If Paul Krugman wrote comedy.

Yeah, that Krugman piece was pretty ridiculous.
'It wasn't the big banks that caused the crash, it was smaller banks....like Lehman Bro's' (really, smaller?), not BofA and their cohorts.....um....no. I'm sure he's technically correct, that SOME economists have said that, but not those that are impartial.

I'm also getting pretty sick of this lie that Sanders didn't have a plan and couldn't answer the question of "how do you break up the big banks". It's a lie, pure and simple, and only works on the ignorant willing to listen to edited 'interviews' where his actual answer is cut out, or willing to believe those with a clear bias against him. He had a clear plan, he explained it, it's a reasonable plan and it's well thought out. That Clinton can't 1)understand it or 2) admit it, and that her subordinates are willing to spread the lie exemplifies HER lack of qualification to be president, not his.

It's funny (sad really) that many of the 'extravagant promises' that she mentions that have taught the African-American voting block to be distrustful came from the Clintons.

Again with the 'large lead in delegates' lie.....it is 1) not large and 2) quickly evaporating. Without the (well paid for) super delegates, Clinton's lead (before losing Nevada and Missouri) was already <10%, with most states yet to vote polling heavily for Sanders (except in land line only, day time polls). In the past week, 2 states that were called for Clinton have gone to Sanders thanks to her delegates not showing up for her...even they don't really care for her enough to vote, and they're HER DELEGATES! When do we get to start saying Sanders is the clear frontrunner and that Clinton is harming the Democrats by badmouthing HIM? That day must be coming soon.

To the guilty, blame assignment is often called 'petulance' and 'self righteousness'. When one answers charges with insults against those making the charges, it's a pretty good indication that the charges are true.

Operative K's latest hit piece on Sanders, Sanders Over the Edge, was so off base with regards to the role of big banks in the financial crash that there's some really interesting comments on it floating around.

Just two examples: Paul Krugman Crosses the Line by Gerald Epstein and Why the Banks Should Be Broken Up by Matt Taibbi.

Did you follow any of that wierd Krugman/Friedman/CEA feud over the last few days?

If not, nevermind.

But if you did, take a look at Bill Black's latest on the matter. Both Bill Black and Jamie Galbraith had already torn Operative K a new one over this, yet Bill just keeps on pounding. It's quite brutal, and supremely entertaining.

I just love open conflict between heterodox economists and defenders of the orthodoxy.

I haven't been following Krugman's column/blog for quite some time, but every once in a while, a piece of his makes its way onto my screen. And his recent takes on HRC/Sanders/Single Payer reminded me that he's a member of the establishment first and foremost.

Many point out how his views of the electability of Sanders vs HRC are eerily similar to what he wrote in '08 about Obama vs HRC. I'd say it even has a touch of Attlee vs Churchill in it. Winston was bound to win the election in '45, beyond any doubt, so Attlee decided not to pretend to be Churchill light, but went all in with socialist ideas. NHS, largescale nationalisation incl the BoE, free secondary education, massive public housing, a focus on full employment, social security, etc -- ten times more radical than anything Sanders even proposed.

48% to 36% - a landslide victory, thank you very much.

AWWW SHIT, SON! SOMEONE JUST GOT THEIR SHIT SLAPPED DOWN, PAUL-KRUGMAN STYLE!

Let's ignore for the moment what led to this current mess within the Eurozone. You point out, correctly, that Greece is too poor to service its debt. And yes, for the German government to do whatever is required to get back their loans is to be expected. However, Greece was incapable of servicing its debt five years ago. Yet the subsequent programs, all supported or even demanded by the German government, reduced Greece's ability to pay back at least portions of its debt. At the end of the day, goods and services are what it's all about. And by dismantling the Greek economy, nevermind the Greek society, they actively undermined what they publicly claimed to be working for: a self-reliant Greek economy, capable of financing the needs of Greece. And capable of paying back what is owed.

The question inescapably poses itself: was it done intentionally or are they blinded by ideology?

One doesn't have to be as far left as I am to see that it didn't work, doesn't work, and never could have worked. Even the likes of Krugman and Stiglitz are perfectly clear about it.

Varoufakis, as you note, has been just as clear about this at least since late 2010, when he published the first draft of his Modest Proposal with Stuart Holland. There was a very good discussion about it in Austin in 10/2013 under the topic "Can the Eurozone be saved?" Participants included Varoufakis, Tsipras, Flassbeck, Holland and Galbraith, amongst others. I submitted a short clip back then.

His argument that Germany won't see a dime when Greece is shoved off a cliff, as correct as it is, never had any bite to begin with. The German government, and large parts of parliament, are operating in a parallel universe, economically. Over here, mercantilism is the road to success. Monetarism works. Surplus good, deficit bad. Saving good, spending bad. Everyone should have a current account surplus.

It's horseshit by the gallons, and it's the official economic policy of the largest economy in the EU.

And we're not even getting into the political aspects of it. Throwing a member of the EU into debt bondage, suspending its democracy to please the gods of the market... that's a travesty and a half. Yet it's also inevitable if they insist on going down the road of neoliberalism.

Worst of all, Greece is just the canary in the coal mine, as Varoufakis likes to point out. Greece had plenty of issues before they joined the EZ, but when they chose to adapt the same currency as a much larger economy hell bent on competitiveness, which is the favorite euphemism for Germany's beggar-thy-neighbour policies, they were doomed to be crushed. The rest of the PIIGS are next in line, unless this whole mess explodes beforehand. Maybe Rajoy's Franco-esque repression techniques fail, maybe le Pen wins in 2017, who knows. Maybe Schäuble finds the 100k of bribes that he conveniently forgot about back in the '90s and chokes on them.

Last but not least, 208 billion Euros – that's the projected current account surplus of Germany this year. That's 208 billion Euros of debt foreign economies have to accumulate, so that the German public and private sector can run a combined surplus of €208b. That's the elephant in the room. Systematic undercutting of the inflation target through suppression of unit labour costs and a dysfunctional focus on exports.

@oritteropo

There are analyses floating around by just about every major player. A majority seems to agree that it would be manageable for the Eurozone and better for Greece. Others, including Varoufakis, argue that Grexit would destablize the Eurozone and be a catastrophe for Greece. Too many variables, too many vested interests... who knows what would happen.

The projections on the other hand were a hoot. What a joke they were.

What was the fiscal multiplier in their initial projections? Something along the lines of 0.75, right? Reduce public spending by a Euro and the economy contracts by just 75 cents. Too bad it turned out to be at least 2.5, probably even far more during certain phases. Ricardian equivalence, my ass.

Here is the IMF outlook of 2010. Bill Mitchell made a nice table for comparison. They did a crackerjack job, didn't they.

IMF research admitted their mistake in 2012, but the policy department doesn't seem to care. Shouldn't come as a suprise to anyone, given the role the IMF played in the application of the shock doctrine all over the world in the last decades. Chicago School of Economics, all the way.

If I look at the list of countries that were ruined by the IMF through policy advisory and loans with strings attached, I wonder just how they still manage to paint Syriza as the ones lacking credibility. Is it because they lack the experience of destroying an economy?

Yet with all that in mind, the Greeks actually prefer the IMF as a partner if the alternative is German officials. How depressing for me as a German.

Remember what Christine Lagarde said about Greece in 2012? The Grauniad still has the goods. Or how she argued for expansionary austerity in 2010? Krugman, to his credit, made fun of the concept back then, but even he severly underestimated just how willing these people are to turn this stuff into policy.

But still preferrable to German officials. Ouch.

Well, Syriza is an acronym for Coalition of the Radical Left (roughly), and everything left of the Berlin Consensus is considered to be radical left. So they are going to call Syriza a radical leftist party until the political landscape itelf has been pulled back towards more leftist positions. But you're right, if they were judged by their positions, they'd be centre-left in theory, if centre-left hadn't turned into corporatism by taking up the Third Way of Schröder/Blair/Clinton.

They are, without a doubt, radically democratic though. As your Grauniad article points out, they haven't turned on their election promises yet, which is quite unheard of for a major European party. Francois Hollande in particular was a major letdown in this regard. Few people expected him to bow down to German demands so quickly. Aside from his 75% special tax for the rich, he dropped just about every single part of his program that could be considered socialism.

Grexit... that's a tough one.

Syriza cannot enforce any troika demands that relate to the programmes of the Chicago School of Economics. Friedman ain't welcome anymore. No cuts to wages or pensions, to privatisation of infrastructure, no cuts to the healthcare system, nor any other form of financial oppression of the lower class. That is non-negotiable. In fact, even increases in welfare programs and the healthcare system are pretty much non-negotiable. Even if Syriza wanted to put any of this on the table, and they sure as hell don't, they couldn't make it part of any deal without further damages to an already devasted democratic system in Greece.

So with that in mind, what's the point of all the negotiations?

Varoufakis' suggestions are very reasonable. The growth-linked bonds, for instance, are used very successfully all over the world in debt negotiations, as just about any bankrupty expert would testify. Like Krugman wrote today, Syriza is merely asking to "recognize the reality everyone supposedly already understands". His caveat about the German electorate is on point as well, we haven't had it explained to us yet – and we chose to ignore what little was explained to us.

Yet the troika insists on something Syriza cannot and will not provide, as just outlined above. Some of the officials still expect Syriza to acknowledge reality, to come to their senses and to accept a deal provided to them. Good luck with that, but don't hold your breath. Similarly, Varoufakis is aware that Berlin is almost guaranteed to play hardball all the way.

Of course, nothing is certain and they might strike a deal during their meeting in Wednesday that offers Greece a way out of misery. Or maybe the ECB decides that to stabilize to Euro, as is their sole purpose, they need to keep Greece within the EZ and away from default. That would allow them to back Greece, to provide them with financial support, at least until they present their program in June/July. Everything is possible. However, I see very little evidence in support of it.

Therefore Grexit might actually be just a question of who to blame it on. Syriza is not going to exit the EZ willy nilly, they need clear pressure from outside, so the record will unequivocally show that it wasn't them who made the call. No country can be thrown out, they have to leave of their own. Additionally, Merkel will not be the person to initiate the unravelling of the EU, as might be the consequence of a Grexit. That's leverage for Greece, the only leverage they have. But it has to be played right or else the blame will be put squarely on Greece, even more so than it already is.

-------
Edit #1: What cannot be overstated is the ability of the EZ to muddle through one crises after another, always on the brink of collapse, yet never actually collapsing. They are determined to hold this thing together, whatever the cost.
-------

Speaking of blame, Yves Smith linked a fantastic article the other day: Syriza and the French Indemnity of 1871-73.

The author makes a convincing case why the suppression of wages in Germany led to disaster in Spain, why it was not a choice on the part of Spain to engage in irresponsible borrowing and how it is a conflict between workers and the financial elite rather than nations. He also offers historical precedent, with Germany being the recipient of a massive cash influx, ending in a catastrophe similar to Spain's nowadays.

It strikes me as a very objective dissection of what happend, what's going on, and what needs to happen to get things back in shape. Then again, it agrees with many points I made on that BBC videos last week, so it's right within my bubble.

Unfortunatly, it's not just Merkel and her cabinet. It's the press, it's the economics departments at universities, it's politicians at all levels. Call it an economic nationalism, hell-bent to defend what they know to be the moral way of doing business. Everything left of this special flavour of market fundamentalism has been systematically attacked and suppressed for at least 30 years.

For instance, our socialist party, still referred to as the fringe of what is acceptable, runs on what is basically a carbon-copy of social-democrat programmes from the '70s. Similar to the British Green Party and Labour. Krugman, Stiglitz, Baker, Wolff, DeLong -- they'd all be on the fringe in Germany. Even the likes of Simon Johnson (IMF) or Willem Buiters (City Group).

If you speak out in favour of higher inflation (wage growth) to ease the pressure on our brothers and sisters in southern Europe, you'll be charged with waging a war against German saver. "You want to devalue what little savings a nurse can accrue? Don't you support blue collar workers?"

The same blue collar workers have been stripped of their savings by 15 years of wage suppression, the same blue collar workers are looking at poverty when they retire, because the PAYGO pension system was turned into a capital-based system that only works to your benefit if you never lose your job, always pay your dues and reach at least age 95. The previous system survived two world wars without a problem, yet was deemed flawed when they realized how much money could be channeled into the financial system – only to disappear at the first sight of a crisis, eg every five to ten years.

Similarly, you could point out that a focus on trade surpluses might not be the greatest of ideas, given the dependence it creates on foreign demand, a weak currency and restricted wage growth domestically. But they'll call you a looney. "The trade surplus is a result of just how industrious our workers, how creative our scientists and how skilled our engineers are. It's all innovation, mate! Are you saying we force the others to buy our stuff? That's madness."

You simply cannot have an open discussion about macroeconomics in Germany. Do I have to mention how schizophrenic it makes me feel to read contradictory descriptions of reality every day? It's bonkers and everyone's better off NOT reading both German and international sources on these matters.


Any compromise would have to work with this in mind. They'd have to package in a way that doesn't smell like debt relief of any kind. People know that stretching the payment out over 100 years equals debt relief, but it might just be enough of a lie to get beyond the level of self-deception that is simply part of politics. If they manage to paint Varoufakis' idea of growth-based levels of payment as the best way to get German funds back, people might go for it. Not sure if our government would, but you could sell it to the public. And with enough pressure from Greece, Spain, Italy, and France most of all, maybe Merkel could be "persuaded" to agree to a deal.

As for Syriza's domestic problems: it's a one-way ticket to hell. Undoing decades of nepotism under external pressure, with insolvency knocking on your door? Best of luck.

Italy is hard on Greece's heels in terms of institutional corruption. Southern Italy, in particular, is an absolute mess. Given the size of the Italian economy, Syriza better succeed, so their work can be used as a blueprint. Otherwise we're going to need a whole lot of popcorn in the next decade...


Edit: Case in point, German position paper, as described by Reuters. As if the elections in Greece never took place.

+ a central bank whose mandate is limited to inflation
+ the lack of a treasury
+ the lack of a harmonized tax system
+ the crippling deficits in democratic control that make it very hard to turn the will of the people into policy
+ etc

The last point is of particular interest if you look at Greece as a shock & awe induced suspension of democracy. Many nations are held in a permanent state of emergency through the war on terror, while Greece's permanent state of emergency was imposed through debt.

Previous governments did what they were told by troika officials, with parliament left aside and judicial decisions left ignored. The return of democracy into some parts of the system caused rather vicious reactions from both the press and European officials. Just look at what Martin Schulz or Jeroen Dijsselbloem said about Syriza officials in the last few days.

Debt is a tool powerful enough to suspend democracy in a heartbeat, even quicker than our famous war on/of terror.

Parliamentary decisions are superceded by transnational treaties and obligations. And if you take the thought one step further, you end up at TTIP/TTP/CETA/TISA. If Greece demonstrates that democratic decisions at a national level still overrule transnational treaties, governments lose a scapegoat for unpopular decisions ("treaty X demands it of us"). Should Syriza manage to end the state of emergency, to return control over the decision back to the elected bodies, it will become infinitely harder to impose draconian or even just highly unpopular measures.

But I digress. Twin Euro blocks (South/North) were part of the discussion, just like parallel currencies in troubled nations. A German exit is still being discussed as well, but I don't think its advocates within Germany thought it through. Switzerland just uncoupled its Swiss Francs from the Euro and it did a real number on their exports. A new DM would appreciate like a Saturn V, instantly shattering German exports. Without a massive increase in wages to compensate through domestic demand, Germany would bleed jobs left, right and center. A fullblown recession.

I'd say it would take very little to stabilise the union, even in its currently flawed configuration. Krugman had a piece this morning, calling one of Syriza's core demands reasonable. And judging by what I have read over the last five years or so, it is. He said Germany would be crazy if they demanded payment on full, no reliefs. And that's where it shows that he cannot follow the media or the political discussions in Germany to any meaningful degree, language barrier and all. Public discussion on economics in Germany stands completely separate from the rest of the world.

Ignorance, stubbornness, cultural bias, a feedback-loop of media and politics, group pressure -- we have everything. And the fact that Germany has been comparatively successful in the face of this crisis makes it practially impossible to pierce this bubble. We're doing fine, our way must be correct, everyone else is wrong.

Who did you see on the list?

Kareem Abdul-Jabar
JJ Abrams
Alan Alda
Christiane Amanpour
Jon Batiste
Big Bird
Cory Booker
Tom Brokaw
Ken Burns
Bill Clinton
Andy Cohen
Francis Collins
Cookie Monster
Bob Costas
Katie Couric
Bryan Cranston
Mark Cuban
Jeff Daniels
Bill DeBlasio
Maureen Dowd
James Franco
Thomas Friedman
Vince Gilligan
Doris Kearns Goodwin
David Gregory
Terry Gross
Mike Huckabee
Arianna Huffington
Dean Kamen
Toby Keith
Henry Kissinger
Nicholas Kristof
Paul Krugman
Alexi Lalas
Cyndi Lauper
David Leonhardt
George Lucas
Yo Yo Ma
Barry Manilow
Senator Claire McCaskill
Tim Meadows
Willie Nelson
Randy Newman
Grover Norquist
Eleanor Holmes Norton
Ric Ocasek
Keith Olbermann
Mandy Patinkin
Stone Phillips
Samantha Power
Pussy Riot
Charlie Rose
Dan Savage
Smaug
Shane Smith
Eliot Spitzer
Gloria Steinem
Jon Stewart
Patrick Stewart
Michael Stipe
Andrew Sullivan
Matt Taibbi
Jeff Tweedy
Neil Degrasse Tyson
Sam Waterston
Elijah Wood

(http://www.vox.com/2014/12/19/7419893/colbert-finale-song)

I believe Paul Krugman should offer a retort to this well-argued position.

It's a good segment. Socialists (many videosifters included, such as @ChaosEngine & @enoch) seem to be convinced that either they themselves know all the facts (i.e., narcissism?) or that the "rulers" know all the facts, or that the "majority of the people" know all the facts.

While it may be true that the masses, as a collective of course, are even more intelligent than any individual on his or her own, it is true only when individuals among the masses are acting and thinking independently of one another (i.e., pursuing their own interests as best that they themselves know how to do) and not when they are under the sway of one form of demagoguery or central planning or another.

Political democracy shows the masses in all their foolishness, while market democracy (i.e., anarchy) shows them in all their wisdom. I think it is this distinction that illuminates the discrepancy between the theory of democracy and the practice of democracy.

(Moreover, it seems that, when listening to Hayek -- or Milton Friedman or Rory Sutherland -- one gets the impression that one is listening to a highly intelligent individual. This is quite different from listening to someone like, say, Paul Krugman and other so-called "economists," who are in truth would-be pundits and polemicists and not at all cognizant of the underlying postulates that support their arguments.)

Haha!

If everyone's a babysitter, well, that's not a genuine division of labor, is it? And if money can only buy babysitting, well, that's not really money, is it?

And free markets don't work by agreeing through contract how much a currency will buy. If you restrict currency to one "babysitting" unit only, then, of course you'll have problems. You don't need to "print" more of these tokens. Deflation will invariably take place instead in an actual market, not in one where you have to contractually "centrally control" the value of each token.

And of course, a prison camp is not a free market. No entrepreneur can simply start supplying the goods and services needed.

The prison camp does not represent a "free economy," but only a prison camp economy.

I don't think either of those two examples are useful in any real way, but what exactly did you think you'd learn from them?

This isn't "how an economy works," but it's maybe how a non-divisible "currency" works in a one product/service "market;" or how a food embargo works.

P.S. If you really want to understand how economies work, you should read Mises' "Human Action" (PDF) and stop being lazy, thinking you'll learn something from these short youtube videos. (Once you hear Krugman mentioned, it's enough to know that everything that follows is about as rooted in reality as a kindergartner's fingerpaintings.)

This video's always worth revisiting...