Some time ago, after ABC began occasionally including Paul Krugman on This Week panels, which began to expose the silliness and misrepresentations of people like George Will, someone must have realized that it was highly risky to give Paul Krugman or his type too much time, because that would expose how silly and dishonest most of the This Week panelists usually are.
The solution, which we saw in its extreme version today, is to swarm any fact-based panelist with enough liars and Serious People Who Have Been Wrong About Everything so that the lonely fact-based panelist can’t possibly refute all the absolute gibberish the rest of the panel spouts.
So consider this morning’s panel, in which Paul Krugman is arrayed against:
- George Will, always primed with enough misleading numbers and selective anecdotes to reaffirm the right wing’s view of reality. It would take Krugman the entire time just to refute him.
- Carly Fiorina, the failed CEO of HP who nearly drove her company into the ground, was fired, and then failed to win the governorship of California, giving us the standard GOP line that, if only we unleashed the entrepreneurial spirit of business people like her, America could succeed again. It would take two Krugmans full time to rebut a woman who only does misleading talking points for Team Republican, and that’s the role she actually serves on the Romney California team.
- David Walker, former Comptroller General,
who failed to do his bank regulatory job and(Director of the GAO from 1998 to 2008) who headed the Pete Peterson Foundation, has been wrong about the stimulus, wrong about deficits, wrong about entitlements, etc, etc, but who is now one of D.C.’s favorite deficit hysterics for slashing entitlements which are invariably lumped as socialsecuritymedicaremedicaidfoodstamps, because they’re obviously responsible for our huge deficits.
- Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google, possibly selected to pretend to balance Carly Fiorina, but she’s on Team GOP and he’s on Team Google, to give us insights of a large corporation, but who neglected to mention his company is under investigation by the Justice Department — and that takes a lot, these days — for violating antitrust laws, which means everything he says about the wonders of the “market” is something his company works actively to undermine over your ignored protests.
- And finally, Jennifer Granholm, a decent person, Democratic ex-governor who has some useful things to say, especially about why it was a good idea to save the auto industry. She helped rebut Carly Fiorina on that point, but even she holds standard D.C. talking points that Krugman had to spend time correcting.
Now combine this with the usually clueless George Stephanopoulus and you’ve created an impossible task for anyone hoping to have a reality-based discussion break through the fog of misinformation and failed theories. Since providing a fact-based reality check is Krugman’s role, and he only gets to talk at best 1/7th, or 14% of the time — and Walker and Fiorina made sure to interrupt and talk over him repeatedly — the odds you would be dumber by the end of the show were very high. And that’s exactly how it went.
So how much more misinformed would you be after watching this show? Consider what we learned:
From Walker: the biggest economic problem facing the country is the deficit, which can only be solved if we broaden the tax base — i.e., tax poor people — but simplify and lower tax rates on everyone else, so that – and he didn’t say this, but it’s what he supports — the rich pay less and the middle/lower classes pay more — and please, can we not talk about inequality and how it became so bad? — while we slash the economic security of most Americans by cutting Social Security and Medicare. Walker later promotes hysteria over the “unfunded obligations “of “entitlements” — OMG! $5 trillion more in Social Security in one year! — so Krugman has to remind viewers that he’s actually read the Social Security and CBO reports, which basically say, “it’s the economy, stupid!”
From Fiorina: Echoes Walker on getting those lazy poor people to pay more taxes and accept less in SS/Medicare. Explains the economy is sagging because we haven’t unleashed the entrepreneurial spirit of small businesses. She then trots out the familiar, “we have the highest taxes!” . . . so Krugman has to spend part of this 1:7 ratio of rebuttal time saying she’s flat wrong, while Granholm rebuts Fiorina on the virtues of states playing beggar thy neighbor by trying to bribe companies to move to North Carolina at Michigan’s or Washington State’s expense.
From Will: Obama is failing, because this recovery is slower than the average of the last seven recessions, especially the Reagan recovery after the Volker-Fed-induced recession in the 1980s. Krugman gets only a few seconds to explain this is bogus, noting that in the Reagan example, we accepted 4% inflation, which helped, but The Bernanke allows only about 2% today. Embarrassing silence; faced with a relevant fact that undermines the standard meme, they move on to another topic. He doesn’t get time to explain the difference between a massive financial crash that wiped out $8 trillion in private housing wealth and a recession deliberately induced by Volker raising Fed interest rates.
Krugman tries to explain the decline in government employment versus private employment coming back to pre-recession levels — but they talk over him, so he does not get a chance to explain that the GOP/Dem/White House deficit hysterics have effectively blocked most efforts to support the states instead of allowing layoffs and continue government spending to boost demand. The entire economic discussion is hopeless, and apparently no one but Krugman has been watching Europe strangle itself into recessions and depressions by doing exactly what the deficit hysterics advocate.
All in all, possibly the worst This Week panel in months, but under Stephanopoulus we’re coming to expect that. George, however, thought this was a wonderful discussion.
But let’s not forget the usually uncounted 8th panelist: Chevron gets an unrebutted chance at the end to assure us that only small businesses create jobs, Chevron supports small businesses, so relying on oil creates jobs!
Update: Krugman’s reaction: We’re Doomed!





47 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
And people wonder why nobody watches the Sunday shows? If they let Paul talk more ratings would go up. But ratings are not the issue its Propaganda to reenforce the dwindling number of viewers that yes they are right about the beliefs they already hold.
I don’t know whether more Krugman and less Will or Team Obama/Romney reps would increase or decrease the number viewers. I suspect they’re trying to appeal to various tribes with a different mix. But today’s representative mix, as they define it, is pretty awful in my term. The sponsors, like Chevron may not care as long as they get an unrebutted 30 seconds at the end.
The point of Propaganda is to mobilize your base and ADD to your base. The Sunday shows and TV news outside of Fox is too weak tea for the Tea Bagger adrenaline addicts who need a constant WAR on something to get their fix.
The News shows do not get Moderate Voters who increasingly turn to the Net for news. On the topics that voters care about the most Government creating jobs, helping homeowners, ending the wars now and pulling back all troops, taxing the rich more, not cutting SS and Medicare the majority of the voters are to the Left of Obama despite or maybe because the News and Sunday shows do suck a sucky job of brainwashing.
Never mind presenting the Conservative Case for how things should be.
I do know more people watched the news when the Press had the Fairness Doctrine. :)
Bummer! Sounds like the ” really smart people” had this one well in hand./s
I think it will always be this way. There is a certain logic for wealthy people to want austerity and very low inflation and of course to want to cut spending and lower taxes. And poor people, or those of the people, are simply not invited and for this sort of punditry, not as plentiful. That is why IMO change has to come from the streets, something like OWS, or another populist, but this time not like Obama. Sadly, seems nothing like that on the horizon. The “”really smart people” control the government, and with few exceptions, they always did.
that was before you had so may choices, if you were looking for news, and probably less frustration, in not being able to find something that seemed to match one’s view of reality. A fairness doctrine, as it was understood then, just gets you equal Democrats and Republicans, e.g., which is hardly enough in my view.
A sad thing is that I’m not sure we’d be much smarter or better informed with 100% Krugman. He’s oblivious to the incoherence of mainstream economics and refuses to acknowledge the reality of pervasive fraud and criminality in the financial world. We can learn more from Bill Black and Joseph Stiglitz and Yves Smith.
The bread crumb safety net…
I agree Krugman has some serious flaws, even in economics, but he is the closest we have to speak truth to power. I agree with those you named , but I would add an MMT economist or two, like Mosler, Wray or even Norman. There are many others.
“The solution, which we saw in its extreme version today, is to swarm any fact-based panelist with enough liars and Serious People Who Have Been Wrong About Everything so that the lonely fact-based panelist can’t possibly refute all the absolute gibberish the rest of the panel spouts.”
YES!
Concisely written. Accurate. You know this. I know this. Most everyone here knows this. Bloody hell, a dog with dementia knows this.
So why did Krugman (you think he knew? you betcha) go on this useless show? To make a difference? To “educate” people? And did it work?
Well folks, if you can’t figure it out by now, then there really is little hope for any of us.
The Rich can control the conversation and try and dress up Herbert Hoover economic policies as the cure but its not working. Shifting the blame to a Dark President, Dark illegal immigrants the scapegoat strategy is not working, blaming government is not working to back this point up please refer to Tea Bagger polling numbers.
FDR fixed the economy much faster much better than Obama ever did. Now either we fix the economy or we face a Lefty revolution or a Right Wing Coup since the Tea Baggers do not have the popular support to recreate another Hitler.
A Right Wing Coup would follow the model of unpopular Right Wing coups in South America with the same economic results that South America had.
But if thats what the rich want declining wealth but to be surrounded by an increasing poor class then fine but countries like that are weak when invasion comes.
Our economic and military might depends on innovation that means educating the more people so we educate the random genius. That means the random genius can make enough cash and have enough free time to develop his or her ideas to the point where someone will finance him or her.
Crap education and having to work long hours just to make ends meet hurts America it kills innovation.
Agreed Dems and GOP are not choices but if the big networks wanted ratings instead of a means to spread corporate propaganda then they would be adding more diverse voices.
If they truly wanted their propaganda to be effective they would have honest debates and change their mind when confronted with reality and rework their ideas so they were better like we do here.
Most of us here know that, but it won’t change the way the upper class thinks about it. They want a stable economy with low inflation. They figure that is best for everyone. They have been doing this in Europe for some time now. But it is beginning to come apart on them. That, at least, is a good sign.
Thanks I was wondering if someone would point this out. I wonder how he got his nobel prize but then I remember 0 prize.
I don’t agree with saying that Krugman is oblivious to the fraud in the financial sector. He’s never said that, nor said that Bill Black is wrong about the massive crimes.
Each has to do what he does/knows best. So I think attacking Krugman in this environment is way off base. He’s been carrying a tremendous amount of water for the reality-based world view, especially relative to the accepted view, and he’s done it in the face of massive personal attacks. He can’t carry everyone’s issue. You don’t have to agree with every one of his points to acknowledge this.
You don’t need Black instead of Krugman. You need Black and Krugman, different experts in different but compatible fields. And the argument is similar when talking about how Krugman explains economics and how MMT folks would. Relative to the prevailing view, they’re allies in the broader struggle. Move the whole debate in their direction, and then we can argue about their differences, but in my view, we’re not anywhere close to that.
On NBC. THIS WEEK had the same type lineup and same message – Rachel was even talked over many times to kill her points.
So we learned Obama is about dividing us – employer from employee – rich from poorer – male from female. And Obama is about lies about a war on women because the GOP want jobs and women need jobs the most and indeed lost a higher percentage of jobs under Obama then men. And there is no women earn 77% of what a male makes – indeed in ages 42 to 51 (or something like that) single women earn 47000 and men earn 41000. Indeed that lower wage is all about qualifications and expected time in the work force and how much harder mean work when they are married. And getting Ossama was what any president would do and Obama will be see as evil to try to imply that Mitt’s own words about not caring about getting Ossama meant he he would not have gotten him.
what is really depressing is Obama and the Dems follow losers like David Walker aka Pete Peterson’s mini me….more of the same by the same jack asses that got us into this mess…Except for Dylan R I no longer watch ABC, NBC CBS MSNBC or CNN…Fox forget them! I do watch RT,, mixed feelings on Current
It makes no sense to argue Krugman didn’t deserve Nobel recognition because another group in a different time gave the Peace prize to Obama.
ABC =MICKEY MOUSE WITHOUT HIS INTEGRITY
Yes. Thanks for that summary. NBC thought it was fine to put an MSBNC anchor, Maddow, against two hired spokespersons for Team GOP.
I agree Krugman is on the right side of the argument. But, as I understand, he does not buy into the tenets of MMT about money, credit and deficits. For example, households are not like the government and deficits generally are meaningless. Those issues come up all the time. The unsustainable deficit and need to cut spending is one of the right wing talking points. That needs to be put down. Krugman is not up to the task. (but in recent times, he seems to be coming around.)
after returning from Europe last month,i can report due to national healthcare ,they are doing better,much better than we are.
Most “news” today is some form or other of gossip. This is just the televised version. And the proportions are just about right: probably 14% of the populace knows and understand what is going on, and the other 86% are telling lies, spreading disinformation, feeding the rumor mill and gossiping. And Krugman may not be perfect, but even if he is half-wrong, that makes him half right, which is a far better accuracy percentage than the 86%, who have it 100% wrong. I stopped watching these Sunday programs years ago. They serve only two purposes. One is to generate advertising revenue, and the second is to reinforce dangerous misconceptions. George is a celebrity broadcaster, and to continue this charade consistently, he has clearly sold off his personal integrity on the media auction block. This is a surprise?
Krugman may not be oblivious to the corruption and crime going on but he does indeed seem to not grasp that the structurally corrupt nature of the system we have built cannot solve the problems ailing the economy because they are the reason for the failings of our economy.
Places like nakedcapitalism.com and zerohedge lay this out repeatedly with frequent regularity. It all starts at the top with the FED which is designed to be corrupt from the start. Expecting the FED to do anything other than act it in own interests is an example of the daily blindness Krugman exhibits. He also routinely uses logical fallacies in his arguments rendering most of them useless. Krugman’s inflation arguments should be treated as damn dangerous IMO.
MMT doesn’t admit or deal with the fact that the US doesn’t issue its own currency which is amazingly frequently stated or assumed, it borrows it from a private banking cartel which gets paid handsomely to do so while be owned and influenced by people not even remotely interested in the welfare of the US or its citizens. The corruption is built right in, one of the biggest scams ever perpetrated. It is the ultimate rent seeking scam ever created. It extends right into the private banks and mega corps like GE.
I don’t read him the same way. He’s always ridiculed the notion that household and federal budgets are the same. He criticized Obama and WH advisers for making this argument. The argument about debt, or the way we understand government “borrowing” is, in practical terms, more about the long term, not the short term. He uses one analysis to explain when spending now is fine to boost demand at the zero bound; the MMT people don’t feel they need that argument and make another. Fine. In the current context, I don’t care about that difference for now.
In the long run, there has to be a decision about who and how much you want to tax and for what reasons. They would explain this differently, but I don’t care for now, because in the final analysis, they’re using taxing to affect degrees and types of inequality and incentives — to encourage with breaks what we want to expand; discourage with taxes would we want to lesson, and redistribute versus the mal-distributional effects of pervasive “market failures.”
It’s not that these differences aren’t or won’t ever be important in some contexts; they just don’t matter to me now given where the public debate is. And if I have to be conversant with and explain both in every post about macroeconomics, when it’s obvious we need to be spending to create the demand for jobs and spending to keep from laying off teachers — which they all agree on — I don’t have the time to go through it every post.
That was great. What ever happened to Dickipedia,?
ABC, NBC, CNN, they’re all just doing their jobs. In a dumbed-down, largely depoliticized society, where the education of young people has been deliberately sabotaged, one way they do their jobs is to allow one coherent voice amongst a flock of loons. Result? The coherent voice sounds insane; the loons, in their lockstep majority, must therefore be right and correct. It goes without saying that the job of big media conglomerates is NOT to educate and inform; their job is to protect corporate power from the threat of democracy. I fight back by explaining this to every child age 10 and up I come in contact with. It takes me about 3 minutes to do it, and most of them get it immediately.
Main Stream Media makes you dumber. That’s its purpose. I never watch it.
I read this just to keep track of the propaganda so I know what they are up to, but other than that, watching these clowns is like hanging out with crackheads.
They are stupid, you can’t turn your back on them, and they’ll screw you over in a heartbeat…. which is what they are there to do…
If Krugman is the most progressive voice on the panel we’re in deep sh*t from the get go.
One nit to pick. You wrote “David Walker, former Comptroller General, who failed to do his bank regulatory job…”, and the problem is this: The Comptroller General doesn’t have anything to do with the regulation of the banks.
I used ot be a fan of krugman but hes just been too much of a dem apologist for my liking these past few years. Sure hell criticize things they do but in the end hell tell people we have no choice but to vote for them. Maybe having a couple of really good economists like someone mentioned would be interesting. But just krugman would be kind of boring frankly.
* Krugman is more Borg than Bernanke. In that clip he asserted that Bernanke has the power to lower unemployment. He doesn’t. Business is the source of wealth and they aren’t relying on Bernanke for anything. (Except for banks)
* The idea that the rich prefer less inflation is wrong. The rich have assets that increase in value, while the rest have to ask for a raise after prices have already risen.
* Krugman also believes deficits don’t matter, like Cheney. That’s bogus because every thing in life is matter of degree. Throwing a glass of water on someone is very different than a tsunami. A $300 billion deficit is hugely different than a $1600 billion deficit.
Krugman refuses to see the economy as the efforts of human beings, he’d rather view it as a mathematical model, and insist people conform to it. That’s just wrong.
“This Week” would have been very interesting if Krugman could have been prepared with data to show how much would be saved on the deficit, and for investment, education, and job growth, if only the Empire were expunged.
In fact, Krugman’s sound advice might have been similar or more effective than the economic input of Reichsbank President, Hjalmar Schacht, Minister of Economics, Walther Funk, and Price Commissioner, Dr. Carl Friedrich Goerdeler, calling for decreased military spending and other constructive (and morally correct) changes to the Nazi Empire before that empire precipitated global disaster.
Best luck to the “Occupy Empire” educational and revolutionary movement.
Liberty, democracy, equality, and justice
Over
Violent/Vichy
Empire,
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
Everyone on the panel except Krugman is a servant of those who benefit from layoffs and recessions. The other panel members know better but their economic interests mean they cannot admit to knowing better. While the US has been demolishing two err three err four countries [Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and now Syria] the Chinese have been responsible for 100% of the reduction in world poverty. Their economic theories for poverty reduction seem to work over the long period of time. The US economic theory seems to be geared only for war-making.
trambershall, the descriptor, “Serious People Who Have Been Wrong About Everything” had been changed to the single word definition, “Guessers” by the great black humorist and humanitarian, Kurt Vonnegut in his final, non-fiction, and fabulous book, “A Man Without a Country”.
Give Vonnegut credit for knowing that his country had been stolen, captured, and “Occupied” by these “Guessers” and their global Empire.
Best,
Alan
Thanks. Corrected and updated.
OK, but we are not talking here about a long term problem. Obama and the republicans are talking about cutting spending on the safety nets now, not in the far future. And the idea of spending, borrowing, interest,debt and taxes are irrelvant to this. The government is not constrained in any of those respects; households are so constrained. I don’t think Krugman understands this.
I stopped watching the Sunday so called News shows years ago. Too depressing and a waste of time.
Don’t watch the silly sh*t. This site is full of people complaining about the drivel that the MSM churns out. Is tuning in to compalain about the WH Correspondents’ Dinner the best use of time for anyone who really wants to change things? I have my doubts. Ditto Sunday a.m. talking heads. Ditto all of it. The rest of the world is almost entirely invisible on TV, for example, especially places like South America where all the hope it.
I watched that show this morning and agree with you completely Scarecrow. In fact I remarked during the show that Krugman and Granholm needed to be more aggressive. Fiorina is the last person we should be taking advise from on job creation when you failed as a CEO. And George Will is as dumb as a box of rocks. He has sat on his ass most of his life and has the nerve to say that it is ridiculous for us to collect SS at 62 when we have so many people working so hard hauling cement, working in foundrys , standing on their feet for long hours all day. These people should retire at 55. And why is no one raising the issue that Paul Ryan went to school on SS ???
Yeah, well… Krugman is, like all of them, a neoliberal and quite the partisan Democrat. Ultimately his prescriptions will fail to change, essentially, the crony capitalism that runs our government.
Face it, how can any economist who supports this loathsome Democratic Party and its fraudulent leader, Barack Obama, be anything but a shill?
This is exactly right. You get a broad picture of Krugman’s thinking on his blog. He is acutely conscious of the limits of his knowledge and expertise.
There are “shows” on Sunday?
Has anyone ever seen Naom Chomsky on Sunday morning T.V.? Tariq Ali? Arundhoti Roy? Greg Palast or James Kunstler? Of course not. Instead we get Ed Gillespie, Frank Luntz, or Monica Crowley. The nation’s political dialog has become a sit-com.
I can’t believe you guys are still watching this stuff.
====== http://www.clothes8.org ======
Cheap Nike air Jordan shoes33$,Air Force 1 33$, Nike dunks SB shoe,Nike Shox shoe. Wholesale Cheap Nike shoes with discount jersey, High quality T-shirts,ED Hardy hoodies,ED hardy shoes,ED hardy Jeans,Evisu shoes,GUCCI shoes,LV Handbag,Chanel Handbag……welcome to
==== http://www.clothes8.org ====
Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $30
Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $33
Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $14
Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30
Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $12
New era cap NY $9
Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $18
New era cap $9
free shipping
====== http://www.clothes8.org ======
What’s an “era cap”?