Krugman's very very simple solution to end this depression

[Middleoftheroad]

It's supposed to be a prime the pump deal where an influx of gov't spending gets the economy going again on a sustained basis. .

but even that liberal idea is perfectly 100% stupid. A weapon and solar panel from Solyndra have the exact same utility: $0

Now you are just being stupid on purpose. To say that a solar panel has no value whatsoever is assinine. The provide power, power serves a purpose. I don't buy them because I think they are expensive, but to say they have 0 value, you might as well say that electricity has 0 value. No one on earth believes you.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Now you are just being stupid on purpose. To say that a solar panel has no value whatsoever is assinine.

I said a liberal Solyndra panel has no value because it is over priced and therefor no one will buy it. Why no read again for comprehension?

NOtice how you at least had the IQ to avoid the central issue about weapons and over priced panels being used by idiot liberals as a stimulus.

Do you know when you say you are middle of the road you are telling people you lack the IQ to make a decision. Would you have been middle of the road in 1933 German between Nazis and Communists??

 

[Middleoftheroad]

Now you are just being stupid on purpose. To say that a solar panel has no value whatsoever is assinine.

I said a liberal Solyndra panel has no value because it is over priced and therefor no one will buy it. Why no read again for comprehension?

NOtice how you at least had the IQ to avoid the central issue about weapons and over priced panels being used by idiot liberals as a stimulus.

Do you know when you say you are middle of the road you are telling people you lack the IQ to make a decision. Would you have been middle of the road in 1933 German between Nazis and Communists??

I read it again, you didn't say it. Nice job though trying to fool me, you almost did except I never believed it.

I avoided the issue of using solar panels or weapons as stimulus because I don't believe either are a very good stimulus, so I guess we can kind of agree on that.

Third. You don't know what it means to be in the middle. This shows your lack of political IQ. In the middle doesn't mean I'm a centrist. I centrist is someone that tries to be in the middle. Sort of like a peace keeper. I am a moderate independant. Which means I have some values that match republicans and some that match democrats. You really should learn the difference between a moderate independant and a centrist, they are not the same thing.

 

[ilia25]

...counting both federal, state and local government spending, it fell if adjusted for inflation, and fell even more per capita. That is austerity...

You can decide that while the rest of the world says 'austerity' means 'drastic spending cuts'.

Last 2 years were pretty drastic if you look at real spending per capita. And even more drastic if you look at the govt. purchases (as oppose to the transfers, such as unemployment benefits).

...Slashing spending does not cut deficit when the economy is depressed...

Your comment differs from your numbers showing that from 2009 to 2010 we had a $61B cut in spending along with a $120B drop in the deficit.

2% spending cut is simply too small to draw any conclusion.

 

[starcraftzzz]

...counting both federal, state and local government spending, it fell if adjusted for inflation, and fell even more per capita. That is austerity...

You can decide that while the rest of the world says 'austerity' means 'drastic spending cuts'.

Last 2 years were pretty drastic if you look at real spending per capita. And even more drastic if you look at the govt. purchases (as oppose to the transfers, such as unemployment benefits).

...Slashing spending does not cut deficit when the economy is depressed...

Your comment differs from your numbers showing that from 2009 to 2010 we had a $61B cut in spending along with a $120B drop in the deficit.

2% spending cut is simply too small to draw any conclusion.

yep that is true if u want to ignore reality

 

[kalle123]

Higher inflation can´t work. It would only create stagflation because oil would again become to expensive for growth.

 

[Widdekind]

2% spending cut is simply too small to draw any conclusion.

Fiscal stimulus implies government expenditures (G) exceed tax revenues (T) by a wide margin (G-T >> 0). Thus, is not the change in budget deficit (G-T) the relevant statistic ? During 2008, total Fiscal stimulus (local, state, federal G less personal & corporate T) plunged by most of $1T, or most of 25%. Thus, the Great Recession coincided with a Fiscal "de-stimulus":

 

[Moonglow]

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.

swing anda miss

 

[DSGE]

Higher inflation can´t work. It would only create stagflation because oil would again become to expensive for growth.

No, remember that incomes grow with inflation as well as prices. The nominal price of oil would rise, but the real price wouldn't change.

 

[The Rabbi]

Higher inflation can´t work. It would only create stagflation because oil would again become to expensive for growth.

No, remember that incomes grow with inflation as well as prices. The nominal price of oil would rise, but the real price wouldn't change.

That didnt work too well in the late 70s early 80s.

 

[The Rabbi]

You sound like a clockwork monkey.

The truth is boring and repetitive sometimes.

But you could easily make your case by pointing to a case where a government economic stimulus solved a recession.

Stimulus is not for solving recessions. It is only needed in a depressed economy when central bank is unwilling to help. This depression is the first one since 30s. Then WWII provided big enough stimulus to end the depression. This time there was no meaningful stimulus, so we are still in depression.

A trillion dollars is not meaningful?
And Japan shows you are wrong. They have zero interest rates and stimulus after stimulus and the country has never recovered.
Fail.

 

[Widdekind]

In 2008, US corporate net taxes (T) sky-rocketed from -$100B to +$700B. Why would US businesses have hit a "wall" of taxes in 2008? Since that coincides with the housing bubble, then perhaps "fire-sales" of mortgage-related assets accrued $800B in deferred Capital Gains taxes, perhaps $5T at 15% ?

• Deferred Sales Trust - Allows the seller of property to defer capital gains tax due at the time of sale over a period of time
• 1031 exchange - Defer tax by exchanging for "like kind" property... generally available only for real estate and tangible property, both of which must be business-related. Pay capital gains when they are realized (i.e. when subsequently sold)

 

[kalle123]

Oil and price of other commodities have incresed much faster.
mrci.com/client/crb.php

Oil would continue doing that in an inflationary environment because of shortages.

Higher inflation can´t work. It would only create stagflation because oil would again become to expensive for growth.

No, remember that incomes grow with inflation as well as prices. The nominal price of oil would rise, but the real price wouldn't change.

 

[editec]

When the problem facing an economy is a lack of funds in circulation the solution is an infusion of new money into the system.

And NO the USA ought not to BORROW money to do that, it ought to be printed by the Treasury and spend on public works projects to prime the economy.


Then when the economy is thribing again, that money ought to be gradually removed from the system through taxation.

Its all pretty simple, really, if we can find the political will to do it.

Now I know that some of your folks are asking yourselves where will that money come from, right?

My answer is the same place ALL money originates from..it's invented out of thin air by the central banking authority.

When the USA borrows money from the FED to fund a war, where do you think it comes from?

Nobody has the money to lend, so the central banksters create it and then lend it to the USA.

I'm simple proposing we eliminate the parasites who we now "borrow" money from and create it for ourselves.

Think it won't work?

Go check out where the word GREENBACKS came from.

The USA fought the civil war using those GREENBACKS, kiddies.

 

[DSGE]

Higher inflation can´t work. It would only create stagflation because oil would again become to expensive for growth.

No, remember that incomes grow with inflation as well as prices. The nominal price of oil would rise, but the real price wouldn't change.

Oil and price of other commodities have incresed much faster.
mrci.com/client/crb.php

Oil would continue doing that in an inflationary environment because of shortages.

Not because of inflation. Because the relative scarcity of oil has changed (OPEC output/emerging market demand). In the long run, the classical dichotomy holds. You can't make yourself richer with a little bit of inflation; you also can't make yourself poorer. The real price of oil is determined by real factors.

 

[DSGE]

Higher inflation can´t work. It would only create stagflation because oil would again become to expensive for growth.

No, remember that incomes grow with inflation as well as prices. The nominal price of oil would rise, but the real price wouldn't change.

That didnt work too well in the late 70s early 80s.

Oh, you mean when the real price of oil skyrocketed because of real shocks from the '73 oil embargo and the '79 Iranian Revolution?

 

[The Rabbi]

No, remember that incomes grow with inflation as well as prices. The nominal price of oil would rise, but the real price wouldn't change.

That didnt work too well in the late 70s early 80s.

Oh, you mean when the real price of oil skyrocketed because of real shocks from the '73 oil embargo and the '79 Iranian Revolution?

No, when wages failed to keep pace with inflation, forcing women into the workforce.
Bet you weren't around then.

 

[DSGE]

That didnt work too well in the late 70s early 80s.

Oh, you mean when the real price of oil skyrocketed because of real shocks from the '73 oil embargo and the '79 Iranian Revolution?

No, when wages failed to keep pace with inflation, forcing women into the workforce.
Bet you weren't around then.

Because of supply shocks. Supply shocks (from the relative price of oil increasing) cause income to fall and prices to rise; demand shocks (because of monetary policy) cause both prices and incomes to rise. This is simple shit.

 

[The Rabbi]

Oh, you mean when the real price of oil skyrocketed because of real shocks from the '73 oil embargo and the '79 Iranian Revolution?

No, when wages failed to keep pace with inflation, forcing women into the workforce.
Bet you weren't around then.

Because of supply shocks. Supply shocks (from the relative price of oil increasing) cause income to fall and prices to rise; demand shocks (because of monetary policy) cause both prices and incomes to rise. This is simple shit.

And obviously above your head.
Germany did not experience the inflation we did in the 1970s, despite being even more dependent on foreign oil than we were.
Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.

 

[Intense]

Oil and price of other commodities have incresed much faster.
mrci.com/client/crb.php

Oil would continue doing that in an inflationary environment because of shortages.

Higher inflation can´t work. It would only create stagflation because oil would again become to expensive for growth.

No, remember that incomes grow with inflation as well as prices. The nominal price of oil would rise, but the real price wouldn't change.

As with most indices the composition and weight assigned each component in the CRB Index has changed over time. Those included in the table to the left reflect the ninth revision made December 6, 1995 and remain static. However, this is now identified as the Reuters CCI (Continuous Commodity Index) after another revision was made to the CRB. (That tenth revision changed both composition and weighting. Rather than weighting each component equally, as does the ninth revision, the tenth attempted to reflect the significance of each commodity in a 4-tiered grouping: energy makes up 39%, agriculture 41%, precious metals 7%, and base metals 13%.)

For purposes of continuity and more accurately to portray historical price change, MRCI continues to use the ninth revision, the CCI. Thus, this bellwether indicator illustrates in the charts below a "macro-"picture of how prices for physical commodities have changed over the last 40 years.
Reuters CRB Commodity Index