home

The New Deal, Obama, Krugman And Keynes

Paul Krugman in his Times columns, his Times blog, and his latest book The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008 (which Krugman will be discussing at the FDL Book Salon this afternoon at 2 pm EST), has devoted a great deal of attention to describing the lessons to be learned from FDR and the New Deal (both its successes and failures.) In particular, he has expounded on John Maynard Keynes' critiques thereof. In his last column, Krugman wrote:

The idea that tight fiscal policy when the economy is depressed actually reduces private investment isn’t just a hypothetical argument: it’s exactly what happened in two important episodes in history. The first took place in 1937, when Franklin Roosevelt mistakenly heeded the advice of his own era’s deficit worriers. He sharply reduced government spending, among other things cutting the Works Progress Administration in half, and also raised taxes. The result was a severe recession, and a steep fall in private investment.

This was Keynes' critique (annotated at the link) at the time:

[T]he present [1937] recession is partly due to an ‘error of optimism’ which led to an overestimation of future demand, when orders were being placed in the first half of this year. If this were all, there would not be too much to worry about. It would only need time to effect a readjustment….

But I am quite sure that this is not all. There is a much more troublesome underlying influence. The recovery was mainly due to the following factors:—

(i) the solution of the credit and insolvency problems, and the establishment of easy short-term money;
(ii) the creation of an adequate system of relief for the unemployed;
(iii) public works and other investments aided by Government funds or guarantees;
(iv) investment in the instrumental goods required to supply the increased demand for consumption goods;
(v) the momentum of the recovery thus initiated.

Now of these (i) was a prior condition of recovery, since it is no use creating a demand for credit, if there is no supply. But an increased supply will not by itself create an adequate demand.

The influence of (ii) evaporates as unemployment improves, so that there is a dead point beyond which this factor cannot carry the economic system. Recourse to (iii) has been greatly curtailed in the past year. (iv) and (v) are functions of the forward movement and cease—indeed (v) is reversed—as soon as the position fails to improve further.

Earlier, in 1933, Keynes wrote an Open Letter to FDR on the New Deal which was published n the NYTimes. Here are some particularly salient sections:

You have made yourself the Trustee for those in every country who seek to mend the evils of our condition by reasoned experiment within the framework of the existing social system. If you fail, rational change will be gravely prejudiced throughout the world, leaving orthodoxy and revolution to fight it out. But if you succeed, new and bolder methods will be tried everywhere, and we may date the first chapter of a new economic era from your accession to office. This is a sufficient reason why I should venture to lay my reflections before you, though under the disadvantages of distance and partial knowledge.

. . . You are engaged on a double task, Recovery and Reform;--recovery from the slump and the passage of those business and social reforms which are long overdue. For the first, speed and quick results are essential. The second may be urgent too; but haste will be injurious, and wisdom of long-range purpose is more necessary than immediate achievement. It will be through raising high the prestige of your administration by success in short-range Recovery, that you will have the driving force to accomplish long-range Reform. On the other hand, even wise and necessary Reform may, in some respects, impede and complicate Recovery. For it will upset the confidence of the business world and weaken their existing motives to action, before you have had time to put other motives in their place. It may over-task your bureaucratic machine, which the traditional individualism of the United States and the old "spoils system" have left none too strong. And it will confuse the thought and aim of yourself and your administration by giving you too much to think about all at once.

. . . My second reflection relates to the technique of Recovery itself. The object of recovery is to increase the national output and put more men to work. In the economic system of the modern world, output is primarily produced for sale; and the volume of output depends on the amount of purchasing power, compared with the prime cost of production, which is expected to come on the market. Broadly speaking, therefore, and increase of output depends on the amount of purchasing power, compared with the prime cost of production, which is expected to come on the market. Broadly speaking, therefore, an increase of output cannot occur unless by the operation of one or other of three factors. Individuals must be induced to spend more out of their existing incomes; or the business world must be induced, either by increased confidence in the prospects or by a lower rate of interest, to create additional current incomes in the hands of their employees, which is what happens when either the working or the fixed capital of the country is being increased; or public authority must be called in aid to create additional current incomes through the expenditure of borrowed or printed money. In bad times the first factor cannot be expected to work on a sufficient scale. The second factor will come in as the second wave of attack on the slump after the tide has been turned by the expenditures of public authority. It is, therefore, only from the third factor that we can expect the initial major impulse.

Now there are indications that two technical fallacies may have affected the policy of your administration. The first relates to the part played in recovery by rising prices. Rising prices are to be welcomed because they are usually a symptom of rising output and employment. When more purchasing power is spent, one expects rising output at rising prices. Since there cannot be rising output without rising prices, it is essential to ensure that the recovery shall not be held back by the insufficiency of the supply of money to support the increased monetary turn-over. But there is much less to be said in favour of rising prices, if they are brought about at the expense of rising output. Some debtors may be helped, but the national recovery as a whole will be retarded. Thus rising prices caused by deliberately increasing prime costs or by restricting output have a vastly inferior value to rising prices which are the natural result of an increase in the nation's purchasing power.

. . . The stimulation of output by increasing aggregate purchasing power is the right way to get prices up; and not the other way round.

(Emphasis supplied.) I recommend to you reading the many good economic blogs, especially Krugman of course, on this subject - for it will be at the center of the debate of the New New Deal President-elect Obama will be undertaking come January 20.

Speaking for me only

< Roman Polanski Seeks Dismissal of 30 Year Old Case | The Coming Debate >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Some of iii is a no brainer for me (5.00 / 8) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 09:00:16 AM EST
    Our bridges and road systems are falling apart before our eyes and not nearly enough has been done to address this because Republicans always want to cut taxes while they drive those bridges and roads and use those systems every single day and move all their commerce on them every single day.  Idiots!!!  The rich need to pay the taxes they have been getting around for decades now to fix the things they use more than the rest of us ever have or ever will!  They use our resources up and then they don't want to have to replace them, ticks me off! They need to employ the people who will do this work or they can do it themselves and we'll all watch, I'm fine either way but the first solution seems the most workable.  The transportation system of this country is falling down due to billionaires and their corporations not paying the necessary taxes.  Only one of the things the country is going to have rebuild, let's get employed.

    Oh yeah (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 09:10:05 AM EST
    Progressives, get your mass transit plans out there!  Can you believe we still get around this country the way we do using the most energy eating (both fuel and human energy with everybody super vigilant at the wheel trying not to crash into each other) time consuming methods?  We are still a stones throw away from the Flintstones but the whole family can get an excellent rating in Guitar Hero.  You are all making me sad.

    Parent
    I'm sure I'm not the only one who would be (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 09:50:44 AM EST
    perfectly happy to travel by train or bus to a lot of destinations, if the service were available, to say nothing of being halfway decent.

    Parent
    I would too... (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 10:23:41 AM EST
    but it has to be primo good service at a significant savings to driving...otherwise people are gonna stick with their cars.  People like their cars.

    Parent
    Best way to get the public on board (none / 0) (#24)
    by Jake Left on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 10:08:54 AM EST
    (so to speak) with mass transit is to point out that they can text, email, web surf, and talk on the phone for the whole trip without danger of killing or being killed.

    Build it with wifi and they will come.

    Parent

    Amtrak would need to increase (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 12:19:50 PM EST
    the number of "quiet cars" if all those cell-phone jabberers suddenly start riding the rails.

    Parent
    Cacophony for sure, but (none / 0) (#44)
    by Jake Left on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 06:34:16 PM EST
    I would rather they jabber on a train than on the freeway.

    Parent
    Was reading about many people (none / 0) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 08:20:46 AM EST
    who had to use mass transit for the first time when gas was $4.00 a gallon and then they got used to being able to read novels to and from work, things like that, and now they say they will stay with mass transit.  When I was a single working mom that time would have been precious to and from home.  I would have been much less stressed than fighting traffic back and forth, same time used.

    Parent
    My heart agrees with you Tracy... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 09:28:14 AM EST
    but if I was one of those fatcats, I'd want assurances and proof that the state isn't just gonna piss away my money.  Only seems right.  Sh*t, as a man of modest means kicking in a measly 4 grand towards the machine, I'd like those assurances and proof myself.

    So, I think step one to recovery is getting wasteful spending under control.  No more occupations we can't afford and no more prison populations we can't afford.  Then, and only then, is it just to ask the rich, or all of us for that matter, to kick in more to the state...once the state shows a willingness to be responsible.  Sh*t, if the drug war is surrendered and all the men and woman come home from Iraq and Afghanistan, I'd gladly kick in a couple extra hunj to see us through this storm without feeling like an a$$hole.

    Parent

    Kdog, why so skeptical? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 09:32:50 AM EST
    You act like some contractors have taken all of your money lately and screwed you almost to death.  Dude, why  this attitude?

    Parent
    Yeah... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 09:41:22 AM EST
    where or where do I get these crazy ideas that the state is a drunken sailor on a bender?

    I just wish we got the pleasant memories that go along with a drunken sailor's bender...we get squat.

    Parent

    ahh yes the bender.... (none / 0) (#19)
    by jedimom on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 09:50:15 AM EST
    maybe we will wake up with working mass transit AND a nifty tattoo!

    Parent
    maybe you get this (none / 0) (#43)
    by english teacher on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 06:25:27 PM EST
    "crazy idea that the state is a drunken sailor on a bender" from george bush?  

    Parent
    My gawd (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by cal1942 on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 10:26:53 AM EST
    step one to recovery is getting wasteful spending under control

    You so don't get it.

    And what's this bit about 'occupations we can't afford'

    Are you suggesting that various occupations be eliminated?  That's one of your solutions?  Put more people out of work.

    Parent

    Hell yeah... (none / 0) (#28)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 10:38:36 AM EST
    put people out of unproductive work abroad and put them in productive work here at home...what's wrong with that?

    Unless you think the fortune spent in Iraq was some kind of jobs program, then we just fundamentally disagree.

    Parent

    Did I say (none / 0) (#45)
    by cal1942 on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 07:07:26 PM EST
    anything about Iraq?  Ummm NO.

    If you meant military; the troops in Iraq and the Military and US civilian employees at over 700 foreign bases I would agree.  

    You're phrasing appeared to be domestic and worker against worker.

    Want the economy to flourish? Then spend baby spend.

    Parent

    "Spend Baby Spend"... (none / 0) (#48)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 08:39:52 AM EST
    a little vague, no?

    Bush and the last couple congress' have "spent baby spent"...was it money well spent?  I say no.  And Obama will look to increase spending..before he does that, I think it is reasonable to demand they "spend baby spend" a little wiser.

    Parent

    Amen n/t (none / 0) (#4)
    by lilburro on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 09:07:00 AM EST
    Have you ever read the Asimov Foundation series? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Salo on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 09:13:17 AM EST
    aspects of the American infrastructure remind me a great deal of the Imperial capital planet.  The "Foundation"(google the Arabic translation for giggles) is burrowing away with  mini-electronics, ground layed fibre-optic cables, brand new bridges and fuel efficient vehicles.

    It's not all bad though.  America still has teh best graduate schools in the world. So there's hope.

    Parent

    There is always hope (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 09:26:46 AM EST
    Change is hard for most people.  I always have to keep in mind that change does not scare me but I am only about 10% of the population.  The democracy of America allows all of us to become more self actualized and because of that we are never sunk.  It is tough times that clarify where we are and then those with vision can get the rest of us to go along with them when circumstances are extreme enough that we have to change.  The current situation can bring us A LOT OF UPGRADES and quality of life, so if you are a green engineer with a nagging dream that works therefore it won't leave your noodle alone get it up there.

    Parent
    Oh and... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Salo on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 09:40:09 AM EST
    ...dozens of warm water ports, abundant natural resources help too.

    Parent
    yes i have, 40 years ago. (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by cpinva on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 09:46:40 AM EST
    Have you ever read the Asimov Foundation series?

    "Foundation", "Foundation and Empire", and "Second Foundation", great reads all. i always wondered why it hadn't been made into a movie, or series of movies, ala "The Martian Chronicles"?  ok, you all now know my deep, dark secret, i am basically a geek at heart!

    dr. asimov was a mathemetician, and i also read his non-fiction works, as well as dr. keynes' books. possibly explains how i ended up in accounting, or not.

    dr. keynes recognized that demand (capitalist) economies can only survive if consumers have sufficient income to purchase (the demand) goods and services. unfortunately, with rare exception, the "captains of industry" were so focused on squeezing every last nickel's worth out of their workers, it never dawned on them that they were, in fact, providing the fuel for the engine of their own destruction.

    their heirs are the managements of those companies outsourcing to cheaper countries today; in the short-term, they profit, in the long-term, they kill their own market.

    as well, the proponents of pure, unregulated capitalism keep repeating the same mistakes; granting high risk loans, for short-term profit, with the whole house of cards eventually collapsing around their heads.

    let's hope pres. elect obama doesn't forget the second part of keynes' prescription: reforming the regulatory system, so the sub-prime market is kept in check.

    Parent

    I haven't read any of this good stuff (none / 0) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 09:54:48 AM EST
    I probably should though, Oculus is shaking head

    Parent
    I haven't read it either. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 12:21:22 PM EST
    but reading BTD today may delay the decline of my thinking power.  

    Parent
    You pose a good question (none / 0) (#39)
    by Steve M on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 02:00:17 PM EST
    I found this link from a few months back.  Maybe there will be a movie adaptation after all.  Truly a fantastic series.

    Parent
    The only good thing to happen in the last year... (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Salo on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 09:03:23 AM EST
    ...Keynes is fashionable again.

    Maybe you should change your Pseudonym (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 09:11:49 AM EST
    from BTD to FDRD

    (that's a compliment, not a complaint)

    darn it, wish this site (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by cpinva on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 09:50:09 AM EST
    had an "edit" function!

    another book some of you might find interesting is one i read in college, "Unaccountable Accounting". it pretty much foresaw most of the financial disasters that have happened in the past 30 years.

    Yes........I have never read this book either (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 09:58:26 AM EST
    but when you get a boring business degree you have to take a bit of accounting.  It's boring but there is something reassuring and comforting about making everything balance :) I was watching all the "creative" accounting that was happening though these past eight years and I'm thinking "Wow, we are headed right down F'ed road.  Isn't this special and not a thing I can do about it other than survive it."

    Parent
    "Shovel Ready" (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 09:54:35 AM EST
    The new term that is bantered around.  The government wants to fund shovel ready projects.  Yet, local and state governments are arguing what is "shovel ready".  Getting a public infrastructure job out to be shovel ready with all the "requirements" may take one year or even two.  I bet you, I hope not, they start with loosening the Davis Bacon, wage standards and NEPA requirements.  But, I am sure, there are plenty of projects ready to start within a few months.  

    I want to see the test that they will develop for "shovel ready".  

    I got a shovel ready job... (none / 0) (#32)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 12:24:19 PM EST
    right in my basement, I just need prohibition repealed and I'm ready to break ground...after a harvest or two I would be in a position to hire a couple extra hands.  

    And the best part...no stimulus or handout required, just the stroke of some pens.

    If we're serious about putting people to work and all...

    Parent

    Really? (none / 0) (#40)
    by Fabian on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 03:51:31 PM EST
    An open market would drive the price into the ground after about three years.  The demand would outstrip supply initially, but then the supply would rise dramatically and prices would fall.

    Parent
    Sounds great... (none / 0) (#41)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 04:02:05 PM EST
    I'm a consumer first and foremost...:)

    Still though, for something so cheap to produce, you can still find a lot of room for profit.  And most of all, tax revenue...maybe we could finally get off China's teet.

    Parent

    Motive, motive, motive (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by NYShooter on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 12:25:58 PM EST
    Let's simplify this unintelligible Rubik's Cube for average Americans, shall we?

    Our population is made up of two groups: The 1% on top, and us, the remaining 99%. I group the 99% into one segment because there is scant difference between the upper 99% and the lower 99%; psychologically speaking, whether you're actually unemployed, or in imminent, daily fear of becoming so, is a difference without distinction.

    O.k., got that so far?

    Our government is also made up of two parts: Republicans, and a disparate, indefinable collection of payroll drainers, euphemistically referred to as Democrats.( Noticing the cruel irony of that term, scholars of linguistics have petitioned Webster to replace the outdated term with a more appropriate noun, Dimocrats.)

    Moving right along...........

    The Reps, by far, have shown more honesty and integrity than their blathering, useful idiot accomplices, the Dims. They have stolen our money, looted our treasury, and destroyed our carefully, time proven and crafted economy. However, they did it right out in the open, convincing the eager enablers, the Dims,  that once the Swiss and Caribbean banks put a limit of one trillion dollars per account on the one percenters, the heretofore constipated Reps would "let loose," and we 99 percenters would be awash in their reluctant "trickle."

    The solution:

    Forget Krugman, Volker, Summers, and Geithner. It's not the bankers' confidence that has to be restored; it's the American public's confidence that is in tatters. As a proud member of the 99% club, there's only one thing that would restore my confidence. President Obama should announce his 21'st. century version of the New Deal...."The 100 + 100 Deal." He should instruct the Justice Dept. to investigate, prosecute, convict, and jail the 100 top industrial CEO's whose actions have created the mess we're in. They should then pair up those 100 with the 100 Congressional Senators and/or Representatives whose betrayal of their public trust enabled these crimes to be committed.

    Each day, for 100 straight days, the cameras would show a CEO shackled to his/her Congressional accomplice being perp walked across a parking lot to their rightful place in a Federal penitentiary. To add an indelible graphic to this "Change We Can Believe In," we should show an African American, having been convicted of a low level drug charge, being released so as to make room for the real criminals.

    Anyone got a better idea?    


    I haven't read Obama's memoirs (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 12:30:44 PM EST
    but do recall reading quotes here in which he distanced himself from FDR.  Does Obama have people on board who know the intricacies of FDR's policies and what worked and what didn't?

    Say what: Obama distanced himself (none / 0) (#36)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 12:57:33 PM EST
    from FDR in his memoirs? I haven't read them either.

    Parent
    One of the TL commenters (none / 0) (#37)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 01:02:29 PM EST
    posted a quote from one of Obama's memoirs.  Not sure how to find it back.  Maybe the commenter will see this and respond.  

    Parent
    Here's the gist...for me... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by oldpro on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 01:13:45 PM EST
    "If you fail, rational change will be gravely prejudiced throughout the world, leaving orthodoxy and revolution to fight it out."

    It's still the bottom line.

    Impossible to tell you what Sunstein's real influence on Obama is.  He didn't get "the job" but he's still in the kitchen cabinet and his wife is back in favor on the SoS's transition team.

    Worrisome.

    Obama is a cautious man.  Let's hope the trappings of power do not trap him and make him even more cautious, thinking to protect his advance to a second term.  Among Democrats, only FDR, LBJ and Bill Clinton resisted such limitations in their wish to make real change.

    Keynsianism to Krugmanism: 70 years of... (none / 0) (#3)
    by Salo on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 09:06:29 AM EST
    ...economics.

    1937? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 09:13:09 AM EST
    The Depression had been going on for quite a while in 1937.  Why look to 1937 for causes for the source of the problem?  Perhaps the Smoot-Hawley tariff or Hoover's 1932 hiking the income tax rate from 25% to 63% had something to do with turning an ordinary recession into the Depression.

    1937 triggered a recession. (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Salo on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 09:15:38 AM EST
    A new recession--after things had been improving gradually.

    The main difference between then and now of course is that Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union don't exist--along with their rearmament measures and closed mercantilist markets.

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Steve M on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 09:44:20 AM EST
    Kinda funny how you don't mention that there was one tax cut after another leading up to the market crash in 1929, but the fact that there was one tax increase in 1932 - after the government was already facing a disastrous shortage in revenues - surely must be a root cause of it all.

    I'm frankly not sure what the government was supposed to do in 1932 in the face of an unprecedented deficit.  It's not like they had the option to continue slashing taxes and just borrow a few billions from China to muddle through.

    Parent

    I think the internet war about economics... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Salo on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 09:49:36 AM EST
    ...ought to be waged on Redstate and Michelle Malkin's website now.  

    Parent
    The recession (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by cal1942 on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 10:09:46 AM EST
    of 37-38 occurred when the administration cut spending in the overly optimistic belief that we were over the hump.  

    The economy was growing at an increasing rate from the start of Roosevelt's 2nd year in office through his re-election to a second term.

    Free traders love to throw out Hawley-Smoot but many wise economists counter that overseas trade was a small factor in the economy.  Inasmuch as the income tax increase in the Hoover administration is concerned I believe that the increase was on higher incomes only.

    The fact that destroys your argument about tax increases is that the depression was already deep and profound BEFORE the tax increases. It was no "ordinary recession" from the start. Unemployment was already on the rise throughout 1929 preceding the market crash that signalled the unravelling of the finance industry. There was profound imbalance of the general distribution of wealth in the nation and industrial workers suddenly out of work had no safety net, absolutely none.

    The nation was on the verge of absolute total collapse when Roosevelt took office, the result of three years of inaction.  That collapse was the end result of laissez faire capitalism's inevitable and inescapable "yield."

    Parent

    Inaction (none / 0) (#35)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 12:42:32 PM EST

    The nation was on the verge of absolute total collapse when Roosevelt took office, the result of three years of inaction.

    Increasing the top incime tax rate from 25% to 33% is inaction?

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#46)
    by cal1942 on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 07:14:21 PM EST
    Hoover took paltry steps to involve government. he and much of his party couldn't get their heads around the idea that drastic direct action was necessary. I know it's difficult for Conservatives to grasp the idea that jacking tax rates isn't an endall but that's the way it is.

    Government remained small and weak under Hoover.

    Parent

    Increasing the tax rate (none / 0) (#50)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 09:49:27 AM EST

    Increasing the tax rate from 25% to 63% may not have increased the size of government, but it certainly changed the risk/reward calculation for new investment in a big way.

    Parent
    For An Interesting Counterargument to (none / 0) (#29)
    by santarita on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 11:21:25 AM EST
    Krugman and others advocating massive spending, check out the posting at the Naked Capitalism blog about Martin Wolff's misgivings.  Especially read the comments.  It's difficult reading and I'm going to have to read it a few more times to really understand it.  But one aspect is easy to understand:  There seems to be almost unanimous approval for the idea of a huge government spending program among economists.  This may be the dreaded groupthink in action.  I hope Obama's economic team will employ some sort of "Red team" concept.

    The Red Team needs to keep these (none / 0) (#42)
    by BrianJ on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 05:12:48 PM EST
    Figures in mind:

    $10,685,166,611,275.20.  That's the US National Debt, as of yesterday.

    $1,500,000,000,000.  That's a first-order estimate of our FY 2009 deficit, plus current and probable future bailouts and $500-700 billion for a stimulus package.

    Those who call people who are skeptical about massive stimulus packages "neo-Hooverites" need to keep in mind that FDR's borrowing came from domestic savings and with a much lower proportional national debt.  This country hasn't saved a nickel in many years, and our debt has already almost doubled in the last eight years.  (Our debt was $5,727,776,738,304.64 on 1/19/2001.)

    Where is all the money coming from?

    If it all comes from the printing press, will we be Weimar or Zimbabwe when the economy improves and the vast amount of liquidity pumped into the system starts to circulate?

    There will be an "after the recession," and we should be ready for it.

    Parent

    Stop talkin' that common sense Brian... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 09:01:29 AM EST
    don't lose sight of the primary goal...squeezin' another 20 years of fat easy livin' out of a broken system.

    Saw Mike Huckabee on the news this morning, and he had a point...The greatest generation took on personal sacrifices to ensure a brighter tomorrow for their children...buying war bonds, rationing, fighting a world war, etc.  This generation wants the kids and grandkids to sacrifice for us and our bloated quality of life.  

    Oversimplified, yes...but there is truth in that statement.

    Parent