Krugman's very very simple solution to end this depression

[EdwardBaiamonte]

how can a stimulus bubble or housing stimulus bubble possibly help when the bubble must burst and cause, not prevent, a depression?????

Its 100% stupid and liberal. Its what prolonged the Great Depression so long and made FDR a hero to liberals!! BO is on the same path.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The government needs to give every American $3,000,000.

That will spur economic growth

 

[ilia25]

The government needs to give every American $3,000,000.

That will spur economic growth

No need to give away millions. Promising 6% inflation will be enough. And it will prevent future depressions as well.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The government needs to give every American $3,000,000.

That will spur economic growth

No need to give away millions. Promising 6% inflation will be enough. And it will prevent future depressions as well.

Who knew there was a secret way for governemnt to prevent depressions, and that way is, inflation. I must have missed that in Econ 101.

A liberal will be very very slow and like a child who believes in Santa Claus will believe in magical liberal government.

Depressions are avoided when the liberal government does not interfere with the free market, not when it interferes. And they are certainly not corrected by more liberal interference.

 

[Vidi]

He says very very clearly in his book that the government should spend money exactly like it did when WW II started to end this current depression the way it ended the Great Depression.

Does any liberal dare to think that by producing about 100 million planes tanks ships heavy weapons and tanks that it would help rather than hurt our economy??

Krugman is a Nobel liberal but not a soul will dare defend the pure stupidity of his liberalism which is now everyone's liberalism.

Krugman is great because he's the best they got and even the common liberal knows in his heart that Krugman is a liberal and so that liberalism is nutty.

You really should read the WHOLE book before you go mischaracterizing what he said like that.


he said they should SPEND like they did in the gear up for World War II. He did NOT say Build up the military to get us out of this depression.

PS Damn good book too.

 

[Vidi]

The government needs to give every American $3,000,000.

That will spur economic growth

No need to give away millions. Promising 6% inflation will be enough. And it will prevent future depressions as well.

Who knew there was a secret way for governemnt to prevent depressions, and that way is, inflation. I must have missed that in Econ 101.

A liberal will be very very slow and like a child who believes in Santa Claus will believe in magical liberal government.

Depressions are avoided when the liberal government does not interfere with the free market, not when it interferes. And they are certainly not corrected by more liberal interference.

The two biggest depressions we have had ( 1930s and now ) were the direct result of lack of oversight of the economy. Allowing the finacial markets to run wild and take risks their bank accounts cant back up leads to economic misery for all.

The most STABLE economic period we had was between 1945 and 1980 ( the oil embargo huirt us in the 70's but that wasnt due to our economic policies but our political ones ) and during THAT period, the very policies you rail against were in place.

 

[Vidi]

how can a stimulus bubble or housing stimulus bubble possibly help when the bubble must burst and cause, not prevent, a depression?????

Its 100% stupid and liberal. Its what prolonged the Great Depression so long and made FDR a hero to liberals!! BO is on the same path.

Stimulus money is not a bubble....PROVIDED that money is spent correctly and does what it is meant to do, which is to stimulate growth.

Stimulus money is like jumper cables. Once its done what it needed to do, it can be removed and the engine continues to run.

 

[ilia25]

The government needs to give every American $3,000,000.

That will spur economic growth

No need to give away millions. Promising 6% inflation will be enough. And it will prevent future depressions as well.

Who knew there was a secret way for governemnt to prevent depressions, and that way is, inflation. I must have missed that in Econ 101.

It's because you never took Econ 101. Some low inflation is necessary -- that is why Fed or any other central bank never aim at 0% inflation, but at 2-3%. Last 20 years showed that 2% inflation is too low as well.

 

[ERGO]

how can a stimulus bubble or housing stimulus bubble possibly help when the bubble must burst and cause, not prevent, a depression?????

Its 100% stupid and liberal. Its what prolonged the Great Depression so long and made FDR a hero to liberals!! BO is on the same path.

Stimulus money is not a bubble....PROVIDED that money is spent correctly and does what it is meant to do, which is to stimulate growth.

Stimulus money is like jumper cables. Once its done what it needed to do, it can be removed and the engine continues to run.

The problem with Krugman’s analysis is that bank debt creation plays no analytic role in Krugman’s proposals to rescue the economy. It is as if the economy operates without wealth or debt, simply on the basis of spending power flowing into the economy from the government, and being spent on consumer goods, investment goods and taxes – not on debt service, pension fund set-asides or asset price inflation. If the government will spend enough, run up a large enough deficit to pump money into the spending stream, Keynesian-style, the economy can revive by enough to “earn its way out of debt.” The assumption is that the government will revive the economy on a broad enough scale to enable the individuals who owe the mortgages, student loans and other debts – and presumably even the states and localities that have fallen behind in their pension plan funding...to “catch up.”

Without recognizing the role of debt and taking into account the magnitude of negative equity and earnings shortfalls, one cannot see that what is preventing American industry from exporting more is the heavy debt overhead that diverts income to pay the Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) sector. How can U.S. labor compete with foreign labor when employees and their employers are obliged to pay such high mortgage debt for its housing, such high student debt for its education, such high medical insurance and Social Security (FICA withholding), such high credit-card debt, all this even before spending on goods and services?

 

[HUGGY]

He says very very clearly in his book that the government should spend money exactly like it did when WW II started to end this current depression the way it ended the Great Depression.

Does any liberal dare to think that by producing about 100 million planes tanks ships heavy weapons and tanks that it would help rather than hurt our economy??

Krugman is a Nobel liberal but not a soul will dare defend the pure stupidity of his liberalism which is now everyone's liberalism.

Krugman is great because he's the best they got and even the common liberal knows in his heart that Krugman is a liberal and so that liberalism is nutty.

Send a memo to the Boeing Company. I'm sure they will find your input fascinating.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

He says very very clearly in his book that the government should spend money exactly like it did when WW II started to end this current depression the way it ended the Great Depression.

Does any liberal dare to think that by producing about 100 million planes tanks ships heavy weapons and tanks that it would help rather than hurt our economy??

Krugman is a Nobel liberal but not a soul will dare defend the pure stupidity of his liberalism which is now everyone's liberalism.

Krugman is great because he's the best they got and even the common liberal knows in his heart that Krugman is a liberal and so that liberalism is nutty.

Send a memo to the Boeing Company. I'm sure they will find your input fascinating.

dear, subject is not whether Boeing would find input fascinating, but whether building 100 million planes and dumping them into the sea makes sense or is pure Nazi-like liberal stupidity.

Did you notice that not one liberal will defend liberalism??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Stimulus money is not a bubble....PROVIDED that money is spent correctly and does what it is meant to do, which is to stimulate growth.

oh man that's perfect and pure Nazi level stupidity and ignorance.

Did you think when the USSR spent money they were trying to spend it correctly???

Did you think when the spent money on Solyndra they were trying to spend it correctly

Did you think when they spent money trying to inflate the housing bubble they were trying to spend it correctly?????


Only capitalism spends it correctly because you are spending your own hard earned money, you die if you fail, failure is tiny and learning experience to neighbors and competitors.


As a liberal will will lack the IQ to understand the above. A liberal is like a child who believes in Santa Claus, butrather he is an adult who believes in magical government.

 

[georgephillip]

Do you consider Jamie Dimon to be a capitalist or a Nazi?
Have you ever wondered why so many German capitalists were drawn to Hitler?
Possibly for the same reasons job creators like Dimon and their useful trolls like you apologize for a $14 billion/year government subsidy that allows Jaime to live large on corporate welfare?

"When JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon testifies in the U.S. House today, he will present himself as a champion of free-market capitalism in opposition to an overweening government. His position would be more convincing if his bank weren’t such a beneficiary of corporate welfare."

Dear Mr. Dimon, Is Your Bank Getting Corporate Welfare? - Bloomberg

Now blame "government" as if rich parasites like Dimon haven't owned every government for the last 500 years.

 

[ERGO]

He says very very clearly in his book that the government should spend money exactly like it did when WW II started to end this current depression the way it ended the Great Depression.

Does any liberal dare to think that by producing about 100 million planes tanks ships heavy weapons and tanks that it would help rather than hurt our economy??

Krugman is a Nobel liberal but not a soul will dare defend the pure stupidity of his liberalism which is now everyone's liberalism.

Krugman is great because he's the best they got and even the common liberal knows in his heart that Krugman is a liberal and so that liberalism is nutty.

Send a memo to the Boeing Company. I'm sure they will find your input fascinating.

Military Keynesianism Can’t Work … Because WWII Was Different from Current Wars

World War II Was Different.

“Military Keynesians” people who think that war is good for the economy, base their theory on the idea that World War 2 pulled us out of the Great Depression.

It has been exhaustively demonstrated that this is a myth: war is not good for the economy.
Debunking the Myth that War Is Good for the Economy Once and For All

Some critics, and even some supporters, contend that in the modern world, these policies are no longer viable for developed countries because military strength is now built on high-technology professional armies, and the military is thus no longer viable as a source of employment of last resort for uneducated young people.

Given that America fights its current wars with drones and smart bombs, it “employs” far fewer men then during WWII. It is a different world.

The Marshall Plan, Special Trade Provisions and Other Unique Circumstances Made WWII Different

Krugman has written, “Deficit spending created an economic boom and the boom laid the foundation for long-run prosperity.”

But this viewpoint ignores a fairly obvious counterpoint. The United States emerged from World War II as the world’s conqueror, with virtually every economic competitor destroyed. Suddenly, America was the big boy on the block, leader of the Pax Americana, and our industries enjoyed numerous competitive advantages over international rivals. The dollar, suddenly, was the dominant global currency, and that granted Americans cheap money and influence that spurred unprecedented economic growth.

In addition, we then launched the ambitious Marshall Plan, which not only rebuilt our former adversaries, but also created international markets for US producers. One of the Marshall Plan’s conditions was that nations receiving funding were required to give American exporters preferred access to their emerging markets. The years of the Marshall Plan, from 1948 to 1952, saw one of the fastest periods of growth in European history, with industrial production increasing by 35 percent and agricultural production substantially surpassing prewar levels. American businesses, especially those specializing in manufactured goods and raw materials, benefited greatly from these fast-emerging markets. Any massive stimulus plan today would not benefit from those same advantages.

Krugman has rejected this critique, writing, “Trade was a minor factor in the American economy both before and immediately after the war, with imports and exports a much smaller share of gross domestic product than they are now.” Krugman admits that there was an increase in trade for a few years in the late 1940s due to the effects of the Marshall Plan, which allowed ruined economies to buy more from the United States, but it’s impact “was temporary,” he says.

But Krugman’s response is unconvincing. Here is a simple thought experiment to illustrate why. Imagine if America had lost World War II and not emerged as the dominant power. Does anyone seriously believe that all of that wartime stimulus money would have resulted in anywhere near the post-war boom that the United States experienced? Krugman is underestimating the impact of being the world’s conqueror, and the financial, economic and psychological advantages that conveys.

Certainly, a large dose of fiscal stimulus right now would spur an increase in aggregate demand, but without a surging export sector, that would probably result in more government jobs (and perhaps more than a few “bridges to nowhere”) than private-sector jobs. There’s no guarantee it would boost private-sector growth, since America’s struggling export and manufacturing base still would face stiff competition from many upstart international rivals, with none of the advantages enjoyed by US exporters in the aftermath of World War II. The world today, and America’s position in it, are far, far different from what they were in 1945.

Source link:
Debunking the Myth that War Is Good for the Economy Once and For All

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

$14 billion/year government subsidy that allows Jaime to live large on corporate welfare?

.

that of course is a stupid stupid lie which explains why you offer no evidence.


I heard them ask Dimon about the bailout he got. He said it was forced on his bank and anyway it was all returned. No one was able to challenged him further about corporate welfare. Sorry.

That makes you a typical conspiracy
lunatic. THis place is for conversation you are only smart enough for chanting in the steeet.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The United States emerged from World War II as the world’s conqueror, with virtually every economic competitor destroyed.

yes that was a big help but also consider

1) FDR was dead, that was a huge stimulus since he hated business. Truman was more conseervative and business friendly.

2) American industry boomed and learned during the war; if it could be converted to peacetime production, which it was, the economy would boom again which it did.

3) there was pend up demand from war pay and rationing

4) people were used to moving for war and war production, so moved again for peacetime production. THe economy was flexible

5) precious resources were not longer wasted on military weapons, but on consumer goods that increased our standard of living.

 

[georgephillip]

$14 billion/year government subsidy that allows Jaime to live large on corporate welfare?

.

that of course is a stupid stupid lie which explains why you offer no evidence.


I heard them ask Dimon about the bailout he got. He said it was forced on his bank and anyway it was all returned. No one was able to challenged him further about corporate welfare. Sorry.

That makes you a typical conspiracy
lunatic. THis place is for conversation you are only smart enough for chanting in the steeet.

Your ignorance is rivaled only by your sorry attempts at obsequiousness.
Bloomberg has challenged Dimon's reliance on implicit subsidies, aka, corporate welfare:

"With each new banking crisis, the value of the implicit subsidy grows. In a recent paper, two economists -- Kenichi Ueda of the IMF and Beatrice Weder Di Mauro of the University of Mainz -- estimated that as of 2009 the expectation of government support was shaving about 0.8 percentage point off large banks’ borrowing costs.

"That’s up from 0.6 percentage point in 2007, before the financial crisis prompted a global round of bank bailouts.

"To estimate the dollar value of the subsidy in the U.S., we multiplied it by the debt and deposits of 18 of the country’s largest banks, including JPMorgan, Bank of America Corp. and Citigroup Inc.

"The result: about $76 billion a year. The number is roughly equivalent to the banks’ total profits over the past 12 months, or more than the federal government spends every year on education.

"JPMorgan’s share of the subsidy is $14 billion a year, or about 77 percent of its net income for the past four quarters. In other words, U.S. taxpayers helped foot the bill for the multibillion-dollar trading loss that is the focus of today’s hearing.

"They’ve also provided more direct support: Dimon noted in a recent conference call that the Home Affordable Refinancing Program, which allows banks to generate income by modifying government-guaranteed mortgages, made a significant contribution to JPMorgan’s earnings in the first three months of 2012."

Dear Mr. Dimon, Is Your Bank Getting Corporate Welfare? - Bloomberg

Maybe you should've stayed awake in Econ 101 instead of chanting in Dimon's defense?

 

[Middleoftheroad]

$14 billion/year government subsidy that allows Jaime to live large on corporate welfare?

.

that of course is a stupid stupid lie which explains why you offer no evidence.


I heard them ask Dimon about the bailout he got. He said it was forced on his bank and anyway it was all returned. No one was able to challenged him further about corporate welfare. Sorry.

That makes you a typical conspiracy
lunatic. THis place is for conversation you are only smart enough for chanting in the steeet.

I find it hilarious when you accuse other people of not showing evidence when you have never once shown evidence. You just shout words and insults. Then you say things that are completely not true, then you purposefully misinterpret words that others say. In other words, you constantly lie and insult and claim that as your "proof".

 

[Middleoftheroad]

The United States emerged from World War II as the world’s conqueror, with virtually every economic competitor destroyed.

yes that was a big help but also consider

1) FDR was dead, that was a huge stimulus since he hated business. Truman was more conseervative and business friendly.

2) American industry boomed and learned during the war; if it could be converted to peacetime production, which it was, the economy would boom again which it did.

3) there was pend up demand from war pay and rationing

4) people were used to moving for war and war production, so moved again for peacetime production. THe economy was flexible

5) precious resources were not longer wasted on military weapons, but on consumer goods that increased our standard of living.

1) Real GDP per capita raised under FDR pre WWII and during WWII. Real GDP per capita shrank under Truman.

2) It didn't boom again. Unemployment went up, real GDP per capita went down, this is your "boom"

3) war pay? But I thought you said over and over again that government spending can't help the economy? Oh wait, you do keep saying that. So you disagree with your own post?

 

[Rshermr]

The United States emerged from World War II as the world’s conqueror, with virtually every economic competitor destroyed.

yes that was a big help but also consider

1) FDR was dead, that was a huge stimulus since he hated business. Truman was more conseervative and business friendly.

2) American industry boomed and learned during the war; if it could be converted to peacetime production, which it was, the economy would boom again which it did.

3) there was pend up demand from war pay and rationing

4) people were used to moving for war and war production, so moved again for peacetime production. THe economy was flexible

5) precious resources were not longer wasted on military weapons, but on consumer goods that increased our standard of living.

1) Real GDP per capita raised under FDR pre WWII and during WWII. Real GDP per capita shrank under Truman.

2) It didn't boom again. Unemployment went up, real GDP per capita went down, this is your "boom"

3) war pay? But I thought you said over and over again that government spending can't help the economy? Oh wait, you do keep saying that. So you disagree with your own post?

Jesus, ed. They are eating your lunch. Maybe you should just sit on the sidelines and let the big boys play. You know, the ones with actual facts. This is getting really ugly, and I can't help but enjoy it.

You need to get some new responses to use - your normal Dogma is not going well for you.