Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The answer, to quote the title of a paper I published many years ago, is that a country is not a company. National economic policy, even in small countries, needs to take into account kinds of feedback that rarely matter in business life. For example, even the biggest corporations sell only a small fraction of what they make to their own workers, whereas even very small countries mostly sell goods and services to themselves.
So think of what happens when a successful businessperson looks at a troubled economy and tries to apply the lessons of business experience. He or (rarely) she sees the troubled economy as something like a troubled company, which needs to cut costs and become competitive. To create jobs, the businessperson thinks, wages must come down, expenses must be reduced; in general, belts must be tightened. And surely gimmicks like deficit spending or printing more money can’t solve what must be a fundamental problem.
In reality, however, cutting wages and spending in a depressed economy just aggravates the real problem, which is inadequate demand. Deficit spending and aggressive money-printing, on the other hand, can help a lot.
to point it out to you people.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/03/opinion/paul-krugman-business-vs-economics.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
(snip)
The answer, to quote the title of a paper I published many years ago, is that a country is not a company. National economic policy, even in small countries, needs to take into account kinds of feedback that rarely matter in business life. For example, even the biggest corporations sell only a small fraction of what they make to their own workers, whereas even very small countries mostly sell goods and services to themselves.
So think of what happens when a successful businessperson looks at a troubled economy and tries to apply the lessons of business experience. He or (rarely) she sees the troubled economy as something like a troubled company, which needs to cut costs and become competitive. To create jobs, the businessperson thinks, wages must come down, expenses must be reduced; in general, belts must be tightened. And surely gimmicks like deficit spending or printing more money can’t solve what must be a fundamental problem.
In reality, however, cutting wages and spending in a depressed economy just aggravates the real problem, which is inadequate demand. Deficit spending and aggressive money-printing, on the other hand, can help a lot.
Its really that simple. Took a Nobel laureate
You people areof Krugman
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/03/opinion/paul-krugman-business-vs-economics.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
(snip)
The answer, to quote the title of a paper I published many years ago, is that a country is not a company. National economic policy, even in small countries, needs to take into account kinds of feedback that rarely matter in business life. For example, even the biggest corporations sell only a small fraction of what they make to their own workers, whereas even very small countries mostly sell goods and services to themselves.
So think of what happens when a successful businessperson looks at a troubled economy and tries to apply the lessons of business experience. He or (rarely) she sees the troubled economy as something like a troubled company, which needs to cut costs and become competitive. To create jobs, the businessperson thinks, wages must come down, expenses must be reduced; in general, belts must be tightened. And surely gimmicks like deficit spending or printing more money can’t solve what must be a fundamental problem.
In reality, however, cutting wages and spending in a depressed economy just aggravates the real problem, which is inadequate demand. Deficit spending and aggressive money-printing, on the other hand, can help a lot.
Its really that simple. Took a Nobel laureate
Ah Krugman, the 1/2 Keyesian, who keeps forgetting the 2nd part of Keysian economics, that you PAY OFF the debt you accumulate in bust times during boom times. The only time we ever came close to that was under the last years of Clinton combined with a GOP congress.
If you are speaking of the federal "debt," why in the world would you want to "pay it off?" That would effectively reduce the money supply in a (hopefully) growing economy. Capitalism can not operate in a contracting economy.
yeah Maybe economic's just is'nt your game, martybegan . I know: let's have a spelling contest.http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/03/opinion/paul-krugman-business-vs-economics.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
(snip)
The answer, to quote the title of a paper I published many years ago, is that a country is not a company. National economic policy, even in small countries, needs to take into account kinds of feedback that rarely matter in business life. For example, even the biggest corporations sell only a small fraction of what they make to their own workers, whereas even very small countries mostly sell goods and services to themselves.
So think of what happens when a successful businessperson looks at a troubled economy and tries to apply the lessons of business experience. He or (rarely) she sees the troubled economy as something like a troubled company, which needs to cut costs and become competitive. To create jobs, the businessperson thinks, wages must come down, expenses must be reduced; in general, belts must be tightened. And surely gimmicks like deficit spending or printing more money can’t solve what must be a fundamental problem.
In reality, however, cutting wages and spending in a depressed economy just aggravates the real problem, which is inadequate demand. Deficit spending and aggressive money-printing, on the other hand, can help a lot.
Its really that simple. Took a Nobel laureate
Ah Krugman, the 1/2 Keyesian, who keeps forgetting the 2nd part of Keysian economics, that you PAY OFF the debt you accumulate in bust times during boom times. The only time we ever came close to that was under the last years of Clinton combined with a GOP congress.
If you are speaking of the federal "debt," why in the world would you want to "pay it off?" That would effectively reduce the money supply in a (hopefully) growing economy. Capitalism can not operate in a contracting economy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/03/opinion/paul-krugman-business-vs-economics.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
(snip)
The answer, to quote the title of a paper I published many years ago, is that a country is not a company. National economic policy, even in small countries, needs to take into account kinds of feedback that rarely matter in business life. For example, even the biggest corporations sell only a small fraction of what they make to their own workers, whereas even very small countries mostly sell goods and services to themselves.
So think of what happens when a successful businessperson looks at a troubled economy and tries to apply the lessons of business experience. He or (rarely) she sees the troubled economy as something like a troubled company, which needs to cut costs and become competitive. To create jobs, the businessperson thinks, wages must come down, expenses must be reduced; in general, belts must be tightened. And surely gimmicks like deficit spending or printing more money can’t solve what must be a fundamental problem.
In reality, however, cutting wages and spending in a depressed economy just aggravates the real problem, which is inadequate demand. Deficit spending and aggressive money-printing, on the other hand, can help a lot.
Its really that simple. Took a Nobel laureate
Ah Krugman, the 1/2 Keyesian, who keeps forgetting the 2nd part of Keysian economics, that you PAY OFF the debt you accumulate in bust times during boom times. The only time we ever came close to that was under the last years of Clinton combined with a GOP congress.
If you are speaking of the federal "debt," why in the world would you want to "pay it off?" That would effectively reduce the money supply in a (hopefully) growing economy. Capitalism can not operate in a contracting economy.
^
You are ignoring content by this member. Show Ignored Content
yeah Maybe economic's just is'nt your game, martybegan . I know: let's have a spelling contest.http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/03/opinion/paul-krugman-business-vs-economics.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
(snip)
The answer, to quote the title of a paper I published many years ago, is that a country is not a company. National economic policy, even in small countries, needs to take into account kinds of feedback that rarely matter in business life. For example, even the biggest corporations sell only a small fraction of what they make to their own workers, whereas even very small countries mostly sell goods and services to themselves.
So think of what happens when a successful businessperson looks at a troubled economy and tries to apply the lessons of business experience. He or (rarely) she sees the troubled economy as something like a troubled company, which needs to cut costs and become competitive. To create jobs, the businessperson thinks, wages must come down, expenses must be reduced; in general, belts must be tightened. And surely gimmicks like deficit spending or printing more money can’t solve what must be a fundamental problem.
In reality, however, cutting wages and spending in a depressed economy just aggravates the real problem, which is inadequate demand. Deficit spending and aggressive money-printing, on the other hand, can help a lot.
Its really that simple. Took a Nobel laureate
Ah Krugman, the 1/2 Keyesian, who keeps forgetting the 2nd part of Keysian economics, that you PAY OFF the debt you accumulate in bust times during boom times. The only time we ever came close to that was under the last years of Clinton combined with a GOP congress.
If you are speaking of the federal "debt," why in the world would you want to "pay it off?" That would effectively reduce the money supply in a (hopefully) growing economy. Capitalism can not operate in a contracting economy.
A country is not a company. National economic policy, even in small countries, needs to take into account kinds of feedback that rarely matter in business life. For example, even the biggest corporations sell only a small fraction of what they make to their own workers, whereas even very small countries mostly sell goods and services to themselves. Cutting wages and spending in a depressed economy just aggravates the real problem, which is inadequate demand. Deficit spending and aggressive money-printing, on the other hand, can help a lot.
Krugman commonly addresses claims that people never made to make his own arguments appear more intelligent.This is just another example of that. He misrepresents, then says "Aha! See?" just like his inspiration, John Maynard Keynes.
Let's look at how weak his argument actually is by cutting out that irrelevancy:
A country is not a company. National economic policy, even in small countries, needs to take into account kinds of feedback that rarely matter in business life. For example, even the biggest corporations sell only a small fraction of what they make to their own workers, whereas even very small countries mostly sell goods and services to themselves. Cutting wages and spending in a depressed economy just aggravates the real problem, which is inadequate demand. Deficit spending and aggressive money-printing, on the other hand, can help a lot.
When seen for what it really is, his argument seems much less persuasive now, doesn't it? To simplify the argument into an "X therefore Y structure", you get this:
The biggest corporations sell only a small fraction of what they make to their own workers. Very small countries mostly sell goods and services to themselves. Therefore, cutting wages and spending in a depressed economy just aggravates the real problem, which is inadequate demand, whereas deficit spending and aggressive money-printing can help a lot.
Um..what? His argument is a total non sequitur--it doesn't logically follow. The first two sentences may be true, but they do not provide any logical support for his conclusion in the last sentence whatsoever.
Same goes for ShackledNation 
Krugman was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences (informally the Nobel Prize in Economics), the sole recipient for 2008. This prize includes an award of about $1.4 million and was given to Krugman for his work associated with New Trade Theory and the New Economic Geography.[80] In the words of the prize committee, "By having integrated economies of scale into explicit general equilibrium models, Paul Krugman has deepened our understanding of the determinants of trade and the location of economic activity.
You don't need a Nobel prize to see through Krugman's BS. But you do need a brain capable of independent thought, which--given your completely childish response--you seem to lack.How many Nobel prizes in econ you have Frank1400PennAve
do you have anything of substance to add or are you just here to bloviate? Anything on his Prize in the field of New Trade Theory & General Equilibrium Models?You don't need a Nobel prize to see through Krugman's BS. But you do need a brain capable of independent thought, which--given your completely childish response--you seem to lack.How many Nobel prizes in econ you have Frank1400PennAve
Do I have anything of substance? How ironic considering your response to my first post contained none of it. Move along troll.do you have anything of substance to add or are you just here to bloviate? Anything on his Prize in the field of New Trade Theory & General Equilibrium Models?You don't need a Nobel prize to see through Krugman's BS. But you do need a brain capable of independent thought, which--given your completely childish response--you seem to lack.How many Nobel prizes in econ you have Frank1400PennAve
