EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Krugman Predicts Painful Road if Deficit Hypocrites Prevail
Paul Krugman Vs. Alan Greenspan On Deficits
We don't know for sure that New York Times columnist Paul Krugman and former Federal Reserve chief Alan Greenspan had each other in mind when they penned diametrically opposed op-eds, both of which ran today. But, we can hope.
Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman and former Fed chief Alan Greenspan took very different approaches to the balooning Federal deficit in op-eds today. Start with their titles. Greenspan's Wall Street Journal
piece is dubbed "U.S. Debt and the Greece Analogy" (You can guess where
that piece is headed.) Ever the Keynesian, Krugman's piece is titled, "That '30s Feeling."
The key issue for both Krugman and Greenspan, of course, is deficits and spending. For Krugman, the world's recent turn toward austerity, evinced by Congress's recent refusal to extend unemployment benefits and cutbacks in social services across Europe, is a sign that governments are afraid to spend enough to stimulate economic growth. "Suddenly, creating jobs is out, inflicting pain is in," he writes.
Greenspan, for his part, is more concerned with looming pain than current economic hardships. Noting that in the last 18 months, the U.S. deficit has ballooned to 8.6 trillion from $5.5 trillion, Greenspan argues that the world needs "tectonic shift in fiscal policy." And, growth, he posits can't and won't come from government spending. (Though, to be fair, other than budget cuts, Greenspan offers no alternative to government spending to boost the economy.) Here's Greenspan:
"We cannot grow out of these fiscal pressures. The modest-sized post-baby-boom labor force, if history is any guide, will not be able to consistently increase output per hour by more than 3% annually. The product of a slowly growing labor force and limited productivity growth will not provide the real resources necessary to meet existing commitments. (We must avoid persistent borrowing from abroad. We cannot count on foreigners to finance our current account deficit indefinitely.)"
Krugman -- nor any major economist following the crisis -- has ever argued that we can continue to borrow cheaply from foreign countries indefinitely. The larger problem, he suggests, is that here in the states politicians are deeply inconsistent about which benefits get cut in the continuing push to trim Federal spending. Here's Krugman.
"In America, many self-described deficit hawks are hypocrites, pure and simple: They're eager to slash benefits for those in need, but their concerns about red ink vanish when it comes to tax breaks for the wealthy. Thus, Senator Ben Nelson, who sanctimoniously declared that we can't afford $77 billion in aid to the unemployed, was instrumental in passing the first Bush tax cut, which cost a cool $1.3 trillion. "
Greenspan warns of "growing analogies to Greece" -- a comparison Krugman has refuted more than once. The economic recovery should, in fact, bring the deficit down, Krugaman wrote in May, adding in an interview NPR that austerity should come only after the economy has begun to trend upward.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
90 Comments so far
Show AllWhy would anyone pay attention to Greenspan? He admitted that his basic assumptions about the economy were wrong. Now he is trying to pontificate again.
Contrary to popular opinion the US is not in a recession, it is undergoing a paradigm change that will be the final blow that obliterates the middle class, a demogaphic that has been losing ground since Ronny Raygun's Regime came to power in 1981.
Potholes...
I am not kidding...
Unemployment, by the old method of calculation, has already topped 10%. By early next year, it will be above 15%. 60 million people are now estimated to be without health-care coverage of any type, and upwards of 5 million people will start to run out of unemployment benefits around Christmas. Mortgage defaults are accelerating and are now joined by defaults in other kinds of consumer debt while real estate prices continue to fall, credit remains frozen and interest rates refuse to fall despite a 1% prime rate. Meanwhile, retirement accounts have been nearly halved by the current crisis and upwards of 12 million people have no way to retire at all under the current conditions.
In response, one of the most amazing resurrections in modern history is taking place. Keynes is back. Shot, stabbed, burned, choked, hung, electrified and drawn and quartered... finely diced into a thousand pieces and buried at a thousand different grave plots... exorcised more thoroughly than old Rasputin himself... yet, the old carcass RISES, little worse for the wear... and this overnight, literally at the first hint of trouble in the freedom-loving-freedom-giving-free-as-heck markets.
"We are all Keynesians now...", said Richard Nixon famously at the beginning of his presidency and at the first brush with real crisis, they are all Keynesians once again. Bernanke, Paulson, the Grey beards of Wall Street, even Bush himself (apologizing that "unusual times call for unusual methods") openly adopted the old creed. "I was wrong", says Alan Greenspan, who now openly admits to "shocked disbelief" at the progression of the crisis. The oxymoron of Libertarian economics is as quickly abandoned as is the silliness of supply side doctrine. Deregulation and laissez-faire are forgotten. Keynesian monetary policy plus 2 trillion dollars of bank bailouts are the result.
Is that it?
Not to worry. In the interim, the new government of "Hope" is assembled. The realities of politics require that it govern from the “center” (just as those same realities required that it talk from the “center”, and primary from the “center”, and run for election from the “center”). Nevertheless, the “economics” of the University of Chicago are left behind, along with Reverend Wright. The new government will be “center” Keynesian: competent regulation of the Bush bailouts, the extension of the bailouts to the auto industry (and, perhaps others), a new “stimulus” package, extended unemployment benefits, and jaw-boning the Europeans.
Is that all?
Well, it is a “living” program and… The transition team nervously eyed the “real” Keynesians and the radical left.
Finally, finally, finally… the “real” Keynesians are heard from. The “Nobel” economist and neo-Keynesian, Joseph Stiglitz, writes a feature article for the November, 2008 issue of Vanity Fair, hardly an academic journal. The piece begins, “When the American economy enters a downturn, you often hear the experts debating whether it is likely to be V-shaped (short and sharp) or U-shaped (longer but milder). Today, the American economy may be entering a downturn that is best described as L-shaped. It is in a very low place indeed, and likely to remain there for some time to come. Virtually all the indicators look grim.”
Stiglitz then goes on to explain, in excruciating detail, the depth of the crisis and the indictment of the usual suspects responsible for it. By the time he gets to his prescription, the reader is expecting John Maynard himself to materialize. In a finale entitled, “What Is To Be Done”, the echoes, not just of Keynes, but of Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy and Cherneshevsky and even Lenin could be invoked.
Instead: “… there are ways of thoughtfully shaping policy that can walk a fine line and help us get out of our current predicament. Spending money on needed investments—infrastructure, education, technology—will yield double dividends. It will increase incomes today while laying the foundations for future employment and economic growth. Investments in energy efficiency will pay triple dividends—yielding environmental benefits in addition to the short- and long-run economic benefits.
The federal government needs to give a hand to states and localities—their tax revenues are plummeting, and without help they will face costly cutbacks in investment and in basic human services. The poor will suffer today, and growth will suffer tomorrow. The big advantage of a program to make up for the shortfall in the revenues of states and localities is that it would provide money in the amounts needed: if the economy recovers quickly, the shortfall will be small; if the downturn is long, as I fear will be the case, the shortfall will be large.”
Of all of it, only “infrastructure” and state and local “investment” have any immediate impact at all, and that by way of a “trickle down” more obscure than Reagan could ever have dared. The Keynesian New New Deal is filling potholes?
What the fuck?
What about CCC and NRA and FERA and RFC and AAA and PWA and TVA and an Economic Bill of Rights? Come to think of it, forget all that. What about jobs, debt forgiveness, an end to evictions, nationalization of strategic industries, prosecution of economic criminals, guaranteed retirement accounts and the immediate elimination of two thirds of the defense budget?
Potholes?
Pork plus potholes…
Pressure plus potholes…
Paul Krugman, Bernie Sanders, Teddy Kennedy, Tom Hartmann, John Kerry, Rachel Maddow, Russ Feingold, Henry Waxman, Warren Buffet, Randi Rhodes, Bill Richardson, John Conyers, Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich…
Fucking potholes.
And that is it… all of it.
Actually, the "downturn" is more "\" than "L".
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/elliot-wave-predicts-triple-digit-dow-2010-06-17
"Actually, the "downturn" is more "\" than "L"." –(chaokoh)
Yes. At the bottom of the precipice in this "downturn" is the political (economic) modus operandi everyone knows is already there: Fascism.
Fascism in its unalloyed iteration– emerging full blown, not with a bang but with a whimper of recognition. The avatar has arrived in advance of itself. The tepid prescriptive admonishments of Krugman –and even Stiglitz– may even be co-extensive and throughly compatible with the fascist intermodal future. Both economists offer little more than 'holding' mechanisms within the dictates of the existing system.
Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz both can be characterized as the valets of reaction– ideological apologists for the capitalism they remain fundamentally committed to. They proffer 'slight of hand' finesses, not wholesale fixes leaving the intractable rot intact to grow even more tumescent. They throw out a smokescreen of hopeful, tantalizing 'reforms' to keep faith in the system intact.
It also seems clear that the reformist, band aid programs of either economist have as little chance of coming to fruition as the appearance of a 'snowball in Hell.' For Hell is what it is.
Already half as much enamored of fascism, America will find the transition to a fascist domestic economy– applied in tiny, poisonous increments– in the end, bizarrely salubrious. In any event, the wrong people will be blamed for the final hollowing out of a carcass which is already dead.
And the people who will complain as they are stomped underfoot? They have already been factored out. They do not matter.
Grotesque anomalies and contradictions of cognition seem all but endemic to the way Americans process reality. There is little or no indication that will change in the throes of economic collapse and the attendant fascist revolution.
Support the troops!
"Upon getting busted, the plagiarist almost always dodges and weaves like Kouwe is doing. Slate reader Michael Clark, a historian who has taught at several U.S. universities, e-mailed me his X-ray of Gerald Posner's excuses after I reported the plagiarisms of the Daily Beast chief investigative reporter in Slate. The evasion strategies charted by Clark seem to be universal among plagiarists...
8) He pinched only "boilerplate" or "wire" copy, which should not count as plagiarism."
Jack Shafer, Slate
"The paraphrase I used has now become so commonplace that it has become almost 'boilerplate,' not always necessitating formal citation and the use of quotation marks."
VashkarKim, writing about why (s)he failed to attribute a paraphrase of a quote by Oscar Wilde (s)he used in two Common Dreams postings.
"The blood trail snakes through your history to the point it has become incarnate. America is perhaps the only country that has transited from barbarism to vulgar, brutal decadence without an intervening period of civilization. 'Indelible' too, since there is no evidence whatsoever that it is capable– or even willing– to change or break the edifice of permanence, which cannot be charitably described as an 'appearance,' or a temporary aberrance."
VashkarKim, http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/06/11-3
"America is perhaps the only country that has devolved from barbarism to decadence without an intervening period of civilization. Even if 90% of Americans were fully exposed to an unexpurgated video version of the atrocity– a full 60% would stand up and cheer the massacre in support of the 'troops.'"
VashkarKim, http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/06/14-2
"America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between."
Oscar Wilde
I'm afraid its going to be a W rather than a U or V. These are the same experts that told us old economic laws, don't borrow more than you can pay, save something, removing rules and regulations that stopped skimming or down right theft were old fashioned and we were stupid to be concerned.
Thuis Congress and this President have done nothing to correct the problems, in fact they have added times ten, so we get a W.
"...the truth is bizarrely freeing." –(Namaste)
Only "freeing" enough that the final emergence of fascism will not come as a surprise to those who anticipate the truth of things to come in advance.
To actually know and feel, without hesitation or equivocation that one is indeed living under fascism would be a freeing from the contradictions of unknowing. There is something to be said for that.
Having said that it would make little difference in America– since the look and feel of the 'final' foot dropping would be perceived only as a continuation of normalcy.
Support the troops!
I'm afraid we've already gone beyond fascism to full corporate control.
An excellent rant!
Correctly and clearly delineates the empty proscriptions of Capitalism's tandem of obsequious 'butlers.'
Krugman and Stiglitz both are permitted options, both eminently 'sensible' in what passes as officially sanctioned criticism. Suitable indeed for readers of "The New Yorker" and Vanity Fair." A little something outré, along with the sophisticated fluff and eye candy so characteristic of the favored journals of the American haute bourgeoisie.
In reality–as the poster lays out– is that what both establishment gnomes clearly stand for is continued subservience and preservation of capitalist operational mechanics. Their true motivations are transparent, if not obviously, in the end, reactionary.
All under the teasing fig leaf of being fallaciously considered 'alternate,' even 'radical' voices.
Potholes? Yes. And even those won't be fixed.
Support the troops!
Statism = Empire.
I rarely read the NYT, especially Krugman.
I really can't stand all these Ivy economists, either
liberal or conservative.
To base our countries economic system on a bunch of
international investors always has been suicidal.
I say, forget them, no regulation and let those that are
foolish enough to play that roulette game take their winnings
and loosings. Keep retirement funds out of it. Those that
wish to purchase a 401k, you know it is a casino. This may
sound like the faux-populists of the libertarian movement,
don't care.
Anyway, no matter
We're Screwed.
One of my favorite economists is Prof. Michael Hudson. You won't see or read him on the MSM. His articles appear on counterpunch.com and globalreasearch.ca and his own website
http://michael-hudson.com/
I agree! I always read his articles on counterpunch, and I have also watched/listened to some of his lectures by googling his name.
I wish CD would post his articles, in my opinion his analyses are much more accurate than Dean Baker's or Paul Krugman's that appear regularly here.
These are good websites for progressive views on the economy too:
http://www.newdeal20.org/
http://www.neweconomicperspectives.blogspot.com/
Thanks for the links zmann
yes, Hudson is one of the best! and also Herman Daly.
http://www.whirledbank.org/ourwords/daly.html
On January 14, 1994, Herman Daly, Senior Economist in the Environment Department of the World Bank resigned after six years of work at the institution. He invited a number of World Bank economists and the press to a farewell speech in which he prescribed that the Bank take "a few antacids and laxatives to cure the combination of managerial flatulence and organizational constipation giving rise to such a high-pressure internal environment" and to improve interactions with the external world he prescribed "new eyeglasses and a hearing aid." We present the entire speech below...
and: "Towards a Steady State Economy"
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3941
Why would anyone pay attention to Greenspan? Because he's one of the ruling class elite. He is allowed endless chances to fuck up and not be held resposible. Other members of this exclusive club include G.W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Lloyd Blankfein, Larry Summers, ad nauseum. If a working class person showed the same ineptitude as these douchebags they would be at worst, imprisoned or at least bankrupted.
The USA is not Greece. Our country has a monkey on its back, war.
When a banana company wants cheaper bananas, our country finds the money to fight a war. When British Petroleum wants cheaper slimy goo, we come up with the cash to fight a medium-sized war. Now we're fighting for expensive minerals in Our Afghanistan. Good to know who we're actually fighting for.
The Iraq war and occupation cost about $4 trillion, much of it in deferred expenses that we haven't paid off yet, says Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stieglitz. No one of note has particularly disputed his numbers. Afghanistan is easily a trillion by now.
When we look at the U.S. budget, half is the military budget and then there's the "black budget". One sign that we have a monkey on our back is that we can't even describe the extra military budget that we carry around all the time. It's hidden money, just as a cokehead hides where she/he gets the money for so much coke. How do we trim a black budget that we can't see?
In Alan Greenspan's world, the military budget is a little tiny line-item next to the National Council on the Arts. Economics is supposed to be a science, and I don't like scientific frauds, humbugs pretending to be know-it-all intelligent and good members-in-standing of the scientific community. Krugman doesn't exactly face up to the gorilla either.
I agree PaulK. I see political class warfare in economic arguments. My view is this, if money is speech, money needs to be more evenly distributed in order to result in a more balanced Democracy and economy. Fundamentalist capitalism rewards the rich only. A more balanced form of capitalism needs to be implemented. That can only happen with an equitable redistribution of wealth coupled with a significant reduction in military spending and an end to foreign wars. One way to achieve this redistribution is with a steeply progressive tax system with no loopholes. If we must have a war let's have one at home and implement these changes. There is already enough money in the system it is just being hoarded by the rich.
Second, the new economy requires more sustainable growth. That requires a dramatic shift in living standards for everyone. That process is well under way at the bottom of the economic ladder and is growing. The old twentieth century idea of growth is obsolete just as is the thinking of twentieth century economists like Krugman and Greenspan. These guys are obsolete and dangerous.
It's all about interest. Money as it is now structured is inadequate to the task. Usery is not looked on a nice activity by most religions. In fact it is considered as sort of devilish. The next time you are in a bank check to see if they have any indications of horns.
Yes, the banks are willing to charge you interest, they just don't want to pay interest. Back when my brothers and I were teenagers in Michigan, we all had savings accounts with different Michigan based banks that payed 5.25% annual interest. Today, all of those Michigan based banks are gone, gobbled up by national banks like Chase and Scank of America, and so are the interest rates that the local banks use to pay. Wasn't banking deregulation wonderful?
Greenspan is responsible for what, $10 TRILLION of our debt? Or is it only $9 Trillion? He presided over the largest accumulation of debt in the WORLD'S history, and NOW he's worried about debt? What a loser.
When NO ONE is spending, then gov't HAS to or the end result is the crash we have now. And NOT spending doesn't make that any better. Here is a newsflash for the Ayn Rand crowd: If NO money is moving around, then you don't have an economy. It's really that simple.
Here is an example. The unemployment benefits that people have needed to live on are now running out. So rather than keep at least SOME money moving through the system, the geniuses in congress now are concerned about the deficit, these morons cut those funds. Now, not only do you have people who can't afford to eat, but the people who WERE getting those funds in the form of sales aren't getting that money either. And so they buy less from their suppliers, who either eat that loss, or go out of business. So now, you've cost even MORE people their jobs by NOT giving out those funds.
There is NO way in which Greenspan's ideas WORK. It's HIS fault we are where we are, and people want to hear what this disaster magnet says? WHY?
He is right in ONE comment, though. We in this world DO need a tectonic shift in economic policy. We need to take it into a situation of doing the most FOR the most. Screw the rich, they already have too much. This IDIOT policy of giving all the money to those who already have more than they need is nationally suicidal. It's been shown that it doesn't work, it never will work, and it's a complete fool's game to believe it will.
We need to start charging the rich for their share of things. Instead of giving them breaks for being rich, penalize them for it. These are NOT people to be honored, to be emulated, to be exalted. They are to be scorned, disdained and hated for their selfishness and greed. You should look at them and point and tell your children NOT to be like those miserable examples of humanity.
Business needs to start actually paying their share. Before Reagan, business paid 36% of all taxes in this country. Now, they pay 7%. They need to be returned to the position of SERVANT, not master. 75% of Fortune 500 companies pay NOTHING in taxes to this country. THAT has to change, and damned fast.
It's a class war, folks. Recognize your real enemy.
When Greenspan left the Fed, I read that he went to work with/for John Paulson, the hedge fund owner who bet against the economy, and John Paulson is also a major contributor to NY Senator Chuck Schumer -- from what I've read. This is a circle that supports those within the circle. Of course, Greenspan is a direct descendent of Ayn Rand, and Objectivism.
"If NO money is moving around, then you don't have an economy. It's really that simple." -- WJM
Well said! It really is that simple.
And, yes, I agree, it is class war!
Has anyone read the book, A Short History of American Capitalism, written by Meyer Weinberg? The book is up online, and free to read and to print. For anyone who might be interested, here's the link:
http://www.newhistory.org/
If Schumer is allowed to take possession of Majority/Minority Leader of the Senate over Durbin the boys in New York City will be happier than pigs in poop and over gov't will smell even worse. Schumer is a schill and a Bankercrat, nothing more.
Exactly!
I have never voted for Schumer, and I won't in the future, either. At the same time, it's highly unlikely that he will be voted out of his senate seat, either.
Well said.
Yeah right, when pigs fly.
We need to give the President the ability to make the pork fly away. United Technologies wants to develop the MX-3000 flying military pig. If we do nothing the pork wins!
A line item veto power would be largely superficial. We need a much more comprehensive overhaul of existing law to make any substantive alteration to the institutionally corrupt status-quo.
No argument there!
At least the President couldn't hide behind the lack of it when signing bills, he personally would be approving each bit of pork.
A problem associated with the line item veto is that it is a transfer of power from the House to the President. The amount of power held by the president is already at a dangerous level.
This issue was addressed at length by Senator Byrd in "The Senate of the Roman Republic." It's also a very good text on how republics rot from the inside. You may find some disturbing similarities between the Romans and the current empire.
Nothing to worry about, the neo-lib agenda is going very well, the "shock doctrine" is working like a charm:
Congress will not pass any financial assistance to states and municipalities; most of which are bankrupt, and/or heavily in the red.
In California, the wealthiest state in the union, after already draconian cuts to education and social services last year, is getting ready to cut ANOTHER 20 BILLION from the budget for next year.
Already whole chunks of public services are being dismantled. Thousands more teachers will be laid off, services will be cut. In many towns and cities police officers and even firefighters will be laid off. This scenario is likely to continue for the next few years. It will end badly, to say the least.
In Oakland Ca (with a very high per-capita violent crime rate), the city council is considering laying off 200 police officers.
They have a few trillion for Empire Inc., trillions in Treasury and Fed bailouts for the Banksters. Billions to give Israel and other criminal states.
Now when it comes to helping to stem raping and pillaging of the entire civil and public infrastructure of our country, Congress says: "Fuck Off!"
How lovely, welcome to neo-Fuedalism
Sorry to nitpick but;
The anthropomorphic metaphor of "deficit hawk" used in the CD caption of this article should not be used.
These persons are not "hawks". They have approved trillions of dollars of spending that balooned the deficits - for the MIC and Banksters Inc. but not for citizens.
The metaphor is not only misplaced and inaccurate it is flat out mis-leading. Please use more accurate terms and metaphors.
agreed.
Did you notice that they have already changed the headline to "deficit hypocrites?"
Much better! that was fast!
It was fast! When I clicked to read the article, it was reading "hawk," and after I read and wrote a response, they had already changed the headline.
How about the vultures of corporate socialism.
The Puffington Post is a mouthpiece for Obomber, a rag that supports the military-industrial bubble that is laying waste to this nation.
Every time Krugman opens his sorry mouth, he merely confirms the fact that prevailing economic theory is a dismal science.
The fact that Alan Greenspan is not in prison and is allowed to offer counterpoints to Krugman's accurate synopsis of our current economic calamity says it all. This Randian Nightmare Zombie should be horewhipped and hung in front of the Lincoln Memorial. I for one am sick of seeing him. He's simply so full of bullsxxt and propoganda than he's embarassing Goebbels in his grave.
I saw a homeless guy coming up the street the other day, and he looked a lot like Alan Greenspan-so much so, that for a moment I did a double take.Wishful thinking, I guess. I like your Nom de CD. But are we ready to RUMBLE?? I think not.
Greenspans objection to deficit spending seemed rather muted until the Wealthy got their tax cuts, the hawks got their Iraq, and WallStreet got their welfare. Now that we're down to the impoverished and the frayed net that keeps them from falling into the abyss; now he wants something done about the deficit.
I must say, however, I've always liked him every since he admitted that the Iraq War was, basically, about oil. I'm sure he took some heat from his masters over that admission.
For a good example of the accuracy of Krugman's prediction, have a look at what's happening with the housing market right now.The first-time home buyer's $8,000 tax credit is expiring, and-surpise!-new home sales are crumbling once again.When the stimulus money has been spent, and the money proping up the banks has been spent,there will be very little to power the aenemic 'recovery'. Meanwhile, cities are broke, states are broke, and it's politically impossible to come up with more stimulus money.The deficit hawks are in charge, just like in 1937.
Krugman says, "Blah blah, blah."
Greenspan says, "Blah blah, blah."
Keyenes said. "Blah blah, blah."
Now, just keep debating the relative blah's and deciding which guru to follow. It will keep your mind off the super grand larceny going on daily in Congress and the Executive, driven by the billionaires who don't want any of their cash cows messed with by giving the serfs anything at all except more poverty and desperation.
Wall Street et al., is filled with gambling addicts who have learned that, no matter how big the bet, how long the odds, bet the house because if you lose, the government will reach into our pocket (and that of our kids and grand kids) and get the money to reimburse them so the game can continue.
The Supreme Court will watch over all to see that no pesky law interferes with their power and control.
This is certainly not the country I grew up in. Remember? The one with the Constitution, Bill of Rights, rule of law, habeas corpus, posse comitatus, representatives who represented the people who elected them. I fear that the United States is gone forever.
And the word games continue.
http://preview.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=abmdU5vrQtQg
Krugman winning the Nobel Economics Prize is kind of like Obama winnning the Peace Prize.
Listen to him lecturing German economists. Makes me want to vomit.
We are all pelicans in the Gulf, but some of us think we are eagles that never need to land.
Tarred and feathered should take on new meaning.
-30-