Krugman is Starting to Make More Sense

Discussion in 'Economics' started by oldtime, Mar 8, 2013.

  1. He's been doing a lot of interviews on TV

    I see him more and more as a pure Keynsian (the good kind)

    gov should spend money now when rates are low, hire more gov workers if the private sector won't do it

    and also, extend the payroll tax holiday. He is pretty pissed about raising taxes at this time.

    and then, next time don't blow it like we did last time. when unemployment gets down, maybe not to 4, but more than Bernanke's 6.5, then raise taxes and become a deficit hawk before we have to deal with the impending disaster, namely medicare and medicaid.

    by the way, I saw a good guy on cnbw who said he pays no attention to the unemployment rate. Instead he uses the employment rate, which is how many people have jobs. Currently it is 59.8%
  2. piezoe


  3. that was the thread I was looking for, but it was no longer on the economics forum

    somebody must have gone off the deep end, because it got moved to Politics and Religion

    that's pretty bad, when economics becomes nothing more than politcal

    or even worse, a religion

    you didn't have anything to do with that did you piezoe?

    otherwise, with rates this low and the fed willing to hold back the damn until it finally breaks, this is a golden opportunity to borrow money

    I'd borrow some if I had anything to do with it, and apparently a lot of public corporations feel the same way

    If we don't do it now, there's going to be hell to pay when rates rise
  4. piezoe


    I'm in agreement with your statement re rates, and no, I didn't have anything to do with the thread being moved.
  5. hey piezoe, a much better strategy for the republicans would have been to tell Obama, "Keep the Bush tax cuts and the payroll holiday, and when unemployment hits the 5 handle we will automatically go back to the old Clinton tax rates."
  6. piezoe


    You know, from a purely political perspective you might have something there. That might have worked! From the standpoint of sound economic policy I think raising only the top bracket 4%, as proposed, probably does make the most sense, since that's not going to affect the recovery one iota, but would help to a minor extent in containing the deficit, or alternatively provide the additional funds needed for infrastructure projects without increasing the deficit. I think the latter is what the administration had in mind, and that would be my preference too. Then we could accelerate development of high speed rail, so I wouldn't have to disrobe and fold up like an anchovy to travel. :)
  7. well, you know piezoe, you are always going to be left wing, and I am always going to be right wing. So I will agree with you that raising taxes for those above 450k was not good for the economy, but probably also not that bad. It gave Obama a political point. Good..Obama 1...republicans zero

    same thing about sequester, you and I both know it isn't good for the economy, but 85 billion isn't going to hurt that bad

    so Obama 1...Republicans 1

    so this is how discussions on the economic forum get sent to "Politics and Religion"?

    both sides need to know the economy is fragile, and you can screw it up two ways, the democrats way of increasing taxes, or the republicans way by reducing spending.

    choose your poison

    if you choose one over the other, you care more about your ideology than you do about your children
  8. Give everyone on unemployment / welfare, a broom, and them sweep sidewalks or dig ditches. We will then make then at least productive, and they will probably find a way out of their situation.

  9. I'm not so sure I disagree with you, and that is his Keynsian point. The task ahead of us at this particular moment is not to create a sustainable economy which never has to be interfered with for all time. If we wanted to do that the first thing we would have to do is eliminate social security and medicare.

    but yes, show up at the government unemployment office by 9 am, fill out the forms and walk out at 5 pm with a job

    and keep doing that until the private sector complains, "We can't get any workers, nobody applies anymore, they all just go to the government employment agency."

    but you know, we are just gambling that we can keep that up before we run out of money, and we are starting from a very severe drawdown
  10. Krugman is a complete fool. Some of his books and writing are historically incorrect and completely politically driven. I don't trust his word on economics at all. Only statement I will make is that our society has moved from individualism towards collectivism. When we were working hard to be the number one nation everyone had shit jobs. Next thing you know the middle class was born and it was a great achievement. After the hard work, we got the reward. After that, we gave up the hard work and allowed other countries to produce everything. We partied for a long time and eventually realized we had no money left and started to complain. Who is emerging the largest middle class now? China is. They are beginning to move into better residencys and purchase cars and other goods with straight cash. They are still working shit jobs for shit pay but they soon will eventually reep the benefits. Going from production of goods to all out consumption is inevitable in human nature. Regardless of everything, it truly still is a banking problem left unfixed. Peter Schiff 2016!
    #10     Mar 12, 2013