Source: The New York Times Paul Krugman
President Trump is still promising to bring back coal jobs. But the underlying reasons for coal employment’s decline — automation, falling electricity demand, cheap natural gas, technological progress in wind and solar — won’t go away.
Meanwhile, last week the Treasury Department officially (and correctly) declined to name China as a currency manipulator, making nonsense of everything Mr. Trump has said about reviving manufacturing.
So will the Trump administration ever do anything substantive to bring back mining and manufacturing jobs? Probably not.
But let me ask a different question: Why does public discussion of job loss focus so intensely on mining and manufacturing, while virtually ignoring the big declines in some service sectors? Den Rest des Beitrags lesen »
What’s next on health care? Truly, I have no idea. The AHCA is a real stinker, and now everyone knows it; ordinarily, that should doom the legislation.But everyone also knows that starting off the Trump legislative era with the crashing and burning of Obamacare repeal would deeply damage Trump; nobody believes what he says, but if he can’t even ram bills through, people will stop being afraid. So they will pull out all the stops.
But why are Republicans having so much trouble? Health reform is hard; but why were the Dems able to pass the ACA in the first place? I’m seeing a lot of talk about Paul Ryan’s inadequacy and Republican lack of preparation as compared with Pelosi and the Dems in 2009, all of which is true. But there’s a more fundamental issue: who is being served?
Obamacare helped a large number of people at the expense of a small, affluent minority: basically, taxes on 2% of the population to cover a lot of people and assure coverage to many more. Trumpcare would reverse that, hurting a lot of people (many of whom voted Trump) so as to cut taxes for a handful of wealthy people. That’s a difference that goes beyond political strategy. Den Rest des Beitrags lesen »
March 7, 2017 9:01 am March 7, 2017 9:01 am, Paul Krugman
So now we know what Republicans have to offer as an Obamacare replacement. Let me try to avoid value judgments for a few minutes, and describe what seems to have happened here.
The structure of the Affordable Care Act comes out of a straightforward analysis of the logic of coverage. If you want to make health insurance available and affordable for almost everyone, regardless of income or health status, and you want to do this through private insurers rather than simply have single-payer, you have to do three things.
1.Regulate insurers so they can’t refuseor charge high premiums to people with preexisting conditions
2.Impose some penalty on people who don’t buy insurance,to induce healthy people to sign up and provide a workable risk pool
3.Subsidize premiums so that lower-income households can afford insurance Den Rest des Beitrags lesen »
Source: The New York Times by Paul Krugman
Betsy DeVos, whom Donald Trump has nominated as education secretary, doesn’t know basic education terms, doesn’t know about federal statutes governing special education, but thinks school officials should carry guns to defend against grizzly bears.
Monica Crowley, selected as deputy national security adviser, withdrew after it was revealed that much of her past writing was plagiarized. Many other national security positions remain unfilled, and it’s unclear how much if any of the briefing materials prepared by the outgoing administration have even been read.
Meanwhile Rex Tillerson, selected as secretary of state, casually declared that America would block Chinese access to bases in the South China Sea, apparently unaware that he was in effect threatening to go to war if China called his bluff.
Georg Quaas ist Mitarbeiter am Institut für Empirische Wirtschaftsforschung der Universität Leipzig und nimmt dort selbständig die Aufgaben eines Dozenten in Lehre und Forschung wahr.
Die Ökonomik hat ein Image-Problem. Das liegt auch am Umgang der Ökonomen mit der eigenen Wissenschaft, wie dieser Beitrag zeigt.
Im fünften Kapitel seines Buches „Der Mythos vom globalen Wirtschaftskrieg“ rechnet Paul Krugman mit den auflagenstärksten Autoren seines Landes ab, die sich mit dem Thema Welthandel befassen. Er wirft ihnen vor, dass sie beim Leser (oder Fernsehzuschauer)[ 1 ] ein völlig falsches Bild von der Weltwirtschaft (und von der Position der USA darin) erzeugen. Der internationale Handel werde nicht als eine allseits vorteilhafte, friedliche Tätigkeit, sondern als ein Ort des Kampfes dargestellt. Diese Einschätzung könne zu gefährlichen Konsequenzen führen, indem protektionistische Haltungen und Tendenzen gefördert werden.
Krugman’s publizistische Auseinandersetzung mit einem Teil seiner Kollegen und mit einem maßgebenden Politiker (Bill Clinton) ist nicht unser Kampf. Die Volkswirtschaften der Schweiz, Österreichs und Deutschlands haben einen hohen Offenheitsgrad. Weit und breit ist kaum ein volkswirtschaftlicher Experte zu sehen, der protektionistischen Argumenten das Wort redet.[ 2 ] Von der holländischen Krankheit sind die schwächeren Südländer betroffen, denen mit sehr langfristigen Krediten unter die Arme gegriffen wird. Die Nordländer profitieren von einer – unter ihren volkswirtschaftlichen Bedingungen gesehen – unterbewerteten Währung. Die Politik versucht, sich gegen den wachsenden Protektionismus im internationalen Handel zu wehren.[ 3 ] Den Rest des Beitrags lesen »
The Static and the Dynamic — How to go bankrupt and be loved by the many –Piketty’s equals
Inequality vs Inequality
There is inequality and inequality.
The first is the inequality people tolerate, such as one’s understanding compared to that of people deemed heroes, say Einstein, Michelangelo, or the recluse mathematician Grisha Perelman, in comparison to whom one has no difficulty acknowledging a large surplus. This applies to entrepreneurs, artists, soldiers, heroes, the singer Bob Dylan, Socrates, the current local celebrity chef, some Roman Emperor of good repute, say Marcus Aurelius; in short those for whom one can naturally be a “fan”. You may like to imitate them, you may aspire to be like them; but you don’t resent them.
The second is the inequality people find intolerable because the subject appears to be just a person like you, except that he has been playing the system, and getting himself into rent seeking, acquiring privileges that are not warranted –and although he has something you would not mind having (which may include his Russian girlfriend), he is exactly the type of whom you cannot possibly become a fan. The latter category includes bankers, bureaucrats who get rich, former senators shilling for the evil firm Monsanto, clean-shaven chief executives who wear ties, and talking heads on television making outsized bonuses. You don’t just envy them; you take umbrage at their fame, and the sight of their expensive or even semi-expensive car trigger some feeling of bitterness. They make you feel smaller. Den Rest des Beitrags lesen »
Source: The New York Times By PAUL KRUGMAN
How the election and Donald Trump’s victory looks to Opinion writers.
Paul Krugman: Our Unknown Country
We still don’t know who will win the electoral college, although as I write this it looks — incredibly, horribly — as if the odds now favor Donald J. Trump. What we do know is that people like me, and probably like most readers of The New York Times, truly didn’t understand the country we live in. We thought that our fellow citizens would not, in the end, vote for a candidate so manifestly unqualified for high office, so temperamentally unsound, so scary yet ludicrous.
We thought that the nation, while far from having transcended racial prejudice and misogyny, had become vastly more open and tolerant over time.
We thought that the great majority of Americans valued democratic norms and the rule of law.
It turns out that we were wrong. There turn out to be a huge number of people — white people, living mainly in rural areas — who don’t share at all our idea of what America is about. For them, it is about blood and soil, about traditional patriarchy and racial hierarchy. And there were many other people who might not share those anti-democratic values, but who nonetheless were willing to vote for anyone bearing the Republican label.
I don’t know how we go forward from here. Is America a failed state and society? It looks truly possible. I guess we have to pick ourselves up and try to find a way forward, but this has been a night of terrible revelations, and I don’t think it’s self-indulgent to feel quite a lot of despair.
Source: The New York Times by Paul Krugman
As many people are pointing out, Republicans now trying to distance themselves from Donald Trump need to explain why The Tape was a breaking point, when so many previous incidents weren’t. On Saturday, explaining why he was withdrawing his endorsement, Senator John McCain cited “comments on prisoners of war, the Khan Gold Star family, Judge Curiel and earlier inappropriate comments about women” — and that leaves out Mexicans as rapists, calls for a Muslim ban, and much more. So, Senator McCain, what took you so long?
One excuse we’re now hearing is that the new revelations are qualitatively different — that disrespect for women is one thing, but boasting about sexual assault brings it to another level. It’s a weak defense, since Mr. Trump has in effect been promising violence against minorities all along. His insistence last week that the Central Park Five, who were exonerated by DNA evidence, were guilty and should have been executed was even worse than The Tape, but drew hardly any denunciations from his party. Den Rest des Beitrags lesen »
NZZ am Sonntagvon Sebastian Bräuer 25.9.2016, 08:00 Uhr
Nobelpreisträger Paul Krugman hält die Negativzinsen in der Schweiz für ein wertvolles Experiment. Das Freihandelsabkommen zwischen der EU und den USA lehnt er ab.
NZZ am Sonntag: Sie kritisieren praktisch alle wirtschaftspolitischen Entscheide. Warum übernehmen Sie nicht selbst Verantwortung?
Paul Krugman: Vor 25 Jahren wäre ich vielleicht interessiert an einem politischen Amt gewesen. Heute nicht mehr. Ich bin sehr zufrieden mit meinem Leben. Und ich habe keine Lust, den ganzen Tag in Besprechungen zu sitzen.
Auch nicht, wenn eine Präsidentin Hillary Clinton Sie als Finanzminister umwirbt?
Für den Job des Finanzministers wäre ich nicht qualifiziert. Alles andere wäre es nicht wert. Es gibt kaum einen besseren Job, als Kolumnist bei der «New York Times» zu sein.
Kürzlich warnten Sie, dass sich bei den US-Wahlen Ereignisse von 2000 wiederholen könnten. Wie meinten Sie das?
Es ist doch verrückt. Ein Kandidat, Trump, lügt ständig. Aber er kommt damit durch. Bei seiner Gegnerin, Clinton, wird jedes Wort auf die Goldwaage gelegt. So war es damals auch bei Bush gegen Al Gore.Den Rest des Beitrags lesen »
Source: The New York Times: Paul Krugman
First of all, let’s get this straight: The Russian Federation of 2016 is not the Soviet Union of 1986. True, it covers most of the same territory and is run by some of the same thugs. But the Marxist ideology is gone, and so is the superpower status. We’re talking about a more or less ordinary corrupt petrostate here, although admittedly a big one that happens to have nukes.
I mention all of this because Donald Trump’s effusive praise for Vladimir Putin — which actually reflects a fairly common sentiment on the right — seems to have confused some people.
On one side, some express puzzlement over the spectacle of right-wingers — the kind of people who used to yell “America, love it or leave it!” — praising a Russian regime. On the other side, a few people on the left are anti-anti-Putinists, denouncing criticism of Mr. Trump’s Putin-love as “red-baiting.”
But today’s Russia isn’t Communist, or even leftist; it’s just an authoritarian state, with a cult of personality around its strongman, that showers benefits on an immensely wealthy oligarchy while brutally suppressing opposition and criticism.