Here:
I'm not sure why I am supposed to be reassured by the idea that Obama is "listening" to Paul Krugman when this is how it's phrased:
If Paul Krugman has a good idea, in terms of how to spend money efficiently and effectively to jump-start the economy, then we're going to do it. If somebody has an idea for a tax cut that is better than a tax cut we've proposed, we will embrace it. So, you know, one of the things that I think I'm trying to communicate in this process is for everybody to get past the habit that sometimes occurs in Washington of whose idea is it, what ideological corner does it come from. Just show me. If you can show me that something is going to work, I will welcome it.
If Paul Krugman has an idea that Obama actually recognizes as a good idea, despite the fact that he seems to be following Reagan polices, then sure, fine, we'll listen to Krugman, I mean, hey, we're not gonna dis him just because he's Krugman - we'll listen to anyone who has an idea we think is good - always bearing in mind that we hired Larry Summers, and not Krugman, because we think Krugman is just another liberal we don't have to listen to. We wouldn't think of hiring and listening to the people who have been right just because they've been right when we can hire people who have been consistently wrong and listen to them because - well, because being wrong is such a good idea!
So what's your point?
You're not the one who's "supposed to be reassured," eh? Why would you imagine otherwise?
NOTE As always, "right" and "wrong" depend on "right" or "wrong" for whom. FISA [cough] reform, for example, may be "wrong" for people who care about the Constitution and the rule of law, but it's definitely "right" for the telcos. Torture may be "wrong," especially if you're the one being tortured, but if you're looking for a homeland security maven, it's definitely "right." Handing Hank Paulson's golfing buddies two trillion dollars via the Bush + Reid + Pelosi + Obama + Paulson bailout bill might look "wrong," but if you're one of 'em, it's oh so, so achingly right. And so on. What's wrong with you?
- lambert's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[encrypted]+#b94+
Printer-friendly version
Front page
Comments
Not to quibble with you or Avedon
But if I recall correctly, Krugman has said in the past that he considers himself temperamentally unsuited to the work of government and wants no part in being hired by any administration. Personally, I like him in the role of a gadfly. As long as he continues to be a gadfly with the upcoming administration.
You do recall correctly
But... Larry Summers?
(And I have to think that if Krugman were really asked, his doubts about his own temperament might be lessened -- and shielding high officials from the effects of their temperaments is really a job for staffers, is it not? And Krugman could have whoever he wanted. Elsewhere in the same story, IRRC, Obama mispronounced Krugman's name, so it's not exactly clear who's doing the listening....)
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi