Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

November 7, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

THE GREAT DEPRESSION REALLY WAS GREAT!....Robert Samuelson looks on the bright side of the recession that he thinks is coming our way soon:

Recessions also have often-overlooked benefits. They dampen inflation. In weak markets, companies can't easily raise prices or workers' wages.

Stagnant wages are an "often-overlooked benefit" of recessions?

Kevin Drum 12:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (60)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Jesus. We had low inflation in the 90s.

I thought the benefit of recessions is that they culled the weak and the sick from society, leaving the remaining human stock stronger.

Posted by: Saam Barrager on November 7, 2007 at 12:31 AM | PERMALINK

Wages are not stagnant; they are rising for indiviudals rapidly.

WAGE LEVELS are stagnant. This is completely different. When unemployment is low, this is meaninless; people with experience are in demand and their wages are rising.

The last time the middle-income worker was really suffering was during the Democratic power zenith: 1977-1980.

Also: How come not posts on Iraq for a while? .... Bush is turning the corner in completing possibly the greatest strategic and military masterpiece in US history. Had FDR done a far easier task than Bush is successfully undertaking as per his duty vis-a-vis the WW I ending treaties, no 70 million dead 1939-1945.

Bush is the greatest president in US history!

TOH

Posted by: The Objective Historian on November 7, 2007 at 12:32 AM | PERMALINK

That leaky half-empty glass is actually half-full AND it's leaking into a bigger and better glass that should hold our water for years to come!

Be glad!

Posted by: Howard on November 7, 2007 at 12:36 AM | PERMALINK

There's nothing worse than having to pay people money for doing work. If only we could stop that inefficient nonsense, and bring back slavery. Those were good times for management and labor alike.

Posted by: craigie on November 7, 2007 at 12:48 AM | PERMALINK

Your modern republican party- anything that hurts workers is GOOD FOR THE NATION!!

And good grief- I don't have time to comment here much anymore, but the trollz are even dumber than I remember.

How is that possible?

Posted by: fourlegsgood on November 7, 2007 at 12:49 AM | PERMALINK

Between 1930-1932, some 5,100 banks alone in those two years failed as panicked depositors withdrew their funds. Those losses amounted to $3.2 billion. These are considered by some to be Hoover's biggest political blunders (although Hoover himself, years later, said that he felt his only real mistake was to not immediately repudiate the foreign debt, which would have relieved the financial burden on much of Europe early on during the worldwide economic crisis, and thus spurred more trade with the United States).

Moreover, the Federal Reserve System's tightening of the money supply (for fear of inflation) is regarded by Milton Friedman and most modern economists as a mistaken strategy, given the situation.

Posted by: anonymous on November 7, 2007 at 12:52 AM | PERMALINK

"Stagnant wages are an "often-overlooked benefit" of recessions?"

Yes, if you write inane columns for the WaPo and have no chance of getting fired before you die.

Posted by: F. Frederson on November 7, 2007 at 12:57 AM | PERMALINK

"In weak markets, companies can't easily raise prices"

This is why Gucci is so cheap in Rwanda and why we don't have to worry about energy prices.

Posted by: B on November 7, 2007 at 1:01 AM | PERMALINK

even grading on a curve (this is robert samuelson, after all) that is a batshit insane remark.

hey - maybe robert samuelson posts here as the objective historian? the same mindless blather (i mean, you can't get much stupider than objective historian's notion that lots of individuals are seeing their pay packets increase in size even though there is no evidence for it anywhere)....

Posted by: howard on November 7, 2007 at 1:28 AM | PERMALINK

Thank gawd!

I was beginning to worry that the only way to nip inflation in the bud was to switch to the gold standard....

Posted by: Disputo on November 7, 2007 at 1:37 AM | PERMALINK

I believe Kevin and some others misread Samuelson's article, perhaps because they are so focused on wage growth. When Samuelson wrote: companies can't easily raise prices or workers' wages, he was talking about inflation, not real wage growth. Inflation can be terrible for the economy, as we saw in post WW1 Germany and in various other countries at various times.

Posted by: ex-liberal on November 7, 2007 at 1:43 AM | PERMALINK

Stagnant wages are an often-overlooked "benefit" of Bush recoveries.

Posted by: dissent on November 7, 2007 at 1:55 AM | PERMALINK

Not only Bush recoveries. In general, wages are pretty stagnant across the planet.

On the plus side, other kinds of payment for mainly rich people, such as stock options, are increasing steadily.

But giving dumptrucks of Monopoly money to rich people certainly doesn't promote inflation, does it?

Posted by: MFB on November 7, 2007 at 2:38 AM | PERMALINK

Other than sharing the same last name as an esteemed economist, what qualifications does Robert Samuelson have to comment on business and economics? He doesn't have an advanced degree and his undergraduate degree was in political science. I've never seen any evidence that his understanding of business and the markets is any better than that of your typical undergrad at a good college with a year of "Econ 101" under his/her belt.

Posted by: keith on November 7, 2007 at 3:02 AM | PERMALINK

Let's see . . . wasn't the diagnosis of the Depression that there wasn't enough demand to spur growth? And wasn't this a result of low wages and not enough jobs? And wasn't the prescription in part the creation of lots of jobs by the government to spur demand?

And that worked, right? The Depression ended, didn't it? All the jobs associated with WWII just sealed the deal.

Note that this is not to say government job creation is the solution to every recession -- depends on the circumstances. Like for instance, the recession we are about to enter on account of oil going over $100 per barrel & our economy being so dependent on fossil fuels. We need a president who isn't tied so closely to the oil industry who is willing to spur investment into alternative fuels in a massive way, not the penny ante bio fuels programs Bush has promoted.

We need to attack the alternative fuels issue on the same scale as the war in Iraq. We've needed aggressive action like this for 20 years. Hell, even Brazil is ahead of the US in the use of alternative fuels:

Brazil's Road to Energy Independence
Alternative-Fuel Strategy, Rooted in Ethanol From Sugar Cane, Seen as Model

By Monte Reel
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, August 20, 2006; Page A01

SAO PAULO, Brazil -- Record oil prices have made the world's energy landscape a darkly foreboding place this year, inhospitable to optimism and celebration. Except in Brazil.

It has been something of a banner year here, full of milestones. The government predicts that for the first time in its history, Brazil will achieve energy equilibrium, exporting as much oil as it imports. The production of sugar cane-based ethanol is expected to reach an all-time high. And just three years after the introduction here of flex-fuel vehicles -- cars that run on either ethanol or gasoline -- several major automakers predict that such vehicles will represent 100 percent of their production by the end of the year, eliminating gas-only models.

Posted by: pj in jesusland on November 7, 2007 at 4:18 AM | PERMALINK

"Stagnant wages are an "often-overlooked benefit" of recessions?"

That's the ethics of those supply siders for you. They don't even pretend to care for the well being of the average citizen. Why they aren't simply regarded as lobbyists for big business is beyond me...
:-/

Posted by: Gray on November 7, 2007 at 4:20 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin: "Stagnant wages are an 'often-overlooked benefit' of recessions?"

My favorite part of the '92 recession (which began out here in late '91) was the 40% cut in my hours at the place I worked, coupled with my wife's layoff from her job. I especially enjoyed having to call my mother to borrow money to help pay the rent.

Oh, such trip dowm memory lane -- you'll please excuse me if I don't get all fucking teary-eyed.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on November 7, 2007 at 4:37 AM | PERMALINK

Ex-liberal has everything wrong, as usual.

For one thing, there is a class of people for whom inflation is a godsend. If you OWE money, and lots of it, inflation is your pal, because the money you received had full value and you eventually pay it back with debased currency. So LENDERS hate inflation, because the reverse is true. And in a wage/price spiral, the wages rise commensurate with the inflation, the loan is paid back with the inflation of wages, and the only loser is the bank.

That's all very nicely theoretical, but the real problem is that under Bush's sway, wages NEVER rise, so inflation is bad for everyone. The lender is still paid back in toilet tissue, if he's paid back at all, and the borrower is still paying more for goods with the same (at best) income. But the point is that it's not inflation that hurts everyone, it's STAGFLATION. Which is on the way back. Remember the 70s? he he he...they're comin' back. Dust off the platform shoes and dig out the disco balls.

Posted by: jprichva on November 7, 2007 at 7:08 AM | PERMALINK

Funny. My wife and I just borrowed money from my mother. And we both work fulltime+ jobs.

I have no idea what the fuck we'd do if one of use lost our job. Doubt my mother would have that much to lend.

Posted by: Aaron on November 7, 2007 at 7:08 AM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal:Good thing that rising wages do not cause inflation. Oh I know, everybody and their dog THINKS that it does, but of course, we know that prices are not determined by costs*a few percent for profit, but prices in most cases are determined by what the market can bear (And when costs DO make a difference, say in energy prices, we're talking the costs of raw goods) and kept low by good, old-fashioned competition.

There would be a possibility where rising wages would force certain jobs below the profitability level, but frankly, those jobs are probably not valuable enough to fill anyway. A stronger economy everywhere else will more than make up for it.

Posted by: Karmakin on November 7, 2007 at 7:20 AM | PERMALINK

For at least 6 months, I have had strong feelings about the U.S. being in a recession well before the Presidential elections in Nov '08. I view this as new and uncharted territory b/c it has not been since the Hoover Administration that the nation has had such an uncaring President. But in 1928 - 1932, the nation did not have Social Security, IRAs, retirement from various large corporation, a large population of retired Gov't (Military & civilian) workers.

As the "ol' Chief" falls into most of those categories, I am wondering what to expect next summer. Should I hoard cash to take advantage of some unexpected good deal OR should work extra hard to pay down all my short term debt ?

Posted by: Chief on November 7, 2007 at 7:56 AM | PERMALINK

You are doing a political take on the Life of Brian right? The world is going to hell. Americans are hanging on the Cross. Samuelson wants us to start singing about the bright side of life. Wonderful. I bet he has never been hungry.

Posted by: corpus juris on November 7, 2007 at 7:58 AM | PERMALINK

Should I hoard cash to take advantage of some unexpected good deal OR should work extra hard to pay down all my short term debt?

Buy a baseball bat, a security door, some seed corn, and a rototiller/oxen-plow.

Posted by: asdf on November 7, 2007 at 8:31 AM | PERMALINK

Geez, "ex-liberal" is just phoning in his bad-faith commentary lately.

Posted by: Gregory on November 7, 2007 at 8:59 AM | PERMALINK

"The last time the middle-income worker was really suffering was during the Democratic power zenith: 1977-1980."

Wrong. The last time the middle-income worker was really suffering was 81-83 (when Reagan was president) when we had the worst recession since the great depression, double-digit unemployment rates and interest rates on mortgages nearing twenty percent. Job growth in 77-80 was actually very strong, much stronger than its been under Bush.

Posted by: Jose Padilla on November 7, 2007 at 9:42 AM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal,,,the larry kudlow of this blog...worthless and looney as ever

Posted by: grumpyoldvet on November 7, 2007 at 9:51 AM | PERMALINK

Recession is coming our way soon my azz, it is already here right now because of the idiot in the white house Now. He has already broke the United States and borrowing money from China, now you ask yourself what is China going to get out of this deal?

Posted by: Al on November 7, 2007 at 9:58 AM | PERMALINK

The Great Depression also benefitted those buying cheap pencils and apples on the street corner.

Posted by: Rula Lenska on November 7, 2007 at 10:03 AM | PERMALINK

Can "it will decrease the surplus population" be far behind?

How much of a clueless corporate head-up-your-ass whore do you have to be not to realize that most of your readers aren't CEOs?!?

If Samuelson had been around during the Great Depression, he would have been touting the boom in sandwich board sales and riffing on the zany dance beat of "Brother Can You Spare A Dime."

I also remember the recession of the 1990s (another Bush creation, thanks!), which got so bad that they increased unemployment benefits by 12 weeks (this was before Newt took over Congress, naturally). That was another one of those unsung upsides that frowny-faced liberals never talk about!

Posted by: sullijan on November 7, 2007 at 10:22 AM | PERMALINK

Hey, it's not even his freakin' idea. He's taken what John Kenneth Galbraith called the Paradox of Affluence (But of course JKG thought it deplorable that the affluent actually did receive material benefits from recessions) and passed it off as some grand idea of his own.

He's getting mugged in the comments at WashPo by the way and I helped! The drift is in the direction of 'so you think recessions are no big deal so let's start the job losses with YOU.

'But there is nothing idealized or romantic about the difference between a society whose arrangements roughly serve all its citizens and one whose institutions have been converted into a stupendous fraud. That difference can be the difference between democracy and oligarchy.' - Bill Moyers

Posted by: MsNThrope on November 7, 2007 at 10:39 AM | PERMALINK

"it will decrease the surplus population"

Kissinger called the surplus population 'useless eaters.'

Posted by: Brojo on November 7, 2007 at 10:41 AM | PERMALINK

Brojo: Wow, I'd never heard that Kissinger comment before. Yikes. Perhaps that's how he comforts his conscience for having been responsible for killing so many people. Oops -- did I say he has a conscience? My bad!!

Actually, from the looks of Kissinger and Bill Bennett lately, I think they may be dispensing with the "useless eaters" by actually, well, eating them.

Posted by: sullijan on November 7, 2007 at 10:46 AM | PERMALINK

Samuelson has showed himself yet again to be a nut.

The Depression was exacerbated by the Federal Reserve, which, in the early 1930s, withdrew liquidity from the financial system to fight inflation (!).

If the Fed had done the same thing following the stock market crash in 1987, we'd still be feeling the effects.

Posted by: raj on November 7, 2007 at 11:02 AM | PERMALINK

Funeral homes do a booming business during pandemics! Why is this benefit of widespread disease so often overlooked?

Posted by: Whispers on November 7, 2007 at 11:17 AM | PERMALINK

Samuelson is an asshole. He thinks goods get produced and services provided without human intervention. People who work for their wages are just an unnecessary burden on the noble capitalist. He needs to be unemployed for a good long while...

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on November 7, 2007 at 11:28 AM | PERMALINK

jprichva: For one thing, there is a class of people for whom inflation is a godsend. If you OWE money, and lots of it, inflation is your pal, because the money you received had full value and you eventually pay it back with debased currency. So LENDERS hate inflation, because the reverse is true. And in a wage/price spiral, the wages rise commensurate with the inflation, the loan is paid back with the inflation of wages, and the only loser is the bank.

There's some truth here, as long as inflation is within a narrow band. However, there's no guarantee that inflation will not spiral out of control. Inflation has spiraled out of control in country after country. Uncontrolled inflation is very bad for business and for labor. It kills job creation. It's a hit to the entire economy. Who wants to invest when the future value of money itself is unknown?

Posted by: ex-liberal on November 7, 2007 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

If you read the actual article, you'll see that Samuelson is not gloating over stagnant wages. Here's the full paragraph:

"Recessions also have often-overlooked benefits. They dampen inflation. In weak markets, companies can't easily raise prices or workers' wages. Similarly, recessions punish reckless financial speculation and poor corporate investments. Bad bets don't pay off. These disciplining effects contribute to the economy's long-term strength, but it seems cold-hearted to say so because the initial impact is hurtful."

But given the choice of actually reading the article in context or jumping to conclusions sight unseen, we know what to do, don't we?

Posted by: tacitean on November 7, 2007 at 12:13 PM | PERMALINK

Next stop for America: Pottersville.

Posted by: Brojo on November 7, 2007 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

tacitean: The full paragraph doesn't ameliorate the initial effect; it just pads it out with BS. Because in a recession, even companies that are doing well use it as an excuse to shortchange workers. I know a lot of people in the financial community whose companies were making record profits during the most recent (again, Bush-generated) recession. And those companies used the overall gloomy economic news as an excuse to freeze wages and bonuses. Workers almost NEVER see the benefits of these so-called "disciplining" effects. Because it's not as if, after the recession, they get humongous raises. Discipline is supposed to yield rewards. You diet, you lose weight. You exercise, you get fit. You save money, you build a nest egg. But when corporations apply this type of "discipline," they, and not their employees, are the only ones who see the rewards.

Samuelson and his ilk churn out corporate drivel, with no basis in economic fact, and the effect of it is to suppress wages. Period. Otherwise, during the past few years, when corporate profits were literally at record highs, wages would have gone up commensurately. But, surprise, surprise: they didn't. Companies pocketed the profits, and are now crying "recession" when workers seek reasonable cost-of-living increases -- ones that don't even take into account, for the most part, the fact gasoline, home heating fuel, and state and local taxes and fees have increased dramatically since Bush took office.

Posted by: sullijan on November 7, 2007 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINK

Stagnant wages are a good thing if you're the one paying them! Sounds like he's become just another shill for corporations....

Posted by: mfw13 on November 7, 2007 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal, as gregory notes, you're not even trying. if there was some empirical basis for believing that rising wages caused inflation, you might have something to talk about.

there isn't, so please stfu.

Posted by: howard on November 7, 2007 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

'become'?

This guy has been a shill from the get go. Even his bizarre turned-upside-down ripoffs of Galbraith reek of someone who's nearly an economic illiterate.


"As investors (including pension funds) continue to lose billions in the deformed financial system, government will continue to worry more about the survival of these banking institutions that generate the losses. The megabanks are indeed “too big to fail” and, if that seems likely, Washington will come to their rescue in the name of protecting the soundness of the system. What a scam that is." Willaim Greider, Citigroup: Too Big to Fail?, The Nation

Posted by: MsNThrope on November 7, 2007 at 12:42 PM | PERMALINK

But if there is a weak market and companies can't easily raise prices or have any pricing power, it can easily spiral down into deflation and depression - why should companies produce if they can't make profits on their products. And when they stop production then people get laid off and the market just gets weaker without demand and it goes into a downward spiral. That's what happened in the 30s.

Most of us alive haven't lived it - but there's plenty who will argue that deflation is much worse than inflation.

Those with physical assets and who lend money see inflation as the main culprit - their hard assets and outstanding loans become lose value - but to working people, deflation is should be the main fear, because they lose their jobs.

You can tell who's side Samuelson is on when he discounts the dangers of deflation while talking up the dangers of inflation.

Posted by: Ethel-to-Tilly on November 7, 2007 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

*

Posted by: mhr on November 7, 2007 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

howard: ex-liberal, as gregory notes, you're not even trying. if there was some empirical basis for believing that rising wages caused inflation, you might have something to talk about.

howard, it almost feels like you and I are commenting on two different posts. I was not addressing whether rising wages cause inflation. I was trying to make two points:

1. Kevin and others were wrong when they interpreted Samuelson's comment as opposing wage increases. Samuelson's point was that although recessions have some very bad aspects, they do have some positive aspects, one of which is reducing inflation. The full quote reprinted by tacitean above confirms the correct interpretation.

2. Inflation can be bad for the economy.

As to what causes inflation, economists have various theories. Some see it as a purely monitary phenomenon. They see inflation caused by too rapid an expansion in the quantity of money. Others see it as caused by increases in prices of various items, including the price of labor.

Posted by: ex-liberal on November 7, 2007 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal, what samuelson said is that recessions dampen inflation.

can be true, but isn't mandatory.

samuelson said that it's a benefit of recessions that wages stagnate.

that's not a benefit, that's a sad reality in certain scenarios (it is entirely possible, as the first point should make clear to you, for wages to continue to increase during a recession for those who still have jobs).

the definition and causes of inflation are indeed tricky, but that doesn't mean that every crackpot theory about inflation makes sense. the idea that wage hikes are inherently infaltionary, for example, is a crackpot theory.

insofar as there is any basis for it, it would be that "wage hikes greater than productivity gains can be a potential cost-push although given the modest role that wages play in many companies total pricing scheme, that would be rather modest indeed."

meanwhile, if we enter a recession tomorrow, and the bush administration bombs iran on friday, and oil spikes to $150/gallon on monday, you know what? we're going to have a recession and mammoth price hikes.

which is to say, samuelson doesn't have the slightest frickin' idea what he's talking about, and in supporting him, i'm afraid you don't either.

PS. i happen to think, pace mhr's idiocies, that recessions are part of the ecology of capitalism and are unavoidable, in the same way that forest fires are part of the ecology of forests. and yes, it's true that forest fires can clear out patches of forest and allow new vegetation to emerge, but that has nothing to do with how samuelson wants to celebrate recessions.

Posted by: howard on November 7, 2007 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK

Should I hoard cash to take advantage of some unexpected good deal OR should work extra hard to pay down all my short term debt ?

Yes.

Posted by: Juanita de Talmas on November 7, 2007 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINK

It takes extra & extremely bad government policies to turn a trade cycle recession into a Great Depression, i.e. you've got to have a Hoover-FDR- Fed fiasco with trade walls, fixing prices and wages outside the market system, failure to use the central bank as a lender of last resort, playing games with gold exchange, massively increasing taxes, spending and borrowing by government agencies working outside the market system, and on and on.

There books written on this. My suggestion?

Read one.

Posted by: PrestoPundit on November 7, 2007 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK

that is a good attitude! : )

Posted by: Remi on November 7, 2007 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK
Stagnant wages are an "often-overlooked benefit" of recessions?

From the perspective of capitalists, to whom virtually all economic commentary in this country is really directed, yes.

Posted by: cmdicely on November 7, 2007 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINK

PrestoPundit - that may have been true for our previous Depression.

However, given our current situation:
- skyrocketing energy prices
- plummeting currency valuation
- ginormous national debt
and, notwithstanding other factors that tend to correlate with negative economic consequences ...
Would you say it's possible for things to go well and truly pear-shaped, or not?

Posted by: kenga on November 7, 2007 at 4:00 PM | PERMALINK

R. Samuelson gets his economics on the web. The rising wages line was a throwaway. The crux of the article was preparing the readership of the WaPo for the coming recession in terms an eighth grader can understand. That's the level it's written for.

I see from the comments there is disbelief in the line. Criminy, it's Econ 101; rising wages cause cost-pull inflation. You can go to Answers.com, the same place R. Samuelson wet.

Posted by: TJM on November 7, 2007 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK
Criminy, it's Econ 101; rising wages cause cost-pull inflation.

Rising average wages can contribute to either cost-push inflation (since production costs are going up). But since wages can't contribute more than 100% of production costs, they can't explain inflation greater than the increase in wages, so they shouldn't be problematic unless the increase in wages are narrowly concentrated, such that the increased income is narrowly concentrated but the increased costs apply across the economy.

Posted by: cmdicely on November 7, 2007 at 6:02 PM | PERMALINK

That's sure a real fine explanation of something and I always like your writing but in Econ 101 terms rising wages are a factor in cost-push inflation ceteris paribus. Rising wages are explained in terms of the same output but the need to pay more to attract the same number of workers. Prices are then assumed to increase for the same output. QED, inflation.

It's not the dismal science because it makes sense, but that's as far as Samuelson takes the argument. Simple thoughts for simple readers (and in this case writers.

Posted by: TJM on November 7, 2007 at 6:54 PM | PERMALINK

Bush is looking for anything to wipe Iraq of the front page.

I guess the coming recession will have to do.

Posted by: MEG on November 7, 2007 at 10:14 PM | PERMALINK

Gee, you mean you can't run a healthy economy on 'jive capital' and 'hallucinated wealth'?

Who knew?


'The fountainhead of this financial whirlpool is in the conundrum that rising interest rates are impotent in reversing the decline of the purchasing power of the dollar. What is needed is a redefinition of economic growth, to be measured by rising purchasing power of wages rather than by nominal GDP increases. And that path is through closing the disparity of income and wealth in every economy, rich and poor, among people and between economies. '
- Henry C K Liu - How currency devaluation destroys wealth
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/
Global_Economy/IF14Dj01.html

'When asset prices rise, it reflects a change in the money supply/asset relationship, meaning more money chasing the same number of assets. Thus when asset prices rise, it is not necessarily a healthy sign for the economy. It reflects a troublesome condition in which additional money is not creating correspondingly more assets. It is a >b>fundamental self-deception for economists to view asset-price appreciation as economic growth. A housing bubble is an example of this." Henry C K Liu
October 27, 2005
THE WIZARD OF BUBBLELAND
Part 3: How the US money market really works
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/
Global_Economy/GJ27Dj01.html

Posted by: MsNThrope on November 8, 2007 at 6:57 AM | PERMALINK

The Post site has apparently closed the comments section of Samuelson's column. The pushback must have been even more vituperative than the time Cheney's daughter wrote a column to plug the Iraq war.

I've all but given up on the Post's op-ed page. Only Meyerson, Gene Robinson and Froomkin are worth reading, in my opinion.

Posted by: Tone in DC on November 8, 2007 at 11:25 AM | PERMALINK

>The Post site has apparently closed the comments section of Samuelson's column. The pushback must have been even more vituperative than the time Cheney's daughter wrote a column to plug the Iraq war.

I don't know if they quite rose, or is is 'sunk', to the level of 'vituperative' but the message, though usually more retrained in language, was clearly: If there are to be job losses then by all means let's start with yours, you know-nothing gasbag.

I was 'polite'. I called him Mr. Samuelson and 'sir'.

hehehe

Posted by: MsNThrope on November 8, 2007 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

oh and BTW you can still comment on RS's idiocy at Paul Krugman's blog.

'For some time now, the U.S. economy has been hopelessly finance-driven, and the greater and more protracted the Credit excesses the greater the "transformation" of the economic structure. And it is the underlying real economy that today cannot "pay its bills" and is therefore hooked on ever increasing Credit inflation. This should by now be recognized as the Road to Ruin. Contemporary finance and its operators should be held accountable. ' -
Road to ruin By Doug Noland
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/
IK06Dj01.html

Posted by: MsNThrope on November 8, 2007 at 12:04 PM | PERMALINK


TJM: it's Econ 101


"I think I got a B in Econ 101." - GWB 9/20/07

fyi...

President Bush as an undergraduate at Yale received a grade that would correspond with a C-.

Posted by: mr. irony on November 9, 2007 at 11:17 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly