Krugman calls out Ben Bernanke—"he's been assimilated by the Borg"

This is another state of the Krugman post. You and I, flies on the insider walls, know that Ben Bernanke is a full professor at Our Betters U. — in other words, deeply involved in running his chunk of the State for the lords and ladies who govern us. Like all retainers Bernanke works for a living, but as Chairman of the Fed he's very high up.

Paul Krugman is now acknowledging the same thing, and becoming less and less collegial in the process. Why do I say "less collegial"? Because Krugman and Bernanke are fellow academics; in fact, Bernanke used to be Krugman's boss at Princeton.

As you read the following, remember that the Fed has twin legal mandates — low inflation (for the money crowd) and low unemployment (for the masses). In reality, of course, the Fed works only for the money crowd, keeping their pockets lined.

Krugman recently called him on that in the magazine piece linked below, and Bernanke has responded. As Krugman tells the tale [bracketed inserts mine]:

Ben Bernanke responds to my magazine piece; as I see it, in effect he declared that he has been assimilated by the Fed Borg:

I guess the, uh, the question is, um, does it make sense to actively seek a higher inflation rate in order to, uh, achieve a slightly increased pace of reduction in the unemployment rate? ...

To risk that asset [by "asset" he means "low inflation," though he's actually referring to the money crowd's well-lined pockets], for, what I think would be quite tentative and, uh, perhaps doubtful gains [by "gains" he means "work and food for the masses"], on the real side would be an unwise thing to do [because the world is ruled by "wisdom" and not, say, "greed"].

Notice the framing — “a slightly increased pace of reduction in the unemployment rate”. It’s basically an assertion that we’re doing all right[.] ... Disappointing stuff.

In other words, Bernanke is saying, Why trade a known-bad like inflation for something as ephemeral as improved employment? After all, my friends are fully employed right now.

So much for Bernanke. But again, this post isn't about the Ben — he's a known made man already. This is about the Krugman, who dares to say so using his Times blog-inches.

Thanks, Professor. And welcome. Soon you'll be as radical as you were in 2003, when Bush was king and we were still naïve.

GP

(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)

The Occupy Handbook, coming next week

Via Paul Krugman, we learn about what promises to be an excellent new book of essays, background, and analysis — The Occupy Handbook.

The work has 66 contributors include, including these luminaries:

• Paul Krugman
• Robin Wells
• Michael Lewis
• Robert Reich
• David Graeber
• Nouriel Roubini
• Matt Taibbi
• David Cay Johnston
• Martin Wolf
• Robert Shiller
• Peter Diamond
• Emmanuel Saez
• Amy Goodman
• Barbara Ehrenreich

Plus a great many others.

From the editorial description:

The Occupy Handbook is a source for understanding why 1% of the people in America take almost a quarter of the nation's income and the long-term effects of a protest movement that even the objects of its attack can find little fault with [sic].

Roger Lowenstein blurbs:

"More than a scrapbook of the recent Occupy Wall Street movement, The Occupy Handbook, a compilation by our best journalists, thinkers and economists, puts the story of America's revolt against inequality in welcome historical perspective.

From the barricades of 1848, to the barrios of modern Chile, to the improbable campgrounds thrown together in the shadows of New York skyscrapers, the Handbook examines the budding question of whether democracy can foster a more equal, and also a more prosperous, society.

Insightful pieces by Gillian Tett, John Cassidy, Bethany McLean and many more prepare you to think about the next outbreak of outrage and activism-which is only a matter of time."

The book will be available just in time for tax-deadline-day, April 17. You can pick it up at a local independent bookstore, or from Amazon.

Occupationally yours,

GP

(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)

Why health insurance isn't broccoli (the short version)

Paul Krugman spends his precious Times inches on the Supreme Court ACA-broccoli debate. Along the way he has a nice tight explanation about why the two aren't comparable.

He writes (my emphasis):

Let’s start with the already famous exchange in which Justice Antonin Scalia compared the purchase of health insurance to the purchase of broccoli, with the implication that if the government can compel you to do the former, it can also compel you to do the latter. That comparison horrified health care experts all across America because health insurance is nothing like broccoli.

Why? When people choose not to buy broccoli, they don’t make broccoli unavailable to those who want it. But when people don’t buy health insurance until they get sick — which is what happens in the absence of a mandate — the resulting worsening of the risk pool makes insurance more expensive, and often unaffordable, for those who remain. As a result, unregulated health insurance basically doesn’t work, and never has.

That's pretty straight-forward. As to how to fix the problem, Krugman clearly sees the options:

There are at least two ways to address this reality — which is, by the way, very much an issue involving interstate commerce, and hence a valid federal concern. One is to tax everyone — healthy and sick alike — and use the money raised to provide health coverage. That’s what Medicare and Medicaid do. The other is to require that everyone buy insurance, while aiding those for whom this is a financial hardship.

Krugman doesn't have a SCOTUS ACA prognosis, but he does say that:

it’s hard not to feel a sense of foreboding — and to worry that the nation’s already badly damaged faith in the Supreme Court’s ability to stand above politics is about to take another severe hit.

Yes, Professor. We all have that foreboding. We've been forebode before.

GP

(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)

Plain speaking about ALEC from Paul Krugman

This is a "state of the Krugman" post.

We've noticed recently that the Professor has been calling out his fellow economists for "playing for Team Republican" — a bold rejection of the collegial conventions that bind this profession (to each other, and also to hold their tongues).

Now he takes on ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council — command-and-control for the Movement Conservative war in the states.

And yes, he says "movement-conservative" in the same sense you and I mean it. This is an excellent read (my emphasis and some reparagraphing):

Lobbyists, Guns and Money

Florida’s now-infamous Stand Your Ground law, which lets you shoot someone you consider threatening without facing arrest, let alone prosecution, sounds crazy — and it is. ... But similar laws have been pushed across the nation, not by ignorant yahoos but by big corporations.

Specifically, language virtually identical to Florida’s law is featured in a template supplied to legislators in other states by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a corporate-backed organization that has managed to keep a low profile even as it exerts vast influence[.] ...

What is ALEC? Despite claims that it’s nonpartisan, it’s very much a movement-conservative organization, funded by the usual suspects: the Kochs, Exxon Mobil, and so on.

Unlike other such groups, however, it doesn’t just influence laws, it literally writes them, supplying fully drafted bills to state legislators. In Virginia, for example, more than 50 ALEC-written bills have been introduced, many almost word for word. And these bills often become law.

No words were minced. He makes the case that:

ALEC isn’t so much about promoting free markets as it is about expanding crony capitalism. ... ALEC, even more than other movement-conservative organizations, is clearly playing a long game ... they’re about creating a political climate that will favor even more corporation-friendly legislation in the future.

The "long game" — ALEC isn't just about the wins, they're about the wins that create more wins.

Meanwhile, progressive are struggling with the "short game" — that first first-down at the 20 yard line. Take notes, kids; command-and-control beats haphazard and statement-making every time.

The state of the Krugman is "frosty and clear." Thank you, sir, for using your precious Times inches to shine light on this secret monster.

By the way, if you're curious about ALEC's corporate funding, OpenSecrets.org has the goods. For example:

Twenty-three corporations -- including AT&T, Exxon Mobil, Kraft, Coca-Cola and Koch Industries -- compose the consortium's "private enterprise board."

Click through; their report is fascinating.

GP

(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)