Krugman: personal austerity versus government austerity

[Wiseacre]

I know of no instance where either an individual or a country managed to spend themselves out of debt or a recession. Stimulus is a temporary balm, it picks up an economy until the money runs out and then you're almost back where you started but you now have more debt.

 

[starcraftzzz]

1) A person is not a country , according to Krugman

2) If a person spends, drinks, or takes drugs too much the obvious solution is to cut back, according to Krugman. But if many individuals cut back it will depress the economy he says.

3) Conversely, if a drunken government spends too much the solution is too keep spending since that stimulates the economy. To cut back would depress the economy and sustain the Obama depression, according to Krugman.


Does this make sense to anyone?

Krugman is a highly touted idiot.

Idiot??? It makes perfect sense to tax the rich so they cant start more companies like Apple and Google in order to get more bridges to nowhere!

Its very stimulative too because when government spends money it magicially and multiplies while when the people who earned the money spend it, it doesn't.

You realize the people who created Apple started off poor don’t you? Oh you don’t well that’s not surprising because you know absolutely nothing about anything

 

[starcraftzzz]

I know of no instance where either an individual or a country managed to spend themselves out of debt or a recession. Stimulus is a temporary balm, it picks up an economy until the money runs out and then you're almost back where you started but you now have more debt.

Really you never heard of ww2 or GB in the 30’s? Or Japan and Germany in the 30’s, or Argentina in the 00’s. Go take a basic history class if you are so damn clueless
Stimulus is a temporary balm that employes people while the private sector repairs itself from its self made implosion. If theres not enough money to continue stimulus programs then at the end you still have more people with jobs, you still have more infrastructure etc etc

 

[Foxfyre]

Keynesian economics actually can be effective if used judiciously and carefully in ways that promote economic activity. But true Keynesian economics is intended to be short lived and reasonable and with the expectation that the increased economic activity will allow the monies to be repaid to the public treasury within a short period. No expenditures that will create permanent deficits or permanently add to the national debt are true Keynesian expenditures.

Also bailouts of financial institutions, floundering corporations, unions, or stressed state and municipal governments is NOT Keynesian spending, nor is that funneled to cronies or those owed something for campaign contributions.

The main criticism I've seen of Paul Krugman is that when he is in ultra partisan mode, he seems to be blind to that fact.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Krugman is a highly touted idiot.

Idiot??? It makes perfect sense to tax the rich so they cant start more companies like Apple and Google in order to get more bridges to nowhere!

Its very stimulative too because when government spends money it magicially and multiplies while when the people who earned the money spend it, it doesn't.

You realize the people who created Apple started off poor don’t you? Oh you don’t well that’s not surprising because you know absolutely nothing about anything

You know you just destroyed all your talking points, right?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Keynesian economics actually can be effective if used judiciously and carefully in ways that promote economic activity. But true Keynesian economics is intended to be short lived and reasonable and with the expectation that the increased economic activity will allow the monies to be repaid to the public treasury within a short period. No expenditures that will create permanent deficits or permanently add to the national debt are true Keynesian expenditures.

Also bailouts of financial institutions, floundering corporations, unions, or stressed state and municipal governments is NOT Keynesian spending, nor is that funneled to cronies or those owed something for campaign contributions.

The main criticism I've seen of Paul Krugman is that when he is in ultra partisan mode, he seems to be blind to that fact.

That's what I was taught too, along with "FDR rescued us from the Depression" and "Joe McCarthy started a Red Scare" and NONE of it, absolutely None of it is true

 

[starcraftzzz]

Also bailouts of financial institutions, floundering corporations, unions, or stressed state and municipal governments is NOT Keynesian spending, nor is that funneled to cronies or those owed something for campaign contributions.

The main criticism I've seen of Paul Krugman is that when he is in ultra partisan mode, he seems to be blind to that fact.

Im pretty sure saving the banking industry so that the credit markets don’t freeze up would be considered Keynesian spending
But go on with more conspiracy theories

 

[Foxfyre]

Keynesian economics actually can be effective if used judiciously and carefully in ways that promote economic activity. But true Keynesian economics is intended to be short lived and reasonable and with the expectation that the increased economic activity will allow the monies to be repaid to the public treasury within a short period. No expenditures that will create permanent deficits or permanently add to the national debt are true Keynesian expenditures.

Also bailouts of financial institutions, floundering corporations, unions, or stressed state and municipal governments is NOT Keynesian spending, nor is that funneled to cronies or those owed something for campaign contributions.

The main criticism I've seen of Paul Krugman is that when he is in ultra partisan mode, he seems to be blind to that fact.

That's what I was taught too, along with "FDR rescued us from the Depression" and "Joe McCarthy started a Red Scare" and NONE of it, absolutely None of it is true

Well Keynesian economics as I defined it is how Keynes himself described it. Keynes was required reading in Introduction to Economics and Economics 101 et al. In recent decades, his ideas have been so amended, revised, and stretched in many different ways by many, including Paul Krugman, that what is taught of him these days bears little semblance to what he actually wrote and taught.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Keynesian economics actually can be effective if used judiciously and carefully in ways that promote economic activity. But true Keynesian economics is intended to be short lived and reasonable and with the expectation that the increased economic activity will allow the monies to be repaid to the public treasury within a short period. No expenditures that will create permanent deficits or permanently add to the national debt are true Keynesian expenditures.

Also bailouts of financial institutions, floundering corporations, unions, or stressed state and municipal governments is NOT Keynesian spending, nor is that funneled to cronies or those owed something for campaign contributions.

The main criticism I've seen of Paul Krugman is that when he is in ultra partisan mode, he seems to be blind to that fact.

That's what I was taught too, along with "FDR rescued us from the Depression" and "Joe McCarthy started a Red Scare" and NONE of it, absolutely None of it is true

Well Keynesian economics as I defined it is how Keynes himself described it. Keynes was required reading in Introduction to Economics and Economics 101 et al. In recent decades, his ideas have been so amended, revised, and stretched in many different ways by many, including Paul Krugman, that what is taught of him these days bears little semblance to what he actually wrote and taught.

True. Obama dragged Keynesian economics down to the bottom with his one failed term

 

[starcraftzzz]

That's what I was taught too, along with "FDR rescued us from the Depression" and "Joe McCarthy started a Red Scare" and NONE of it, absolutely None of it is true

Well Keynesian economics as I defined it is how Keynes himself described it. Keynes was required reading in Introduction to Economics and Economics 101 et al. In recent decades, his ideas have been so amended, revised, and stretched in many different ways by many, including Paul Krugman, that what is taught of him these days bears little semblance to what he actually wrote and taught.

True. Obama dragged Keynesian economics down to the bottom with his one failed term

A failed term that created more jobs then Bushes whole two terms and of which created more job growth then Mitt Romney despite obama inheriting the worst financial panic ever and the worst recession since the depression

 

[Polk]

1) A person is not a country , according to Krugman

2) If a person spends, drinks, or takes drugs too much the obvious solution is to cut back, according to Krugman. But if many individuals cut back it will depress the economy he says.

3) Conversely, if a drunken government spends too much the solution is too keep spending since that stimulates the economy. To cut back would depress the economy and sustain the Obama depression, according to Krugman.


Does this make sense to anyone?

Yes. See "thrift, paradox of".

 

[Synthaholic]

^^^^
Appeal to authority.

Fallacies, yes.

What are the qualifications for authority, then?

 

[Polk]

^^^^
Appeal to authority.

Uh, no, he was responding to the claim that Krugman isn't an economist.

 

[Synthaholic]

1) A person is not a country , according to Krugman

2) If a person spends, drinks, or takes drugs too much the obvious solution is to cut back, according to Krugman. But if many individuals cut back it will depress the economy he says.

3) Conversely, if a drunken government spends too much the solution is too keep spending since that stimulates the economy. To cut back would depress the economy and sustain the Obama depression, according to Krugman.


Does this make sense to anyone?

The above doesn't make sense.

If course the above doesn't really even remotely describe the real policy changes that Krugman is proposing either.

Basically you are proposing to debate against a straw man of you own device.

This thread doesn't make sense.

It's just a bunch of mouth-breathers 'tarding away about 'big gummint'. Typical day at USMB, lately.

 

[Synthaholic]

The reason the stimulus has been such a colossal failure has been due to the fact that there wasn't enough public works programs, not that I'm sure that would have completely fixed the economy anyways, but at least it would have gotten dollars into the hands of workers instead of the banks.

a little Econ 101 for you. If getting money into people's hands worked the government could merely print it and mail it out rather than waste years searching for shovel ready projects. As a liberal you won't have clue how to understand that. Sorry.

No, dumbass. You print money to pay construction firms, fixing bridges, roads, interstates, schools, etc.

These projects employ 100s of people. As anyone who has lived through an Interstate expansion knows, these things take 3 years to finish, at least.

Multiply that across the country.

Now, all these employed people can pay their bills and their credit cards and go back to consuming consumer goods, which is what our economy, sadly, is based upon, along with services.

Just as important, they are now paying taxes into the system instead of taking money out in the form of unemployment and assistance, and food stamps, and etc.

Couple that construction blitz with another round of Green rebates/tax credits for energy-efficient upgrades like insulation, solar or heat pump water heaters. Solar panels. All of them require professional installation in order to receive the rebate, so that puts more plumbers, electricians back to work, like the last stimulus did.

 

[Synthaholic]

If the Fed continues to print money to keep real interest rates negative by buying up Treasuries, the GDP may rise nominally, but real GDP would fall in inflation adjusted terms and could even precipitate a collapse of the dollar.

Actually more inflation would improve the economy. Higher inflation lowers debt burdens meaning more inflation would solve the consumer problem. Furthermore inflation would stimulate consumption.

It is bad all around and getting worse, and your partisan ass kissing is a failure to realize that the liberals or the so called conservatives have no answer that is going to be an easy and fluid fix.

Actually Liberals do have a easy fix, its called more government deficit spending

What a totally ignorant fuckwad. You should get the Krugman Noble Prize for being Wrong in the Trillions Column

CrusaderFrank swoops and poops, while lowering the I.Q. of the thread.

Bravo, Frank!

 

[Synthaholic]

The reason that Keynes' model does not work is that "governments worldwide are totally incapable of stopping the money printing.

this is 100% true. Krugman says deficitis are important but we'll worry about them later. In turth, liberals never worry about them because their only real priority is more and more welfare entitlement Marxist redistribution vote buying.

Dick Cheney: "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter"

Krugman is correct. We will not be able to pay down the deficit without revenue in the form of taxes. That requires a very broad base of employed taxpayers.

 

[Synthaholic]

Krugman is a hack and he knows it. About a year back he wrote a terrible piece that completely defied economic sense and the commenters took him on and he got owned so bad that he had to turn off the comments.

Liar.

 

[Synthaholic]

1) A person is not a country , according to Krugman

2) If a person spends, drinks, or takes drugs too much the obvious solution is to cut back, according to Krugman. But if many individuals cut back it will depress the economy he says.

3) Conversely, if a drunken government spends too much the solution is too keep spending since that stimulates the economy. To cut back would depress the economy and sustain the Obama depression, according to Krugman.


Does this make sense to anyone?

Yes. See "thrift, paradox of".

I like your other suit better.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

No, dumbass. You print money to pay construction firms, fixing bridges, roads, interstates, schools, etc.

These projects employ 100s of people.

Econ 101 for you! If you steal money from person A he cant spend it, if you give that stolen liberal money to person B he can then spend but there is no net increase in spending!!

They know liberals are stupid so show up with news cameras when person B spends the money and liberals, being very very slow, forget all about the person from whom the money was stolen??



Still over your head?? What does that tell you about liberalism??