Krugman: GOP Austerity Causing Unemployment

[uscitizen]

or the 100 million presidential election?

 

[Trajan]

no not actually, unless of course 7 trillion in 2.5 years isn't enough spending to you, so what do you suggest? we just continue to write checks on borrowed money to state public employee unions forever? or buy 600 dollar hammers?

Myth of the $600 hammer.

Interesting link. I've always wondered about that hammer. There have been other cases where a contract was cancelled as a cost reduction and all the research and development cost was allocated to the prototype. Then the media gets the information and uses it portray how wasteful government procurement is when in reality the government action saved the tax payer a lot of money.

the media beats up on the pentagon for buying the 600 dollar hammer or the 400 dollar toilet seat... for god sakes....who peddles this crap? and better, cui bono?

 

[Oddball]

no not actually, unless of course 7 trillion in 2.5 years isn't enough spending to you, so what do you suggest? we just continue to write checks on borrowed money to state public employee unions forever? or buy 600 dollar hammers?

Myth of the $600 hammer.

thats the ticket bucko, pick the gnat out of the flyshit...very good

how about the 400 dollar toilet seat, oops marked onw to 200 my bad...

Note the roaring of crickets about $600 million worth of brand new Navy ships headed to the breakers.

 

[chikenwing]

Third, Krugman has a Nobel Prize. You have your thumb up your ass.

So does Obamma ...BFD !!!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Conservatives don't want to believe this, but if the government fires people that means more people unemployed.

Hard to believe, I know.

No, that actually means in the long run that more people are employed in real jobs. Putting more parasites on the payroll does not help anyone who produces something of value make a living.

Why? How does that work? The private sector doesn't have enough jobs for the millions out of work as it is.

How is laying off millions more who either work for the government or do work in the private sector that depends on government spending going to make everything better.

Face it. If you want significantly smaller government than you have to accept the reality of significantly higher unemployment.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Defense is the best target for massive cuts because defense doesn't produce anything. Half of the defense spending in the is country is nothing more than a make-work project to line the pockets of those represented by the defense lobby.

Defense spending at the current levels is like having twice as much car insurance on your vehicle than it needs, in short,

money thrown down the toilet.

 

[Mustang]

Defense is the best target for massive cuts because defense doesn't produce anything. Half of the defense spending in the is country is nothing more than a make-work project to line the pockets of those represented by the defense lobby.

Defense spending at the current levels is like having twice as much car insurance on your vehicle than it needs, in short,

money thrown down the toilet.

And that's the part of the budget that conservatives really don't want to cut. Some will even INCREASE defense spending if they can.

 

[Toro]

Government school teachers most definitely are parasites. They don't teach our children. They keep them ignorant and they indoctrinate them with leftist propaganda. People who provide a service you aren't willing to pay for are not productive. They are leaches.

roflmao!

Dude, you're hilarious.

 

[Oldstyle]

First, the source of your chart isn't clear. Government spending is exploding, so I fail to see how government spending on goods and services could be declining.

Second, the empirical evidence has destroyed the theory that government spending improves the economy several times. Keynesian economics is dead. Only idiots and demagogues continue to espouse it. Which brings us to the third point.

Third, Krugman is a proven moron.

First, just because Fox News told you spending was exploding doesn't mean it is. Federal spending went DOWN from 2009 to 2010 and states across the country are cutting back.

Second, there is ZERO "empirical evidence" that disproves Keynesian Economics. In fact, there is the opposite. There are many occasions where it has been proven true. WW2 being the best example.

Third, Krugman has a Nobel Prize. You have your thumb up your ass.

I'm showing the Federal budget in 2009 as 3.107 trillion, in 2010 as 3.552 trillion, and an estimation of 3.82 trillion in 2011.

As for your contention that WW2 provides "empirical evidence" that Keynesian policy works? If that's your "best" example then you might want to rethink your position because all an examination of economics during WW2 does is emphasize the limitations of Keynesian policy during peacetime.

To start with WW2 caused the conscription of over 10 million American workers, dropping unemployment to it's lowest level EVER in this country...somewhere around 1%. That ISN'T going to happen during peace time. The conscription is what accounts for the lowered unemployment not Keynesian policy. If it were otherwise then unemployment would have dropped before the war when FDR was running his New Deal at full bore. That didn't happen.

Then there is the GNP for that time. While it is true that GNP skyrocketed during the war that was only because military goods and services were counted in that total. If you deduct military goods and services from GNP then the GNP actually went down for civilian consumers and investors during the period of the war.

The real nail in your Keynesian policy "coffin" however is what happened following the war. After WW2 the huge deficits we were running immediately disappeared...I believe we ran a surplus the first year after the war ceased...yet the economy BOOMED. Now according to Keynesian theory the economy should have gone into a deep funk as soon as deficit spending was halted. (Sort of how all you liberal geniuses are telling us now that cutting spending will hurt the economy?) It didn't. The US economy following WW2 expanded dramatically.

As for the Nobel Prize? Isn't that the same group of people who gave Obama one for showing up at the Oval Office? Not for nothing but they aren't exactly the sharpest tools in the shed.

 

[Big Fitz]

This chart shows yearly changes in government spending for goods and services.

As you can see, the numbers crossed over to the negative at the beginning of the year, and have been declining ever since. According to Krugman, the numbers correspond to slower job growth.

If government spending is necessary to sustain the recovery, is it crazy to pursuing cuts in spending now, while unemployment is still about 9%?

Apparently winning a nobel prize causes brain damage... or at least indicates some.

 

[Toro]

First, the source of your chart isn't clear. Government spending is exploding, so I fail to see how government spending on goods and services could be declining.

Second, the empirical evidence has destroyed the theory that government spending improves the economy several times. Keynesian economics is dead. Only idiots and demagogues continue to espouse it. Which brings us to the third point.

Third, Krugman is a proven moron.

First, just because Fox News told you spending was exploding doesn't mean it is. Federal spending went DOWN from 2009 to 2010 and states across the country are cutting back.

Second, there is ZERO "empirical evidence" that disproves Keynesian Economics. In fact, there is the opposite. There are many occasions where it has been proven true. WW2 being the best example.

Third, Krugman has a Nobel Prize. You have your thumb up your ass.

I'm showing the Federal budget in 2009 as 3.107 trillion, in 2010 as 3.552 trillion, and an estimation of 3.82 trillion in 2011.

As for your contention that WW2 provides "empirical evidence" that Keynesian policy works? If that's your "best" example then you might want to rethink your position because all an examination of economics during WW2 does is emphasize the limitations of Keynesian policy during peacetime.

To start with WW2 caused the conscription of over 10 million American workers, dropping unemployment to it's lowest level EVER in this country...somewhere around 1%. That ISN'T going to happen during peace time. The conscription is what accounts for the lowered unemployment not Keynesian policy. If it were otherwise then unemployment would have dropped before the war when FDR was running his New Deal at full bore. That didn't happen.

Then there is the GNP for that time. While it is true that GNP skyrocketed during the war that was only because military goods and services were counted in that total. If you deduct military goods and services from GNP then the GNP actually went down for civilian consumers and investors during the period of the war.

The real nail in your Keynesian policy "coffin" however is what happened following the war. After WW2 the huge deficits we were running immediately disappeared...I believe we ran a surplus the first year after the war ceased...yet the economy BOOMED. Now according to Keynesian theory the economy should have gone into a deep funk as soon as deficit spending was halted. (Sort of how all you liberal geniuses are telling us now that cutting spending will hurt the economy?) It didn't. The US economy following WW2 expanded dramatically.

As for the Nobel Prize? Isn't that the same group of people who gave Obama one for showing up at the Oval Office? Not for nothing but they aren't exactly the sharpest tools in the shed.

The graph in the OP includes all government spending, not just federal government. In it, the graph is correct. Governments have been slashing at the local and state level, more so than the federal government has been spending.

As Zander correctly noted earlier, cutting G will lower GDP. It will be very interesting after the Republicans win everything in 2012 and the economy still weak to see GDP weaken even further, assuming the GOP keeps their promise and take an axe to spending.

 

[Oldstyle]

First, just because Fox News told you spending was exploding doesn't mean it is. Federal spending went DOWN from 2009 to 2010 and states across the country are cutting back.

Second, there is ZERO "empirical evidence" that disproves Keynesian Economics. In fact, there is the opposite. There are many occasions where it has been proven true. WW2 being the best example.

Third, Krugman has a Nobel Prize. You have your thumb up your ass.

I'm showing the Federal budget in 2009 as 3.107 trillion, in 2010 as 3.552 trillion, and an estimation of 3.82 trillion in 2011.

As for your contention that WW2 provides "empirical evidence" that Keynesian policy works? If that's your "best" example then you might want to rethink your position because all an examination of economics during WW2 does is emphasize the limitations of Keynesian policy during peacetime.

To start with WW2 caused the conscription of over 10 million American workers, dropping unemployment to it's lowest level EVER in this country...somewhere around 1%. That ISN'T going to happen during peace time. The conscription is what accounts for the lowered unemployment not Keynesian policy. If it were otherwise then unemployment would have dropped before the war when FDR was running his New Deal at full bore. That didn't happen.

Then there is the GNP for that time. While it is true that GNP skyrocketed during the war that was only because military goods and services were counted in that total. If you deduct military goods and services from GNP then the GNP actually went down for civilian consumers and investors during the period of the war.

The real nail in your Keynesian policy "coffin" however is what happened following the war. After WW2 the huge deficits we were running immediately disappeared...I believe we ran a surplus the first year after the war ceased...yet the economy BOOMED. Now according to Keynesian theory the economy should have gone into a deep funk as soon as deficit spending was halted. (Sort of how all you liberal geniuses are telling us now that cutting spending will hurt the economy?) It didn't. The US economy following WW2 expanded dramatically.

As for the Nobel Prize? Isn't that the same group of people who gave Obama one for showing up at the Oval Office? Not for nothing but they aren't exactly the sharpest tools in the shed.

The graph in the OP includes all government spending, not just federal government. In it, the graph is correct. Governments have been slashing at the local and state level, more so than the federal government has been spending.

As Zander correctly noted earlier, cutting G will lower GDP. It will be very interesting after the Republicans win everything in 2012 and the economy still weak to see GDP weaken even further, assuming the GOP keeps their promise and take an axe to spending.

I was responding to Don'tBe's contention that Federal spending had decreased. I don't see that reflected in the numbers.

As for what happens if the GOP wins everything? Right now there is a TON of money sitting on the sidelines because the Private Sector doesn't trust this Administration. You've got to think THAT money will come back into play if investors feel like there's someone in the Oval Office working with them instead of against them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This chart shows yearly changes in government spending for goods and services.

As you can see, the numbers crossed over to the negative at the beginning of the year, and have been declining ever since. According to Krugman, the numbers correspond to slower job growth.

If government spending is necessary to sustain the recovery, is it crazy to pursuing cuts in spending now, while unemployment is still about 9%?

First, if I am reading that chart right, Krugman is arguing that the government is spending less now than it did in 2005. Can you explain that to me?

 

[Toro]

I was responding to Don'tBe's contention that Federal spending had decreased. I don't see that reflected in the numbers.

As for what happens if the GOP wins everything? Right now there is a TON of money sitting on the sidelines because the Private Sector doesn't trust this Administration. You've got to think THAT money will come back into play if investors feel like there's someone in the Oval Office working with them instead of against them.

You are correct about federal spending. It is not falling.

As for the economy, it is true that the Administration has not been instilling confidence in the business community But I think those who believe this is the cause of our sluggishness will be in for rude shock when unemployment is still high (though trending lower) in 2013 and 2014. This is a balance sheet recession caused by a massive housing bubble and the implosion of the credit markets. Time, not policy, heals this. In the same way that conservatives are slamming liberals for the economy now, we will see liberals slamming conservatives after 2012 because the problems are beyond mere politics. And it is likely that the austerity will make things worse, not better. It will be better long term, but not near-term. Thus, don't be surprised if the Democrats win back Congress in 2014.

 

[DontBeStupid]

I'm showing the Federal budget in 2009 as 3.107 trillion, in 2010 as 3.552 trillion, and an estimation of 3.82 trillion in 2011.

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Just because we budgeted an amount doesn't mean that's what we finally spent.

In 2009, we spent $3.517T and in 2010 we spent 3.456T.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Did some basic research using the same timeline and the same chained 2005 dollars and came up with this.

Using this graph we can plainly see that the US is spending more than we did in 2005. Do you have the link to Krugman's article so I can see what assumptions he is using?

 

[Toro]

This chart shows yearly changes in government spending for goods and services.

As you can see, the numbers crossed over to the negative at the beginning of the year, and have been declining ever since. According to Krugman, the numbers correspond to slower job growth.

If government spending is necessary to sustain the recovery, is it crazy to pursuing cuts in spending now, while unemployment is still about 9%?

First, if I am reading that chart right, Krugman is arguing that the government is spending less now than it did in 2005. Can you explain that to me?

That is a graph of the change in total government spending adjusted for inflation.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

First, just because Fox News told you spending was exploding doesn't mean it is. Federal spending went DOWN from 2009 to 2010 and states across the country are cutting back.

Second, there is ZERO "empirical evidence" that disproves Keynesian Economics. In fact, there is the opposite. There are many occasions where it has been proven true. WW2 being the best example.

Third, Krugman has a Nobel Prize. You have your thumb up your ass.

I'm showing the Federal budget in 2009 as 3.107 trillion, in 2010 as 3.552 trillion, and an estimation of 3.82 trillion in 2011.

As for your contention that WW2 provides "empirical evidence" that Keynesian policy works? If that's your "best" example then you might want to rethink your position because all an examination of economics during WW2 does is emphasize the limitations of Keynesian policy during peacetime.

To start with WW2 caused the conscription of over 10 million American workers, dropping unemployment to it's lowest level EVER in this country...somewhere around 1%. That ISN'T going to happen during peace time. The conscription is what accounts for the lowered unemployment not Keynesian policy. If it were otherwise then unemployment would have dropped before the war when FDR was running his New Deal at full bore. That didn't happen.

Then there is the GNP for that time. While it is true that GNP skyrocketed during the war that was only because military goods and services were counted in that total. If you deduct military goods and services from GNP then the GNP actually went down for civilian consumers and investors during the period of the war.

The real nail in your Keynesian policy "coffin" however is what happened following the war. After WW2 the huge deficits we were running immediately disappeared...I believe we ran a surplus the first year after the war ceased...yet the economy BOOMED. Now according to Keynesian theory the economy should have gone into a deep funk as soon as deficit spending was halted. (Sort of how all you liberal geniuses are telling us now that cutting spending will hurt the economy?) It didn't. The US economy following WW2 expanded dramatically.

As for the Nobel Prize? Isn't that the same group of people who gave Obama one for showing up at the Oval Office? Not for nothing but they aren't exactly the sharpest tools in the shed.

The graph in the OP includes all government spending, not just federal government. In it, the graph is correct. Governments have been slashing at the local and state level, more so than the federal government has been spending.

As Zander correctly noted earlier, cutting G will lower GDP. It will be very interesting after the Republicans win everything in 2012 and the economy still weak to see GDP weaken even further, assuming the GOP keeps their promise and take an axe to spending.

First, let me state that I have not read this entire thread, and have no intention to, so if you answered this already I apologize for asking. Second, how do you know what the graph in the OP assumes?

 

[Stephanie]

Conservatives don't want to believe this, but if the government fires people that means more people unemployed.

Hard to believe, I know.

No, that actually means in the long run that more people are employed in real jobs. Putting more parasites on the payroll does not help anyone who produces something of value make a living.

The people who defend the country, teach our children, build our roads, and administer the laws of our country are not parasites. People who consume without working are parasites. Parasites = the richest people in our country.

Yet you all have NO PROBLEMS electing them to REPRESENT you.

 

[Sundial]

The rich consume most of the country's resources - isn't it fair they pay more taxes?

That is so idiotic. No they don't. Most of their money is tied up in investments. Which means it is providing jobs for you and me. The idea that they are spending all their dough on partying is absolutely hysterical.

You obviously received your economic training by reading Communist Party comic books.

You're confusing people with money. Money doesn't produce anything. Mansions, swimming pools, private jets... all those things are produced by people, not by money. The rich enjoy them, working people make them. Money may be good, but concentrating it in the hands of the few is not.