AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

This is the truth, and it comes from a Nobel Prize winner.


Op-Ed Columnist
Bad Faith Economics

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: January 25, 2009
As the debate over President Obama’s economic stimulus plan gets under way, one thing is certain: many of the plan’s opponents aren’t arguing in good faith. Conservatives really, really don’t want to see a second New Deal, and they certainly don’t want to see government activism vindicated. So they are reaching for any stick they can find with which to beat proposals for increased government spending.

Some of these arguments are obvious cheap shots. John Boehner, the House minority leader, has already made headlines with one such shot: looking at an $825 billion plan to rebuild infrastructure, sustain essential services and more, he derided a minor provision that would expand Medicaid family-planning services " and called it a plan to “spend hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives.”

But the obvious cheap shots don’t pose as much danger to the Obama administration’s efforts to get a plan through as arguments and assertions that are equally fraudulent but can seem superficially plausible to those who don’t know their way around economic concepts and numbers. So as a public service, let me try to debunk some of the major antistimulus arguments that have already surfaced. Any time you hear someone reciting one of these arguments, write him or her off as a dishonest flack.

First, there’s the bogus talking point that the Obama plan will cost $275,000 per job created. Why is it bogus? Because it involves taking the cost of a plan that will extend over several years, creating millions of jobs each year, and dividing it by the jobs created in just one of those years.

It’s as if an opponent of the school lunch program were to take an estimate of the cost of that program over the next five years, then divide it by the number of lunches provided in just one of those years, and assert that the program was hugely wasteful, because it cost $13 per lunch. (The actual cost of a free school lunch, by the way, is $2.57.)

The true cost per job of the Obama plan will probably be closer to $100,000 than $275,000 " and the net cost will be as little as $60,000 once you take into account the fact that a stronger economy means higher tax receipts.

Next, write off anyone who asserts that it’s always better to cut taxes than to increase government spending because taxpayers, not bureaucrats, are the best judges of how to spend their money.

Here’s how to think about this argument: it implies that we should shut down the air traffic control system. After all, that system is paid for with fees on air tickets " and surely it would be better to let the flying public keep its money rather than hand it over to government bureaucrats. If that would mean lots of midair collisions, hey, stuff happens.

The point is that nobody really believes that a dollar of tax cuts is always better than a dollar of public spending. Meanwhile, it’s clear that when it comes to economic stimulus, public spending provides much more bang for the buck than tax cuts " and therefore costs less per job created (see the previous fraudulent argument) " because a large fraction of any tax cut will simply be saved.

This suggests that public spending rather than tax cuts should be the core of any stimulus plan. But rather than accept that implication, conservatives take refuge in a nonsensical argument against public spending in general.

Finally, ignore anyone who tries to make something of the fact that the new administration’s chief economic adviser has in the past favored monetary policy over fiscal policy as a response to recessions.

It’s true that the normal response to recessions is interest-rate cuts from the Fed, not government spending. And that might be the best option right now, if it were available. But it isn’t, because we’re in a situation not seen since the 1930s: the interest rates the Fed controls are already effectively at zero.

That’s why we’re talking about large-scale fiscal stimulus: it’s what’s left in the policy arsenal now that the Fed has shot its bolt. Anyone who cites old arguments against fiscal stimulus without mentioning that either doesn’t know much about the subject " and therefore has no business weighing in on the debate " or is being deliberately obtuse.

These are only some of the fundamentally fraudulent antistimulus arguments out there. Basically, conservatives are throwing any objection they can think of against the Obama plan, hoping that something will stick.

But here’s the thing: Most Americans aren’t listening. The most encouraging thing I’ve heard lately is Mr. Obama’s reported response to Republican objections to a spending-oriented economic plan: “I won.” Indeed he did " and he should disregard the huffing and puffing of those who lost.

--nytimes.com

Krugman's article is an appropriate argument for this thread, Advocate, though I think for Krugman, the prince of liberalism and negativity, to win the Nobel Prize for economics ranks right up there with Yassar Arafat and Al Gore being awarded the Nobel Prize for peace.

From my perspective, Krugman frequently draws conclusions that require blind ideology to accept and he did so in that article. I read Krugman now and then for balance, but I look elsewhere for education on economics. He is now grasping at straws and nitpicking beyond belief to dismiss valid objections anybody might raise re the proposed stimulus packages that many of us see as careless or irresponsible or dangerous folly.

When you run out of arguments, always pull out the old standby, accusations of racism, standard operating practice for libs, and you claim to not be a lib, Frank?

Let's treat each other nicely, I tell Okie who is one of my favorite people here. Frank is expressing a point of view that is valid for the debate no matter how wrong you or I might think he is, and he isn't being excessively dogmatic or insulting with it.

okie, Are you making the claim that any and all accusation of racism is a liberal problem? Where does these ideas come from?

You're hardly competent to judge any of that.

It has to be shown to have principle that's all. I'm not disagreeing with the idea that murder is wrong, I'm disagreeing in WHY. I'd believe murder is wrong if there was no bible. The bible can't claim to be the originator of things such as this. That's all.

If you read what I wrote, I gave one of my reasons why murder should be illegal independent of some deity's decree: social order.

I don't care what other's govern themselves by, but they need to know their limits in what they can govern others by.

T
K
O

Values and principles should be able to stand up to the Rake, by which I mean the cold knife of logic. It's not enough to assert their worth based upon past assessments, so they should net be seen as stemming from past assessments of worth.

The religious doctrine may embody good ideas with it, but those ideas are not born from that doctrine; they are either born from logic, or nothing at all.

Cycloptichorn

They are trying to claim that all non-christian laws against murder are wrong. They can't see their own hypocrisy.

ICAN (or nobody else) has stated or suggested that murder is wrong only because it is listed as wrong in a Bible passage or that it would be right if there was no Bible. All that has been said is that MACs agree with that Bible passage on that point. I am guessing that the many MACs who are agnostic or Atheist agree with that Bible passage on that point.

Again, it does not matter (to a MAC) who thought up a good idea or who adopts it or who promotes it. It is a good idea nevertheless.

You seem to be drawing assumptions about what ICAN intended with absolutely no evidence that the intent was even expressed, much less intended.

No Fox. Reread it. ican was clear. I should be governed by the commandments 6-10 (not sure why those specifically).

T
K
O

Those specifically because some others listed in that passage would not be MAC principles or acceptable to MACs. What if he had said 'laws' instead of 'commandments'? It would mean exactly the same thing but perhaps would offend anti-religious sensibilities less? Does it matter that the Hebrews and some current Jews and Christians believed those laws came directly from God and you don't? Does that make them any less valid?

How can god of the bible be the arbiter of when killing is good or bad? He was responsible for the great flood that killed innocent babies.

I think that's the point Fox. It may seem like only semantics, but I think it's important (as Cyclo pointed out) that what governs us is based on logic. I'm not saying that a given commandment is wrong, I'm saying that it's usefulness in society is not that some claim it to be divine; but it's logical merit.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I don't care who gets the credit for the idea. But perhaps the Jews and Christians need to understand they didn't come up with the idea either.

T
K
O

Thus, for instance, female and male slaves wouldn't be mentioned:
You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.


But actually he didn't write 'laws'.

That is because 'laws' in the Old Testament are issued in the form of 'commandments'. In the mind of the Hebrew they were one and the same. And again Walter, I bet if you tried really really hard you would be able to identify and appreciate a principle apart from the example used to express it.

The question is, can Conservatives? There's not a lot of evidence that they can.

Cycloptichorn

Care to offer a good example to illustrate your point of view on that Cyclop?

Why the constant referral to the bible, and biblical law and literature, if what they really want to commend is the logic behind the laws? Why the appeals to religion if the efficiency of the rule is the key?

Because, I suspect that the logic behind the religious rules is not what is really being appealed to, but instead a logical fallacy: appealing to authority, in this case, religious authority. It is an entirely different mindset and not one which recognizes the primacy of logic; and the effects of this mindset are clearly visible in modern conservative thought.

Or, before you start yammering about what is and isn't Conservative thought, the effects are visible in the words and actions of modern Conservatives, both elected and unelected.

Cycloptichorn

What 'constant referrals to the Bible'? This thread now is now hundreds of pages and almost 2900 posts long and I would guess that fewer than 1% of those posts refer to the Bible at all. Don't you think 'constant' is a gross exaggeration?

And what is wrong with using an example from a religious text? There was no suggestion that the religion was an issue or even necessary to the discussion, but rather the text reflected modern American conservative (MAC) values. There was no suggestion that ONLY MACs hold such values, but that such values are among those that would be commonly found in the MAC ideology.

So again, please provide an example for your earlier statement suggesting that conservatives are unable to separate a principle from an example provided to illustrate it. Please provide your example as illustraton to support your statement re conservatives.

I would also appreciate your providing an example to illustrate/support this statement: