« "We Won't Stop Making Our Citizens Poorer Until You Stop Making Your Citizens Poorer!" | Main | Remove the Stench» Don Boudreaux
November 09, 2007
His fault
Russell Roberts
I get it. All along, I thought it was her fault. But it wasn't. Turns out it was his fault. I'm talking about Hillary's health care plan, her one serious life experience of government action, that didn't turn out so well. But it wasn't her fault that it failed. It was Bill's fault. Why? Well, he didn't provide enough budgetary slack for her. So of course it failed. It had nothing to do with the goal of creating a top-down, expertly designed from scratch, bureaucratic monstrosity. Nope. His fault:
"She has taken the rap for some of the problems we had with health care the last time that were far more my fault than hers," the former president said.
He said part of the problem was a lack of money to finance the health care expansion. Money could be available this time to pay for expanded health care, such as the universal health care plan Hillary Clinton has proposed.
"This time, when you let the tax cuts for upper-income people expire, it'll create a pool of money that wasn't there last time," Bill Clinton said. "We told her she had to get to universal coverage and there would be no new money. She had to figure out how to do it."
Poor Hillary. She had to figure out the money problem. That was the problem and that problem was his fault. How could she be expected to get blood from a stone? His fault. Not her fault.
How dumb do these people think we are? (That's a rhetorical question.)
Posted by Russell Roberts in Health | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/23120/23195888
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference His fault:
Comments
"it'll create a pool of money that wasn't there last time,"
Is this Bill, on the record, stating that GWB's economy is better than his?
How would going back to Clinton era taxes generate a pool of money that didn't exist when tried the first time? Something must be different.
Posted by: Tom | Nov 9, 2007 10:39:11 AM
A pool of money? Why would we need a pool of money? I thought proponents of government health care argued that it would save huge sums of money -- that the U.S. spends a high-percentage of GDP on health care and European countries lower percentages, so when we made the transition, there would be a big 'government health care dividend'.
Is Bill now implying that health care is going to consume an even greater share of our GDP when the feds take over?
Posted by: Slocum | Nov 9, 2007 11:36:26 AM
Slocum,
The pool of money is for the purpose of wealth transfer. You don't expect poor shmoes who make only $87K per year with boat loads of debt to finance their BMW's, 4,500 sqaure foot homes and breast implants to pay for their own healthcare, do you? No. those people are clearly exploited by the Evil Rich and, thus, the Evil Rich have to pay. Makes perfect sense.
Posted by: Methinks | Nov 9, 2007 11:40:25 AM
I object to pools on the grounds that children often drown in them. With your help we can eliminate these deadly child-killing pools by making all tax cuts permanent. It's for the children, which means you must do as I say!
Al (Anti-Social Anti-Socialist- TX)
Posted by: Al for President '08 | Nov 9, 2007 11:49:28 AM
"How dumb do these people think we are? " That is the thing that I did not like about Bill Clinton, he seemed to not care to hide his low opinion of the voters intelligence. He governed relatively well but I often felt insulted after hearing him speak.
Posted by: Floccina | Nov 9, 2007 11:52:36 AM
Anyone remember her gem "I can't go out and save every undercapitalized entrepreneur in America."? Find it in the complete guide to Hillary written by the late Barbara Olson.
http://books.google.com/books?id=yzLalExbVVUC&pg=PA261&lpg=PA261&dq=hillary+%22undercapitalized+entrepreneur%22&source=web&ots=_UV2psqKWA&sig=n6Tnam40HmLdL6e_EhgTz6nJE5k#PPP1,M1
Posted by: Brad | Nov 9, 2007 12:35:02 PM
Mangled URL, sorry. Try this: http://tinyurl.com/2yhxqb
Posted by: Brad | Nov 9, 2007 12:36:50 PM
Clinton governed well only because the Republican congress prevented him from exercising his socialist agenda. Remember the first two years of his presidency?
Posted by: Methinks | Nov 9, 2007 12:39:59 PM
Brad DeLong is famously on record on the health care debacle:
My two cents' worth--and I think it is the two cents' worth of everybody who worked for the Clinton Administration health care reform effort of 1993-1994--is that Hillary Rodham Clinton needs to be kept very far away from the White House for the rest of her life. Heading up health-care reform was the only major administrative job she has ever tried to do. And she was a complete flop at it. She had neither the grasp of policy substance, the managerial skills, nor the political smarts to do the job she was then given. And she wasn't smart enough to realize that she was in over her head and had to get out of the Health Care Czar role quickly.So when senior members of the economic team said that key senators like Daniel Patrick Moynihan would have this-and-that objection, she told them they were disloyal. When junior members of the economic team told her that the Congressional Budget Office would say such-and-such, she told them (wrongly) that her conversations with CBO head Robert Reischauer had already fixed that. When long-time senior hill staffers told her that she was making a dreadful mistake by fighting with rather than reaching out to John Breaux and Jim Cooper, she told them that they did not understand the wave of popular political support the bill would generate. And when substantive objections were raised to the plan by analysts calculating the moral hazard and adverse selection pressures it would put on the nation's health-care system...
Hillary Rodham Clinton has already flopped as a senior administrative official in the executive branch--the equivalent of an Undersecretary. Perhaps she will make a good senator. But there is no reason to think that she would be anything but an abysmal president.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | Nov 9, 2007 3:02:18 PM
Here's where the pool of money is IMO. First there will be the peace dividend. The war profiteers funding will end, second the hedge fund managers and their buddies will buck up as will the top 1% as their tax cuts expire. And this time the Republican built deficit is about $200 billion less going in for the democrats then when they took over the first Bush's mess. And then indeed health care will some what pay for itself as employers expenses should go down and hopefully middle wages will go up along with their spending and revenue adding to receipts.
But of course the decrepit state of our 25 year post-Reagan economy has left lots of potential potholes from peak oil to gadzillions of dollars of neglected infrastructure to the plummeting value of our dollar... No doubt the democrats have quite a clean up on their hands. But yeah we can and must afford public health care.
Some fun facts that question the who thinks who is stupid issues.
Posted by: muirgeo | Nov 9, 2007 3:28:39 PM
yes, please. Let's hear all about peak oil and - yet again - an extended, incoherent diatribe about things you don't understand but which will be liberally peppered with how Bush and Reagan are satin. That will be completely relevant to the topic at hand and not a waste of space at all.
Posted by: Methinks | Nov 9, 2007 4:25:40 PM
Do Democrats want to raise taxes on the poor and middle class? Do the American people? Because that is what Europe has had to do in order to fund their "free" healthcare.
Posted by: happyjuggler0 | Nov 9, 2007 4:47:12 PM
Methinks,
Why don't YOU explain how this economy is so good 25 years post Reagan. You're the one's who supposedly know something about the economy and you don't see the disaster before us as a result of policies you apparently favor. I'll take the economy 25 years post FDR over this one any-day.
Of course I don't know what I'm talking about but as each day goes by and the CEO's and Money rulers look for ways to solve the liquidity crisis amongst an assets fire-sale I suspect you'll look a little less bright as each day goes by.
Yes Reagan, Bush, Bush and the Republicans have decidedly brought us to the brink of ruin. How many times is history gonna repeat itself with their ill-advised ways?
Posted by: muirgeo | Nov 9, 2007 5:15:25 PM
"Brink of ruin". Hyperbole much? Some people made some bad investments and they're going to get burned. The only way it could lead us to the "brink of ruin" is if the idiots in Washington start throwing good money after bad.
Posted by: Randy | Nov 9, 2007 5:28:10 PM
No, you quack, explaining anything to you has proven to be an enormous waste of time.
Instead, why don't you tell us which part of the post-FDR economy was your favourite. Was it the gas lines? Stagflation? High unemployment rates?
On second thought, don't bother. I've got to get back to Money Ruling and I'm sure nobody else cares.
Posted by: Methinks | Nov 9, 2007 5:37:00 PM
Here’s a nifty side-effect (again, seen & unseen, incentives) of Hillary’s first attempt to take over 1/3d of our economy:
Many people, including me, left the pursuit of a medical degree because of the prospect of direct government control of the medical profession. Many more doctors took early retirement (I personally know 3).
I guarantee this will happen again, and probably on a larger scale next time, especially if this megalomaniacal liar woman becomes president.
Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Nov 9, 2007 6:46:41 PM
Here's a way in which it might have been more Bill's fault than Hillary's: Who was the one that picked IRA MAGAZINER, the infamous "man with the plan," to do the heavy lifting on the Clinton health care plan. It was Magaziner who created the whole monstrosity (conceived it and wrote it up almost single-handedly), and Hillary's role was to promote it. My guess is that Magaziner's plan was too complicated for Hillary (or anyone else) to understand, but she went blasting away on it anyway. Thus I agree w Brad DeLong's comment that she was in way over her head and didn't know it.
But if Bill was the one that picked Magaziner (and I think it was probably a joint Bill/Hillary decision) then Bill bears a substantial portion of the blame.
Posted by: Bill Kruse | Nov 9, 2007 7:08:01 PM
The only way it could lead us to the "brink of ruin" is if the idiots in Washington start throwing good money after bad.
Posted by: Randy |
It's not Washington that got us here, except maybe for their lack of oversight of the idiots and greed mongers on Wall Street.
Hyperbole???
Try looking at the headlines of the FT today. I've been listening to the pundits and professors on both sides for years and the free-marketeers have been the optimist without reason while those on the left as far back as Jimmy Carter are looking like the Sages.
" The energy crisis is real. It is worldwide. It is a clear and present danger to our nation. These are facts and we simply must face them.
"What I have to say to you now about energy is simple and vitally important.
Point one: I am tonight setting a clear goal for the energy policy of the United States. Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977 -- never. "
......Point three: To give us energy security, I am asking for the most massive peacetime commitment of funds and resources in our nation's history to develop America's own alternative sources of fuel -- from coal, from oil shale, from plant products for gasohol, from unconventional gas, from the sun.
I propose the creation of an energy security corporation to lead this effort to replace 2-1/2 million barrels of imported oil per day by 1990. The corporation I will issue up to $5 billion in energy bonds, and I especially want them to be in small denominations so that average Americans can invest directly in America's energy security.
Just as a similar synthetic rubber corporation helped us win World War II, so will we mobilize American determination and ability to win the energy war. Moreover, I will soon submit legislation to Congress calling for the creation of this nation's first solar bank, which will help us achieve the crucial goal of 20 percent of our energy coming from solar power by the year 2000."
Jimmy Carter, July 15, 1979
Even then our lust for oil had set the path. Our placement of the Shah of Iran, the Iran hostage crisis and Reagan arms for hostages.....one bad policy after another in the name of corporate interest.
Instead of using our brains and planning our future we decided to put our Faith in Reaganomics and the invisible hand of the market....Great job invisible hand.....the future looks so great...and you still have followers.
Posted by: muirgeo | Nov 9, 2007 8:17:04 PM
How many criminal convictions did the Clinton Administration have? 5? 10? I forget.
Oh, yeah, it was 14.
And he was impeached, and stripped of his law license for 5 years.
I’m sure she’ll be much more ethical.
These people elevated stupidity to an art form.
[ht to Methinks, listening to Pink Floyd “Money,” Pulse, Live at Earls Court London 1994 as I type.]
Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Nov 9, 2007 8:19:15 PM
Muirgeo, don’t ever quote Jimmy Carter, please. Ever?
Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Nov 9, 2007 8:23:01 PM
K?
Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Nov 9, 2007 8:24:15 PM
muirgeo,
Please begin your comments by identifying yourself, thereby allowing us the opportunity of skipping to the next commenter. Alternately, shorten your comments.
Thanks,
John Reed
Posted by: John Reed | Nov 9, 2007 8:48:32 PM
Muirgeo,
"The energy crisis is real."
It wasn't then and it isn't now. Spending a few hundred extra dollars for heat during the winter, or an extra ten for a tank of gas, is not a "crisis". A few less pizzas, a few less videos, skip the vacation. No big deal. Those who invent crises, then, now, and always, do so because it is profitable for them to invent crises. They spend their lives looking for an opportunity to play the hero and rake in the acclaim - and the dollars. The rest of us just adapt and press on.
Posted by: Randy | Nov 9, 2007 9:45:50 PM
And, just to piss off muirgeo,
"There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other green house gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape.
There is no reason to limit human production of CO2, CH4, and other minor green house gases as has been proposed (82,83,97,123).
We also need not worry about environmental calamities even if the current natural warming trend continues. The Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic effects. Warmer weather extends growing seasons and generally improves the habitability of colder regions.
As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be re leased into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the
health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people."
http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/robinson600.pdf
Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Nov 9, 2007 10:19:29 PM
Randy - you forgot "a few more sweaters".
And a fringe benefit muirgeo probably can't (or won't) understand: Keeping the house cooler means the refrigerator compressor runs less, further saving energy, lower electric bills, fewer greenhouse gases, yada yada.
Of course Al Gore doesn't have to worry about all that.
Posted by: True_Liberal | Nov 9, 2007 10:31:55 PM
I would suggest limiting CH4CH3OH
Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Nov 9, 2007 11:14:28 PM
Hi, Mesa. How's the Money Ruling going? Have you been enjoying the week-long Asset Fire Sale? Exhausting. So, I'm listening to "comfortably numb" (Pink Floyd is a favourite in our house).
Of course, despite my best efforts, I can only dream of Hillary Ethics Clinton's futures trading returns and bottomless credit. Margin calls are for the little people, not Madame. Same for ethics and truth.
But I'm sure we can totally trust her....
Posted by: Methinks | Nov 10, 2007 1:35:17 AM
Hey, Methinks. Happy [flat] Friday.
Having personally witnessed Victor Niederhoffer’s 1997 S&P supernova, I’m fairly certain that “Mrs.” Clinton would’ve blamed that on Monica Lewinsky, too, or Red Bone:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/
politics/special/whitewater/stories/wwtr
940527.htm
Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Nov 10, 2007 2:22:11 AM
Muirgeo,
"The energy crisis is real."
It wasn't then and it isn't now.
Posted by: Randy
And you're a darn fool. We've been attacked by terrorist because of our oil dependency. It dominates our foreign policy and we've spent trillions worth of dollars and live to secure and subsidizes its supply. It's suppliers run our policy and own our politicians. It's market price in no way reflects a "free market" and all the externalities it's customers pay for.
Yet somehow guys like you feel like you're Mr Independent filling you ICB car everyday with no other choices on how to get around never realizing just how dependent and addicted you are. You're like one of those slaves of old or a long time prisoner who doesn't want to leave after the war is fought or when your time is served. Like a beaten housewife defending her husbands actions.
A few less pizzas , videos and vacations...no big deal...? Very sad.
And this inanity, "Those who invent crises, then, now, and always, do so because it is profitable for them to invent crises."
Oh yeah the big bad terrorist are going to get us so...Yeah that's what the "crisis" is. Nope no one profiting off of the so-called "terrorist crisis". You may have eyes but you're blind as a bat.
Posted by: muirgeo | Nov 10, 2007 2:27:58 AM
Nope, the big, bad terrorists didn't fly planes into the WTC, didn't attack the USS Cole, didn't hijack the Achille Lauro, and Nicholas Berg wasn't hacked to death by Islamo-fascists. Nope, it was all made up by Chimpy McBushitler. There are no big, bad terrorists, just ask Muirgeo.
No, wait. Don't ask Muirgeo; he doesn't answer questions. Just red his post above.
Posted by: brotio | Nov 10, 2007 3:30:33 AM
That should be "Just READ his post above", but considering Muirgeo's disdain for eeeevil Capitalists, "red" might not be all that inappropriate.
Posted by: brotio | Nov 10, 2007 3:34:05 AM
Muirgeo,
"We've been attacked.... It dominates our foreign policy and we've spent trillions... of our dollars....It's suppliers run our policy and own our politicians."
Who is this "we" and "our" of which you speak. I make a bi-monthly rent payment to the Progressives R US Corporation because they own the part of earth that I live in. The internal squabbles of its board of directors are of no concern to me. Who they choose to war with is of no concern to me. I use oil and gas because its cheaper than chopping wood and walking. I would prefer that oil and gas cost less than they do, but then I would prefer that the rent I pay to the Progressives R US Corporation were lower too. Its a preference, not a crisis. C'est la vie.
Posted by: Randy | Nov 10, 2007 6:31:14 AM
brotio,
How many of the terrorist from 9-11 were from Iraq? The terrorist are not gonna destroy our country. The proper response doesn't require a "war" except as an excuse to appease children like yourself that this is a necessary war to SAVE you from the terrorist. Because people like you respond to being frightened.
Our response to the attack has harmed us far more then the terrorist. And the administrations use of terror to scare people like you into letting him, his war profiteers and his oil buddies make a killing while you actually cover for then is what terror is about.
I'm not too worried I'll ever be effected directly by terrorist...but I know I've already been seriously effected by our dependence on oil and terrorism is just one small subset of the deleterious effects of our oil dependency. Worse will follow. Jimmy Carter was a wise man. Had we listened to him the terrorist threat and the energy problems would be far less today then they are having let the oil industry run our foreign policy.
Posted by: muirgeo | Nov 10, 2007 9:27:36 AM
muirgeo
Whenever you have to resort to personal attacks as opposed to arguing the points, you are as good as admitting defeat. So if you are interested in trying to persuade, I would suggest you stop posting things like:
". . . appease children like yourself", blah, blah, blah. Its a bad argument; its a sure loser as well as a sore loser.
Posted by: indiana jim | Nov 10, 2007 9:57:54 AM
Yes, the “terrorist” [sic, Rasheed the Iraqi, perhaps] might indeed get us, but I fail to see the relevance to your vacuous prattle, muirgeo.
Even Mrs. Clinton occasionally shuts up, usually in front of Grand Juries.
Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Nov 10, 2007 10:19:14 AM
Who's the darn fool? Could it be the posting alias who cannot stay on topic and the one who continuously spouts ellusive concepts such as 'foreign oil dependence' yet would do anything possible to minimize obtaining domestic supply?
Patisanship can blind and cause hatred within people. Such rank partisanship does not play well within an audienece that values liberty. So, do not be surprised, muirgeo, when your views get slapped around and mocked here.
Posted by: Lowcountryjoe | Nov 10, 2007 11:42:32 AM
One can agree that Hillary Clinton may not be the best choice for President or for anything to do with the healthcare system. Even so, I don't think there's too many people who think that there aren't problems with the current setup. If we don't fix it, then there's a good chance that the public will go with someone who at least claims to know how to do it.
Posted by: David P. Graf | Nov 10, 2007 11:42:42 AM
LCJ,
You guys are mocking and presuming on the Clintons but it certainly is not THEIR views that have our country in the position it is in.
It may or may not be true but there is a very good argument to be made that our country would be better off with a properly set up nationalized health care system. It may or may not be true that our country would be better off if we completely deregulated the health care industry. For that however, there is little empiric evidence. Further it will NEVER happen.
My best point to be made would be to suggest to the libertarian and conservative who may wish for a deregulated system but realize the impossibility of such to recognize that the best you can do is put forward solutions that best address what people want and what could be a system that most closely relies on market forces to operate.
What will happen is those dissatisfied will not compromise and the results will be a half witted system that solves little. Unfortunately the conservatives in power for the last 25 years have done nothing to address the issue. If medical IRA's were a possible solution they did little to push them through.
My opinion, honed from Paul Krugmans latest book, is that a well set up public health care system would be great for America but disastrous for the conservative ideology.
Posted by: muirgeo | Nov 10, 2007 12:53:28 PM
Paul Krugman is an idiot.
That’s why he got fired from his CEA job.
Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Nov 10, 2007 12:58:43 PM
I'll take the economy 25 years post FDR over this one any-day.
Oh yeah. Nothin' but blue skies ahead back in 1970.
Posted by: Paul Zrimsek | Nov 10, 2007 1:05:48 PM
Mesa (totally OT),
Always delta neutral. Spread risk I just have to deal with.
Niederhoffer's new funds just blew up. The flagship, Matador, was gored by the bull I guess (pardon, couldn't help myself).
There's a very long and detailed article about him in a recent New Yorker magazine. Last I checked, it's still on their website. Very interesting. Such a brilliant man. Such a horrible trader. WHY???
Posted by: Methinks | Nov 10, 2007 2:39:05 PM
Oh yeah. Nothin' but blue skies ahead back in 1970.
What? You didn't enjoy staring at the sky waiting in line for gas? We need to bring those back. I know! Let's start with an anti-gouging law.
Posted by: Methinks | Nov 10, 2007 2:51:48 PM
"...the best you can do is put forward solutions that best address what people want..."
I want free and unlimited healthcare. But hey, who doesn't? All we're doing, Muirgeo, is reminding people that limiting factors exist. I know you all don't want to be reminded of that. What dreamer does?
Posted by: Randy | Nov 10, 2007 4:08:30 PM
muirgeo,
I am not opposed to a government-run healthcare, the likes of one we have never seen before! Problem is: I've seen Medicare and I've seen Medicaid. I've also seen TennCare and PeachCare. I want nothing that are like these. What I'd like to see is do-gooders and paternalists, like yourself, to advocate establishing government run healthcare that: 1) has and opt in or, at the very least, and opt out feature 2) is not in any way shape or form funded by general funds or reinsured by all taxpayers whatsoever 3) is entirely funded by the premium payments of the programs participants 4) and, finally, requires participating physicians that pushed for the plan -- people like you who claim they are what they say they are -- to accept the conditions and fee structures that the government program mandates on them.
There's you government health plan, muirgeo, now let's go vote on it with our pocketbooks.
Discriminatingly yours,
LCJ
P.S. Happy Birthday to any other Devil Dogs out in the reading audience; Semper Fidelis.
Posted by: Lowcountryjoe | Nov 10, 2007 4:12:13 PM
It is precisely because of people like the Clintons and the Clintons themselves that this nation is in the mess it is now.
Without the disease of socialism infecting us we would have a school system that graduated educated children.
We would have plenty of oil and gas. (How can any one be stupid enough to claim "peak oil" is a threat when we haven't touched ANWR, the oil shale in Utah and Colorado, or the vast amounts of oil and gas that lie under our continental shelf.....none of which we can touch because of the Clintons and people like them....peak oil? In a pig's ass!)
We would have a health care system that provided quality care and at a price that the vast majority could afford, all without government involvement.
We would have a free market system that provided unimaginable wealth to all who willingly paticipate.
We would have news media that was diverse enough that we could get good, timely, and accurate information on social, political, and economic issues.
We would be able to walk our streets in most of America without fear.
There would be no drug war.
There would be no income tax on you guys.
There would be no Federal Reserve.
Our money would be real money instead of Federal Reserve Notes (debt).
In short everything that we can currently call a social ill in this nation can be laid solidly at the doorstep of the Clintons and people like them.
Not opinion, historically documented fact.
Posted by: vidyohs | Nov 10, 2007 11:13:35 PM
Vidyohs,
Would it be presumptuous of me to suppose that you won't be voting for Hillary this coming election? :-)
Posted by: David P. Graf | Nov 10, 2007 11:34:11 PM
Why didn't Bill just come out and say, "Now, don't you know that Hillary is just a woman and can't be expected to be good with money?" That would have been more honest of him, as that is the subtext of his statement. And if he's right that Hillary has trouble understanding how to handle money, hasn't he just given us a great reason NOT to vote for her?
Posted by: Dr. Troy Camplin | Nov 11, 2007 12:07:11 AM
While we are quoting Jimmy Carter, let us not forget this quote from Jimstrodamus in 1977:
"World consumption of oil is still going up. If it were possible to keep it rising during the 1970s and 1980s by 5 percent a year as it has in the past, we could use up all the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade."
Why did Julian Simon die so young?
Posted by: TheAlbatross | Nov 11, 2007 1:12:17 AM
While I am at it, Muirgeo reminded me of my old professor Paul Krugman, so I though I would share some stories. Krugman struck me as a reliable teacher, although I don't remember him much (Now Uwe Rheinhart--there is an econmics professor I remember), but then again he was quiet back then and rather unmemorable. I do remember the book he assigned--his book--"the Age of Diminished Expectations." I still have it--the cover is a man walking down a staircase (into the ground), the staircase is an American flag. I think the book was published in 94'. I could be wrong about the date, but he seemed to have mispredicted the tech and economic boom of the 90's and 2000s--2000-2001 recession excepted of course. Anyway, I just thought I would add my experience to the mix--after all comments are about collecting dispersed knowledge--Hayek would have approved. Again, the hard part for me is that Krugman is a very gifted economist, but he is just so pessamistic and his predictions always wrong--I guess every generation needs its J.K. Galbraith.
Posted by: TheAlbatross | Nov 11, 2007 1:36:24 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
