Few economists have been more correct about the economic crisis of the last several years than the proudly liberal Paul Krugman.
Krugman spotted the "liquidity trap" early on (since the problem with the economy was too much debt, cutting rates and creating easier money would not get us out of it
Imagine, if you will, someone who read only the Reader’s Digest between 1950 and 1970, and someone in the same period who read only The Nation or The New Statesman. Which reader would have been better informed about the realities of Communism? The answer, I think, should give us pause. Can it be that our enemies were right?
Recently, Krugman has denounced the "austerity" push of the GOP, arguing that tackling our debt and deficit problem right now with spending cuts is the worst move we can make. Such cuts, Krugman argues, will put more people out of work and shrink the economy. And this, in turn, will increase, not decrease, the deficit.
Krugman thinks we should tackle the debt and deficit problem later, when the economy is on more solid footing. He points to record-low interest rates as a sign that the world is still willing to lend us as much money as we want, practically for nothing. And he argues that, instead of cutting back, we should be using that money to build infrastructure, strengthen the economy, and put more Americans back to work.
I absolutely agree we should be spending on infrastructure, and put the jobless to work doing it to earn their unemployment checks.
After decades of instant gratification, Americans have also come to believe that all problems can be solved instantly, if only the right leaders are put in charge and the right decisions are made. And so our government has devolved into a permanent election campaign, in which incumbents blame each other for the current mess, and challengers promise change.
The trouble is that our current problems cannot be solved with a simple fix. They also cannot be solved quickly. It took 25 years for us to get to this point, and it will likely take us at least a decade or two to work our way out of it, even if we make the right decisions. So it is time that we began to face reality.
So how do you get out of a "balance sheet" recession triggered by too much debt? You reduce the debt. More specifically—and here's the critical point—you reduce the debt that is crippling the productive part of the economy. What debt is crippling the private sector?
Consumer debt. The household mortgages, credit cards, student loans, and other obligations that is forcing consumers to save and pay down debts instead of spend. Consumers still account for about 70% of the spending in the US economy, and that spending is now constrained. Also importantly, this healing process has nothing to do with "restoring confidence." Or "reducing regulation."
There's lots more really good stuff in that article - please read it in full!
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
Japan had a property bubble crash about 20 years ago and they threw tons of money they didn't have into their infraastructure. Guess what they have now, shiny new highways to nowhere that no one needed and a higher rate of debt per person than even the US. And their economy has been flatlined for those 20 years.
20 years ago Japan was supposed to ovetake the US and be the #1 economy, it didn't happen, but maybe Japan was just the canary in the coal mine. But Obama refuses to learn this lesson and has pushed another jobs/infrastructure bill. I hope I am wrong and we aren't following the Japanese model, but we have the same aging population, just not as fast. Old people save, they don't spend, and consumer spending has to comeback. But the traditonal spenders, the young, are saddled with education debt and can't get jobs. And the ones with jobs have wages that have been flat for decades.
Sorry, rebuilding some bridges and making a couple new highways isn't much more but moving deckchairs on the Titanic.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
I'm no economic genious. I'm just a techie, so my view may be simplistic to those that study economics. Anyway, here's my view from the cheap seats...
Government spending is not the right answer. The government can spend all the money they can borrow, and the general population will still think "Yeah, but what about when the latest stimulus runs out?" The public will still be tight fisted and save save save.
The right answer is private spending. The government needs to create an environment that is positive enough to get the public to start spending, and to get business to start investing again. I wish I knew how, but I don't.
I understand the idea behind government spending on infrastructure - gets the money flowing to private contractors, and creates jobs. Unfotunately it doesn't address the general sense of pessimism that's invaded the business and private sectors.
I have seen enough and understand enough to know that markets and the economy in general have little if any to with number crunching and mathematics... It all comes down to the emotional state of the investor and risk taker. Optimism fuels the economy, pessimism kills it.
Heavy handed government policy causes pessimism. It gives everyone pause when taking risks - that they might not get bailed out by the government like others have needed. If nobody was getting bailed out, at least the risk taker would be assured a level playing field - something that definitely does not exist today.
To sum all that up for the OP: No, CG - Krugman is still wrong.
"Whatever you are, be a good one." ~ Abraham Lincoln
And a little note about Krugman, I was reading him back in the days of Clinton's Dot Com wonder economy when unemployment was below 5%. Guess what he wanted to do? He thought the govement should be spending more money getting unemployment down even lower!
Even in a good economy, there is always going to be a percentage of people changing jobs or moving or changing careers that will keep unemployment at a certain level, so spending to get unemployment down to 2% would have been expensive and possibly impossible.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
There are good points in that article, but I don't agree with the simple conclusion of the title.
The most dangerous statement is "we can borrow as much money right now as we want at low interest rates" What are interest rates going to be in the future, when all these Trillions have to be re-fi'd?
Helloooo Greece!
If you want to be, press one. If you want not to be, press 2
Republicans are red, democrats are blue, neither of them, gives a flip about you.
Joe wrote: There are good points in that article, but I don't agree with the simple conclusion of the title.
The most dangerous statement is "we can borrow as much money right now as we want at low interest rates" What are interest rates going to be in the future, when all these Trillions have to be re-fi'd?
Helloooo Greece!
Good point, especially when most of this debt is short term.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Krugman is very smart but his politics clouds his judgement sometimes. I saw a really good talk by him years ago (before the major market problems and the housing bubble) talking about the widening gap between rich and poor and he said something that always stuck with me. He said the whole gap is like a rubber band. As you stretch it, it will either snap back or break. I do believe we are at that point.
However, I think he is stupid for using politics and being so preachy. It takes away from his intellect and makes him 'look' like he is saying things for the wrong reason. I always believed that the general population is smart. If you start doing that you lose your credibility because it looks like your motivation is politics not the good of everyone.
Nobody that matters wrote:
The right answer is private spending. The government needs to create an environment that is positive enough to get the public to start spending, and to get business to start investing again. I wish I knew how, but I don't.
This is the answer and the Obama administration wants to do just the opposite of what should be done. They want to raise the capital gains tax which will do nothing except for a short term revenue bump but will mainly hamper investment. If you know capital gains are going to double, why would anyone rush out and risk more capital when there is a higher punishment for success? Someone please explain that to me if you think I'm wrong.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.