Rubio’s 3-2-1 Strategy Sounded Great; But Does 3-5-4 Work?
Marco Rubio’s strategy was 3d in Iowa, 2d in New Hampshire, and 1st in South Carolina. His disappointing finish last night calls that strategy into question.Read More »
Boy, what a way to ruin a non-deserved vacation for The One! Now even Paul Krugman, the New York Times’ “Nobel Prize-Winning Economist” (had to throw that in for a laugh), has had enough. His column today screams it from the headline and doesn’t let up.
Predicting what Fed Chair Bernanke will say in a few minutes during his speech in Jackson Hole (how appropriate that he speaking in Jackson HOLE!) Krugman has this to say:
… We can safely predict what he and other officials will say about where we are right now: that the economy is continuing to recover, albeit more slowly than they would like. Unfortunately, that’s not true: this isn’t a recovery, in any sense that matters.
Ouch! Looks like Krugman’s jumped ship. So much for “shrimp-buying,” Mr. O.
Noting that policy-makers who keep trying to talk up the recovery are “in denial,” he continues:
Why are people who know better sugar-coating economic reality? The answer, I’m sorry to say, is that it’s all about evading responsibility.
Double-ouch! Hey Joe Biden… better shut yer yapper! The jig’s up!
Wow – has Krugman suddenly proven himself worthy of a REAL Nobel Prize? Don’t polish the medallions too quickly. He goes on to divulge WHY “Recover Summer” is going nowhere fast:
In the case of the Obama administration, officials seem loath to admit that the original stimulus was too small.
So the Keynesians are still gasping, huh? Krugman is saying he and Obama weren’t wrong… they just weren’t WRONG ENOUGH!!! Only in the New York Times.
Krugman continues by arguing for MORE government action, including schemes for bailing out homeowners, playing with interest rates, taking on China over currency manipulation… but curiously, he leaves out anything to do with lowering taxes or making reassurances that might give investors and businesses the confidence they need to get off the sidelines.
But about all of his non-tax recommendations, he cries out:
Which of these options should policy makers pursue? If I had my way, all of them. I know what some players both at the Fed and in the administration will say: they’ll warn about the risks of doing anything unconventional. But we’ve already seen the consequences of playing it safe, and waiting for recovery to happen all by itself: it’s landed us in what looks increasingly like a permanent state of stagnation and high unemployment. It’s time to admit that what we have now isn’t a recovery, and do whatever we can to change that situation.
“Anything we can,” Paul? How about removing the spectre of higher taxes and deeper government intervention in the economy?
Please send my Nobel Prize to the address listed on my account. Thank you.