Krugman at the LSE
So raayat and I saw Paul Krugman speak at the LSE yesterday on the state of the US welfare system; can it realistically be dismantled and the income demographics of the US. To be honest, if you read Krugman even semi-regularly you already pretty much know what he said.
I think the most interesting policy implication he made is the difficulty of the average voter to understand the ramifications of most proposed changes to tax law and other economic policy. He says this is because the mainstream media, television in particular, flat out does not go into the details or perform any kind of analysis. They merely report the soundbites and go on. Now, it's been 6 years since I got most of my information from television, so I don't have any personal knowledge of what is or is not said on television, but judging from the remarks of relatives on various policy matters it seems to be true. The theories for why this is true runs anywhere from the paranoid conspiracy theorist to those that plead ignorance on the part of the journalists as well. Still I think it says something that the economy and economic policy even during a period of lackluster growth is no longer the primary concern of most Americans. Krugman argues that the Republicans have successfully shifted the argument to security and the need to protect America from "Gay married terrorists". Which is probably true, but the fact that it worked perhaps says something about the American people that is worrisome.
One of the real questions that was only answered in passing and in broad generalizations was: Why would the Republican party wish to enact these economic practices in the first place? Why is it in the party's best interest to give tax breaks to the top .1% of income earners and to dismantle the social programs that the rest of the country relies on? Is it because most politicians are in that top bracket? (I find this hard to believe) Is it because they really *have* sold out to large corporate interests? That might be true except most corporations are struggling with the rising cost of health-care and pension plans and would WANT (if they were rational) the government to step in and take away some of that financial burden.
I don't get it.
Please realize that most of the above is talking about ECONOMIC policy of the current administration and not their SOCIAL policies aside from the fact that the latter seems to be a diversionary tactic for the former.
Anyway, he didn't answer any of the big questions and presented the same ole data again, but some of the questions he raised are worth thinking about.
I think the most interesting policy implication he made is the difficulty of the average voter to understand the ramifications of most proposed changes to tax law and other economic policy. He says this is because the mainstream media, television in particular, flat out does not go into the details or perform any kind of analysis. They merely report the soundbites and go on. Now, it's been 6 years since I got most of my information from television, so I don't have any personal knowledge of what is or is not said on television, but judging from the remarks of relatives on various policy matters it seems to be true. The theories for why this is true runs anywhere from the paranoid conspiracy theorist to those that plead ignorance on the part of the journalists as well. Still I think it says something that the economy and economic policy even during a period of lackluster growth is no longer the primary concern of most Americans. Krugman argues that the Republicans have successfully shifted the argument to security and the need to protect America from "Gay married terrorists". Which is probably true, but the fact that it worked perhaps says something about the American people that is worrisome.
One of the real questions that was only answered in passing and in broad generalizations was: Why would the Republican party wish to enact these economic practices in the first place? Why is it in the party's best interest to give tax breaks to the top .1% of income earners and to dismantle the social programs that the rest of the country relies on? Is it because most politicians are in that top bracket? (I find this hard to believe) Is it because they really *have* sold out to large corporate interests? That might be true except most corporations are struggling with the rising cost of health-care and pension plans and would WANT (if they were rational) the government to step in and take away some of that financial burden.
I don't get it.
Please realize that most of the above is talking about ECONOMIC policy of the current administration and not their SOCIAL policies aside from the fact that the latter seems to be a diversionary tactic for the former.
Anyway, he didn't answer any of the big questions and presented the same ole data again, but some of the questions he raised are worth thinking about.