Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Paul Krugman, Having It Both Ways.  
User currently offlineDXing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (5 years 2 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1268 times:

I had wondered how long it would be before someone in the major media started whispering about how these large deficits that the Obama administration is running up really aren't all that bad for the country. Which would be OK if they hadn't spent the last 8 years bemoaning deficits, that look trivial in comparision, by the Bush administration. Looks like Paul Krugman of the NYT is the winner.

Back in 2002 deficts were bad.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/22/opinion/a-fiscal-fantasy.html

Finally, the administration will try to convince you that the return of deficits won't hurt you personally. But for millions of Americans deficits will soon began to pinch, hard.


Fridays column? Go figure, deficits good!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/opinion/28krugman.html

What this tells us is that right now it’s good to run a deficit

So I guess it all depends on exactly who is in office as to whether deficts are good or not. Excuse me while I go chuckle.

Can't garauntee that you won't go to a register screen since this is the NYT but the columns are real.

38 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8657 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (5 years 2 months 3 days ago) and read 1245 times:

Krugman was a huge fan of the economic stimulus way back when. He argued it should be much bigger than it was.

Of course, the debt is also a problem. Maybe the problem with Krugman's view is that it is OK to run a deficit in times like this, if you are otherwise very well behaved. But we aren't -- we always run deficits rain or shine. The notion that we are just good ol' rainy-day deficit spenders, but otherwise things are squared away, has no credibility. Our political system can't handle cutting spending when times are good. This is why Krugman is realizing that his ideas were right theoretically, but totally wrong in this case in practice. The stimulus was dumb because it is not part of a logical regime spanning the decades that people trust. In fact it's endangering the public trust in our government's sustainability. This goes way beyond good faith deficit spending and becomes something much more sinister.


User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8188 posts, RR: 26
Reply 2, posted (5 years 2 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1236 times:



Quoting DXing (Thread starter):
So I guess it all depends on exactly who is in office as to whether deficts are good or not. Excuse me while I go chuckle.

I'd rather puke but to each their own. Krugman is a fine writer in many cases but he's clearly a hypocrite now. Back to James Howard Kunstler's rantings on clusterf*ck nation...



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineAvent From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (5 years 2 months 9 hours ago) and read 1153 times:

I'd guess Krugmann would argue that there are two very different modes of running deficits here:

1. running deficits in order to break the back of a government you see as being too welfare oriented - all the while giving tax breaks to the wealthy - and waging wars deemed so important there is no need to raise taxes to pay for them

2. using deficits to try and prevent an inherited mess turning into a catastrophic meltdown.


User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (5 years 2 months 7 hours ago) and read 1133 times:

I think you are going to see a lot of this. The left is scared now and they will do anything to get this guy another 4 years. I mean if the 2010' mid term election goes like it looks now forget it. The left won't know what to do if Obama loses in 2012'

User currently offlineTexan From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 4280 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (5 years 2 months 7 hours ago) and read 1127 times:

Deficit spending is good in down times if it is done responsibly in a way to create jobs, something Bush's policies did not do and something I have doubts about whether Obama's policies will do. The U.S. government should do the opposite of the consumer in order to preserve financial integrity: save in the good times and spend in the bad times. But again, the spending only works if it is well directed and benefits the system by creating jobs and actually stimulating economic growth. That is one reason why you have a difference of opinion on deficit spending.

Texan



"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
User currently offlineAvent From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (5 years 2 months 7 hours ago) and read 1125 times:



Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 4):
I think you are going to see a lot of this. The left is scared now and they will do anything to get this guy another 4 years. I mean if the 2010' mid term election goes like it looks now forget it. The left won't know what to do if Obama loses in 2012'

Scared the mess left by GWB is more than a rational moderate can handle?

You Betcha!


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8970 posts, RR: 39
Reply 7, posted (5 years 2 months 7 hours ago) and read 1125 times:

Another one of Krugman's advice from 2002:

To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html

I mean, really, people still listen to this guy?



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineAvent From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (5 years 2 months 6 hours ago) and read 1113 times:



Quoting PPVRA (Reply 7):
I mean, really, people still listen to this guy?

I'd guess there are those who still think Nobel prize-winners in economics have perspectives worth considering.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8870 posts, RR: 24
Reply 9, posted (5 years 2 months 6 hours ago) and read 1111 times:



Quoting Avent (Reply 6):
Scared the mess left by GWB is more than a rational moderate can handle?

Keep thinking that way. The last time the Dems ran amok led to 12 years of Reagan and Bush.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineSeb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11737 posts, RR: 15
Reply 10, posted (5 years 2 months 6 hours ago) and read 1108 times:



Quoting DXing (Thread starter):
So I guess it all depends on exactly who is in office as to whether deficts are good or not.

Same with partotism, my friend. It was patriotic to support the president before. Dissenters were terrorists. Now, dissenters are patriotic and supporters of the president are Nazis. Two sides of the same coin.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8870 posts, RR: 24
Reply 11, posted (5 years 2 months 6 hours ago) and read 1105 times:



Quoting Seb146 (Reply 10):
Dissenters were terrorists.

Who said that?



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineAvent From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (5 years 2 months 6 hours ago) and read 1104 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 9):
Keep thinking that way. The last time the Dems ran amok led to 12 years of Reagan and Bush.

I agree, and I have concerns about the stimulus spending, but for now I'm assuming the Obama administration is taking a position that it's the lesser of two evils and that if a resurgent economy produces the revenues to offset the stimulus, it might work out ok.

Still, I view with great suspicion, the notion that spending in order to do damage control on excess spending is appropriate.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8870 posts, RR: 24
Reply 13, posted (5 years 2 months 6 hours ago) and read 1098 times:



Quoting Avent (Reply 12):
Still, I view with great suspicion, the notion that spending in order to do damage control on excess spending is appropriate.

The problem with stimulus spending is timing. Delay in starting it, and you don't stop the recession. Stop it too late, and you create inflation and "overheat" the economy. The signs that you have to start stimulating or stop are all trailing indicators - i.e. things that have already happened and you have compiled and quantified. It's like driving a car, and deciding when to hit the gas or the brakes according to what you see in the rear-view mirror.

My suggestion is that the government shouldn't even try to do it. I think it just makes it worse, deepening the troughs and accelerating the highs.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineAvent From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (5 years 2 months 6 hours ago) and read 1092 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 13):
My suggestion is that the government shouldn't even try to do it. I think it just makes it worse, deepening the troughs and accelerating the highs.

I'd say you have legitimate concerns, but we do elect leaders and they and their advisors have their turn at bat. It's really hard to envision reasonable leaders just sitting by and letting things meltdown; having them try and soften crashes is not a bad thing, but, as you say, whether they catch it at the right time is something else.


User currently offlineCharles79 From Puerto Rico, joined Mar 2007, 1331 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (5 years 2 months 5 hours ago) and read 1080 times:



Quoting DXing (Thread starter):
So I guess it all depends on exactly who is in office as to whether deficts are good or not. Excuse me while I go chuckle.

Unfortunately we are bound to find hypocrisy on both sides of the coin, makes it that much harder to trust anyone anymore.  banghead 

Quoting Flighty (Reply 1):
But we aren't -- we always run deficits rain or shine.

And no matter where you sit in the political spectrum you should expect proper accounting methods from your leaders. Deficits are deficits, no matter when they are run or by whom. And you hit it straight on in that, as a nation, we just don't know how to spend responsibly. I understand that there are many areas (like infrastructure) which require urgent attention but I'm sure there are ways to accomplish things without running that much further into debt...I mean, that's why we vote for them, to figure this kind of sh*t out!


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 16, posted (5 years 2 months 2 hours ago) and read 1054 times:



Quoting DXing (Thread starter):

Fridays column? Go figure, deficits good!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/opinion/28krugman.html

What this tells us is that right now it’s good to run a deficit

So I guess it all depends on exactly who is in office as to whether deficts are good or not. Excuse me while I go chuckle.

Dearie dear oh me. So just as well someone understands.

Quoting Avent (Reply 3):
I'd guess Krugmann would argue that there are two very different modes of running deficits here:

1. running deficits in order to break the back of a government you see as being too welfare oriented - all the while giving tax breaks to the wealthy - and waging wars deemed so important there is no need to raise taxes to pay for them

2. using deficits to try and prevent an inherited mess turning into a catastrophic meltdown.

Nice posts Avent.  checkmark   checkmark 


User currently offlineDXing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (5 years 2 months 1 hour ago) and read 1045 times:



Quoting Avent (Reply 3):
I'd guess Krugmann would argue that there are two very different modes of running deficits here:

There is no good way to run a deficit, period. It was wrong in the Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43 administrations and it is just as wrong in the Obama administration.

I still think it is rather sad that politicians campaign on how much the other guy spent and how wrong that was, and then spend just as much or more when elected.

Quoting Avent (Reply 3):
all the while giving tax breaks to the wealthy

I assume you are talking about the wealthy that still pay more than 50% of all income taxes in this country? BTW, I'm not wealthy and I got a tax break. The idea that the top 5 or 10% will continue to carry the other 90-95% on their backs forever, or that it is even right that they do so is also fairly humorous if not down right scary. Witness those wealthy individuals that are moving out of NYC due to the rate hikes. There comes a time when it's just better to change locals than to cough up any more.

At some point deficit spending has to end and the longer we delay it the worse of we will all be when it happens.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8657 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (5 years 2 months 1 hour ago) and read 1042 times:



Quoting DXing (Reply 17):
There is no good way to run a deficit, period

Nah, not really true. Young families take out large loans called "home mortgages" all the time.

Borrowing money is not always a bad thing. Having a line of credit is an extremely positive resource. But it should not be misused. Some people are concerned that lately the government is creating far bigger problems than it is solving by its deficit spending. Obama does not even address what it means to our future viability 10 years down the line.

10 years is a short time in a big country like this!

The best stimulus, at any rate, is a tax cut, preferably a permanent one. That money goes straight to the people, and straight into the economy. Cutting government, and cutting taxes would ironically stimulate the economy.


User currently offlineFlyDeltaJets87 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (5 years 2 months ago) and read 1031 times:



Quoting Avent (Reply 3):
1. running deficits in order to break the back of a government you see as being too welfare oriented - all the while giving tax breaks to the wealthy - and waging wars deemed so important there is no need to raise taxes to pay for them

I must have missed the part where I became wealthy overnight, because even I received money back under the Bush tax-cuts. I'm sick of this same, tired line about how only the rich received a break.  sarcastic  (And before you pull up my age and immediately try to discredit, you might want to ask "how" before you attempt to pull any other card, if you do).


Quoting Avent (Reply 3):
2. using deficits to try and prevent an inherited mess turning into a catastrophic meltdown.

Which the rest of us can see is turning into its own catastrophic meltdown.

Quoting Avent (Reply 8):
I'd guess there are those who still think Nobel prize-winners in economics have perspectives worth considering.

Oh please. Al Gore got a Nobel Peace Prize for Global Warming.

Quoting DXing (Reply 17):
The idea that the top 5 or 10% will continue to carry the other 90-95% on their backs forever, or that it is even right that they do so is also fairly humorous if not down right scary. Witness those wealthy individuals that are moving out of NYC due to the rate hikes. There comes a time when it's just better to change locals than to cough up any more.

I can continue to say, "I've never met a liberal who believes they don't pay enough in taxes".


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 20, posted (5 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1009 times:



Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 19):
I can continue to say, "I've never met a liberal who believes they don't pay enough in taxes".

Best come to Australia for a shock. In 2007, in polls* IIRC around 60% of voters believed that additional government expenditure on health was preferable to a tax cut. The tax cuts were mostly in the cup of coffee and two biscuits class, but the money saved could have made a difference to our hospitals. And yes the electorate knew that and voted with wider interests in mind.

That 60% included both Labor and Liberal voters.

Of course the then Liberal government tried to buy the electorate with tax cuts, but lost when Labor (to our long term detriment) matched them cut for cut. And where did that get us - why in debt where do you think?

You need to get out more.


User currently offlineUs330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3873 posts, RR: 14
Reply 21, posted (5 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 999 times:



Quoting Avent (Reply 8):
I'd guess there are those who still think Nobel prize-winners in economics have perspectives worth considering

On international trade and new trade theory, not government deficit spending.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8870 posts, RR: 24
Reply 22, posted (5 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 990 times:



Quoting Us330 (Reply 21):
I'd guess there are those who still think Nobel prize-winners in economics have perspectives worth considering

On international trade and new trade theory, not government deficit spending.

It was well discussed at the time how Krugman's Nobel Prize indicated how worthless the Nobel has become - like giving Yasser Arafat the Peace prize.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineAvent From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (5 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 976 times:



Quoting DXing (Reply 17):
There is no good way to run a deficit, period. It was wrong in the Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43 administrations and it is just as wrong in the Obama administration.

But this was not your original argument. You argued Krugman was contradicting himself by changing his position. I just pointed out that there can be different reasons for deficits that might allow a reasonable person to agree with them in some instances, but not in others.

And as someone else properly pointed out, loans and mortgages are very useful instruments, and a deficit is nothing more than a loan.


User currently offlineAvent From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (5 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 975 times:



Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 19):
Quoting Avent (Reply 3):
1. running deficits in order to break the back of a government you see as being too welfare oriented - all the while giving tax breaks to the wealthy - and waging wars deemed so important there is no need to raise taxes to pay for them

I must have missed the part where I became wealthy overnight, because even I received money back under the Bush tax-cuts. I'm sick of this same, tired line about how only the rich received a break. (And before you pull up my age and immediately try to discredit, you might want to ask "how" before you attempt to pull any other card, if you do).

The issue is not whether you are wealthy or not, but whether it was reasonable to run deficits with a notion to underfund non-military agencies AND choose not to raise taxes because of ideology AND to then embark on wars without raising taxes to pay for them. This was reckless in the extreme IMHO.


25 Avent : Oh come now. I seriously doubt any of the readers of these forums have the technical knowledgebase to pass judgement on Nobel prize winners. The Nobe
26 DXing : Not the same. What asset are we aquiring in return for the borrowing we are doing as in the purchase of a home? The deficits government runs up are m
27 Avent : This was not your original argument. You are trying to reframe it now that it has been shown to be untenable; there was no mention of the role assets
28 DXing : Sorry, but you are wrong. Mr. Krugman first denounced deficit spending in the Bush administration and now credits it in the Obama administration. Can
29 Avent : No, sorry, you are wrong; he can have it both ways and I explained it. You are just repeating your initial fallacy. And so, because a nobel prize win
30 Avent : This is quite a novel theory. I have never heard anyone seriously argue the stimulus spending was primarily a political move without any possible ben
31 FlyDeltaJets87 : What your poll doesn't say is whether or not those who said they would have preferred for the government to keep the money to spend on healthcare wou
32 Flighty : Oh certainly. That is why the Congress must perform "work" to actually accomplish that. They and the president do have a lot of power to make changes
33 Avent : I don't get this. What's your point in politely telling them in response to their stating a willingness to pay for services, they could pay extra so
34 Post contains links Baroque : News item: R Wing US views do not encompass the whole world. One example from 2006, a time when Beasley was leader of the Opposition and NOT popular
35 Avent : I agree, but the issue here is whether Krugman is having it both ways, and it seems to me someone of his stature could certainly make distinctions be
36 DXing : He can say he wants to have it both ways if he so chooses to, and in doing so exposes himself to be the hypocrite that he is. You're explanation was
37 Post contains images PPVRA : Yeah, such a worthwhile suggestion   Let's inflate another bubble. That's how we'll "fix" our problems. This isn't just pushing the problem forward
38 DXing : Now that is hillarious. I've heard plenty of people make that argument and with more than a grain of truth. There are simply too many "pork" projects
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Paul Hamm Being Pressured By IOC To Give It Up posted Fri Aug 27 2004 19:22:00 by 767Lover
Bolt To Get Piece Of Berlin Wall! Three Tons Of It posted Sun Aug 23 2009 12:55:19 by FuturePilot16
Would You Hit It - Women Athletes Edition posted Fri Aug 21 2009 15:42:18 by Tugger
Usain Bolt Does It Again! posted Sun Aug 16 2009 12:47:05 by OHLHD
Guitar Legend Les Paul Dead At 94. posted Thu Aug 13 2009 10:07:30 by AGM100
Top Gear - Why Is It Repeats? posted Sun Aug 9 2009 12:17:29 by FCA767
August Would You Hit It....? (BLUE) posted Sat Aug 1 2009 09:19:54 by Captaink
August Would You Hit It Pink Thread? posted Sat Aug 1 2009 01:09:10 by OA260
Don't Change It, Just Say Whats On Your Speakers.. posted Mon Jul 20 2009 21:01:27 by Captaink
H1N1, Are You Worried About It? posted Fri Jul 17 2009 14:33:32 by F.pier