Depressed Economy: Smart People Spend Now, Save Later

[Procrustes Stretched]

Spend now, while the economy remains depressed; save later, once it has recovered. How hard is that to understand?

But if we need to raise taxes and cut spending eventually, shouldn’t we start now? No, we shouldn’t.

Right now, we have a severely depressed economy — and that depressed economy is inflicting long-run damage. Every year that goes by with extremely high unemployment increases the chance that many of the long-term unemployed will never come back to the work force, and become a permanent underclass. Every year that there are five times as many people seeking work as there are job openings means that hundreds of thousands of Americans graduating from school are denied the chance to get started on their working lives. And with each passing month we drift closer to a Japanese-style deflationary trap.

Penny-pinching at a time like this isn’t just cruel; it endangers the nation’s future. And it doesn’t even do much to reduce our future debt burden, because stinting on spending now threatens the economic recovery, and with it the hope for rising revenues.

So now is not the time for fiscal austerity.

 

[Oddball]

Paul Krugman: The Theodoric of York of economics.

Hulu - Saturday Night Live: Theodoric of York

 

[Zander]

Bleed them!!!!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Paul Krugman: The Theodoric of York of economics.

Hulu - Saturday Night Live: Theodoric of York

In 2008, Krugman won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman

vs

Dude, a failed anonymous internet message board denizen. Dude...the life and times of...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Krugman says now is not the time to raise taxes, and trolls like Dude and Zanderdufus go deaf. *eek!

 

[Oddball]

Paul Krugman: The Theodoric of York of economics.

Hulu - Saturday Night Live: Theodoric of York

In 2008, Krugman won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics. Paul Krugman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

vs

Dude, a failed anonymous internet message board denizen.

What Krugman didn't receive a Nobel Prize for is in the area of political punditry and hackery, which is what his screeds in the New York Slimes are.

Your appeal to authority fails again.

 

[Zander]

Paul Krugman: The Theodoric of York of economics.

Hulu - Saturday Night Live: Theodoric of York

In 2008, Krugman won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics.

vs

Dude, a failed anonymous internet message board denizen.

I won a Nobel Peace prize too!!! I got it in a Cracker Jack box!!

Krugman's answer to every problem is more spending. That didn't work? Ok, how about more spending? That didn't work? Let's spend more, but we'll call it a "stimulus". Still not working? We didn't spend enough.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Paul Krugman: The Theodoric of York of economics.

Hulu - Saturday Night Live: Theodoric of York

In 2008, Krugman won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics. Paul Krugman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

vs

Dude, a failed anonymous internet message board denizen. Dude...the life and times of...

And F.A. Hayek won the Nobel Prize in 1974, and he would say Krugman is full of it. The problem with using the Nobel Prize as an appeal to authority is that there are too many conflicting ideologies who have won the prize.

And furthermore, spending for the sake of spending isn't good for the economy. If it were, we wouldn't be in a recession in the first place.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

2 USMB Dufus Dipshits incapable of debating a fly, let alone debating Krugman's arguments.

Plus observing the usual USMB libertine with their old, partisan, personal attacks, which are driven by pure hate and ideological blindness, gets boring pretty quickly.

 

[Oddball]

Krugman's arguments amount to another blood letting and some boar vomit.

If printing up a squillion dollars and spending it on crap nobody wants fixes the economy, we'd be out of this mess already.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Paul Krugman: The Theodoric of York of economics.

Hulu - Saturday Night Live: Theodoric of York

In 2008, Krugman won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics. Paul Krugman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

vs

Dude, a failed anonymous internet message board denizen. Dude...the life and times of...

And F.A. Hayek won the Nobel Prize in 1974, and he would say Krugman is full of it. The problem with using the Nobel Prize as an appeal to authority is that there are too many conflicting ideologies who have won the prize.

And furthermore, spending for the sake of spending isn't good for the economy. If it were, we wouldn't be in a recession in the first place.

You fell for the bullshit too easily. Dude attacked the OP by way of denigrating Krugman. Nowhere did I say in the OP that Krugman's authority as a N Prize winner made the argument correct. It does make the argument more credible than Dude's partisan attack.

You fall too easily into the ideological side issues, because you live in that area yourself

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Krugman's arguments amount to another blood letting and some boar vomit.

If printing up a squillion dollars and spending it on crap nobody wants fixes the economy, we'd be out of this mess already.

The bailout saved the American economy. It didn't cure the ills, but it saved the system from a death fall.

 

[Oddball]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

In other words, you cannot possibly prove that worthless Keynesian jabbering point.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Paul Krugman: The Theodoric of York of economics.

Hulu - Saturday Night Live: Theodoric of York

"...stinting on spending now threatens the economic recovery, and with it the hope for rising revenues."

According to the Nobel Prize Committee, the prize was given for Krugman's work explaining the patterns of international trade and the geographic concentration of wealth, by examining the impact of economies of scale and of consumer preferences for diverse goods and services.[7]

Krugman is known in academia for his work on international economics (including trade theory, economic geography, and international finance),[8][9] liquidity traps and currency crises.

According to IDEAS/REPEC (a ranking of Economists by article citations), his work has made him one of the most influential economists in the world, and he is among the 15 most widely cited economists.[10]

 

[Oddball]

You couldn't fill a matchbook cover with your understanding of how economics really works.

How do you spend more money when you're broke?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

In other words, you cannot possibly prove that worthless Keynesian jabbering point.

your opinion is worthless compared to those of Krugman. If you had Krugman debating another expert, you'd see more agreement than you are capable of seeing. It is what happens when knee-jerk ideological views blind you.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You couldn't fill a matchbook cover with your understanding of how economics really works.

How do you spend more money when you're broke?

there you do. you cannot debate the points raised in Krugman's article. Your boring attacks and your self professed authority are boring.

---

Spend now, while the economy remains depressed; save later, once it has recovered. How hard is that to understand?

But if we need to raise taxes and cut spending eventually, shouldn’t we start now? No, we shouldn’t.

Right now, we have a severely depressed economy — and that depressed economy is inflicting long-run damage. Every year that goes by with extremely high unemployment increases the chance that many of the long-term unemployed will never come back to the work force, and become a permanent underclass. Every year that there are five times as many people seeking work as there are job openings means that hundreds of thousands of Americans graduating from school are denied the chance to get started on their working lives. And with each passing month we drift closer to a Japanese-style deflationary trap.

Penny-pinching at a time like this isn’t just cruel; it endangers the nation’s future. And it doesn’t even do much to reduce our future debt burden, because stinting on spending now threatens the economic recovery, and with it the hope for rising revenues.

So now is not the time for fiscal austerity.


"...some of the most vocal deficit scolds in Congress are working hard to reduce taxes for the handful of lucky Americans who are heirs to multimillion-dollar estates. This would do nothing for the economy now, but it would reduce revenues by billions of dollars a year, permanently. "

 

[Oddball]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

In other words, you cannot possibly prove that worthless Keynesian jabbering point.

your opinion is worthless compared to those of Krugman. If you had Krugman debating another expert, you'd see more agreement than you are capable of seeing. It is what happens when knee-jerk ideological views blind you.

Even the great Swami Krugman cannot roll back the clock, undo the bailouts and prove that they worked by them not working in the replay, his dopey Nobel Prize notwithstanding.

This is what happens when you cannot comprehend even the most basic principles of logic.

Sheesh are you a rube.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

In 2008, Krugman won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics. Paul Krugman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

vs

Dude, a failed anonymous internet message board denizen. Dude...the life and times of...

And F.A. Hayek won the Nobel Prize in 1974, and he would say Krugman is full of it. The problem with using the Nobel Prize as an appeal to authority is that there are too many conflicting ideologies who have won the prize.

And furthermore, spending for the sake of spending isn't good for the economy. If it were, we wouldn't be in a recession in the first place.

You fell for the bullshit too easily. Dude attacked the OP by way of denigrating Krugman. Nowhere did I say in the OP that Krugman's authority as a N Prize winner made the argument correct. It does make the argument more credible than Dude's partisan attack.

You fall too easily into the ideological side issues, because you live in that area yourself

Yes, I have a political ideology. So do you. If you didn't, you wouldn't be posting here at all. Your point about the Nobel Prize was that since Dude hasn't won a Nobel Prize Krugman is the better person to listen to, but Hayek has won a Nobel Prize and he would agree with Dude. So who do we listen to? Hayek or Krugman? It depends on your own personal ideology. You would say Krugman, Dude and I would say Hayek.

And I did address the OP:

"And furthermore, spending for the sake of spending isn't good for the economy. If it were, we wouldn't be in a recession in the first place."

You just ignored it.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

In other words, you cannot possibly prove that worthless Keynesian jabbering point.

your opinion is worthless compared to those of Krugman. If you had Krugman debating another expert, you'd see more agreement than you are capable of seeing. It is what happens when knee-jerk ideological views blind you.

Even the great Swami Krugman cannot roll back the clock, undo the bailouts and prove that they worked by them not working in the replay, his dopey Nobel Prize notwithstanding.

This is what happens when you cannot comprehend even the most basic principles of logic.

Sheesh are you a rube.

Krugman offers opinion after laying out some facts. You have not disputed any of the facts, so the bug-up-your-ass is with Krugman himself.

You are in effect, a troll. And you are pretty good at being a troll. As far as you being an economic expert or one in the same ballpark as Krugman? There is very little to no evidence of this.