Krugman for Treasury: An Idea Whose Time Has Come?

     I'm convinced. Let's do it. You had me at hello. Krugman however, is "negotiating against himself" and demurs. However, before Krugman's objections let's here the case for him.

     "In an editorial Saturday, Weisbrot said Krugman would be "tough to oppose on any substantive grounds" because of his Nobel Prize in economics, his popularity, and a history of being "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," Weisbrot wrote. "He has written extensively in favor of policies that favor job creation, explained the folly of budget cutting in the face of a weak economy, and opposes cuts to social security and Medicare benefits."

      "Glover's call came in an email to MoveOn.org supporters urging them to sign a petition for Krugman's nomination."

      “We want President Obama to nominate Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, who opposes austerity and wants the government to focus on creating jobs," Glover wrote.

        http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/01/krugman-bad-idea-to-make-me-treasury-sec-153502.html?hp=r3_b1

       Krugman's demurall is partly that he says he's the world's worst administtator which is plausible. There's a big difference between an intellectual and an administrator. Some may be able to make the switch but many can't.

       "Part of the reason is that I am indeed the World’s Worst Administrator — and that does matter. Someone else can do the paperwork — but an administrative job requires making hiring and firing decisions, it means keeping track of many things, and that, to say the least, is not my forte," he writes on his blog today."

     "Oh, and there’s not a chance that I would be confirmed," he writes. "But the main point, as I see it, is that it would mean taking me out of a quasi-official job that I believe I’m good at and putting me into one I’d be bad at."

     I don't get this claim though that he'd have less influence as Treasury.

     "By my reckoning... an administration job, no matter how senior, would actually reduce my influence, leaving me unable to say publicly what I really think and all too probably finding myself unable to make headway in internal debates," he writes.

     "So again, I’m flattered — but I think I should stay in my current position as Mr. Outside, an annoying if sympathetic voice they can’t ignore."

      I mean is he saying that the Treasury has less impact on policy than an economist who writes  a popular blog. Don't get me wrong, I-of all people-am not sneezing at blog writers. However, do they really have more direct effect on what the White House does than the Treasury?