they are based facts not beliefs, like most Republican policies seemed to be based on.
9
Get real Krugman. The economy is growing at less than a 1% annual rate in 2016 and you know it. Go ahead and spend the next couple months before the election digging deep for obscure statistics to make your case that the Obama era has been good economically. You will run out of lipstick and perfume pretty quick when it comes to this pig of an economy.
10
Awesome. Another nonbeliever drinking the Faux news kool-aid. 1990's Clinton handed GWB a budget surplus, and look what he did with it and what happened to the economy. Obama did remarkably well getting us where we are now, especially considering the monstrous obstruction he encountered, borderline racism and outright disrespect. Shutting down the government. Insulting him in public. Yelling "you lie" in State of Union Address. Recall republicans reaction when the Dixie Chicks simply stated in the UK that they "were embarrassed by GWB". Essentially ended their US careers. Fast forward to Hank Williams, Jr calling Obama "Hitler" and being rewarded by republicans joking about it. Absolute freaking hypocrites - the lot of you.
8
So people are offered statistics and the response is "But what about ME?" This exemplifies everything wrong with American education, both in sciences and in ethics. If you don't understand that statistical numbers reflect the average and cannot account for every individual case, you must have failed high-school math. And if you don't accept that your personal situation is less important than general welfare, you are ethically challenged. Every society has winners and losers; a just society offers a level playing field but does not guarantee success to everybody. So if you are a loser in the current favorable economic climate, shouldn't you blame yourself rather than politicians, Wall Street, or China? I just came back from Iceland which was very hard hit by the financial crisis. Now its economy is booming, unemployment is around 3 percent, and there are no homeless or junkies on the streets. Every Icelander I talked to works 2 or 3 jobs and finds it not only normal but enjoyable. "It's boring, doing just one thing," said a tourist guide who also dabbles in music production and moonlights as a bouncer in a night club. I met a waitress who did pretty well as a jewelry designer and an old lady who sold hand-knit sweaters. So before you praise Nordic "socialism" (which is no such thing), consider their work ethics.
5
There are two main types of liars. There's the regular ol' run-of-the-mill liars and then there's the damned liars or the statisticians as we call them.
2
Sadly, these accomplishments will only be acknowledged by those who abhor ignorance worn as a badge of honor.
6
To me, the difference in the DJI Index from President Obama's inauguration day to today tells the story of the economy under his presidency. On January 20, 2009 the DJI Index was 7,949.09. On September 14, 2016 the DJI Index closed at 18,212. Plain and simple. No ifs, ands, or buts. No spin. Those numbers are not cooked. THANK YOU PRESIDENT OBAMA!
11
Zero percent interest rate policy probably boosted the Dow by causing a shift of capital from debt instruments to stocks to historical extremes. Now when interest rates hiccup, the stock market swoons.
5
It is not surprising, but still amazes me that the "trickle down", is still being put forth by Trump and any number of republicans again. It has not worked in 35 years of using that canard, but hope springs eternal for these people. I would think the reason is not enough people know it has never worked and never will.
13
Given the Congressional opposition he faced, Obama can claim credit for a trickle-up recovery. The Fed's QE helped Wall Street but not Main Street, because banks, stuffed with cheap funds, were reluctant to loan it out to the 99%.
What we just had was 8 years of calm, thoughtful leadership in at least one branch (executive) of the federal government after the crash; enough to give most of us hope that things were stable enough to take individual risks again. Possible proof that there just be a "Confidence Fairy". Just not the one VSP expected.
As this weeks NYT's Upshot article dissected the Census report (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/06/upshot/up-geo-inequality.h... income distribution gains varied state by state.
The data are in" states that followed "trickle-down" are still suffering; the states that followed progressive (Obama-esque) trickle-up are now healthy. California is a state that voted to raise taxes, and the turnaround was pretty immediate.
What we just had was 8 years of calm, thoughtful leadership in at least one branch (executive) of the federal government after the crash; enough to give most of us hope that things were stable enough to take individual risks again. Possible proof that there just be a "Confidence Fairy". Just not the one VSP expected.
As this weeks NYT's Upshot article dissected the Census report (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/06/upshot/up-geo-inequality.h... income distribution gains varied state by state.
The data are in" states that followed "trickle-down" are still suffering; the states that followed progressive (Obama-esque) trickle-up are now healthy. California is a state that voted to raise taxes, and the turnaround was pretty immediate.
13
The Fed recapitalized the banks by relieving them of the need to pay interest to depositors.
5
We have all been trickled down on long enough (the imagery in that statement is no exaggeration). But the the concept here is simple - when the people who pay for absolutely everything in the economy - the US taxpayer - are doing better the economy as a whole does better. After having lost a job offer due to the 1993 recession and lost 100K on a house due to the 2008 recession - both of which came just after Republican rule, I am a firm believer in trickle-up.
9
And if the orange clown is elected, we'll lose all of this.
7
I just don't think things can trickle up under gravity. How about, upsquirt, upspurt or, my favorite, upstart economics. These may sound funny, but they aren't Laffers.
2
Capillary action carries water and nutrients to the tops of the tallest trees.
7
Median income as an indicator for individual progress has meaning only if corrected for the age distribution of the population. For example, if one assumes a constant linear relation of income to age (with older people making more), then if there is a bump in the population distribution, as that bump moves forward in the age distribution, the median income will increase, without the need for any change in the actual income vs. age graph.
Unfortunately, everyone, *especially* journalists, tends to view changing statistics with an implicit assumption of a static population. Krugman knows better, I'm sure, but he's not showing it.
Unfortunately, everyone, *especially* journalists, tends to view changing statistics with an implicit assumption of a static population. Krugman knows better, I'm sure, but he's not showing it.
Did Obama increase the capital gain taxation?
Did he re-establish a more proportional taxation in some way?
Did he re-introduce the succession tax?
Did he take any action to control the top executive bonuses?
Did he make something to establish that the losing top executive get no bonus?
I didn't hear any of those needed economy adjustments, but he pushed for the TPP and still pushes for the TTIP, which are great for multinational, but very punishing cheat for the small and medium enterprises even in the USA, as well for normal consumers worldwide.
All this make me think that both Republican and Democrat Presidents are the same, making the interest of the rich and further depressing the lower classes.
So what is for the current presidential campaign, if in both cases there will be no action to eliminate inequality and class discrimination?
Did he re-establish a more proportional taxation in some way?
Did he re-introduce the succession tax?
Did he take any action to control the top executive bonuses?
Did he make something to establish that the losing top executive get no bonus?
I didn't hear any of those needed economy adjustments, but he pushed for the TPP and still pushes for the TTIP, which are great for multinational, but very punishing cheat for the small and medium enterprises even in the USA, as well for normal consumers worldwide.
All this make me think that both Republican and Democrat Presidents are the same, making the interest of the rich and further depressing the lower classes.
So what is for the current presidential campaign, if in both cases there will be no action to eliminate inequality and class discrimination?
9
"rapid growth in the incomes of ordinary families — median income rose a remarkable 5.2 percent; a substantial decline in the poverty rate; and a significant further rise in health insurance coverage after 2014’s gains." These will all disappear (again) when Trump is President and Ryan is really running the show. Yesterday Trump doubled down on tax cuts for the rich, the "job creators". Let me tell you, at the state level (New Mexico) what cutting taxes on the rich and corporations (job creators) has done to New Mexico, courtesy of our Koch Brothers funded Republican Governor, and the few DINOS who voted with her: New Mexico has one of the highest unemployment numbers in the U.S., and not only did the "job creators" not create jobs, but actually fired people as their bottom lines rose. That's what supply side garbage does. Same thing in Kansas.
Those Trump supporters who are so downtrodden about their life are supporting, yet again, the Party that will screw them again, and take the rest of the country, and with Trump, maybe the rest of the world with them. The few of the Trumpists that have a brain will realize what they've done. Unfortunately, millions more will think it's ok to be even poorer with no health care, no Social Security, and the elderly on the streets begging. That will be Trump's America. Democrats better vote.
Those Trump supporters who are so downtrodden about their life are supporting, yet again, the Party that will screw them again, and take the rest of the country, and with Trump, maybe the rest of the world with them. The few of the Trumpists that have a brain will realize what they've done. Unfortunately, millions more will think it's ok to be even poorer with no health care, no Social Security, and the elderly on the streets begging. That will be Trump's America. Democrats better vote.
11
It just make sense. Democrat Economics: Put more money in the hands of the poor and middle class, they will spend it, since they have to and want to spend it to buy stuff. As a result, companies have to hire people to make more stuff. Thus unemployment goes down, the stock market goes up, and everybody is happy. On the other hand, Republican economics, put more money in the hands of the 1% they will invest it to make even more money with very little 'trickling down' to the 99%.
8
The big question of Obama's economic legacy is the ACA versus infrastructure stimulus. As the NYT's major article on his economic legacy said:
"That meant that he had to choose the A.C.A. over any number of other high-priority agenda items, including another stimulus, perhaps in the form of a massive infrastructure bill, which would have given the economy an unambiguous boost. “If you went back a few years, you might say, ‘Well, he should’ve focused even more on pushing through a bigger fiscal stimulus, which he could have if he wasn’t going for the Affordable Care Act,” Rogoff said. “That was a trade-off he made, and it cost him.”"
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/01/magazine/president-obama-weighs-his-ec...
I thought of that when I read Roger Cohen's recent article on how awful things are in Appalachia without coal mining to support them. Note to current candidates: this time infrastructure stimulus should be the number one priority.
"That meant that he had to choose the A.C.A. over any number of other high-priority agenda items, including another stimulus, perhaps in the form of a massive infrastructure bill, which would have given the economy an unambiguous boost. “If you went back a few years, you might say, ‘Well, he should’ve focused even more on pushing through a bigger fiscal stimulus, which he could have if he wasn’t going for the Affordable Care Act,” Rogoff said. “That was a trade-off he made, and it cost him.”"
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/01/magazine/president-obama-weighs-his-ec...
I thought of that when I read Roger Cohen's recent article on how awful things are in Appalachia without coal mining to support them. Note to current candidates: this time infrastructure stimulus should be the number one priority.
2
If one looks correctly at the saying, it is true that a rising tide lifts all boats. Tides rise from below. Putting additional resources in the hands of us 47-percenters places those resources in the hands of those most likely to spend them. Forty-seven percent of 320 million is about 150 million people buying shoes, happy meals, and appliances we previously couldn't afford. That's a pretty big prime for the economic pump.
7
Obama knows how it works: When the super-wealthy have money, the super-wealthy have money. When the middle class has money, everyone has money.
11
As we speak, the main Republican solutions to our economic problems are more tax cuts for the rich, and deregulation (just trust us!).
How foes anyone fall for this?
How foes anyone fall for this?
4
The census figures also point out that there are pockets in the Nation where the benefits have not played out as well. Middle America, flyover country, is not seeing the benefits as much as coastal cities. Or States with democratic governments such as Colorado and Minnesota.
Areas of the country that are hurting the most are under the thumbs of republican dogmas and legislatures, so of course they are not doing as well as Denver and California and Minneapolis.
This dogma can best be summed up with this metaphor: There is a fellow down the street. He has a lousy job that barely gets his family by. He sees his neighbor, a fellow with a good paying union job, and instead of doing his best to join that neighbors union and get a better paying job for himself he votes to destroy the union so his neighbor has a crummy job just like his.
That is what republicans have done to the moral ethic of this Nation.
If T rump is elected America will look more and more, and become more and more, a third world banana republic.
This piece should be on the front page instead of buried in the opinions.
Areas of the country that are hurting the most are under the thumbs of republican dogmas and legislatures, so of course they are not doing as well as Denver and California and Minneapolis.
This dogma can best be summed up with this metaphor: There is a fellow down the street. He has a lousy job that barely gets his family by. He sees his neighbor, a fellow with a good paying union job, and instead of doing his best to join that neighbors union and get a better paying job for himself he votes to destroy the union so his neighbor has a crummy job just like his.
That is what republicans have done to the moral ethic of this Nation.
If T rump is elected America will look more and more, and become more and more, a third world banana republic.
This piece should be on the front page instead of buried in the opinions.
7
Dr. Krugman: I think we already have enough evidence that under Democratic administrations things improve for the general population. We also have enough evidence
that trickle-down doesn't work as advertised by
the Republicans, as you repeatedly pointed out on many
occasions.
The one percenters obviously know this, they are not
stupid. So you need to take this discussion to the next
level: it is not that the one percenters believe in a faulty
economic theory, the one percenters WANT the general
population to be worse off because it's good for business.
For example, if you were a "job creator", wouldn't you love
to have a large pool of unemployed/underemployed
people fighting among them for subsistence jobs?
that trickle-down doesn't work as advertised by
the Republicans, as you repeatedly pointed out on many
occasions.
The one percenters obviously know this, they are not
stupid. So you need to take this discussion to the next
level: it is not that the one percenters believe in a faulty
economic theory, the one percenters WANT the general
population to be worse off because it's good for business.
For example, if you were a "job creator", wouldn't you love
to have a large pool of unemployed/underemployed
people fighting among them for subsistence jobs?
8
The decline in the uninsured is almost wholly due to throwing more people on Medicaid, not because of Obamacare. That could have been done without wrecking our healthcare industry. If I liked my insurance, I could keep it - period. Or so I was told. In fact I lost it, and what I now have I hate.
4
I was puzzled by the Times article yesterday that announced the good economic data in the headline but the entire article was devoted to the Trump voters who feel left behind. Their voices were quoted emphatically with words like "it ain't happening here". So the point seemed to be that the objective reality of the census data is trumped by the struggling middle class in sparsely populated regions like Kentucky and Montana. I wonder if PK could quantitate for us the disparity of economic opportunity between those red states like Kansas and Wisconsin and the rest of the country. And how much of that disparity can be attributed to the deliberate anti-worker policies of their state governments?
12
Here in L.A. much of the investment in arts & culture is in commercial areas where real estate developers stand to benefit from the increased value that those cultural investments create. Meanwhile, the public schools and low rent neighborhood's are starved for public art and cultural investment. This is what has become of contemporary America.
6
" So we must cut taxes on those “job creators” instead, counting on a rising tide to raise all boats."
It is time to drive a stake through the heart of this piece of misdirection and misinformation. A rising tide lifts all boats only if Archimedes' universal, non-discrimatory principle holds. It does not hold in a rigged economy where all the real wage gains are usurped by the top few percent of the wage earners.
It is time to drive a stake through the heart of this piece of misdirection and misinformation. A rising tide lifts all boats only if Archimedes' universal, non-discrimatory principle holds. It does not hold in a rigged economy where all the real wage gains are usurped by the top few percent of the wage earners.
9
If W or any Republican had this economic news, every R would be using it as a talking point in lockstep in front of every camera. Ds, not so much. They are woefully inept in the art of how to get a message out or how to tout a job well done. The President has had numerous successes that are never acknowledged. Once more, had the Rs given him what every other opposition party gave the sitting President, including the Ds to W, he could unequivocally be regarded as one of the most accomplished Presidents in recent history.
Just like Hillary. The media hates her and will only fill a narrative that she is the most dishonest person in the history of the world. Meanwhile, Trump with his apparent pay-for-play, utilizing other people's donations to his "Foundation" to purchase personal items, Trump University, which by all accounts is a whopper of a bait-and-switch scam not to mention him lying before our very eyes on nearly a daily basis, crickets. Any story or indictment never sticks to Teflon Don. And now his rise in the polls despite not revealing a thing regarding his rumored shady business dealings or international ties that will create untold, historic conflicts of interest or regarding his health or lack thereof. Does anyone think for a minute he won't let others run the country while he secretly huddles with his kids completely focusing on his business interests? He proves PT Barnum correct each day- a sucker is born every minute.
Just like Hillary. The media hates her and will only fill a narrative that she is the most dishonest person in the history of the world. Meanwhile, Trump with his apparent pay-for-play, utilizing other people's donations to his "Foundation" to purchase personal items, Trump University, which by all accounts is a whopper of a bait-and-switch scam not to mention him lying before our very eyes on nearly a daily basis, crickets. Any story or indictment never sticks to Teflon Don. And now his rise in the polls despite not revealing a thing regarding his rumored shady business dealings or international ties that will create untold, historic conflicts of interest or regarding his health or lack thereof. Does anyone think for a minute he won't let others run the country while he secretly huddles with his kids completely focusing on his business interests? He proves PT Barnum correct each day- a sucker is born every minute.
9
You state: "The President has had numerous successes that are never acknowledged." Maybe you could share a few of them with us? I'm not asking about has happened during his time in the White House; I am asking exactly what are these "numerous successes" he has achieved?
2
If you knew what you were talking about, you would have blasted me. You make statements that you can't back up which means you don't know what you are talking about.
You are emblematic of contributors on both sides spouting fluff with no substance.
You are emblematic of contributors on both sides spouting fluff with no substance.
It is very hard to make generalizations about anything without being shot down for it. If you are on a pension or social security alone your income has barely budged. Large parts of the country have experienced continuing job loss and stagnant wages. It is to this group that Trump bases his campaign. It seems that nothing will raise all boats equally and promising this is a pipe dream. But one thing is for sure. Trickle down policy benefits the rich alone for they have failed to invest in our country and without government insentives to do so They will continue to squirrel away their profit every where but in our economy.
7
Professor Krugman is wrong when he says the top one percent is paying about the same share of its income in federal taxes now as it did before Ronald Reagan began cutting taxes. When Reagan took office in 1980, the highest marginal tax rate was 70%; under his watch, that rate dropped to 33%. It is now 39.6%.
1
Marginal rates and percent of total tax revenue are not the same thing. In 1980, the highest marginal rate may have been higher, but deductions were very different, as was the income distribution across society -- there was a larger, more prosperous upper middle class, among other things.
You need more than one number, the marginal rate, to dispute with a Nobel-prize winning professor of macroeconomics, I think!
You need more than one number, the marginal rate, to dispute with a Nobel-prize winning professor of macroeconomics, I think!
9
"taking money away from “job creators"
"Job creators" that is exactly how the plantation owners have always seen them selves. And those human beings for whom they were creating these "jobs" were seen as slaves. Depending on how one looks at what constitutes slavery, that condition still exists, at least in the minds of the Job Creators. Just one example, a single mother with two children whom I know is working two shifts at two different poison delivery outlets know as "fast food" dispensers, She works 14 hours and commutes another 2 hours 6 days a week. She makes almost enough money to pay pay her rent in a not very nice one bedroom apartment in a not that very nice section of Los Angeles pay her bus fair and put semi-decent food on the table for 2 growing children... Child care..What's that? These children care for them selves when the mother is working. In addition since she is a fairly good looking female, she has to contend with various unpleasant attentions from her "over-seers".
Now people would say she is not a slave..she can quit anytime she likes. People who would say that are simply ignorant and certainly lacking in real life experience.
So, when one actually looks carefully at the big picture, The Civil War did not end ownership of people by the Job Providers, it just expanded the plantations in to Corporations, whom I would remind you are persons.
And if the Job Providers provide jobs why then the slaves are the billions providers for the owners.
"Job creators" that is exactly how the plantation owners have always seen them selves. And those human beings for whom they were creating these "jobs" were seen as slaves. Depending on how one looks at what constitutes slavery, that condition still exists, at least in the minds of the Job Creators. Just one example, a single mother with two children whom I know is working two shifts at two different poison delivery outlets know as "fast food" dispensers, She works 14 hours and commutes another 2 hours 6 days a week. She makes almost enough money to pay pay her rent in a not very nice one bedroom apartment in a not that very nice section of Los Angeles pay her bus fair and put semi-decent food on the table for 2 growing children... Child care..What's that? These children care for them selves when the mother is working. In addition since she is a fairly good looking female, she has to contend with various unpleasant attentions from her "over-seers".
Now people would say she is not a slave..she can quit anytime she likes. People who would say that are simply ignorant and certainly lacking in real life experience.
So, when one actually looks carefully at the big picture, The Civil War did not end ownership of people by the Job Providers, it just expanded the plantations in to Corporations, whom I would remind you are persons.
And if the Job Providers provide jobs why then the slaves are the billions providers for the owners.
10
The insistence by the GOP on "trickle down" economics, and Mr. Laffer is still out there advising state governments, can only be explained by their having been paid off. The understanding of how to improve GDP can be put simply.
In order to increase GDP, there must be an increase in demand. If you give more money to people who already do not spend all that they get, there will not be any increase in demand. If you give more money to people who already spend all that they get, they will spend that money and increase demand. An increase in demand will drive up GDP.
Am i missing something or is that not an easy concept to grasp?
In order to increase GDP, there must be an increase in demand. If you give more money to people who already do not spend all that they get, there will not be any increase in demand. If you give more money to people who already spend all that they get, they will spend that money and increase demand. An increase in demand will drive up GDP.
Am i missing something or is that not an easy concept to grasp?
5
This is true, and we would do well with more of this approach.
I do feel, however, that this puts the cart before the horse.
Driving GDP up for the sake of driving GDP up is an odd goal that we are unfortunately fixated on.
A better goal might be to have a vibrant, equitable culture and society from which a reasonable economy would necessarily result.
We should strive for a better country.
A continually expanding economy with no concern for the people seems insane.
I do feel, however, that this puts the cart before the horse.
Driving GDP up for the sake of driving GDP up is an odd goal that we are unfortunately fixated on.
A better goal might be to have a vibrant, equitable culture and society from which a reasonable economy would necessarily result.
We should strive for a better country.
A continually expanding economy with no concern for the people seems insane.
4
Making a compelling case to the independents and moderate Republicans that the economy is strong and getting stronger, as recent data show, is a big chore since the opposite view of the nation's economic health has been pounded in our ears for so long. Figuring out how to make climate change deniers and their ilk hear the good news and believe it before 8 November is the hill Hillary Clinton and her campaign must climb. It will be hard to do, but Hillary should be her own best advisor on it.
Hillary has persevered for so long under an unremitting tide of false accusations and phony scandals that she knows what it takes to survive in the toxic environments of GOP personal destruction politics. She has been punished for being accused continuously of everything from not baking enough cookies to murder.
The first debate can't come soon enough. The contrast of her command of the issues and Trump's bluster and "believe-me" strong-man rhetoric as a dodge against the exposure of his ignorance should be telling. It had better be.
Hillary has persevered for so long under an unremitting tide of false accusations and phony scandals that she knows what it takes to survive in the toxic environments of GOP personal destruction politics. She has been punished for being accused continuously of everything from not baking enough cookies to murder.
The first debate can't come soon enough. The contrast of her command of the issues and Trump's bluster and "believe-me" strong-man rhetoric as a dodge against the exposure of his ignorance should be telling. It had better be.
6
I'm in agreement with this but the argument is lost with condescending statements like "When Americans are asked how the economy is doing, many of them just repeat what they think they heard on Fox News".
3
You're absolutely right! Krugman failed to mention the other sources of misinformation that poison public discourse and peddle lies to the unsuspecting hordes who sadly missed out on critical thinking in school, namely, Rush Limbaugh,
Sean Hannity, Alex Jones, breitbart.com, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham. Let's not forget their contribution. Ever!
Sean Hannity, Alex Jones, breitbart.com, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham. Let's not forget their contribution. Ever!
3
Voting a stright Democratic ticket could help us realize much more with Hillary.
6
Re: "So the good news is real. "
So why isn't Clinton running on this good news? Why isn't she proclaiming how she going to contiune the Obama boom?
So why isn't Clinton running on this good news? Why isn't she proclaiming how she going to contiune the Obama boom?
1
The results are in. Middle class incomes grew during one year, therefore victory can be declared!
2
The future: Fewer and fewer paying to improve the the lives of more and more asking for more and more.
5
Instead of "trickle up", which sounds a little like a messy groundwater problem, I'd suggest calling President Obama's approach "rising tide" economics, as in: a rising tide lifts all boats.
4
Maybe if we figure out a way to exclude even more of the non-working from our calculations we can get the unemployment rate to go negative.
The ballooning of global debt, so beloved by Krugman, remains a ticking time bomb. Europe and Japan are resorting to negative interest rates. We won't be far behind.
Tick, Tick, Tick......
The ballooning of global debt, so beloved by Krugman, remains a ticking time bomb. Europe and Japan are resorting to negative interest rates. We won't be far behind.
Tick, Tick, Tick......
4
It's going to be very politically difficult to continue to hit the same small group of high income earners with still more tax hikes for redistribution purposes, given the absolute lack of returns available to those earners trying to fund their own retirements, and the fact that for other huge expenses such as college tuition for their kids, they are already expected to pay at levels intended to subsidize other students.
4
Not if this small group of people with high income are replaced by large group of We the people of small and moderate incomes. That's what Bernie's movement proved to the democrats that IT can be done. Once you eliminate big money influence and substitute with regular people's interests (yes they do know what's good for them even if they are not white and ivy league educated and privileged), the politicians elected by we the people become answerable to us, not to the small group of high income earners. Mrs Clinton will never get this because the Clintons have never refused money from anyone, here or abroad, for their political agenda or their foundation which benefits underprivileged populations in foreign lands.
3
Good news from the Census Bureau. Their survey shows increase in median real income of 5.2% during the past year.
The graphs in the report, however, tell a more sobering story. For every racial group (whites, Hispanics, blacks) the median income was lower in 2015 than in 2000, and the decreases have been significant since the Great Recession.
(We tend to believe in government statistics. But measures of real income depend upon how inflation is measured, and might be altered if inflation were underreported, say for political reasons. Some, particularly on the right may believe this, and deciding on the appropriate measure of inflation is difficult. The procedure was modified by the Boskin Commission in 1996.)
Thus median incomes have on the whole declined during the last 15 years. This is part of the reason that Trump has so much appeal.
Moreover, many voters are now seeing long-term changes in their economic well-being.
My main criticism of macroeconomics is that it focuses too much on the short term. Short term economics makes good sense when the Fed tries to come up with an interest rate model, or for politicians interested in one election cycle.
But in the long term, new variables became dominant, one of them being population growth, which is usually left out of the economic models that Krugman and other macroeconomists use.
Moreover, cogestion and mitigation for environmental damage driven by too much population growth are not included in income estimates.
The graphs in the report, however, tell a more sobering story. For every racial group (whites, Hispanics, blacks) the median income was lower in 2015 than in 2000, and the decreases have been significant since the Great Recession.
(We tend to believe in government statistics. But measures of real income depend upon how inflation is measured, and might be altered if inflation were underreported, say for political reasons. Some, particularly on the right may believe this, and deciding on the appropriate measure of inflation is difficult. The procedure was modified by the Boskin Commission in 1996.)
Thus median incomes have on the whole declined during the last 15 years. This is part of the reason that Trump has so much appeal.
Moreover, many voters are now seeing long-term changes in their economic well-being.
My main criticism of macroeconomics is that it focuses too much on the short term. Short term economics makes good sense when the Fed tries to come up with an interest rate model, or for politicians interested in one election cycle.
But in the long term, new variables became dominant, one of them being population growth, which is usually left out of the economic models that Krugman and other macroeconomists use.
Moreover, cogestion and mitigation for environmental damage driven by too much population growth are not included in income estimates.
5
When times are tough. Government needs to spend to recover for all. "Job creators" are greedy, and few if any create jobs with tax cuts - its a foolish gift to the wealthy.
Obama's economic policy that justfiably squeezes more from those who won't miss it to fund programs and policies to reduce poverty and create descent jobs. The proof is in the pudding: it works. Now Republicans should get on board and help "make America Great again" by sharing prosperity throughout their companies, and take a long view in business.
Obama's economic policy that justfiably squeezes more from those who won't miss it to fund programs and policies to reduce poverty and create descent jobs. The proof is in the pudding: it works. Now Republicans should get on board and help "make America Great again" by sharing prosperity throughout their companies, and take a long view in business.
2
Why does Krugman skirt the truth about high-income tax rates being equivalent to 1979?
1
Think what would happen is corporate taxes increased, put a transaction tax on stocks and bonds, FICA tax on all income with no cap would be nice, along with state taxes increasing. Then get real serious about infrastructure, have the feds pay 100% of medicaid, pell grants for everyone, a public insurance option, and allow people to buy into medicare at 45.
1
Where I live, the U.S. Post Office has a big banner outside that reads "Help Wanted." When the post office is advertising for help, you know the economy is humming.
5
Mitzi moon : who could afford to live in "Santa Barbra" on a post mans salary, Yeh things are really humming if you actually believed any of the lies put out by the fed regarding inflation, total disregard for the numbers between population growth and employment. We at one time had to have Two hundred thousand plus jobs a month just to keep up with population growth of course that was a hundred million people ago, so convenient to overlook facts. Chances of seeing this in print about the same as Chelsea and Marc signing up for the Army.
2
I'm neither a sailor nor an economist, but I know a true rising tide moves the little boats first, and the yachts last. If you don't see that happening, then it isn't a rising tide.
Maybe we've finally turned the tide.
Maybe we've finally turned the tide.
6
@ReaganAnd30YearsOfWrong
re "Obama's done nothing"?
Unquestionably we are much better off today than we should have been able to expect we would be, when viewed from the bottom of that deep chasm left by Bush.
And this despite the fact that since 2010 the GOP-dominated House has done absolutely nothing except pass lots of anti-abortion measures. The 112th, the 113th and now the 114th congress’s, that have endured unceasing obstruction led by Boehner/Ryan in the House and McConnell in the Senate, are the most shameful, lowest rated and least effective in US history.
re "Obama's done nothing"?
Unquestionably we are much better off today than we should have been able to expect we would be, when viewed from the bottom of that deep chasm left by Bush.
And this despite the fact that since 2010 the GOP-dominated House has done absolutely nothing except pass lots of anti-abortion measures. The 112th, the 113th and now the 114th congress’s, that have endured unceasing obstruction led by Boehner/Ryan in the House and McConnell in the Senate, are the most shameful, lowest rated and least effective in US history.
9
Name what's he's done to make us better off.
If you give a $100,000,000 tax break to the 1,000 richest people, they won't spend it, they'll save it, which creates almost no jobs. If on the other hand you give a $100,000,000 tax break to the poorest 1,000,000 people they will spend it, all of it, and create jobs.
That is why trickle-up economics works and trickle-down doesn't.
That is why trickle-up economics works and trickle-down doesn't.
10
...and when you give a $100,000,000 tax break to the poorest 1,000,000 people who have paid no tax to begin - that's not a a 'tax break', that's welfare. Welfare destroys incentive - and if you don't believe that, go look at Baltimore.
2
How about all the Corporate welfare that went downtown... the Inner Harbor, Camden Yards, etc.?
1
Peter,
The poorest one million would be given $100 dollars a piece and you think they would thus be disinclined to work! You seem to be saying the poor won't work because they have too much money and the rich won't work because they don't have enough. Extraordinary.
The poorest one million would be given $100 dollars a piece and you think they would thus be disinclined to work! You seem to be saying the poor won't work because they have too much money and the rich won't work because they don't have enough. Extraordinary.
2
Thank you to everyone for this! Here's what I don't understand: the simple and repeated concept--that middle class and the poor spend their money (because they need to) and the wealthy save it (or put it offshore) is rational, born out by what we know about our own pocketbooks and those of others. As is the follow--that spending is good for the economy. How do the old trickle down arguments of the right persist?
And how have the Republicans escaped blame for the crisis in the first place? Let's try this--'if there had been no crisis in 2008 (overseen by the Republican Administration), Obama's policies could have brought average incomes up so much higher.... (?) !
And how have the Republicans escaped blame for the crisis in the first place? Let's try this--'if there had been no crisis in 2008 (overseen by the Republican Administration), Obama's policies could have brought average incomes up so much higher.... (?) !
4
"Conservatives predicted disaster from these initiatives. Tax hikes on the rich, they insisted, would stall the economy."
Well, the economy has stalled, if its engine is GDP. The stock market is up, but that's because of low rates and other fed actions. Wages are finally rising, which is great, but as even Krugman points out, they are advancing from a low point.
"You might ask whether these numbers reflect reality. It’s often claimed that Americans aren’t feeling any economic recovery."
Many are not. Does Mr. Krugman not read the newspaper his column appears in? The Times had an article yesterday on wage depression in the heartland. While it's true the national median wage increase by 5%, wages on the coasts increased by 7%. Wages in the Rust Belt actually declined again.
Well, the economy has stalled, if its engine is GDP. The stock market is up, but that's because of low rates and other fed actions. Wages are finally rising, which is great, but as even Krugman points out, they are advancing from a low point.
"You might ask whether these numbers reflect reality. It’s often claimed that Americans aren’t feeling any economic recovery."
Many are not. Does Mr. Krugman not read the newspaper his column appears in? The Times had an article yesterday on wage depression in the heartland. While it's true the national median wage increase by 5%, wages on the coasts increased by 7%. Wages in the Rust Belt actually declined again.
2
You can't spend decades breaking down the middle class and think its going to built up by one president. We need to continue to make sure that middle and lower middle class people have enough money to feedback into the economy. We need to re-vamp hiring practices and we need higher paying jobs. Without that we will go back into a rut soon.
3
Ordinary Americans are the true job creators.
No one opens or expands a business unless there are potential customers for the business.
Unless they are running a Trump style scam.
No one opens or expands a business unless there are potential customers for the business.
Unless they are running a Trump style scam.
5
No one can open or expand a business under this administration. Hillary promises to double-down on the ineptitude.
Trump 2016.
Trump 2016.
1
Peter....there have been plenty of businesses opened and expanded over the last few years. The auto industry for one has expanded, thanks to the administration. Trump's businesses have expanded, largely thanks to low interest rates.
2
Think what might have happened with a congress that actually cared about people, instead of the right wing nuts determined to ruin the country.
6
I haven't had a raise in 5 years, but unlike Trump's disaffected supporters I know it's not Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton's fault. In my case it's a governor and legislature who've made careers out of demonizing public employees. In the case of private sector workers who've seen their incomes stagnate, it's corporate leaders who award themselves $125 million retirement packages and their Republican lap dogs who undermine unions and insist a hike in the minimum wage is out of the question if we want to stay competitive. When are people going to wake up and realize who's really keeping them down?
12
If you're from Madison, CT and a government employee then you're over-compensated already so stop whining.
3
This would all be very interesting were it not for the fact that a large percentage of the population (I'd guess 60+%) is evidence-resistant, fact-averse, and reality-proof.
6
It's a misrepresentation (basically a lie) to claim median income rose 5%, it's a statistical artifact, no one got a %5 raise last year. Here is the New York Times own explanation:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/15/business/economy/census-poverty-income...
“Even in regions that are prospering, many workers have seen little wage growth in recent years. The rise in median income was driven mostly by increased employment rather than wage gains.”
Surly this columnist knows that is the case. Let's hope, I think, the writing seeks to deceive rather than reflecting basic ignorance of core economic metrics. The average American knows this from their own experience and common sense.
Yet there is an even bigger lie in the column, something about taxes on the 1% being the same as pre Reagan. The 1% have doubled their share of national income going from 10% to 20% and they are taxed the same amount. It may be technically correct to say:
"In fact, the top one percent is now paying about the same share of its income in federal taxes as it did in 1979, before Ronald Reagan began the era of big tax cuts for the rich. "
But this is the same argument that Greg Mankiw uses. It seeks to fool people into thinking there is any equivalence in current tax rates, that nothing has changed, and the rich are taxed the same way with the same effects. The opposite is true. Anyone thinking this is either stupid or has no conscience. Restore the 1979 rates now!
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/15/business/economy/census-poverty-income...
“Even in regions that are prospering, many workers have seen little wage growth in recent years. The rise in median income was driven mostly by increased employment rather than wage gains.”
Surly this columnist knows that is the case. Let's hope, I think, the writing seeks to deceive rather than reflecting basic ignorance of core economic metrics. The average American knows this from their own experience and common sense.
Yet there is an even bigger lie in the column, something about taxes on the 1% being the same as pre Reagan. The 1% have doubled their share of national income going from 10% to 20% and they are taxed the same amount. It may be technically correct to say:
"In fact, the top one percent is now paying about the same share of its income in federal taxes as it did in 1979, before Ronald Reagan began the era of big tax cuts for the rich. "
But this is the same argument that Greg Mankiw uses. It seeks to fool people into thinking there is any equivalence in current tax rates, that nothing has changed, and the rich are taxed the same way with the same effects. The opposite is true. Anyone thinking this is either stupid or has no conscience. Restore the 1979 rates now!
3
Paul Krugman understates the degree of tax-based inequality when he points out that the top 1% pays about the same percent of its income in Federal taxes now as in in 1979. This ignores the increase in taxes paid by the non-rich. Today the wealthiest 3% of the people pay 50% of the federal taxes and the other 97% pay the other 50%. In 1979 the wealthiest 3% of the people paid 75% of the federal taxes and the other 97% paid the other 25%.
"..Tax cuts for the rich preceded both the 1929 and 2008 depressions. The Revenue acts of 1926 and 1928 reduced taxes on the upper income brackets and estates of the wealthy resulted in increases investment. However, overinvestment (by 1929 there were over 600 automobile companies in the USA) caused the depression that made the rich, and most everyone else, much poorer.
Since 1969 there has been a tremendous shift in the tax burdens away from the rich on onto the middle class. Corporate income tax receipts, whose incidence falls entirely on the owners of corporations, were 4% of GDP then and are now less than 1%. During that same period, payroll tax rates as percent of GDP have increased dramatically. The overinvestment problem caused by the reduction in taxes on the wealthy is exacerbated by the increased tax burden on the middle class. While overinvestment creates more factories, housing and shopping centers; higher payroll taxes reduces the purchasing power of middle-class consumers.."
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1543642
"..Tax cuts for the rich preceded both the 1929 and 2008 depressions. The Revenue acts of 1926 and 1928 reduced taxes on the upper income brackets and estates of the wealthy resulted in increases investment. However, overinvestment (by 1929 there were over 600 automobile companies in the USA) caused the depression that made the rich, and most everyone else, much poorer.
Since 1969 there has been a tremendous shift in the tax burdens away from the rich on onto the middle class. Corporate income tax receipts, whose incidence falls entirely on the owners of corporations, were 4% of GDP then and are now less than 1%. During that same period, payroll tax rates as percent of GDP have increased dramatically. The overinvestment problem caused by the reduction in taxes on the wealthy is exacerbated by the increased tax burden on the middle class. While overinvestment creates more factories, housing and shopping centers; higher payroll taxes reduces the purchasing power of middle-class consumers.."
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1543642
3
"In its just-released report on competitiveness, “Problems Unsolved and a Nation Divided: State of US Competitiveness,” Harvard Business School (HBS) found the US economy currently faces grave concerns. Harvard Professor Michael Porter long with Professors Jan Rivkin and Mihir Desai, the report finds that since the launch of the US Competitiveness Project in 2011, concerns about weak job creation and stagnating incomes—particularly for the middle class—have not waned." reported Nicole Sinclair head journalist for Yahoo. This was all over the face page yesterday. I read multiple articles and watched the interviews of the investigators. I would love if Professor Krugman would interpret the data the Harvard Professors presented for me/us. Some information seemed straight forward and logical. Some information seemed surprising. Some disheartening in particular about the role that politics, gridlock and partisanship is playing in our lack of forward motion. Why I ask this in the end Professor Mihir Desai thesis for improvement is decreasing corporate tax burdens to reflect other first world countries tax codes, open up American companies trade internationally even further, and "everyone needs to be ready to share the burden for more cuts".
This was near the end of 20 or 30 minutes of reading, graphs and interviews. Suddenly I felt I was being pitched by the Chamber of Commerce. I am to naive on global Economics to have more than just opinion. Paul Please Help!
This was near the end of 20 or 30 minutes of reading, graphs and interviews. Suddenly I felt I was being pitched by the Chamber of Commerce. I am to naive on global Economics to have more than just opinion. Paul Please Help!
1
Krugman (AKA Hillary’s shill) is no different from any economist who will find some data point to support his point of view. Waiting for the annual Census Bureau (notoriously flawed) report is laughable when a much better data point, inflation adjusted wages, was available today as part of the CPI report. There is a good reason Krugman didn’t use it: it stinks at -0.1% for August and +1.3% for the last year. Any data point that doesn’t fit the Obama/Clinton narrative doesn’t get any attention, what a surprise.
I would like Krugman or anybody for that matter to point to a specific Obama policy that has led to an improvement in the economy. I actually think the Obama administration accounts for a 2 to 3% drag on the economy and the Fed is good for a boost of 4 to 5% giving us the 1 to 2% growth we have. Krugman giving Obama credit for economic growth is like Obama going to a 3 star restaurant and taking credit for cooking the meal.
Now, don’t tell me what’s happened, I know what’s happened. I believe the socialist Obama has had a negative impact on GDP.
Prove me wrong if you can.
I would like Krugman or anybody for that matter to point to a specific Obama policy that has led to an improvement in the economy. I actually think the Obama administration accounts for a 2 to 3% drag on the economy and the Fed is good for a boost of 4 to 5% giving us the 1 to 2% growth we have. Krugman giving Obama credit for economic growth is like Obama going to a 3 star restaurant and taking credit for cooking the meal.
Now, don’t tell me what’s happened, I know what’s happened. I believe the socialist Obama has had a negative impact on GDP.
Prove me wrong if you can.
3
There is a flaws in the midst of Robert's comment. It says "I actually think", "I know" and "I believe." I'm sure he has been told what to write.
2
Much as I would love to believe that Obama's economic policies are responsible for the recent uptick in median family income, I don't see much evidence for that thesis here.
First, correlation is not causation, and Krugman's essay doesn't point to any policies, individually or in combination, that would explain the 5% rise in median income. Simply being in office during an uptick doesn't make one responsible for it. Bill Clinton presided over a tech-driven boom, but was in no way responsible for it. If anything, the evidence here is that the major changes brought about by Obamacare coverage and subsidies did not have a negative effect, by causing job or income declines. That's great, but are those subsidies responsible for the 5% increase? Perhaps. But Krugman doesn't explain how or marshal any evidence to that effect.
Second, any glance at the year-by-year graphs shows that nice Census numbers, such as this year's, are as likely to reflect the inherent noisiness of the data as they are to reflect genuine trends. Just as a spike up or down in this year's average temperature is not a reliable sign of global warming or lack of it, the most reliable economic data covers longer time trends. Or at least, it couples short-term movements of indicators with credible local causes of that movement. Again, no such evidence is pointed out or apparent.
Obama is doing a great job given the hand he was dealt. But let's not make claims that overstep the evidence.
First, correlation is not causation, and Krugman's essay doesn't point to any policies, individually or in combination, that would explain the 5% rise in median income. Simply being in office during an uptick doesn't make one responsible for it. Bill Clinton presided over a tech-driven boom, but was in no way responsible for it. If anything, the evidence here is that the major changes brought about by Obamacare coverage and subsidies did not have a negative effect, by causing job or income declines. That's great, but are those subsidies responsible for the 5% increase? Perhaps. But Krugman doesn't explain how or marshal any evidence to that effect.
Second, any glance at the year-by-year graphs shows that nice Census numbers, such as this year's, are as likely to reflect the inherent noisiness of the data as they are to reflect genuine trends. Just as a spike up or down in this year's average temperature is not a reliable sign of global warming or lack of it, the most reliable economic data covers longer time trends. Or at least, it couples short-term movements of indicators with credible local causes of that movement. Again, no such evidence is pointed out or apparent.
Obama is doing a great job given the hand he was dealt. But let's not make claims that overstep the evidence.
Hillary should use the classic "Horse and Sparrow" argument against the Trickle-Down Economy plan. Supply-side economics aren't really unique to the last quarter of the 20th century and beyond. The model, known pejoratively as "trickle down" economics, had another name in the past. This model, largely credited with the 1896 panic, was called "Horse and Sparrow" economics, on the theory that if one feeds the horses enough oats, eventually there will be something left behind for the sparrows.
4
These results are very modest progress despite all the obstacles set in Obama's way. But nothing fundamental has changed - Ford just announced moving more manufacturing to Mexico.
http://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/ford/2016/09/14/mexico-ford-shiftn...
The economy is continuing to skitter along on temporarily cheap gas fumes. But that cannot last. China appears to have reached its Peak Oil production, which the US reached way back in 1970 and has never exceeded. An awful lot of subprime Auto loans and newly expanded suburban sprawl will be hitting the skids as the fracked oil companies go bankrupt and oil prices rebound...
But Krugman has never acknowledged any limits to material economic growth on our finite planet...
Obama's rhetoric has been bold but except for shutting down coal powered power plants his actions have been timid. Except for continuing the endless Wars costing US taxpayers $1 Trillion per year with $1 Trillion planned for new nuclear weapons, record arms sales to Saudi Arabia and Israel and ever thug regime on Earth...
http://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/ford/2016/09/14/mexico-ford-shiftn...
The economy is continuing to skitter along on temporarily cheap gas fumes. But that cannot last. China appears to have reached its Peak Oil production, which the US reached way back in 1970 and has never exceeded. An awful lot of subprime Auto loans and newly expanded suburban sprawl will be hitting the skids as the fracked oil companies go bankrupt and oil prices rebound...
But Krugman has never acknowledged any limits to material economic growth on our finite planet...
Obama's rhetoric has been bold but except for shutting down coal powered power plants his actions have been timid. Except for continuing the endless Wars costing US taxpayers $1 Trillion per year with $1 Trillion planned for new nuclear weapons, record arms sales to Saudi Arabia and Israel and ever thug regime on Earth...
2
Just think how much better the news would be if he had managed to jail some banksters. Imagine if we actually had the rule of law for the rich guys too.
3
Why would Obama jail his biggest supporters?
It's "percolate up," not "trickle up."
2
With these good news why is it that we are talking about Trump's testosterone and cholesterol levels and Hillary's pneumonia? Why is she talking ad nauseum about the fact that he is unfit for office when no one's mind is going to change? What does she stand for? Has she ever asked are you better of than the last time a Republican was in the White House?
Is it any wonder she is going down in the polls?
Is it any wonder she is going down in the polls?
4
The fear and loathing towards Obama regarding his actions from health care to higher taxes on the rich by Republicans could be see as resentment about the failure of long advocated conservative policies to work as promised made starkly evident by real events. The assertions that universal health care assured by government would socialize and make unacceptably ineffective our health care system were made by Republicans to oppose efforts to assure all access to good health care by government programs. Yet over decades the health care system could not offer affordable care to those not affluent or members of group plans and was steadily increasing in costs faster than inflation, and in a decade would begin to meltdown due the costs. Obama's ACA was a good move, not perhaps as sound as a single payer system but it has given access to care at affordable rates, at least for now. The supply side and free market economic theories of the Republicans jacked up the debt and produced a long series of boom and bust events culminating in the great crash of 2008. For Republicans that was a disaster of great significance. Free markets are not self regulating and can be driven by irrational crowd behavior that even rational players cannot not do anything to affect. Tax cutting does not stimulate economic growth as promised and they always produce deficits when governments are budgeted without surpluses being generated. The wealthy save their money when the risk of losing it is high.
5
Dr. Krugman, you ain't seen nothin', yet.
When President Trump picks up the reins to the bit in the mouth of the workhorse of the American economy and yanks backward on them with all his 260+ and still growing pounds, why, it'll be the days of "the birds and the bees in the cigarette trees where the Lemonade Springs where the bluebird sings in the Big Rock Candy Mountains" all over again.
Oh, wait, that was the depression, wasn't it. The Great Depression.
OOOPS!
When President Trump picks up the reins to the bit in the mouth of the workhorse of the American economy and yanks backward on them with all his 260+ and still growing pounds, why, it'll be the days of "the birds and the bees in the cigarette trees where the Lemonade Springs where the bluebird sings in the Big Rock Candy Mountains" all over again.
Oh, wait, that was the depression, wasn't it. The Great Depression.
OOOPS!
5
You never saw a tax you didnt like.
2
"Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again".
Polls indicate Americans are about to be fooled once again.
Polls indicate Americans are about to be fooled once again.
5
Fool them twice and you can fool them again and again.
1
Just as the president likes to tell business-owners, "you didn't build that"... the president has VERY little to do with how an economy moves, either for good or bad.
1
As much as this is an indictment of Republican fiscal policies, it's also a warning about the Libertarian approach. For anybody thinking that Gary Johnson offers a wonderful alternative to our contentious, partisan, binary form of politics, please be informed that his FairTax proposals are about as opposite to what's working here as a tax plan can be.
5
The marginal rate in 1979 on income above $534,660.62 in today's dollars was 70%. To suggest equivalence is idiotic and ignores the 1% doubling their share of income from 10% to current 20% plus
The rate can be found here:
http://taxfoundation.org/sites/default/files/docs/fed_individual_rate_hi...
70% on $161,300 in 1979
and the dollar figure adjusted for inflation here
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=161300&year1=1979&y...
Today there is a wall built around high incomes. Tear down that wall. Restore the 1979 rates!
The rate can be found here:
http://taxfoundation.org/sites/default/files/docs/fed_individual_rate_hi...
70% on $161,300 in 1979
and the dollar figure adjusted for inflation here
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=161300&year1=1979&y...
Today there is a wall built around high incomes. Tear down that wall. Restore the 1979 rates!
8
You forgot all of the deductions available in 1979 that are not available today. Typical false equivalence.
1
What difference dose it make if they were "wrong" they were right about what they wanted to accomplish. The reality is, Republicans do not want economic equality and the economy President Obama inherited is exactly the economy they wanted. The stagnation we have seen in the last 6 years is exactly what they have wanted. Unless the house of representatives has a big change, nothing will happen to improve the economy. With Trump we will again pour tax dollars into the pockets of the rich at the expense of the poorer and with Hillary nothing will be passed to help.
5
The elasticity of labor markets always plays to the advantage of employers in the absence of full employment.
1
"You know how the argument goes: Any attempt to help working families directly, we’re told, will backfire by hurting the economy as a whole. So we must cut taxes on those “job creators” instead, counting on a rising tide to raise all boats"
hahahahahahahaaaaaaa.........CSMS ; Conveniently Short Memory Syndrome
1. Car Allowance Rebate System ; July 1, 2009
2. Economic Stimulus Act of 2008
George W. Bush (born 1946), 43rd President of the United States (2001–2009)
hahahahahahahaaaaaaa.........CSMS ; Conveniently Short Memory Syndrome
1. Car Allowance Rebate System ; July 1, 2009
2. Economic Stimulus Act of 2008
George W. Bush (born 1946), 43rd President of the United States (2001–2009)
4
Hip, hip, hooray! But, good Dr. K where are the actual numbers to back this up and truly summarize the health and well-being of the Obama economy. We, your loyal readers, want those figures--on median income growth over eight years as well as the change in the number in unemployed (including new jobs created), poverty and uninsured. And, most importantly, the Democrats need to plaster the airwaves with the "good news" on the nation's economic health (not Hillary's or The Donald's). Despite eight years of deny, defund, and repeal, the Republican agenda of "NO," failed to keep President Obama from restoring the economy to good health after the disastrous Reaganite Bush tax cuts for the rich--the same policy now embraced by Donald Trump--pushed us into the ditch of the Great Recession. The Democrats, especially President Obama, need to say, "Do we want to go there again?"
7
Given the "carried interest" loophole, and the 70% max tax on unearned income (50% on earned) of 1979 that I well remember, I would like to see spelled out the argument that the top 1% are paying about the same percentage of federal tax on their incomes, as in 1979.
Also, it is noteworthy the extent to which Obama's progressivism began during his second term. Hard to treat in a brief column, no doubt, but history will ask more about "The Great Compromiser's" actions when he had his best Congressional majorities. For now, see Bill Press' "Buyer's Remorse."
Also, it is noteworthy the extent to which Obama's progressivism began during his second term. Hard to treat in a brief column, no doubt, but history will ask more about "The Great Compromiser's" actions when he had his best Congressional majorities. For now, see Bill Press' "Buyer's Remorse."
4
Some American communities (notably in the industrial Midwest and the mines of Appalachia) are still suffering from a loss of jobs above the national average and understandably complain that the recovery hasn't reached them. At which point Rush and Drudge and the cynical and well-paid commentators at Fox take over and scare their audiences into believing that a pink slip may just a day or two away. Those who willingly expose themselves to lies and to liars may no longer be capable of recognizing the truth.
6
Preachers of Capitalism are eagerly pointing out jobs created by Capitalism whenever they can, however when Capitalism takes those jobs away because manufacturing is much cheaper elsewhere, they equally eagerly point to government as a culprit. Right wing propaganda is winning this war because American public knows squad about capitalism.
3
Only a Princeton professor can write a column singing the hosannas of the abysmal Obama economy. I'll give it to him, Krugman's done a helluva job propping it up mostly with over-the-too obsessive harangues against pro-growth Republicans. The fact is the stock market has done well despite Obama's heavy tax and regulation policies. Companies have taken far fewer risks in expanding and creating jobs in such a tight fiscal environment. Of course, ever the tenured socialist, Mr Krugman's answer is to raise taxes on business even more (a sure job killer) stimulating the government beast. Takes a Princeton professor...
5
Typical Orange county blarney.
Like any GOP trolodite, just can't bring yoursef to accept the facts.
Just what is your expertise in economiics based on?
Dr. K. citing from the facts, but of course you have your own facts, and they are more valid than those of Nobel Prize winning economist.
How nice of you to set the record straight for the rest of us ignoramuses.
Like any GOP trolodite, just can't bring yoursef to accept the facts.
Just what is your expertise in economiics based on?
Dr. K. citing from the facts, but of course you have your own facts, and they are more valid than those of Nobel Prize winning economist.
How nice of you to set the record straight for the rest of us ignoramuses.
1
Amazing how you can spin success into failure. It takes a greedy Republican who wants to keep all of his money...
1
While it's hard to fault Dr. K for his ebullience, this is only only the beginning of a trend that will hopefully continue (especially if we keep pursuing the same policies we've had for 8 years).
There is much more progress needed.
There is much more progress needed.
8
Ebullience?
Democrats have been remiss in failing to call out Republicans' use of the term "job creators" for their corporate fat cat billionaire bankrollers. Businesses don't create jobs; they hire enough people to do work that needs to be done and no more. Giving businesses more cash through tax cuts does not incentivize them to hire people to sit around and do nothing. If businesses have excess cash, they use it for stock buybacks, larger dividends for shareholders, increases in already exorbitant executive compensation, and stashes in offshore tax havens, none of which helps ordinary Americans.
Governments, in contrast, can be job creators by investing in projects that need to be done, such as repairing our infrastructure. This puts more money into the pockets of working people. They then spend the money patronizing businesses, giving those businesses a reason to hire more people.
Governments, in contrast, can be job creators by investing in projects that need to be done, such as repairing our infrastructure. This puts more money into the pockets of working people. They then spend the money patronizing businesses, giving those businesses a reason to hire more people.
25
I agree with one exception. Democrats WERE calling out Republicans, and did it a lot! These calls went unnoticed because Democratis Party has NO TV channel, NO paper in circulation and NO propaganda web sites. All those propaganda elements are in service to Republican Party and that is the difference between the two parties and an easy explanation of why liberal message doesn't get through and conservative message is everywhere.
1
Large tax cuts for the middle class (equal in gross dollars not percent to cuts conservatives propose for the wealthy), puts money into the pockets of people that spend it on goods and services here in the USA. This would put billions back into the economy and consequently motivate our top 1%ers to invest in order to boost production of goods and services in order to get a piece of the pie.
9
Therefore, if Income "Re-distribution" from the rich to the middle-income and poor families helps to stimulate economic growth by expanding consumer demand for goods and services, isn't it time that "capitalism" learnt something productively beneficial from the "sinful" canons of "socialism"? This is the core of the difference between Republicans and the Democrats that needs to be erased soonest: the wealthy should treat social investments in the economy that may be costly in the short term as long-term boosts of economic productivity and return on their employed capital. If only the Republicans can expand their economic prism from the short to the medium/long-term, this idelogical difference will disappear and the American as well as the global economy will be the better for it! Americans should be forever grateful to Obama not only for triumphing over the Great recession, he has set American economy on a sustainable growth trajectory comapred to the EU and Britain that opted for the opposite economic paradigm by proving that "trickle-up" economics is better than "trickle-down" economics!
12
nice to hear you analysis of the census data. another recent development that shows things might turn around is the halt of construction on the the south dakota oil pipeline. we desperate;y need to have a country that operates for "we the people" not corporations. the propaganda has been so well done that we accept that the average guy's needs are a distant second thought when our government makes decisions.
9
Two words, Kansas Experiment. How's that working out for the GOP and Trickle-Down Supply-Side advocates?
24
Thank you, Professor Krugman. I can hardly wait to read the comments. This is a telling moment formFox news and the propaganda arm of the Republican party.
8
"Don't bother us with the facts" say the Republicans. Or should we just refer to them as the anti-Hillary crowd. They will vote for Trump no matter what he does or says. Verbally attack a pastor in Flint? No biggie. No tax returns? Who cares? Still a birther? He has his reasons.
And look who is fostering this insanity. We expect Trump support from FOX but look at MSNBC and CNN. They continue to treat Trump like a legitimate candidate, rarely mentioning the bigotry and the insanity rife in his campaign. And they continue to focus on Hillary's supposed flaws way out of proportion to their importance. Journalism, if that is what this is, seems to be trying to debase itself to an all time low.
And look who is fostering this insanity. We expect Trump support from FOX but look at MSNBC and CNN. They continue to treat Trump like a legitimate candidate, rarely mentioning the bigotry and the insanity rife in his campaign. And they continue to focus on Hillary's supposed flaws way out of proportion to their importance. Journalism, if that is what this is, seems to be trying to debase itself to an all time low.
17
Did I mis something? Did you mention Mrs. Clinton is your article? Is the implication that she will continue Obama's economic policies? Has she made any serious attempt to develop and propose any progressive policies since the DNC threw a few bones to Sanders supporters in the party platform? Come now, Dr. K., you are a presumed insider.
7
Obama policies have worked, he says. 2% or less growth ? C'mon Paul.
5
+2% is much larger than the free fall that was going on when he took Office.
Just imagine what could have been done without the Republican party's 8 years of anti-American attacks on the economy.
Just imagine what could have been done without the Republican party's 8 years of anti-American attacks on the economy.
1
More delusional musings by Krugman.
2
It's a shame none of these facts will penetrate the concrete skulls of the electorate looking for "change" after the disasters of the Obama policies that brought us the outcomes PK outlines here.
Why have a functioning economy under Democratic stewardship, when we could have one in crisis with the Republicans?
The nation faced this exact choice in 2000, and the GOP did not fail to deliver for the next eight years, converting a surplus into a deficit within 12 months of coming to power, being asleep at the wheel while 9/11 loomed, invading the wrong country in 2003 and putting the whole effort on the credit card, and tanking the world economy in 2008 as a parting gift.
Let's do that again, only worse! Drumpf will quite possibly end human life on earth if he throws our nukes around or, failing that, will most certainly work hard with the GOP Congress to wreck our economy.
More, please!
Why have a functioning economy under Democratic stewardship, when we could have one in crisis with the Republicans?
The nation faced this exact choice in 2000, and the GOP did not fail to deliver for the next eight years, converting a surplus into a deficit within 12 months of coming to power, being asleep at the wheel while 9/11 loomed, invading the wrong country in 2003 and putting the whole effort on the credit card, and tanking the world economy in 2008 as a parting gift.
Let's do that again, only worse! Drumpf will quite possibly end human life on earth if he throws our nukes around or, failing that, will most certainly work hard with the GOP Congress to wreck our economy.
More, please!
16
Robert Reich was on CNBC yesterday. When their anchors spouted the usual dynamic scoring, supplyside economics drivel he did not simply say it was disproved trash. CNBC rarely has anyone not named Buffet who is not a rightwinger. When liberals and those further to the left get on the air be prepared to argue the facts.
3
May I lobby for a replacement to the phrase "trickle-up" in the headline: it echos a Republican idea and their grasp of science.
Soak-up economics ?
Soak-up economics ?
2
Republicans aren’t afraid Obama policies will wreck the economy. They’re afraid we’ll figure out that they won’t.
Right now, they’re busily trying to find ways to poke holes in the new numbers, because they’re afraid we might see their lies for what they really are… ways to keep more money and power right where they want it.
Right now, they’re busily trying to find ways to poke holes in the new numbers, because they’re afraid we might see their lies for what they really are… ways to keep more money and power right where they want it.
15
Well, half a loaf is better than no bread, but it ain't a lot to build upon.
1
I would love to see a one-on-one debate between Dr. Krugman and Larry Kudlow on this topic. But then, it really wouldn't be fair for Dr. Krugman to fight even a rhetorical battle against an unarmed man. Perhaps just a very spirited pillow fight.
2
Face it--it's time to replace Krugman. A long winded, convoluted essay that says nothing.
4
Numerous news outfits, such as PBS, have told us that despite the statistics we shouldn't "feel" as if the economy is better. It's not just Fox News. Much of the media is devoted to deflating any optimism over the financial leadership of Democrats. After all, such positive feeling would favor Clinton's election. Better to favor the gloom that leads to the iron fist.
4
The reason the nominee of the Republican Party is a reality TV start is the intellectual bankruptcy of the GOP .
7
Yes, but how to get this information out so that it sinks in? Where is that messenger? At this point, who is credible?
2
The credibility of Krugman's economic comments have taken a very distant back seat to the biases of Krugman's political views.
5
Does the american electorate fathom what’s at stake with Trump as President and McConnell and Ryan in charge of Congress? White supremacists empowered to burn Mosques and black churches. Voting rights shredded across the land. The Supreme Court packed with right wing ideologues. The GOP assault on women’s rights shoved into high gear. The fossil fuel industry unchained. With the planet at a tipping point on global warming, the US withdrawing from the Paris accord. The EPA gutted. The ACA repealed. A ground war begun with Iran over some perceived insult. Taxes dramatically lowered on corporations and the super rich and with huge boosts in military spending, deficits going through the roof. In short, a disaster of unmitigated proportions from which the country and the world might never recover. All this brought about by a profit driven, false equivalency, news as entertainment media who deserted the country in our hour of greatest need.
12
Come on Paul. Either the economy in 2015 was partying like it was 1999. Or, as you said last November, "Something terrible is happening to white American society."
Really the facts don't matter because Paul will always find a way to spin them for political advantage.
Really the facts don't matter because Paul will always find a way to spin them for political advantage.
3
And yet not a single Republican will publicly say anything other than the GOP/Fox News mantra: Obama is a job-killing, deficit-increasing, economy-destroying socialist monster. The whole party lives in a world of make-believe where crime is rampant, climate change is a hoax, white Christians are persecuted, and voter fraud actually exists. Is it any wonder they can embrace the idea of a deluded narcissist make-believe business fraud as president?
4
Too bad the Hillary machine railroaded Joe Biden's bid for the presidency. He would have deserved to continue the successful track of the Obama administration.
Typical liberal claptrap meant to confuse the issue. We all know that facts are meaningless because you can use facts to prove anything that’s even remotely true.
(with sincerest apologies to Homer)
(with sincerest apologies to Homer)
Most of the rise in household income is due to more people working, not a rise in wages.
4
My old Italian American grandmother who lived through the depression and saw the family lose a small business used to say "You get a Republican you get a depression".
I just see this Republican on the news and I get a depression.
President Obama has done a great job and would have done so much more if the GOP hadn't thrown themselves in his way at every stuff.
I just see this Republican on the news and I get a depression.
President Obama has done a great job and would have done so much more if the GOP hadn't thrown themselves in his way at every stuff.
4
Everything is this article has been completely reversed in all of Trumps speeches. When will reporters tell Donald that he is either badly informed or a liar?
2
I guess serious nerds like Krugman fall for what is clearly a lie. The real number to look at is gdp growth and that has been stagnant under Obama's trickle down government, not near enough to reach the 5% income growth claimed.
Maybe Krugman doesn't fall for the lie, he is just another propagandist propagating the lie.
Maybe Krugman doesn't fall for the lie, he is just another propagandist propagating the lie.
2
If it's indeed true that "a rising tide lifts all boats," then the smallest boats should be the first to rise.
2
" When Americans are asked how the economy is doing, many of them just repeat what they think they heard on Fox News:...."
Is there no end to Dem liberal animus toward anyone who does not favor making NC a pariah state for failing to immediately recognize the excellence of having "gender-neutral" bathrooms?
Aside from the continuing condescension toward "les deplorables," Mr. Krugman again proves why Ivy Towers are their own special breeding ground for disconnectedness.
Try reading the WSJ's gritty coverage of an iconic American rust-belt town, Reading, Pa., for why the Dems might just yet lose the WH this cycle.
There are thousands of Americans who are simply waving goodbye to their American Dream, while personages like Mr. Krugman chastise them for not raising their hands for Billary and a continuation of more years in which they are described as "bitter white folks, clinging to their guns and religion."
In this cycle, for Dems, the only really deserving minority or class sub-section in the country is one which warrants special "trigger warning" on campus and safe room to hide in until the election ends.
Is there no end to Dem liberal animus toward anyone who does not favor making NC a pariah state for failing to immediately recognize the excellence of having "gender-neutral" bathrooms?
Aside from the continuing condescension toward "les deplorables," Mr. Krugman again proves why Ivy Towers are their own special breeding ground for disconnectedness.
Try reading the WSJ's gritty coverage of an iconic American rust-belt town, Reading, Pa., for why the Dems might just yet lose the WH this cycle.
There are thousands of Americans who are simply waving goodbye to their American Dream, while personages like Mr. Krugman chastise them for not raising their hands for Billary and a continuation of more years in which they are described as "bitter white folks, clinging to their guns and religion."
In this cycle, for Dems, the only really deserving minority or class sub-section in the country is one which warrants special "trigger warning" on campus and safe room to hide in until the election ends.
4
Good news, but let's not get overexcited here Krugman. The gap between the wealthy and the middle and lower income earners is still widening in general. The 99% are worse off than we were 20 years ago - so there's a long way to go. Now let's keep this up but don't get over hubristic like your hero Hillary.
2
"median income rose a remarkable 5.2 percent"
Yes, however this does not note the split between a few going up a lot more than 5.2%, and the many who did not or even subsided. Our incomes became more stratified.
This is not a recovery for everybody. A few have recovered very well. Most have not recovered, and for the majority of us the Great Recession goes on and on.
It is certainly good news what the overall numbers are improving. However, those overall numbers conceal important things too.
Those are the frustrated voters unhappy with things as they are. They may not all vote for Trump, but many do. Many of the rest won't vote for Hillary, seeing in her the face of the continuing problem, AND denial of that problem in happy talk like this.
Recovery? "Not around here" is the danger phrase that gives Trump his opening.
Yes, however this does not note the split between a few going up a lot more than 5.2%, and the many who did not or even subsided. Our incomes became more stratified.
This is not a recovery for everybody. A few have recovered very well. Most have not recovered, and for the majority of us the Great Recession goes on and on.
It is certainly good news what the overall numbers are improving. However, those overall numbers conceal important things too.
Those are the frustrated voters unhappy with things as they are. They may not all vote for Trump, but many do. Many of the rest won't vote for Hillary, seeing in her the face of the continuing problem, AND denial of that problem in happy talk like this.
Recovery? "Not around here" is the danger phrase that gives Trump his opening.
3
To put this in a different perspective as Ezra Klein did over at Vox.com, if Romney had won in 2012, Republicans would be doing cartwheels and trumpeting the Census Bureau report and the overall state of the economy as a vindication of conservative economic policies.
The economic state and well being of of the country would be even better if so many states were not governed by Republican governors and legislatures who have refused the Medicaid expansion and maintained austere fiscal policies that leave the non-wealthy to struggle.
Progressive policies do work but don't expect the electorate to appreciate the fact or, indeed, not to turn round and elect conservative politicians who will undo much of what has been accomplished to help middle and low income Americans.
The economic state and well being of of the country would be even better if so many states were not governed by Republican governors and legislatures who have refused the Medicaid expansion and maintained austere fiscal policies that leave the non-wealthy to struggle.
Progressive policies do work but don't expect the electorate to appreciate the fact or, indeed, not to turn round and elect conservative politicians who will undo much of what has been accomplished to help middle and low income Americans.
107
You're absolutely correct. Too bad most Americans don't recall that Mr. Romney had promised to reduce unemployment to 6% by the end of his first term. Imagine how Republicans who disparage the unemployment level reached by Obama (now under 5%) would be gloating if Willard had been elected and fulfilled his own prediction.
7
Interesting that you should mention Romney in this connection. As I recall, he promised that if elected he'd have unemployment all the way down to 6% at this time in his presidency. Imagine! Six percent!
Shortly after the turn of the millennium, I started associating the word "surge" with troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan. What a welcome sight to see it used in conjunction with median income.
3
"Obama’s Trickle-Up Economics"
Too funny. And nauseating. Krugman isn't that stupid. He knows Obama's done nothing. Unless you believe cowering at the first sign of GOP opposition then offering up permanent political goodies for temporary scraps is doing something.
Almost 40 years. And Democrats still haven't even attempted to rebut Reagan. Still haven't put to rest tax cut stupidity or private motivations solve all society's problems. So here we are, yet again. Pathetic.
I can't even make it past Krugman's -- or the editor's -- headlines, anymore. No reason to waste time when you've read it all before.
Too funny. And nauseating. Krugman isn't that stupid. He knows Obama's done nothing. Unless you believe cowering at the first sign of GOP opposition then offering up permanent political goodies for temporary scraps is doing something.
Almost 40 years. And Democrats still haven't even attempted to rebut Reagan. Still haven't put to rest tax cut stupidity or private motivations solve all society's problems. So here we are, yet again. Pathetic.
I can't even make it past Krugman's -- or the editor's -- headlines, anymore. No reason to waste time when you've read it all before.
2
"Obama's done nothing." Were you alive in 2008? Think about where we'd be if Obama hadn't been elected.
2
Too bad you don't read anything other than the headlines. You would have learned something in Krugman's article today.
2
Outraged about the column he didn't even bother to read ...
1
Imagine how much the economy would be growing if the Republicans hadn't been throwing sand in the gears for the past 8 years.
222
The republicans are a good thing for the Democrats. They have always needed 2 things:
Power
Someone to blame everything on
Power
Someone to blame everything on
1
probably only a little as far as the government is concerned. The real problem is PRIVATE ENTERPRISE. They are hoarding the bucks, buying "experiences" and paying damned-little in the way of taxes to support the nation that protects them while they frolic abroad.
ALL politicians are doing the same as they have done forever--protecting their donors. Where else would the zillions come from --money that should have been paid in interest on savings accounts etc, to the little guy--zillions that cost these people nothing but a little legislative fix. The FED "made' 100 billion dollars last year, kept 6, gave the politicians 94 and the people got the shaft. By that calculation, 800 billion in payments to the little guy would ahve cured what ails our economy. As it is, it just bought some new yachts, mansions and Swiss bank accounts.
ALL politicians are doing the same as they have done forever--protecting their donors. Where else would the zillions come from --money that should have been paid in interest on savings accounts etc, to the little guy--zillions that cost these people nothing but a little legislative fix. The FED "made' 100 billion dollars last year, kept 6, gave the politicians 94 and the people got the shaft. By that calculation, 800 billion in payments to the little guy would ahve cured what ails our economy. As it is, it just bought some new yachts, mansions and Swiss bank accounts.
1
I largely agree with Paul Krugman here, but he's committing a variation of "blame the victim" when he dismisses what Americans say about their experience — that "many of them just repeat what they think they heard on Fox News." That's a version of Hillary Clinton's "deplorables" line. It won't persuade anyone who disagrees with Mr. Krugman, and it will alienate allies. I'm progressive, will probably vote for Clinton (certainly won't for Trump), read the news closely (not Fox), am a member of the American Economic Association.... I have experienced no recovery, and Obamacare is not providing the care part of care.
While conservatives often condemn liberals as "un-American," liberals often condemn conservatives as "stupid" or "uninformed." Krugman is doing so here. Would he dare tell black families what they are (or aren't) experiencing from police in Baltimore of Chicago or Ferguson? Why does he think that he can tell any of us what we're experiencing economically, especially from his privileged academic position making hundreds of thousands of dollars per year? Milton Friedman argued that, for the less well-off, it was simply a matter of actually taking a job. Is Paul Krugman embracing Friedman? Why do so many elite liberals manage to sound like conservatives when they ignore, dismiss, or ridicule concerns of the poor and middle class?
The good news is real. But how good is it? Krugman doesn't care. Hardly the position of a scientist (if economics is a science).
While conservatives often condemn liberals as "un-American," liberals often condemn conservatives as "stupid" or "uninformed." Krugman is doing so here. Would he dare tell black families what they are (or aren't) experiencing from police in Baltimore of Chicago or Ferguson? Why does he think that he can tell any of us what we're experiencing economically, especially from his privileged academic position making hundreds of thousands of dollars per year? Milton Friedman argued that, for the less well-off, it was simply a matter of actually taking a job. Is Paul Krugman embracing Friedman? Why do so many elite liberals manage to sound like conservatives when they ignore, dismiss, or ridicule concerns of the poor and middle class?
The good news is real. But how good is it? Krugman doesn't care. Hardly the position of a scientist (if economics is a science).
45
Where do people get the idea that "Obamacare" doesn't provide care? It expanded Medicaid for millions, which provides most services at no cost to people who would otherwise struggle mightily to pay out of pocket, even for smaller cost procedures.
The exchange plans often have high deductibles, leading many to falsely claim that they "don't pay for anything," but that's simply inaccurate. Even the lowest cost bronze plans, by rule, pay for 60% of medical expenses for their subscribers. Many people don't hit their deductibles but the ones that do tend to have high costs.
The exchange plans often have high deductibles, leading many to falsely claim that they "don't pay for anything," but that's simply inaccurate. Even the lowest cost bronze plans, by rule, pay for 60% of medical expenses for their subscribers. Many people don't hit their deductibles but the ones that do tend to have high costs.
4
If you read a bit more closely, you will see that Dr. Krugman does not dismiss anyone's personal experience. What he dismisses is individual assessments of the aggregate. He pointed out that people repeated "what they think they heard on Fox News" with respect to the economy as a whole, but that when asked how they are doing personally the story is much more optimistic. Further, as someone who has studied economics, you are probably aware that when economists speak of the economy they do not refer to individual experience which can vary significantly from the mean/median. Similarly, it would be valid to criticize someone pretending to tell black families how they experience police interactions, but it is very different to criticize someone who comments on research that explains how these interactions are in the aggregate. Dr. Krugman is discussing the forest, but you are commenting on the trees.
4
My own experience. Each year, I've seen large increases in premiums (between 10 and 20 percent each year) combined with expanded lists of what will not be covered in the succeeding year.
The NY Times has reported extensively on the number of people who now have insurance but do not have substantive care. (I think Elisabeth Rosenthal has done several articles along these lines.)
The NY Times has reported extensively on the number of people who now have insurance but do not have substantive care. (I think Elisabeth Rosenthal has done several articles along these lines.)
1
Here in the SF Bay Area, the freeways are more clogged since before the economic downturn, and anyone can get a job doing something here - companies go begging for the high skill jobs, but there's plenty of downstream demand for lower-skill ones, too. Housing values have (thank God) come back a good deal, too. Thank you, President Obama - great job, well done.
Now let's build more trains and beef up the electric car subsidies, so that we can unclog the freeways and clean up the atmosphere.
Now let's build more trains and beef up the electric car subsidies, so that we can unclog the freeways and clean up the atmosphere.
4
The column and the comments fail to recognize the silver lining of a Trump presidency. If all that is written comes to pass, our resilient population will lick their collective wounds and bid farewell and good riddance to the GOP.
That's not progressivism; it's what the ruling class does to fend off revolt.
Who cares? It works for everyone. Roosevelt's New Deal, same thing. All good.
2
More lies from the Obama administration, and as always, Krugman continues to praise Obama for the alleged creation of hundreds of millions of jobs and trillions of dollars in the alleged increase in worker's incomes.
Why doesn't Krugman write about the upcoming loss of millions of jobs to Mexico by the American auto manufacturers, and all of it has been approved and encouraged by Obama?
Why doesn't Krugman write about the upcoming loss of millions of jobs to Mexico by the American auto manufacturers, and all of it has been approved and encouraged by Obama?
3
Ah your tale is "so full of sound and fury." But where do your facts come from.
2
What a remarkable President Barack Obama has been. In the face of obstruction and blatant racism aimed at him, he "remain(ed) calm and carried on". He steadied the teetering economy and sailed that ship toward calmer waters. He has withstood battering and made our country stronger and maintained our GREATness. Millions have insurance who never did before and those with catastrophic illnesses are no longer left without resources. Could Obamacare be better? Of course, but it is a start toward the goal of single-payer insurance, which I hope will someday be the norm for this country. Further, we are now addressing the reality of climate change, and gay people can serve openly in the military. Same sex marriage is a reality, and women still have the right to choose. We have a treaty with Iran instead of engaging in yet another military campaign.
Thank you President Obama. I will miss you and your cool intelligence and true grit. I cannot imagine the strength of character it took to withstand all the "slings and arrows" hurled your way. Yours will be a very tough act to follow.
Thank you President Obama. I will miss you and your cool intelligence and true grit. I cannot imagine the strength of character it took to withstand all the "slings and arrows" hurled your way. Yours will be a very tough act to follow.
6
So, demand side economics is starting to rise from the ashes of (R) dear conservative wishful thinkers. Imagine that.
1
"Trickle down" - but only if those at the top open their fists enough to allow anything to get through.
"A rising tide raises all boats" unless those on the yachts above have anchored your dinghy to the bottom with short lines and are watching as the water laps over the sides and - bail as fast as you can - you flounder and sink.
The system has been rigged, lo these many years, and that is nothing new, except for the magnitude - the mind boggling, recovery stifling, economy ruining magnitude.
Ours is a consumer society - it runs on people buying things - which creates demand which must be supplied by those who create the things and the services people want to - and can - buy.
A wise small business owner I know once told me that she did not create jobs - her customers did.
This is not rocket science. Give a rich man a $1,000, he will put it in the bank. Give me $1,000 - I will spend it in my community - pay my bills, buy things, and the people I pay and the people I buy from will get a piece of that $1,000 and will in turn spend it - concentric circles - get it?
Trickle up? No, gusher up. It is the only way. Invest in America by investing in the purchasing American.
"A rising tide raises all boats" unless those on the yachts above have anchored your dinghy to the bottom with short lines and are watching as the water laps over the sides and - bail as fast as you can - you flounder and sink.
The system has been rigged, lo these many years, and that is nothing new, except for the magnitude - the mind boggling, recovery stifling, economy ruining magnitude.
Ours is a consumer society - it runs on people buying things - which creates demand which must be supplied by those who create the things and the services people want to - and can - buy.
A wise small business owner I know once told me that she did not create jobs - her customers did.
This is not rocket science. Give a rich man a $1,000, he will put it in the bank. Give me $1,000 - I will spend it in my community - pay my bills, buy things, and the people I pay and the people I buy from will get a piece of that $1,000 and will in turn spend it - concentric circles - get it?
Trickle up? No, gusher up. It is the only way. Invest in America by investing in the purchasing American.
8
The good news is that we have "serious nerds" like Dr. Krugman that provide facts and evidence supporting the position that "progressive policies have worked, and the critics of those policies have been proved wrong." The bad news is that so many of the critics and voters do not care.
As John Oliver correctly pointed out theme of the Republican Convention in Cleveland was "Emphasizing Feelings Over Facts" (http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/07/25/john-oliver-theme-republican-co....
Being benighted is considered a virtue.
As John Oliver correctly pointed out theme of the Republican Convention in Cleveland was "Emphasizing Feelings Over Facts" (http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/07/25/john-oliver-theme-republican-co....
Being benighted is considered a virtue.
3
no-drama economy, equals good economy for most.
1
Since moving from a blue state to a red state years ago, I've noticed a fundamental difference between a lot of Democrats and Republicans.
Democrats want to be part of the big picture. Any one individual may not have become the success they'd dreamed of, but they want their children to have a chance to move up the ladder. The farther down you start, the more effort this requires. Having those at the top working in the background trying to increase your odds of success is necessary.
Republicans seem more focused on having powerful figureheads. Be it their pastor or their president, they don't mind sitting in the bleachers and cheering as long as the show is exciting and they are surrounded by people just like themselves.
What's peculiar to me is that Republicans keep talking about Democrats wanting to 'give it all away', but the poor don't seem to think they're getting anything. And many want to keep the status quo and avoid progress. Daddy was a miner so junior will be a miner. They want junior to be a better-paid miner, but that mine has got to stay open. Change is bad. Science is bad. Democrats, who are more likely to embrace change, are bad. So how do you help these people?
Democrats want to be part of the big picture. Any one individual may not have become the success they'd dreamed of, but they want their children to have a chance to move up the ladder. The farther down you start, the more effort this requires. Having those at the top working in the background trying to increase your odds of success is necessary.
Republicans seem more focused on having powerful figureheads. Be it their pastor or their president, they don't mind sitting in the bleachers and cheering as long as the show is exciting and they are surrounded by people just like themselves.
What's peculiar to me is that Republicans keep talking about Democrats wanting to 'give it all away', but the poor don't seem to think they're getting anything. And many want to keep the status quo and avoid progress. Daddy was a miner so junior will be a miner. They want junior to be a better-paid miner, but that mine has got to stay open. Change is bad. Science is bad. Democrats, who are more likely to embrace change, are bad. So how do you help these people?
8
Bingo KJ. Non-rhetorical question-- how on earth can you stay in a place where you are surrounded by the ilk you describe so clearly?
1
Re "Republicans accused Mr. Obama of being a “redistributionist,” ... There was, in fact, a grain of truth in the first part of this accusation."
Hello? Teh Republicans have been the biggest redistributionists in the history of this country. They have been redistributing taxes off of corporations and onto individuals and away from rich people and onto the middle class for decades now. Do the phrases "carried interest," "corporate inversion," or "reduction in marginal income tax rates" suggest anything? Mr. Obama's slight increase in the marginal tax rates for the rich pale in comparison to the reductions wrangled under President Reagan's watch, but Mr. Obama is the redistributionist? ... as a grain of truth? I think you need to take the beam out of your eye to get a better look at that grain.
Hello? Teh Republicans have been the biggest redistributionists in the history of this country. They have been redistributing taxes off of corporations and onto individuals and away from rich people and onto the middle class for decades now. Do the phrases "carried interest," "corporate inversion," or "reduction in marginal income tax rates" suggest anything? Mr. Obama's slight increase in the marginal tax rates for the rich pale in comparison to the reductions wrangled under President Reagan's watch, but Mr. Obama is the redistributionist? ... as a grain of truth? I think you need to take the beam out of your eye to get a better look at that grain.
3
Hmm. Let's see. BHO spent the last six years whining about Republican "obstruction" of his quasi-socialist policy. He failed to enact massive tax increases; failed to extend unemployment benefits; couldn't get another (fraudulent) "stimulus" through Congress; couldn't get the huge spending increases he wanted, nor increase debt as he wanted. The left predicted disaster; what happened?
So, "despite" obstruction, record job growth and greater incomes! How could that happen?
Contrary to the last statement, BHO's record conclusively establishes that progressive policies utterly fail. No surprise, as they're completely illogical and contrary to basic human nature. They failed on their own terms.
Things aren't nearly as good as they could have been, if we cut taxes -- especially corporate taxes -- reduced the size, scope, and expense of the federal government; pared back extremist regulations; actually allowed construction instead of stifling it at every turn on spurious eco grounds; and encouraged freedom. We saw the results of pro-freedom, pro-growth policies from 1980-2000. RWR and WJC both cut taxes, primarily on the rich, and restrained spending, especially on social programs, and produced booms.
You crow that the "rich" are paying higher taxes -- and we haven't seen 3% growth once during the last 8 years. Ya think, just maybe, they're related?
Thank the GOP for "obstruction"; imagine the catastrophe if they hadn't done precisely the opposite of what PK advocates.
So, "despite" obstruction, record job growth and greater incomes! How could that happen?
Contrary to the last statement, BHO's record conclusively establishes that progressive policies utterly fail. No surprise, as they're completely illogical and contrary to basic human nature. They failed on their own terms.
Things aren't nearly as good as they could have been, if we cut taxes -- especially corporate taxes -- reduced the size, scope, and expense of the federal government; pared back extremist regulations; actually allowed construction instead of stifling it at every turn on spurious eco grounds; and encouraged freedom. We saw the results of pro-freedom, pro-growth policies from 1980-2000. RWR and WJC both cut taxes, primarily on the rich, and restrained spending, especially on social programs, and produced booms.
You crow that the "rich" are paying higher taxes -- and we haven't seen 3% growth once during the last 8 years. Ya think, just maybe, they're related?
Thank the GOP for "obstruction"; imagine the catastrophe if they hadn't done precisely the opposite of what PK advocates.
2
I wager that you and Activist Bill 3 comments later are in the same room typing away.
2
Wages are up, finally, and that is very good news. But they are still below pre-recession levels, while costs such as healthcare and higher education have continued their relentless 5% annual growth rates unabated, due to the steady flow of government subsidies. Real estate and equity markets are also well above their pre-recession levels, due to continued Fed pumping.
So yes, great news that ordinary Americans got a raise, but something tells me that the scores of Trump and Bernie Sanders voters aren't feeling it. Meanwhile, Krugman excoriates Republicans for wanting lower taxes that benefit the wealthy, yet he continues to advocate for Fed loose money policy that has done more to drive income inequality over the last 8 years than any of the Reagan or Bush tax cuts.
So yes, great news that ordinary Americans got a raise, but something tells me that the scores of Trump and Bernie Sanders voters aren't feeling it. Meanwhile, Krugman excoriates Republicans for wanting lower taxes that benefit the wealthy, yet he continues to advocate for Fed loose money policy that has done more to drive income inequality over the last 8 years than any of the Reagan or Bush tax cuts.
1
"Wages are up, finally, and that is very good news.".....
Actually, the report notes that household "incomes" are up.
Actually, the report notes that household "incomes" are up.
So you think raising interest rates would be a good idea? Please explain how. Maybe you could get a Nobel prize winning economist who agrees to add to the discussion?
Anxiously awaiting...
Anxiously awaiting...
1
The fact that President Obama was able to accomplish anything, make any progress to get Americas through the Great Recession/Depression2, says a lot about his determination and intelligence against the brick wall of GOP interference. It was Sen. Mitch McConnell who, on the day of Obama's first inauguration in January 2009, declared war against the president. The line in the sand was drawn by the every Republican in the House and Senate: "We will not cooperate. We will make Obama a one-term president."
The intransigence and treasonous actions of the Republicans, and the urgings from their conservative talk show gas bags has fueled the forget-science, forget- facts, love Ayn Rand's kick'em under the bus theories. What we have now is the most divided country since the Civil War. Now it's just an uncivil war brought on by the right-wingers, from radio and tv to so-called Christian pulpits.
Even David Stockman, Reagan's first budget director, told the new president in 1981 that "trickle-down" theories, if implemented, would send the country into another recession by the end of that decade. Stockman was right. Yet, the Republicans continue to believe in a thrice-failed theory of economics. They continue to blame the victims of real estate and banking scammers for the subprime crisis that revealed itself in the massive collapse in the fall of 2008.
Wake up Republican Party. You ran through the china shop and then refused to clean up your own mess(es) while deflecting blame.
The intransigence and treasonous actions of the Republicans, and the urgings from their conservative talk show gas bags has fueled the forget-science, forget- facts, love Ayn Rand's kick'em under the bus theories. What we have now is the most divided country since the Civil War. Now it's just an uncivil war brought on by the right-wingers, from radio and tv to so-called Christian pulpits.
Even David Stockman, Reagan's first budget director, told the new president in 1981 that "trickle-down" theories, if implemented, would send the country into another recession by the end of that decade. Stockman was right. Yet, the Republicans continue to believe in a thrice-failed theory of economics. They continue to blame the victims of real estate and banking scammers for the subprime crisis that revealed itself in the massive collapse in the fall of 2008.
Wake up Republican Party. You ran through the china shop and then refused to clean up your own mess(es) while deflecting blame.
4
Democracy gives the citizens of a nation the right to take care of business. But when we attempt to address any piece of business we find that we are blocked. We are blocked from addressing any business by the scope of lying by Republicans and conservatives and by the conservative media.
The scope of lying by Republicans and conservatives and by the conservative media, Faux News and fable news, is a fundamental assault on democracy.
Paul Krugman is a peer reviewed scientist. He wants to discuss macroeconomics. Good luck. The vast majority of our citizens are effectively blocked form that discussion by the scope of lying they confront.
The leader in the conservative media is Rupert Murdoch. He is demonstrably the biggest liar in the history of our small planet. The Koch brothers got their vast wealth by extracting our natural resources. They use that wealth to create a world of secretive groups, fake groups, and Astroturf politics.
Beyond their propaganda, conservatives assault democracy by what they do in government. The scope of their assault on democracy is reported in a popular political newsletter, The Hightower Lowdown. Jim Hightower, who does most of the research and writing, is an informed party. He served two term in elective office as Commissioner of Agriculture in Texas. The conservative assault on our Constitution and their disrespect for the founders of our nation is concisely reported in the September issue, https://hightowerlowdown.org
The scope of lying by Republicans and conservatives and by the conservative media, Faux News and fable news, is a fundamental assault on democracy.
Paul Krugman is a peer reviewed scientist. He wants to discuss macroeconomics. Good luck. The vast majority of our citizens are effectively blocked form that discussion by the scope of lying they confront.
The leader in the conservative media is Rupert Murdoch. He is demonstrably the biggest liar in the history of our small planet. The Koch brothers got their vast wealth by extracting our natural resources. They use that wealth to create a world of secretive groups, fake groups, and Astroturf politics.
Beyond their propaganda, conservatives assault democracy by what they do in government. The scope of their assault on democracy is reported in a popular political newsletter, The Hightower Lowdown. Jim Hightower, who does most of the research and writing, is an informed party. He served two term in elective office as Commissioner of Agriculture in Texas. The conservative assault on our Constitution and their disrespect for the founders of our nation is concisely reported in the September issue, https://hightowerlowdown.org
7
Jobs, wages, the stock market, and the housing market are all up as illustrated here but the deplorable leader cries "the sky is falling" and the deplorables cheer? Why are they deplorable? Well because they are racists, xenophobes, misogynists, religious bigots, and because they deny climate change, deny evolution, deny evidence, and deny the improvements that President Obama has made. Mrs. Clinton is too polite to call them a mob of ignorant white men, but that is also a characteristic of half of Trump's supporters.
That Hillary Clinton is cautious is also true largely because she and her husband are the most investigated couples in history based on rumors and slander spread by the Republican Part. None of which resulted in indictment. Republicans have held more hearings on the Clintons than any other couple at great public expense resulting in....nothing. With the fishing expeditions Republicans through the use of Nazi propagandist Goebbels' "big lie" technique has permeated the media and deranged public opinion. Many Hillary haters offer her toleration of Bill's infidelities for their convictions while condoning Trump's many wives, philandering, ogling his own daughter, and his "blood from wherever" comments. Evangelicals prefer Trump because of his "family values" meaning his new found anti choice anti LGBT conversions, while they neglect his 13000 lawsuits, thousands of employees and contractors bilked, bankruptcies, racism, and xenophobia, because he hates Muslims?
That Hillary Clinton is cautious is also true largely because she and her husband are the most investigated couples in history based on rumors and slander spread by the Republican Part. None of which resulted in indictment. Republicans have held more hearings on the Clintons than any other couple at great public expense resulting in....nothing. With the fishing expeditions Republicans through the use of Nazi propagandist Goebbels' "big lie" technique has permeated the media and deranged public opinion. Many Hillary haters offer her toleration of Bill's infidelities for their convictions while condoning Trump's many wives, philandering, ogling his own daughter, and his "blood from wherever" comments. Evangelicals prefer Trump because of his "family values" meaning his new found anti choice anti LGBT conversions, while they neglect his 13000 lawsuits, thousands of employees and contractors bilked, bankruptcies, racism, and xenophobia, because he hates Muslims?
3
"The rich are paying about the same share as in 1979"? I beg to differ......
In 1979, the highest tax rate was 70%, if you made more than $215,400 (Married filing jointly).
Todays highest tax rate is 39.6%.
Don't see how that translates mathematically to "about the same share of their income" as they paid in 1979?
In 1979, the highest tax rate was 70%, if you made more than $215,400 (Married filing jointly).
Todays highest tax rate is 39.6%.
Don't see how that translates mathematically to "about the same share of their income" as they paid in 1979?
3
Twice a year you remind me Professor why I love you. Though you have been off-colour of late, only a proper nerd like you can show us how it looks through the smoke.
There are so many up-sides in your column this week. And just a few down sides.
If the Reagan era tax cuts have been "pulled back" then it's time to "rejoice". That theatrical Star Wars President who inadvertently gave us a great global map that is at the centre of so much innovation today did a lot of good "inadvertently". For all his ills, we should give the devil his due. Personally, I can't imagine Jimmy Carter exhorting Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down that wall. But let's put his tax-breaks to the rich to bed with the evidence you have cited.
A physicist would probably say that trickle up economics also has its limits. Water / cash / prosperity can trickle up as long as their is a reservoir "somewhere" that gets replenished in some way. The trivial question is how that reservoir is kept fecund. Let us not dismiss that out of hand.
The extraordinary "upliftment" ( such as it is ) of the Chinese masses has happened because of their extraordinary response to the consumption of the "West". Though no great innovation in itself, they (and we in India) are the beneficiaries of things that could be done at a competing quality at a competing price ( the details of its execution may be less savoury ).
So yes, trickle up works. But as long as the capillary effect lasts. The effect is real, but it needs nourishing.
There are so many up-sides in your column this week. And just a few down sides.
If the Reagan era tax cuts have been "pulled back" then it's time to "rejoice". That theatrical Star Wars President who inadvertently gave us a great global map that is at the centre of so much innovation today did a lot of good "inadvertently". For all his ills, we should give the devil his due. Personally, I can't imagine Jimmy Carter exhorting Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down that wall. But let's put his tax-breaks to the rich to bed with the evidence you have cited.
A physicist would probably say that trickle up economics also has its limits. Water / cash / prosperity can trickle up as long as their is a reservoir "somewhere" that gets replenished in some way. The trivial question is how that reservoir is kept fecund. Let us not dismiss that out of hand.
The extraordinary "upliftment" ( such as it is ) of the Chinese masses has happened because of their extraordinary response to the consumption of the "West". Though no great innovation in itself, they (and we in India) are the beneficiaries of things that could be done at a competing quality at a competing price ( the details of its execution may be less savoury ).
So yes, trickle up works. But as long as the capillary effect lasts. The effect is real, but it needs nourishing.
1
Tax on the wealthy are up significiantly? then why so much more inequality? From week to week or day to day or article on side of NYT and the other sides confuse and say the opposite. What are people to believe?
What are we to believe when we see homelessness in our cities, camps moved from place to place. People being mugged by homeless people.
Home ownership is not the American Dream any longer, we've priced everybody but the upper middle class out of the market. First time little homes are being turned into mcmansion in old neighborhoods or bulldozed down. Foreigner are buying investment properties and our hedge fund managers bought up neighborhoods during the recession where 8 million families lost their homes. So trickle down to rentals and you can't find a dump to rent for under $1,000 and over $1500 for a family rental. Can you see why we have homelessness. And they all are called drags on society and takers. Brooks has an article with plunder in it, that is what the investor class did to America and the world, they were not satisfied with plundering the earth and its resources, they had to have it all. Now I will go see what Brooks has to say about America and patriotism? Huh!
What are we to believe when we see homelessness in our cities, camps moved from place to place. People being mugged by homeless people.
Home ownership is not the American Dream any longer, we've priced everybody but the upper middle class out of the market. First time little homes are being turned into mcmansion in old neighborhoods or bulldozed down. Foreigner are buying investment properties and our hedge fund managers bought up neighborhoods during the recession where 8 million families lost their homes. So trickle down to rentals and you can't find a dump to rent for under $1,000 and over $1500 for a family rental. Can you see why we have homelessness. And they all are called drags on society and takers. Brooks has an article with plunder in it, that is what the investor class did to America and the world, they were not satisfied with plundering the earth and its resources, they had to have it all. Now I will go see what Brooks has to say about America and patriotism? Huh!
2
Taxes on the rich are not UP. Furthermore, the rich don't come close to paying those rates, assuming they pay any tax at all. They have loopholes, and nefarious, evasive opportunities the rest of us couldn't even imagine.
2
By my observations, Mr. Krugman, you are right. After Mr. Obama was re-elected America has had the best job growth and policies of the last seven years have tried to help families directly, rather than by showering benefits on the rich with the George Bush, Sr.'s idea that trickle down economics would do the trick. Fact is, that strategy failed miserably. For the economy to repair itself, people at the bottom need to feel secure and spend their few dollars because people at the bottom are millions upon millions! Ordinary people have more money than is being admitted.
4
Under Obama's policies of trickle up poverty, our economy is struggling to grow at 2% per year, even with interest rates at historic lows. Taxes and regulations are at nightmare proportions. Data from Obama's corrupt government, and Krugman's spin doesn't change the dismal state of our economy.
2
If they can't deny this economic good news, the Republicans will find some way to spin it to their advantage. They might say the numbers are this good because they were able to block much of what Obama wanted to do, or that it's because they had control of Congress, or the numbers would have been even better with their policies.
Anyhow, the people who support Trump won't know about the economic improvement because many don't pay attention to real news.
Anyhow, the people who support Trump won't know about the economic improvement because many don't pay attention to real news.
60
The Democrats need to be shouting these accomplishments from the rooftops. Every day, in every possible venue. Imagine what could have been accomplished with some cooperation from the Republicans. Imagine.
1
Why don't we hear Democrats crowing about this more? If this was the news under a Mitt Romney presidency, the election would be over--the Republicans would have declared their programs successful. The difference may be that the rightwing media would also have reported it.
2
"America is the greatest country on earth" goes the oft repeated refrain. If anyone should understand that the exceptional costs more you would think it would be the the free market capitalists and supply side affectionados among us. Yet supply side adherents believe that you can have the greatest country on earth on the cheap. After all, the world is a pretty nice place in those gated communities and country clubs.
2
Give me a break about your trickle-up theory. Wake up, the problem of a weak economy and job market is real. I have a Ph.D. in biomedical sciences, and I have been hunting for a job and can't even find one. I am desperate and willing to work at any job if someone would even respond to my application. At times, I look even less qualify than a person with a bachelor degree, based on the job description. So if you think that the economy is doing great, ask me about my economy. I only hope that a job will trickle down to me at this point.
2
Sadly, there are millions of other Americans in your same situation....
Yet Krugman and others with his same ideology make this a political biased issue, when it is an American issue , from single mothers struggling, middle aged Americans, retirees, young adults out of high school and college. Break down the demographics even further by race and the hardships are real...
I just returned from San Diego and each time I go out there (4th trip this year) I see more people leaving on the streets, some you would not even notice at first as homeless....
Yet Krugman and others with his same ideology make this a political biased issue, when it is an American issue , from single mothers struggling, middle aged Americans, retirees, young adults out of high school and college. Break down the demographics even further by race and the hardships are real...
I just returned from San Diego and each time I go out there (4th trip this year) I see more people leaving on the streets, some you would not even notice at first as homeless....
1
I agree. The economy may be doing better overall but hiring practices where people weed out valuable applicants through technology needs to be looked at. Also HR have been terrible gatekeepers in that they have no idea what a department really needs. Many great applicants are being overlooked and that is so sad.
2
I feel sympathy for your individual situation, but as a scientist, you must know that using personal experience to extrapolate and make assumptions about much larger trends is very, well, unscientific.
1
In my mind, if Obama was truly a great President, he would have recognized the once in a lifetime opportunity for change in the groundswell of support for Bernie and thrown his full weight and support behind Bernie. Like it or not, Bernie advocated for the policies that will save America from the 1%.
Cue the haters in 3, 2, 1...
Cue the haters in 3, 2, 1...
3
Bernie's nihilists are almost indistinguishable from Trump's
2
I'll never understand why Democrats don't spend every moment of the day talking about all the freeloaders they removed from the healthcare system, and why Clinton doesn't constantly hammer Trump on the fact that 20 million freeloaders will be dumped back into the healthcare system if Trump wins the election.
People know freeloaders raise the cost of healthcare for everyone and we're all terrified of seeing big insurance premium increases to cover the costs of those who aren't insured. This is a real fear and I don't know why Clinton hasn't exploited it.
I've said this a lot lately and I mean it when I say that Hillary Clinton's advisors are worthless.
People know freeloaders raise the cost of healthcare for everyone and we're all terrified of seeing big insurance premium increases to cover the costs of those who aren't insured. This is a real fear and I don't know why Clinton hasn't exploited it.
I've said this a lot lately and I mean it when I say that Hillary Clinton's advisors are worthless.
1
Paul,
Your own words, , "is slightly lower than it was before the financial crisis", is all one needs to know about this corporate owned government policies.
Actually it said 2007, which means that nearly ten years have come, and gone, and the American family is still trying to crawl out of the quicksand that has them trapped, and which our corporate owned government is doing everything to make worse, including a now carefully designed effort to repeal Dodd-Frank, the weak-kneed version of Glass Steagall.
Granted, there is some concern in government that the people are waking up, but that concern is moving rapidly to the back burner, as they will have firm control established with Hillary or Trump at the helm.
Your own words, , "is slightly lower than it was before the financial crisis", is all one needs to know about this corporate owned government policies.
Actually it said 2007, which means that nearly ten years have come, and gone, and the American family is still trying to crawl out of the quicksand that has them trapped, and which our corporate owned government is doing everything to make worse, including a now carefully designed effort to repeal Dodd-Frank, the weak-kneed version of Glass Steagall.
Granted, there is some concern in government that the people are waking up, but that concern is moving rapidly to the back burner, as they will have firm control established with Hillary or Trump at the helm.
1
What Krugman fails to add is that we are now entering into a 3rd year of manufacturing recession in the US and that the gains in employment are mainly commercial related, coastal jobs that gain from a historically low gasoline price. This low gas price has allowed more to redirect their disposable income to consumer goods. We also know that this type of economy is built on a low priced commodity that can dramatically change a country's economy (Venezuela, Brazil anyone) and when this happens our manufacturing base will have been damaged again by a democratic government. Not since the Carter years have we seen this level of damage done to our manufacturing core and it is all at the hands of the Obama administration.
Mr. Krugman's analysis is like a tight seal on a garbage can; it all looks good on the surface, but below is stench and pollution that will come back to haunt you.
Only in the NYT can get this type of one-sided economic argument to folly. It's the, I told you so stupid, analysis of the lefty that always exposes their contempt for hard working manufacturing driven economies.
Mr. Krugman's analysis is like a tight seal on a garbage can; it all looks good on the surface, but below is stench and pollution that will come back to haunt you.
Only in the NYT can get this type of one-sided economic argument to folly. It's the, I told you so stupid, analysis of the lefty that always exposes their contempt for hard working manufacturing driven economies.
2
Reagan Democrats elected the man who killed collective bargaining in the US.
2
"Not since the Carter years have we seen this level of damage done to our manufacturing core and it is all at the hands of the Obama administration. "
How can you claim this is at the hands of the Obama adminstration -- particularly when they bailed out GM? And bailed out the banks? Successfully, I might add. TARP made money for US government, and thus the taxpayers. And manufacturers need lines of credit from their banks.
How can you claim this is at the hands of the Obama adminstration -- particularly when they bailed out GM? And bailed out the banks? Successfully, I might add. TARP made money for US government, and thus the taxpayers. And manufacturers need lines of credit from their banks.
1
@Bolger & @efish - you guys need to get outside of the NY Metro area to understand just how much damage has been done to the manufacturing core of this country in the last 3 years. Not talking consumer products like cars. Talking chemicals, metals, plastics, refining, drilling, machining. Just take a look at what's happened to CAT. You know, jobs that sustain careers. Not sales jobs at the mall. This has nothing to do with collective bargaining which is just another lefty scam to finance the democratic party machine.
Reading the numbers which Paul Krugman reports today, along with his explanation of the significance of the new data for 2015, confirms the worst of our fears.
The presidential election of 2016 may be won by Donald Trump and the Republicans, not because of failed policies and poor governance by President Obama, but because the good news never gets to the average American voter.
The truth cannot get past an impermeable barrier of lies and distortions by the Trump campaign and right-leaning outlets like Fox News.
Some way, somehow the Democrats and the Hillary Clinton campaign need to up their game in terms of salesmanship and friendly persuasion.
The presidential election of 2016 may be won by Donald Trump and the Republicans, not because of failed policies and poor governance by President Obama, but because the good news never gets to the average American voter.
The truth cannot get past an impermeable barrier of lies and distortions by the Trump campaign and right-leaning outlets like Fox News.
Some way, somehow the Democrats and the Hillary Clinton campaign need to up their game in terms of salesmanship and friendly persuasion.
7
As another serious nerd (Table A-1 is printed and marked up on my desk next to me) I appreciate today's column. Two things struck me this year. One is the improvement looks to be the result of real shifts in households to higher income brackets. There are fewer households in the bottom "Under $15,000" bracket and so on. While that might seem predictable, the fact is the number of households in the bottom brackets has been stable: people were stuck. My worry was that we would see that again and movement only in the middle brackets. It was exciting to see a broad left to right progress on "Table A-1".
Secondly, I was struck (yet again) by the "two incomes needed" trap in America. Single head of households are at such a disadvantage and so often end up in poverty. This is not new news. But it is not going away either. When we read that the candidates are not speaking about poverty issues, this is one they should address.
Secondly, I was struck (yet again) by the "two incomes needed" trap in America. Single head of households are at such a disadvantage and so often end up in poverty. This is not new news. But it is not going away either. When we read that the candidates are not speaking about poverty issues, this is one they should address.
2
I will support Democratic economic policies, I.e. , raising the minimum wage, closing corporate tax loopholes for hedge fund managers, a higher estate tax, until I see the slightest evidence of the Armageddon that's been forecasted by the GOP approaching.
Both Clinton and Obama were supposed to have plunged the country into an economic post-Apocolyptic hell-scape. And of course the same is predicted for HRC. Save for a disastrously managed economic mess created under GWB, since fixed by solutions proposed by Obama and similarly denounced by the GOP, we seem to be doing alright.
There might be some serious criticism of Democratic economic policy out there--but instead we are subjected to an endless repetition of the dis-credited fantasy of the Laffer curve, abandonment of regulatory practices that protect our air and water, and cries for the "job-creating" tax cuts for the wealthiest.
You would think that the GOP could come up with something better than that. I guess the polls right now prove that they don't.
Both Clinton and Obama were supposed to have plunged the country into an economic post-Apocolyptic hell-scape. And of course the same is predicted for HRC. Save for a disastrously managed economic mess created under GWB, since fixed by solutions proposed by Obama and similarly denounced by the GOP, we seem to be doing alright.
There might be some serious criticism of Democratic economic policy out there--but instead we are subjected to an endless repetition of the dis-credited fantasy of the Laffer curve, abandonment of regulatory practices that protect our air and water, and cries for the "job-creating" tax cuts for the wealthiest.
You would think that the GOP could come up with something better than that. I guess the polls right now prove that they don't.
5
Obama has been the best leader for our economy since the late '90s, and yet gets very little credit for saving the US economy from the depths of the Great Recession. Why aren't the Democrats using these facts in their campaign?
9
If only it were possible to put Dr. Krugman's financial analysis in bold headlines on the 'breaking news' spots that have overwhelmed our media. Instead, we have breaking news that is increasingly trivial and more worthy of a supermarket tabloid. Life for most of us is pretty good, with online markets delivering everything we could possibly want to buy, including great entertainment. This phenomena helps slow climate change as we don't need to drive out to shop.
4
A rising tide only lifts all boats if the boats do not have holes in them. The health system was--and in many ways, still is--perforating many "boats" in the U.S. economy. Caulking and bailing (Obamacare) keep more afloat. Other countries do better, at lower cost.
4
It is my opinion that people like speaker of the house Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell want to hurt people like me economically. They think I vote Democrat because I want my Social Security/Medicare when I retire in a few years. So if they can ruin the economy, bankrupt the government than they can get rid of Social Security/Medicare and give me no reason to vote Democrat. Enter Trump stage right, that is why they back the Trump. He will certainly ruin the economy and will sign the bill to privatize Social Security/Medicare saying, we are broke and we have to declare the country bankrupt.
3
Tell me again Paul, how successful #Obamacare has been? I mean you said it so I know that it's true. And as major insurers pull out of money-losing markets and raise premiums nationally around 25% that it's all part of the plan. And that basically #Obamacare is turning into a giant simulacrum of Medicaid, with exceedingly narrow networks serving mostly the poor - but that's a huge success story, right?
3
Mr Krugman's job for the NYT is to present opinions. I agree that some of the data is encouraging. But claiming success seems a bit odd. The dirty secret about the healthcare debate is that overall costs are still much too high and we are generally seeing less healthy people signing up, rather than healthy ones we need to balance the system. The Affordable Healthcare Act has driven up consumer costs with much higher deductibles, which will start to drive healthy people from the system.
Great to see the rich back to 1979 contribution levels, but with the big deficit and growing social support system payments I am not hearing any good policy discussions.
I enjoy Mr. Krugman's opinions, but I find his lack of reality very similar to many of our politicians.
Great to see the rich back to 1979 contribution levels, but with the big deficit and growing social support system payments I am not hearing any good policy discussions.
I enjoy Mr. Krugman's opinions, but I find his lack of reality very similar to many of our politicians.
2
Trickle up economics have not affected me. I have not had ANY raise in 5 years. But my bills have certainly gone up. My long term health care jumped 68%. My sister's long term health care more than doubled. We are responsible citizens that are trying to be responsible for our care when we require long term care. Any my other bills, including regular health care has gone up. Food bills have gone up, electricity, water, gas bills have gone up. (The only bill that has gone down is the prices at the gas pumps).
So where is this trickle up economy? Health care industry, food industry, utility industry CEO's.
So where is this trickle up economy? Health care industry, food industry, utility industry CEO's.
3
The Republican Party is a business.
They believe in trickle down because it works for them and their friends.
It has worked for them for nearly forty years.
In the meantime, the prospects for the rest of the country have crashed.
If people vote them in, expect more of the same.
They believe in trickle down because it works for them and their friends.
It has worked for them for nearly forty years.
In the meantime, the prospects for the rest of the country have crashed.
If people vote them in, expect more of the same.
11
The republicans are organized and goal oriented, maybe the democrats should get organized and focus on achievable goals, not fuzzy word salad.
Those who criticize the president have their own peculiar axes to grind, that have nothing to do with whatever complaint they are promoting at the moment. They are almost always wrong about his success.
8
Surveys and polls. Would there be any news without them? I'm not sure the Census Bureau even knows who's living in this country (and where) much less what we earn.
On page 21 of the Census Report, sources of income "surveyed" included Workman's Compensation, Supplemental Social Security, public assistance, etc..
While many aspects of the economy are doing better, a closer look at where the money is "trickling from" might be in order.
On page 21 of the Census Report, sources of income "surveyed" included Workman's Compensation, Supplemental Social Security, public assistance, etc..
While many aspects of the economy are doing better, a closer look at where the money is "trickling from" might be in order.
1
It is foolish beyond imagination--but not beyond socialists--to declare economic victory in the latter days of a precarious bull market induced by massive economic stimulus but before the bill comes due. As usual, Krugman omits the darker statistics: falling life expectancy for working class white men, the lowest labor force participation rate in decades, a total cessation in community bank formation, declining rates of productivity growth, and business failures outnumbering new business formation for the first time since reliable statistics have been available. Socialism fails every time, although it has a spectrum of failure modes: total societal implosion (Venezuela), mass poverty short of societal collapse (Greece), or economic and technological stagnation coupled with chronic high unemployment (most of western Europe and, increasingly, the US). On the dark day during the next recession when the US defaults on its bonds/Medicare obligations/public pensions and/or the dollar crashes, I'm sure Krugman will still be bleating for "more stimulus!"
I am very happy with the positive numbers, but I wish they gave me more cause for optimism. But corporate profits have been stale for this entire calendar year, and we have clear Fed-created bubbles in both the equity and real estate markets. And as for all of the aid we are providing lower income individuals, let's not pretend like it is being paid for by higher taxes on the wealthy. It is being paid for by more borrowing.
I wish economists like Krugman would level with their readers on the long term consequences of the national debt, rather than continue to paint rosy, politically-driven pictures. Isn't it clear that we need to achieve higher economic growth and lower budget deficits in order to sustain both the economy and all of the government assistance programs that Krugman touts?
When so-called experts refuse to take the debt seriously, we end up with two presidential candidates that gleefully pretend it isn't a problem.
I wish economists like Krugman would level with their readers on the long term consequences of the national debt, rather than continue to paint rosy, politically-driven pictures. Isn't it clear that we need to achieve higher economic growth and lower budget deficits in order to sustain both the economy and all of the government assistance programs that Krugman touts?
When so-called experts refuse to take the debt seriously, we end up with two presidential candidates that gleefully pretend it isn't a problem.
Citing the figure of 55% who think their life is thriving is well and good, but in light of the 45% who apparently do not, is hardly something I'd crow about.
As you note things could be better and progressive policies have worked but overallI I cannot see that things have improved more than incrementally for skilled workers. This of course beats a blank and while owners and managers have gained mightily those who have been layed off are mired in the mud of unemployment, public assistance or just lousy jobs as truly high paying work has moved offshore, across the border or been reorganized into lower paying work that demands the same skill level.
The picture you and the adminisrtration paint is rosy and inaccurate.The transfer of wealth is undeniably lopsided with the trickle up more a flood.
it should be no surprise that the "America First" rhetoric used so effectively by Mr Trump appeals to those who know their standard of living will not be passed on to their children.
We don't need a revolution from either side of the political spectrum, but we do need forthright and critical analysis which judging by most of the columns in print is, unfortunately, not nearly as welcome as cheerleading.
As you note things could be better and progressive policies have worked but overallI I cannot see that things have improved more than incrementally for skilled workers. This of course beats a blank and while owners and managers have gained mightily those who have been layed off are mired in the mud of unemployment, public assistance or just lousy jobs as truly high paying work has moved offshore, across the border or been reorganized into lower paying work that demands the same skill level.
The picture you and the adminisrtration paint is rosy and inaccurate.The transfer of wealth is undeniably lopsided with the trickle up more a flood.
it should be no surprise that the "America First" rhetoric used so effectively by Mr Trump appeals to those who know their standard of living will not be passed on to their children.
We don't need a revolution from either side of the political spectrum, but we do need forthright and critical analysis which judging by most of the columns in print is, unfortunately, not nearly as welcome as cheerleading.
1
Trickle up or trickle down it is still the same response to the growth in wealth and power. Dr Krugman it was 50 years ago I first said that the Viet Nam protests would be the beginning of the end for empowering middle income America. We saw twenty years of an experiment in democracy 1945-1965. We have 50 years now of rising inequality. Economics has always been a tool for organizing society.
Like the estates of old economics is simply architectural detailing. It tells us who sleeps in the master bedroom and who sleeps in the attic, the basement and the broom closet.
Like the estates of old economics is simply architectural detailing. It tells us who sleeps in the master bedroom and who sleeps in the attic, the basement and the broom closet.
5
Compared to wage growth in other countries, the wage recovery in the US has been pitiable and way too late
http://cdn.tradingeconomics.com/charts/germany-wages.png?s=germanywag&am...
Why ?
Here is the answer of Charles E Schumer, Democratic Senator and leader designate of the Democratic Party in the Senate who never lost an election since first running for office in 1974
"After passing the stimulus, Democrats should have continued to propose middle class-oriented programs and built on the partial success of the stimulus. But unfortunately, Democrats blew the opportunity the American people gave them. We took their mandate and put all of our focus on the wrong problem – health care reform."
You can argue that health care reform was more important, but you can not argue that the President's economic policy was a success.
http://cdn.tradingeconomics.com/charts/germany-wages.png?s=germanywag&am...
Why ?
Here is the answer of Charles E Schumer, Democratic Senator and leader designate of the Democratic Party in the Senate who never lost an election since first running for office in 1974
"After passing the stimulus, Democrats should have continued to propose middle class-oriented programs and built on the partial success of the stimulus. But unfortunately, Democrats blew the opportunity the American people gave them. We took their mandate and put all of our focus on the wrong problem – health care reform."
You can argue that health care reform was more important, but you can not argue that the President's economic policy was a success.
Sorry, but Donald Trump said yesterday that the US economy is a "disaster." He has repeatedly said this several times. No matter how many times you and others now tell us that things are improving, and no matter how many surveys show people saying things are improving, and no matter how many statistics exist to prove things are improving, if Donald Trump says the US economy is a "disaster," that's what matters.
You see, as Mr. Trump's supporters understand things, this black president has ruined everything, he is the worst president in the history of the US, and it's a crying shame he has been in office since 2000--remember?--and presided over 9/11, the Iraq War, the anthrax attacks, the balloon deficits of 2005-2008, Hurricane Katrina, the Great Recession and everything else! Elect Donald Trump or else Obama will continue to rule and dominate and appoint czars while simultaneously doing absolutely nothing and being weak and playing golf and taking fancy trips till 2200!
You see, as Mr. Trump's supporters understand things, this black president has ruined everything, he is the worst president in the history of the US, and it's a crying shame he has been in office since 2000--remember?--and presided over 9/11, the Iraq War, the anthrax attacks, the balloon deficits of 2005-2008, Hurricane Katrina, the Great Recession and everything else! Elect Donald Trump or else Obama will continue to rule and dominate and appoint czars while simultaneously doing absolutely nothing and being weak and playing golf and taking fancy trips till 2200!
10
It was fun, Sleater, thanks for the laugh. Giuliani, the clown who wants power, has really made his mark on the farce that is the Trump campaign.
When do we get serious? When Florida is under water and there won't be anyone to vote for Rubio?
When do we get serious? When Florida is under water and there won't be anyone to vote for Rubio?
1
This is why I struggle with statistics. The narrative can be told in to suite the message. The 5.2% gain is welcome news but if inflation adjusted income is still below where it was before the financial crises and yet GDP has recovered to new highs and the stock market has recovered to new highs, then this 5.2% gain is quite hollow. If your employer cut your pay by 30%, gave only 1.5% raises for the next 5 years while the company made annual gains of 10-20% and then gave you a 5.2% raise- I don't think you would be as joyful as Paul seems to be. You would probably be thinking, "Great, only 18% more to go to make what I was making 6 years ago...."
On Healthcare I will say this- Increased coverage doesn't mean increased health care received. For many where I work, it simply means we have insurance but can no longer afford the deductibles. We are only offered high-deductible plans now so I have the pleasure of paying $300+ per month out of my pocket for the premium. My employer kicks in another $450+ per month for the premium. And my deductible is $3,500 dollars IF I use in-network- the sneaky trick the insurance companies are using to get around those pesky Obamacare rules by making more things out of network. My insurance company gets $12,500 of my compensation before I get 1 penny of coverage. Prior to ACA my company and I combined paid $450 per month total with no deductible. Thanks Obamacare. Single Payor Please.
On Healthcare I will say this- Increased coverage doesn't mean increased health care received. For many where I work, it simply means we have insurance but can no longer afford the deductibles. We are only offered high-deductible plans now so I have the pleasure of paying $300+ per month out of my pocket for the premium. My employer kicks in another $450+ per month for the premium. And my deductible is $3,500 dollars IF I use in-network- the sneaky trick the insurance companies are using to get around those pesky Obamacare rules by making more things out of network. My insurance company gets $12,500 of my compensation before I get 1 penny of coverage. Prior to ACA my company and I combined paid $450 per month total with no deductible. Thanks Obamacare. Single Payor Please.
8
Now if only we could restrain the criminal greed of the pharmaceutical companies like Mylan - trying to exploit a real life and death fear to pad their offshore accounts with blood-money - at the expense of patients and tax payers by pursuing to add it to the federal preventative drug list so they can continue gouge unnoticed. Apparently it is not enough to exponentially over charge for $1.00 per dose of medicine in an overpriced plastic device (that costs more than an iPhone 7).
The savings would allow the supply of bullet proof vests for citizens in Missouri and other states co-opted by the NRA - that should reduce healthcare costs even more.
The savings would allow the supply of bullet proof vests for citizens in Missouri and other states co-opted by the NRA - that should reduce healthcare costs even more.
6
In Krugman world things are great. In my world things are not so good. But than I am 80 years old. Obama wiped out my General motors bonds which contained most of my life savings, so I now live on social security. My big worry in 2008 was losing that benefit but that did not happen. Krugman is big on debt which is good short-term but a very big problem long term. Since I will be dead long-term is does not matter. For those still not dead a depression will occur as the country goes down hill. You can not continue debt forever which is what the future is. So enjoy things now for tomorrow you could be dead. The middle east is having a bad time but later we can. Tomorrow is the day to be born.
What do you think would have happened to your bonds if GM had been allowed to go out of business? You blame Obama but you bonds were already toast. Sorry that happened to you, but it's not an indictment of the president's policy response to the crisis economy he inherited.
1
I love it. Had the stimulus aggressively addressed student loan debt we'd be that much better off. We are in a precarious place still in that our current system disincentives higher education.
1
After 8 long years and no growth when you calculate in inflation, again,
Krugman is delusional. In the same month, industrial output shrank, labor participation shrank and the former Federal Reserve president suggested we may need negative interest rates after over 90 months at 0% interest rates. Its not that we need someone to blame, we need someone to tell the truth and lead
Krugman is delusional. In the same month, industrial output shrank, labor participation shrank and the former Federal Reserve president suggested we may need negative interest rates after over 90 months at 0% interest rates. Its not that we need someone to blame, we need someone to tell the truth and lead
Paul Krugman seems to forget record homelessness not seen since Reagan and the slack growth and further duress of the middle-class, when yes more may be covered, but at much higher out-of-pocket costs. The 'ole bait-and-switch.
I know Paul is encouraging a favorable view of Obama in a political year, but as an academic he should be objective about Obama's success. I give him credit in the early years, but he certainly took his foot of the progressive accelerator after being reelected by his base (progressive's) and been absent on several issues including fracking's harmful effects alon w/trade deal impact on middle class employment.
I wish Paul, and the media in general, would do their jobs!
I know Paul is encouraging a favorable view of Obama in a political year, but as an academic he should be objective about Obama's success. I give him credit in the early years, but he certainly took his foot of the progressive accelerator after being reelected by his base (progressive's) and been absent on several issues including fracking's harmful effects alon w/trade deal impact on middle class employment.
I wish Paul, and the media in general, would do their jobs!
4
You're overlooking the reality of a Republican controlled House and Senate that had as its sole policy objective destroying Mr. Obama's presidency. Hell, the GOP was hell bent on destroying the credit of the U.S. government.
Had Pres. Obama had an actual Congress to work with rather than the ideological Neanderthals who took up space, homelessness and a raft of other social issues may have been tackled
Had Pres. Obama had an actual Congress to work with rather than the ideological Neanderthals who took up space, homelessness and a raft of other social issues may have been tackled
8
Charley, perhaps Mr Obama did not get full support from the democrats either (those in the Clinton camp soon to become the entire democratic establishment).
2
Yes, the stimulus package should have had less tax cuts and more infrastructure spending but it did the job.
If a subsequent investment on infrastructure had been implemented in the last 4 years of Obama just imagine how prosperous the country would be now and how easy would have been Hillary's election to the presidency. But of course the Republicans rejected any notion of such an investment. This is what politics is all about: putting politics above the interests of the nation. But as we have seen this stand has backfired on Republicans and now they are stuck with Trump.
If a subsequent investment on infrastructure had been implemented in the last 4 years of Obama just imagine how prosperous the country would be now and how easy would have been Hillary's election to the presidency. But of course the Republicans rejected any notion of such an investment. This is what politics is all about: putting politics above the interests of the nation. But as we have seen this stand has backfired on Republicans and now they are stuck with Trump.
12
The Republicans blocked additional requests for stimulus primarily because they did not want to give Obama and the Democrats credit for improving the economy. They aren't stupid and understand full well how infrastructure and other government spending does stimulate the economy. Once the economy had gotten beyond the 'critical care' level in 2009, they decided to block further stimulus as a political matter, not only because of their crazy belief that limited government spending and lower taxes are somehow good for the economy. They did not want such policies to work.
I think it's that simple.
I think it's that simple.
29
Republicans are the sources of almost everything that doesn't work in our country. They have no interest in the majority of American citizens. Only the ones with money. The sooner you understand that, the sooner you will decide to vote Democratic.
2
Krugman, just to be fair, let's focus on one small point of yours - Health Care. While more people may now have health care, it is also true (and conveniently missing from your article) that even with subsidies, that because of the very high deductibles, no one can really afford to use their newly acquired health care. Also, many insurance companies now can no longer afford to provide this newly acquired health care.
4
So you apparently believe it is better for people to be uninsured and when they get sick enough head to the emergency room, the most expensive form of care, and then pass the cost to the rest of us when they are unable to pay and go bankrupt. The deductible argument is another right wing red herring. the arguments against Obamacare all pretty much bolster the case for single payer and a Medicare type system that brings virtually 100% of the population health coverage.
6
Just stating the sad reality. It isn't a red herring if it's true, now is it?
1
We know that the market flourishes when consumer spending goes up. In order to effect this desired goal, it is necessary for consumers to have the necessary means. So, if they are relieved of expenses, such as health relief and child care, they are provided with more disposal income which allows them to keep the market going. One does not need to be an economist to realize this and there is nothing partisan about giving financial relief to people. What is incomprehensible is why Republicans resist this concept, except the ideological dogma that only making wealthy people more wealthy works.
21
"So, if they are relieved of expenses, such as health relief and child care,"....
I, actually, agree that this is in the best interest of a stable society, however, in countries where this is available, taxes are considerably higher than here in the US. in what, effectively, amounts to "cost shifting". Since we are already the home to rampant consumerism (a new mall goes up each week) it would be hard to convince people (especially Republicans) that this will spur the economy. It is, indeed, complicated.
I, actually, agree that this is in the best interest of a stable society, however, in countries where this is available, taxes are considerably higher than here in the US. in what, effectively, amounts to "cost shifting". Since we are already the home to rampant consumerism (a new mall goes up each week) it would be hard to convince people (especially Republicans) that this will spur the economy. It is, indeed, complicated.
2
The consumer spending you identify has equates to an additional $35 billion of debt bringing the US households total debt to $12.3 trillion....
Is the responsible to continue to add debt? But then again people are now demanding free higher education, which some politicians were offering or expunge their existing student loans.
Do you teach your children how to budget their money or just keep on bailing them out, when they cannot pay their bills.
Budgeting one's own finances should be similar to budgeting a business or a government and vice versa, however the "ideological" dogma of being "self reliant" and "spend what you can afford" goes beyond finance, but heavily contributes to the education of self-worth....
Is the responsible to continue to add debt? But then again people are now demanding free higher education, which some politicians were offering or expunge their existing student loans.
Do you teach your children how to budget their money or just keep on bailing them out, when they cannot pay their bills.
Budgeting one's own finances should be similar to budgeting a business or a government and vice versa, however the "ideological" dogma of being "self reliant" and "spend what you can afford" goes beyond finance, but heavily contributes to the education of self-worth....
@MDCook8. Why is it that the prime responsible for the debt is always put at the feet of social benefits. Why not make the ever-increasing military spending, the non-paying corporations, the subsidies to oil, cotton, dairy, even peanuts, the loop-holes to the construction industry and the tax manipulations of the wealth the large contributors to the debt. What is more important to the country, the health of its citizens and the development of its children or the financial well-being of the wealthy?
3
For an economically illiterate individual, the 5.2% uptick in the median income level comes as a rudely pleasant shock. One is sure this can foment a lot of rebuffs from some of the overweening naysayers in the GOP, and Trump will start concocting his own version of uneducated, or under-informed denials. And yet, even the commoner may still harbor feelings of curious cynicism, as he or she should, because an average wage or bread winner may not still feel this is a ''kumbaya moment'' to celebrate.
But an erudite economist will painstakingly put forth his or her intricately inscrutable numbers, only he or she can decipher. Moreover, in this election cycle, any terrific tidings about the economy may be looked at with Nelson's eyes by the opposite party, obviously, and they may seek the help of the supply side economists to negate these milestones.
And again, this news may simply raise the eyebrows, or shrug the shoulders of a garden variety observer, with an independent set of political perspectives. Nonetheless, some are willing to take even a trivial tidbit about the economy with a positive spin, and watch the experts engage in a passionate pursuit of perfection. Or so one hopes to expect.
But an erudite economist will painstakingly put forth his or her intricately inscrutable numbers, only he or she can decipher. Moreover, in this election cycle, any terrific tidings about the economy may be looked at with Nelson's eyes by the opposite party, obviously, and they may seek the help of the supply side economists to negate these milestones.
And again, this news may simply raise the eyebrows, or shrug the shoulders of a garden variety observer, with an independent set of political perspectives. Nonetheless, some are willing to take even a trivial tidbit about the economy with a positive spin, and watch the experts engage in a passionate pursuit of perfection. Or so one hopes to expect.
1
Let's further examine these statistics and not break out the champagne until we determine what they really mean. First, as pointed out ad nauseum, these new jobs are in service industries, where salaries are abysmal and employee benefits non-existent unless mandated by law. Further, these jobs provide no stability. In the retail and food service sectors most employees have little control over their schedules. Job security is lessened because firing low paid employees doesn't cost as much as firing a well-paid employee.
As far as the boast re the increase in health insureds go, yes more people are covered by "health insurance" than before, but unless you are covered by Medicaid or have a low enough income to receive subsidies, you are not really protected unless you have a major medical problem. Middle class self employed have to determine whether it's cheaper to pay the penalty with no insurance or find policies with $10,000 deductibles.
The ACA is a disaster unless you are poor. It was cobbled together in a rush with anomalies like the tax penalties to make sure it would pass constitutional muster. And let's not forget the plethora of unforeseen consequences, unforeseen only because no one with experience sat down and analyzed the foot-thick act. It needs to be thrown out and replaced with a system like the ones Canada and most Europeans have. The whole system is crooked and can only be fixed with a wrecking ball, not a Rube Goldberg patchwork quilt.
As far as the boast re the increase in health insureds go, yes more people are covered by "health insurance" than before, but unless you are covered by Medicaid or have a low enough income to receive subsidies, you are not really protected unless you have a major medical problem. Middle class self employed have to determine whether it's cheaper to pay the penalty with no insurance or find policies with $10,000 deductibles.
The ACA is a disaster unless you are poor. It was cobbled together in a rush with anomalies like the tax penalties to make sure it would pass constitutional muster. And let's not forget the plethora of unforeseen consequences, unforeseen only because no one with experience sat down and analyzed the foot-thick act. It needs to be thrown out and replaced with a system like the ones Canada and most Europeans have. The whole system is crooked and can only be fixed with a wrecking ball, not a Rube Goldberg patchwork quilt.
5
Yes, it would have been good to have single payer on the first round, just as it would have been good if Hillary Clinton's health plan had not been torpedoed by the Republicans. President Obama got what he could wring out of Congress and was so bound and determined to have A HEALTH PLAN, that he took what he could get.
1
While Krugman assigns Obama credit for tiny progress, and responders compete to specify just how tiny it has been, Krugman continues to ignore what's actually happening below decks on the Titanic. Both the country and the world have reached the limits of a vast public and private debt expansion cycle that has pulled forward enough demand to maintain the illusion of economic stability since 2008, at the cost of massive financial market front-running, speculation and malinvestment; huge increases in inequality; and the impoverishment of savers and the pension funds on which they depend. Krugman himself has bought deeply into the "debt doesn't matter" mantra, which is quite possible to continue repeating until it does matter, as it has during every debt cycle implosion in history. Short-term thinking about minor improvements, political horse race handicapping and ideological tug of war will soon give way to the global economic tsunami we have been preparing for ourselves. Columns like this one will constitute astonishing evidence for our progeny of human inability to see the forest for the trees.
While European debt is high in some countries, U.S. debt has shrunk durin Mr. Obama's term.
2
Good point. On the other hand, when you get right down to it, we individuals and families are the trees. looking at the forest can excuse us from noticing the trees that aren't doing so well.
A healthy forest means healthy trees.
A healthy forest means healthy trees.
The incapacity of Republicans to acknowledge that one account's debit is a credit to some other account continues to boggle my own mind.
1
Not long ago, in conversation with the spouse of a distant in-law who lives significantly outside the beltway bubble that I've called home for many years, talk turned to wages. The spouse is the librarian in their small town, and mentioned looking forward to the rise in the minimum wage, which would enable the librarian to make $10 an hour. When I got past the idea that it was not a joke, I was shocked that a very intelligent person with a college degree and a grown child made less than $10/hour. As the professor notes, the right talks a lot about "wealth redistribution," but the only wealth I see being redistributed is that of middle class, or what might be called the little class, into the hands of the wealthy and very very wealthy.
I'm no economist, but when the working poor and lower middle class pay so much more of their income in taxes than those, like the republican candidate, who actually could afford it, it seems like robbing the poor to pay the rich, which began (again) with, as Dr. K. notes, with Reagan.
When I hear talk about our allegedly ruinous deficit, I keep thinking that the real deficit problem is the deficit of taxes that the rich pay, or don't pay. If they paid their fair share, the deficit would be gone tomorrow.
The problem is not government, it seems to me, it's republicans in government who want to destroy it. But when librarians in small towns don't even make $10/hour, it's not hard to see how someone could be so nihilistic as to vote Trump.
I'm no economist, but when the working poor and lower middle class pay so much more of their income in taxes than those, like the republican candidate, who actually could afford it, it seems like robbing the poor to pay the rich, which began (again) with, as Dr. K. notes, with Reagan.
When I hear talk about our allegedly ruinous deficit, I keep thinking that the real deficit problem is the deficit of taxes that the rich pay, or don't pay. If they paid their fair share, the deficit would be gone tomorrow.
The problem is not government, it seems to me, it's republicans in government who want to destroy it. But when librarians in small towns don't even make $10/hour, it's not hard to see how someone could be so nihilistic as to vote Trump.
41
Its a shame that there is so much ignorance in this country. We have so much and know so much, but we cannot find a way forward. The deep divisions that stymied all efforts by President Obama to progress are as prevalent as ever. The two things that get in the way of a resurgent American Greatness are Greed and Hatred. Greed has turned us into an Oligarchy. Hatred has kept racism very much alive. America has always been a racist culture ever since the founding. I find those two things are nurtured by republicans and they are reviled by democrats. A bigger divide you cannot find.
21
Frustrated greed leads to nihilism. That's what feeds the trump campaign.
2
I was recently at a luncheon, surrounded by Ivy League Republicans. Every one of them said that President Obama was the worst president, ever. Every fact I presented to them, from the U.S. hemorrhaging 800,000 jobs by the time W Bush left office to the stock market cratering in 2008, was the fault of the Democrats, according to these educated people! They did concede that, perhaps, just perhaps, the invasion of Iraq was a mistake.
Unbridled job growth, millions of Americans now covered under the ACA, saving the auto industry, killing Bin Laden, all these things were dismissed as false facts or unimportant. But I continued to argue with them, even if it was futile.
By constantly lying to the American public and constantly undermining public institutions (remember Jack Welch in 2012 saying Obama made up the unemployment numbers?), Republicans have brought us to the place where a huge swath of Americans believes that there is a liberal media making up global warming and lying about Obama's birthplace and faith.
In fact, in a Public Policy Poll less than a year ago, 61% of Trump supporters thought that Obama was not American and 54% thought Obama was Muslim:
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_90115.pdf
The Republican "leaders" have created this Frankenstein named Trump, a man who lies with impunity, but we will all pay a terrible price if we all don't continue to call out our fellow citizens on Trump's lies, and on all their lies.
Unbridled job growth, millions of Americans now covered under the ACA, saving the auto industry, killing Bin Laden, all these things were dismissed as false facts or unimportant. But I continued to argue with them, even if it was futile.
By constantly lying to the American public and constantly undermining public institutions (remember Jack Welch in 2012 saying Obama made up the unemployment numbers?), Republicans have brought us to the place where a huge swath of Americans believes that there is a liberal media making up global warming and lying about Obama's birthplace and faith.
In fact, in a Public Policy Poll less than a year ago, 61% of Trump supporters thought that Obama was not American and 54% thought Obama was Muslim:
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_90115.pdf
The Republican "leaders" have created this Frankenstein named Trump, a man who lies with impunity, but we will all pay a terrible price if we all don't continue to call out our fellow citizens on Trump's lies, and on all their lies.
53
Republican are literally incapable of accepting responsibility for anything they do. It is always someone else's fault.
1
YEP, many Republicans appear to be immune to facts and logic, living in their own delusional world of gloom-and-doom. Medical science has yet to find a cure for this syndrome.
1
I agree that things are better. But they have a long way to go before the American middle and working classes feel secure. We're still on the edge. And that is true for not just one or two generations but everyone born after 1955. We did not or will not have the same standard of living our parents had. We did not find it easy to be hired, save money for everything under the sun, keep jobs, support ourselves, or take care ourselves and our families.
We came of age when deregulation was the default position, when it became okay to fleece the customer, to break unions, to outsource jobs to other countries, to overpay CEOs at the expense of regular employees, when America stopped making progress in terms of how it treated its citizens. We were treated to the development of a corporatocracy where big business wrote the laws while Congress went along or states agreed at the expense of citizens.
It wasn't just the GOP that allowed it. The Democrats also let it happen. If there's one thing that truly needs to change in America it's how we fund our elections and what positions are elective. Judges should not be running for a seat on the bench. They should not be accepting money from anyone. Nor should we be seeing lobbyists writing regulations. When our elected officials are sworn in they promise to represent us, all of us, not some of us. Obama kept that promise: he did try to represent all of us even if we didn't vote for him. That's more than the GOP did.
We came of age when deregulation was the default position, when it became okay to fleece the customer, to break unions, to outsource jobs to other countries, to overpay CEOs at the expense of regular employees, when America stopped making progress in terms of how it treated its citizens. We were treated to the development of a corporatocracy where big business wrote the laws while Congress went along or states agreed at the expense of citizens.
It wasn't just the GOP that allowed it. The Democrats also let it happen. If there's one thing that truly needs to change in America it's how we fund our elections and what positions are elective. Judges should not be running for a seat on the bench. They should not be accepting money from anyone. Nor should we be seeing lobbyists writing regulations. When our elected officials are sworn in they promise to represent us, all of us, not some of us. Obama kept that promise: he did try to represent all of us even if we didn't vote for him. That's more than the GOP did.
34
The US is an interlocked corporate directorship. Congress only answers to it.
2
Of course things have gotten better, regardless of the remaining pockets left behind, as we aim to improve education, and health, and government. Trouble is, republican dogma (not subject to discussion) won't allow rational thoughts to complicate their predicament, a faith-based fantasy, inconsistent with reality as is. Plus ethnic discrimination (so called 'racism'), held undercover until revealed by impertinent Trump, a spin-doctor unable to self-control his unscrupulous behavior, an obsessive-compulsive liar resistant to treatment. Unless Trump is sent packing, the U.S. will suffer greatly from this irresponsible thug's actions. He would undo any and all of Obama's achievements, however necessary for people's well-being.
26
Let us not forget the role of the Gang of Senators Specter, Snowe, Collins, Lieberman and Nelson who forced the stunting of the stimulus in the winter of 2009 as Wall Street held the pin of a grenade and mused "nice economy you have there". The stimulus did help boost after-tax pay for a couple of years (via temporary payroll tax reduction) and, largely unnoticed but critical, prevented a collapse of municipal credit markets that would have tanked our economy far more deeply. But the stimulating part was stunted.
14
More than one third of the Obama stimulus was Republican tax cuts. When Republicans bawl that the stimulus didn't work, they are blaming themselves. These people are utterly void of self-awareness.
1
The increase in median income is way to small to make up for the huge increases in monthly expenses for rents for those who are not part of the owner-class. And since the financial crisis it also has become much harder to become a home owner. So no Mr Krugman, most people are actually worse off under the line after having spent half of their money on rent. Therefore the census numbers alone don't say much about the economic conditions of a majority of Americans and it's adding insult to injury to claim the policies of our government after the financial crisis have had a positive effect. To the contrary: all the easy money caused to pump up the asset prices and there aggravate inequality. That's why we have Brexit, AFD in Germany and Trump.
9
Rents have been falling.
1
I -- and many other college educated women -- are still waiting for the trickle to reach us. We're not that tall. We just fell out of the statistics when our unemployment expired. For some reason, young hiring managers don't want to hire people who resemble their parents.
13
Obama's achievements in 7.7 years are, as Krugman point out, remarkable. What he has not been able to do is, basically, what takes longer than that and what would have required more cooperation from the Fox News/Birther Congress—which your commenter Marie from Manhattan fails to see. And that donor class she mentions put in Reagan, Poppy and W, the cause of our still unsolved problems, in power. Yet you give her a NYT Pick. Prometheus in mostly incorrect in implying that higher prices for groceries (true) offset Obama's gains. Except for certain food prices inflation is simply not a problem. Really not. soaxered040713's points brilliantly underscore Krugman's points. Yet you give a NYT Pick to Prometheus and not to soaxered040713. Two possibilities here: 1) the GOP/Fox Orwellian liars have begun to infiltrate the NYT. 2) You need to wake up, ditch the decaf and switch to real coffee. Krugman is telling the truth (clearly you are not 100% Fox invaded yet) and Marie from Manhattan is dead, dead wrong.
11
Apparently you haven't been listening to the radio or reading books. Because Larry Kudlow says "JFK would be a Republican today" on SiriusXM, and he is the author of the new must-read, "JFK and the Reagan Revolution." He asserted on MSNBC that JFK was a supply-sider, before supply side "economics" existed, because he proposed cutting the top tax rate from 91% to 65%.
Oddly, Conservatives rebelled at the chance to give him that victory before an election, and the effort failed.
Oddly, Conservatives rebelled at the chance to give him that victory before an election, and the effort failed.
2
"JFK would be a Republican today"??? Strange interpretation of early 60's history to say the least. During the last months of Camelot, JFK's New Frontier domestic program, substantively framed LBJ's Great Society platform as a consequence of his landslide victory in 1964, electoral success historians, politicians, and pundits generally attribute to enactment of Kennedy's platform, to be an electoral tribute to our slain President.
1
@ soxared040713 "Quite impressive, considering the disloyal opposition. It's all at risk this November." Thank you.
Obama has been a great President, especially when considering the open war against him from the Conservatives. McConnell was very honest about his intentions and his confederates followed him with their treason, sedition, or whatever you want to call it.
Trump is an air head with an evil bent. In my middle to upper middle class neighborhood I see more and more Trump signs. November is looming as an important test of the American voters. Win or lose big, it is up to us.
However, the downside of going with Trumpet is on display in Kansas, in Missouri where all citizens can now carry weapons openly, and in a dis-functional congress. Ryan and McConnell tolerate the Mad Man because they have a quid pro quo agreement, "we send you a bill, you sign it, no questions asked". There goes Social Security and Medicare, SNAP, Unemployment benefits, etc. Down the tube we go.
Obama has been a great President, especially when considering the open war against him from the Conservatives. McConnell was very honest about his intentions and his confederates followed him with their treason, sedition, or whatever you want to call it.
Trump is an air head with an evil bent. In my middle to upper middle class neighborhood I see more and more Trump signs. November is looming as an important test of the American voters. Win or lose big, it is up to us.
However, the downside of going with Trumpet is on display in Kansas, in Missouri where all citizens can now carry weapons openly, and in a dis-functional congress. Ryan and McConnell tolerate the Mad Man because they have a quid pro quo agreement, "we send you a bill, you sign it, no questions asked". There goes Social Security and Medicare, SNAP, Unemployment benefits, etc. Down the tube we go.
13
According to several studies I've read about, 95% of the income gain has gone to the top 1% since 2000. There may be some small gain for us workers, but the 1% were the real winners of Obama's recovery.
11
It says that the median income has increased, not the mean. If you line up all the families in US according to their income, and look at the one family that sits in the middle, that's the median income. Since the size of the economy did not increase by 5%, then most of the income gain would need to go to the bottom 50% to be able to raise the median by that much.
I think this article was about the huge jump in median income despite the endless opposition of the Republicans?
1
I have never understood the argument that cutting taxes on the "job creators" will create more jobs. assuming that people react rationally, which all economists do, reducing taxes on the job creators will mean the cost of hiring an additional employee goes up. if the marginal tax rate is 25% the cost of hiring is 75% of the paycheck. if the tax rate is 35% the cost of hiring is 65%. it does not make economic sense
3
Do you truly believe that all economists react rationally? Some seem to be rather odd, in my experience.
1
We have been acting in our own worst interest for 40 plus years
Giving citizens a chance at a productive life only really requires two things 1) a single payer health system like the rest of the modern world 2) and a education: college and/or real world career/job training
People will be fine if these two existing predatory systems are removed from the society
Along with the lobbyists, Citizens United and gerrymandered districts
Giving citizens a chance at a productive life only really requires two things 1) a single payer health system like the rest of the modern world 2) and a education: college and/or real world career/job training
People will be fine if these two existing predatory systems are removed from the society
Along with the lobbyists, Citizens United and gerrymandered districts
23
What pushed Obama into doing this in the last year of his presidency? Bernie Sanders and the revolution he has wrought. This is not an 8 year influence it is a "1 year we are afraid of the people" influence. Now the Dems decide to throw a few bones. Once in office Hillary will begin business as usual, the business of making the rich richer and lining her own pockets. Of course the news is good now, how else do you get her into office when her trust levels are in the toilet. Healthcare aside Obama has done little for regular Americans. Raising the minimum wage to near subsistence levels is better than nothing but not much better. Helping "good" lendees to restructure those fraudulent loans which should have just been forced to be done by the banksters for all is a little bone and helped his numbers. None of this is left of center. These so called progressives know they have to throw a few ones to get into office. January 2017 will be business as usual. with the common American paying for the "mistakes" of the rich and the rich raking in huge monies ruining the investments of the retirees while redistributing that wealth through phony car loan securities. And the circle will be complete for 8 more years. Until election time again and more bones will be thrown to us.
5
Patty, You have to give credit or assign blame where it is due. We have a Republican Senate and House. They and they alone create the bills that can be signed by the President to become law. That is the way it works. Policy is policy and if the President is only partially successful through executive action then that is the limit of change that can be accomplished. Those in the Midwest get the results they deserve when they vote the way they do. If you are in Kansas or Wisconsin you are worse off. But please try to be objective, if you do not like the status quo then vote to change it, vote Democratic. You the last party that balanced the federal budget, that didn't lie about WMD's, that doesn't support tax cuts for those at the top, whose members didn't outsource jobs overseas and by the way, support equal pay for women and a right to an abortion. It is also the party that believes in science and climate change. Many bad things have happened over the last 40 years and they will not be undone in just a few years.
2
It's just so easy to make the economy grow! That's why Obama finally decided to do this. Because Bernie! Vote for Trump, right?
1
Huh? What do you think Obama did the last year of his presidency that he hadn't done before? These results reflect long term trends dating back to his start in office. Did you even read the article?
1
There is no doubt the economy has improved drastically since 2008.
There is also no doubt the democrats were in the majority in both the House and Senate 2 years before the crash and 2 years after the crash. Nobody seems to remember we had divided government leading up to the crash and divided government when things started improving.
The argument that it was the Presidents action that improved the economy may be true? It just might be true that gridlock and inaction was good for the economy.
Blaming or giving credit to a party for economic recovery or economic failure seems foolish based on the reality of our governments inaction. As much as people hate the Federal Reserve, Paulson and Bernanke did most of the heavy lifting while our government piddled away at the margin and did little of substance.
There is also no doubt the democrats were in the majority in both the House and Senate 2 years before the crash and 2 years after the crash. Nobody seems to remember we had divided government leading up to the crash and divided government when things started improving.
The argument that it was the Presidents action that improved the economy may be true? It just might be true that gridlock and inaction was good for the economy.
Blaming or giving credit to a party for economic recovery or economic failure seems foolish based on the reality of our governments inaction. As much as people hate the Federal Reserve, Paulson and Bernanke did most of the heavy lifting while our government piddled away at the margin and did little of substance.
1
They don't call it a 'government bailout' for nothing. Paulson was representing the government, and he was promising government money. Bernanke's low rates were so unpopular with the GOP that Romney said he would replace him and Bernanke is no longer a Republican.
1
It amazes me how long the GOP "trickle down" narrative has been disproven, yet the narrative persists and large swaths of the voting public refuse to believe the reality that confronts their lyin' eyes. The right-wing spin machine is that powerful, casting white as black, up as down.
We quite recently survived eight years of a certifiably catastrophic Republican Administration, having grown our human capital since those dark days under leadership that actually cares about an equitable quality of American life. Whatever her flaws (and who is free of them?), Hillary Clinton shares this concern.
Ignoring this, a sizable portion of the voting public would willingly return to such mismanagement, this time on steroids, pathology added to blustering ignorance. Go figure. I can't.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
We quite recently survived eight years of a certifiably catastrophic Republican Administration, having grown our human capital since those dark days under leadership that actually cares about an equitable quality of American life. Whatever her flaws (and who is free of them?), Hillary Clinton shares this concern.
Ignoring this, a sizable portion of the voting public would willingly return to such mismanagement, this time on steroids, pathology added to blustering ignorance. Go figure. I can't.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
12
It has been said that all politics is local and though Paul Krugman sees the big picture , all economics can also be said to be local. On the local front american dissatisfaction can be read in the voters that threaten to vote for Trump and the libertarian candidate. These people are largely reacting to what they perceive to be a failing economy that no longer responds to their needs.
A recent announcement by Ford that it would send jobs manufacturing small cars to Mexico is a perfect case in point. By making this announcement the significance of job losses and family stresses associated with income loss will turn voters away from the Obama economy and towards the Trump vision away from liberal economics. At present more that 50 percent of americans believe that they have not benefited economically from the past eight years… they are basing this belief on their personal experience. Can they be convinced that they have it all wrong before the november election ? Democrats must come to grips with the significance of local economics if they want to win the next election… and they must learn to speak directly to local concerns and respond to them in a meaningful manner or face the disaster of a Trump presdiency !
A recent announcement by Ford that it would send jobs manufacturing small cars to Mexico is a perfect case in point. By making this announcement the significance of job losses and family stresses associated with income loss will turn voters away from the Obama economy and towards the Trump vision away from liberal economics. At present more that 50 percent of americans believe that they have not benefited economically from the past eight years… they are basing this belief on their personal experience. Can they be convinced that they have it all wrong before the november election ? Democrats must come to grips with the significance of local economics if they want to win the next election… and they must learn to speak directly to local concerns and respond to them in a meaningful manner or face the disaster of a Trump presdiency !
2
Just to be clear, Ford is moving small car production to Mexico, but is not cutting jobs in the US. Instead, Ford's US factories that had been making small cars will be switched over to SUV's & pick-up trucks.
Still, it is regrettable that Ford finds it necessary to invest in Mexican factories, rather than expand the operation in the US.
Still, it is regrettable that Ford finds it necessary to invest in Mexican factories, rather than expand the operation in the US.
1
Politics is really scale-independent. It functions pretty much the same at all levels everywhere.
1
It seems like if Mr. Krugman were a serious nerd he would note that the Census recently changed its methodology for measuring income in its annual survey. The changes would tend to inflate reporting of nonstandard (nonwage) sources of income, and this was the survey instrument that fully incorporated those changes.
If you look at the data, actual wage gains were relatively anemic. 2.7 for women and 1.5 for men. That 1.5 is a terrible number.
But, it makes us feel better to report 5.2 percent.
If you look at the data, actual wage gains were relatively anemic. 2.7 for women and 1.5 for men. That 1.5 is a terrible number.
But, it makes us feel better to report 5.2 percent.
5
Sorry, Braden @ Beacon NY, I think here is how to interpret the numbers:
The average actual wage gains are averaged across everybody, including Wall Street traders and bankers, not just retail store workers and such.
The change in the median (5.2%) income is much greater than the change in the average (as you noted 2.7% for women and 1.5% for men).
This means most of the gains went to people in the lower half of the income distribution, and their gains are likely much more than 2.7%, 1.5%, etc.
The Census Bureau report says that the change in the Gini index is not statistically significant, nor were other measures of inequality, except for: "in 2015, the 90th to 10th percentile income ratio was 12.23, a 4.7 percent decline from 12.83 in 2014. Changes in inequality between 2014 and 2015 were not statistically significant as measured by other indicators: the Theil index, the MLD or the Atkinson measure".
The average actual wage gains are averaged across everybody, including Wall Street traders and bankers, not just retail store workers and such.
The change in the median (5.2%) income is much greater than the change in the average (as you noted 2.7% for women and 1.5% for men).
This means most of the gains went to people in the lower half of the income distribution, and their gains are likely much more than 2.7%, 1.5%, etc.
The Census Bureau report says that the change in the Gini index is not statistically significant, nor were other measures of inequality, except for: "in 2015, the 90th to 10th percentile income ratio was 12.23, a 4.7 percent decline from 12.83 in 2014. Changes in inequality between 2014 and 2015 were not statistically significant as measured by other indicators: the Theil index, the MLD or the Atkinson measure".
1
Sources? What I am seeing is that incomes went up over inflation for people already working (I personally would like to be seeing those kind of wage increases), and that a lot more people now have full time jobs. Looks to me like you're cherry-picking.
1
As usual, sound economic-statistically based arguments presented by Professor Krugman.
Of course, these arguments resound receptively among college-educated professionals which have done financially well during the last few decades.
The burning question in the US today, however, is of different nature.
The political-economic system has been rigged against millions of less educated Americans. They were left behind by the new economy propelled by the global information technology revolution.
The question is which economic proposal -Trump or Hillary -- is better suited to deal with such complex challenge.
On November 8th, 2016 Americans will decide whether Trump or Hillary will lead the country with a mandate for radical economic changes (Trump) or marginal changes (Hillary).
Of course, these arguments resound receptively among college-educated professionals which have done financially well during the last few decades.
The burning question in the US today, however, is of different nature.
The political-economic system has been rigged against millions of less educated Americans. They were left behind by the new economy propelled by the global information technology revolution.
The question is which economic proposal -Trump or Hillary -- is better suited to deal with such complex challenge.
On November 8th, 2016 Americans will decide whether Trump or Hillary will lead the country with a mandate for radical economic changes (Trump) or marginal changes (Hillary).
1
We shall see what, if anything, Reagan Democrats learned by enabling that con-artist.
1
Not that facebook is a representative sample of economic well-being, but just glancing at my wife's page, the level of travel and attendance at entertainment venues on these pages would indicate uptick in economic well-being. The irony on these pages are comments from individuals sitting in five star hotel restaurants in some foreign country saying that need to get home to vote for Trump.
2
And, you know this how??
I applaud President Obama's economic success, but recognize that its statistical validity will not be recognized by those who mindlessly fall in with the bizarre claim that he's been a "disaster". The only scenario Obama-haters would accept is a census number that showed medium family income flat or falling and poverty rates and the uninsured rising. It's sad. It's Orwellian. But that's the way it is with too many of our fellow citizens.
14
Remember the ”balanced budget multiplier” from Economics 101.
If the government increases spending and raises taxes by the same amount, say $500 billion per year, so as not to increase the federal deficit, the economy will grow by the same $500 billion per year.
At a rate of $50,000 per year per job, that’s 10 million new jobs.
Everybody, including the “one per centers”, will be better off. It’s called gush-up (as opposed to trickle-down) economics.
If the government increases spending and raises taxes by the same amount, say $500 billion per year, so as not to increase the federal deficit, the economy will grow by the same $500 billion per year.
At a rate of $50,000 per year per job, that’s 10 million new jobs.
Everybody, including the “one per centers”, will be better off. It’s called gush-up (as opposed to trickle-down) economics.
4
The President has little to do with the economy. Congress controls fiscal policy. Moving the levers of this economy take years to have effect. Relook at your analysis with a four year lag.
What is true is that more regulation burdens the economy. The growth in regs surges under democratic Predidents as there is no check on agencies that regulate them.
What is true is that more regulation burdens the economy. The growth in regs surges under democratic Predidents as there is no check on agencies that regulate them.
2
I guess I prefer some regulation rather than the prospect of needing to wear surgical masks as they do in Beijing. I don't subscribe to the idea of lax regulation, where industry does whatever makes them the most profit, while taxpayers are left to pay for cleaning up the mess. With climate change already impacting our country, weakening our regulatory agencies seems ill advised.
3
The basic rules that govern the agencies and the agencies themselves all come out of Congress. The President is just the administrator with limited control.
Battling false narratives with the truth is a continuing responsibility of good governance. Speaking truth to the power is difficult because of the well funded and efficient propaganda machine of the conservative right. The sophistry of Fox News has done much to misinform and distort. Most people embrace news and information that confirm their already held beliefs and feelings. Contrary news is generally eschewed or ignored altogether. Their subconscious hinders information that tends to contradict what they already believe to be true. But the rhetorical battle for the hearts and minds of the electorate is dynamic. Opinions do gradually evolve over time. The war for the hearts and minds of the American people is far from over.
12
The conservative right propaganda machine is alive and very well due to the enrichment in great measure to the Koch Industries and others of their greedy power-hungry ilk. Many have swallowed their vile message and will suffer the consequences unless the opposition can effectively present factual antidotes to preclude their blind acceptance of the propaganda's lies.
3
People who think with their brains are generally outnumbered by people who react from their gut.
1
The rich who stoke up nihilism to gain political advantage always come to regret it, if they live through it.
1
There is no science or academic nexus to this column. Dr. Krugman's approach to economics offers no falsifiability. Krugman has predetermined responses to whatever the economic news is. If it is good, then Obama's policies produced it. If it is bad, then the stimulus was not big enough. This is not a scientific approach; it is a religious one. I'm glad Americans are finally getting a pay raise, but it took way too long. Mr. Obama became president near the end of a recession. Obama's policies did not produce a robust recovery. In fact, they resulted in the weakest recovery in living memory. We experienced a much stronger recovery under President Reagan's policies and somewhat stronger one under G.W. Bush's policies. And both of them came into office just as recessions were beginning, not ending.
4
Neither Reagan or Bush encountered resistance on the order of magnitude of what Obama has had to deal with. In addition, his approach is likely to be more sustainable and resistant to market conditions then the exploding deficit smoke and mirrors tactics employed by former administrations. That may be a "religious" assessment as well by your definition.
7
Recovery during the past seven years would have been even stronger had not the Republican Party not engaged in economic sabatoge; e. g., blocking the proposed, American Jobs Act that would have invested billions of dollars in infrastructure.
3
President Obama took office in the midst of the worst global liquidity crisis since the Great Depression. Were you born yet then?
2
We say progressive and trickle-up and such, but never really want to admit to democratic-socialism; we leave that to the Europeans. We'll be better off when finally admitting that being concerned enough about the community, the society, each other that we want to help 'the least of mine' by making sure the top-tier doesn't get too 'top'. We want a semblance of equality, as opposed to oligarchy (which we seem closer to today).
It's okay to love people more than riches. It's okay to create societies for the better good and the 'more perfect union'. Let's get over our capitalistic desires for more and more money. Let's protect the planet and each other.
Life is short, love is endless, and our possibilities are as big as our imaginations and hearts.
It's okay to love people more than riches. It's okay to create societies for the better good and the 'more perfect union'. Let's get over our capitalistic desires for more and more money. Let's protect the planet and each other.
Life is short, love is endless, and our possibilities are as big as our imaginations and hearts.
19
Here in the US, what isn't profitable just isn't worth doing.
Bravo, ttrumbo in Fayetteville! So beautiful and true! Thank you.
1
The idea of trickle down economics being THE answer is a dead issue. The illusion that this will somehow fix and or stimulate the economy is a ruse to continue the Republicans lack of compassion for the real stakeholders in American----the 99%.
Redistribution of wealth creates a stronger nation. It is the thesis behind our progressive tax system. It worked when the top rate was 90% and it will continue to work if we continue to support the belief that if you make 100million you didnt do it on your own. Who pays for the infrastructure, the courts, the roads, the grid, the army, etc etc. We built a great nation and we all pay the freight. If you can make more you pay more. Not complicated.
Taxes are not our nations problem. Greed is our problem,
Redistribution of wealth creates a stronger nation. It is the thesis behind our progressive tax system. It worked when the top rate was 90% and it will continue to work if we continue to support the belief that if you make 100million you didnt do it on your own. Who pays for the infrastructure, the courts, the roads, the grid, the army, etc etc. We built a great nation and we all pay the freight. If you can make more you pay more. Not complicated.
Taxes are not our nations problem. Greed is our problem,
31
This is, of course, just the latest in an ever-lengthening line of reality's repeated refudiations of Publican zombie lies.
Recall the similar fights over the 1990s Clinton tax increases?
In those, too, the Publicans howled that the modest increases Clinton sought from the wealthiest (then already enjoying rapidly accelerating accumulations of riches, and further outpacing everyone else) would demolish our economy, and "wind up hurting those they claim to wish to help."
The battle was so close that the increases passed the Senate by just one vote (the tie-breaker of VP Al Gore) against unanimous Publican opposition (sound familiar?).
Of course, as we all (except Fox-fans) know, instead of the Publican-prophesied doom&gloom, what we got was the biggest jump in economic growth since the long postwar boom -- which was the last time taxes on the wealthiest and the corporations had been high enough to do any good.
That Clinton era was the last and only one since the 1970s, until the current recovery, in which working- and middle-class incomes (especially those of people of color) made any gains at all, either in absolute dollars, or relative to those of the 1%ers.
It's always the same story.
(We won't even talk about the equivalent battles over the policies that -- again, against Publican opposition -- broke the back of the Great Depression...)
Thanks, "liberal media," for ensuring that everyone knows this!
Well, at least we have Krugman.
Recall the similar fights over the 1990s Clinton tax increases?
In those, too, the Publicans howled that the modest increases Clinton sought from the wealthiest (then already enjoying rapidly accelerating accumulations of riches, and further outpacing everyone else) would demolish our economy, and "wind up hurting those they claim to wish to help."
The battle was so close that the increases passed the Senate by just one vote (the tie-breaker of VP Al Gore) against unanimous Publican opposition (sound familiar?).
Of course, as we all (except Fox-fans) know, instead of the Publican-prophesied doom&gloom, what we got was the biggest jump in economic growth since the long postwar boom -- which was the last time taxes on the wealthiest and the corporations had been high enough to do any good.
That Clinton era was the last and only one since the 1970s, until the current recovery, in which working- and middle-class incomes (especially those of people of color) made any gains at all, either in absolute dollars, or relative to those of the 1%ers.
It's always the same story.
(We won't even talk about the equivalent battles over the policies that -- again, against Publican opposition -- broke the back of the Great Depression...)
Thanks, "liberal media," for ensuring that everyone knows this!
Well, at least we have Krugman.
15
and I blame the democrats. Where have they been, they just let these lies be told over and over again without hardly a whisper, liberal media hogwash. The media and NYT and Krugman are part of the problem. They lie when it suits them.
Why aren't the dem party screaming for investigations about Trump? or maybe they are and no one is reporting it. Trump University, paying off Florida DOJ not to investigate, demanding tax return which heard something about that from Clinton even Ryan.
The dems lost their noice. Good Cop bad cop
Why aren't the dem party screaming for investigations about Trump? or maybe they are and no one is reporting it. Trump University, paying off Florida DOJ not to investigate, demanding tax return which heard something about that from Clinton even Ryan.
The dems lost their noice. Good Cop bad cop
1
It is good news. And I do see more help wanted signs. It would be interesting to see how these numbers look on an after healthcare basis. My sense is that the employees' share of healthcare costs continues to rise, and that any increase in salary tends to be eaten up by higher deductibles and copays and by absorbing a larger amount of premiums. This may explain a lack of recovery enthusiasm.
3
The weakness in the economy, especially seen in persistently low GDP growth since 2008, is patently obvious, and largely due to Obama's mismanagement.
7
The US economy is, in fact, the envy of the world. Compare to; EU and Japan who have near zero growth rates. We have low unemployment, low inflation, low gas prices, record high stock prices and a diversified economy. The dollar is strong as the global economy wants to invest in success. What's not to like?
10
No due to Republican obstruction. And the US is doing better than all other countries from a financial disaster the US caused!
The weakness in the US economy was largely a result of the near total collapse of the world economy, itself predicated on lack of sound financial policies that originated long before Obama took office.
Coming back from the financial straightjacket and deep persistent fears of a return to collapse kept companies from hiring or investing, but instead found them, as well as individuals, hoarding cash. It is "patently obvious" that the economy's decline were not the result of a single man.
Coming back from the financial straightjacket and deep persistent fears of a return to collapse kept companies from hiring or investing, but instead found them, as well as individuals, hoarding cash. It is "patently obvious" that the economy's decline were not the result of a single man.
1
Real income growth is not possible unless and until the healthcare insurance mafia is put out of business. It takes too huge a chunk out of that $56k and offers little in return.
19
Going back to 1947, real American GDP growth has averaged 3.33%annually.
But the average growth rates under Democratic and Republican presidents are different:
4.35% growth under Democratic Presidents....
and 2.54% growth under Republican Presidents.
Much better under Democratic Presidents.
Six of the eight above-average presidential terms, including the top four, were Democratic; seven of the eight below-average terms were Republican.
Much better under Democratic Presidents.
http://www.princeton.edu/~mwatson/papers/Presidents_Blinder_Watson_July2...
When Bush-Cheney left the economic stage, their 'free-market' nihilism left America a parting gift of 800,000 monthly job losses in Jan. 2009.
President Obama has a consistent record of an America producing 200,000-plus jobs each month.
The difference between Democratic economic competence and Republican economic incompetence, collapse and greedy nihilism is the difference between night and day.
Only a proudly ignorant American would pretend that the Greed Over People party has any economic idea what they're doing...(besides lining the pockets of billionaires and economically torturing everyone else).
If you want to help the American economy, elect a Democratic President.
If you want to collapse the American economy, elect a Republican President.
It's in the history books and you can look it up.
But the average growth rates under Democratic and Republican presidents are different:
4.35% growth under Democratic Presidents....
and 2.54% growth under Republican Presidents.
Much better under Democratic Presidents.
Six of the eight above-average presidential terms, including the top four, were Democratic; seven of the eight below-average terms were Republican.
Much better under Democratic Presidents.
http://www.princeton.edu/~mwatson/papers/Presidents_Blinder_Watson_July2...
When Bush-Cheney left the economic stage, their 'free-market' nihilism left America a parting gift of 800,000 monthly job losses in Jan. 2009.
President Obama has a consistent record of an America producing 200,000-plus jobs each month.
The difference between Democratic economic competence and Republican economic incompetence, collapse and greedy nihilism is the difference between night and day.
Only a proudly ignorant American would pretend that the Greed Over People party has any economic idea what they're doing...(besides lining the pockets of billionaires and economically torturing everyone else).
If you want to help the American economy, elect a Democratic President.
If you want to collapse the American economy, elect a Republican President.
It's in the history books and you can look it up.
348
Socrates, all the figures you mention are inaccurate, all falsified to make it look good for the criminal Democrats.
3
Conspiracist Bill...please present your 'accurate' right-wing statistics and fabrications, but before you do so I have two simple questions to ask you:
Is 'Up' Down or is 'Up' Up ?
Is 'Down' Up or is 'Down' Down ?
Many Republicans seem to have enormous difficulty with these questions, and hence, their complete disconnect from the real world.
http://www.businessinsider.com/economy-does-better-under-democrats-2013-12
https://www.princeton.edu/~mwatson/papers/DemRep_BlinderWatson_July2015.pdf
http://www.nationalmemo.com/5-ways-democratic-presidents-kick-republican...
Is 'Up' Down or is 'Up' Up ?
Is 'Down' Up or is 'Down' Down ?
Many Republicans seem to have enormous difficulty with these questions, and hence, their complete disconnect from the real world.
http://www.businessinsider.com/economy-does-better-under-democrats-2013-12
https://www.princeton.edu/~mwatson/papers/DemRep_BlinderWatson_July2015.pdf
http://www.nationalmemo.com/5-ways-democratic-presidents-kick-republican...
5
This growth was fueled by cheap oil. Note that the turn in living standards
began in the early 1970's after the US hit Peak Oil in 1970 and then was
zapped with the Arab Oil Embargo. Before that time any Arab Oil Embargo would have been useless as the US would have just ramped up its domestic oil production. However another overlooked part of Democrat's success is generally their cuts in endless War spending which is over 50% of the Federal budget and obviously helps no one but the Merchants of Death. If anything of course real endless Wars destroy countries like Iraq, Libya, and now Syria with their death and destruction. First this same fossil fuel spree is frying the planet with global warming. And second global conventional Peak Oil production already happened in 2006. It is only very expensive fracked shale oil, deepwater oil and Tar sands production all providing way less energy return for energy investment which has kept global Oil production from falling off a cliff. But this makes for way more expensive oil.
We cannot afford to continue the wasteful material growth of ever more weapons, highways, private cars and throwaway consumer junk. It is physically impossible on a finite planet...
What we can do is stop wasting resources on Wars and Auto Adddicted suburban sprawl, throwaway junk and instead share Green public transit, public parks, public health, public schools and make products which last or can be repaired not planned obsolescence.
began in the early 1970's after the US hit Peak Oil in 1970 and then was
zapped with the Arab Oil Embargo. Before that time any Arab Oil Embargo would have been useless as the US would have just ramped up its domestic oil production. However another overlooked part of Democrat's success is generally their cuts in endless War spending which is over 50% of the Federal budget and obviously helps no one but the Merchants of Death. If anything of course real endless Wars destroy countries like Iraq, Libya, and now Syria with their death and destruction. First this same fossil fuel spree is frying the planet with global warming. And second global conventional Peak Oil production already happened in 2006. It is only very expensive fracked shale oil, deepwater oil and Tar sands production all providing way less energy return for energy investment which has kept global Oil production from falling off a cliff. But this makes for way more expensive oil.
We cannot afford to continue the wasteful material growth of ever more weapons, highways, private cars and throwaway consumer junk. It is physically impossible on a finite planet...
What we can do is stop wasting resources on Wars and Auto Adddicted suburban sprawl, throwaway junk and instead share Green public transit, public parks, public health, public schools and make products which last or can be repaired not planned obsolescence.
2
Median family income in the US rose to $56516 in 2015. And this week that's good enough for the pundits and politicians to slap each other on the back and pass out high marks for the so-called improvement.
What they fail to acknowledge is the enormous proportion of that $56.5K that gets siphoned off to health insurance (not actual health care, which is an entirely different entity.)
The family plan for my large consortium of employees is $17000/ year plus a $3000 deductible. In my case, the employer picks up $6000 of the cost, leaving the employee with a $11000 expense plus an outlay of $3000 before the family gets "some" health care other than a yearly physical and a few other concessions thrown in.
$14K each year for health insurance -- nearly 25% of gross income -- is not in any family's interest. And we wonder why economic growth is flat or regressing. Families at the median simply do not have disposable income.
25% of gross is a sum that even loan sharks and mafia of yesteryear would never have had the temerity to demand.
We must put an end to the health insurance extortion racket -- there's no other word for it.
What they fail to acknowledge is the enormous proportion of that $56.5K that gets siphoned off to health insurance (not actual health care, which is an entirely different entity.)
The family plan for my large consortium of employees is $17000/ year plus a $3000 deductible. In my case, the employer picks up $6000 of the cost, leaving the employee with a $11000 expense plus an outlay of $3000 before the family gets "some" health care other than a yearly physical and a few other concessions thrown in.
$14K each year for health insurance -- nearly 25% of gross income -- is not in any family's interest. And we wonder why economic growth is flat or regressing. Families at the median simply do not have disposable income.
25% of gross is a sum that even loan sharks and mafia of yesteryear would never have had the temerity to demand.
We must put an end to the health insurance extortion racket -- there's no other word for it.
103
The way health insurance is structured, we the consumers and patients pay for all the CEO salary hikes of pharma Companies, the inflated Costs of manufacturing, the inflated costs of advertising and marketing...Who are they kidding! How can it be sustainable when we all know that medicines lifesaving ones, can be produced wholesale for cheap in countries abroad, without any frills and fancy wrappers.
10
Yes! Get riad of the health care racket and put best minds on a workable single payer system.
If we could only bring ourselves to for once "borrow"from some of the best that already exist, we might get to health care samity fairly quickly. This is one area where exceptionalism be damned. (Not that there aren't others, but in this instance we could be humble and caring enough to go for the alreafy tried and good.)
If we could only bring ourselves to for once "borrow"from some of the best that already exist, we might get to health care samity fairly quickly. This is one area where exceptionalism be damned. (Not that there aren't others, but in this instance we could be humble and caring enough to go for the alreafy tried and good.)
1
I agree. My wife and I were self-insured until we qualified for Medicare, and the premiums skyrocketed each year, seriously eroding our disposable income. Toward the end we opted to roll the dice and switch to catastrophic policies to reduce the monthly payout. It worked out, but minding one's health should not be a crap shoot in a country that spends almost two trillion dollars on healthcare. Obamacare has certainly helped, but universal Medicare is the logical answer to the "extortion racket" still in place.
2
Last I checked Obama is on course to have created roughly 14 million jobs during his tenure as President.
This is all good especially in consideration of the crashing economy George Bush left him with, It took a year before the economy was netting new jobs.
However, during Obama's presidency, American immigration policy has allowed roughly 10 million LEGAL immigrants into the United States.
You read that correct: in the last 8 years the U.S. has allowed roughly 10 million people to immigrate LEGALLY into the United States.
I am not against immigration. But 10 million?
The problem with immigration during the Obama years has not been illegal immigration, it has been LEGAL immigration.
Sure many of those immigrants are too young or old to work, but millions of them need jobs too.
What are we doing importing 10 million people when we don't have enough jobs for the people who already live here?
I'm not saying that immigration be totally shut down - although that's just about what happened in the 1930's during the Great Depression - that was just common sense.
But instead of 10 million, maybe we should have allowed a fourth, a third, or even half of that in (again, LEGALLY).
The only people wanting high levels of immigration during a recession is BigMoney/BigCorp.
Millions of families, thousands of communities were devastated by the Great Recession created by BigMoney. Had Obama/USA used a little more common sense, maybe Trump would never have found any traction.
This is all good especially in consideration of the crashing economy George Bush left him with, It took a year before the economy was netting new jobs.
However, during Obama's presidency, American immigration policy has allowed roughly 10 million LEGAL immigrants into the United States.
You read that correct: in the last 8 years the U.S. has allowed roughly 10 million people to immigrate LEGALLY into the United States.
I am not against immigration. But 10 million?
The problem with immigration during the Obama years has not been illegal immigration, it has been LEGAL immigration.
Sure many of those immigrants are too young or old to work, but millions of them need jobs too.
What are we doing importing 10 million people when we don't have enough jobs for the people who already live here?
I'm not saying that immigration be totally shut down - although that's just about what happened in the 1930's during the Great Depression - that was just common sense.
But instead of 10 million, maybe we should have allowed a fourth, a third, or even half of that in (again, LEGALLY).
The only people wanting high levels of immigration during a recession is BigMoney/BigCorp.
Millions of families, thousands of communities were devastated by the Great Recession created by BigMoney. Had Obama/USA used a little more common sense, maybe Trump would never have found any traction.
11
Look, 10 million isn't actually that large a number in almost every context except when you look at that number on its own. Over that same time period, the U.S. population birthed something like 20 million new people - a slightly different form of legal immigration if you will. For the sake of population stability, the U.S. needs some immigration because we don't want to go down Japan's road of declining population and requiring fewer workers to pay for more services for non-workers like the elderly. Immigration helps keep that balance in check.
You should also consider that the current administration has deported about 2.5 million people over that same time period and no doubt there was some legal and illegal people leaving the country as well. Additionally, there were people (workers) who died and others who retired over that same time period. With the deportations, deaths, and retirements, I would be willing to bet that the U.S. would have had a lower number of people who are able to work at the end of this 8 years if we had just cut off immigration when Obama entered office. Now, would that be a good thing? I don't think so because you would have a situation where companies definitely have no reason to hire more workers since the total net worth of the age group that spends the most money is not increasing.
You should also consider that the current administration has deported about 2.5 million people over that same time period and no doubt there was some legal and illegal people leaving the country as well. Additionally, there were people (workers) who died and others who retired over that same time period. With the deportations, deaths, and retirements, I would be willing to bet that the U.S. would have had a lower number of people who are able to work at the end of this 8 years if we had just cut off immigration when Obama entered office. Now, would that be a good thing? I don't think so because you would have a situation where companies definitely have no reason to hire more workers since the total net worth of the age group that spends the most money is not increasing.
4
And there are 324 million people in the USA, according to the Census Bureau (see how I actually named my source? You should consider that). Which works out to 3%, excluding any people who may have left the country. All assuming your number is accurate.
1
Jason, yours is the kind of thinking that is likely to put Trump in office. Our government needs to be more focused on the interests of those who are already here, lawfully, than on trying to recruit more problems from abroad.
Now there you go again Dr.K with actual facts and actual policy results. Don’t you know that facts, especially those provided by any department of government are all part of a liberal conspiracy?
If the elite left can have their facts the radical right are entitled to their own. Here we come to a political bifurcation between truth and belief. The truth is that Obama has been an excellent president and we are better off because of his policies and intelligence. He made America stronger.
Trump says Obama has been a disaster and the economy is in a shambles and ge is not a strong leader. Trump says that his experience as a businessman and a billionaire gives him magical access to the genuinel truth. We can call what the Trump campaign is claiming as “Trump-Truth” which has no relationship to the real truth.
It appears that a large swath of our population believes Trump-Truth and either never learned about the real truth or if they did, don’t care because Trump’s lies are forgiven, while Hillary Clinton’s email server is a crime which disqualifies her from the presidency. If you don’t believe that, check with Matt Lauer.
If the elite left can have their facts the radical right are entitled to their own. Here we come to a political bifurcation between truth and belief. The truth is that Obama has been an excellent president and we are better off because of his policies and intelligence. He made America stronger.
Trump says Obama has been a disaster and the economy is in a shambles and ge is not a strong leader. Trump says that his experience as a businessman and a billionaire gives him magical access to the genuinel truth. We can call what the Trump campaign is claiming as “Trump-Truth” which has no relationship to the real truth.
It appears that a large swath of our population believes Trump-Truth and either never learned about the real truth or if they did, don’t care because Trump’s lies are forgiven, while Hillary Clinton’s email server is a crime which disqualifies her from the presidency. If you don’t believe that, check with Matt Lauer.
38
Trump sure does bring out what abject suckers Americans are for con-artists.
1
The "jobs creators" among the wealthy are the innovators, the entrepreneurs, and they don't mind paying their fair share of taxes because they know it's the conditions in this country that allowed them to amass wealth. However, those who inherited their vast wealth are the ones seeking huge tax cuts to preserve their wealth without doing anything for the overall economy. Their wealth is lodged in the virtual economy, stocks and bonds and investments, and they have nothing to do with jobs creation. They invented the lie that cutting their taxes would cause an economic boom, a notion that has been tried again and again and failed miserably each time, with exploding deficits and near bankruptcy. And the Republicans are their tool, their everlasting bare-faced liars, now exemplified by Donald Trump, the Liar in Chief.
35
Innovation only pays when it boosts productivity, which generally reduces the number of jobs required to deliver the product.
2
Thereby freeing up capital and labor to start new businesses. Similarly, if productivity is increased, then there should be room for increasing wages and increased profits. Seems wonderful to me.
I would like to see Obama stay another term or two. But the brutality of politics just now means it would be unmerciful to keep him on. Maybe in 4 or 8 years, there could be enough distance to make a run appealing to Michelle.
I would like to see Obama stay another term or two. But the brutality of politics just now means it would be unmerciful to keep him on. Maybe in 4 or 8 years, there could be enough distance to make a run appealing to Michelle.
6
When you have to create demand from scratch for some new product, and its lifetime is measured in months, you just sit on your cash.
"You know how the argument goes: Any attempt to help working families directly, we’re told, will backfire by hurting the economy as a whole."
Yes, so everyday, this principle is reinforced by the media reporting how well the GDP and the stock market are doing, which are better indicators of how the rich are doing than how the rest of us are faring.
Fine report the GDP and stock market numbers, but why can't we also report indicators of the well being of most people in society (getting at not just the accumulation of wealth but the distribution of wealth) and the social quality of life in society? (There are already such indicators, but why don't we hear about them in this country? (Scandinavians do hear about them, by the way)
Currently, we live an Ebeneezer Scrooge society, where we are a bunch of Bob Cratchits and Tiny Tims waiting for a few farthings from a bunch of very wealthy Scrooges to trickle down. And this all works quite well, as long as you can get the masses to believe that as long as the rich are doing well, we all are doing well. And if you are not doing well? Well just maybe you might win the lottery (the odds of winning the Powerball Jackpot lottery are 1 in 292 million). Or how about Publishers Clearinghouse sweepstakes? The American Dream these days.
Rather than educating Americans in political and social economics, too many economists are too busy serving the business and financial community. Not you Dr. Krugman; but we need more like you.
Yes, so everyday, this principle is reinforced by the media reporting how well the GDP and the stock market are doing, which are better indicators of how the rich are doing than how the rest of us are faring.
Fine report the GDP and stock market numbers, but why can't we also report indicators of the well being of most people in society (getting at not just the accumulation of wealth but the distribution of wealth) and the social quality of life in society? (There are already such indicators, but why don't we hear about them in this country? (Scandinavians do hear about them, by the way)
Currently, we live an Ebeneezer Scrooge society, where we are a bunch of Bob Cratchits and Tiny Tims waiting for a few farthings from a bunch of very wealthy Scrooges to trickle down. And this all works quite well, as long as you can get the masses to believe that as long as the rich are doing well, we all are doing well. And if you are not doing well? Well just maybe you might win the lottery (the odds of winning the Powerball Jackpot lottery are 1 in 292 million). Or how about Publishers Clearinghouse sweepstakes? The American Dream these days.
Rather than educating Americans in political and social economics, too many economists are too busy serving the business and financial community. Not you Dr. Krugman; but we need more like you.
27
The stock market floats on zero interest rate monetary policy in an economy where two thirds of all investments are in debt instruments, not stocks.
3
Sadly perhaps when you further look into the scope of Paul Krugman's world, one must question on the educational side of economics is how far down the line are his "progressive" ideology being grasped as gospel by students since his tenure at Princeton?
Granted, from higher educational institutions we expect students are provided a much broader scope within their studies to include as many point of views in order for students to judge other aspects and form their own conclusions, however "Ram" down economics to bolster a political ideology that is failing in reality in other parts of the world is possibly formulating skewed views that trickle up, down , side to side and what ever direction fits for the moment while shielding the long term physical, emotional and financial health of not just US households but across the globe for today and generations beyond...
Granted, from higher educational institutions we expect students are provided a much broader scope within their studies to include as many point of views in order for students to judge other aspects and form their own conclusions, however "Ram" down economics to bolster a political ideology that is failing in reality in other parts of the world is possibly formulating skewed views that trickle up, down , side to side and what ever direction fits for the moment while shielding the long term physical, emotional and financial health of not just US households but across the globe for today and generations beyond...
University economics departments are heavily influenced by donors to their endowments. It is no surprise that much academic economics favors hedge fund managers.
7
Thank you PK, for reading the reports and sharing the results. We like to wait til you've given us the summary before we delve in. Helps to know whether to open the good bourbon for a toast, or go with the cheap stuff. The basket cases won't care. They're not data driven voters. When you & you're 6 yr old are wearing shirts that say F... Islam or have those red/white/blue testicles across the front, data doesn't come into play.
We're waiting for MDCooks8 to blog about the success of non-progressive, conservative, divisive, fascist political systems in meeting the needs of citizens.
We're waiting for MDCooks8 to blog about the success of non-progressive, conservative, divisive, fascist political systems in meeting the needs of citizens.
4
First of all, you appear to be a person who has been sucked in by the liberal media bias that anyone who votes Republican is a bigot...
Well my actions probably carry more weight than most people being in an interracial marriage for over 14 years and counting> Recently (and on going) helping my adult African-Indian stepson (in both time and money) who is struggling now with legal matters and in the mists of finding decent work after leaving the Navy several years ago, who left the state of California and went to the Gulf of Mexico area to find work...
Has the federal government helped him any? Not really and technically he has ran into more issues due to clerical errors on the part of government workers, which is costing him thousands of dollars he does not have...
Anyhow he is managing mostly due to his mother.... I say no more on this...
My point is people need to rely on themselves and family, and not the government...
Well my actions probably carry more weight than most people being in an interracial marriage for over 14 years and counting> Recently (and on going) helping my adult African-Indian stepson (in both time and money) who is struggling now with legal matters and in the mists of finding decent work after leaving the Navy several years ago, who left the state of California and went to the Gulf of Mexico area to find work...
Has the federal government helped him any? Not really and technically he has ran into more issues due to clerical errors on the part of government workers, which is costing him thousands of dollars he does not have...
Anyhow he is managing mostly due to his mother.... I say no more on this...
My point is people need to rely on themselves and family, and not the government...
One has only to contrast the results (nationally) of the last 8 years with the experiments in states like Kansas, Louisiana and Wisconsin to see the difference in two competing economic philosophies. Further, looking at the data for wages and taxes, one does a disservice by not looking at the results since the first of the great national trickle down economics since 1980 to view the difference in results. What I see most often is the critics shooting the messenger (e.g. BLS, Census Bureau) and dismissing the data as rigged.
31
Every year every industry becomes more automated so jobs are eliminated. We have the Fed purposely advised to keep interest rates down to sustain a false sense of enthusiasm for the economy. Ford recently announced part of their operation is moving to Mexico. The cost of doing business in the U.S. with its continually increasing tax burden explains it. This is what is really going on in the U.S.
4
When NAFTA sent lower skilled auto industry jobs to Mexico it may have saved 80, 000 better paying auto-industry jobs by keeping the supply chain on this continent, instead of China or Korea. When GE pays zero in tax, I'm not really worried about their tax burden. As workers in other countries begin to demand compensation for injuries, decent/safe conditions, elimination of child labor, costs will change there. As people demand air they can breathe, instead of air they can chew, and tire of pollution from unregulated industries, cost will again change for foreign products.
4
The cost of making things in the only nation on Earth that hasn't adopted the Metric System is a big factor in the exodus of manufacturing from the US.
2
The same globalization is true in other countries like Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, etc.
Why don't they have the same problems?
Maybe they have better education - train people to be plumbers and electricians and re-train people for high-tech manufacturing.
And Forbes ranks Denmark number 1 for business and ranks the US number 22.
Not to mention that Mississippi has the same infant mortality rate as Botswana.
Why don't they have the same problems?
Maybe they have better education - train people to be plumbers and electricians and re-train people for high-tech manufacturing.
And Forbes ranks Denmark number 1 for business and ranks the US number 22.
Not to mention that Mississippi has the same infant mortality rate as Botswana.
2
The estimate does not include interest rate the US is expected to pay on war loans, but says this cost may pale the current operational cost in comparison.
“Interest costs for overseas contingency operations spending alone are projected to add more than $1 trillion to the national debt by 2023. By 2053, interest costs will be at least $7.9 trillion unless the US changes the way it pays for the wars,” wrote report author Neta Crawford, professor of political science at Boston University and co-director of the Costs of War Project.
“Interest costs for overseas contingency operations spending alone are projected to add more than $1 trillion to the national debt by 2023. By 2053, interest costs will be at least $7.9 trillion unless the US changes the way it pays for the wars,” wrote report author Neta Crawford, professor of political science at Boston University and co-director of the Costs of War Project.
5
These reports from the Census Bureau highlight a truth that has just not made it through even the allegedly "liberal-biased media:" On every critical issue for the United States the past 25 years, the GOP has been on the wrong side. This is not to say that the Democrats are such great shakes. But when Democrats make big mistakes, it has almost always been by caving to conservative demands - Wall Street deregulation, Iraq, size of the stimulus, Obamacare public option. But even with these errors, Democrats have made life better for Americans in many ways. Obama's stimulus (even if too small) rescued us from a Great Depression; his tax hikes blunted the growth of debt; unemployment is less than half its peak; growth, though still anemic thanks to Republican refusal to spend while a Democrat is president, has returned; job creation is the strongest since the 1990s. LGBTQ people have more rights, yet heterosexual marriage has not collapsed. There have been no mass terror attacks (cross fingers). We are not hemorrhaging trillions in major wars that make us worse off. And now even the most intransigent measures of economic distress and inequality are beginning to yield to the broader prosperity.
If we had followed the demands of Republican leaders, we'd be at war NOW in Ukraine, Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. No stimulus, no recovery; depression; Social Security & Medicare slashed. They've been wrong about EVERYTHING - yet this truth goes unspoken. The GOP is poisonous to America.
If we had followed the demands of Republican leaders, we'd be at war NOW in Ukraine, Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. No stimulus, no recovery; depression; Social Security & Medicare slashed. They've been wrong about EVERYTHING - yet this truth goes unspoken. The GOP is poisonous to America.
204
@ Patrick from Chicago "On every critical issue for the United States the past 25 years, the GOP has been on the wrong side."
I thank you so much for this; if I could, I'd submit it for Comment of the Year.
And if we had a functioning news media -- instead of a corporate conservative Ministry of Truth that serves explicitly as the propaganda arm of the plutocracy, and of the Publican Party that exists only to serve them -- everyone would know it.
One little cavil, though:
"no mass terror attacks."
If the 49 dead and 53 wounded in the Pulse massacre in Orlando don't count as a "mass" to you, I'm not sure what would.
Of course, if you'd written "no mass terror attacks by radical Islamists," you'd have a better case, as it seems far more likely that the mass murderer there was impelled by homophobic hatred, than by mad mullahs.
(He claimed to be loyal to Al Qaeda, ISIS/Daesh, AND Hezbollah -- all of whom loathe one another. As a would-be jihadist, he was pretty clueless. Just another garden-variety hater with a SIG Sauer and a Glock that a rational gun-rights policy would never have let him near.)
May God save America....
from the Publicans.
I thank you so much for this; if I could, I'd submit it for Comment of the Year.
And if we had a functioning news media -- instead of a corporate conservative Ministry of Truth that serves explicitly as the propaganda arm of the plutocracy, and of the Publican Party that exists only to serve them -- everyone would know it.
One little cavil, though:
"no mass terror attacks."
If the 49 dead and 53 wounded in the Pulse massacre in Orlando don't count as a "mass" to you, I'm not sure what would.
Of course, if you'd written "no mass terror attacks by radical Islamists," you'd have a better case, as it seems far more likely that the mass murderer there was impelled by homophobic hatred, than by mad mullahs.
(He claimed to be loyal to Al Qaeda, ISIS/Daesh, AND Hezbollah -- all of whom loathe one another. As a would-be jihadist, he was pretty clueless. Just another garden-variety hater with a SIG Sauer and a Glock that a rational gun-rights policy would never have let him near.)
May God save America....
from the Publicans.
1
The main distinction between Republicans and Democrats can be summarized as Republicans are faith based and Democrats are reality based.
Republicans adhere to their belief systems; cutting taxes and regulations solve all economic problems; sending in the army is the best solution for all international problems; climate change is a farce. The Republican belief system lead to the Iraq war, the 2008 financial crisis, and common 500 year floods.
True Republicans will not learn from reality. They will adhere to their beliefs and reject all evidence to the contrary.
Republicans adhere to their belief systems; cutting taxes and regulations solve all economic problems; sending in the army is the best solution for all international problems; climate change is a farce. The Republican belief system lead to the Iraq war, the 2008 financial crisis, and common 500 year floods.
True Republicans will not learn from reality. They will adhere to their beliefs and reject all evidence to the contrary.
62
The "reality" you suggest is that Republicans like myself have been indicating and are concerned of the rising "debt" the US and US consumers have been accumulating the past 7 plus years.
"Consumer debt has increased by $35 billion to $12.3 trillion" so if you factor in the "Interest Rate" US consumers are paying that %.2% Median Income increase is swiftly evaporated, which is " reality" despite this going unnoticed and /or deliberately kept out of the conversation....
"Consumer debt has increased by $35 billion to $12.3 trillion" so if you factor in the "Interest Rate" US consumers are paying that %.2% Median Income increase is swiftly evaporated, which is " reality" despite this going unnoticed and /or deliberately kept out of the conversation....
"Faith" by definition requires no evident support in tangible reality.
1
“As a political cult, today’s Republican Party uses faith, a belief in that which cannot be proven by ordinary means, to create a coherent worldview for its public. In this world there are no verifiable truth-claims that can be confirmed or rejected based on empirical evidence. Here, something is “true” because a trusted source, elder, elite, or media personality tells you so. Opinion is transformed into a substitute for facts. Shorter version: Lies are made into truths for those in the cult and disbelievers are cast out as enemies and heretics.” (http://www.salon.com/2015/09/18/the_gops_debates_terrifying_alternate_re... ) Every citizen of this country should know and understand this.
The most important qualification for a Republican political candidate, especially a United States Presidential Candidate, is the ability to use lies to “create our own [Republican] reality” https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Karl_Rove. Trump is not doing anything new—he’s just taken it to a new level.
The most important qualification for a Republican political candidate, especially a United States Presidential Candidate, is the ability to use lies to “create our own [Republican] reality” https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Karl_Rove. Trump is not doing anything new—he’s just taken it to a new level.
2
Hopefully those unappreciative, debt-ridden millennials will wake up and smell the coffee. You know the group the "liberal" editor in chief at Mother Jones declared she "never hated more" because polls show many of them supporting third party candidates.
This is all such rosy news--although I don't see any actual numbers in this column. But I do know incomes are up! Those with health insurance are up! Everything is up, up, up, albeit not quite to an undisclosed level before the crash.
Of course the column is penned by a pundit who has not lived the middle income life for decades, but why hear from anyone in the trenches about reality. Better just to read reports and declare life is good. As for anyone not appreciative of their good life, they are just watching Fox News which must have about 50 million viewers according to Krugman. Yet another not so veiled slam to anyone who criticizes policies.
On another more relevant note--Hillary's surrogates need to stop with the millennial bashing. Those of us with kids, understand the way to their hearts and minds is not to say you have not ever "hated" them more. Funny, they react just like old people do when they are told how awful they are.
The blame for Trump's support falls squarely on the 65 and over crowd that is the only age demographic to overwhelmingly support Trump over Hillary. But since we are taught to respect our elders, we best not mention that FACT.
This is all such rosy news--although I don't see any actual numbers in this column. But I do know incomes are up! Those with health insurance are up! Everything is up, up, up, albeit not quite to an undisclosed level before the crash.
Of course the column is penned by a pundit who has not lived the middle income life for decades, but why hear from anyone in the trenches about reality. Better just to read reports and declare life is good. As for anyone not appreciative of their good life, they are just watching Fox News which must have about 50 million viewers according to Krugman. Yet another not so veiled slam to anyone who criticizes policies.
On another more relevant note--Hillary's surrogates need to stop with the millennial bashing. Those of us with kids, understand the way to their hearts and minds is not to say you have not ever "hated" them more. Funny, they react just like old people do when they are told how awful they are.
The blame for Trump's support falls squarely on the 65 and over crowd that is the only age demographic to overwhelmingly support Trump over Hillary. But since we are taught to respect our elders, we best not mention that FACT.
6
I'm over 65 and I'm an eager Hillary voter. I can read and I can analyze in real time the propagandistic way mainstream media uses loaded adjectives to push us toward one candidate or the other. They have been doing this for years. I believe their main interest is to stimulate sales by keeping it close so they can do horse race reporting. This is a dangerous game when you are playing with the future of the American people.
1
By the time one is 65 in the US, one has encountered hundreds of fatuous con artists like Trump.
1
At 82 and having watched HRC slandered by the Republican Party from the moment their pundits realized she might be a threat to their oligarchy, I want to be counted as the exception to your comment about your elders.
And I am not the only ancient Hillary supporter abroad in the world!
And I am not the only ancient Hillary supporter abroad in the world!
1
Please, Mr. Krugman! No one over 7 years old is going to believe a "study" released weeks before a close election, especially when the "study" contradicts their own personal experience.( I wonder how many of the families whose incomes have increased are immigrants from third world countries who moved here since the previous census study. Yes, their incomes would have increased, but possibly at the expense of a now really low income US citizens whose lives and opions don't seem to matter.) Also, there is one large group whose incomes have indisputably been reduced - that is seniors whose Social Security benefits have been cut by over 20 percent thanks to the lack of any COLA for at least 5 years during Obama's Administration. I would be willing to bet that the Census bureau was instructed to avoid citizens over 65 in this "survey".
8
These data are based on the 2016 Annual Social and Economic Supplement of the Current Population survey administered and is released every year about this time. Those over 65 were surveyed and the data indicate a 4.3% increase in their median income from 2014 to 2015. And I'd trust those Census data over anything some chump of a politician tells you.
31
Obama has spent trillions for wars in Mid East countries and in Africa, wars to build "empire", Most Americans could care less about his empire building and now he wants to start shooting down Russian planes in Syria. Interest costs will be at least $7.9 trillion unless the US changes the way it pays for the wars, Obama and Clinton wars.
3
In actual fact, a rising tide does raise all boats. But it's the tide of lower- and middle-class families prospering that delivers tax revenues and prosperity to the upper classes. To paraphrase Warren Buffett, a 50% increase in stock price and executive compensation is better than a 10% tax cut any day of the week. Only a well-educated and thriving general population can produce this.
13
The news from the census bureau is actually better than it appears. If chained CPI, a price index that adjusts for how people change their mix of purchases in response to price increases, is used instead of the constant basket measure of CPI currently used for price adjustments, median household incomes are actually higher now than they were in 1999. There are also other demographic changes and accounting quirks in tracking GNP that tend to understate the improvement in household incomes since the fiasco of the Bush administration. You can read all about it here:
http://www.vox.com/2016/9/15/12915038/census-income-report.
http://www.vox.com/2016/9/15/12915038/census-income-report.
15
Republicans, with all their chest thumping over the Constitution, have forgotten the Declaration of Independence, which ends withe these words -
"we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
Each other. All Americans. Don't see the words "job creators" anywhere.
They're not in the Constitution either. "All men are created equal" and "provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States"
can be found. Policies that shower benefits on the rich, hoping that the benefits trickle down, do not provide for the general welfare. Increasing the social safety net does.
I want a government that treats all people the same, regardless of their income, race, religion, age or gender. I pay my taxes in order for the government to do that. Provide the social safety net. Not to give tax breaks to people who clearly don't need them.
Oh, a couple more forgotten words about taxes from the Constitution.
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" and "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, shall not be questioned"
Looking at you, GOP.
"we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
Each other. All Americans. Don't see the words "job creators" anywhere.
They're not in the Constitution either. "All men are created equal" and "provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States"
can be found. Policies that shower benefits on the rich, hoping that the benefits trickle down, do not provide for the general welfare. Increasing the social safety net does.
I want a government that treats all people the same, regardless of their income, race, religion, age or gender. I pay my taxes in order for the government to do that. Provide the social safety net. Not to give tax breaks to people who clearly don't need them.
Oh, a couple more forgotten words about taxes from the Constitution.
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" and "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, shall not be questioned"
Looking at you, GOP.
82
At the time of the US Revolution, the US had an agrarian economy where most people lived out their entire lives within 30 miles of their birthplaces.
This is all well & good but in general things are not any better than they were before the crash, and we want things to get better, not stay the same. Our basic economic problem is relatively simple and easy to understand. It's just arithmetic. All you have to do is to follow the money. We just have to get people to understand this. It is hard because people think the finances of our gov are the same as their personal finances, & that is just wrong.
People simply do not have enough money to spend. Now it certainly is true that inequality exacerbates this problem. Too much of the money that is in the private sector is held by the Rich who spend a smaller percentage and use the rest to speculate. We have to get more money to the people who need it and will spend it.
Where does money come from?
Well, it could come from abroad if we had a positive trade balance, but we do not and there is good reason to believe we will not in the future (see the Triffin Dilemma). In fact, the trade deficit is one of the reasons we do not have enough money because it has been strongly negative since the mid '90's.
The only other place that can supply money to the private sector is the federal gov. When it spends, money flows in; when it taxes money flows out. The difference, called the deficit, tells us how much money is flowing net into the economy.
But the deficit has been cut by 75% since 2009.
This is our root problem.
People simply do not have enough money to spend. Now it certainly is true that inequality exacerbates this problem. Too much of the money that is in the private sector is held by the Rich who spend a smaller percentage and use the rest to speculate. We have to get more money to the people who need it and will spend it.
Where does money come from?
Well, it could come from abroad if we had a positive trade balance, but we do not and there is good reason to believe we will not in the future (see the Triffin Dilemma). In fact, the trade deficit is one of the reasons we do not have enough money because it has been strongly negative since the mid '90's.
The only other place that can supply money to the private sector is the federal gov. When it spends, money flows in; when it taxes money flows out. The difference, called the deficit, tells us how much money is flowing net into the economy.
But the deficit has been cut by 75% since 2009.
This is our root problem.
3
A socialist is someone who desires government control over business, dictating what businesses produce, how they produce, how much businesses can sell their products for, who they can sell to. By that definition, everyone in government today is a socialist, as is Prof Krugman.
So long as you do not want a completely free market, you are by definition a socialist. Accept that fact, and accept with it the fact that all socialist policies are achieved by holding a gun to someone's head. Naked government force - via Congress or the IRS or Executive Action - is the tool of the Socialist.
So long as you do not want a completely free market, you are by definition a socialist. Accept that fact, and accept with it the fact that all socialist policies are achieved by holding a gun to someone's head. Naked government force - via Congress or the IRS or Executive Action - is the tool of the Socialist.
6
In my lexicon you are describing some sort of totalitarian socialism. In democratic socialism we the people decide through our elected representatives exactly how much control the government shall have over business. I think we should regulate them to at least insure they do not injure people or destroy property or the environment and we should tax them for all the services they enjoy.
11
There is no such thing in the Real World as a "Free Market". All real world markets are regulated.
In the Real World, as soon as a market is identified, the strongest players will take over. Think Mafia.
In the Real World, as soon as a market is identified, the strongest players will take over. Think Mafia.
1
Smart capitalists know that the bad will drive the good out of absolutely anything when there is no hard enforced floor under minimum standards of conduct.
1
in my limited travels I encounter many people who feel that they are worse off or deprived. the facts do not matter. perhaps only what they perceive as the better life from commercials and the internet.
I personally I'm somewhat above or near the middle. I feel that my standard of living and cost of living is significantly words then it was. does not alter my action and support for change and I don't mean trumpism.
but the numbers and the statistics do not really have any effect in any short-term on people's perception and for most people their actions.
what is needed is for the government to fund with the low interest rates infrastructure and other jobs and Investments that are visible and felt by people and not continue the actions that seem as if only the large corporations and executives are benefiting. Just look at the recent Wells Fargo situation to see how many people would feel that they are the losers
I personally I'm somewhat above or near the middle. I feel that my standard of living and cost of living is significantly words then it was. does not alter my action and support for change and I don't mean trumpism.
but the numbers and the statistics do not really have any effect in any short-term on people's perception and for most people their actions.
what is needed is for the government to fund with the low interest rates infrastructure and other jobs and Investments that are visible and felt by people and not continue the actions that seem as if only the large corporations and executives are benefiting. Just look at the recent Wells Fargo situation to see how many people would feel that they are the losers
2
If we keep electing Republicans down ballot this will never happen.
1
It is truly amazing that, given the unabashedly positive news by the Census Bureau, there are still so many who would argue against the positive news. It appears that those naysayers word prefer to hear, and have government tracked statistical data show, that the American people are indeed moving backwards. It begs the question: how much do you actually care about the economic well-being of the lower and middle-income workers in this country if you repudiate positive economic data?
8
Thank you jhart. Well said. Since this report came out I have been anxiously watching out for the media to loud the report or critic it. As usual they have opted for the debased sensational-- Trump and Dr. Oz. Repeated photo shot of HRC tripping and pneumonia. Our media and educational system are mostly responsible for the illiterate populace that is on the rise. The electorate aren't very curious to seek facts or fact-check what our political leaders say. The mere fact that Trump is still in this race is a disgrace to America. I will add to the "basket of deplorables" and say that Trump supporters do not have the intellectual bandwidth that is needed to analyze issues and make informed decisions that is expected of educated and mature audiences. Being "angry" does not call for foolishness or ignorance. The media has the responsibility to focuse on the issues the country faces, analize them in details to enable voters make informed decisions. Would have been nice to get the opinions of our do-nothing-congress about this economic news. Of course, one can guess what they will say. As for Trump supporters, like the deaf adder, they can't hear.
3
Now if the front page of the NY Times can be as honest and factual as Dr Krugman about the success of Mr Obama, the promise of Mrs. Clinton, and the lying, deception, and fraud that is Mr Trump.
11
"Mr. Obama is no socialist, but since his re-election he has presided over a significant rise in taxes on high incomes. In fact, the top one percent is now paying about the same share of its income in federal taxes as it did in 1979, before Ronald Reagan began the era of big tax cuts for the rich. And some of the increased tax take is being used to subsidize health insurance for middle- and lower-income families."
If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you'll always have the support of Paul.
If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you'll always have the support of Paul.
4
If Peter happens to own more than 50% alone vs. 299,999Million Pauls together, it is not robbing, but, as so often preached by prentending to be christians repubs, breaking the bread and sharing it. Pete could not possibly spread his help to 300 mil. alone.
Peter has set up the system to rob us for years. Peter has destroyed the public college system to dumb us down so we wouldn't know about his theft. We are not robbing Peter, we are using legal means to make him pay back what he stole.
1
Reagan Democrats killed their own labor unions by electing that liar.
2
Why should this be a surprise? Putting money in the hands of the working class and middle class ALWAYS works. They're the ones who SPEND the extra money.
Money trickles UP, not down. Every dollar in your wallet with wind up in the hands of someone rich. That's why they're rich. If money trickled DOWN, the wealthy and the working class would change places after awhile.
"There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it." - William Jennings Bryan, 1896
"Mr. Hoover was an engineer. He knew that water trickled down. But he didn't know that money trickled up. Give it to the people at the bottom and the people at the top will have it before night anyhow. But it will at least have passed through the poor fellow’s hands." - Will Rogers, 1932
Money trickles UP, not down. Every dollar in your wallet with wind up in the hands of someone rich. That's why they're rich. If money trickled DOWN, the wealthy and the working class would change places after awhile.
"There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it." - William Jennings Bryan, 1896
"Mr. Hoover was an engineer. He knew that water trickled down. But he didn't know that money trickled up. Give it to the people at the bottom and the people at the top will have it before night anyhow. But it will at least have passed through the poor fellow’s hands." - Will Rogers, 1932
12
Politics is a wonderful business. You can be wrong most or all of the time and have people thank you for supporting the things they believe in. Plus, you get to shape those opinions by telling people your version of what happened. The Republicans, again, have to make good news into bad, but somehow they manage.
If you are unemployed and you haven't been able to find work for a long time, the world is grim. Will you still have a credit rating worthy of a living human when things get better? How can you pay for anything? In that setting, you are ready to blame anyone you can find and the Republicans have been busy for the last 8 yrs. supplying a villain for all purposes, Obama.
Just in the nick of time, along comes this unending election season to spew forth so much more blaming that Obama can barely be heard above the roar and Hillary Clinton is all but buried, too.
If the Republicans get power, the first order of business will be to nurture a recession and blame it on the Democrats. Trump has placed a new war in the middle east high on his wish list so the economy might counter act the normal Republican plan. In any case, in a year or two, we will likely look back on Obama's years as a golden age of restraint and rebuilding that did, indeed, lift most boats.
Politics is one field where perfection is always held up as the goal, even when other goals are more immediately important.
If you are unemployed and you haven't been able to find work for a long time, the world is grim. Will you still have a credit rating worthy of a living human when things get better? How can you pay for anything? In that setting, you are ready to blame anyone you can find and the Republicans have been busy for the last 8 yrs. supplying a villain for all purposes, Obama.
Just in the nick of time, along comes this unending election season to spew forth so much more blaming that Obama can barely be heard above the roar and Hillary Clinton is all but buried, too.
If the Republicans get power, the first order of business will be to nurture a recession and blame it on the Democrats. Trump has placed a new war in the middle east high on his wish list so the economy might counter act the normal Republican plan. In any case, in a year or two, we will likely look back on Obama's years as a golden age of restraint and rebuilding that did, indeed, lift most boats.
Politics is one field where perfection is always held up as the goal, even when other goals are more immediately important.
10
The typical American doesn't even seem to know that politics is the only lawful channel there is to negotiate the social contract we all have to live under.
1
It's not that Hillary or Obama is that bad (except for immigration where they're terrible), it's just that Trump would be so much better. Vote Trump and we'll read Krugman's column in the coming years to see if he tells the truth (like he does with the Dems).
8
They may be terrible but the Republican House is worse on immigration. Their is a Senate bill that includes border reinforcement, and all kinds of stuff you might like, but it does not meet with the approval of less than 50 Tea Party Republicans in the House.
Astounding. You read the facts in the column, then just say: nope, don't matter, trump's better.
Why? Um, no reasoning given. As bill Clinton says: as a white southerner, when I hear make America great again, I know exactly what trump means. Evidently you hear the dog whistle too.
Why? Um, no reasoning given. As bill Clinton says: as a white southerner, when I hear make America great again, I know exactly what trump means. Evidently you hear the dog whistle too.
1
You are in Sardinia, apparently. So you won't have to live with the disaster that a Trump presidency would be. Unless, of course, he starts WWW III.
1
..and yet the race is tied and momentum is seemingly going to put Trump in the whitehouse.
1 step forward and 2 steps back
1 step forward and 2 steps back
6
"You know how the argument goes: Any attempt to help working families directly, we’re told, will backfire by hurting the economy as a whole. So we must cut taxes on those 'job creators' instead, counting on a rising tide to raise all boats."
Indeed: "Conservatives say that if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for they poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money." -- George Carlin
Indeed: "Conservatives say that if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for they poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money." -- George Carlin
17
And no mention of debt? We went from 3T to 10T. In a short number of years. Now, in Obama's 2nd term,it's up to 19T.
The wars and economic stimulus are obviously the majority of it. It needs to be looked at hard, not swept under the rug or avoided.
Healthcare and University reform are the two biggest drivers that are crushing middle-class healthy economic living vibrancy. Both have ridiculous complexity, which benefits the businesses of healthcare and education, meaning: The mega-corporations get fatter, the middle class get squeezed further.
That would be an instantaneous raise to the middle class.
The wars and economic stimulus are obviously the majority of it. It needs to be looked at hard, not swept under the rug or avoided.
Healthcare and University reform are the two biggest drivers that are crushing middle-class healthy economic living vibrancy. Both have ridiculous complexity, which benefits the businesses of healthcare and education, meaning: The mega-corporations get fatter, the middle class get squeezed further.
That would be an instantaneous raise to the middle class.
5
But Krugman threw up on Bernie's policies to actually help middle class Americans in those two areas and said those progressive policies wouldn't work. Even though now he proudly proclaims that, indeed, progressive policies work.
2
Oh God, where's Len Charlap telling us how debt is no problem? Thanks for pointing it out @G. In Krugman's world, debt doesn't matter, as long as it goes for welfare.
1
As an average 50 + voting Republican, I may not be a nerd for statistics like Krugman, however, his boasting of the 5.2% median income increase is not worth a grain of salt.
When any statistic has been negative for a long period of time a 5.2 % increase does not always equate that a vast majority people and households are actually that much better off. Granted it is an improvement moving in the right direction but will the be near double digit increases in income across the board and sustainable long enough so households can gain back what they lost or did not gain the past 7 years?
Based on the CPI calculator from the Bureau of Labor Statistics website, the buying power of $100 in 2008 now costs the US consumer $111.77, which is 11.77% increase. So US consumers are still behind the 8 Ball roughly negative -6.5%.
So if Paul Krugman believes the economy for past 7 years "partied like it was 1999" and he ends this op-ed in writing:
"Still, progressive policies have worked, and the critics of those policies have been proved wrong."
Well the proof is in the pudding that progressive policies do not work when the scope is broaden beyond such a myopic representation of facts lacking substantial data.....
When any statistic has been negative for a long period of time a 5.2 % increase does not always equate that a vast majority people and households are actually that much better off. Granted it is an improvement moving in the right direction but will the be near double digit increases in income across the board and sustainable long enough so households can gain back what they lost or did not gain the past 7 years?
Based on the CPI calculator from the Bureau of Labor Statistics website, the buying power of $100 in 2008 now costs the US consumer $111.77, which is 11.77% increase. So US consumers are still behind the 8 Ball roughly negative -6.5%.
So if Paul Krugman believes the economy for past 7 years "partied like it was 1999" and he ends this op-ed in writing:
"Still, progressive policies have worked, and the critics of those policies have been proved wrong."
Well the proof is in the pudding that progressive policies do not work when the scope is broaden beyond such a myopic representation of facts lacking substantial data.....
9
You should read the report before making outlandish claims.
Quoting directly from it:
Real median household income in 2015 was 1.6 percent lower than in 2007, the year before the most recent recession, and 2.4 percent lower than the median household income peak that occurred in 1999. The difference between the 1.6 percent change and the 2.4 percent change was not statistically significant.
Paul Krugman's statement, "It’s true that the surge in median income comes after years of disappointment, and even now the typical family’s income, adjusted for inflation, is slightly lower than it was before the financial crisis", accurately reflects the data, whereas your calculations do not.
Quoting directly from it:
Real median household income in 2015 was 1.6 percent lower than in 2007, the year before the most recent recession, and 2.4 percent lower than the median household income peak that occurred in 1999. The difference between the 1.6 percent change and the 2.4 percent change was not statistically significant.
Paul Krugman's statement, "It’s true that the surge in median income comes after years of disappointment, and even now the typical family’s income, adjusted for inflation, is slightly lower than it was before the financial crisis", accurately reflects the data, whereas your calculations do not.
6
I am not using my own calculations but am using the US Dept of Labors CPI calculator:
http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
Since Krugman is data from the Census Bureau report, the report indicates:
"Real median household income in 2015 was 1.6 percent lower than in 2007, the year before the most recent recession, and 2.4 percent lower than the median household income peak that occurred in 1999. The difference between the 1.6 percent change and the 2.4 percent change was not statistically significant"
So all I did was compare the "Purchasing power" for 2008 to 2016, so if median incomes went up 5.2 % (2015) but the costs of goods rose 11.7% from 2008 to now, how are people better off?
Simple math and reality...
http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
Since Krugman is data from the Census Bureau report, the report indicates:
"Real median household income in 2015 was 1.6 percent lower than in 2007, the year before the most recent recession, and 2.4 percent lower than the median household income peak that occurred in 1999. The difference between the 1.6 percent change and the 2.4 percent change was not statistically significant"
So all I did was compare the "Purchasing power" for 2008 to 2016, so if median incomes went up 5.2 % (2015) but the costs of goods rose 11.7% from 2008 to now, how are people better off?
Simple math and reality...
1
The Census Bureau report talks about "real income" which means the numbers are adjusted for the CPI.
1
Paul, it's interesting to read the highest rated Picks in Neil Irwin's piece 3 days ago, "The Economic Expansion Is Helping the Middle Class, Finally." All express high skepticism. Access to affordable health care for all citizens is an unalienable right within the spirit of Jefferson’s Decl of Indep. While ACA is a wonderful achievement to Obama’s credit, one must still consider all his policies under his direct control that is beyond the reach of the insane (R) Party fully responsible for Congress’ dysfunction. ACA is in big trouble unless something is done to fix it. Obama blocked the DOJ from prosecuting sr. exec’s responsible for the 2008 meltdown which William Black feels will go down as the single biggest failure in its history. For me, Obama’s continuation and expansion of our wars of aggression against the greater Middle East and his assassination program should weigh heavily in history’s judgement of his tenure (now into its 15th consecutive year). His military aggression violates the constitution and War Powers Resolution of 1973 and has accomplished nothing. It’s a colossal waste of taxpayer money desperately needed for domestic issues. His continuation of the NSA’s domestic spying and storing the full content of American’s electronic communications clearly violates the constitution. Taken as a whole, if there is any justice in this world, Obama’s legacy should follow in the footsteps of LBJ where his war overshadowed his liberal domestic programs.
4
While PK has dissected the Census Bureau's finding-- and the findings give us some hope and fairly good news, I felt I must respond to your (Paul Cohen) comment on the totality of Obama's legacy. I must reiterate-- not the subject of PK article who is paying attention to the issues that matter!
It is known that Historians tend to give their highest ratings to the U.S. presidents who have involved the nation in the wars that have claimed the most American lives. Their standards of presidential greatness, I believe, have encouraged presidents to fight unnecessary wars, and, to a certain degree, made Americans complacent about war. That said, Obama has not expanded wars, on the contrary, he inherited these wars from the war-hungry hawks, Dick Chaney et al. In addition, if he had pivoted to the neocon-regime-changers and the McCains of this world, who have accused and whined that President Obama is weak, the US will be involved in many more wars-Ukraine, Libya, Iran, etc.
Lastly, while this is debatable, is the ordering of bombs dropped, same as war? Do the drone attacks on the endless war on El Qaida, ISIS, and terrorists in Somalia, Yemen, count as "Obama's expanded wars"?
It is known that Historians tend to give their highest ratings to the U.S. presidents who have involved the nation in the wars that have claimed the most American lives. Their standards of presidential greatness, I believe, have encouraged presidents to fight unnecessary wars, and, to a certain degree, made Americans complacent about war. That said, Obama has not expanded wars, on the contrary, he inherited these wars from the war-hungry hawks, Dick Chaney et al. In addition, if he had pivoted to the neocon-regime-changers and the McCains of this world, who have accused and whined that President Obama is weak, the US will be involved in many more wars-Ukraine, Libya, Iran, etc.
Lastly, while this is debatable, is the ordering of bombs dropped, same as war? Do the drone attacks on the endless war on El Qaida, ISIS, and terrorists in Somalia, Yemen, count as "Obama's expanded wars"?
1
Republicans: "we must cut taxes on those “job creators.” Yes, if we bake chocolate cakes for the obesely wealthy, Republicans will let us lick the spoons.
Believe it or not (just ask Ripley), Trump promises to create 25 million new jobs. Can we cut taxes on someone who pays no taxes? That's right, the pretend billionaire pays no taxes. You want proof? Sorry, Trump says he's being audited and he will not upset the American people with his troubles. So Trump says, "believe me" and a large portion of Americans do believe him despite his lifetime of deceiving and fleecing people.
Even Trump supporters dislike him, think he is a risky choice, but hey, he will shake Washington up. His supporters are tired of Obama's steady economic progress after saving the country from the Bush Depression. They don't want security with Hillary; they like big talk, want big risk. They want to bet their their family's future; they want to throw the dice at the Trump White House Casino.
Trump supporters have put the losses of the George W. Bush presidency behind them; they are ready once again to gamble big. Against even greater odds. They want the thrill of upending Washington. They want to bet the country the way they apparently like to bet their family livelihoods. While their children wait for dinner, average Mr. and Mrs. Trump supporter enjoy betting all their money at casinos. Trump supporters like risk--the riskier the better. Betting America's future on Trump is just a bigger thrill.
Believe it or not (just ask Ripley), Trump promises to create 25 million new jobs. Can we cut taxes on someone who pays no taxes? That's right, the pretend billionaire pays no taxes. You want proof? Sorry, Trump says he's being audited and he will not upset the American people with his troubles. So Trump says, "believe me" and a large portion of Americans do believe him despite his lifetime of deceiving and fleecing people.
Even Trump supporters dislike him, think he is a risky choice, but hey, he will shake Washington up. His supporters are tired of Obama's steady economic progress after saving the country from the Bush Depression. They don't want security with Hillary; they like big talk, want big risk. They want to bet their their family's future; they want to throw the dice at the Trump White House Casino.
Trump supporters have put the losses of the George W. Bush presidency behind them; they are ready once again to gamble big. Against even greater odds. They want the thrill of upending Washington. They want to bet the country the way they apparently like to bet their family livelihoods. While their children wait for dinner, average Mr. and Mrs. Trump supporter enjoy betting all their money at casinos. Trump supporters like risk--the riskier the better. Betting America's future on Trump is just a bigger thrill.
16
And here we are in another national election campaign where, in between all of the screaming about deplorables, emails, candidate health and foundations, we are once again arguing about the efficacy of tax cuts for the rich, I mean job creators. In spite of all of the evidence - Kansas, Wisconsin, Louisiana and other red states with horrific economies and mediocre job growth after massive tax cuts for the rich - California, Minnesota, New York and other blue states with high taxes on the rich with good to great economies and job growth. Even on a national scale the job growth has been steady in spite of the mild tax increases enacted under the Obama Administration. The evidence is clear, tax cuts for the rich do not improve the economy as a whole. High taxes on the rich do not make any fewer rich people. You simply cannot prove a difference in lifestyle for someone with an after tax income of $25 million vs an after tax income of $35 million, and forget about the day to day impact on lifestyle of a family with $1B or $5B. Rich is rich, they will do fine. Opposition to slightly higher taxes is nothing more than greed.
Frankly the way to restore America's economic greatness, the way to make the middle class great again, may in fact be to restore the 1950s as so many conservatives wish. But not the racist, sexist 1950s, the 1950s of strong unions and 91% marginal tax rates. The economy has never been better and the middle class never stronger than in those days.
Frankly the way to restore America's economic greatness, the way to make the middle class great again, may in fact be to restore the 1950s as so many conservatives wish. But not the racist, sexist 1950s, the 1950s of strong unions and 91% marginal tax rates. The economy has never been better and the middle class never stronger than in those days.
31
And let's restore the 1950's of infrastructure construction, too! A power grid to bring electricity from where the sun shines and wind blows to where we need A/C, rechargeable cars; new bridges, not just painted over the rust relics, connecting to new roads with safe interchanges, not 1950's cloverleafs, and public transportation systems that enable our real job creators to get to work in less than an hour in creepy-crawly traffic!
2
I expected the meltdown of 2008 to be a 10 year problem, maybe longer. By my estimation, the person who succeeded President Obama would get the credit for the decade of actions that could recover the economy. It was a really big meltdown.
I still think that people won't feel secure for a few years yet. People in their fifties face layoffs and few options for employment, partly through ageism and partly because no company wants many older workers in their healthcare pool. Families who are able to make it on two incomes sink if they find themselves on one. And people who are raising kids think that their own children will soak up college debt and face unforgiving job markets.
Those are the polling realities. People may be OK, but one change can sink them. People need time to become accustomed to a new normal before polls - and voting patterns - reflect stability.
I still think that people won't feel secure for a few years yet. People in their fifties face layoffs and few options for employment, partly through ageism and partly because no company wants many older workers in their healthcare pool. Families who are able to make it on two incomes sink if they find themselves on one. And people who are raising kids think that their own children will soak up college debt and face unforgiving job markets.
Those are the polling realities. People may be OK, but one change can sink them. People need time to become accustomed to a new normal before polls - and voting patterns - reflect stability.
5
I am sure the numbers were faked. The Census just wants to see HRC get elected so they can keep getting those 1% raises. Totally rigged. We need less regulation so we can better oversee these criminal statisticians and keep them from producing fake statistics. I have some top people who hack in Russia who can fix this. Unemployment is really 21% and the median income fell to $10000. I have top people who told me this. My talented people who make several million a year will take over when I get elected and fix this. They will have no problem taking a several million dollar pay cut to go to work at the Census.
Of course, I speak in jest. Good job Dr. K and good report, finally.
Of course, I speak in jest. Good job Dr. K and good report, finally.
10
One can bet that the major shareholders of corporations, their executive corps, and the establishment Republican leadership are very unhappy about the report. For most of the past 40 years, they were successful in grabbing off any growth in new real income due to increased productivity for themselves. Over this period, real median income was unchanged and lower income groups became poorer.
What drove this is an alpha male culture that measures manliness in terms of amount of assets acquired. This was the practice of the ancient Germanic warrior chiefs, whose goal was to amass as much land and cattle as they could. Over the centuries the warrior chiefs evolved into the feudal lords, then the manor gentry, then the plantation owners, and now the executive.
These alpha males regard the rest as those to be subjugated to serve them; as Boeing CEO James McNerney said a couple of years ago when asked if he was going to retire at 65: "the heart will still be beating, the employees will still be cowering." Alan Greenspan declared in congressional testimony in 1997 that keeping employees insecure was good for society. James Galbraith characterized the modus operandus of the alpha males in his book "The Predator State." James Hacker and Paul Pearson more recently described how they rigged the economy in their favor the past 40 years in their "Winner-Take-All Politics."
Left to their devices, the alpha males would subvert our republic to become a brutal oligarchy.
What drove this is an alpha male culture that measures manliness in terms of amount of assets acquired. This was the practice of the ancient Germanic warrior chiefs, whose goal was to amass as much land and cattle as they could. Over the centuries the warrior chiefs evolved into the feudal lords, then the manor gentry, then the plantation owners, and now the executive.
These alpha males regard the rest as those to be subjugated to serve them; as Boeing CEO James McNerney said a couple of years ago when asked if he was going to retire at 65: "the heart will still be beating, the employees will still be cowering." Alan Greenspan declared in congressional testimony in 1997 that keeping employees insecure was good for society. James Galbraith characterized the modus operandus of the alpha males in his book "The Predator State." James Hacker and Paul Pearson more recently described how they rigged the economy in their favor the past 40 years in their "Winner-Take-All Politics."
Left to their devices, the alpha males would subvert our republic to become a brutal oligarchy.
17
What about the "alpha female", the "war mongering Hillary Clinton" who wants to go to war with Russia, "a non empire building country."
2
They already have. With a willing assist by the Democrats from Bill forward.
1
And the beat goes on.
In a major economic address, Trump promises to add 25 million new jobs through tax cuts, reduced regulation, and renegotiating trade agreements.
The NYT unhelpfully points out that 25 million is probably twice the possible number of new jobs, as new entrants to the workforce and re-employing all the currently discouraged only adds up to 12 million. Unless, of course, he plans to significantly increase immigration.
Another ridiculous promise by Trump.
Trump the disrupter has sold himself out to the same people who brought us Reaganomics and the Bush 43 tax cuts, tripling the national debt and leaving us unprepared for the real challenges of the 21st Century.
Trump promises to take us back, back to a nirvana that never really existed, except for those at the very top. He is quite a salesman, convincing those who believe they have been harmed the most that he is their tribune.
The populist con man shilling for the plutocrats. Just like it ever was.
In a major economic address, Trump promises to add 25 million new jobs through tax cuts, reduced regulation, and renegotiating trade agreements.
The NYT unhelpfully points out that 25 million is probably twice the possible number of new jobs, as new entrants to the workforce and re-employing all the currently discouraged only adds up to 12 million. Unless, of course, he plans to significantly increase immigration.
Another ridiculous promise by Trump.
Trump the disrupter has sold himself out to the same people who brought us Reaganomics and the Bush 43 tax cuts, tripling the national debt and leaving us unprepared for the real challenges of the 21st Century.
Trump promises to take us back, back to a nirvana that never really existed, except for those at the very top. He is quite a salesman, convincing those who believe they have been harmed the most that he is their tribune.
The populist con man shilling for the plutocrats. Just like it ever was.
15
The mendacity of someone who is supposed to be a professional economist is really appalling (actually, maybe it isn't that surprising, though I hate to impugn an entire profession).
The numbers weren't really as positive as what Mr. Krugman states here and we are still significantly behind where we were in the 1990s and, yes, even the 1970s. Productivity has surged over the past 40 years but we still earn less, thanks to policies pursued by both Democratic and Republican administrations.
This is true because in 2013 the Census bureau changed the methodology for calculating these numbers. The liberal Economic Policy Institute acknowledges this and even did adjustment so we can compare apples to apples rather than apples to oranges. Thankfully there are some honest economists out there.
Anyways, good numbers, but they aren't nearly good as the shilling Paul Krugman pretends. We will have to see if after this election cycle we can get back to some honest discussion of our situation. Sadly I doubt it.
The numbers weren't really as positive as what Mr. Krugman states here and we are still significantly behind where we were in the 1990s and, yes, even the 1970s. Productivity has surged over the past 40 years but we still earn less, thanks to policies pursued by both Democratic and Republican administrations.
This is true because in 2013 the Census bureau changed the methodology for calculating these numbers. The liberal Economic Policy Institute acknowledges this and even did adjustment so we can compare apples to apples rather than apples to oranges. Thankfully there are some honest economists out there.
Anyways, good numbers, but they aren't nearly good as the shilling Paul Krugman pretends. We will have to see if after this election cycle we can get back to some honest discussion of our situation. Sadly I doubt it.
10
By every measure in the latest Census Bureau report, income inequality among lower and higher-earning Americans has not changed significantly. In fact, that income disparity has gradually increased every year since 1970
Nor have women overcome their income disparity with men. Women working full time continue earn 80% of men working full time (mean incomes). Again, this has not changed since 1970.
Yet Paul Krugman mentions none of this. Reading his recent Panglossian posts on our economy, one would never know that this is the most pressing societal problem of our time, and has led to the rising of a fascist-style demagogue who is threatening to occupy the Oval Office. It's all too Alice-in-Wonderland for me.
I realize that Krugman feels he must provide some perspective to correct the torrent of negative propaganda from the right. But I question whether he is not in fact furthering the distrust and cynicim that propel so many long-suffering Americans into the arms of Donald Trump.
Nor have women overcome their income disparity with men. Women working full time continue earn 80% of men working full time (mean incomes). Again, this has not changed since 1970.
Yet Paul Krugman mentions none of this. Reading his recent Panglossian posts on our economy, one would never know that this is the most pressing societal problem of our time, and has led to the rising of a fascist-style demagogue who is threatening to occupy the Oval Office. It's all too Alice-in-Wonderland for me.
I realize that Krugman feels he must provide some perspective to correct the torrent of negative propaganda from the right. But I question whether he is not in fact furthering the distrust and cynicim that propel so many long-suffering Americans into the arms of Donald Trump.
5
After the way the WH immediately changed the metric on income gaps, and deportation, it's hard to believe income could go up.
Especially since no economic policies or plan is in place, nor initiated by the WH except kill pipelines and raise fees and income taxes.
Especially since no economic policies or plan is in place, nor initiated by the WH except kill pipelines and raise fees and income taxes.
1
The biggest contributor to inequality is Wall Street siphoning off wealth out of the middle class. In this brutal class warfare Obama squarely stood with Wall St. He didn't prosecute a single banker, while elder Bush's Justice Dept issued thousands of criminal referrals after a much smaller S&L fiasco in 1980s, hundreds CEOs went to jail. Holder, Obama's choice for AG, is a known corporate tool. By choosing him Obama told us already before he was sworn in that Wall St survival would come above all else.
13
That's because Obama is not stupid and neither is Hillary going to be. They will stand by Wall Street because they realize financial services it's a keystone of the US economy (and in Hilary's case she probably owes them a favor, wink wink). Sorry, but Wall Street ain't going anywhere.
"When Americans are asked how the economy is doing, many . . . just repeat what they think they heard on Fox News: By large margins, Republicans say that unemployment is up and the stock market is down under Mr. Obama, the opposite of the truth."
Aye, Mr. Krugman, and therein lies the rub. When the GOP majority in Congress engages in its predictable obstruction of all sane measures to improve the economy, it can always rely on support from its heavily propagandized, manipulated and misinformed base.
And GOP "moderates" in the House, due to the institutionalized demagoguery known as the Hastert Rule and to their own cringing fear of being Tea-Party torpedoed in their next primary, almost always cave in to the obstructionist demands of the "Freedom" Caucus.
The "Freedom" Caucus members then wend their merry way, marching to the rhythm of their guiding mantra: Government is not the solution; government is the problem--and we are here to prove it!
As long as the "Freedom" Caucus remains entrenched, Reagan's aphorism will continue to function as a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Stalled government is the problem and the Tea-Party backed "Freedom" Caucus is proof positive that this is, and will remain the case.
These radical GOP politicians, spokespersons and media cheerleaders insure that we all live in a Goebbelesque, fact-free, post-truth age--all this, and now Trump too!
Thank you, Republicans, for your spirited dedication to "truthiness" and to the non-task of non-governance.
Aye, Mr. Krugman, and therein lies the rub. When the GOP majority in Congress engages in its predictable obstruction of all sane measures to improve the economy, it can always rely on support from its heavily propagandized, manipulated and misinformed base.
And GOP "moderates" in the House, due to the institutionalized demagoguery known as the Hastert Rule and to their own cringing fear of being Tea-Party torpedoed in their next primary, almost always cave in to the obstructionist demands of the "Freedom" Caucus.
The "Freedom" Caucus members then wend their merry way, marching to the rhythm of their guiding mantra: Government is not the solution; government is the problem--and we are here to prove it!
As long as the "Freedom" Caucus remains entrenched, Reagan's aphorism will continue to function as a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Stalled government is the problem and the Tea-Party backed "Freedom" Caucus is proof positive that this is, and will remain the case.
These radical GOP politicians, spokespersons and media cheerleaders insure that we all live in a Goebbelesque, fact-free, post-truth age--all this, and now Trump too!
Thank you, Republicans, for your spirited dedication to "truthiness" and to the non-task of non-governance.
25
And what economic measures did they block? Specifically?
It appears the GOP has given into the WH since the last election. They gave up.
It appears the GOP has given into the WH since the last election. They gave up.
hawk, Obama sent 9 jobs bills to the House. Look'em up. None of them were even considered.
1
Yet another point which highlights how much this election is like the 2000 election - for those younger voters who weren't part of the electorate back then, it really does make a difference in enabling a Dubya or Drumpf when your vote is siphoned away to a third party candidate.
This economic scenario is just one more criteria that shows the danger of forgetting how Dubya made it into office.
This economic scenario is just one more criteria that shows the danger of forgetting how Dubya made it into office.
20
The five votes that crowned G W Bush over the election winner Al Gore were all cast in Washington DC. No amount of revisionist finger pointing can change that fact.
1
steve - No amount of ' voted my conscience ' excuses can change the fact Ralph Nader siphoned away 95,000+ votes in Florida, when those votes were sorely needed to determine whether Gore or Dubya would make SCOTUS appointments such as Roberts and Alito, engage in adventurism in the Middle East, and lead to irresponsible financial regulation:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/business/03sec.html
which o.k.'d 30-to-1 leveraging by Wall Street banksters.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/business/03sec.html
which o.k.'d 30-to-1 leveraging by Wall Street banksters.
2
Seriously, I invite Krugman to visit Nowheresville, USA, or even just come visit non-"Detroit" Michigan. He would see these areas are still firmly stuck in the 2008-09 depression. And it isn't just poor rural America that is suffering, poor urban areas are still as bad as ever.
People over 50 are being put to the curb and it is college degree holding STEM people as well as the factory guy sitting out there wanting a job. Once you're out of work, it is almost impossible to get a new job and it is almost a given that you will make significantly less. Many are spending tens of thousands for new college degrees and/or graduate degrees. Even that isn't helping as they watch foreign workers with far lower qualifications taking jobs that the newly educated 50-something American is highly skilled and experienced at doing.
For being a Nobel prize winner, Krugman is not all that smart. Health insurance is not health care. Just because someone has an insurance card does not mean they can afford health care. Many have to pay $6000 or more before their insurance even starts to cover care. Then copays and co-insurance "fees" can be as large as 60% of IN network charges. Yes things are a bit better with ACA, but we still have a long way to go before health care becomes a basic human right in the US. Oh and access to care in "Fly Over" America is almost non-existent. One way trips of 100 miles is not the exception.
People over 50 are being put to the curb and it is college degree holding STEM people as well as the factory guy sitting out there wanting a job. Once you're out of work, it is almost impossible to get a new job and it is almost a given that you will make significantly less. Many are spending tens of thousands for new college degrees and/or graduate degrees. Even that isn't helping as they watch foreign workers with far lower qualifications taking jobs that the newly educated 50-something American is highly skilled and experienced at doing.
For being a Nobel prize winner, Krugman is not all that smart. Health insurance is not health care. Just because someone has an insurance card does not mean they can afford health care. Many have to pay $6000 or more before their insurance even starts to cover care. Then copays and co-insurance "fees" can be as large as 60% of IN network charges. Yes things are a bit better with ACA, but we still have a long way to go before health care becomes a basic human right in the US. Oh and access to care in "Fly Over" America is almost non-existent. One way trips of 100 miles is not the exception.
25
These are important observations and points. There does need to be fashioned a way to correct this job situation, maybe most reasonably through government public works stimulus programs and more emphasis on training for the basic jobs that are needed. And there does need to be a single payer national health program, eliminating insurance companies and controlling big pharma. What is most aggravating is that in this middle America so many can seem to think that Trump is part of the answer, when the party he represents has caused so much of the problem and fights any attempt to do what is needed.
7
"He would see these areas are still firmly stuck in the 2008-09 depression. And it isn't just poor rural America that is suffering, poor urban areas are still as bad as ever. "
So why do they keep voting for Republicans? Why do they think that taking more of the little money they have and handing it to people who have more than they need is going to help?
So why do they keep voting for Republicans? Why do they think that taking more of the little money they have and handing it to people who have more than they need is going to help?
4
I would like to see Krugman's thoughts on the lack of mobility in the labor force for people over 30. There are large areas of this country now (including the SF Bay Area, where I live, and neighboring Silicon Valley) with very low unemployment, red hot economies, and not enough workers, skilled & unskilled - but people who live in MI or TX don't want to move, unless they're young & rootless (i.e. just graduated college). How do we incentivize people to go where the jobs are? A much bigger moving tax break? Worth discussing.
This election will be a good test of the current American electorate's ability to deal with reality; whether America is fit to lead the world and fit to be a superpower. It is actually a very low bar, but our uncertainty about clearing that bar is giving people pause everywhere.
15
Yes, Mr. Gupta. You are exactly right. All my friends from outside America are incredulous except those who watched Bush. They know Trump might just win.
1
Trickle down economics; please explain this theory again. How does making it easier for the "job creators" to get and keep more money provide an incentive for them to work harder, and create more jobs?
10
I have been wondering about the same thing!
2
If you ever created a job you would understand
"Still, progressive policies have worked, and the critics of those policies have been proved wrong." Really? If an average grow rate of 1.5% and a doubling of our national debt is an example of progressive policies working, I'd sure hate to see failure.
5
You forget that the GOP House and Senate have blocked most of Obama's progressive policies, such as government spending on infrastructure projects.
4
Failure was George W. Bush. It's not hard to see. Look with your own eyes. And Kansas. And Wisconsin. The results are in and they are dismal, even for the myopic (caused in most cases by even minute doses of Fox News).
5
Well we almost doubled the debt during the Great Prosperity of 1946 to 1973, and it didn't seem to hurt us. On the other hand we decreased the debt by almost 40% from 1919 to 1929, and it sure did hurt us.
3
I dont disagree with the basic assertion that government can ameliorate the condition of the least amongst us and Obama and the afoordable care act have helped many without hurting the top and or wrecking the incentives for economic growth or innovation. Still, this column clearly overplays very limited data. We have a long way to go and it is past time to also look for government activities and buerocracy that do *not* help and that *do* harm economic activity and incentives. Hillary will need to address the fact that the ACA is now nearly a decade old and very imperfect. Similarly, she'll have to reconcile her campaign promises of expanded government with the reality that government has limits. Running against Trump has given her the luxury of not doing what candidates usually do - run to the extreme during the primaries and then to the middle during the general election. Recent data aside, moderation in thinking about expanded government is critical to her administration's real and substantive success.
1
Just imagine how much better off our country would have been if the GOP had worked with our twice-elected President, instead of putting party above country. Now, maybe more then ever, people need to vote, and vote intelligently for the future of the country.
220
Whoah! Not so fast with the applause! Numbers like these are all about context: if I binge on cookies for 6 years and gain 100 pounds, but then in year 7 I eat healthy and lose 6 pounds, that gets me back in shape?!
8
@Laura... Yes, it does.
9
Adopting healthy habits are part of the process of getting and staying in shape. It gets you back into getting and staying in shape. Going back to the habits that put on that 100 Lb. isn't going do any good. It would be delusional to think that since you lost 6 Lbs. you could go back to a bad life style.
Maybe Dr. Oz could explain it better, but don't bet on it.
Maybe Dr. Oz could explain it better, but don't bet on it.
4
No, but it DOES mean that eating healthy is the long-term solution.
4
Those who need the lesson of this column (and thank you for it, PK) will not hear it. They'll hear Trump vow to turn the calendar back to the 1950s, they'll hear a son refer to gas overs, they'll hear a daughter tell us that her father will change the laws. The Trump family is more in sync with the Housewives of Trump Tower than Obama is.
7
>>>>
If only the GOP cared about statistics. Statistics generally work against their arcane belief system, so they disregard them. And the vast majority of people in this messed up country have no concept of statistics. The fact that the world is normal (normality) makes no difference to them. If all the GOP had cancer and Obama or the Dems had the cure, they refuse it, or somehow twist it to make it look like they came up with the cure.
This is a counterfactual election, its basis is irrationality not rationality.
Side note: The fact that salaries have gone up is nice, but do these statistics factor in the higher cost of living? Everything one touches in the grocery store is $3 to $4. For example, if I make $10 a week and bread costs $1 a loaf, and then Master gives me a raise to $11 but now bread costs $2 things have not improved, no?
As I've said many times before, one always has to look for the lie or contradiction which is immanent in bourgeois math. Usually a 9th graded can intutively see them, but every once in awhile they're buried deep, but rest assured they are there.
“Men are wicked a sad and constant experience makes proof unnecessary.”
J.J. Rousseau
If only the GOP cared about statistics. Statistics generally work against their arcane belief system, so they disregard them. And the vast majority of people in this messed up country have no concept of statistics. The fact that the world is normal (normality) makes no difference to them. If all the GOP had cancer and Obama or the Dems had the cure, they refuse it, or somehow twist it to make it look like they came up with the cure.
This is a counterfactual election, its basis is irrationality not rationality.
Side note: The fact that salaries have gone up is nice, but do these statistics factor in the higher cost of living? Everything one touches in the grocery store is $3 to $4. For example, if I make $10 a week and bread costs $1 a loaf, and then Master gives me a raise to $11 but now bread costs $2 things have not improved, no?
As I've said many times before, one always has to look for the lie or contradiction which is immanent in bourgeois math. Usually a 9th graded can intutively see them, but every once in awhile they're buried deep, but rest assured they are there.
“Men are wicked a sad and constant experience makes proof unnecessary.”
J.J. Rousseau
47
The US inflation rate has been dropping. Ten years ago, it was about 3% per year. Now it's below 1% and has been for a few years. The 5.2% increase in median household income applies to the last year. So your concern is the opposite of what is actually happened. Source: http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/.
Unfortunately, we are not really wired to grasp the concepts of statistics easily. It would seem that palaeontologically we are primed to give attention to single events. Therefore, the grandfather who smoked chain until the age of ninety-five is far more convincing than the abstract notion that smokers run a higher risk to die early of cancer. Statistical results normally refer to statements of probability; with advanced complexity our models are necessarily depending on deliberately chosen constraints. Thus, accusations of slanting results seem easily sustained. In addition, factors of delayed response play a considerable role in statistical applications. Thus, there is some evidence that the inertia of the economic system hid the recuperation that was already under way when Bush 41 lost the election to Clinton 42. Since economics is such a complex interplay of factors, we are left with a lot of room for interpretation. Even with an (inexisting) utmost effort at intellectual honesty, economics remains a "dismal science".
Rationality would dictate to humbly accept these limitations as limitations rather than throw out all rational argument altogether, but as students of "cognitive ease" will tell you that's a tall order.
Rationality would dictate to humbly accept these limitations as limitations rather than throw out all rational argument altogether, but as students of "cognitive ease" will tell you that's a tall order.
"Median household income in the United States in 2015 was $56,516, an increase in real terms of 5.2 percent from the 2014 median income of $53,718. This is the first annual increase in median household income since 2007, the year before the most recent recession."
The above statement is quoted from the Census Bureau report and if you read the comment I posted, which when comparing the 5.2 % Median Income increase for 2015 to the CPI from 2008 to 2016 the US Consumer is still in a hole that is "progressively" getting deeper.
Perhaps the logic such as Krugman's explains why US consumer debt increased by $35 billion to $12.3 trillion,,,,,
The above statement is quoted from the Census Bureau report and if you read the comment I posted, which when comparing the 5.2 % Median Income increase for 2015 to the CPI from 2008 to 2016 the US Consumer is still in a hole that is "progressively" getting deeper.
Perhaps the logic such as Krugman's explains why US consumer debt increased by $35 billion to $12.3 trillion,,,,,
Paul, your Brethren pointed out last week that HRC is getting "Gored"! The 1/2 of the electorate who is supporting DT dont have the educational fortitude to read and digest the NYT or any other peice of media which does not spew out a 5 second sound bite! You and your ilk continue to do the best you can to show the real results, real effort, reality in the HRC ticket but......... Reality haters and Reality TV like Fox are not interested in facts; and more importantly those 'viewers' dont even know reality TV is actually stages and scripted!
All of us readers have read the NYT and have drank the cool aid, we are the converts who understand trickle down never trickled down, nor was it ever intended to do anything but create a financially strengthen group whose money could be used as Citizen United declared, that money is actually tax money that should have been levied and trickled down into the progressive social programs you just talked about!
All of us readers have read the NYT and have drank the cool aid, we are the converts who understand trickle down never trickled down, nor was it ever intended to do anything but create a financially strengthen group whose money could be used as Citizen United declared, that money is actually tax money that should have been levied and trickled down into the progressive social programs you just talked about!
7
Americans have proven they can ignore the obvious! Parents hold on to grief; their loss, expressed as blame, becomes a political vendetta. A racial backlash flourishes; criticism of it is a “mistake.” A 60-year women is punched in the face, knocked to the ground, bruised; the security candidate at his own rally did not keep her safe and offers no regrets. A pastor is insulted and ridiculed because he didn't get his way: to profane the United Methodist church with a political rally. Gestures alone evoke promises of war and policy shifts: no stairs, no summit; attacks will blast way annoying boats. We are told the gas chambers are being warmed, in a chilling echo of the holocaust, not the first anti-Semitic remark from Trump's campaign.
This is not bold; it is stupid. It is defianc, ugly and cruel. It is narcissism with cognitive deficiencies. It is a void of commonsense or decency. It is a flawed, deeply disturbed man being used as a prop to summon the crowds across America that cheered lynchings and pointed at the swinging bodies, with children in tow.
The political economy can easily be ruined by bad decisions. Trump's trade fights will not bring jobs back, but it will bring back breadlines, as poverty spreads as sales tumble, interest rates rise, the economy stalls, the government privatizes and Trump enriches himself as we are fed daily lies. The promise made in Charleston, “Ruins, ruins,” (never a Union win!) is neigh as reporters call his stupidity “bold.”
This is not bold; it is stupid. It is defianc, ugly and cruel. It is narcissism with cognitive deficiencies. It is a void of commonsense or decency. It is a flawed, deeply disturbed man being used as a prop to summon the crowds across America that cheered lynchings and pointed at the swinging bodies, with children in tow.
The political economy can easily be ruined by bad decisions. Trump's trade fights will not bring jobs back, but it will bring back breadlines, as poverty spreads as sales tumble, interest rates rise, the economy stalls, the government privatizes and Trump enriches himself as we are fed daily lies. The promise made in Charleston, “Ruins, ruins,” (never a Union win!) is neigh as reporters call his stupidity “bold.”
34
In an volatile world of violence and extremes, of irrational claims and global poverty among great wealth, and terrorism carried out by citizens against their fellows in the name of religion and race, what we need is a man who is the embodiment of instability and destructiveness; his every word an insult, a lie or a call to violence? How will this create the magical thinking of 4% growth in a world of stagnant wages, bloated oil, and diminishing demand, private and corporate?
3
The only thing you left out is that we will no longer have western allies. Everyone I know who is not a FOX adherent, here and abroad, is terrified of a Trump "presidency."
In Poland and France this summer I cannot remember a conversation that did not include questions like "how in the world can Trump happen in America".
In Poland and France this summer I cannot remember a conversation that did not include questions like "how in the world can Trump happen in America".
2
Of course, the slow recovery is partially attributable to Republican Congress' dereliction of duty and obstructionism.
Yes, we are much better off than George W. left us.
But no, these numbers don't reflect reality, this is an 'on paper only' recovery that has only benefitted a relatively small percentage of the population in real terms. And I don't watch Fox News and I find that reasoning rather insulting to Americans who still feel left out of this economy.
If the presidency of Barack Obama teaches us anything, it should be that presidents, regardless of color or party affiliation, are nothing but tools of the elite to concentrate wealth and power. Obama instituted the ‘Greatest Transfer of Wealth in history’ to the 1%.
Its taken forty years of neo-liberalism to create a society of vast inequality, financial instability, democratic corruption, rampant job insecurity, permanent austerity for the many and runaway wealth for the few.
Financial de-regulation, suppression of wages, longer hours, substitution of wage rises with credit cards and pay day loans, tax havens, tax holidays, tax avoidance, tax reductions, smashing unions, destruction of workers rights, temporary contracts, agency work, privatization of state assets, state subsidies of low wages, monopoly media, mass surveillance, secret courts, curtailing of dissent, perpetual war, the creation of perpetual fear etc. are the underlying issues that caused the crash and were never fixed.
Obama just threw money at it.
Yes, we are much better off than George W. left us.
But no, these numbers don't reflect reality, this is an 'on paper only' recovery that has only benefitted a relatively small percentage of the population in real terms. And I don't watch Fox News and I find that reasoning rather insulting to Americans who still feel left out of this economy.
If the presidency of Barack Obama teaches us anything, it should be that presidents, regardless of color or party affiliation, are nothing but tools of the elite to concentrate wealth and power. Obama instituted the ‘Greatest Transfer of Wealth in history’ to the 1%.
Its taken forty years of neo-liberalism to create a society of vast inequality, financial instability, democratic corruption, rampant job insecurity, permanent austerity for the many and runaway wealth for the few.
Financial de-regulation, suppression of wages, longer hours, substitution of wage rises with credit cards and pay day loans, tax havens, tax holidays, tax avoidance, tax reductions, smashing unions, destruction of workers rights, temporary contracts, agency work, privatization of state assets, state subsidies of low wages, monopoly media, mass surveillance, secret courts, curtailing of dissent, perpetual war, the creation of perpetual fear etc. are the underlying issues that caused the crash and were never fixed.
Obama just threw money at it.
17
I don't watch Fox. Ever. I am a Clinton supporter and a liberal Democrat.
I also make exactly 50% less in income than I did 5 years ago. My STEM career is gone forever, disappeared by the patent cliff. There are no jobs I can get without significantly risking years of income instability. So I've had to start over, on the bottom rung, in a different industry in my 50's. I live in a major metropolitan area.
If I were more gullible and less educated, I could be Trump supporter. As it is, I'm just angry that once again I'm told that my current predicament is all in my head as a result of watching the one channel on TV I avoid like the plague.
I also make exactly 50% less in income than I did 5 years ago. My STEM career is gone forever, disappeared by the patent cliff. There are no jobs I can get without significantly risking years of income instability. So I've had to start over, on the bottom rung, in a different industry in my 50's. I live in a major metropolitan area.
If I were more gullible and less educated, I could be Trump supporter. As it is, I'm just angry that once again I'm told that my current predicament is all in my head as a result of watching the one channel on TV I avoid like the plague.
88
Thank you for saying this. I have "re-invented" myself professionally, constantly upgrading my skills, and yet my salary is now only 10% higher than it was when I was in my 30s. I'm now in my 60s. No mention in this (or any of the many articles singing the praises of the current economy) of the effect of flat-lined salaries on people approaching (so-called) retirement age. And, no, I am not an underskilled factory worker; I'm a technical writer. And, no, I don't take my talking points from Faux News either.
2
NO one is telling you that your situation is all in your head. The overall economy is doing much better, just because your situation is not improving does not negate that overall picture. Neither Paul Krugman nor Hilary Clinton would deny your situation, and they have policies to help you--Trump has nothing to give you.
1
As an owner of a professional remodeling business, we are overwhelmed with demand from middle-class homeowners who want to update and improve their homes. And this is a trend that actually has been building for the last 8 years. Every year has gotten slightly better than the last. It's my observation of real-world events that most businesses actually do better under a Democratic Administration than a Republican one. Which is why I'm very concerned about a possible Trump Administration which frankly, will be a disaster for the economy and America in general.
379
"As an owner of a professional remodeling business, we are overwhelmed with demand from middle-class homeowners who want to update and improve their homes. And this is a trend that actually has been building for the last 8 years."
Which of Obama's policies has created more business for you?
Which of Obama's policies has created more business for you?
It is because republicans have never been as concerned about a healthy economy as much as they are about proportional wealth and its relationship to power and control. Republicans have one foot in the past on many levels: the power/force paradigm of old is but one.
1
Your comment should be block quoted in the middle of Dr Krugman's next piece.
Wish I could "recommend" it 10 times.
Wish I could "recommend" it 10 times.
1
According to the GOP, money is good for the rich, but bad for the poor.
If we elect Trump, expect the GOP to take all Social Security and Medicare money. Bet the rent.
If we elect Trump, expect the GOP to take all Social Security and Medicare money. Bet the rent.
122
Did any reasonable person really think the Census Bureau would release anything except wine and roses in the quarter preceding a Presidential election? Readers need to review not only Krugman's take, but also pinions/news in other sources, like the WSJ, to get a balanced assessment. Too many readers satisfy themselves with only one source of information.
5
Most of the single source news folks accept the lies of FOX as gospel with no fcct checking. The economy does better under Democrats in the modern era--look it up.
22
"Too many readers satisfy themselves with only one source of information."
Boy, are you right about that! But yu're wrong about who the one source people are.I read the Wall Street Journal from time to time (it's fun to read information in their editorials that is sometimes directly contradicted by information in the straight news section), follow FOX News, and avidly listen to talk radio. I can state, unequivocally, that the one source information people are more on the right than the left.
And what special information do you have that contradicts the Census? The Census has more resources than anyone else and it's hard to imagine a source that can study the situation of the American people better. Saying the Census has been politicized is just too easy.
Boy, are you right about that! But yu're wrong about who the one source people are.I read the Wall Street Journal from time to time (it's fun to read information in their editorials that is sometimes directly contradicted by information in the straight news section), follow FOX News, and avidly listen to talk radio. I can state, unequivocally, that the one source information people are more on the right than the left.
And what special information do you have that contradicts the Census? The Census has more resources than anyone else and it's hard to imagine a source that can study the situation of the American people better. Saying the Census has been politicized is just too easy.
4
Although you don't come right out and say it, you imply that you doubt the authenticity of the Census Bureau data since you do say that we should look at the opinions of such sources as the WSJ. If so, that puts you in the same league as Donald Trump who will probably say that the positive economic news from the Census Bureau report is a conspiracy between the Obama administration and the Bureau to help Democrats in November. He discards or discredits facts when they don't support his position.
3
Because of, or in spite of the policies you support? Record numbers have given up looking for jobs, we are $20 Trillion in debt, up from $10 Trillion when Obama took office, our inner cities are slaughterhouses, 54% or urban black males are unemployed, Obamacare is failing dismally, Social Security disability applications are at record highs, and GDP growth and passbook savings have been near-zero for 8 years. All while we've finally achieve full energy independence, a national goal since 1973. The economy should be booming, but it's not.
4
If you ever used a credit card, you know it takes years to pay back with interest. We bought tax cuts and an unnecessary war on a credit card - policies you may have supported - it crashed the economy and now you try to to blame it on the president who willingly inherited this debt and has in fact reduced spending, oversaw job creation, low gas prices and still gave you tax cuts. Is everything perfect and back to normal for all families - no - but maybe a little patience and a little less partisanship would be in order, Bob. I don't suppose you support Trump's tax cuts which would be similar to the ones we had to borrow 2.7 trillion to fund in the early part of the previous decade.
19
Wow. Thanks for informing me. I had no idea that America had become such a hell-hole. Ah, for the eden that was America when the last Republican president was in office.
4
Professor Krugman you did not get the Memo? The Rebranding of the GOP is now complete. Remember Preibus "Autopsy Report" and how the GOP "needed to address how it is viewed by the American Electorate"? Paul Ryan was the surgeon on that rebranding effort and insists it is not "trickle down" anymore. It is now "The People Agenda". So lets get our nomenclature correct. What is the "People Agenda"? Cut the living daylights out of anything that is for "People" such as SNAP Benefits while increasing Farm Subsidies, the usual "Privatization" scam of everything, increase our already bloated Defense Budget because ISIS is going to. I believe Lindsey Graham said it best, "come here and decapitate while we are sleeping" and naturally, jobs. Sound familiar? Well that is because you did not get the Memo. Peoples Agenda. OK?
14
The problem is that these are facts that don't register for inhabitants of the alternate reality who celebrate Trump as the champion of the downtrodden who happen to be white. We know that typical Trump fanatics are generally well off and their yelling points about jobs, wages, taxes, etc., mask their defining agenda, which is make America white again.
It's a constant of history: bad economic times and a high tide of racism, xenophobia, and chip-on-shoulder nationalism are twins inseparable since birth. It's not a big leap to think that an extended period of economic decline would produce a deeper, more intense spasm of racist friction, exacerbated by a Black president, BLM backlash, Rap culture, Dark-skinned terrorists, uppity millionaire Black NFL players dissing their white benefactors and their national anthem, the affirmative action takers. Dry tinder Trump put a match to. And like a moth to flame, a see/hear/speak no evil media couldn't help itself.
Consider Trump's newly proclaimed jobs policy -- he promises 25 million jobs in ten years, reported as a fact. Some articles featured a final paragraph quoting an independent analyst saying Trump would need 10 million immigrants because that many jobs would exceed the available workforce. Given most readers scan the top three or four paragraphs and very few read to the last paragraph, 25 million jobs sounds great. That's way more than HRC.
Trickle-up Economics meet Trickle-down Media.
It's a constant of history: bad economic times and a high tide of racism, xenophobia, and chip-on-shoulder nationalism are twins inseparable since birth. It's not a big leap to think that an extended period of economic decline would produce a deeper, more intense spasm of racist friction, exacerbated by a Black president, BLM backlash, Rap culture, Dark-skinned terrorists, uppity millionaire Black NFL players dissing their white benefactors and their national anthem, the affirmative action takers. Dry tinder Trump put a match to. And like a moth to flame, a see/hear/speak no evil media couldn't help itself.
Consider Trump's newly proclaimed jobs policy -- he promises 25 million jobs in ten years, reported as a fact. Some articles featured a final paragraph quoting an independent analyst saying Trump would need 10 million immigrants because that many jobs would exceed the available workforce. Given most readers scan the top three or four paragraphs and very few read to the last paragraph, 25 million jobs sounds great. That's way more than HRC.
Trickle-up Economics meet Trickle-down Media.
23
And this happened with no help from the Republican controlled Congress, which has been actively sabotaging America.
Imagine if the U.S. could unleash herself by deploying both fiscal AND monetary policies conducive to growth and prosperity for ALL and not just a few
Imagine if the U.S. could unleash herself by deploying both fiscal AND monetary policies conducive to growth and prosperity for ALL and not just a few
69
There is more than you think here. Obama repeated a natural experiment started by Bill Clinton with the same resuls. In the 1990s Clinton raised taxes and created a surplus that went to reducing the national debt. But the elevated taxes on high income stimulated greater investment on the theory that it's better to put money at risk and have a chance of reward or at least a loss deduction than to simply let the government take it. The result was an increase in annual venture capital investment from a low of $30 billion to a high of $100 billion in 2000. We are still living off the inventions and company formations of that era. Obama caused a similar pattern proving that if you want the job creators to do their job, a little stick is as important as the carrot.
569
Agree Denis - and Clinton only raise taxes on the top 1%, from 35 to 39.5% which after deductions meant they still paid less than 20%. The top 1% has THAT much money!
6
"Obama caused a similar pattern proving that if you want the job creators to do their job, a little stick is as important as the carrot."
So you believe it's the job of the federal government to force businesses to invest their money, even if it may not be in the business's best interest?
So you believe it's the job of the federal government to force businesses to invest their money, even if it may not be in the business's best interest?
There were economists that predicted 2008 and their argument is easy to understand. The first thing to realize is that the federal deficit measures the flow of money FROM the federal government TO the private sector.
The first chart at http://www.slideshare. net/MitchGreen/mmt-basics-you- cannot-consider-the- ... shows what happened.
In the 1990's spending and the deficit were reduced. The flow of money out of the federal sector was reduced.
Simultaneously the flow of money into the private sector was reduced. Then in about 1996 money began to flow out of the private sector, out of the country in fact. In about 1998, Money started flowing into the federal sector. This is the Clinton surplus. Money was rapidly flowing out of the private sector.
In 2001, the Bush administration started, and we had deficits again, but our trade deficit was really large. Except for a brief period in 2003, the Bush deficits were not large enough to compensate for the money going out of the country. Money still flowed out of the private sector.
People then turned to banks to get money. Private debt exploded. But the banks could create only so much money.
Finally in 2008, the economy crashes. Now there certainly were other factors which contributed to the 2008 crash. e.g. high inequality meant the Rich had excess money to speculate with, but the cumulative effect of money leaving the private sector from about 1996 to 2008 and the resultant huge increase in private debt was the main cause.
The first chart at http://www.slideshare. net/MitchGreen/mmt-basics-you- cannot-consider-the- ... shows what happened.
In the 1990's spending and the deficit were reduced. The flow of money out of the federal sector was reduced.
Simultaneously the flow of money into the private sector was reduced. Then in about 1996 money began to flow out of the private sector, out of the country in fact. In about 1998, Money started flowing into the federal sector. This is the Clinton surplus. Money was rapidly flowing out of the private sector.
In 2001, the Bush administration started, and we had deficits again, but our trade deficit was really large. Except for a brief period in 2003, the Bush deficits were not large enough to compensate for the money going out of the country. Money still flowed out of the private sector.
People then turned to banks to get money. Private debt exploded. But the banks could create only so much money.
Finally in 2008, the economy crashes. Now there certainly were other factors which contributed to the 2008 crash. e.g. high inequality meant the Rich had excess money to speculate with, but the cumulative effect of money leaving the private sector from about 1996 to 2008 and the resultant huge increase in private debt was the main cause.
1
Home ownership rates at 50-year lows. Labor force participation at all-time lows. More people collecting disability payments than ever. Obesity at all-time high, infant mortality rate comparable to third-world countries. Minimum wage service jobs at all-time high, teenage summer employment at historical lows, meaning heads of households are working at jobs that cannot support a family. A particular president is not necessarily the culprit here, but the donor class and their apologists in the media are. And with few exceptions they are Hilary supporters. Take that into the voting booth friends and reline the bird cage with this columnist's paid ad.
77
The donor class? A new scapegoat in identity politics?
I agree--no one president is responsible for the faults of America, but I refer you to Walter Mondale's accusation (1984) that Reagan and his economics were in the process of turning America's steel country into a rust bowl (cf. dust bowl). The press picked that up as Rust Belt--a long-term phenomenon. The fault, Marie, lies in our economic ideologies--government bad; taxes bad; free market good; Citizens United good; Devil take the hindmost.
I agree--no one president is responsible for the faults of America, but I refer you to Walter Mondale's accusation (1984) that Reagan and his economics were in the process of turning America's steel country into a rust bowl (cf. dust bowl). The press picked that up as Rust Belt--a long-term phenomenon. The fault, Marie, lies in our economic ideologies--government bad; taxes bad; free market good; Citizens United good; Devil take the hindmost.
23
Marie--did you bother to read the column (did the NYT monitor?)? I don't see where you refute any of Krugman's points in your comment.
14
Marie the dawn is breaking and I can see clearly now the glass is one quarter empty.
6
We won't know until the votes are counted. American prosperity for everyone will not be restored until we deposit the myths about "Job Creators" on the ash heap of history where they belong. Along with the entire Right Wing, Chamber of Commerce and Kochtopuss agenda.
Until the "average" voter grasps what a pack of lies they have been fed by the propaganda channel, we will continue to struggle with a minority (20% of the
electorate?) that truly believe electing obstructionist right wing ideologues will solve our problems. At which point they will all become "Good Americans" and deny ever having believed the Propaganda Channel.
But it is still a long and difficult struggle at the polls ahead of us. As the professor says, mostly around here they just quote the latest sound bite from the Propaganda Channel.
Vote Democratic, and encourage others to do the same.
Until the "average" voter grasps what a pack of lies they have been fed by the propaganda channel, we will continue to struggle with a minority (20% of the
electorate?) that truly believe electing obstructionist right wing ideologues will solve our problems. At which point they will all become "Good Americans" and deny ever having believed the Propaganda Channel.
But it is still a long and difficult struggle at the polls ahead of us. As the professor says, mostly around here they just quote the latest sound bite from the Propaganda Channel.
Vote Democratic, and encourage others to do the same.
42
Quite the rosy picture you paint. But any growth, even in poverty level wages, is cause for celebration; at least it didn't get worse.
However re Obamacare, we've got to get pronto to single payer or public option. Doctors and nurses are not making the big bucks, it's the insurance companies raking it in while raising our rates outlandishly each year blaming it on-surprise-Obamacare. The most important department in a hospital is billing, VIP is one who knows how to creatively bill with zero error.
Obamacare was a start, and it's not an unalloyed success. Yes it's better than nothing. But big insurers are pulling out claiming they can't afford to compete in it, red states balk because Obama. Time to get the massive profit of the big insurers out and the health of citizens as priority. Insurance companies had it handed to them but always grab for more. Check out their exec pay.
Change we need won't happen today but it's still best to be fully honest, if only so the right can't use pieces like this as a cudgel.
However re Obamacare, we've got to get pronto to single payer or public option. Doctors and nurses are not making the big bucks, it's the insurance companies raking it in while raising our rates outlandishly each year blaming it on-surprise-Obamacare. The most important department in a hospital is billing, VIP is one who knows how to creatively bill with zero error.
Obamacare was a start, and it's not an unalloyed success. Yes it's better than nothing. But big insurers are pulling out claiming they can't afford to compete in it, red states balk because Obama. Time to get the massive profit of the big insurers out and the health of citizens as priority. Insurance companies had it handed to them but always grab for more. Check out their exec pay.
Change we need won't happen today but it's still best to be fully honest, if only so the right can't use pieces like this as a cudgel.
50
1. With the possible exception of Germany, all other developed countries have tried a health insurance system based mainly on loosely regulated private insurance. None of them could get it to work. The only one using it today is Switzerland, but there the federal gov writes a basic policy which all insurances cos must offer and are not allowed to profit from it. Also while their cost per person ($6325) is much less than ours ($8713), it is still much higher than the (OECD) average ($3453).
2. As we see, when faced with the sicker patients, private insurgence cos fold. This is the trouble with the public option. The private cos will find a way to avoid the poor & sicker patients who will flock to the public option thus raising its costs. Republicans will point to its higher costs as an example of why gov. health care does not work.
In addition, one of the main advantages of a universal gov run system is that there is only one entity dealing with the problem. Insurance 101 teaches us that, statistically, the larger the pool, the more efficient the plan. In addition, there are large administrative saving. The overhead and compliance costs of private insurance cos waste over $600 Billion each year without even counting patient compliance costs.
3. The bottom line is that HR676 which simply gave an improved Medicare to everyone and was only 70 pages long would have given Americans better care at much, much lower cost. Is it to late to change our mind?
2. As we see, when faced with the sicker patients, private insurgence cos fold. This is the trouble with the public option. The private cos will find a way to avoid the poor & sicker patients who will flock to the public option thus raising its costs. Republicans will point to its higher costs as an example of why gov. health care does not work.
In addition, one of the main advantages of a universal gov run system is that there is only one entity dealing with the problem. Insurance 101 teaches us that, statistically, the larger the pool, the more efficient the plan. In addition, there are large administrative saving. The overhead and compliance costs of private insurance cos waste over $600 Billion each year without even counting patient compliance costs.
3. The bottom line is that HR676 which simply gave an improved Medicare to everyone and was only 70 pages long would have given Americans better care at much, much lower cost. Is it to late to change our mind?
4
Yes, asking the general population if they "feel" the economy is doing better is pointless. That question is political. FOX News deals in fear and I have high school and junior high students who believe Clinton is the devil because they repeat what their parents have heard no FOX. News outlets must deal in facts. The fact of the matter is that Obama's polices work and those of the Extreme Right do not. Anyone who wants to argue for economic policies of the Extreme Right can come to Kansas and see first hand our disaster authored by the Extreme Right.
152
Television rules the minds of billions. Trump is the Television Man.
12
My sympathies. Much is the matter with Kansas, since its just being Kansas.
3
And if you want to see democratic policies working go next to Colorado. We are booming.
2
My hesitation in supporting Mr. Obama for president was if he could connect with the American people in the way that was needed, to bring them to understand that it is they, the American people, that need to bring about the changes needed for a more equitable society, not the POTUS, not wether he was an intelligent and compassionate person who would be as capable or more so than anyone else in taking on the responsibilities of the POTUS. Unfortunately I was right. What we desperately need in a POTUS is someone who can reach out to the American people and connect with them in a way that can break the power of the corporations attention hold over them, to get them to realize that they have the power to make life better but they must take the actions needed to do it, not wait for others to make the changes. Pay your employees a fair wage. Respect all people as they should be respected. Understand that a more equal economic distribution of profits benefits everyone, even if it means that a few will have less but still much more than they need. We are embarking on a crisis period in our history. Climate change is going to force changes in the way that we live beyond anything that we can foresee. We must unite as a people to meet this challenge. We need the leader that can do this. We need the leader who will say that it is up to you to take the initiative, I can only do so much with the power you that have given me, you must do the rest.
5
Ed, I believe Bernie had that ability, at least with younger voters.
2
Except unvetted Bernie would very quickly have been utterly destroyed by the right wing attack machine, and he never provided any evidence of how he would get his policies enacted, and by the end of the primary season he was exhibiting a a grumpy, uncompromising personality that showed he did not have the chops to be an effective chief executive.
2
Obama is indeed our Hero!
12
Now, now, you are making Bill Clinton jealous! Hillary thinks he can fix our economy if she is President, because he just knows how to.
2
If we want to keep the economy moving forward, it is necessary for everyone who is planning on voting for a third-party candidate to vote for the Democratic nominee. Whether you like her or not, she is the best qualified for the job and the most likely to work on plans to improve the lives of all Americans.
Donald Trump, like all Republican nominees, has a plan to (guess what) cut taxes on the wealthy and corporations. Same old, same old failed policies that have been proven not to work. The opposite is true, raising taxes on these groups actually brings more funds into the Treasury and into circulation and leads to more prosperity.
This race is getting too close for anyone to waste their vote on a third-party candidate.
Donald Trump, like all Republican nominees, has a plan to (guess what) cut taxes on the wealthy and corporations. Same old, same old failed policies that have been proven not to work. The opposite is true, raising taxes on these groups actually brings more funds into the Treasury and into circulation and leads to more prosperity.
This race is getting too close for anyone to waste their vote on a third-party candidate.
115
Interesting column, but I wish it were more persuasive. In particular, the degree to which President Obama's executive policies were able to counteract the partisan and even destructive obstructionism of the so-called Republicans, especially the ones controlling the House of so-called Representatives. I searched the article for some strong evidence, but correlation is not the same as causation, and there is no solid proof in the "coincidence" that good economic times come when there are Democrats in the White House.
Trump's supporters seem quite delusional. Or maybe they are brilliant in being able to believe multiple versions of the reality without going nuts. Even if they accepted the economic data as real, they could say it's the deadlock that caused economic improvements, but removing the deadlock will also cause economic improvements.
Obviously I'm still hung up on the election, and this column seems too tangential to me...
Trump's supporters seem quite delusional. Or maybe they are brilliant in being able to believe multiple versions of the reality without going nuts. Even if they accepted the economic data as real, they could say it's the deadlock that caused economic improvements, but removing the deadlock will also cause economic improvements.
Obviously I'm still hung up on the election, and this column seems too tangential to me...
3
Ah but correlation is proof that the negative is false. You might say it's not proof that his policies helped, but it is proof that they didn't hurt the economy. And the ACA definitely helped increase access to health insurance for millions. Many of those who needed it but where shut out due to pre-existing conditions.
Trump's tax cuts would be for the rich, and if he doesn't kill all the programs that help the middle class then the deficit will add 4trillion to the debt in 4 years. And this wouldn't be to fight s recession.
Trump's tax cuts would be for the rich, and if he doesn't kill all the programs that help the middle class then the deficit will add 4trillion to the debt in 4 years. And this wouldn't be to fight s recession.
18
Actually, Kyle, "correlation does not imply causation" is useless because one can newer "prove" causation in the real world, especially in economics. Even in physics, in spite of zillions of experiments, they never could "prove" Newtonian Mechanics."
But you are correct, "no correlation implies no causation" is the basis of science.
But you are correct, "no correlation implies no causation" is the basis of science.
Three articles appeared in The Times this past week painting a far less rosy picture of the economy and the ACA than Prof. Krugman does. This is a classic case: whether the glass is half empty or half full depends on where you stand.
There are millions of Americans who still can't find the good jobs they once had, and who struggle to pay their bills. There are millions under Obamacare who defer medical care because they can't afford the deductible. Or, if covered by Medicaid, they can't find a doctor who will take them.
This is not to blame President Obama, who has done his best under the circumstances. But it is a question for Paul Krugman: whether he serves the best interest of Democrats by continuing to paint a Pollyanish picture, or whether he contributes to the distrust and resentment that propels so many long-suffering Americans into the arms of Donald Trump.
There are millions of Americans who still can't find the good jobs they once had, and who struggle to pay their bills. There are millions under Obamacare who defer medical care because they can't afford the deductible. Or, if covered by Medicaid, they can't find a doctor who will take them.
This is not to blame President Obama, who has done his best under the circumstances. But it is a question for Paul Krugman: whether he serves the best interest of Democrats by continuing to paint a Pollyanish picture, or whether he contributes to the distrust and resentment that propels so many long-suffering Americans into the arms of Donald Trump.
22
With Trump, the glass will be only half full - and cracked.
1
Ron, it's not that I disagree with you, but your comment would be more convincing if it contained a few figures and references as Krugman's column does.
1
Apres Obama le deluge. We are going to regard these past 8 years as a golden age in many ways, particularly if know-nothing idiocy prevails in the Electoral College, upon whom the upcoming November election actually depends.
18
Dear lord not another 2000 disaster. Could happen though. The vote of the people was thwarted by Florida in 2000 and nearly so by Ohio in 2004. The race is tied in the former and Trump leads in the latter.
2
If Americans " vote their pocket books" and the president's approval ratings continue to rise, perhaps "our long national nightmare" will be over, and we'll no longer have to endure Mr. Trump in our lives.
16
Trickle-down economics is one of those great lies that no amount of contrary evidence can seem to kill.
Another great lie of similar scale and longevity is liberal media bias.
Another great lie of similar scale and longevity is liberal media bias.
93
Actually, it is not a great lie. The Rich really do "Trickle" down on us.
17
Got to thank Patrick. His comment made me smile.
1
Well put.
Yes, the curve is bending at last. Income is increasing. Jobs are growing. Healthcare coverage is expanding. Maybe, just maybe, the curve will continue to bend upward and Paul Krugman will report the sustained growth we all hope to see.
193
Darn, I was going to make a comment along the same lines regarding 'trickle down' but you beat me to it.
(Darn again, I meant to post this at a reply to Patrick.)
Need more coffee....
(Darn again, I meant to post this at a reply to Patrick.)
Need more coffee....
Time and time again, the Democrats prove that government is a cooperative force for good that enriches the nation by leveraging it's economy. Democrat leadership has closely tracked periods of prosperity.
As the population grows, so must the government to provide vital services. The population has doubled since the 1950's. Logic dictates that so must services.
Without government, we would be driving on dirt roads and dying young.
President Obama is yet another Democrat who has presided over another economic expansion after a disasterous economic fall. The last period of prosperity was under Clinton in the 1990's.
There are many imperfections in Hillary Clinton as there are in all of us, but I most definitely want Hillary to carry on the work started by Obama. A Trump Presidency would unleash the Pirates and real criminals of America.
As the population grows, so must the government to provide vital services. The population has doubled since the 1950's. Logic dictates that so must services.
Without government, we would be driving on dirt roads and dying young.
President Obama is yet another Democrat who has presided over another economic expansion after a disasterous economic fall. The last period of prosperity was under Clinton in the 1990's.
There are many imperfections in Hillary Clinton as there are in all of us, but I most definitely want Hillary to carry on the work started by Obama. A Trump Presidency would unleash the Pirates and real criminals of America.
261
Happy days are here again. So if you insist on feeling blue as you peer into your empty wallet, you've probably been watching too much Fox News.
Yes, median incomes are up and poverty is down. But look closely at the Census figures and you see that although people might be working longer hours, they certainly haven't gotten a raise. Most of the new jobs created have been of the low-wage, service sector variety.
According to the report, the median pay of single women without children jumped 8.7%. This sounds fantastic until you realize that their actual median salary increased to $29,022 from $26,022 in 2014. That's nowhere close to a living wage, especially if most of it has to go toward skyrocketing rent. So if you don't think you've come a long way, baby, by getting 5-10 more hours at Walmart thanks to the beneficence of the clan that owns nearly as much wealth as the bottom half of the population, then you've probably been watching too much Fox News.
Under "Total Income Dispersion", the report shows that the poorest, lowest quintile received only 3.1% of total income, while the top 20% raked in more than half of it. The top 5% grabbed more than a fifth of the entire pie. Income inequality is not improving, not at all.
Another report out this week found that only 16% of the jobs available to new college grads give them enough purchasing power to buy a home and start a family.
So turn off Fox, all you pessimists, and raise a glass to Dr. Pangloss.
Yes, median incomes are up and poverty is down. But look closely at the Census figures and you see that although people might be working longer hours, they certainly haven't gotten a raise. Most of the new jobs created have been of the low-wage, service sector variety.
According to the report, the median pay of single women without children jumped 8.7%. This sounds fantastic until you realize that their actual median salary increased to $29,022 from $26,022 in 2014. That's nowhere close to a living wage, especially if most of it has to go toward skyrocketing rent. So if you don't think you've come a long way, baby, by getting 5-10 more hours at Walmart thanks to the beneficence of the clan that owns nearly as much wealth as the bottom half of the population, then you've probably been watching too much Fox News.
Under "Total Income Dispersion", the report shows that the poorest, lowest quintile received only 3.1% of total income, while the top 20% raked in more than half of it. The top 5% grabbed more than a fifth of the entire pie. Income inequality is not improving, not at all.
Another report out this week found that only 16% of the jobs available to new college grads give them enough purchasing power to buy a home and start a family.
So turn off Fox, all you pessimists, and raise a glass to Dr. Pangloss.
85
Excuse me, but where did you get the median income stats? Not from the census report. As stated median yes median as in the income of the worker whose income is half way between the riches and poorest, made 56k plus. If you are right there is s difference between salary and income of the degree you stated, then the median person, I.e, your average joe made 30 k from assets. Does this seem reasonable to anyone?
1
Kyle, Karen is talking about "the median pay of single women without children". Read more carefully.
Someone expects to buy and home and start a family on an entry-level salary? Has that world ever existed?
Maybe the problem is the expectation of not having to work one's way to the top...
Maybe the problem is the expectation of not having to work one's way to the top...
3
What's actually remarkable is that Obama managed to achieve anything despite being constantly harangued from daring to save the American economy, the auto industry (remember how successful cash for clunkers was?), provide a safety net, end unending wars (and bring home the troops), providing options under healthcare and equality to love anyone.
Now just imagine if Republicans actually chose to work with him to come to a middle ground and try solve issues? Oh, I forgot. It may have led to the description of the most successful American president ever and a super majority Democrat-led Congress. But just imagine if it had happened...
Now just imagine if Republicans actually chose to work with him to come to a middle ground and try solve issues? Oh, I forgot. It may have led to the description of the most successful American president ever and a super majority Democrat-led Congress. But just imagine if it had happened...
796
The pain of an enormous missed opportunity. It is the real scandal, you are right. We could have broken the back of the corporate state, taken the money out of politics, if not for those fools in congress. They continue to threaten our children's future with their wrong-headed ideas. It's painful to think of how good it could have been if these poor people had worked with Obama instead of stonewalling him. Just as the French revolution continues to play itself out today in France, the civil war never really ended in the USA.
18
End unending wars? The US is bombing six (6) countries. We still have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Sauds have purchased $115 Billion worth of war toys. North Korea and Iran (yes, Iran, thanks to their newfound cash infusions) are building their nuclear arsenal. Some achievement.
1
Perhaps not the best, but the best I have seen in my 59 years.
4
That Black President
Is what some Whites resent
More than inequality,
Being White's their treasure
Their yardstick of measure,
Overrides the Economy.
We need hate defusing
Bigotry refusing
Brotherhood in the air,
Black and White together
All bias must tether
Fight for a System that's fair
Is what some Whites resent
More than inequality,
Being White's their treasure
Their yardstick of measure,
Overrides the Economy.
We need hate defusing
Bigotry refusing
Brotherhood in the air,
Black and White together
All bias must tether
Fight for a System that's fair
32
Thanks for the warning to be aware of Fox News propaganda. Much appreciated.
You’re not addressing criticism of Obama policies from the Left, only from the Right. This makes it easier for him to look like our hero---and he looks like one in the photo. Yes, he’s much much much better than the rw Gop crazies, and the One who shall not be named, ok?
Obama has dealt with one of the worst oppositions in our history. And our presidents are restricted by a political system financed by the 1 percent.
We’re called the richest, greatest country at the convention. We deserve better than just “an element of trickle-up economics in its response to the Great Recession”.
Trickle –up? Phooey---is that the best this country can do for what was once the world’s strongest, most secure middle/working class?
And our liberal pundits should be leading the way for more daring reform. Daring in the US system anyway.
As for ‘redistribution’.... the resources and productivity of the country and its citizens has ALREADY been redistributed away from us, the majority, upward to the 1 percent. That's tiny super rich well organized group who finance our elections—uniquely among world democracies. The mass of citizens vote, but the elite few do the financing—and thus set the limits of policy.
Is it too daring to push for re-redistribution of our resources back to the citizens? And to refute the myth of big bad govt, when govt is us? Or is that too too radical for these times?
You’re not addressing criticism of Obama policies from the Left, only from the Right. This makes it easier for him to look like our hero---and he looks like one in the photo. Yes, he’s much much much better than the rw Gop crazies, and the One who shall not be named, ok?
Obama has dealt with one of the worst oppositions in our history. And our presidents are restricted by a political system financed by the 1 percent.
We’re called the richest, greatest country at the convention. We deserve better than just “an element of trickle-up economics in its response to the Great Recession”.
Trickle –up? Phooey---is that the best this country can do for what was once the world’s strongest, most secure middle/working class?
And our liberal pundits should be leading the way for more daring reform. Daring in the US system anyway.
As for ‘redistribution’.... the resources and productivity of the country and its citizens has ALREADY been redistributed away from us, the majority, upward to the 1 percent. That's tiny super rich well organized group who finance our elections—uniquely among world democracies. The mass of citizens vote, but the elite few do the financing—and thus set the limits of policy.
Is it too daring to push for re-redistribution of our resources back to the citizens? And to refute the myth of big bad govt, when govt is us? Or is that too too radical for these times?
41
Henry Ford understood Trickle-Up Economics.
It made him a rich man while he raised worker pay.
He later described it as the best "cost-cutting" move he ever made because better pay reduced worker absenteeism and improved productivity.
Cutting taxes on the wealthiest Americans flies in the face of logic, as they are the least in need of greater discretionary income and they have the lowest marginal propensity to consume.
Does Trickle-Up Economics mean "soak the rich?"
Absolutely not, and that is abundantly clear once we move past just income and toward wealth - the true source of riches.
Wealth - particularly generational wealth - largely avoids taxation entirely.
Republicans have made it a pet project to ban the "death tax" - an oxymoron since the dead have no Earthly possessions to pay.
It's for the 2nd generation after a $10.9 million exemption, unlike the bus boy taxed on $1.
The wealthy can get liquidity from capital gains without ever selling through margin accounts.
But when they do, they pay preferential capital gains taxes.
There are wonderful wealthy people who make the world a better place, like Warren Buffett.
He advances a wonderful plan, the Buffett Rule, to help address disparities in taxation between the rich and the poor.
Also, ending the multinational deferral of taxation before repatriation and shifting Social Security and Medicare to the general budget would do wonders for the lives of Americans and the robustness of the economy.
It made him a rich man while he raised worker pay.
He later described it as the best "cost-cutting" move he ever made because better pay reduced worker absenteeism and improved productivity.
Cutting taxes on the wealthiest Americans flies in the face of logic, as they are the least in need of greater discretionary income and they have the lowest marginal propensity to consume.
Does Trickle-Up Economics mean "soak the rich?"
Absolutely not, and that is abundantly clear once we move past just income and toward wealth - the true source of riches.
Wealth - particularly generational wealth - largely avoids taxation entirely.
Republicans have made it a pet project to ban the "death tax" - an oxymoron since the dead have no Earthly possessions to pay.
It's for the 2nd generation after a $10.9 million exemption, unlike the bus boy taxed on $1.
The wealthy can get liquidity from capital gains without ever selling through margin accounts.
But when they do, they pay preferential capital gains taxes.
There are wonderful wealthy people who make the world a better place, like Warren Buffett.
He advances a wonderful plan, the Buffett Rule, to help address disparities in taxation between the rich and the poor.
Also, ending the multinational deferral of taxation before repatriation and shifting Social Security and Medicare to the general budget would do wonders for the lives of Americans and the robustness of the economy.
160
Henry Ford only gave in to the striking workers demands when his wife pleaded with him to do it. This was after his goons had been beating up the workers and Ford needed to get the workers back into production.
1
The price of oil determines the health of our economy.
The health of our economy waxes and wanes with the price of oil as oilis such a significant part of it.
Have a look at a historical graphical record going back decades;
http://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart
The health of our economy waxes and wanes with the price of oil as oilis such a significant part of it.
Have a look at a historical graphical record going back decades;
http://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart
3
Does one dare hope that Democratic candidates, from president down to dog catcher, will take Krugman's points and beat their Republican opponents over the head with them? Repeatedly? Demand, not supply, builds economies. Putting money in the pockets of people who already have more than they could ever spend does nothing. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.
A national infra-structure/education upgrade initiative would put money in middle and working class pockets immediately and pay off into the future. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.
A national infra-structure/education upgrade initiative would put money in middle and working class pockets immediately and pay off into the future. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.
1129
"Demand, not supply, builds economies."
As stated by Adam Smith in 1776!
"Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer. The maxim is so perfectly self-evident that it would be absurd to attempt to prove it."
Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations' Book IV, Chapter VIII
As stated by Adam Smith in 1776!
"Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer. The maxim is so perfectly self-evident that it would be absurd to attempt to prove it."
Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations' Book IV, Chapter VIII
10
Regarding Trickle Up Economics:
As a volunteer tax preparer for the past 12 years I have seen many low income families leave the tax site with stars in their eyes and four figure Earned Income Tax Credits in their refunds, soon to be in their bank accounts, and soon after to be spent, spent spent.
What better way to stimulate the economy than to give money to people who will spend it?
As a volunteer tax preparer for the past 12 years I have seen many low income families leave the tax site with stars in their eyes and four figure Earned Income Tax Credits in their refunds, soon to be in their bank accounts, and soon after to be spent, spent spent.
What better way to stimulate the economy than to give money to people who will spend it?
13
Ralph, precisely! Democratic messaging, other than by President Obama, seems always to be weak. They just seem incapable of using all of the political and policy tools at their disposal. Dems came out of their convention looking like the patriotic, red-white-and blue side, thus partially removing the mantle of patriotism from the unpatriotic GOP. And, that's what they are: UNPATRIOTIC!
Now, Dems need to take the "fiscally conservative" mantle away from the GOP. The GOP is not fiscally conservative. They support crony capitalism, not real competitive capitalism. So, these proven truths pointed out by Krugman should be hammered against Republicans at every level. When the middle class gets stronger and bigger, that's the engine of the great American economy. That's what brings up the working class and provides upward mobility for the poor. So, that's really FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE!
Why can't you idiotic Democrats understand that you can remove the myth that Republicans are in any way fiscally conservative? What is wrong with you? Expanding and strengthening Social Security and Medicare will increase the security and spending of the middle class. And, simply making the fixes to Obamacare, like were made to Romneycare in Mass., would also strengthen the entire economy. Republicans, you are just plain wrong most of the time, and you are not the fiscal conservatives in American politics and policy. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is insanity. AE
Now, Dems need to take the "fiscally conservative" mantle away from the GOP. The GOP is not fiscally conservative. They support crony capitalism, not real competitive capitalism. So, these proven truths pointed out by Krugman should be hammered against Republicans at every level. When the middle class gets stronger and bigger, that's the engine of the great American economy. That's what brings up the working class and provides upward mobility for the poor. So, that's really FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE!
Why can't you idiotic Democrats understand that you can remove the myth that Republicans are in any way fiscally conservative? What is wrong with you? Expanding and strengthening Social Security and Medicare will increase the security and spending of the middle class. And, simply making the fixes to Obamacare, like were made to Romneycare in Mass., would also strengthen the entire economy. Republicans, you are just plain wrong most of the time, and you are not the fiscal conservatives in American politics and policy. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is insanity. AE
5
That overall improvement took EIGHT YEARS rather than the two or three it should have following a major recession is more a testimony to the strength of our economy than to Mr. Obama’s policies. It also says something about how many have dropped out of the labor force to increase the competition for some skills enough to raise some wages. Britain’s labor force participation rate (those employed or looking for a job), for example, is 78.5%, while ours is 62.5% (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics).
That so many Americans have just given up isn’t a positive testimonial. And how is it that life is so rosy when our economic growth is projected to be stuck at about 1% for as far as the eye can see?
But I’m happy to see Paul acknowledging that high-earners are paying as much in federal income taxes as they did before Reagan – but he still doesn’t include the effect of rising state and local taxes, including property taxes and surcharges on higher incomes in some of our states.
Finally, if everything is so rosy it’s puzzling to see Donald Trump’s growing political viability, buoyed up by the convictions of millions of people that their lives haven’t gotten better but worse – the income improvements have largely benefited the tech workers of Apple and Google, not the increasing numbers of burger-flippers who have fueled job-growth numbers under our president.
What America indeed got from Obama’s policies was the disaster that conservatives predicted. But Paul soldiers on.
That so many Americans have just given up isn’t a positive testimonial. And how is it that life is so rosy when our economic growth is projected to be stuck at about 1% for as far as the eye can see?
But I’m happy to see Paul acknowledging that high-earners are paying as much in federal income taxes as they did before Reagan – but he still doesn’t include the effect of rising state and local taxes, including property taxes and surcharges on higher incomes in some of our states.
Finally, if everything is so rosy it’s puzzling to see Donald Trump’s growing political viability, buoyed up by the convictions of millions of people that their lives haven’t gotten better but worse – the income improvements have largely benefited the tech workers of Apple and Google, not the increasing numbers of burger-flippers who have fueled job-growth numbers under our president.
What America indeed got from Obama’s policies was the disaster that conservatives predicted. But Paul soldiers on.
10
Thankfully, Obama's and progressives' policies prevented America from getting hit by the disaster that was started by the Bush administration, and so desired and pushed for by the McConnell/Boehner conservatives after Obama was elected.
103
@Richard Luettgen: Richard, it's taken "EIGHT YEARS" because the president has done it all ON HIS OWN. You and your right-wing confederacy of dunces always scramble to the handy bromide of job-seekers throwing up their hands and giving up, melting into the unemployment shadows of "burger flippers."
I also detect the scent of your resentment here of those employed by Apple and Google. The land changed, Richard, from blue-collar to digital. Those who eschewed the benefits of a college education during St. Ronnie's reign are now paying the price. They got caught looking the other way, stoned on the "welfare queen" and "strapping young bucks" joints served up by the states' rights president along with his absurd "trickle-down" witchery.
Richard, your President Dick Cheney (oh, I'm so sorry, I meant W.; forgive me) blew up the US economy with tax cuts benefitting the 1% and took us to two (unpaid) wars, and you're angry that it's taken President Obama "EIGHT YEARS"?
If your Donald Trump finds the White House, it may take at least EIGHT DECADES for his serial disasters to be cleared away. Woe will be us.
I also detect the scent of your resentment here of those employed by Apple and Google. The land changed, Richard, from blue-collar to digital. Those who eschewed the benefits of a college education during St. Ronnie's reign are now paying the price. They got caught looking the other way, stoned on the "welfare queen" and "strapping young bucks" joints served up by the states' rights president along with his absurd "trickle-down" witchery.
Richard, your President Dick Cheney (oh, I'm so sorry, I meant W.; forgive me) blew up the US economy with tax cuts benefitting the 1% and took us to two (unpaid) wars, and you're angry that it's taken President Obama "EIGHT YEARS"?
If your Donald Trump finds the White House, it may take at least EIGHT DECADES for his serial disasters to be cleared away. Woe will be us.
557
Sox:
You could also mention that we have been waging significant military actions around the world (more than one might expect for a country that is "not at war"), and that could not have helped either.
You could also mention that we have been waging significant military actions around the world (more than one might expect for a country that is "not at war"), and that could not have helped either.
26
We'll soon see how adept Republicans have been in persuading American voters they are victims and have been taken to the cleaners by those duplicitous Democrats. The Trumpeter has raised the question whether a society created with the goal of empowering diverse groups with diverse interests to cooperate so as to enhance the prosperity and well-being of its members as a whole. Should the Trumpeter prevail, it will signal that democracy is a dead duck, a victim of those who falsely claim to have been victimized.
12
"Only serious nerds like me eagerly await the annual Census Bureau reports on income..."
Prof. Krugman, what you mean is serious nerds who happen to be economists or professors of economy.
I would gather that most other nerds, serious or otherwise would give this a pass.
Prof. Krugman, what you mean is serious nerds who happen to be economists or professors of economy.
I would gather that most other nerds, serious or otherwise would give this a pass.
3
"We expected good news; but last year, it turns out, the economy partied like it was 1999" says Paul Krugman.
Complete and utter bunkum.
Maybe Krugman partied like it was 1999 but the MAJORITY of us did not. Just because a few added massively to their personal wealth does NOT make a recovery. Krugman and other 'economists' seem to believe that what they utter by simply opening their mouths, equals fact. It does not, and we know it.
Or, maybe I am unlucky, but I seriously doubt the hundreds of people I speak to in business are ALL unlucky. Krugman is a propagandist, period.
No? Prove it.
The NYT is populated by people who are not part of the main-stream, they (as in Krugman) do not have a grip of what regular folks want, need, or aspire to. Shame on the NYT for continuing to publish this nonsense.
Complete and utter bunkum.
Maybe Krugman partied like it was 1999 but the MAJORITY of us did not. Just because a few added massively to their personal wealth does NOT make a recovery. Krugman and other 'economists' seem to believe that what they utter by simply opening their mouths, equals fact. It does not, and we know it.
Or, maybe I am unlucky, but I seriously doubt the hundreds of people I speak to in business are ALL unlucky. Krugman is a propagandist, period.
No? Prove it.
The NYT is populated by people who are not part of the main-stream, they (as in Krugman) do not have a grip of what regular folks want, need, or aspire to. Shame on the NYT for continuing to publish this nonsense.
14
This isn't an editorial that Mr. Krugman is writing, its pretty much a slice of the Census Bureau's report. You may feel that your own situation or that of your friends and relatives has not recovered, but that's just a sampling. The Census is based on thousands of samples and reflect the aggregate. Census samples are not perfect and they may not completely reflect reality, but they are consistent in their modeling and over time will give an accurate picture of the economy.
50
There are some people who like to look at the glass as half full and others who see it as half empty. You fit in the latter group.
14
Why don't you call us back after you read the column? Or maybe you should start with a dictionary and look for the word "statistics"?
However, I think there is only one question that is really relevant for a Trump supporter: Who do you hate most?
Being so filled with hate seems pretty deplorable, but all I can do is feel sorry for you and hope you grow up to be less driven by your hatreds. It might even improve your luck?
However, I think there is only one question that is really relevant for a Trump supporter: Who do you hate most?
Being so filled with hate seems pretty deplorable, but all I can do is feel sorry for you and hope you grow up to be less driven by your hatreds. It might even improve your luck?
38
Dr. Krugman, it really doesn't matter that, under this president, his greatest initiatives have translated, on the whole, to improvements to rank-and-file families and individuals. The Fox-Limbaugh-ALEC evil axis has successfully orchestrated the deafening cacophony of promised Socialist destruction so that rational thought was nowhere to be found.
Congress, early on in President Obama's administration, was determined to short-sheet his stimulus package to the point where it was effective--but only up to a point. The modest funding failed to provide the teeth needed to begin an earnest push towards infrastructure repair. As a result, the Mitch McConnell-John Boehner insurrectionists could claim credit for a program that fell between two stools. They also wasted billions of taxpayer dollars in their serial vote to repeal his ACA.
President Obama was never meant to succeed. Rather than do their jobs, as their sworn oaths demanded, this treasonous Congress sought, for reasons of race and ideology, to wreck his legacy. He singlehandedly pushed back against the right wing prophets of doom; he halved the unemployment rate to 4.9%; got millions insured against catastrophic illness; and presided over a slow but steady increase of job growth.
Quite impressive, considering the disloyal opposition. It's all at risk this November.
Congress, early on in President Obama's administration, was determined to short-sheet his stimulus package to the point where it was effective--but only up to a point. The modest funding failed to provide the teeth needed to begin an earnest push towards infrastructure repair. As a result, the Mitch McConnell-John Boehner insurrectionists could claim credit for a program that fell between two stools. They also wasted billions of taxpayer dollars in their serial vote to repeal his ACA.
President Obama was never meant to succeed. Rather than do their jobs, as their sworn oaths demanded, this treasonous Congress sought, for reasons of race and ideology, to wreck his legacy. He singlehandedly pushed back against the right wing prophets of doom; he halved the unemployment rate to 4.9%; got millions insured against catastrophic illness; and presided over a slow but steady increase of job growth.
Quite impressive, considering the disloyal opposition. It's all at risk this November.
613
Thanks for mentioning ALEC. Of Limbaugh (and the rest of talk radio), FOX News and ALEC, ALEC has been the most destructive. Most Americans don't know this because they are very good at flying under the radar. A Trump presidency fits their purposes perfectly. His idiocy will paralyze Washington, shifting power more to the states, - just where they want it.
5
Sox,
The Constitution you want, isn't the same one the rest of us have. The Congress elected by "we the people who bother to vote" controls the money and how it's spent.
You want an Emperor with a rubber stamp Congress. Don't start whining about gerrymandering either as the Senate is elected at large and you don't have that either!
Outside the NYT and other fringe outlets with a few hundred thousand viewers or readers your ideas aren't selling.
You should have gone with Bernie Sanders, you would be winning now!
The Constitution you want, isn't the same one the rest of us have. The Congress elected by "we the people who bother to vote" controls the money and how it's spent.
You want an Emperor with a rubber stamp Congress. Don't start whining about gerrymandering either as the Senate is elected at large and you don't have that either!
Outside the NYT and other fringe outlets with a few hundred thousand viewers or readers your ideas aren't selling.
You should have gone with Bernie Sanders, you would be winning now!
2
The Republicans have been touting "Job Creators" for decades as the business leaders exported our economy. The only good thing about Trump is his bring back factories rhetoric.
3
Which is just rhetoric,
5
Kudos to the President for doing almost exactly what he told us he would do if elected. Even with a country that had been driven into the ditch by the Grand Old Pirates. It certainly shows our resilence.
But as the President said in Philly this week, there is still a lot of work to do. Gosh. That means that a third term for Democrats in Hillary Clinton will be a good deal for us all.
Hillary 2016
But as the President said in Philly this week, there is still a lot of work to do. Gosh. That means that a third term for Democrats in Hillary Clinton will be a good deal for us all.
Hillary 2016
401
I think GOP might stand for Greedy Obstinate Pirates. (Thanks for the help with the P.)
12
Not only did he do what he promised, he did what Romney promised as well.
1