Economics probably heads the list of things about which I cannot claim expertise, so I’m lucky in that Dear Husband (DH) — who is an expert — is not only available to me as a resource, but has the gift of explaining things on my terms.
Like many folks, I tend to lay blame (or award praise) for the economy — whatever state it’s in at the moment — on the current administration. And when I do this, DH nearly always tries to remind me that the economy is cyclic: that we go through ups and downs in roughly 7 year cycles. The height and depth of the associated peaks and valleys may vary, but the economic rhythm is a natural state.
So DH would probably agree in the abstract with Paul Krugman in the NY Times:
The Reagan economy was a one-hit wonder. Yes, there was a boom in the mid-1980s, as the economy recovered from a severe recession. But while the rich got much richer, there was little sustained economic improvement for most Americans. By the late 1980s, middle-class incomes were barely higher than they had been a decade before — and the poverty rate had actually risen.
This is fairly misleading, though. One could describe many presidents’ economies as “one-hit wonders”, depending on where in the cycle one chooses to pull charts and graphs. If things are trending up, the policies are brilliant. Trending down? Those policies are the cause. It’s pretty straight-forward… until you peek behind the partisan curtain.
But Paul Krugman’s focus is far narrower in this morning’s column; it’s merely the latest sortie in his battle with Barack Obama over Reagan:
But where in [Obama’s] remarks was the clear declaration that Reaganomics failed?
Gee, Paul — I dunno. Let’s go see what he said:
Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it.
He tapped into what people were already feeling, which is we want clarity, we want optimism, we want, you know, a return to that sense of dynamism and, you know, entrepreneurship that had been missing.
Hmmm…. nope. Don’t see it — nor do I see an assertion that they succeeded. In fact, I don’t see any mention whatsoever about Reagan’s policies.
To at least some degree, people are obviously going to hear what they want when politicians speak, but this isn’t all that complex a combination of consonants and vowels, folks. Three sentences. Two paragraphs.
Spin away…
I think you need to look at the bigger picture senario- regardless of economic expertise or what can see by looking at some text. What is the POINT of what they are saying. Barrack can be said to be saying Ronny was a good coalition builder. He was because Repulbicans fall in line(Dems in love) and he accelerated that fact by being a good communicator. Krugman is just making the point that Obama NEEDED to qualify that statement, which if you follow my logic is just a bit of self congradulations since that is what Obama is – a good coalition builder. Qualify it because it leaves an impresion that the actual policies worked when in fact they didn’t AND don’t.
Jonnyjoe, I hear what you’re saying. I do. But surely you’re not expecting Obama to try to respond to every out of context statement and mis-quote? Because his Reagan comment has been spun every which way.
FWIW, though, here’s this:
and
Is this what you had in mind?
Exactly, and good digging. Likewise I sense the frustration with campaign coverage. So I been cursing the mainstream press, who have a bad way of dealing with this. I think the reason for this is the press is so sparse when it comes to covering the issues. Maybe they need to demand the runners lay out a platform, and covering that with some density for lack of a better world. How frustating can you get when you have a fence hoper and slightly “puffy” polition in the front. Uhhgh. But definetly to curtail these unfinished ideas that each side grabs at to make some a counter point that goes off issue. Having said that I am pretty sure many people want to pin a label (left or right) on their man. I admit I do. And Obama is hard to pin down, hence Krugman attacks. Hillary just as hard to label, is getting off because she wants it both ways but seems to settle out a little closer to the left. Coalitions are great- but honestly we all know how bogged down they can get when they are partisan at the core. Just musing, but something like that.
I agree that the media isn’t doing a good job with the candidate positions at all. It is partially because of their lapse that people are being left to draw inferences, and rely on pundits and opinion-writers — many of whom are far too committed to their own axe-grinding.
If you are looking for information about economics I would hope that you’d look away from Krugman. He is possibly the most partisan economist I’ve ever read and he has a severe case of BDS.