Plan B Forum

That nice Mark Thoma comes up with great idea:

____________________________________
http://economistsview.typepad.com/econo ... etary.html

Sunday, January 06, 2013
'Why Paul Krugman should be President Obama's Pick for US Treasury Secretary'

I took three days to drive down the coast of Oregon and California on the way to the ASSA meetings in San Diego -- sort of a needed break that seemed to only put me further behind -- but I only have one day to get back, today. It's going to be a long, long day, so just a few quick posts before hitting the road:

Apparently, there's a petition circulating in support of this:
"
Why Paul Krugman should be President Obama's pick for US treasury secretary, by Mark Weisbrot: President Obama hasn't picked a treasury secretary yet for his second term, so he has a chance to do something different.

He could ignore what Wall Street and conservative media interests want and pick somebody who would represent what the electorate voted for. ... I know what you are thinking: this is impossible. There is too much money and power on the other side of this idea. Well, maybe.

But Obama has surprised us before. Last June, he picked Jim Kim to run the World Bank. ... So, for the post of treasury secretary, to replace the outgoing Tim Geithner, Obama could afford to make another bold choice: Paul Krugman.

Krugman would be tough to oppose on any substantive grounds. He has a Nobel Prize in economics (also the John Bates Clark award for best economist under 40). The New York Times columnist is probably the best-known living economist in the United States, and perhaps the world.

Krugman has been right about the major problems facing our economy, where many other economists and much of the business press have been wrong. ... Most importantly, Krugman is on the side of the majority of Americans. ... After all, why should the secretary of the treasury have to prioritize the interests of Wall Street and the "criminal enterprise" of big finance...

The US treasury secretary also has an important influence on the rest of the world, as the most powerful force within the IMF, G20, and G7 groupings. Krugman has written extensively about the stupidity of the last few years of economic policy in Europe...

Imagine a treasury secretary who favored employment, poverty reduction and development, rather than unnecessary austerity...

It would be great to have a treasury secretary who can cut through all that crap. ... "

The renowned actor and human rights activist Danny Glover has launched a petition to the president for him to nominate Paul Krugman for secretary of the treasury. It's worth signing.

When Paul Krugman hears about this (I predict) he will tell us all the reasons why he'd be lousy at this job (as he's done before with similar suggestions).

__________________________________


yrs,
rubato

LMAO!!!

I take it this Mark Thoma character is a stand up comedian?

I don't believe Obama is anywhere near stupid enough to appoint The Liar Krugman to a position of responsibility...

That know-nothing buffoon has as much chance of becoming the next Secretary of Treasury as Michael Moore has of becoming the next Secretary of Commerce....

" Krugman for Treasury Secretary!"

I gotta hand it to you rube, that's a good one....

"... Krugman would be tough to oppose on any substantive grounds. He has a Nobel Prize in economics (also the John Bates Clark award for best economist under 40). The New York Times columnist is probably the best-known living economist in the United States, and perhaps the world. ..."


yrs,
rubato

Yeah rube, we're all aware that the nobel prize dough asses shamed and embarrassed themselves by giving an award to that 3rd rate hack...BFD...

That decision says way more about them than it does about The Liar Krugman...they obviously wanted to try to increase the profile of a lefty American "economist" for ideological reasons, no matter how mediocre he might be.

Pssst! Jim!

You gotta know that this time, at least, he's really just trying to jerk your chain. Your first response was the most appropriate one possible; I would imagine that, once you think about it, you will realize that after that first response, the less you say, the better.

Someone buy the guy an "s" ferfuksake!!

You're probably right Econo...

I wrote the second response right after the game yesterday; I probably wasn't using the best judgement.

Didn't Obama get the Nobel Peace prize minutes after (before?) being sworn in?
Nobel prizes (as far as I am concerned) mean nothing more than some bucks ($$$$) to those that win them.
If the winners would donate that money to the high school science prizes (westinghouse/intel/I forget who sponsors them now) then it wold mean something.
In the mean time, make more explosives so we can give out more peace prizes.

The Peace prize is the most political of all of them, very often used to make a statement of some kind. And I continue to shake my head about the award to Obama.

The prizes awarded in other disciplines, however, are another matter. Looking a list of recipients of the economics prize, there is certainly no evidence whatsoever of any sort of ideological tilt in selecting the winners. Krugman is a bombastic, unabashed partisan, ok? But it would be a mistake to conflate the stuff he writes for public consumption with his academic work, which is something else entirely, and which as a completely groundbreaking way of looking at international trade.

And Jim, claiming that awarding the prize to Krugman was ideological without having any familiarity with his academic work, without knowing anything about the work of the other contenders for the prize that year, or any of their names, for that matter, sounds very much like a claim that rubato would make.

Well said, Scooter. I will only point out that the "bombastic, unabashed partisan" part disqualifies him from serious consideration as Treasury Secretary.

It is much, much easier to talk out of your ass in an Op-Ed piece than to have to make tangible policy recommendations and see them fail

But of course, Barry was a total failure for four years and got re-elected, so what difference does it make?