347 replies to this topic

[concert andy]

I totally understand what you're getting at... some people need a little motivation or a push in the right direction -- I understand you're trying to come up with ideas how to do that, and I'm right there on the same page with you. People need to work and be productive just to stay healthy... for their own benefit, and for the good of the country.

The problem I see is that this "loophole" can be exploited just in order to get people to be slaves once again.

I think the solution is more in the direction of creating jobs and raising revenue... more like a climb up... instead of a race to the bottom.

Why not let unemployed people go to school and learn new skills that are in demand?

Slaves? Isn't that a huge leap of connecting the dots?

The UE'd do get extensions for going to school full time. I know, I did not qualify as a full time grad student (taking 3 very hard classes, that would be 4 credits for undergrads which would be full time). I was upset, by this but, there is a loop hole for most everything. Get used to it, this is america, home of the loop hole.

[concert andy]

actually, you might be onto something though. Because in the end it's the same thing... you're working for the government.

I'm not against it at all, actually... I'm for it.

Just one of those things where my first impression was bad, and then after I thought more about it I changed my mind.

I try.

[PeaceFrog]

Slaves? Isn't that a huge leap of connecting the dots?

Yes, it is. I think I'm letting TASBs rantings influence me too much. I'm doing something about that.

[TakeAStepBack]

I will take that as a yes.

Show me where i complained. And make the judgement for yourself why it is this way. I'm not here to go in circles with you over fiat cuurency Keynesian ponzi schemes. You believe whatever you want about the race to the bottom.

2019.

[concert andy]

Show me where i complained. And make the judgement for yourself why it is this way. I'm not here to go in circles with you over fiat cuurency Keynesian ponzi schemes. You believe whatever you want about the race to the bottom.

2019.

I could not find any good emoticons. So I used that one, poor choice, but funny.

Side note about firing congress, which has been suspected.

I heard Hannity on my way home last night saying we should go over the cliff, and if in two years the American Public does not liek it. Fire us. Which led me to the Grover raising taxes questions.

[TakeAStepBack]

Side note about firing congress, which has been suspected.

Suspected? Americans just reseated the lowest rating approval of a congress in history. They aren't going anywhere for two years. Except guys like DeMint, who just left for a job at Heritage (smart move, IMO).

I heard Hannity on my way home last night saying we should go over the cliff, and if in two years the American Public does not liek it. Fire us. Which led me to the Grover raising taxes questions.

The Grover tax pledge is out the window. The repubs can not negotiate from that platform anymore. 50% + of American voters voted to raise taxes "on the rich". That whole stall of blocking the presidents moves was put in check on Nov. 6th 2012. They are now going to have to re-align themselves far more middle of the road. Even if middle of the road is for music stations and possums. You either stand for something, or you stand for nothing.

Either way, that tax pledge is a losing deal, adn self interest runs the day for congress critters.

[concert andy]

Side note about firing congress, which has been suspected.

Suspected? Americans just reseated the lowest rating approval of a congress in history. They aren't going anywhere for two years. Except guys like DeMint, who just left for a job at Heritage (smart move, IMO).

I heard Hannity on my way home last night saying we should go over the cliff, and if in two years the American Public does not liek it. Fire us. Which led me to the Grover raising taxes questions.

The Grover tax pledge is out the window. The repubs can not negotiate from that platform anymore. 50% + of American voters voted to raise taxes "on the rich". That whole stall of blocking the presidents moves was put in check on Nov. 6th 2012. They are now going to have to re-align themselves far more middle of the road. Even if middle of the road is for music stations and possums. You either stand for something, or you stand for nothing.

Either way, that tax pledge is a losing deal, adn self interest runs the day for congress critters.

I do not want them to be middle of the road fiscally. We need some fiscal hawks to fix the debt.

The GOP needs to get to the middle of the road socially. Until then, they will always be 50/50%.

If they ever said, socially we do not care because the government should not say what and what you should do with your body. This country was founded on these principals and to deny the same principals anyone now for whatever reason is moving the country backwards.

If ...

GOP would be 75-25 majority. Easily, IMO.

Oh and suspected, was meant to say suggested.

I am a poor speller and not good at grammar. Want some calculus or algebra help, I am your guy.

[TakeAStepBack]

A republican party that returns to it's roots in classiacal liberalism? I highly doubt that is ever going to happen. I don't know what they will do next, but embracing libertarian (classical liberal) values seems a far cry off.

And there aren't many fiscal conservatives in the republican party. They talk about it, but when it comes time, they love expanding the size/scope of govt. the same as the Democrats do. That's the new political philosophy in washington. Special interest group/social liberalism. Whether it is a D or an R.

[concert andy]

A republican party that returns to it's roots in classiacal liberalism? I highly doubt that is ever going to happen. I don't know what they will do next, but embracing libertarian (classical liberal) values seems a far cry off.

And there aren't many fiscal conservatives in the republican party. They talk about it, but when it comes time, they love expanding the size/scope of govt. the same as the Democrats do. That's the new political philosophy in washington. Special interest group/social liberalism. Whether it is a D or an R.

I agree, but Not total classic liberalism. I am just asking for socially not to be so vehemently against things, be willing to negotiate on anything. That is not the place for government, and if they listen to the tea Party people (fundamentally) that is what they are saying. Smaller government, which would also mean less care of social issues. Again IMO.

If there was a presidential candidate that was preaching fiscal responsibility (with the same social stance), I would vote for him at the expense of the Supreme court.

[PeaceFrog]

military spending is a good place to start/continue making cuts.

[TakeAStepBack]

The man presidential candidate you're referring to just ran and is now retiring. True fiscal conservatism and socially liberal, limited constitutional govt.

[concert andy]

The man presidential candidate you're referring to just ran and is now retiring. True fiscal conservatism and socially liberal, limited constitutional govt.

But I do not believe he made it past the primaries.

[TakeAStepBack]

Correct. The RNC cheats. Regardless, it's not a popular enough stance. People want free shit, more spending, bigger govt, more war, etc..etc..etc..
So we're going down that road instead.

[concert andy]

Correct. The RNC cheats. Regardless, it's not a popular enough stance. People want free shit, more spending, bigger govt, more war, etc..etc..etc..
So we're going down that road instead.

And Romney was the best at this cycle. He was a chameleon and said what ever he had to each step of the way, knowing that the American Public was to stupid to realize he changed his position often, for the sake of getting elected.

[TakeAStepBack]

Yup. The GOP had an opportunity to relly embrace their so called principles of less spending and limited constitutional govt. this election. All they had to do was give a little on social issues (the irony, as they say limited govt. whiile they try to ram legislation regarding the bedroom on folks, etc..) and truly embrace the fiscal conservatism.

What did they do instead? Held up Mitt Romney, a one time complete prez loser, at the very beginning of the primaries. The question is why. Was it really because tey thought he was the best choice, or was there an unseen motive to losing? We'll never know.

What we do know is if they keep it up, we're going to have a true one party, instead of the silk thin veneer (sp?) of two parties.

[PeaceFrog]

I guess I'm more of an optimist, and I think another party will emerge -- because one always does. It might not happen right away, but it will, eventually.

It could be a disagreement among Democrats that causes a split, or it could be a re-emergence of a new and improved GOP (I doubt that - but you never know). Or, it could be some group that doesn't even exist yet.

Whatever happens, though. I'm sure we'll all be aware of what is going on if not directly involved. I think whatever happens, it will be better. I believe we have the technology and ability. I have no proof of this, but I guess at some point it all just boils down to faith in something. My faith is in the overall good of mankind as a whole. I'm much more confident in that than a mysterious deity or the "magic" of the free-market.

[PeaceFrog]

10 Things Republicans Don't Want You to Know About the "Fiscal Cliff"




The GOP is trying to dupe the American people by continuing to peddle its long-debunked myths about taxes and the debt.

December 7, 2012 |



This week, former President Bill Clinton urged calm in the face of Washington's stand-off over the so-called fiscal cliff. "They are moving toward a deal," Clinton assured Americans, suggesting that the current posturing by both parties is "just a Kabuki dance."
Unfortunately, Republicans have called President Obama's $4 trillion debt reduction plan something else: a joke. While Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell boasted that he "burst into laughter," House Speaker John Boehner claimed he was "flabbergasted" at the President's "non-serious proposal."
As it turns out, that choice of language is more than a little ironic. After all, Boehner's counter-offer isn't merely devoid of specifics when it comes to his proposed spending cuts and revenue-raising loophole closing. Like Mitt Romney before him, Speaker Boehner's math doesn't--and cannot--work. More pathetic still, it is the GOP which is trying to dupe the American people by continuing to peddle its long-debunked myths about taxes and the debt.
Here, then, are 10 things Republicans don't want you to know about the fiscal cliff.
Center for American Progress show, the U.S. economy produced far more jobs and grew at a much faster rate when top-tier tax rates were higher (even much higher) than today:

Click to enlarge.

In October, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service reached the same conclusion, much to the consternation of Capitol Hill Republicans who sought to bury the report. What the yanked CRS report had to say on the history of tax cuts, productivity, investment, economic growth and job creation was indisputably true:

Throughout the late-1940s and 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was typically above 90%; today it is 35%. Additionally, the top capital gains tax rate was 25% in the 1950s and 1960s, 35% in the 1970s; today it is 15%. The real GDP growth rate averaged 4.2% and real per capita GDP increased annually by 2.4% in the 1950s. In the 2000s, the average real GDP growth rate was 1.7% and real per capita GDP increased annually by less than 1%.
There is not conclusive evidence, however, to substantiate a clear relationship between the 65-year steady reduction in the top tax rates and economic growth. Analysis of such data suggests the reduction in the top tax rates have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth.

For confirmation, you only have to travel back to the Bush presidency, one which produced the worst-eight year job creation record in modern American history. The paltry one million jobs yielded during that period (compared to 23 million under Bill Clinton) prompted New York Times economics reporter David Leonhardt to ask with good reason, "Why should we believe that extending the Bush tax cuts will provide a big lift to growth?"
Mark Shields posed a similar question in a different way. "Do tax cuts," he asked, "help 'job creators' or 'robber barons'?" To put it another way, if tax cuts for the rich don't drive overall economic growth, then there's no point in continuing to drain the U.S. Treasury in order to pad the bank accounts of the wealthy.
And that, in a nutshell, is exactly what the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found last month.

Click to enlarge.

In its report ("Economic Effects of Policies Contributing to Fiscal Tightening in 2013"), the CBO warned that the deficit-slashing effects of allowing the Bush tax cuts expire, ending the two-year payroll tax holiday and letting last year's budget sequestration deal proceed on January 1, 2013 could return the United States to recession. But as Dylan Matthews explained in the Washington Post, letting upper-income tax rates return to their slightly higher Clinton-era rates (as President Obama has proposed) will play no part in that austerity. While extending the Bush rates for all Americans carries a $330 billion overall price tag for Uncle Sam next year, the CBO calculated that $42 billion goes to the top taxpayers. But as the chart above shows, eliminating that Treasury-draining windfall for the wealthy (by raising rates for the top-two tax brackets, indexing the AMT and raising capital gains, dividend and estate taxes), would slice only 0.1% from economic growth next year.
Reviewing a recent study by Stanford's Nir Jaimovich and Northwestern's Sergio Rebelo, Matthews concluded, "There's definitely a point at which high tax rates for the rich hurt growth. But we're nowhere near there yet." (It is worth noting, as CBPP does and Republicans do not, that "a recent Treasury analysis finds that only 2.5 percent of small business owners fall into the top two income tax brackets and that these owners receive less than one-third of small business income.") All of which is why Republican strategist, Weekly Standard editor and Fox News regular Bill Kristol acknowledged last month:

"It won't kill the country if we raise taxes a little bit on millionaires," he said on "Fox News Sunday." "It really won't, I don't think. I don't really understand why Republicans don't take Obama's offer."

Reagan tax reform of 1986 was the same as the top tax rate on income. But successive presidents of both parties lowered the capital gains rate on investment income because they believed, as the Washington Post recounted, "it spurs more investment in the U.S. economy, benefiting all Americans."
But as Jared Bernstein demonstrated with the chart below, there's no evidence to support that claim.

Click to enlarge.

Bernstein found that that the business cycle, not acts of Congress, drive investment in the U.S.

Hard to see anything in the picture supporting the view that either the level or changes in cap gains taxes play a determinant role in investment decisions.
Remember, the ostensible reason for the favoritism in tax treatment here is to incentivize more investment and faster productivity growth. But that's not in the data and the reason it's not in the data is because investors aren't nearly as elastic to cap gains rates as their lobbyists say they are (more precisely, they'll carefully time their realizations to maximize their gains around rate changes, but that's not real economic activity-that's tax planning).

Reviewing other analyses, Brad Plummer of the Washington Post concurred with that assessment that low capital gains taxes don't necessarily jump-start investment in the economy:

The top tax rate on investment income has bounced up and down over the past 80 years -- from as high as 39.9 percent in 1977 to just 15 percent today -- yet investment just appears to grow with the cycle, seemingly unaffected...
Meanwhile, Troy Kravitz and Len Burman of the Urban Institute have shown that, over the past 50 years, there's no correlation between the top capital gains tax rate and U.S. economic growth -- even if you allow for a lag of up to five years.

But if lower capital gains tax rates have had little impact on investment, they have had an outsized impact on income inequality in the United States.
Last year, an analysis by the Washington Post concluded that "capital gains tax rates benefiting wealthy feed [the] growing gap between rich and poor." As the Post explained, for the very richest Americans the successive capital gains tax cuts from Presidents Clinton (from 28 to 20 percent) and Bush (from 20 to 15 percent) have been "better than any Christmas gift":

While it's true that many middle-class Americans own stocks or bonds, they tend to stash them in tax-sheltered retirement accounts, where the capital gains rate does not apply. By contrast, the richest Americans reap huge benefits. Over the past 20 years, more than 80 percent of the capital gains income realized in the United States has gone to 5 percent of the people; about half of all the capital gains have gone to the wealthiest 0.1 percent.

This convenient chart tells the tale:

Click to enlarge.

As the New York Times uncovered in 2006, the 2003 Bush dividend and capital gains tax cuts offered almost nothing to taxpayers earning below $100,000 a year. Instead, those windfalls reduced taxes "on incomes of more than $10 million by an average of about $500,000." As the Times explained, "The top 2 percent of taxpayers, those making more than $200,000, received more than 70% of the increased tax savings from those cuts in investment income." It's no wonder that between 2001 and 2007- a period during which poverty was rising and average household income had fallen - the 400 richest taxpayers saw their incomes double to an average of $345 million even as their effective tax rate was virtually halved. As the Washington Post noted, "The 400 richest taxpayers in 2008 counted 60 percent of their income in the form of capital gains and 8 percent from salary and wages. The rest of the country reported 5 percent in capital gains and 72 percent in salary."

Click to enlarge.

As the Congressional Research Service concluded in a December 2011 analysis:

Capital gains and dividends were a larger share of total income in 2006 than in 1996 (especially for high-income taxpayers) and were more unequally distributed in 2006 than in 1996. Changes in capital gains and dividends were the largest contributor to the increase in the overall income inequality. Taxes were less progressive in 2006 than in 1996, and consequently, tax policy also contributed to the increase in income inequality between 1996 and 2006.

CRS echoed that finding in October when it found that lower tax rates for the rich spur inequality, not economic growth. "The evidence does not suggest necessarily a relationship between tax policy with regard to the top tax rates and the size of the economic pie," the agency wrote, "but there may be a relationship to how the economic pie is sliced."

Click to enlarge.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) found a financial Grand Canyon separating the very rich from everyone else. Over the three decades ending in 2007, the top 1 percent's share of the nation's total after-tax household income more than doubled, from 7.5 percent to 17.1 percent. During that time, the share of the middle 60% of Americans dropped from 51.1 percent to 43.5 percent; the bottom four-fifths declined from 58 percent to 48 percent. As for the poor, they fell further and further behind, with the lowest quintile's income share sliding to just 4.9%. Expressed in dollar terms, the income gap is staggering:

Between 1979 and 2007, average after-tax incomes for the top 1 percent rose by 281 percent after adjusting for inflation -- an increase in income of $973,100 per household -- compared to increases of 25 percent ($11,200 per household) for the middle fifth of households and 16 percent ($2,400 per household) for the bottom fifth.

Click to enlarge.

As economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty documented, income inequality isn't just as it highest level since the Great Depression. The rich, it turns out, have already more than recovered from the impact of the Bush recession which began in late 2007:

They have found that the trends have mostly continued. From 2000 to 2007, incomes for the bottom 90 percent of earners rose only about 4 percent, once adjusted for inflation. For the top 0.1 percent, incomes climbed about 94 percent.
The recession interrupted the trend, with the sharp decline in stock prices hitting the pocketbooks of the rich. But the income share of 1 percent has since rebounded. Data that the two economists released in March showed that the top 1 percent of earners got nearly every dollar of the income gains eked out in the first full year of the recovery. In 2010, the top 10 percent of earners took about half of overall income.

As it turns out, the richest one percent of Americans snared 93 percent of the total income gains in 2010. Ezra Klein summed it up this way:

After the Great Depression, inequality fell and didn't recover until 2007. That's about 80 years. After the Great Recession, inequality fell and didn't recover until ... 2009? That's one year.

lower now than in 1980. As Michael Ettinger of the Center for American Progress put it two years ago:

"The idea that taxes are high right now is pretty much nuts."

As it turns out, a percentage of the U.S. economy, the total federal tax bite hasn't been this low in 60 years.

Click to enlarge.

As the chart representing President Obama's 2012 budget proposal above reflects, the American tax burden hasn't been this low in generations. Thanks to the combination of the Bush Recession and the latest Obama tax cuts, the AP reported, "as a share of the nation's economy, Uncle Sam's take this year will be the lowest since 1950, when the Korean War was just getting under way." In January, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) explained that "revenues would be just under 15 percent of GDP; levels that low have not been seen since 1950." That finding echoed an earlier analysis from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Last April, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities concluded, "Middle-income Americans are now paying federal taxes at or near historically low levels, according to the latest available data."
Or as former Reagan Treasury official Bruce Bartlett explained it in the New York Times:

In short, by the broadest measure of the tax rate, the current level is unusually low and has been for some time. Revenues were 14.9 percent of G.D.P. in both 2009 and 2010. Yet if one listens to Republicans, one would think that taxes have never been higher, that an excessive tax burden is the most important constraint holding back economic growth and that a big tax cut is exactly what the economy needs to get growing again.

For their part, Republicans remain unencumbered by the truth. During the height of the 2011 debt ceiling crisis, Speaker Boehner insisted "Medicare, Medicaid - everything should be on the table, except raising taxes." Now with the approaching fiscal cliff, as ABC News reported, Boehner and his GOP allies want upper-income tax rates to come down:

The GOP deal would create $800 billion in new revenue through tax reform, but Boehner insisted that tax rates should not go up on the top 2 percent of taxpayers. Instead, the GOP wants lower tax rates after closing loopholes, limiting tax credits and capping deductions.

[PeaceFrog]

5. tax cuts pay for themselves," President Bush confidently proclaimed, "You cut taxes and the tax revenues increase." As it turned out, not so much.

This chart shows just how dire the tax revenue drought has become. For those Republicans who claim "tax cuts pay themselves," it's worth noting that federal revenue did not return to its pre-Bush tax cut level until 2006. (While this graph shows current dollars, the dynamic is unchanged measured in inflation-adjusted, constant 2005 dollars.)

Click to enlarge.

As a share of American GDP, tax revenues peaked in 2000; that is, before the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities concluded, the Bush tax cuts accounted for half of the deficitsduring his tenure, and if made permanent, over the next decade would cost the U.S. Treasury more than Iraq, Afghanistan, the recession, TARP and the stimulus--combined.

Click to enlarge.

As the Washington Post summed up the CBO's conclusions regarding the causes of the nation's mounting debt, "The biggest culprit, by far, has been an erosion of tax revenue triggered largely by two recessions and multiple rounds of tax cuts." An analysis by the New York Times echoed that finding:

With President Obama and Republican leaders calling for cutting the budget by trillions over the next 10 years, it is worth asking how we got here -- from healthy surpluses at the end of the Clinton era, and the promise of future surpluses, to nine straight years of deficits, including the $1.3 trillion shortfall in 2010. The answer is largely the Bush-era tax cuts, war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, and recessions.

But as Ezra Klein explained, the revealing charts above don't tell the full story of the impact of Bush-era policies on future debt facing Barack Obama:

What's also important, but not evident, on this chart is that Obama's major expenses were temporary -- the stimulus is over now -- while Bush's were, effectively, recurring. The Bush tax cuts didn't just lower revenue for 10 years. It's clear now that they lowered it indefinitely, which means this chart is understating their true cost. Similarly, the Medicare drug benefit is costing money on perpetuity, not just for two or three years. And Boehner, Ryan and others voted for these laws and, in some cases, helped to craft and pass them.

Nevertheless, as the Republican Party first waged its all-out attack in 2010 to preserve the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, the GOP's number two man in the Senate provided the talking point to help sell the $70 billion annual giveaway to America's rich. "You should never," Arizona's Jon Kyl declared, "have to offset the cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans." For his part, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell rushed to defend Kyl's fuzzy math:

"There's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy. So I think what Senator Kyl was expressing was the view of virtually every Republican on that subject."

That may have been a view universally shared by virtually every Republican, but it happens to be wrong.
interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News, Speaker Boehner articulated the second fantasy of Republican tax proposals:

We have laid it all out for them, a dozen different ways you can raise the revenue from the richest Americans, as the president would describe them, without raising tax rates...
You can eliminate certain deductions for those -- the wealthiest in our country. You could do all of that.

But as Americans learned during the 2012 campaign when Mitt Romney offered the same basic formula, you simply can't get there from here. Of the $1.1 trillion Uncle Sam gives up in tax breaks, deductions, loopholes and credits each year, there simply aren't enough that impact the wealthy alone. As Greg Sargent laid out theRepublicans' magic thinking:

The problem, though, is that you'd have to eliminate virtually every significant loophole and deduction that benefits the wealthy to make this possible, according to Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. Worse, if you also want to lower tax rates, as Republicans say they do, it would become even harder...
Williams added that to come within the ballpark of raising $800 billion in new revenues in this fashion, you'd probably have to pare back substantially or eliminate an enormous range of deductions, from the write-offs for employee provided health insurance, interest from municipal bonds, and money invested in retirement plans, to itemized deductions for charitable contributions, state and local taxes, and mortgage interest payments.

Click to enlarge.

Thus far, Boehner like Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney has refused to name a single loophole he'd close. Pressed by Wallace on the point, Boehner responded:

Listen, there are lots of ways to get out there. Now, I'm not going to debate his or negotiate with you. But if you can sign the bill into law, I'd be happy to.

As Paul Krugman said of Ryan's "Pink Slime Economics":

So which specific loopholes has Mr. Ryan, who issued a 98-page manifesto on behalf of his budget, said he would close? None. Not one. He has, however, categorically ruled out any move to close the major loophole that benefits the rich, namely the ultra-low tax rates on income from capital. (That's the loophole that lets Mitt Romney pay only 14 percent of his income in taxes, a lower tax rate than that faced by many middle-class families.)

In April, the New York Times put Krugman's question into a handy chart of "Who Gains Most from Tax Breaks":

Click to enlarge.

death tax" is as bogus now as it was when President Bush first perpetrated it during the 2000 election. As former Nevada Senator John Ensign griped when Congress last wrestled with the issue, "It destroys a lot of small businesses and a lot of family farms and ranches in America." Then House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) similarly groused:

"People who aren't wealthy, who may have built up value in land over generations and many family farms find themselves in situations where they've got to sell the farm in order the pay the taxes."

Sadly for conservative myth-makers, that claim, too, is completely false.

Click to enlarge.

In 2990, that tax was paid by less than a quarter of one percent of American estates each year. Despite Republican mythology to the contrary, the Tax Policy Center reported that fewer than 2,700 family farms and businesses owed the tax to Uncle Sam three years ago. But thanks to successful Republican brinksmanship, the December 2010 tax cut compromise lowered the rate from 45 percent to 35 percent while boosting the estate tax exemption to $10 million per couple, dropping the number of families impacted to just 40 a year.
Ronald Reagan tripled the national debt during his eight years in office, George W. Bush nearly doubled it again. Nevertheless, Speaker Boehner hasn't merely claimed "We have a debt burden that's crushing us," but once again promised to hold the debt ceiling hostage unless the GOP budget blackmail succeeds.
Like its stonewalling of President Obama's judicial nominations and record-setting use of the filibuster, the GOP's debt ceiling brinksmanship was unprecedented. After all, that small government icon Ronald Reagan tripled the national debt and signed 17 debt ceiling increases into law. That might explain why the Gipper repeatedly demanded Congress boost his borrowing authority and called the oceans of red ink he bequeathed to America his greatest regret. As it turns out, Republican majorities voted seven times to raise the debt ceiling under President Bush and the current GOP leadership team voted a combined 19 times to bump the debt limit $4 trillion during his tenure. (That vote tally included a "clean" debt ceiling increase in 2004, backed by 98 current House Republicans and 31 sitting GOP Senators.)

Click to enlarge.

Of course, they had to. After all, the two unfunded wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the budget-busting Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 (the first war-time tax cut in modern U.S. history) and the Medicare prescription drug program drained the U.S. Treasury and doubled the national debt by 2009. And Mitch McConnell, John Boehner and Eric Cantor voted for all of it. As these helpful charts from the New York Times and the Washington Postshow, they built that debt:

Click to enlarge.

And as the images from the Washington Post and CBPP in section 6 above show, the Republicans are still building that.
annual budget deficits would be dramatically reduced has largely escaped the notice of the press and the public.)

Click to enlarge.

But the "fiscal cliff" analogy itself is doubly-inappropriate. After all, Congress and the Obama administration can take action any time before or after December 31, 2012 to avoid the new recession inaction would likely produce. (That's an important reason why, as the Washington Post reported Wednesday, "'Fiscal cliff' warnings yet to faze Wall Street.") And while former Fed vice chairman Alan Blinder and others warn about the economic disruption the uncertainty of a resolution alone could produce, this year-end budget showdown pales in comparison to the real cliff that was 2011's debt-ceiling crisis. That summer, the unprecedented GOP threatto default on the full faith and credit of the United States stalled job growth and undermined consumer confidence for months.
For all those reasons, Sarah Kliff of the Washington Post suggested the United States is facing not a "fiscal cliff," but "an austerity crisis." If you have any doubt on that point, just ask UK Treasury chief George Osborne, whose Tory austerity program of draconian spending cuts and tax hikes has helped drive his country back into recession.
All of which is why the fiscal cliff debate is such a misguided and counterproductive one. The biggest challenge the United States faces now is not its national debt, but slow economic expansion and lagging job growth. As David Leonhardt explained two years ago ("One Way to Trim Deficit: Cultivate Growth"), more than anything else rapid economic growth was responsible for eliminating the budget deficits of the 1990's. And looking ahead?

If the economy grew one half of a percentage point faster than forecast each year over the next two decades -- no easy feat, to be fair -- the country would have to do roughly 40 to 50 percent less deficit-cutting than it now appears...
So arguably the single best way to cut the deficit is to make sure that any deficit-cutting plan does not also cut economic growth. Ideally, it will lift growth.

As January 1 approaches, President Obama is clearly heading that message. As for the Republicans, not so much.

[TakeAStepBack]

This chart shows just how dire the tax revenue drought has become. For those Republicans who claim "tax cuts pay themselves," it's worth noting that federal revenue did not return to its pre-Bush tax cut level until 2006. (While this graph shows current dollars, the dynamic is unchanged measured in inflation-adjusted, constant 2005 dollars.)


Well, that makes sense. Considering the NASDAQ bubble that burst in 2000 and was in full spiral by 2001. The Bush tax cuts never materialized until 2003. The 2001 Act called for lowered rates on everyone starting in 2006, but the 2003 act sped that up.

As Paul Krugman puts it in 2002:




OOOOPS.

[PeaceFrog]

Paul Krugman


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



"Krugman" redirects here. For other uses, see Krugman (disambiguation). Paul Krugman New Keynesian economics
Krugman at a press conference at the Swedish Academy of Sciences in Stockholm, 2008 Born February 28, 1953 (age 59)
Albany, New York Nationality United States Institution Princeton University,
London School of Economics Field International economics,Macroeconomics Alma mater MIT,
Yale University Opposed Freshwater economics^[1][2] Influences John Maynard Keynes^[3]
John Hicks^[3][4][5]
Paul Samuelson, Avinash Dixit,Joseph Stiglitz, Rudi Dornbusch Contributions International Trade Theory
New Trade Theory
New Economic Geography Awards John Bates Clark Medal (1991)
Príncipe de Asturias Prize(2004)
Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics (2008) Information at IDEAS/RePEc
Paul Robin Krugman ( /ˈkruːɡmən/;^[6] born February 28, 1953) is an American economist, Professor of Economics and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, Centenary Professor at theLondon School of Economics, and anop-ed columnist for The New York Times.^[7][8] In 2008, Krugman won theNobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his contributions to New Trade Theory and New Economic Geography. According to the prize Committee, the prize was given for Krugman's work explaining the patterns of international trade and the geographic concentration of wealth, by examining the effects of economies of scale and of consumer preferences for diverse goods and services.^[9]
Krugman is known in academia for his work on international economics(including trade theory, economic geography, and international finance),^[10][11] liquidity traps, and currency crises. He is the 20th most widely cited economist in the world today^[12] and is ranked among the most influential academic thinkers in the US.^[13]
As of 2008, Krugman has written 20 books and has published over 200 scholarly articles in professional journals and edited volumes.^[14] He has also written more than 750 columns on economic and political issues for The New York Times.
He also writes on topics ranging from income distribution to international economics. Krugman considers himself a liberal, calling one of his books and his New York Timesblog The Conscience of a Liberal.^[15] His popular commentary has attracted considerable comment, both positive and negative.^{[16][17][18][19][20]}

Contents
[hide]

• 1 Personal life
  
• 2 Academic career
  
  • 2.1 New trade theory
    
  • 2.2 New economic geography
    
  • 2.3 International finance
    
  • 2.4 Macroeconomics and fiscal policy
    
  • 2.5 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences
    
  • 2.6 Awards
• 3 Author
  
• 4 Commentator
  
  • 4.1 East Asian growth
    
  • 4.2 U.S. economic policies
• 5 Economic views
  
  • 5.1 Free trade
• 6 Political views
  
  • 6.1 U.S. race relations
    
  • 6.2 On working in the Reagan administration
    
  • 6.3 On Gordon Brown vs David Cameron
• 7 Controversies
  
  • 7.1 Partisanship
    
  • 7.2 Economics and policy recommendations
    
  • 7.3 Enron
• 8 In popular culture
  
• 9 Published works
  
  • 9.1 Academic books (authored or coauthored)
    
  • 9.2 Academic books (edited or coedited)
    
  • 9.3 Economics textbooks
    
  • 9.4 Books for a general audience
    
  • 9.5 Selected academic articles
• 10 See also
  
• 11 References
  
• 12 External links

[edit]Personal life

Krugman is the son of David and Anita Krugman and the grandson of Jewishimmigrants from Brest-Litovsk.^[21] He was born in Albany, New York, and grew up inNassau County.^[22] He graduated from John F. Kennedy High School in Bellmore.^[23]
According to Krugman, his interest in economics began with Isaac Asimov'sFoundation novels, in which the social scientists of the future use "psychohistory" to attempt to save civilization. Since "psychohistory" in Asimov's sense of the word does not exist, Krugman turned to economics, which he considered the next best thing.^[24][25]
Krugman has been married twice. Robin L. Bergman, his first wife, is an award-winning designer/artist. He is currently married to Robin Wells, his second wife, an academic economist who has collaborated on textbooks with Krugman.^[26][27][28]Krugman reports that he is a distant relative of conservative journalist David Frum.^[29]He has described himself as a "Loner. Ordinarily shy. Shy with individuals."^[30] He lives with his wife in Princeton, New Jersey.
[edit]Academic career

Krugman giving a lecture at the German National Library in Frankfurt in 2008.

Krugman earned his B.A. in economics from Yale University summa cum laude in 1974 and his PhDfrom the Massachusetts Institute of Technology(MIT) in 1977. While at MIT he was part of a small group of MIT students sent to work for the Central Bank of Portugal for three months in the summer of 1976, in the chaotic aftermath of the Carnation Revolution.^[31] Krugman later praised his PhD thesis advisor, Rudiger Dornbusch, as "one of the great economics teachers of all time", and that he "had the knack of inspiring students to pick up his enthusiasm and technique, but find their own paths".^[32]
In 1978, Krugman presented a number of ideas to Dornbusch, who flagged as interesting the idea of a monopolistically competitive trade model. Encouraged, Krugman worked on it, and later wrote, " knew within a few hours that I had the key to my whole career in hand".^[31] In that same year, Krugman wrote The Theory of Interstellar Trade, a tongue-in-cheek essay on computing interest rates on goods in transit near the speed of light. He says he wrote it to cheer himself up when he was "an oppressed assistant professor".^[33]
Krugman joined the faculty of MIT in 1979. From 1982 to 1983, Krugman spent a year working at the Reagan White House as a staff member of the Council of Economic Advisers. He rejoined MIT as a full professor in 1984. Krugman has also taught atStanford, Yale, and the London School of Economics.^[34]
In 2000, Krugman joined Princeton University as Professor of Economics and International Affairs. He is also currently Centenary Professor at the London School of Economics, and a member of the Group of Thirty international economic body.^[8]He has been a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Researchsince 1979.^[35] Krugman was President of the Eastern Economic Association in 2010.^[36]
Paul Krugman has written extensively on international economics, includinginternational trade, economic geography, and international finance. The Research Papers in Economics project ranked him as the 14th most influential economist in the world as of March 2011 based on his academic contributions.^[12] Krugman'sInternational Economics: Theory and Policy, co-authored with Maurice Obstfeld, is a standard undergraduate textbook on international economics.^[37] He is also co-author, with Robin Wells, of an undergraduate economics text which he says was strongly inspired by the first edition of Paul Samuelson's classic textbook.^[38] Krugman also writes on economic topics for the general public, sometimes on international economic topics but also on income distribution and public policy.
The Nobel Prize Committee stated that Krugman's main contribution is his analysis of the effects of economies of scale, combined with the assumption that consumers appreciate diversity, on international trade and on the location of economic activity.^[9]The importance of spatial issues in economics has been enhanced by Krugman's ability to popularize this complicated theory with the help of easy-to-read books and state-of-the-art syntheses. "Krugman was beyond doubt the key player in 'placing geographical analysis squarely in the economic mainstream' ... and in conferring it the central role it now assumes."^[39]
[edit]New trade theory

Prior to Krugman's work, trade theory (see David Ricardo and Hecksher-Ohlin model) emphasized trade based on the comparative advantage of countries with very different characteristics, such as a country with a high agricultural productivity trading agricultural products for industrial products from a country with a high industrial productivity. However, in the 20th century, an ever larger share of trade occurred between countries with similar characteristics, which is difficult to explain by comparative advantage. Krugman's explanation of trade between similar countries was proposed in a 1979 paper in the Journal of International Economics, and involves two key assumptions: that consumers prefer a diverse choice of brands, and that production favors economies of scale.^[40] Consumers' preference for diversity explains the survival of different versions of cars like Volvo and BMW. However, because of economies of scale, it is not profitable to spread the production of Volvosall over the world; instead, it is concentrated in a few factories and therefore in a few countries (or maybe just one). This logic explains how each country may specialize in producing a few brands of any given type of product, instead of specializing in different types of products.
Krugman modeled a 'preference for diversity' by assuming a CES utility function like that in a 1977 paper by Avinash Dixit and Joseph Stiglitz.^[41][42] Many models of international trade now follow Krugman's lead, incorporating economies of scale in production and a preference for diversity in consumption.^[9][43] This way of modeling trade has come to be called New Trade Theory.^[39]
Krugman's theory also took into account transportation costs, a key feature in producing the "home market effect", which would later feature in his work on the new economic geography. The home market effect "states that, ceteris paribus, the country with the larger demand for a good shall, at equilibrium, produce a more than proportionate share of that good and be a net exporter of it."^[39] The home market effect was an unexpected result, and Krugman initially questioned it, but ultimately concluded that the mathematics of the model were correct.^[39]
When there are economies of scale in production, it is possible that countries may become 'locked in' to disadvantageous patterns of trade.^[44] Nonetheless, trade remains beneficial in general, even between similar countries, because it permits firms to save on costs by producing at a larger, more efficient scale, and because it increases the range of brands available and sharpens the competition between firms.^[45] Krugman has usually been supportive of free trade and globalization.^[46][47]He has also been critical of industrial policy, which New Trade Theory suggests might offer nations rent-seeking advantages if "strategic industries" can be identified, saying it's not clear that such identification can be done accurately enough to matter.^[48]
[edit]New economic geography

It took an interval of eleven years, but ultimately Krugman's work on New Trade Theory (NTT) converged to what is usually called the "new economic geography" (NEG), which Krugman began to develop in a seminal 1991 paper in the Journal of Political Economy.^[49] In Krugman's own words, the passage from NTT to NEG was "obvious in retrospect; but it certainly took me a while to see it. ... The only good news was that nobody else picked up that $100 bill lying on the sidewalk in the interim."^[50]This would become Krugman's most-cited academic paper: by early 2009, it had 857 citations, more than double his second-ranked paper.^[39] Krugman called the paper "the love of my life in academic work."^[51]
The "home market effect" that Krugman discovered in NTT also features in NEG, which interprets agglomeration "as the outcome of the interaction of increasing returns, trade costs and factor price differences."^[39] If trade is largely shaped byeconomies of scale, as Krugman's trade theory argues, then those economic regions with most production will be more profitable and will therefore attract even more production. That is, NTT implies that instead of spreading out evenly around the world, production will tend to concentrate in a few countries, regions, or cities, which will become densely populated but will also have higher levels of income.^[9][11]
[edit]International finance

Krugman has also been influential in the field of international finance. As a graduate student, Krugman visited the Federal Reserve Board, where Stephen Salant and Dale Henderson were completing their discussion paper on speculative attacks in the gold market. Krugman adapted their model for the foreign exchange market, resulting in a 1979 paper on currency crises in the Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, which showed that fixed exchange rate regimes are unlikely to end smoothly: instead, they end in a sudden speculative attack.^[52] Krugman's paper is considered one of the main contributions to the 'first generation' of currency crisis models,^[53][54] and it is his second-most-cited paper (457 citations as of early 2009).^[39]
In response to the global financial crisis of 2008, Krugman proposed, in an informal "mimeo" style of publication,^[55] an "international finance multiplier", to help explain the unexpected speed with which the global crisis had occurred. He argued that when, "highly leveraged financial institutions [HLIs], which do a lot of cross-border investment [....] lose heavily in one market [...] they find themselves undercapitalized, and have to sell off assets across the board. This drives down prices, putting pressure on the balance sheets of other HLIs, and so on." Such a rapid contagion had hitherto been considered unlikely because of "decoupling" in a globalized economy.^[56][57][58] He first announced that he was working on such a model on his blog, on October 5, 2008.^[59] Within days of its appearance, it was being discussed on some popular economics-oriented blogs.^[60][61] The note was soon being cited in papers (draft and published) by other economists,^{[62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69]} even though it had not itself been through ordinary peer review processes.
[edit]Macroeconomics and fiscal policy

Krugman has done much to revive discussion of the liquidity trap as a topic in economics.^{[70][71][72][73]} He recommended pursuing aggressive fiscal policy and unconventional monetary policy to counter Japan's lost decade in the 1990s, arguing that the country was mired in a Keynesian liquidity trap.^[74][75][76] The debate he started at that time over liquidity traps and what policies best address them continues in the economics literature.^[77]
Krugman had argued in The Return of Depression Economics that Japan was in a liquidity trap in the late 1990s, since the central bank could not drop interest rates any lower to escape economic stagnation.^[78] The core of Krugman's policy proposal for addressing Japan's liquidity trap was inflation targeting, which, he argued "most nearly approaches the usual goal of modern stabilization policy, which is to provide adequate demand in a clean, unobtrusive way that does not distort the allocation of resources."^[76] The proposal appeared first in a web posting on his academic site.^[79]This mimeo-draft was soon cited, but was also misread by some as repeating his earlier advice that Japan's best hope was in "turning on the printing presses", as recommended by Milton Friedman, John Makin, and others.^[80][81][82]
Krugman has since drawn parallels between Japan's 'lost decade' and the late 2000s recession, arguing that expansionary fiscal policy is necessary as the major industrialized economies are mired in a liquidity trap.^[83] In response to economists who point out that the Japanese economy recovered despite not pursuing his policy prescriptions, Krugman maintains that it was an export-led boom that pulled Japan out of its economic slump in the late-90s, rather than reforms of the financial system.^[84]
Krugman was one of the most prominent advocates of the 2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, so much so that economics commentator Noah Smith referred to it as the "Krugman insurgency." ^{[85] [86] [87]} In June 2012, Krugman and Richard Layardlaunched A manifesto for economic sense, where they call for greater use of stimulatory fiscal policy to reduce unemployment and boost growth.^[88] The manifesto received over four thousand signatures within two days of its launch, including from promient economists ^[89] , and has attracted both positive ^[90] and critical responses.^[91]
[edit]Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences
Wikinews has related news: American Paul Krugman wins Nobel prize for economics
Krugman was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences (informally the Nobel Prize in Economics), the sole recipient for 2008. This prize includes an award of about $1.4 million and was given to Krugman for his work associated with New Trade Theory and the New Economic Geography.^[92] In the words of the prize committee, "By having integrated economies of scale into explicit general equilibrium models, Paul Krugman has deepened our understanding of the determinants of trade and the location of economic activity."^[93]
[edit]Awards

• 1991, American Economic Association, John Bates Clark Medal.^[94] Since it was awarded to only one person, once every two years (prior to 2009), The Economisthas described the Clark Medal as 'slightly harder to get than a Nobel prize'.^[95]
  
• 1992, Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (AAAS).^[35]
  
• 1995, Adam Smith Award of the National Association for Business Economics^[96]
  
• 1998, Doctor honoris causa in Economics awarded by Free University of BerlinFreie Universität Berlin in Germany
  
• 2000, H.C. Recktenwald Prize in Economics, awarded by University of Erlangen-Nuremberg in Germany.
  
• 2002, Editor and Publisher, Columnist of the Year.^[97]
  
• 2004, Fundación Príncipe de Asturias (Spain), Prince of Asturias Awards in Social Sciences.^[98]
  
• 2004, Doctor of Humane Letters honoris causa, Haverford College^[99]
  
• 2008, Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics for Krugman's contributions to New Trade Theory.^[100] He became the twelfth John Bates Clark Medal winner to be awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize.
  
• 2012, Doctor honoris causa from the Universidade de Lisboa, Universidade Técnica de Lisboa and Universidade Nova de Lisboa^[101][102]

A May, 2011 Hamilton College analysis of 26 politicians, journalists, and media commentators who made predictions in major newspaper columns or television news shows from September 2007 to December 2008 found that Krugman was the most accurate. Only nine of the prognosticators predicted more accurately than chance, two were significantly less accurate, and the remaining 14 were no better or worse than a coin flip. Krugman was correct in 15 out of 17 predictions, compared to 9 out of 11 for the next most accurate media figure, Maureen Dowd. Krugman's result was found to be statistically significant at the p<0.001 level.^[103]
[edit]Author

Krugman at the 2010 Brooklyn Book Festival.

In the 1990s, besides academic books and textbooks, Krugman increasingly began writing books for a general audience on issues he considered important for public policy. In The Age of Diminished Expectations (1990), he wrote in particular about the increasing US income inequality in the "New Economy" of the 1990s. He attributes the rise in income inequality in part to changes in technology, but principally to a change in political atmosphere which he attributes to Movement Conservatives.
In September 2003, Krugman published a collection of his columns under the title, The Great Unraveling, about the Bush administration's economic and foreign policies and the US economy in the early 2000s. His columns argued that the large deficits during that time were generated by the Bush administration as a result of decreasing taxes on the rich, increasing public spending, and fighting the Iraq war. Krugman wrote that these policies were unsustainable in the long run and would eventually generate a major economic crisis. The book was a best-seller.^{[95][104][105]}
In 2007, Krugman published The Conscience of a Liberal, whose title refers to Barry Goldwater's Conscience of a Conservative.^[106] It details the history of wealth and income gaps in the United States in the 20th century. The book describes how the gap between rich and poor declined greatly in middle of the century, and then widened in the last two decades to levels higher even than in the 1920s. In Conscience, Krugman argues that government policies played a much greater role than commonly thought both in reducing inequality in the 1930s through 1970s and in increasing it in the 1980s through the present, and criticizes the Bush administration for implementing policies that Krugman believes widened the gap between the rich and poor.
Krugman also argued that Republicans owed their electoral successes to their ability to exploit the race issue to win political dominance of the South.^[107][108] Krugman argues that Ronald Reagan had used the "Southern Strategy" to signal sympathy for racism without saying anything overtly racist,^[109] citing as an example Reagan's coining of the term "welfare queen".^[110]
In his book, Krugman proposed a "new New Deal", which included placing more emphasis on social and medical programs and less on national defense.^[111] Liberaljournalist and author Michael Tomasky argued that in The Conscience of a LiberalKrugman is committed "to accurate history even when some fudging might be in order for the sake of political expediency."^[107] In a review for The New York Times, Pulitzer prize-winning historian David M. Kennedy stated, "Like the rants of Rush Limbaugh or the films of Michael Moore, Krugman's shrill polemic may hearten the faithful, but it will do little to persuade the unconvinced".^[112]
In late 2008, Krugman published a substantial updating of an earlier work, entitled "The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008". In the book, he discusses the failure of the United States regulatory system to keep pace with a financial system increasingly out-of-control, and the causes of and possible ways to contain the greatest financial crisis since the 1930s.
In 2012 Krugman published End This Depression Now!, a book which argues that looking at the available historical economic data, fiscal cuts and austerity measures only deprive the economy of valuable funds that can circulate and further add to a poor economy - people cannot spend, and markets cannot thrive if there is not enough consumption and there can not be sufficient consumption if there is large unemployment. He argues that while it is necessary to cut debt, it is the worst time to do so in an economy that has just suffered the most severe of financial shocks, and must be done instead when an economy is near full-employment when the private sector can withstand the burden of decreased government spending and austerity. Failure to stimulate the economy either by public or private sectors will only unnecessarily lengthen the current economic depression and make it worse.^[113]
[edit]Commentator

Martin Wolf has written that Krugman is both the "most hated and most admired columnist in the US".^[114] Economist J. Peter Neary has noted that Krugman "has written on a wide range of topics, always combining one of the best prose styles in the profession with an ability to construct elegant, insightful and useful models."^[115] Neary added that "no discussion of his work could fail to mention his transition from Academic Superstar to Public Intellectual. Through his extensive writings, including a regular column for The New York Times, monographs and textbooks at every level, and books on economics and current affairs for the general public ... he has probably done more than any other writer to explain economic principles to a wide audience."^[115] Krugman has been described as the most controversial economist in his generation^[116][117] and according to Michael Tomasky since 1992 he has moved "from being a center-left scholar to being a liberal polemicist."^[107]
From the mid-1990s onwards, Krugman wrote for Fortune (1997–99)^[35] and Slate(1996–99),^[35] and then for The Harvard Business Review, Foreign Policy, The Economist, Harper's, and Washington Monthly. In this period Krugman critiqued various positions commonly taken on economic issues from across the political spectrum, from protectionism and opposition to the World Trade Organization on the left to supply side economics on the right.^[118]
During the 1992 presidential campaign Krugman praised Bill Clinton's economic plan in The New York Times, and Clinton's campaign used some of Krugman's work onincome inequality. At the time, it was considered likely that Clinton would offer him a position in the new administration, but allegedly Krugman's volatility and outspokenness caused Clinton to look elsewhere.^[116] Krugman later said that he was "temperamentally unsuited for that kind of role. You have to be very good at people skills, biting your tongue when people say silly things."^[118][119] In a Fresh Dialogues interview, Krugman added, "you have to be reasonably organized...I can move into a pristine office and within three days it will look like a grenade went off."^[120]
In 1999, near the height of the dot com boom, The New York Times approached Krugman to write a bi-weekly column on "the vagaries of business and economics in an age of prosperity."^[118] His first columns in 2000 addressed business and economic issues, but as the 2000 US presidential campaign progressed, Krugman increasingly focused on George W. Bush's policy proposals. According to Krugman, this was partly due to "the silence of the media - those 'liberal media' conservatives complain about...."^[118] Krugman accused Bush of repeatedly misrepresenting his proposals, and criticized the proposals themselves.^[118] After Bush's election, and his perseverance with his proposed tax cut in the midst of the slump (which Krugman argued would do little to help the economy but substantially raise the fiscal deficit), Krugman's columns grew angrier and more focused on the administration. As Alan Blinder put it in 2002, "There's been a kind of missionary quality to his writing since then ... He's trying to stop something now, using the power of the pen."^[118] Partly as a result, Krugman's twice-weekly column on the Op-Ed page of The New York Timeshas made him, according to Nicholas Confessore, "the most important political columnist in America... he is almost alone in analyzing the most important story in politics in recent years – the seamless melding of corporate, class, and political party interests at which the Bush administration excels."^[118] In an interview in late 2009, Krugman said his missionary zeal had changed in the post-Bush era and he described the Obama administration as "good guys but not as forceful as I'd like...When I argue with them in my column this is a serious discussion. We really are in effect speaking across the transom here."^[121] Krugman says he's more effective at driving change outside the administration than inside it, "now, I'm trying to make this progressive moment in American history a success. So that's where I'm pushing."^[121]
Krugman's columns have drawn criticism as well as praise. A 2003 article in The Economist^[122] questioned Krugman's "growing tendency to attribute all the world's ills to George Bush," citing critics who felt that "his relentless partisanship is getting in the way of his argument" and claiming errors of economic and political reasoning in his columns.^[95] Daniel Okrent, a former The New York Times ombudsman, in his farewell column, criticized Krugman for what he said was "the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults."^[123][124]
Krugman's New York Times blog is "The Conscience of a Liberal," devoted largely to economics and politics.
Five days after 9/11 terrorist attacks Krugman argued in his column that calamity was "partly self-inflicted" due to transfer of responsibility for airport security from government to airlines. His column provoked an angry response and The New York Times was flooded with complaints. According to Larissa MacFarquhar of The New Yorker, while some people^[who?] thought that he was too partisan to be a columnist forThe New York Times, he was revered on the left.^[125][126] Similarly, on the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 on the United States Krugman again provoked a controversy by accusing on his New York Times blog former U.S. President George W. Bush and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani of rushing "to cash in on the horror" after the attacks and describing the anniversary as "an occasion for shame".^[127][128]
[edit]East Asian growth

In a 1994 Foreign Affairs article, Paul Krugman argued that it was a myth that the economic successes of the East Asian 'tigers' constituted an economic miracle. He argued that their rise was fueled by mobilizing resources and that their growth rates would inevitably slow.^[129] His article helped popularize the argument made byLawrence Lau and Alwyn Young, among others, that the growth of economies in East Asia was not the result of new and original economic models, but rather from highcapital investment and increasing labor force participation, and that total factor productivity had not increased. Krugman argued that in the long term, only increasingtotal factor productivity can lead to sustained economic growth. Krugman's article was highly criticized in many Asian countries when it first appeared, and subsequent studies disputed some of Krugman's conclusions. However, it also stimulated a great deal of research, and may have caused the Singapore government to provide incentives for technological progress.^[130]
During the 1997 Asian financial crisis, Krugman advocated currency controls as a way to mitigate the crisis. Writing in a Fortune magazine article, he suggested exchange controls as "a solution so unfashionable, so stigmatized, that hardly anyone has dared suggest it."^[131] Malaysia was the only country that adopted such controls, and although the Malaysian government credited its rapid economic recovery on currency controls, the relationship is disputed.^[132] An empirical study found that the Malaysian policies produced faster economic recovery and smaller declines in employment and real wages.^[133] Krugman later stated that the controls might not have been necessary at the time they were applied, but that nevertheless "Malaysia has proved a point—namely, that controlling capital in a crisis is at least feasible."^[134]Krugman more recently pointed out that emergency capital controls have even been endorsed by the IMF, and are no longer considered radical policy.^{[135][136][137]}
[edit]U.S. economic policies

In the early 2000s, Krugman repeatedly criticized the Bush tax cuts, both before and after they were enacted. Krugman argued that the tax cuts enlarged the budget deficit without improving the economy, and that they enriched the wealthy – worseningincome distribution in the US.^{[105][138][139][140][141]} Krugman advocated lower interest rates (to promote investment and spending on housing and other durable goods), and increased government spending on infrastructure, military, and unemployment benefits, arguing that these policies would have a larger stimulus effect, and unlike permanent tax cuts, would only temporarily increase the budget deficit.^[141][142]
In August 2005, after Alan Greenspan expressed concern over housing markets, Krugman criticized Greenspan's earlier reluctance to regulate the mortgage and related financial markets, arguing that "[he's] like a man who suggests leaving the barn door ajar, and then – after the horse is gone – delivers a lecture on the importance of keeping your animals properly locked up."^[143]
Krugman has repeatedly expressed his view that Greenspan and Phil Gramm are the two individuals most responsible for causing the subprime crisis. Krugman points to Greenspan and Gramm for the key roles they played in keeping derivatives, financial markets, and investment banks unregulated, and to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed Great Depression era safeguards that prevented commercial banks, investment banks and insurance companies from merging.^{[144][145][146][147]}
Krugman has also been critical of some of the Obama administration's economic policies. He has criticized the Obama stimulus plan as being too small and inadequate given the size of the economy and the banking rescue plan as misdirected; Krugman wrote in The New York Times: "an overwhelming majority [of the American public] believes that the government is spending too much to help large financial institutions. This suggests that the administration's money-for-nothing financial policy will eventually deplete its political capital."^[148] In particular, he considered the Obama administration's actions to prop up the US financial system in 2009 to be impractical and unduly favorable to Wall Street bankers.^[124] In anticipation of President Obama's Job Summit in December 2009, Krugman said in a Fresh Dialogues interview, "This jobs summit can't be an empty exercise…he can't come out with a proposal for $10 or $20 Billion of stuff because people will view that as a joke. There has to be a significant job proposal…I have in mind something like $300 Billion."^[149]
Krugman has recently criticized China's exchange rate policy, which he believes to be a significant drag on global economic recovery from the Late-2000s recession, and he has advocated a "surcharge" on Chinese imports to the US in response.^[150]Jeremy Warner of The Daily Telegraph accused Krugman of advocating a return to self-destructive protectionism.^[151]
In April 2010, as the Senate began considering new financial regulations, Krugman argued that the regulations should not only regulate financial innovation, but also tax financial-industry profits and remuneration. He cited a paper by Andrei Shleifer andRobert Vishny released the previous week, which concludes that most innovation was in fact about "providing investors with false substitutes for [traditional] assets like bank deposits," and once investors realize the sheer number of securities that are unsafe a "flight to safety" occurs which necessarily leads to "financial fragility."^[152][153]
In his June 28, 2010 column in The New York Times, in light of the recent G-20 Toronto Summit, Krugman criticized world leaders for agreeing to halve deficits by 2013. Krugman claimed that these efforts could lead the global economy into the early stages of a "third depression" and leave "millions of lives blighted by the absence of jobs." He advocated instead the continued stimulus of economies to foster greater growth.^[154]
[edit]Economic views
This section requiresexpansion. (December 2009)
Krugman identifies as a Keynesian^[155] and a saltwater economist,^[1] and he has criticized the freshwater school on macroeconomics.^{[2][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_note-wrong-156"][156][/url]} Though he applies [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Keynesian"]New Keynesian[/url] theory in some of his work, he has also criticized it for lacking predictive power and for hewing to ideas like the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient-market_hypothesis"]efficient-market hypothesis[/url] and [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_Expectations"]rational expectations[/url].^{[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_note-wrong-156"][156][/url]} Since the 1990s, he has promoted the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IS-LM"]IS-LM[/url] model as invented by[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hicks"]John Hicks[/url], pointing out its relative simplicity compared to [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Keynesianism"]New Keynesianism[/url] and continued currency in practical economic policy.^{[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_note-whoyougonnabeton2-4"][4][/url][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_note-somethingaboutmacro-5"][5][/url][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_note-keynesandthemoderns-157"][157][/url]}
In the wake of the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-2000s_recession"]2007-2009 financial crisis[/url] he has remarked that he is "gravitating towards a [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynes"]Keynes[/url]-[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Fisher"]Fisher[/url]-[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_Minsky"]Minsky[/url] view of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroeconomics"]macroeconomics[/url]."^{[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_note-actual_minsky-158"][158][/url]} [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-Keynesian"]Post-Keynesian[/url]observers cite commonalities between Krugman's views and those of the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-Keynesian"]Post-Keynesian[/url] school.^{[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_note-159"][159][/url][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_note-160"][160][/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_note-161"][161][/url]} In recent academic work, he has collaborated with[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gauti_Eggertsson&action=edit&redlink=1"]Gauti Eggertsson[/url] on a New Keynesian model of debt-overhang and debt-driven slumps, inspired by the writings of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Fisher"]Irving Fisher[/url], [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_Minsky"]Hyman Minsky[/url], and [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Koo"]Richard Koo[/url]. Their work argues that during a debt-driven slump, the "[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_toil"]paradox of toil[/url]", together with the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_flexibility"]paradox of flexibility[/url], can exacerbate a [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidity_trap"]liquidity trap[/url], reducing demand and employment.^{[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_note-krugmaneggertsson2011-162"][162][/url]}
[[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Krugman&action=edit&section=14&editintro=Template:BLP_editintro"]edit[/url]]Free trade

Krugman's support for [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade"]free trade[/url] has provoked considerable ire from the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-globalization_movement"]anti-globalization movement[/url].^{[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_note-dale_gilbert-20"][20][/url][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_note-difficultidea-163"][163][/url][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_note-164"][164][/url]} He once famously quipped that, "If there were an Economist's Creed, it would surely contain the affirmations 'I understand the Principle of Comparative Advantage' and 'I advocate Free Trade'."^{[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_note-165"][165][/url][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_note-Krugman-166"][166][/url]} In the same article, Krugman argues that, given the findings of New Trade Theory, "[free trade] has shifted from optimum to reasonable rule of thumb...it can never again be asserted as the policy that economic theory tells us is always right." However, Krugman declares in favor of free trade given the enormous political costs of actively engaging in [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_trade_theory"]strategic trade policy[/url] (i.e. rent-seeking) and because there is no clear method for a government to discover which industries will ultimately yield positive returns. He also notes that increasing returns and strategic trade theory does not disprove the underlying truth behind [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage"]comparative advantage[/url].
[[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Krugman&action=edit&section=15&editintro=Template:BLP_editintro"]edit[/url]]Political views

Krugman describes himself as [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States"]liberal[/url], and has explained that he views the term "liberal" in the American context to mean "more or less what [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy"]social democratic[/url] means in Europe."^{[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_note-youtube.com-106"][106][/url]} In a 2009 [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsweek"]Newsweek[/url] article, [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_Thomas"]Evan Thomas[/url] described Krugman as having "all the credentials of a ranking member of the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_coast_liberal"]East coast liberal[/url] establishment" but also as someone who is anti-establishment, a "scourge of the Bush administration," and a critic of the Obama administration.^{[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_note-headache-124"][124][/url]} In 1996, [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsweek"]Newsweek[/url]'s[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hirsh_(journalist)"]Michael Hirsh[/url] remarked, "Say this for Krugman: though an unabashed liberal ... he's ideologically colorblind. He savages the supply-siders of the Reagan-Bush era with the same glee as he does the 'strategic traders' of the Clinton administration."^{[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_note-Hirsch-116"][116][/url]}
Krugman has advocated free markets in contexts where they are often viewed as controversial. He has written against [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_control"]rent control[/url] in favor of supply and demand,^{[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_note-167"][167][/url]}likened the opposition against free trade and globalization to the opposition against evolution via [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection"]natural selection[/url],^{[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_note-difficultidea-163"][163][/url]} opposed [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy"]farm subsidies[/url],^{[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_note-168"][168][/url]} argued that[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweatshop"]sweatshops[/url] are preferable to unemployment,^{[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_note-smokymountain-46"][46][/url]} dismissed the case for [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage"]living wages[/url],^{[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_note-minimumwage-169"][169][/url]} argued against mandates, subsidies, and tax breaks for [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel"]ethanol[/url],^{[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_note-170"][170][/url]} and questioned [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Aeronautics_and_Space_Administration"]NASA[/url]'s manned space flights.^{[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_note-171"][171][/url]} Krugman has also criticized U.S. zoning laws^{[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_note-172"][172][/url]} and European labor market regulation.^{[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_note-173"][173][/url][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_note-174"][174][/url]} He calls current Israeli policy "narrow-minded" and "basically a gradual, long-run form of national suicide", saying that it's "bad for Jews everywhere, not to mention the world".^{[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_note-175"][175][/url]}
[[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Krugman&action=edit&section=16&editintro=Template:BLP_editintro"]edit[/url]]U.S. race relations

Krugman has repeatedly criticized the Republican Party leadership for what he sees as a strategic (but largely tacit) reliance on racial divisions.^{[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_note-176"][176][/url][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_note-177"][177][/url][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_note-178"][178][/url]} In his[i]Conscience of a Liberal, he wrote

The changing politics of race made it possible for a revived conservative movement, whose ultimate goal was to reverse the achievements of the New Deal, to win national elections – even though it supported policies that favored the interests of a narrow elite over those of middle- and lower-income Americans.^{[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_note-179"][179][/url]}

Krugman also defended [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Loury"]Glenn Loury[/url], a conservative black economist at [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_University"]Brown University[/url], from the criticism of many African-American political leaders.^{[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_note-180"][180][/url]}According to Krugman, Loury saw clearly that "The problems facing African-Americans had changed. The biggest barrier to progress was no longer active racism of whites but internal social problems of the black community."^{[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_note-181"][181][/url][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_note-182"][182][/url][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_note-Mwakikagile-183"][183][/url]}

[PeaceFrog]

On working in the Reagan administration

Krugman worked for Martin Feldstein when the latter was appointed chairman of theCouncil of Economic Advisers and chief economic advisor to President Ronald Reagan. He later wrote in an autobiographical essay, "It was, in a way, strange for me to be part of the Reagan Administration. I was then and still am an unabashed defender of the welfare state, which I regard as the most decent social arrangement yet devised."^[31] Krugman found the time "thrilling, then disillusioning". He did not fit into the Washington political environment, and was not tempted to stay on.^[31]
[edit]On Gordon Brown vs David Cameron

Although Krugman includes Gordon Brown among those he considers at fault for thelate-2000s financial crisis,^[184] he has also praised the former British Prime Minister, whom he described as "more impressive than any US politician" after a three-hour conversation with him.^[185] Krugman asserted that Brown "defined the character of the worldwide financial rescue effort" and urged British voters not to support the opposition Conservative Party in the 2010 General Election, arguing their Party Leader David Cameron "has had little to offer other than to raise the red flag of fiscal panic."^[186][187]
[edit]Controversies

[edit]Partisanship

In a 2003 article, The Economist noted that Krugman's critics argue that "his relentless partisanship is getting in the way of his argument". The Economist also wrote that the vast majority of Krugman's columns feature attacks on Republicans and almost none criticize Democrats, making him "a sort of ivory-tower folk-hero of the American left—a thinking person's Michael Moore".^[17]
Libertarian conservative federal appeals court judge Richard Posner called Krugman "an unabashed Democratic partisan who often goes overboard in his hatred of the Republicans."^[188]
Liberal journalist and author Michael Tomasky in The New York Review of Booksstated "Many liberals would name Paul Krugman of The New York Times as perhaps the most consistent and courageous—and unapologetic—liberal partisan in American journalism."^[189] New York Magazine called Krugman "the leading exponent of a kind of liberal purism", while liberal historian Michael Kazin has opined that Krugman’s account of the right succumbed to the Marxist flaw of false consciousness.^[190]
Since 2009, Krugman has been sharply critical of the Obama administration and centrist Democrats as well as Republicans in Congress, stating that their economic stimulus was too weak to recover jobs lost during the 2008 recession.^[191] He has similarly been critical of the Federal Reserve implementation of policies supported by the Obama administration as not going far enough.^[192]
[edit]Economics and policy recommendations

Economist and former United States Secretary of the Treasury Larry Summers has stated Krugman has a tendency to favor more extreme policy recommendations because "it’s much more interesting than agreement when you’re involved in commenting on rather than making policy."^[190]
According to Harvard professor of economics Robert Barro, Krugman "has never done any work in Keynesian macroeconomics" and makes arguments that are politically convenient for him.^[193] Nobel laureate Edward Prescott charged that Krugman "doesn't command respect in the profession", as "no respectable macroeconomist" believes that economic stimulus works.^[194]
[edit]Enron

In early 1999, Krugman served on an advisory panel (including Larry Lindsey andRobert Zoellick) that offered Enron executives briefings on economic and political issues. He resigned from the panel in the fall of 1999 to comply with The New York Times rules regarding conflicts of interest, when he accepted the Times's offer to become an op-ed columnist.^[195] Krugman later stated that he was paid $37,500 (not $50,000 as often reported - his early resignation cost him part of his fee), and that, for consulting that required him to spend four days in Houston, the fee was "rather low compared with my usual rates", which were around $20,000 for a one-hour speech.^[195] He also stated that the advisory panel "had no function that I was aware of", and that he later interpreted his role as being "just another brick in the wall" Enron used to build an image.^[196]
When the story of Enron's corporate scandals broke two years later, Krugman was accused of unethical journalism, specifically of having a conflict of interest.^{[197][198][199]} Some of his critics claimed that "The Ascent of E-man," an article Krugman wrote for Fortune magazine^[200] about the rise of the market as illustrated by Enron's energy trading, was biased by Krugman's earlier consulting work for them.^[195] Krugman later argued that "The Ascent of E-Man" was in character, writing "I have always been a free-market Keynesian: I like free markets, but I want some government supervision to correct market failures and ensure stability."^[195]Krugman noted his previous relationship with Enron in that article and in other articles he wrote on the company.^[195][201] Krugman was one of the first to argue that deregulation of the California energy market had led to market manipulation by energy companies.^[202]
[edit]In popular culture

Krugman appears as himself in a cameo in the 2010 comedy film Get Him to the Greek.^[203]
Singer-songwriter Loudon Wainwright III wrote a song, 'The Krugman Blues', in humorous praise of Krugman, writing "...all the other experts all seem way off base, and I guess that I identify with that pissed-off look on Paul's face". The song was released on the album 1‪0 Songs for the New Depression‬.^[204]
[edit]Published works

[edit]Academic books (authored or coauthored)

• The Spatial Economy – Cities, Regions and International Trade (July 1999), withMasahisa Fujita and Anthony Venables. MIT Press, ISBN 0-262-06204-6
  
• The Self Organizing Economy (February 1996), ISBN 1-55786-698-8
  
• EMU and the Regions (December 1995), with Guillermo de la Dehesa. ISBN 1-56708-038-3
  
• Development, Geography, and Economic Theory (Ohlin Lectures) (September 1995), ISBN 0-262-11203-5
  
• Foreign Direct Investment in the United States (3rd Edition) (February 1995), with Edward M. Graham. ISBN 0-88132-204-0
  
• World Savings Shortage (September 1994), ISBN 0-88132-161-3
  
• What Do We Need to Know About the International Monetary System? (Essays in International Finance, No 190 July 1993) ISBN 0-88165-097-8
  
• Currencies and Crises (June 1992), ISBN 0-262-11165-9
  
• Geography and Trade (Gaston Eyskens Lecture Series) (August 1991), ISBN 0-262-11159-4
  
• The Risks Facing the World Economy (July 1991), with Guillermo de la Dehesa and Charles Taylor. ISBN 1-56708-073-1
  
• Has the Adjustment Process Worked? (Policy Analyses in International Economics, 34) (June 1991), ISBN 0-88132-116-8
  
• Rethinking International Trade (April 1990), ISBN 0-262-11148-9
  
• Trade Policy and Market Structure (March 1989), with Elhanan Helpman. ISBN 0-262-08182-2
  
• Exchange-Rate Instability (Lionel Robbins Lectures) (November 1988), ISBN 0-262-11140-3
  
• Adjustment in the World Economy (August 1987) ISBN 1-56708-023-5
  
• Market Structure and Foreign Trade: Increasing Returns, Imperfect Competition, and the International Economy (May 1985), with Elhanan Helpman. ISBN 0-262-08150-4

[edit]Academic books (edited or coedited)

• Currency Crises (National Bureau of Economic Research Conference Report)(September 2000), ISBN 0-226-45462-2
  
• Trade with Japan : Has the Door Opened Wider? (National Bureau of Economic Research Project Report) (March 1995), ISBN 0-226-45459-2
  
• Empirical Studies of Strategic Trade Policy (National Bureau of Economic Research Project Report) (April 1994), co-edited with Alasdair Smith. ISBN 0-226-45460-6
  
• Exchange Rate Targets and Currency Bands (October 1991), co-edited with Marcus Miller. ISBN 0-521-41533-0
  
• Strategic Trade Policy and the New International Economics (January 1986),ISBN 0-262-11112-8

[edit]Economics textbooks

• Economics: European Edition (Spring 2007), with Robin Wells and Kathryn Graddy. ISBN 0-7167-9956-1
  
• Macroeconomics (February 2006), with Robin Wells. ISBN 0-7167-6763-5
  
• Economics, first edition (December 2005), with Robin Wells. ISBN 1-57259-150-1
  
• Economics, second edition (2009), with Robin Wells. ISBN 0-7167-7158-6
  
• Microeconomics (March 2004), with Robin Wells. ISBN 0-7167-5997-7
  
• International Economics: Theory and Policy, with Maurice Obstfeld. 7th Edition (2006), ISBN 0-321-29383-5; 1st Edition (1998), ISBN 0-673-52186-9

[edit]Books for a general audience

• End This Depression Now! (April 2012) ISBN 0-393-08877-4
  
  • A call for stimulative expansionary policy and an end to austerity
• The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008 (December 2008)ISBN 0-393-07101-4
  
  • An updated version of his previous work.
• The Conscience of a Liberal (October 2007) ISBN 0-393-06069-1
  
• The Great Unraveling: Losing Our Way in the New Century (September 2003)ISBN 0-393-05850-6
  
  • A book of his The New York Times columns, many deal with the economic policies of the Bush administration or the economy in general.
• Fuzzy Math: The Essential Guide to the Bush Tax Plan (May 4, 2001) ISBN 0-393-05062-9
  
• The Return of Depression Economics (May 1999) ISBN 0-393-04839-X
  
  • Considers the long economic stagnation of Japan through the 1990s, theAsian financial crisis, and problems in Latin America.
    
  • The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008 (December 2008) ISBN 0-393-07101-4
• The Accidental Theorist and Other Dispatches from the Dismal Science (May 1998) ISBN 0-393-04638-9
  
  • Essay collection, primarily from Krugman's writing for Slate.
• Pop Internationalism (March 1996) ISBN 0-262-11210-8
  
  • Essay collection, covering largely the same ground as Peddling Prosperity.
• Peddling Prosperity: Economic Sense and Nonsense in an Age of Diminished Expectations (April 1995) ISBN 0-393-31292-5
  
  • History of economic thought from the first rumblings of revolt againstKeynesian economics to the present, for the layman.
• The Age of Diminished Expectations: U.S. Economic Policy in the 1990s (1990)ISBN 0-262-11156-X
  
  • A "briefing book" on the major policy issues around the economy.
    
  • Revised and Updated, January 1994, ISBN 0-262-61092-2
    
  • Third Edition, August 1997, ISBN 0-262-11224-8

[edit]Selected academic articles

• (1998) 'It's Baaack: Japan's Slump and the Return of the Liquidity Trap'Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 1998, pp. 137–205.
  
• (1996) 'Are currency crises self-fulfilling?' NBER Macroeconomics Annual 11, pp. 345–78.
  
• (1995) (with AJ Venables). "Globalization and the inequality of nations". Quarterly Journal of Economics 110 (4): 857–880. doi:10.2307/2946642.
  
• (1991) 'Increasing returns and economic geography'. Journal of Political Economy 99, pp. 483–99.
  
• (1991) "Target zones and exchange rate dynamics". Quarterly Journal of Economics 106 (3): 669–82. doi:10.2307/2937922.
  
• (1991) 'History versus expectations'. Quarterly Journal of Economics 106 (2), pp. 651–67.
  
• (1981) 'Intra-industry specialization and the gains from trade'. Journal of Political Economy 89, pp. 959–73.
  
• (1980) 'Scale economies, product differentiation, and the pattern of trade'.American Economic Review 70, pp. 950–59.
  
• (1979) 'A model of balance-of-payments crises'. Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking 11, pp. 311–25.
  
• (1979) 'Increasing returns, monopolistic competition, and international trade'.Journal of International Economics 9, pp. 469–79.

[edit]See also

• Capitol Hill Baby-Sitting Co-op, popularized in Krugman's book, Peddling Prosperity
  
• List of economists
  
• List of Jewish Nobel laureates
  
• List of newspaper columnists

[edit]References

• ^ ^{a b} Krugman, Paul (July 29, 2009). "The lessons of 1979-82". The New York Times.
  
• ^ ^{a b} Krugman, Paul (September 23, 2009). "The freshwater backlash (boring)". The New York Times.
  
• ^ ^{a b} Paul Krugman (August 10, 2011). "Dismal Thoughts". The Conscience of a Liberal. Retrieved August 10, 2011.
  
• ^ ^{a b} Krugman, Paul (August 30, 2011). "Who You Gonna Bet On, Yet Again (Somewhat Wonkish)". Conscience of a Liberal (blog) (New York Times). Retrieved 2011-11-18.
  
• ^ ^{a b} Krugman, Paul. "There's something about macro". MIT. Retrieved 2011-11-18.
  
• ^ See inogolo:pronunciation of Paul Krugman.
  
• ^ London School of Economics, Centre for Economic Performance, Lionel Robbins Memorial Lectures 2009: The Return of Depression Economics. Retrieved August 19, 2009.
  
• ^ ^{a b} "About Paul Krugman". krugmanonline. W. W. Norton & Company. Retrieved May 15, 2009.
  
• ^ ^{a b c d} Nobel Prize Committee, "The Prize in Economic Sciences 2008"
  
• ^ Note: Krugman modeled a 'preference for diversity' by assuming a CES utility function like that in A. Dixit and J. Stiglitz (1977), 'Monopolistic competition and optimal product diversity', American Economic Review 67.
  
• ^ ^{a b} Forbes, October 13, 2008, "Paul Krugman, Nobel"
  
• ^ ^{a b} "Economist Rankings at IDEAS – Top 10% Authors, as of March 2012".Research Papers in Economics. March 2012. Retrieved April 29, 2012.
  
• ^ Davis, William L, Bob Figgins, David Hedengren, and Daniel B. Klein. "Economic Professors' Favorite Economic Thinkers, Journals, and Blogs," Econ Journal Watch 8(2): 126-146, May 2011.[1]
  
• ^ Rampell, Catherine. "Paul Krugman Short Biography". New York Times. Retrieved 2011-10-04.
  
• ^ The New York Times, "The Conscience of a Liberal." Retrieved August 6, 2009
  
• ^ Luskin, Donald (Sep 21, 2005). "Checkmate". National Review.
  
• ^ ^{a b} "The one-handed economist", The Economist, 2003-11-13, retrieved 2011-08-10
  
• ^ Street, Paul. "Obama's Violin". Z Magazine. Retrieved 2011-11-25.
  
• ^ Devine, J. (1998). "Globalization and the 'Universal Market'". New York: ASSA Annual Conference.
  
• ^ ^{a b} Dale, Leigh; Gilbert, Helen (2007). Economies of representation, 1790-2000: colonialism and commerce. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.. pp. 200–201. ISBN 0-7546-6257-8. "[Krugman and Obstfeld] seem to want to shame students into believing that there are no well-found arguments against coercing poor countries into free trade [....] poor logic and pernicious insensitivity."
  
• ^ Dunham, Chris (2009-07-14). "In Search of a Man Selling Krug". Genealogywise.com. Retrieved 2011-10-04.
  
• ^ Krugman, Paul (December 11, 2010). "Lawn Guyland Is America's Future". The New York Times. Retrieved December 11, 2010.
  
• ^ Associated Press, "Paul Krugman, LI Native, wins Nobel in economics",Newsday, October 14, 2008
  
• ^ Interview, U.S. Economist Krugman Wins Nobel Prize in Economics "PBS, Jim Lehrer News Hour", October 13, 2008, transcript Retrieved October 14, 2008
  
• ^ The New York Times, August 6, 2009, "Up Front: Paul Krugman"
  
• ^ MacFarquhar, Larissa (March 1, 2010). "THE DEFLATIONIST: How Paul Krugman found politics". The New Yorker. Retrieved March 19, 2011.
  
• ^ Paul Krugman, "Your questions answered", blog, January 10, 2003, Retrieved December 19, 2007
  
• ^ Paul Krugman, "About my son", The New York Times blog, December 19, 2007
  
• ^ Krugman, Paul (March 25, 2010). "David Frum, AEI, Heritage And Health Care".The New York Times. Retrieved May 22, 2010.
  
• ^ Andrew Clark (May 29, 2011). "Paul Krugman: liberal loner who thinks Obama is spineless and Gordon Brown saved the world | Business | The Observer". London: Guardian. Retrieved 2011-10-04.
  
• ^ ^{a b c d} Incidents From My Career, by Paul Krugman, Princeton University Press, Retrieved December 10, 2008
  
• ^ Paul Krugman, 2002, Rudi Dornbusch
  
• ^ Paul Krugman, March 11, 2008, The New York Times blog, "Economics: the final frontier"
  
• ^ Krugman Curriculum Vitae
  
• ^ ^{a b c d} Princeton Weekly Bulletin, October 20, 2008, "Biography of Paul Krugman", 98(7)
  
• ^ Eastern Economic Association: Home
  
• ^ "Sources of international friction and cooperation in high-technology development and trade." National Academies Press, 1996, p. 190
  
• ^ Paul Krugman (Dec 13, 2009). "Paul Samuelson, RIP". New York Times. "One of the things Robin Wells and I did when writing our principles of economics textbook was to acquire and study a copy of the original, 1948 edition of Samuelson’s textbook."
  
• ^ ^{a b c d e f g} Kristian Behrens, Frédéric Robert-Nicoud (2009), "Krugman's Papers in Regional Science: The 100 dollar bill on the sidewalk is gone and the 2008 Nobel Prize well-deserved", Papers in Regional Science, 88(2), pp467-489
  
• ^ Forbes, Oct. 13, 2008, Arving Panagiriya.
  
• ^ Dixit, Avinash; Stiglitz, Joseph (1977). "Monopolistic Competition and Optimum Product Diversity". American Economic Review (American Economic Association)67 (3): 297–308. JSTOR 1831401.
  
• ^ Toru Kikuchi' "The Dixit-Stiglitz-Krugman Trade Model: A Geometric Note". No 1006, Discussion Papers from Graduate School of Economics, Kobe University [2]
  
• ^ Rosser, J. Barkley (2011). "2: The New Economic Geography Approach".Monopolistic Competition and Optimum Product Diversity. Springer. p. 24. "The workhorse model of this approach since 1991 has been the model of monopolistic competition due to Avinash Dixit and Joseph Stiglitz (1977). It was used by Paul Krugman (1979, 1980) to provide an approach to analyzing increasing returns in international trade."
  
• ^ P. Krugman (1981), 'Trade, accumulation, and uneven development', Journal of Development Economics 8, pp. 149-61.
  
• ^ "Bold strokes: a strong economic stylist wins the Nobel", The Economist, October 16, 2008.
  
• ^ ^{a b} In Praise of Cheap Labor by Paul Krugman, Slate, March 21, 1997
  
• ^ (He writes on p. xxvi of his book The Great Unraveling that "I still have the angry letter Ralph Nader sent me when I criticized his attacks on globalization.")
  
• ^ Strategic trade policy and the new international economics, Paul R. Krugman (ed), The MIT Press, p.18, ISBN 978-0-262-61045-2
  
• ^ "Honoring Paul Krugman" Economix blog of The New York Times, Edward Glaeser, October 13, 2008.
  
• ^ Krugman (1999) "Was it all in Ohlin?"
  
• ^ Krugman PR (2008), "Interview with the 2008 laureate in economics Paul Krugman", December 6, 2008. Stockholm, Sweden.
  
• ^ "Currency Crises". Web.mit.edu. Retrieved 2011-10-04.
  
• ^ Sarno, Lucio; Mark P. Taylor (2002). The Economics of Exchange Rates. Cambridge University Press. pp. 245–264. ISBN 0-521-48584-3.
  
• ^ Craig Burnside, Martin Eichenbaum, and Sergio Rebelo (2008), "Currency crisis models", New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd ed.
  
• ^ "The International Finance Multiplier", P. Krugman, October 2008
  
• ^ "Global Economic Integration and Decoupling", Donald L. Kohn, speech at the International Research Forum on Monetary Policy, Frankfurt, Germany, 06-26-2008; from website for the Board of Governors for the Federal Reserve System. Retrieved 08-20-2009, June 26, 2008
  
• ^ Nayan Chanda, YaleGlobal Online, orig. from Businessworld February 8, 2008"Decoupling Demystified"
  
• ^ "The myth of decoupling," Sebastien Walti, February 2009
  
• ^ "The International Finance Multiplier", The Conscience of a Liberal (blog), 10-05-2008. Retrieved 09-20-2009
  
• ^ Andrew Leonard, "Krugman: 'We are all Brazilians now'", "How the World Works", 10-07-2008
  
• ^ "Krugman: The International Finance Multiplier", Mark Thoma, Economist's View, 10-06-2008, [3]
  
• ^ "The geography of finance: after the storm", R O'Brien, A Keith, Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, June 2009 2(2):245-265doi:10.1093/cjres/rsp015 [4]
  
• ^ "Financial Deleveraging and the International Transmission of Shocks", research memo, MB Devereux, J Yetman, 05-19-2009.
  
• ^ Escaith, Hubert and Gonguet, Fabien, International Trade and Real Transmission Channels of Financial Shocks in Globalized Production Networks (May 22, 2009). [5]
  
• ^ KS Imai, R Gaiha, G Thapa, "Finance, Growth, Inequality and Hunger in Asia: Evidence from Country Panel Data in 1960-2006", University of Manchester Economics Discussion Papers 12-16-2008
  
• ^ "Global Imbalances and Global Governance", Philip Lane, Center of Economic Policy Research, European Commission, 02-17-2009
  
• ^ Har, Clement, Nagar, Venky and Petacchi, Paolo, "The Effect of Rational Capital Markets versus Regulatory Enforcement on the Valuation of Innovative Financial Assets" (March 2009). Paolo Baffi Centre Research Paper No. 2009-40.[6]^{[dead link]}
  
• ^ The 2008/2009 World Economic Crisis: What It Means for U.S. Agriculture, M. Shane, Economic Research Service, USDA Outlook, 03-29-2009 [7]
  
• ^ "Financial crisis in Asia and the Pacific Region: Its genesis, severity and impact on poverty and hunger", KS Imai, R Gaiha, G Thapa, University of Manchester Economics Discussion Papers EDP-0810 11-11-2008 [8]
  
• ^ Japanese fixed income markets: money, bond and interest rate derivatives, Jonathan Batten, Thomas A. Fetherston, Peter G. Szilagyi (eds.) Elsevier Science, November 30, 2006, ISBN 978-0-444-52020-3 p.137
  
• ^ Ben Bernanke, "Japanese Monetary Policy: a case of self-induced paralysis?", inJapan's financial crisis and its parallels to U.S. experience, Ryōichi Mikitani, Adam Posen (ed), Institute for International Economics, October 2000 ISBN 978-0-88132-289-7 p.157
  
• ^ "Some Observations on the Return of the Liquidity Trap", Scott Sumner, Cato Journal, Vol. 21, No. 3 (Winter 2002).
  
• ^ Reconstructing Macroeconomics: Structuralist Proposals and Critiques of the Mainstream, Lance Taylor, Harvard University Press, p.159: "Kregel (2000) points out that there are at least three theories of the liquidity trap in the literature--Keynes own analyses [...] Hicks' [in] 1936 and 1937 [...] and a view that can be attributed to Fisher in the 1930s and Paul Krugman in latter days"
  
• ^ Paul Krugman. "Paul Krugman's Japan page". Web.mit.edu. Retrieved 2011-10-04.
  
• ^ "It's Baaack: Japan's Slump and the Return of the Liquidity Trap", Paul R. Krugman, Kathryn M. Dominquez, Kenneth Rogoff. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Vol. 1998, No. 2 (1998), pp. 137-205
  
• ^ ^{a b} Krugman, Paul (2000), "Thinking About the Liquidity Trap", Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, v.14, no.4, Dec 2000, pp 221-237.
  
• ^ "Reply to Nelson and Schwartz", Paul Krugman, Journal of Monetary Economics, v.55, no.4, pp 857-860 05-23-2008
  
• ^ Krugman, Paul (1999). "The Return of Depression Economics", p.70-77. W. W. Norton, New York ISBN 0-393-04839-X
  
• ^ "Japan's Trap", May 2008. [9] Retrieved 08-22-2009
  
• ^ "Further Notes on Japan's Liquidity Trap", Paul Krugman
  
• ^ Restoring Japan's economic growth, Adam Posen, Petersen Institute, September 1, 1998, ISBN 978-0-88132-262-0 , p.123,
  
• ^ "What is wrong with Japan?", Nihon Keizai Shinbun, 1997 [10]
  
• ^ Krugman, Paul (June 15, 2009). "Stay the Course". The New York Times. Retrieved August 15, 2009.
  
• ^ "Some Reasons Why a New Crisis Needs a New Paradigm of Economic Thought", Keiichiro Kobayashi, RIETI Report No.108, Research Institute of Economy, Trade & Industry (Japan), 07-31-2009
  
• ^ Robert Skidelsky (2009). Keynes: The Return of the Master. Allen Lane. pp. 47–50 , 58. ISBN 1-84614-258-X.
  
• ^ Noah Smith (2012-03-21). "Die the Krugman insurgency fail?". Brad DeLong. Retrieved 2012-05-29.
  
• ^ Henry Farrell and John Quiggin (March 2012). "Consensus, Dissensus and Economic Ideas: The Rise and Fall of Keynesianism During the Economic Crisis"(pdf). The Center for the Study of Development Strategies. Retrieved 2012-05-29.
  
• ^ Paul Krugman and Richard Layard (2012-06-27). "A Manifesto for Economic Sense". Retrieved 2012-07-11.
  
• ^ David Blanchflower (2012-07-02). "David Blanchflower: Yet more nails in Osborne's economic coffin". The Independent. Retrieved 2012-07-11.
  
• ^ Katrina vanden Heuvel (2012-07-09). "Krugman's Manifesto for Economic Common Sense". The Nation. Retrieved 2012-07-11.
  
• ^ Stephen King (chief economist HSBC) (2012-07-09). "Krugman and Layard suffer from optimism bias". The Financial Times. Retrieved 2012-07-11.
  
• ^ Catherine Rampell (October 13, 2008). "Paul Krugman Wins Economics Nobel - Economix Blog - NYTimes.com". Economix.blogs.nytimes.com. Retrieved October 13, 2008.
  
• ^ Prize Committee of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, October 13, 2008, Scientific background on the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2008, "Trade and Geography – Economies of Scale, Differentiated Products and Transport Costs"
  
• ^ Avinash Dixit, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 7, No. 2 (Spring, 1993), pp. 173-188, In Honor of Paul Krugman: Winner of the John Bates Clark Medal, Retrieved March 28, 2007.
  
• ^ ^{a b c} The Economist, November 13, 2003, "Paul Krugman, one-handed economist"
  
• ^ "Adam Smith Award". Nabe.com. Retrieved 2011-10-04.
  
• ^ Mother Jones: Paul Krugman., August 7, 2005. Retrieved March 28, 2007.
  
• ^ Paul Krugman, 2004. Retrieved March 28, 2007.
  
• ^ "Citation presented by Linda Bell, Associate Professor of Economics". Haverford.edu. 2004-05-28. Retrieved 2011-10-04.
  
• ^ "Nobel Prize in Economics". Swedish Academy. Retrieved October 13, 2008.
  
• ^ "Honoris Causa a Paul Krugman — Universidade Nova de Lisboa" (in(Portuguese)). Unl.pt. Retrieved 2012-03-19.
  
• ^ "Paul Krugman: Doctor honoris causa by three Portuguese universities – Portugal". Portuguese American Journal. February 28, 2012. Retrieved March 19, 2012.
  
• ^ Donaldson et al. (May, 2011) "Are Talking Heads Blowing Hot Air? An Analysis of the Accuracy of Forecasts in the Political Media" Hamilton Public Policy Project
  
• ^ "The Great Unraveling: Losing Our Way in the New Century". Powell's Books. Retrieved November 22, 2007.
  
• ^ ^{a b} Krugman, Paul, Rolling Stone. December 14, 2006, "The Great Wealth Transfer"
  
• ^ ^{a b} "Nobelpristagaren i ekonomi 2008: Paul Krugman", speech by Paul Krugman (Retrieved December 26, 2008) 00:43 "The title of The Conscience of a Liberal [...] is a reference to a book published almost 50 years ago in the United States called The Conscience of a Conservative by Barry Goldwater. That book is often taken to be the origin, the start, of a movement that ended up dominating U.S. politics that reached its first pinnacle under Ronald Reagan and then reached its full control of the U.S. government for most of the last eight years."
  
• ^ ^{a b c} Michael Tomasky, The New York Review of Books, November 22, 2007, "The Partisan"
  
• ^ Krugman, Paul. The Conscience of a Liberal, 2007, W.W. Norton & Co. ISBN 0-393-06069-1 p. 182
  
• ^ Conscience of a Liberal, p.102
  
• ^ Conscience of a Liberal, p.108
  
• ^ October 17, 2007- Krugman "On Healthcare, Tax Cuts, Social Security, the Mortgage Crisis and Alan Greenspan", in response to Alan Greenspan's September 24 appearance with Naomi Klein on Democracy Now!
  
• ^ "Malefactors of Megawealth" David M. Kennedy
  
• ^ "Paul Krugman's Prescription For A 'Depression'". NPR Books. National Public Radio. Retrieved 9 May 2012.
  
• ^ Martin Wolf (2012-05-24). "Lunch with the FT: Paul Krugman". The Financial Times. Retrieved 2012-05-29.
  
• ^ ^{a b} J. Peter Neary (2009), "Putting the 'New' into New Trade Theory: Paul Krugman's Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics", Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 111(2), pp217-250
  
• ^ ^{a b c} Hirsh, Michael (March 4, 1996). "A Nobel-Bound Economist Punctures the CW--and Not a Few Big-Name Washington Egos". Newsweek. Retrieved October 13, 2008.
  
• ^ ""China the financial nexus" - Krugman". Channel4.com. Retrieved 2011-10-04.
  
• ^ ^{a b c d e f g} Confessore, Nicholas (December 2002). "Comparative Advantage".The Washington Monthly. Retrieved February 5, 2007.
  
• ^ New Statesman, February 16, 2004, "NS Profile - Paul Krugman"
  
• ^ "Fresh Dialogues interview with Alison van Diggelen, November 2009". Freshdialogues.com. 2009-12-09. Retrieved 2011-10-04.
  
• ^ ^{a b} "Fresh Dialogues interview with Alison van Diggelen". Freshdialogues.com. 2009-12-09. Retrieved 2011-10-04.
  
• ^ (unattributed) (11 2003). "The one-handed economist". The Economist.
  
• ^ Okrent, Daniel (May 22, 2005). "13 Things I Meant to Write About but Never Did".The New York Times. Retrieved August 16, 2009.
  
• ^ ^{a b c} Evan Thomas, Newsweek, April 6, 2009, "Obama's Nobel Headache"
  
• ^ Larissa MacFarquhar (March 1, 2010). "The Deflationist: How Paul Krugman found politics". The New Yorker. Retrieved October 5, 2011.
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-126"]^[/url] Paul Krugman (September 16, 2001). [url="http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/16/opinion/reckonings-paying-the-price.html"]"Reckonings; Paying the Price"[/url]. The Conscience of a Liberal. Retrieved October 5, 2011.
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-127"]^[/url] Paul Krugman (September 11, 2011). [url="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/the-years-of-shame/"]"The Years of Shame"[/url]. The Conscience of a Liberal. Retrieved October 5, 2011.
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-128"]^[/url] Tim Mak (September 13, 2011). [url="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63404.html"]"Paul Krugman defenders attacked by conservative bloggers"[/url]. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Politico"]The Politico[/url]. Retrieved October 5, 2011.
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-Myth_Asia_129-0"]^[/url] Krugman, Paul (December 1994). [url="http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19941101faessay5151/paul-krugman/the-myth-of-asia-s-miracle.html"]"The Myth of Asia's Miracle"[/url]. Foreign Affairs(www.foreignaffairs.org). Retrieved December 26, 2008.
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-VanDenBerg_130-0"]^[/url] Van Den Berg, Hendrik; Joshua J. Lewer (2006). International Trade and Economic Growth. M.E. Sharpe. pp. 98–105. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number"]ISBN[/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-0-7656-1803-0"]978-0-7656-1803-0[/url].
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-Saving_Asia_131-0"]^[/url] Krugman, Paul (September 7, 1998). [url="http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1998/09/07/247884/index.htm"]"Saving Asia: It's Time To Get Radical The IMF plan not only has failed to revive Asia's troubled economies but has worsened the situation. It's now time for some painful medicine."[/url]. CNN. Retrieved July 12, 2009.
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-Landler_132-0"]^[/url] Landler, Mark (September 4, 1999). [url="http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/asia/090499malaysia-econ.html"]"Malaysia Wins Its Economic Gamble"[/url]. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times"]The New York Times[/url] (The New York Times Company). Retrieved July 15, 2009.
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-133"]^[/url] Kaplan, Ethan; Dani Rodrik (February 2001). [url="http://www.nber.org/papers/w8142"]Did the Malaysian Capital Controls Work?[/url]. NBER Working Paper.
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-134"]^[/url] [url="http://www.slate.com/id/35534"]"Capital Control Freaks: How Malaysia got away with economic heresy"[/url], Slate, September 27, 1999. Retrieved 08-25-2009
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-135"]^[/url] Krugman, Paul (March 4, 2010). [url="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/malaysian-memories/"]"Malaysian Memories"[/url]. The New York Times. Retrieved March 11, 2010.
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-136"]^[/url] Krugman, Paul (December 4, 2012). [url="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/04/the-imf-and-capital-controls/"]"The IMF and Capital Controls"[/url]. The New York Times. Retrieved December 5, 2012.
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-137"]^[/url] [url="https://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2012/111412.pdf"]"The Liberalization And Management Of Capital Flows: An Institutional View" November 14, 2012[/url]
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-138"]^[/url] Krugman, Paul (March 21, 2003). [url="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/21/opinion/21KRUG.html"]"Who Lost the U.S. Budget?"[/url]. The New York Times (The New York Times Company). Retrieved June 24, 2009.^{[[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Link_rot"]dead link[/url]]}
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-139"]^[/url] Dana, Will (March 23, 2003). [url="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/25146816/voodoo_economics"]"Voodoo Economics"[/url]. Rolling Stone(rollingstone.com). Retrieved August 1, 2009.
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-140"]^[/url] Lehrke, Dylan Lee (October 9, 2003). [url="http://dailyuw.com/2003/10/9/krugman-blasts-bush/"]"Krugman blasts Bush"[/url]. The Daily of the University of Washington (dailyuw.com). Retrieved August 1, 2009.
  
• ^ [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-nytimes.com_141-0"]^a[/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-nytimes.com_141-1"]^b[/url] Krugman, Paul (October 7, 2001). [url="http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/07/opinion/07KRUG.html"]"Fuzzy Math Returns"[/url]. The New York Times(The New York Times Company). Retrieved August 1, 2009.
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-Times20020802_142-0"]^[/url] Krugman, Paul (2 Aug 2002). [url="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm"]"Dubya's Double Dip?"[/url]. The New York Times. Retrieved 30 Jul 2012.
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-143"]^[/url] Krugman, Paul (August 29, 2005). [url="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/29/opinion/29krugman.html"]"Greenspan and the Bubble"[/url]. The New York Times (The New York Times Company). Retrieved December 7, 2008.
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-144"]^[/url] Krugman, Paul (March 24, 2008). [url="https://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,543074,00.html"]"Financial Crisis Should Be at Center of Election Debate"[/url]. Spiegel Online (Spiegel). Retrieved July 9, 2009.
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-145"]^[/url] Krugman, Paul (March 24, 2008). [url="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/opinion/24krugman.html"]"Taming the Beast"[/url]. The New York Times (The New York Times Company). Retrieved July 9, 2009.
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-146"]^[/url] Krugman, Paul (March 29, 2008). [url="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/the-gramm-connection/"]"The Gramm connection"[/url]. The New York Times(The New York Times Company). Retrieved June 24, 2009.
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-147"]^[/url] Lerer, Lisa (March 28, 2008). [url="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9246.html"]"McCain guru linked to subprime crisis"[/url]. Politico. Retrieved June 24, 2009.
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-148"]^[/url] Paul Krugman. [url="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/opinion/09krugman.html"]"Behind the Curve"[/url]. The New York Times. March 9, 2009.
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-149"]^[/url] [url="http://www.freshdialogues.com/2009/11/13/paul-krugman-obama-job-summit-transcript/"]"Fresh Dialogues interview with Alison van Diggelen, November 2009"[/url]. Freshdialogues.com. 2009-11-13. Retrieved 2011-10-04.
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-150"]^[/url] Paul Krugman (March 15, 2010). [url="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/15/opinion/15krugman.html"]"Taking on China"[/url]. The New York Times Company. Retrieved March 22, 2010.
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-151"]^[/url] Jeremy Warner (March 19, 2010). [url="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/jeremy-warner/7483177/Paul-Krugman-the-Nobel-prize-winner-who-threatens-the-world.html"]"Paul Krugman, the Nobel prize winner who threatens the world"[/url]. London: The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved March 22, 2010.
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-152"]^[/url] Krugman, Paul (April 23, 2010). [url="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/23/opinion/23krugman.html"]"Don't cry for Wall Street"[/url]. The New York Times. Retrieved April 27, 2010.
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-153"]^[/url] Shleifer, Andrei; Vishny, Robert; Gennaioli, Nicola (April 12, 2010). [url="http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/shleifer/files/financial_innovation_fragility.april12.pdf"]Financial Innovation and Financial Fragility[/url]. Retrieved April 27, 2010.
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-Toronto_154-0"]^[/url] Krugman, Paul (June 28, 2010). [url="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/28/opinion/28krugman.html"]"The Third Depression"[/url]. The New York Times. Retrieved March 9, 2012.
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-keynesian_155-0"]^[/url] Krugman, Paul (October 16, 2009). [url="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/samuel-brittans-recipe-for-recovery/"]Samuel Brittan's recipe for recovery[/url].
  
• ^ [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-wrong_156-0"]^a[/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-wrong_156-1"]^b[/url] Krugman, Paul. (2009-9-2). [url="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06Economic-t.html?pagewanted=4&em"]"How Did Economists Get It So Wrong?"[/url]. The New York Times. Retrieved October 9, 2009.
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-keynesandthemoderns_157-0"]^[/url] Krugman, Paul (21 June 2011). [url="http://voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/6668"]"Mr. Keynes and the Moderns"[/url] (PDF). VOX (originally for Cambridge conference commemorating the 75th anniversary of the publication of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_General_Theory_of_Employment,_Interest,_and_Money"]The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money[/url]). Retrieved 2011-11-18.
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-actual_minsky_158-0"]^[/url] Krugman, Paul (May 19, 2009). [url="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/actually-existing-minsky/"]Actually existing Minsky[/url].
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-159"]^[/url] Rezende, Felipe C. (August 18, 2009). [url="http://neweconomicperspectives.blogspot.com/2009/08/keyness-relevance-and-krugmans.html"]"Keynes's Relevance and Krugman's Economics"[/url].
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-160"]^[/url] Conceicao, Daniel Negreiros (July 19, 2009). [url="http://neweconomicperspectives.blogspot.com/2009/07/krugmans-new-cross-confirms-it-job.html"]"Krugman's New Cross Confirms It: Job Guarantee Policies Are Needed as Macroeconomic Stabilizers"[/url].
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-161"]^[/url] Mitchell, Bill (July 18, 2009). [url="http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=3574"]"Nobel prize winner sounding a trifle modern moneyish"[/url].
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-krugmaneggertsson2011_162-0"]^[/url] Eggertsson, Gauti B.; Krugman, Paul (February 14, 2011), [url="http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~gep575/seminars/spring2011/EK.pdf"]Debt, Deleveraging, and the Liquidity Trap: A Fisher-Minsky-Koo Approach[/url]
  
• ^ [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-difficultidea_163-0"]^a[/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-difficultidea_163-1"]^b[/url] [url="http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/ricardo.htm"]"''Ricardo's difficult idea''"[/url]. Web.mit.edu. Retrieved 2011-10-04.
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-164"]^[/url] Glasbeek, H. J. (2002). [url="http://books.google.com/books?id=2WiTb29T18MC&pg=PA258&dq=krugman+anti-globalization&hl=en&ei=A3-yTYGXL4-6ugOjlvyYBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=krugman%20anti-globalization&f=false"]Wealth by stealth: corporate crime, corporate law, and the perversion of democracy[/url]. Between The Lines. p. 258. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number"]ISBN[/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/1-896357-41-5"]1-896357-41-5[/url]. "As E.P. Thompson once noted, there are always willing experts and opinion leaders, such as Friedman and Krugman, to give a patina of legitimacy to the claims of the powerful [with their] ill-concealed cheer-leading ...."
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-165"]^[/url] Dev Gupta, Satya (1997). The political economy of globalization. Springer. p. 61.[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number"]ISBN[/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-7923-9903-X"]0-7923-9903-X[/url].
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-Krugman_166-0"]^[/url] Krugman, Paul R. (1987). [url="http://www.jstor.org/pss/1942985"]"Is Free Trade Passe?"[/url]. The Journal of Economic Perspectives (American Economic Association) 1 (2): 131–144.
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-167"]^[/url] [url="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E4DF153FF934A35755C0A9669C8B63"]Reckonings; A Rent Affair[/url], by Paul Krugman, The New York Times, June 7, 2000
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-168"]^[/url] [url="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A03E4D91730F934A35756C0A9649C8B63"]True Blue Americans[/url], by Paul Krugman, The New York Times, May 7, 2002
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-minimumwage_169-0"]^[/url] [url="http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Living+Wage:+What+It+Is+and+Why+We+Need+It.-a021103427"]Book review of Living Wage: What It Is and Why We Need It[/url] Paul Krugman, Washington Monthly, September 1, 1998
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-170"]^[/url] [url="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9502E1DB1430F936A15755C0A9669C8B63"]Driving Under the Influence[/url], by Paul Krugman, The New York Times, June 25, 2000
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-171"]^[/url] [url="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A00E4DF1138F937A35751C0A9659C8B63"]A Failed Mission[/url], by Paul Krugman, The New York Times, February 4, 2003
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-172"]^[/url] Paul Krugman (14 Aug 2011). "The Texas Unmiracle". New York Times.
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-173"]^[/url] [url="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D01EFD6163CF93AA15750C0A9669C8B63"]Reckonings; Pursuing Happiness[/url], by Paul Krugman, The New York Times, March 29, 2000
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-174"]^[/url] [url="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A00E7DE1139F930A35756C0A9669C8B63"]Reckonings; Blessed Are the Weak[/url], by Paul Krugman, The New York Times, May 3, 2000
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-175"]^[/url] [url="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/24/the-crisis-of-zionism/"]The Crisis of Zionism[/url], by Paul Krugman, The New York Times, 24 April 2012
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-176"]^[/url] [url="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/19/opinion/19krugman.html"]"Republicans and Race"[/url], Paul Krugman, The New York Times, 11-19-2007
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-177"]^[/url] [url="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/07/opinion/07krugman.html"]"The Town Hall Mob"[/url], Paul Krugman, The New York Times, 08-07-2009
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-178"]^[/url] [The Conscience of a Liberal: Book Review], William Amponsah, Savannah Daily News, 12-03-2007
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-179"]^[/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Parini"]Jay Parini[/url], [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian"]The Guardian[/url], March 22, 2008, [url="http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/mar/22/politics1"]Review: The Conscience of a Liberal[/url]
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-180"]^[/url] [url="http://www.robertboynton.com/articleDisplay.php?article_id=25"]"Loury's Exodus: A profile of Glenn Loury"[/url], Robert S. Boynton, [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Yorker"]The New Yorker[/url], 05-01-1995
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-181"]^[/url] [url="http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/loury.html"]"Glenn Loury's Round Trip: The travails and temptations of a black intellectual"[/url], Paul Krugman, [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slate_(magazine)"]Slate[/url], 05-14-1998. At PK MIT site, Retrieved 08-19-2009
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-182"]^[/url] A critical analysis of the contributions of notable black economists, Kojo A. Quartey, Ashgate Publishing, September 2000 [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9781840141474"]ISBN 978-1-84014-147-4[/url]
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-Mwakikagile_183-0"]^[/url] Mwakikagile, Godfrey (2006). 'Black Conservatives in the United States. New Africa Press. p. 117. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number"]ISBN[/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-0-9802587-0-7"]978-0-9802587-0-7[/url].
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-gordontheunlucky_184-0"]^[/url] Paul Krugman (June 7, 2009). [url="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/08/opinion/08krugman.html"]"Gordon the Unlucky"[/url]. The New York Times. Retrieved 2011-11-24.
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-185"]^[/url] Sparrow, Andrew (December 24, 2010). [url="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/dec/23/gordon-brown-anthony-seldon-book"]"Thirty new facts about Gordon Brown from Anthony Seldon's book"[/url]. The Guardian (London).
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-186"]^[/url] [url="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/opinion/13krugman.html"]"Gordon Does Good"[/url]. October 12, 2008. Retrieved June 8, 2009.
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-187"]^[/url] [url="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/08/opinion/08krugman.html"]"Gordon the Unlucky"[/url]. June 7, 2009. Retrieved June 8, 2009.
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-posner_188-0"]^[/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Posner"]Posner, Richard[/url] (2009-06-03), [url="http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/06/the-good-paul-krugman-and-the-bad-paul-krugman/18718/"]"The Good Paul Krugman and the Bad Paul Krugman"[/url], [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Atlantic"]The Atlantic[/url], retrieved 2011-08-10
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-189"]^[/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Tomasky"]Tomasky, Michael[/url] (2007-11-22), [url="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2007/nov/22/the-partisan/"]"The Partisan"[/url], [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Review_of_Books"]The New York Review of Books[/url], retrieved 2011-08-10
  
• ^ [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-nymag_190-0"]^a[/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-nymag_190-1"]^b[/url] Wallace-Wells, Benjamin (2011-04-24), [url="http://nymag.com/news/politics/paul-krugman-2011-5/"]"What’s Left of the Left"[/url], [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Magazine"]New York Magazine[/url], retrieved 2011-08-10
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-191"]^[/url] Evan Thomas (March 27, 2009) [url="http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/03/27/obama-s-nobel-headache.html"]"Obama’s Nobel Headache"[/url] The Daily Beast
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-192"]^[/url] Jeff Poor (June 11, 2012) [url="http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/11/even-krugman-criticizes-obama-for-private-sector-is-doing-just-fine-remark/"]"Even Krugman criticizes Obama for ‘private sector is doing just fine’ remark"[/url] The Daily Caller
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-193"]^[/url] [url="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2009/02/an-interview-with-robert-barro/370/"]An interview with Robert Barro[/url] - [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Atlantic"]The Atlantic[/url]
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-194"]^[/url] [url="http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/mar2009/db2009038_985205.htm"]Economists Rush to Disagree About Crisis Solutions[/url] - [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomberg_Businessweek"]Bloomberg Businessweek[/url]
  
• ^ [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-EnronFAQ_195-0"]^a[/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-EnronFAQ_195-1"]^b[/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-EnronFAQ_195-2"]^c[/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-EnronFAQ_195-3"]^d[/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-EnronFAQ_195-4"]^e[/url] Paul Krugman, [url="http://www.pkarchive.org/personal/EnronFAQ.html"]"My Connection With Enron, One More Time"[/url], Retrieved October 27, 2008.
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-196"]^[/url] By David E. Sanger And Don Van Natta Jr. (2002-01-17). [url="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/17/business/17BUSH.html?pagewanted=2"]"White House Says Economics Adviser Saw Little Risk on Enron"[/url]. Washington: Nytimes.com. Retrieved 2011-10-04.
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-197"]^[/url] "Enron Follies", Rich Karlgaard, [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbes"]Forbes[/url] magazine, 02-13-2002.
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-sullivanselective_198-0"]^[/url] [url="http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2002/01/31/enron_pundits/index.html"]"Andrew Sullivan's selective Enron outrage"[/url], Eric Boehlert, [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salon.com"]Salon.com[/url], January 31, 2002.
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-EnronWP_199-0"]^[/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Kurtz"]Howard Kurtz[/url]. [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A58606-2002Jan29?language=printer"]"... And the Enron Pundits"[/url]. January 30, 2002.
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-200"]^[/url] Paul Krugman, [url="http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1999/05/24/260257/index.htm"]"The Ascent of E-Man R.I.P.: The Man In The Gray Flannel Suit"[/url].[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortune_(magazine)"]Fortune[/url]. May 24, 1999.
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-201"]^[/url] Paul Krugman, [url="http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/enron.html"]"Me and Enron"[/url]. Retrieved March 28, 2007.
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-202"]^[/url] [url="http://www.columbia.edu/itc/sipa/u8213-03/pdf/nytimes-krugman-california_power.pdf"]"California Screaming"[/url], op-ed column, The New York Times, 12-10-2002.
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-203"]^[/url] Fry, Ted (June 3, 2010). [url="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/movies/2012015094_mr04get.html"]"'Get Him to the Greek': Russell Brand takes the spotlight as a rock god on the rocks"[/url]. Seattle Times. Retrieved June 3, 2010.
  
• [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#cite_ref-204"]^[/url] McCarthy, Ryan (August 3, 2009). [url="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/03/the-krugman-blues-loudon_n_225410.html"]"'The Krugman Blues': Loudon Wainwright Takes On NYT Columnist In Song (VIDEO)"[/url]. The Huffington Post. Retrieved March 9, 2012.
  

[TakeAStepBack]

Thanks.

[syd_25]

I think a link to the Wiki would work also.

[PeaceFrog]

[concert andy]

Petition to build a ‘Death Star’ garners 17,000 signatures on White House website

[TakeAStepBack]

Krugman strikes again. I wish he would hurry up and DIAF. Guys a full blown moran.

[hoagie]

Petition to build a ‘Death Star’ garners 17,000 signatures on White House website

best comment: the Scientologists will want to run it...

[concert andy]

HSBC: Too big to jail?



Federal officials expressed pride when they announced their $1.9 billion money-laundering settlement with HSBC.

[concert andy]

Merkel sets limits on euro zone risk-sharing


This is what I meant about Germany having to be the responsible one (leader) of the Euro.

[concert andy]

U.S. to Sell BulkOf TARP Banks

[TakeAStepBack]

http://washingtonexa...72#.UNDyHpjR5Bk


White House rejects Boehner ‘Plan B’ that even Pelosi backed



President Obama will not accept a compromise on the fiscal cliff issues outlined House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, even though it parallels a deal suggested by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
Boehner discussed with the Republican conference the possibility of letting tax rates go up for millionaires in order to avoid going over the fiscal cliff, which would raise taxes on all Americans. “I believe it’s important to protect as many American tax payers as we can,” Boehner said today.
Obama rejected the plan. “[Obama] is not willing to accept a deal that doesn’t ask enough of the very wealthiest in taxes and instead shifts the burden to the middle class and seniors,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said in a statement today. “The Speaker’s ‘Plan B’ approach doesn’t meet this test because it can’t pass the Senate and therefore will not protect middle class families, and does little to address our fiscal challenges with zero spending cuts.”
That statement might come as a surprise to Pelosi. “In our caucus, there is a school of thought that says let’s get rid of all the tax cuts,” Pelosi told The Charlie Rose Show earlier this year, per Buzzfeed. “I say, let’s begin by getting rid of tax cuts for people making more than a million dollars a year. I’m not even saying $250,000. The president’s saying $250,000. A million and above. Who can argue with that?”
Apparently, Obama can. Here is Carney’s full statement:

The President has put a balanced, reasonable proposal on the table that achieves significant deficit reduction and reflects real compromise by meeting the Republicans halfway on revenue and more than halfway on spending from where each side started. That is the essence of compromise. The parameters of a deal are clear, and the President is willing to continue to work with Republicans to reach a bipartisan solution that averts the fiscal cliff, protects the middle class, helps the economy, and puts our nation on a fiscally sustainable path. But he is not willing to accept a deal that doesn’t ask enough of the very wealthiest in taxes and instead shifts the burden to the middle class and seniors. The Speaker’s “Plan B” approach doesn’t meet this test because it can’t pass the Senate and therefore will not protect middle class families, and does little to address our fiscal challenges with zero spending cuts. The President is hopeful that both sides can work out remaining differences and reach a solution so we don’t miss the opportunity in front of us today.

WTF Mr. Compromise?
Oh, well. Fiscal Cliff! Fiscal Cliff!

[PeaceFrog]

http://abcnews.go.co...al-cliff-offer/

By Chris Good

Dec 18, 2012 3:26pm

Liberals Bash Obama’s Fiscal-Cliff Offer

Liberals on Tuesday blasted the White House’s latest fiscal-cliff proposal as a cut to Social Security benefits.
Perhaps it’s a sign that President Obama and congressional Republicans have moved closer to a deal.

GOP House Speaker John Boehner had suggested tying Social Security and other benefits to to a “chained CPI” (Consumer Price Index), which could slow benefit increases that are tied to inflation. On Monday night, the White House countered with an offer that included what it called a “superlative CPI,” which would cut less money over 10 years and would exempt the neediest beneficiaries from a CPI change.

The liberal Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) on Tuesday morning circulated criticism from a handful of progressive players, signifying that politicians and interest groups on the left, who have decried any cuts to Social Security or Medicare, will coordinate at least some degree of pushback against this movement toward a compromise.

“Everyone has a grandparent, a friend or a neighbor who relies on the Social Security benefits they earned to pay for medical care, food and housing. A move towards chained CPI would be a long-term benefit cut for every single person who receives a Social Security check,” said House Progressive Caucus co-chair Keith Ellison, D-Minn., citing estimates that a chained CPI (as included in the GOP’s proposal) would cost beneficiaries thousands over 15 years.

“The average Social Security recipient rakes in a whopping $13,000 a year. If we pass chained CPI, projected annual cuts for a typical retiree would be about $560 a year by age 75, $984 a year by age 85 and $1,400 a year by age 95,” said the Progressive Caucus’s other co-chair, Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz.

“MoveOn members overwhelmingly oppose cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits, and they’ve made clear that they would see any fiscal agreement that cuts such benefits as a betrayal that sells out working and middle class families — whether the cuts come via a chained CPI, increased Medicare eligibility age, or in some other form,” said MoveOn.org Executive Director Justin Ruben. “If such a deal were proposed by the President and Speaker, MoveOn members would expect every Senate and House Democrat to do everything in their power to block it.”

“This proposed deal will cut Social Security benefits. Any deal that cuts Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid benefits is unacceptable — and progressive organizations join with the overwhelming majority of Americans who oppose it,” said PCCC co-founder Stephanie Taylor.

And a progressive member of the Senate leadership, Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., has also criticized the GOP’s CPI-change proposal.

“We ought to deal with Social Security in a separate conversation that is not part of deficit reduction,” Durbin told The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent.

“The Speaker and many of his Republican friends are hell bent on Chained CPI,” Durbin told Sargent. “It may be part of an overall solution [later] but to do it at this stage is the wrong way to go.”

In late November, Durbin warned liberals at the Center for American Progress that they’ll need to entertain deficit-reduction plans other than taxing the rich. At the moment, it appears the progressive voice in Democratic Senate leadership is okay with a CPI change eventually — just not now.

[concert andy]

More money being returned to the Fed...



General Motors to spend $5.5B to buy back 200M of its shares from US government

[TakeAStepBack]

GM's purchase of the 200 million shares still leaves the government about $21 billion short of breaking even on its investment. To break even, the government would have to get nearly $70 each for its shares.

[PeaceFrog]

so what happened with the fiscal cliff... why won't the repubes extend the tax cuts for anyone making under a million a year?

[TakeAStepBack]

The fiscal cliff declines extension for all. Should Obrahma not act, and it looks like he thinks he has the win, then why worry about millionaires? they lose either way.

[PeaceFrog]

obama not act? wow... it's like you're in a different universe. did you not just get the news that Boehners Plan B was rejected by house Republicans?

and I'm glad, because it sucked.

[PeaceFrog]

so are you watching Fox News again, or what's the problem here?

[TakeAStepBack]

Actually Im not watching it at all. I don't fuckin' care.

I was just throwin something in to see if you were really done with my nonsense.

[capt_morgan]

i still dont know why anyone would want to be fisting on a cliff

[Tim the Beek]

Thrill of livin' on the edge, Bro. If one of you goes over, you both do!

[capt_morgan]

oy vey

[PeaceFrog]

[Mr_Pat]

I expect precious metals to go up on the first if deal isnt reached, this week may be a good buying oppertunity to buy low if your in to such things.

[PeaceFrog]

I expect precious metals to go up on the first if deal isnt reached, this week may be a good buying oppertunity to buy low if your in to such things.

that's an interesting speculation. I've been keeping an eye on Gold myself just out of curiosity... I don't have the money to invest.

I've noticed it has been ranging between 1550 and 1800 for the past year or so. Here's a chart:



what you're saying makes sense. I think it might continue to drop down to about 1550 around Dec 30, and then like you said start heading back up again.

we shall see.

[PeaceFrog]

apparently the "Fiscal Cliff" will be a terrible blow for families who are currently relying on extended unemployment benefits to get by...

but hey, I guess that's what welfare is for.

It would be nice if they could come to an agreement before the end of the year... but it doesn't seem like it will happen.

I'm thankful to be living in an area that wasn't hit as hard as the rest of the country economically, but I feel really sad for those who are not as fortunate. They won't be having a very happy new year.

[concert andy]

There was mention in this thread that we should go over the cliff, and that having a tiered tax system is not fair.

Well according to this chart below, we have a pretty significant tiered tax system if we do go over the cliff.

Not arguing either is right or wrong, just providing interesting statistics for the conversation.

[TakeAStepBack]

Looks like I should get married. (and not at me freh, either. Ass faces)

[TakeAStepBack]

I love how I'm penalized for my life choice but married folk get a discount.

[TakeAStepBack]