Put it on the Credit Card Says Krugman

[Good Luck]

You're a fucking idiot. Money is valuable in itself as a medium of exchange. The federal reserve is not "Tyranny", go tell your RP conspiracy theories somewhere else.

Money is ONLY "valuable" as a means of exchange. In itself, it has no intrinsic value. The idea that money itself has value is ludicrous. That fact has been lost, and is why people think adjusting money will somehow fix things. The value of money is representational. It represents the ability to trade for items or services of real value, and nothing more.

Even hard currencies, based on "valuable" metals is not of real value intrinsically. For instance, gold has a certain real value as a raw material for jewelry and electronics. But the fact that gold has been used as a medium of exchange for thousands of years, its economic value is inflated way above its real value. It is economic tradition and nothing else that keeps gold a medium of exchange, and thereby keeps its perceived value high.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

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.

I would agree with that. Krugman seems to be implying that individuals at most would simply pay down debt or put the money away in the bank for harsher times. They would not be likely to be spending it at this time.

I would agree with his position. The next "stimulus" package should be one in which the government takes $150b (or whatever the number is) and use that to fund infrastructure development or used for alt energy installation (or R&D projects). Bottom line, it should (if done) be used to create jobs. Not to simply hand out checks.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Yeah, let's just do another round of deficit spending and artificially low interest rates to create another illusory boom. It worked so well last time.

What we need is intelligent spending.

The last part I agree with you on. It should be done wisely. Which pretty much is eliminated by the fact it is the idiots in DC making the decision.

That said, I think Krugman is correct in that the government will need to spend here. But I don't think he is suggesting that they simply cut checks or simply spend on anything. While I disagree with most of his political views, he is a pretty decent economist.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

For instance, here is the actual "growth" of the gov over the past 50 years:



And here is the chart a libertarian is likely to show everyone:



And then say something like 'ZOMGZ WE IS ALLS LAVERYS IF WE SDON'T ABOLISH EVERYTHING THE WORLDS WILL ENDS AND GOV WILL EAST UP EVERYTHIN!'

What your attempt at 'analysis' fails to tell us water is this....

Was the decline in the percentage of spending to GDP due to cuts in spending or due to the rise in GDP outpacing the rise in spending?

hint... it was the latter.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You're an incredible dumbass USC. Budget = spending. If it's not in the budget it's illegal to spend it.

Bullshit. A budget is simply projected spending vs. projected revenues. It is not legally binding. If it were, there would be no such thing as deficit spending and we would not have a national debt.

 

[ironhead]

Sorry, but excusing people's credit spending habits on the government's deficit spending does not wash. I do not think anyone, even the most die hard big-government-is-my-mommy advocate bases their spending habits on what they see congress do.

As for the monetary system, it has it's problems for sure. But neither is that an excuse for people living beyond their means, then blaming government when their little world of cards comes tumbling down around them.

I do blame government is so far as they have, for 80+ years, had an ongoing program which intentionally encourages credit spending. And each time the economy made a significant slow down, they adjusted banking and lending laws to push credit into expanded markets.

But when it comes to the bottom line, the people need to take a look in the mirror if they want to find whom to lay the majority of blame for our economic woes over the years, to include the current crisis. The need for instantaneous gratification, the need for more and bigger, and not willing to admit the paycheck coming home simply was not up to their desires; people of all political philosophies, and in most "1st world" countries have spent themselves in a hole that defies comprehension.

And since it is the people's spending habits primarily at fault, it is the people who are going to have to change their spending habits if they want to get out of this cycle of boom and crisis. Government has to get their spending under control, also. No doubt about it. But the government could have had a balanced budget the last 20 years, and it would not have avoided the eventual fall of the economy as personal debt outpaced personal income.

Yeah, I was sort of speaking rhetorically about the government being a bad example for spending on credit. I guess it doesn't really translate over the internet. Obviously, if everybody based their decisions on what the federal government does, they would be stealing from their family members, murdering their neighbors, and lying to everyone with whom they speak.