Google Chairman Schools Krugman: 'Surely You're Not Arguing Government Should Hire All the Unemployed People'
Google Chairman Eric Schmidt gave a much-needed economics lesson to New York Times columnist and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman on ABC's This Week Sunday.
During a lengthy discussion about liberal and conservative views on how to stimulate the currently soft recovery, Schmidt - a known Barack Obama supporter - marvelously said to his left-leaning co-panelist, "Surely you're not arguing that the government should hire all the unemployed people" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
ERIC SCHMIDT, EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN GOOGLE: This perpetual argument over taxes is simply a lever to try to do the right thing. It's obvious what the right thing is. And we end up talking about the wrong thing. The right thing is to get people employed in jobs that matter.
CARLY FIORINA, FORMER HEWLETT PACKARD CEO: Right.
SCHMIDT: And how do you do that? It's done largely by the private sector, largely with intelligent regulation and not too much of it. Let's figure out a way to get people being hired by business that solve problems. It will happen.
Probably like you, I was shocked to hear Schmidt say creating jobs is done "largely by the private sector, largely with intelligent regulation and not too much of it." Not surprisingly, so was Krugman:
PAUL KRUGMAN, NEW YORK TIMES: Yes, but we -- I mean -- yes, private sector is important. And we want the private sector -- but the private sector is almost back to its employment as of January of 2009. Where we're really hurting is --
SCHMIDT: Well, surely you're not arguing that the government should hire all the unemployed people.
Krugman was clearly taken aback by this:
KRUGMAN: No, I'm saying that the government should actually re-hire the 300,000 school teachers who have been laid off because of -- because of misplaced austerity …
Krugman would say that, but exactly how does that get people other than school teachers back to work? Once again, Schmidt saw through the hypocrisy:
SCHMIDT: That number won't fix the problem I'm talking about. If you look at forward growth in our citizen rate, they will be hired by private businesses, primarily small businesses.
Indeed, but Krugman - ever the government is the solution advocate - fought back:
KRUGMAN: But we -- we -- but the most important thing is --
FIORINA: Look at the unemployment among young people.
KRUGMAN: The most important thing right now is to end the depression we're in.
SCHMIDT: But the easiest way to solve -- the easy way to do the 300,000 is to do government block grants. I've never understood why government can't do one-time grants. The government basically funds things, but then they become perpetual. It would be relatively easy when government funding is down to essentially create that --
Schmidt here was again advocating a Republican position. GOP governors want block grants for Medicaid as an example.
But the Left wasn't done trying to defend the indefensible. Former Democratic Michigan Governor turned Current TV host Jennifer Granholm stepped up to the plate:
JENNIFER GRANHOLM, FORMER DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR FROM MICHIGAN : Isn't' that what the Recovery Act is?
SCHMIDT: It was. But if you look at the Recovery Act, which I supported, much of that went to stuff which is now structurally part of the base.
Indeed, and that's one of the reasons Republicans fought so strongly against it because they realized much of the program was structurally permanent rather than the needed short-term stimulus.
Makes you wonder if after watching Obama and the Democrats in action since January 2009 the left-leaning Schmidt has lost that loving feeling for Hope and Change.
He wouldn't be the only one.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Clug Man
Submitted by mmilesll on Sun, 04/29/2012 - 12:57pm.
This is the reason many Americans think that a university education is overpriced and doesn't lead to finding a job. The mental dwarf keep spewing the same crap, too bad the facts don't back him up. Schmidt is starting to sound more like a conservative than the liberal democrat he says he is.
wish that would trickle down
Submitted by mom_rox on Mon, 04/30/2012 - 8:12am.
I, too, was heartened by some of Schidt's comments - I wish I saw that reflected in a recent Google internship by sons applied for. I'm paraphrasing, but one of the application questions asked about how the applicant would improve the diversity among computer programmers.
What was interesting was that the application did not provide a definition for diversity. So, is Google interested in having the best talent or just having the best, "diversified" talent?
edit: I found out last night that my sons were not accepted. I'm shocked <heavy sarc>.
Here is a blurb from Google's scholarship page: "We [Google] hope these programs also help in dismantling barriers that keep women and minorities from entering computing and technology fields."
Sadly, this is across the spectrum. When it comes to merit-based scholarships, Asian and Caucasian males need not apply.
P.S. Grand Used to have a Home
Submitted by mmilesll on Sun, 04/29/2012 - 12:59pm.
I also wonder how George picks the panel, it can't be for expertise, Grand used to have a home was one of the worst governors Michigan ever had and that is saying a lot.
Well, Grandmole was in a class by herself.
Submitted by UpNorth on Sun, 04/29/2012 - 1:12pm.
She was, indeed, the worst governor we've ever had. She outdid Jimmy Blanchard, and he was bad. She far outdid Soapy Williams, and that took a lot of doing, But she excelled, in mediocrity.
Mediocre?
Submitted by MichiganMan on Mon, 04/30/2012 - 12:04pm.
I didn't even consider her mediocre.
Misplaced?
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 04/29/2012 - 1:22pm.
"No, I'm saying that the government should actually re-hire the 300,000 school teachers who have been laid off because of -- because of misplaced austerity …"
"Misplaced" austerity? Did someone forget where they left 1.2 trillion dollars (this year's deficit) or something?
Krugman acts as if there's a finite amount of money in America, a set amount which is allocated amongst 350 million people and, somehow, a large portion of this allocated money was, how did he put it?, "misplaced" somewhere, thus leading to the layoffs. That's just stupid!
By the way, Krugman, it was the individual school districts which "laid off" those teachers, not the "government." HOW can the government "re-hire" them? Do you want them all to join the TSA or something?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Krugman is a nut and
Submitted by rbosque on Sun, 04/29/2012 - 1:43pm.
Krugman is a nut and left-wing hack, that's how he got in Nobel prize. I got my econ degree fighting professors who thought Krugman was some type of genius. I really had an uphill battle.
Reduncencey
Submitted by Tjexcite on Sun, 04/29/2012 - 1:48pm.
Just what are 300K teachers going to do. If they needed them they would still have them. All Classrooms have a teacher in it. The number of students per teacher might be higher than the unions would like but they are not teacher-less classes or millions of student waiting in a gutter for a union teacher to find them.
Having government hire all people is what Krugman would like. Start at the 300K then all cops and firefighters and doctors that where cut when the government did not hire the normal amount that they hire every year. A few trillion dollars a year could send the unemployment rate down to 3% and that would be worth it. Even if they people just sit at home as there is nothing they can do but they can call it a paycheck over a welfare check which would be the same thing.
There are a number of revealing parts to that conversation
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 04/29/2012 - 2:04pm.
I think in general, fiscal conservatives prefer to put more money back in the hands of the citizen and allow them to spend it as they see fit -both in general and to an increased degree for a limited period of time as a reflex to economic downturn. Liberals, on the other hand, prefer for government to spend more, and, preferably, take that money from the more wealthy citizens among us. The problem as Schmidt identifies is the temporary nature of "stimulus".
It was also revealing that Krugman would want to re-hire teachers. Nothing against teachers, but there certainly is no measurable drop off in attendance due to laid-off teachers. The "school system" didn't shut down and kids aren't being left to educate themselves. I'm sure class size could be argued, but outside of the private school system, nothing relative to class size has shown a respectable, lasting return in higher test scores. And yet, In Wisconsin, minor changes to the way teachers can rake over the state resulted in more teachers keeping their jobs and a drastically improving fiscal condition for the state. I suspect these changes won't show any significant test score variation. So more teachers and better finances can be achieved with a minor concession by individual union members.
Would Krugman advocate the rehiring of these 300k teachers on the condition of structural contract reform? Would he avocate a Federal law which limits the bargaining "rights" (I hate using that term- unions have no more right to bargain than individuals) of Federal public employee unions and pressures states by way of reduced federal aid to follow suit? My guess is, no. Which to me, tells me all you need to know about liberals and their real economic goals.
Jeez, Obama didn't even hire
Submitted by motherbelt on Sun, 04/29/2012 - 2:20pm.
Jeez, Obama didn't even hire or find a job for the one guy that he told to send him his resume!!
I don't know what Krugman thinks government can do!
Krugman's economic fallacy
Submitted by MidAmerica on Sun, 04/29/2012 - 2:35pm.
Teacher jobs are just the same as any government expense, they add nothing to economic activity. Money for teachers comes from the private sector as does all government money. If I give my kids 25 dollars to spend I spend 25 dollars less myself. They spend the 25 dollars in places other than what I would but the overall amount stays the same.
Yes, govt spending is a shell
Submitted by robert108 on Sun, 04/29/2012 - 2:40pm.
Yes, govt spending is a shell game.
the importance of teachers
Submitted by MidAmerica on Sun, 04/29/2012 - 2:50pm.
Most of those 300,000 teachers will be paying union dues which goes to support the election of democrats.
This is why class size is such an important issue for the unions, smaller class size = more teachers. More teachers = more union dues. Millions of dollars for unions are at stake.
It's not nice, but I'll say it anyway.
Submitted by Annie Ashe Fields on Sun, 04/29/2012 - 2:57pm.
Paul Krugman is a cartoon cliche example of what happens when common sense is schooled out of you and all you have left is book smarts. He doesn't even KNOW he's been brainwashed. He doesn't, as the saying goes, even know what he doesn't know, and worse, he's forgotten what he should understand just being a breathing, sentient, bipedal homo-sapien.
He's so smart he's stupid. He's a participation trophy. He has no meaning whatsoever, but you can put it on the mantle and impress the crap out of people who don't look too close.
If he had any intellectual rigor AT ALL he would FORCE himself to move AWAY from the coasts for a month, live somewhere rural, and walk a mile in a small businessman's shoes. Try to open a business that requires interfacing with the federal frickin' government and see how that goes, Paul. Navigate getting all the proper licenses. Find out what the payroll requirements will be like. You'll learn more in a month by what you COULD NOT DO, then by all the years you THINK you've been doing something in your elbow patches and pancake makeup.
yes he does
Submitted by wizardjr on Sun, 04/29/2012 - 3:41pm.
CAUGHT!
He surely does believe 'government' should hire all the out of work folks. This man's grip on economics is based on Samuelson's idiotic Keynesian theories. Those same theories crashed the USSR and many smaller examples.
It gets back to the same arrogant idea that they CAN make it work because they are so, so, so much smarter than those who went before. Proverbs 16:18 "Pride Goeth Before Destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall." "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome." - Einstein
Very Communistic
Submitted by HardRightTurn on Sun, 04/29/2012 - 3:58pm.
Having everyone work for the government is exactly what the statists want. They can't say so outright though. Americans won't fall for that worker's paradise crap.
To more fully comprehend the Left, one must read “Leftism As Psychopathy” by John Ray, M.A., Ph.D. Caution, it might scare you a little bit.
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/psycho.html
Krugman is an evil hack.
Submitted by ArrowSmith on Sun, 04/29/2012 - 5:49pm.
He's smart enough to know better, but he pushes socialism non-stop. What will hiring 300K teachers do for the economy? What we need are more Googles and less government.
Now THAT'S some economist!
Submitted by HockeyKid on Mon, 04/30/2012 - 7:48am.
Kruggie's big argument is "we must end the recession". Woohoo!! Kruggie has the solution! He'll just wave his magic wand, sprinkle some Barry-the-Fairy-Dust, and poof!--end of recession!
Maybe someday Kruggie will learn that, to be a convincing economist, one should actually have a few hard-data economic ideas.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Yes, but we -- I mean -- yes,
Submitted by jpalm32 on Mon, 04/30/2012 - 9:08am.
Yes, but we -- I mean -- yes, private sector is important. And we want the private sector --
"And we want the private sector" ?????
Telling comment. Why would he even have say this??