Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well, since nobody else has reviewed the book (based on actually having read it), I guess I might as well do it.
I suppose that anyone who knows of Paul Krugman knows he's a columnist for economic and political matters (they're often interrelated) at the NYT, an unabashed Keynesian economist, an author of several books, and a recent recipient of a Nobel Prize in economics in 2008, as well as an occasional TV pundit. He's also routinely denounced by conservatives for many, if not most, of his positions, which is a shame considering that, regarding economic policy, he's routinely taken on Democrats as well as Republicans for years simply because he dislikes bad economic policy, regardless of which political party is pushing it. I get the impression that's because he believes that, too often, public policy is championed for reasons other than its merits. For example, sometimes people push certain policies because they benefit one group or segment of society. Sometimes it's because it's an ideological belief. Sometimes it's simply a lack of a working knowledge of both economics and the historical record of what has worked and what didn't work in previous recessions.
While I've read the occasional column by Krugman, I had never read any of his books. This particular book was just published (April 30, 2012) and it seemed timely considering the current ongoing debate on how to revive the economy. I was also struck by the title (which I don't particular like) because I perceived it as essentially a plea for attention, or at least for serious consideration. But Krugman's title is meant more to describe the human toll that the economic downturn is having on families as opposed to a textbook definition of the state of the economy.
In the book Krugman offers an explanation of our current economic crisis, how we got here, and how best to get out of it. In fact, he states several times that we really don't have to be going through this extended economic downturn at all. He offers historical perspective going back to before the great depression, and an analysis of differing approaches and offers his ideas for how best to solve our current economic problems.
The book is intentionally written for the layperson. While there are a few graphs and charts (I would have preferred more, frankly), there's no math or complicated economic theorems to make the eyes glaze over. It's basically written in a very straightforward style.
Of course Krugman discusses the concept of austerity and the notion of cutting back on national debt immediately as a way of addressing our current problems. And needless to say, Krugman is highly critical of that approach. He offers several example of how and why those policies would have the exact opposite of the intended consequences. Said plainly, Krugman states that such policies will only serve to dig us into a deeper hole. (But that doesn't mean our country won't try it anyway, does it?).
That's not to say that Krugman doesn't think that our huge debt problem needs to be addressed. He does. He just doesn't think it's anywhere near being our most pressing problem, and he offers economic numbers to support his case. And like I said earlier, he says that attacking the debt problem at the wrong time (now) will only make our worst problem (the anemic recovery) worse still.
Krugman also tackles a number of economic myths, both American and European, which he says are getting in the way of solving the economic problems simply because the decision makers don't have an accurate understanding of what the problem is. And as everyone knows, if you don't identify the core problem and how and why it developed in the first place, you're probably not going to make any progress in solving the problem unless blind luck or providence lend a hand.
One of the European myths Krugman tackles is that all the European countries are in trouble because of profligate spending. Untrue, he says. While some countries like Greece have caused many of their own problems, other countries like Spain had actually been paying down their debt relative to GDP for years when the economic crisis struck. In other words, it was the economic crisis which led to the debt crisis, not the other way around.
The one part of the book that I found particular surprising (don't ask me why) was Krugman's chapter on Austerians (Ch 11) where he gives a number of reasons why people embrace austerity. Of course ignorance of economics and history both play a role. Krugman also makes a good case that there's an emotional desire to 'punish bad nations' by making them suffer for their perceived economic sins despite the fact that they're often not at fault for the problem and that it's a counterproductive approach. But more disturbing still is Krugman's belief that powerful people have an economic interest in preventing a recovery even though a recovery would also help them as well as everyone else. If true, I guess we should never underestimate the possibility that powerful people may have suspect motives when their self-interest conflicts with the common good.
Krugman also discusses why the European Union's adoption of the Euro as a common currency is causing so many problems for Europe. For example, he points out that if all the countries still had their own currencies, countries like Greece could devalue their currency relative to the rest of Europe, and that's now that's not an option for any country that uses the Euro.
Despite all the other reasons to read this book, it's worth reading if for no other reason than to better understand the nature of the liquidity trap in which we currently find ourselves, and that's tackled very early in the book.
It's only 238 pp, and it's a great primer in understanding our current economic doldrums.
Krugman has good and bad going for him.
It's good he won a Nobel Prize. It's bad that he won it after...
He's always screaming at conservatives, why read more of his SOaS blathering?
feh!
So, am I right in assuming that you have NOT read the book?
...Any cut in goverment spending harms a depressed economy......In 1946 the GDP shrank 12%. Far worse than today's performance...Sounds like you're maybe saying that when unemployment's high and spending is cut then unemployment gets worse. Historical unemployment/spending levels show it's a fantasy and I imagine that if anyone bothered to post examples of spending cuts of say, 30% --followed by plunging unemployment, then you'd be able to change what you meant and come up with more excuses....In 46 the economy was not depressed -- meaning low unemployment...
Or maybe you're saying something else. Vague talk may work for excusing an adopted political creed but it's worthless in business when the rest's due.
Ah yes, the lib merry-go-round ending up with delusions of what they wish they were hearing! It all starts with the leftist saying something stupid--getting caught--changing the subject--getting tripped up again--...So what are you saying, that we did not have a recession?...followed by changing the subject with more imaginary numbers--...In 1946 the GDP shrank 12%. Far worse than today's performance. That year we cut spending by 40% over the past year and approved a budget cutting it another 40%. The GDP soared bringing in decades of prosperity......This is how the math goes: 1 - 12883.5 ÷ 12813.5 = -½%The GDP shrank 5% in 12 months following Leman collapse....
OK, game time over and it's time to clean up. What we know for sure is that past massive spending cuts during sever downturns have not --repeat NOT-- worsened the economy, they improved it.
Because it bears repeating, what a totally delusional economic kamikaze ole Ferret Face is:
Now you're playing coy, GOOD BYE PHONEY!
...Any cut in goverment spending harms a depressed economy...Sounds like you're maybe saying that when unemployment's high and spending is cut then unemployment gets worse. Historical unemployment/spending levels show it's a fantasy and I imagine that if anyone bothered to post examples of spending cuts of say, 30% --followed by plunging unemployment, then you'd be able to change what you meant and come up with more excuses....In 46 the economy was not depressed -- meaning low unemployment...
Or maybe you're saying something else. Vague talk may work for excusing an adopted political creed but it's worthless in business when the rest's due.
There is nothing vague about depression. It means an economy being stuck in an equilibrium, characterized by high unemployment and GDP tracking significantly below potential (does not mean that GDP is not growing). And when central bank is unwilling/unable to help by easing monetary policy.
Ireland or Greece are great examples of a country trying austerity in a depressed economy.
what info exactly???
Now you're playing coy, GOOD BYE PHONEY!
one doesn't respond to "info", one responds to a question or very specific point? You cut and paste becuase[sic] you cant yet think on your own. How will you learn if you are afriad[sic] to try?
one doesn't respond to info?
Because it bears repeating, what a totally delusional economic kamikaze ole Ferret Face is:
Now you're playing coy, GOOD BYE PHONEY!
one doesn't respond to "info", one responds to a question or very specific point? You cut and paste becuase[sic] you cant yet think on your own. How will you learn if you are afriad[sic] to try?
how insane is that?
and please, so many typos in one post?
did I call for a bubble? The quote comes from this 2002 piece, in which I was pessimistic about the Feds ability to generate a sustained economy. If you read it in context, youll see that I wasnt calling for a bubble I was talking about the limits to the Feds powers, saying that the only way Greenspan could achieve recovery would be if he were able to create a new bubble, which is NOT the same thing as saying that this was a good idea. Of course, I know that this explanation wont keep the haters from pulling up the same quote out of context, over and over. - Krugman
Me And The Bubble - NYTimes.com
more proof Oddball Dude is a lying piece of shit.
did I call for a bubble? The quote comes from this 2002 piece, in which I was pessimistic about the Feds ability to generate a sustained economy. If you read it in context, youll see that I wasnt calling for a bubble I was talking about the limits to the Feds powers, saying that the only way Greenspan could achieve recovery would be if he were able to create a new bubble, which is NOT the same thing as saying that this was a good idea. Of course, I know that this explanation wont keep the haters from pulling up the same quote out of context, over and over. - Krugman
Me And The Bubble - NYTimes.com
more proof Oddball Dude is a lying piece of shit.
I should have worn my fly fishing waders in here. Why not post all of the context into a post. Krugman is a fucking liar, and a retard. I'm not going to dig up the info to fix your mistake. You do it. He called and clamored for this the same as other LOLberal economists and officials. Your attempt at deflection is laughable with this backpeddle by Krugman.
Poor choice nothing...It's a window into the "thought process" (for lack of a better description) of economic alchemists like Krugman.did I call for a bubble? The quote comes from this 2002 piece, in which I was pessimistic about the Feds ability to generate a sustained economy. If you read it in context, youll see that I wasnt calling for a bubble I was talking about the limits to the Feds powers, saying that the only way Greenspan could achieve recovery would be if he were able to create a new bubble, which is NOT the same thing as saying that this was a good idea. Of course, I know that this explanation wont keep the haters from pulling up the same quote out of context, over and over. - Krugman
Me And The Bubble - NYTimes.com
more proof Oddball Dude is a lying piece of shit.
I should have worn my fly fishing waders in here. Why not post all of the context into a post. Krugman is a fucking liar, and a retard. I'm not going to dig up the info to fix your mistake. You do it. He called and clamored for this the same as other LOLberal economists and officials. Your attempt at deflection is laughable with this backpeddle by Krugman.
That was an extremely poor choice of words by Krugman. He should not have described Greenspan's plan as "housing bubble" in the first place. This is what he meant when he said that he did not call for a housing bubble -- although not saying it exacerbated the first mistake.
Very unfortunate, but that is all there is to it.
Poor choice nothing...It's a window into the "thought process" (for lack of a better description) of economic alchemists like Krugman.I should have worn my fly fishing waders in here. Why not post all of the context into a post. Krugman is a fucking liar, and a retard. I'm not going to dig up the info to fix your mistake. You do it. He called and clamored for this the same as other LOLberal economists and officials. Your attempt at deflection is laughable with this backpeddle by Krugman.
That was an extremely poor choice of words by Krugman. He should not have described Greenspan's plan as "housing bubble" in the first place. This is what he meant when he said that he did not call for a housing bubble -- although not saying it exacerbated the first mistake.
Very unfortunate, but that is all there is to it.
Random adjectives are what vague and flaky is....high unemployment and GDP tracking significantly below potential (does not mean that GDP is not growing)...
Nobody's come up with numbers for European countries backing up this nonsense either....Ireland or Greece are great examples...
