New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote an op-ed piece in which he pointed out president Obama's "failure to fail" and how that undermines the Republican narrative regarding Obama. The gist of Krugman's column is that the economy is doing fine under Obama and that disproves all the predictions of disaster that the GOP made about Obama's policies.
Of course, there are two problems with what Krugman has to say. First, the economy is not doing fine. Quite the contrary, millions of people are doing far worse economically than they were when Obama took office and essentially no one other than the ultra-rich is doing better. Second, to the extent anything is going right in the economy, it is despite Obama's policies, not because of them.
Let's start with economic performance. The favorite way for a progressive like Krugman to look at the economy is to measure income inequality. On that score, Obama has been the worst president in modern times. Since Obama took office, the very rich are doing extremely well while the rest of America suffers. All one needs to know is that over the last six years median real household income has declined substantially. In other words, the income of the average American has declined while Obama has been in office. Those are statistics from Obama's own people in the government, not just something said in a political debate. Meanwhile, the percentage of the national wealth and income in the hands of the top one percent of Americans has risen dramatically under Obama. In other words, Obama's policies have failed.
Looking also at the growth of GDP, Obama has also been a disaster. After the major recession that took place as he was entering office, Obama should have presided over a boom. It was a boom, however, that never happened. No amount of special statistics can overcome the basic fact that the economy as a whole has not grown as it should and the average America is making less now than when Obama took office.
Then there are the effects of Obama's policies. In typical fashion, Krugman tries to give Obama credit for the boom in oil and gas production, but that boom happened despite and not because of Obama. In the regions where Obama had control (like on federal land), production declined rapidly. On private lands, however, where Obama had no means of controlling drilling, production has soared and the price of oil has fallen in response. Similarly, Obamacare has increased labor costs and injected major uncertainty into the economy. Fewer new jobs have opened up as a result of the law. The private sector, however, has managed after years of struggle to start growing a bit again. Krugman wants Obama to get credit for this. It's a total delusion on Krugman's part.
Of course, there are two problems with what Krugman has to say. First, the economy is not doing fine. Quite the contrary, millions of people are doing far worse economically than they were when Obama took office and essentially no one other than the ultra-rich is doing better. Second, to the extent anything is going right in the economy, it is despite Obama's policies, not because of them.
Let's start with economic performance. The favorite way for a progressive like Krugman to look at the economy is to measure income inequality. On that score, Obama has been the worst president in modern times. Since Obama took office, the very rich are doing extremely well while the rest of America suffers. All one needs to know is that over the last six years median real household income has declined substantially. In other words, the income of the average American has declined while Obama has been in office. Those are statistics from Obama's own people in the government, not just something said in a political debate. Meanwhile, the percentage of the national wealth and income in the hands of the top one percent of Americans has risen dramatically under Obama. In other words, Obama's policies have failed.
Looking also at the growth of GDP, Obama has also been a disaster. After the major recession that took place as he was entering office, Obama should have presided over a boom. It was a boom, however, that never happened. No amount of special statistics can overcome the basic fact that the economy as a whole has not grown as it should and the average America is making less now than when Obama took office.
Then there are the effects of Obama's policies. In typical fashion, Krugman tries to give Obama credit for the boom in oil and gas production, but that boom happened despite and not because of Obama. In the regions where Obama had control (like on federal land), production declined rapidly. On private lands, however, where Obama had no means of controlling drilling, production has soared and the price of oil has fallen in response. Similarly, Obamacare has increased labor costs and injected major uncertainty into the economy. Fewer new jobs have opened up as a result of the law. The private sector, however, has managed after years of struggle to start growing a bit again. Krugman wants Obama to get credit for this. It's a total delusion on Krugman's part.
No comments:
Post a Comment