Put it on the Credit Card Says Krugman

Dungheap said:
What's the problem with the column?
Click to expand...

It's stupid. He's claiming it would be better if Americans were spending money they do not have. That's ridiculous and will not happen because the people are a bit more sensible than witch doctors. So, Krugman says the government should do it for them.

Our nation's capital has been eaten away by the Fed bubble. We don't need the government pissing away more of it.
 
RStringfield said:
It's stupid. He's claiming it would be better if Americans were spending money they do not have. That's ridiculous and will not happen because the people are a bit more sensible than witch doctors. So, Krugman says the government should do it for them.

Our nation's capital has been eaten away by the Fed bubble. We don't need the government pissing away more of it.
Click to expand...


I didn't read it as saying that people should be spending money that they don't have. Rather, he's saying its unfortunate that people have no money to spend, which it is.

At least, that's the way I read it.
 
RStringfield said:
It's stupid. He's claiming it would be better if Americans were spending money they do not have. That's ridiculous and will not happen because the people are a bit more sensible than witch doctors. So, Krugman says the government should do it for them.

Our nation's capital has been eaten away by the Fed bubble. We don't need the government pissing away more of it.
Click to expand...

Your nation's capital has been eaten away because you have too many stupid Americans like RSpringfield who spend more than they make....

CK
 
It was eaten away because people were spending money they did not have, but thought they did due to the rising value of their homes.
 
RStringfield said:
It's stupid. He's claiming it would be better if Americans were spending money they do not have. That's ridiculous and will not happen because the people are a bit more sensible than witch doctors. So, Krugman says the government should do it for them.

Our nation's capital has been eaten away by the Fed bubble. We don't need the government pissing away more of it.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to be annoying here, but what's your suggestion?

We have an economy that is basically reliant on spending (no big surprise there). The indicators are that this is drying up at a VERY alarming rate; to me - and I admit I'm no economist - it seems that this could lead to a very bad cycle where no one spends that much, more businesses suffer, those businesses lay off people & cut back working hours as a result, and even more people spend even less, and so on.

Krugman has been advocating that we can spend our way out of this for the past few weeks; on its surface, it seems insane, because debt is a huge national problem, but the alternative is that spending continues to retract & disappear on both the personal & national level.
 
I didn't get that out of the article. I read that we aren't spending and he'd like to see a stimulus package that wasn't handing money to people who probably wouldn't spend it.
 
Damocles said:
I didn't get that out of the article. I read that we aren't spending and he'd like to see a stimulus package that wasn't handing money to people who probably wouldn't spend it.
Click to expand...

He's arguing the government should spend because the people will not. We have nothing to spend. The problems of the aging population are just around the corner and we are eating our capital.
 
Onceler said:
I'm not trying to be annoying here, but what's your suggestion?

We have an economy that is basically reliant on spending (no big surprise there). The indicators are that this is drying up at a VERY alarming rate; to me - and I admit I'm no economist - it seems that this could lead to a very bad cycle where no one spends that much, more businesses suffer, those businesses lay off people & cut back working hours as a result, and even more people spend even less, and so on.

Krugman has been advocating that we can spend our way out of this for the past few weeks; on its surface, it seems insane, because debt is a huge national problem, but the alternative is that spending continues to retract & disappear on both the personal & national level.
Click to expand...

Money is like water. Bottle it all up and it stops raining.
 
Onceler said:
I'm not trying to be annoying here, but what's your suggestion?

We have an economy that is basically reliant on spending (no big surprise there). The indicators are that this is drying up at a VERY alarming rate; to me - and I admit I'm no economist - it seems that this could lead to a very bad cycle where no one spends that much, more businesses suffer, those businesses lay off people & cut back working hours as a result, and even more people spend even less, and so on.

Krugman has been advocating that we can spend our way out of this for the past few weeks; on its surface, it seems insane, because debt is a huge national problem, but the alternative is that spending continues to retract & disappear on both the personal & national level.
Click to expand...

Our economy is reliant on production, not spending. We are blowing capital on false wealth. Krugman's idea is to go shopping. We need to cutback and truly (not with some Fed bubble) grow our capital base.
 
RStringfield said:
I know what the article is about. It's Keynesian bullshit.
Click to expand...

and I agree, but watching krugman explain it in that article I see alot of people that can actually think for themselves saying 'so what?'. This will actually help in the long run and you and I know it. People are not going to say 'krugman said to go spend more, so lets spend more.'. They are going to think, if things are going to get worse, I better do something different. That is exactly what we want, right?
 
It will not help to spend money we don't have. As individuals or as a nation. We have entitlement time bombs ticking louder every day, excessive military spending, the government bailout, we don't need more government spending and another boom-bust cycle.
 
RStringfield said:
It will not help to spend money we don't have. As individuals or as a nation. We have entitlement time bombs ticking louder every day, excessive military spending, the government bailout, we don't need more government spending and another boom-bust cycle.
Click to expand...

It's stupid to cut spending in times of recession RS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top