Posted 29 January 2013 - 03:57 PM
Posted 29 January 2013 - 04:18 PM
That is why I highlighted or bolded those sections. In theory that works nicely, here in the real world, that is absurd.
I hear you. The problem is that people actually listen to this fool (not saying you), but i saw him this morning basically re-iterating this same nonsense on TV over his new book. It's sad, frightening and makes me angry that people listen to this guy just because he has a Nobel. He got it from trade theories, not Macro Econ. Nobel Macro econ winners completely disagree with this man, because he's full of shit.
Posted 29 January 2013 - 04:26 PM
Maybe someone can explain how going deeper into debt is supposed to get me a better job? I def do not understand...
In theory, the money would be spent to add new jobs in the public sector (not the privaate). The problem is that, it generally is squandered and it's not a long term fix to the eonomy. Krugman seems to be living in the illusion that the government IS the economy. It isn't. The economy is first and for most the private sector. Without private industry, the government has no money to extract in order to provide public programs. Currently the government is running debt/deficit ratios exceeding 100% of GDP. So he's more or less a clown that should be publically shunned and made to go work in a remote dungeon in Poland.
Posted 29 January 2013 - 04:29 PM
In theory, the money would be spent to add new jobs in the public sector (not the privaate). The problem is that, it generally is squandered and it's not a long term fix tot he eonomy. Krugman seems to be living in the illusion that the government IS the economy. It isn't. The economy is first and for most the private sector. Without private industry, the government has no money to extract in order to provide public programs. Curently the government is running debt/deficit ratios exceeding 100% of GDP. So he's more or less a clown that should be publically shunned and made to go work in a remote dungeon in Poland.
I agree to an extent.
I will add the theory part in layman terms (or try).
If we have 1% unemployment. That means there is more money being paid to government in taxes, which will help pay down the debt.
Meaning spend today, and the tax payer will get us back long term.
Isn't that how we got into this mess? Overspending and over extending?
Posted 29 January 2013 - 04:33 PM
Isn't that how we got into this mess? Overspending and over extending?
Yes. Because the whole, spend what we dont have today and pay it back tomorrow doesn't work. With Govt., tomorrow never comes. It's always more spending. So while Krugman's theory sounds all nice and neat, in reality it's a bunch of foolish nonsense.
Posted 05 February 2013 - 07:28 PM
http://weaselzippers...how-we-do-this/
Eventually we do have a problem. That the population is getting older, health care costs are rising…there is this question of how we’re going to pay for the programs. The year 2025, the year 2030, something is going to have to give…. …. We’re going to need more revenue…Surely it will require some sort of middle class taxes as well.. We won’t be able to pay for the kind of government the society will want without some increase in taxes… on the middle class, maybe a value added tax…And we’re also going to have to make decisions about health care, doc pay for health care that has no demonstrated medical benefits . So the snarky version…which I shouldn’t even say because it will get me in trouble is death panels and sales taxes is how we do this.