I'm not seeing the benefit of "Stimulus" to anyone except the insiders who engage in crony capitalism. Decent people seem to be hardest hit as they are pushed out of the work force.
If bankrupting the nation qualifies as a “win”.....I guess so.
Bring back US jobs, from China and elsewhere.
We have squandered several generations worth of productivity, and now face ruin. I’m serious.
Bring back US jobs.
Now.
So Japan is supposed to be the decisive success story? And the piece is illustrated by a 1934 pic of a picks and shovel CCC crew?
Won?
By what measure?
That clown has an IQ even lower than the Obamadork (if that is possible).
What unmitigated twaddle. There isn't a single country that has tried government austerity. All they have mustered the courage [?] to do is cut the growth in spending all the while raising taxes on the already-burdened private economy.
True austerity would see government spending cut below current levels while leaving taxes the same or actually cutting them. This author is very, very ignorant of the facts. Of course, the title told us that.
Yes! .01% growth and 7.5% unemployment is PROOF that this approach works.
What a bunch of utter morons on the left. Our economic situation is a sustained disaster with no hope for any meaningful change. In their eyes, things have never been better. Never mind the facts. Never mind we are well below any historical norms.
As I have said before,two ten-year olds running a streetcorner lemonade stand have FORGOTTEN more about Economics than Paul Krugman EVER knew!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Many on Wall Street would be happy to see the Fed inflate away the value of your savings and retirement.
Some of that value is captured by them. The rest is captured by the Government.
They call this stimulus.
The sad thing though is that there is anecdotal evidence that Krugman is correct at least in the short run. Look around your friends and acquaintances. How many of them have incomes that rely in great part to government spending. Public safety, schools, hospitals, government offices, businesses with government contracts, outright grants and subsidies, not to mention transfer payments. The governments impact on GDP is large to say the least.
Eisenhower tried to warn us back in 1960 in his farewell speech. No one listened.
As an editor of a specialty medical journal, I would have rejected this type of analysis immediately as unscientific. Unfortunately, the propagandists will take hold of it and claim the Marxist is doing it all correctly. In a nutshell, comparing the economic behavior of the United States to any other country without controlling for a number of variables that make up the intrinsic features of each country (demographics, type of economy, products manufactured, etc) is ridiculous. Essentially, there is no appropriate control group. The other important point is the short term analysis says nothing of the long term pain of increased budgetary debt, which we can surmise accurately will be greatly catastrophic. Austerity is akin to painful and unpleasant chemotherapy for a cancer. The short term is bad, but the long term prognosis is better than simply feeding the cancer and letting the patient “feel good” for the next 6 months.
I’ll admit that I’m not an expert in economics, but this type of thinking is making me nervous...this seems to me like someone who builds a house of cards, and it hasn’t collapsed yet...so he thinks, “well this house of cards is more solid than I thought, I’ll just add some more levels, no problem.” The more he adds to it, the greater the risk that it will eventually collapse, and the greater the size of the collapse when it finally happens.
(Higher government debt levels still correlated with slower economic growth, but the relationship was not nearly as pronounced.)
So, because the correlation between government debt levels and growth is not as pronounced, this means that the argument is over, and people who argue for unlimited debt won? WOOOOWW! What a huge jump in assumptions. It tells you the agenda of the writer, big time!
Notice that before the error was found, and it was thought that the correlation was much stronger, that didn’t stop them from continuing the fight for big government spending. But now that the evidence against them did not actually shift but became less strong, they are willing to declare victory and are telling the other side to disarm. What chutzpah they have!!!
I'm not seeing the benefit of "Stimulus" to anyone except the insiders who engage in crony capitalism. Decent people seem to be hardest hit as they are pushed out of the work force.
Get back to me Henry when we are spending a Trillion dollars a year just in interest alone on the National Debt. That should be sometime near the end of Obama’s term.
Mmmmmmm look at the brain on that guy! I definitely want to take financial advice from him!
Heh. The Krugtrollpig (or was it pigtroll?) can go back to spit shining his fake nobel prize. I am not interested in listening to his mantra of spend spend spend spend spend till we all die.
If a group of thugs owned a body shop and took sledge hammers to my car, I would not take my car to their body shop for repair. That is effectively what Blodget is arguing.
Umm. It's a miracle?
Or, Is the outfit who prints the money keeping rates "stubbornly low" - - for now?
Who but the Democrats' own economy propaganda rag, 'Business Insider', could proclaim in the middle of an ongoing depression that Paul Krugman was right?
Calvin Coolidge.
That’s like saying Keynes won because of the 1930’s, and it requires ignoring the 1981-2008 economic boom fueled by supply side economics. Morons.