Krugman

Interesting column by my boyfriend this morning. He disagrees with some anonymous internet posters. I wonder who is right? No, I don't really wonder, JK.

"This was the month the confidence fairy died.

For the past two years most policy makers in Europe and many politicians and pundits in America have been in thrall to a destructive economic doctrine. According to this doctrine, governments should respond to a severely depressed economy not the way the textbooks say they should — by spending more to offset falling private demand — but with fiscal austerity, slashing spending in an effort to balance their budgets.

Critics warned from the beginning that austerity in the face of depression would only make that depression worse. But the “austerians” insisted that the reverse would happen. Why? Confidence! “Confidence-inspiring policies will foster and not hamper economic recovery,” declared Jean-Claude Trichet, the former president of the European Central Bank — a claim echoed by Republicans in Congress here. Or as I put it way back when, the idea was that the confidence fairy would come in and reward policy makers for their fiscal virtue.

The good news is that many influential people are finally admitting that the confidence fairy was a myth. The bad news is that despite this admission there seems to be little prospect of a near-term course change either in Europe or here in America, where we never fully embraced the doctrine, but have, nonetheless, had de facto austerity in the form of huge spending and employment cuts at the state and local level.

So, about that doctrine: appeals to the wonders of confidence are something Herbert Hoover would have found completely familiar — and faith in the confidence fairy has worked out about as well for modern Europe as it did for Hoover’s America. All around Europe’s periphery, from Spain to Latvia, austerity policies have produced Depression-level slumps and Depression-level unemployment; the confidence fairy is nowhere to be seen, not even in Britain, whose turn to austerity two years ago was greeted with loud hosannas by policy elites on both sides of the Atlantic.

None of this should come as news, since the failure of austerity policies to deliver as promised has long been obvious. Yet European leaders spent years in denial, insisting that their policies would start working any day now, and celebrating supposed triumphs on the flimsiest of evidence. Notably, the long-suffering (literally) Irish have been hailed as a success story not once but twice, in early 2010 and again in the fall of 2011. Each time the supposed success turned out to be a mirage; three years into its austerity program, Ireland has yet to show any sign of real recovery from a slump that has driven the unemployment rate to almost 15 percent.

However, something has changed in the past few weeks. Several events — the collapse of the Dutch government over proposed austerity measures, the strong showing of the vaguely anti-austerity François Hollande in the first round of France’s presidential election, and an economic report showing that Britain is doing worse in the current slump than it did in the 1930s — seem to have finally broken through the wall of denial. Suddenly, everyone is admitting that austerity isn’t working.

The question now is what they’re going to do about it. And the answer, I fear, is: not much.

For one thing, while the austerians seem to have given up on hope, they haven’t given up on fear — that is, on the claim that if we don’t slash spending, even in a depressed economy, we’ll turn into Greece, with sky-high borrowing costs.

Now, claims that only austerity can pacify bond markets have proved every bit as wrong as claims that the confidence fairy will bring prosperity. Almost three years have passed since The Wall Street Journal breathlessly warned that the attack of the bond vigilantes on U.S. debt had begun; not only have borrowing costs remained low, they’ve actually fallen by half. Japan has faced dire warnings about its debt for more than a decade; as of this week, it could borrow long term at an interest rate of less than 1 percent.

And serious analysts now argue that fiscal austerity in a depressed economy is probably self-defeating: by shrinking the economy and hurting long-term revenue, austerity probably makes the debt outlook worse rather than better.

But while the confidence fairy appears to be well and truly buried, deficit scare stories remain popular. Indeed, defenders of British policies dismiss any call for a rethinking of these policies, despite their evident failure to deliver, on the grounds that any relaxation of austerity would cause borrowing costs to soar.

So we’re now living in a world of zombie economic policies — policies that should have been killed by the evidence that all of their premises are wrong, but which keep shambling along nonetheless. And it’s anyone’s guess when this reign of error will end.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/27/opinion/krugman-death-of-a-fairy-tale.html
 
Interesting column by my boyfriend this morning. He disagrees with some anonymous internet posters. I wonder who is right? No, I don't really wonder, JK.

"This was the month the confidence fairy died.

For the past two years most policy makers in Europe and many politicians and pundits in America have been in thrall to a destructive economic doctrine. According to this doctrine, governments should respond to a severely depressed economy not the way the textbooks say they should — by spending more to offset falling private demand — but with fiscal austerity, slashing spending in an effort to balance their budgets.

Critics warned from the beginning that austerity in the face of depression would only make that depression worse. But the “austerians” insisted that the reverse would happen. Why? Confidence! “Confidence-inspiring policies will foster and not hamper economic recovery,” declared Jean-Claude Trichet, the former president of the European Central Bank — a claim echoed by Republicans in Congress here. Or as I put it way back when, the idea was that the confidence fairy would come in and reward policy makers for their fiscal virtue.

The good news is that many influential people are finally admitting that the confidence fairy was a myth. The bad news is that despite this admission there seems to be little prospect of a near-term course change either in Europe or here in America, where we never fully embraced the doctrine, but have, nonetheless, had de facto austerity in the form of huge spending and employment cuts at the state and local level.

So, about that doctrine: appeals to the wonders of confidence are something Herbert Hoover would have found completely familiar — and faith in the confidence fairy has worked out about as well for modern Europe as it did for Hoover’s America. All around Europe’s periphery, from Spain to Latvia, austerity policies have produced Depression-level slumps and Depression-level unemployment; the confidence fairy is nowhere to be seen, not even in Britain, whose turn to austerity two years ago was greeted with loud hosannas by policy elites on both sides of the Atlantic.

None of this should come as news, since the failure of austerity policies to deliver as promised has long been obvious. Yet European leaders spent years in denial, insisting that their policies would start working any day now, and celebrating supposed triumphs on the flimsiest of evidence. Notably, the long-suffering (literally) Irish have been hailed as a success story not once but twice, in early 2010 and again in the fall of 2011. Each time the supposed success turned out to be a mirage; three years into its austerity program, Ireland has yet to show any sign of real recovery from a slump that has driven the unemployment rate to almost 15 percent.

However, something has changed in the past few weeks. Several events — the collapse of the Dutch government over proposed austerity measures, the strong showing of the vaguely anti-austerity François Hollande in the first round of France’s presidential election, and an economic report showing that Britain is doing worse in the current slump than it did in the 1930s — seem to have finally broken through the wall of denial. Suddenly, everyone is admitting that austerity isn’t working.

The question now is what they’re going to do about it. And the answer, I fear, is: not much.

For one thing, while the austerians seem to have given up on hope, they haven’t given up on fear — that is, on the claim that if we don’t slash spending, even in a depressed economy, we’ll turn into Greece, with sky-high borrowing costs.

Now, claims that only austerity can pacify bond markets have proved every bit as wrong as claims that the confidence fairy will bring prosperity. Almost three years have passed since The Wall Street Journal breathlessly warned that the attack of the bond vigilantes on U.S. debt had begun; not only have borrowing costs remained low, they’ve actually fallen by half. Japan has faced dire warnings about its debt for more than a decade; as of this week, it could borrow long term at an interest rate of less than 1 percent.

And serious analysts now argue that fiscal austerity in a depressed economy is probably self-defeating: by shrinking the economy and hurting long-term revenue, austerity probably makes the debt outlook worse rather than better.

But while the confidence fairy appears to be well and truly buried, deficit scare stories remain popular. Indeed, defenders of British policies dismiss any call for a rethinking of these policies, despite their evident failure to deliver, on the grounds that any relaxation of austerity would cause borrowing costs to soar.

So we’re now living in a world of zombie economic policies — policies that should have been killed by the evidence that all of their premises are wrong, but which keep shambling along nonetheless. And it’s anyone’s guess when this reign of error will end.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/27/opinion/krugman-death-of-a-fairy-tale.html

just like tax cuts for the wealthy stimulate the economy - a tried and failed policy that the repubs still cling to
 
do explain... why is it that Obama extended the Bush tax cuts? Two thirds of which went to lower and middle income families?

Either because he is a fiscal conservative and truly believed it was the right thing to do , or he isn't but did it for political expediency.

Do explain...why haven't we had an explosion of jobs created since he did do it??
 
Either because he is a fiscal conservative and truly believed it was the right thing to do , or he isn't but did it for political expediency.

Do explain...why haven't we had an explosion of jobs created since he did do it??

It maintained the status quo, it didn't actually reduce rates.
 
do explain... why is it that Obama extended the Bush tax cuts? Two thirds of which went to lower and middle income families?


Recall that it was an all or nothing deal. Either all tax cuts were going to be extended or none were going to be extended and Obama chose to extend them all rather than raising taxes on lower and middle income families. Also, too, Obama was able to get extended unemployment assistance and the payroll tax holiday that the Republicans opposed.

Also, too, I love the fact that this is your attack angle in this thread. Obviously, you don't want to touch the austerity issue.
 
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
2008 5.0 4.9 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.8 7.3
2009 7.8 8.3 8.7 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.8 10.0 9.9 9.9
2010 9.7 9.8 9.8 9.9 9.6 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.8 9.4
2011 9.1 9.0 8.9 9.0 9.0 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.0 8.9 8.7 8.5
2012 8.3 8.3 8.2
 
Recall that it was an all or nothing deal. Either all tax cuts were going to be extended or none were going to be extended and Obama chose to extend them all rather than raising taxes on lower and middle income families. Also, too, Obama was able to get extended unemployment assistance and the payroll tax holiday that the Republicans opposed.

Also, too, I love the fact that this is your attack angle in this thread. Obviously, you don't want to touch the austerity issue.

LMAO @ 'attack angle'

I asked him a question on his specific point you moron. He brought up the tax cuts. I have already explained to you why your spend spend spend plan doesn't work.
 
Unemployment rate was around full employment.

Really. I don't know what that means.

The bush tax cuts were enacted in 2001. But from what I have been able to glean, fron January 2001 through March 2004, more than 1.6 million jobs were lost, and more than 2.4 million jobs in the private sector were lost. I assume the difference was in government hiring. Interesting huh?
 
Really. I don't know what that means.

The bush tax cuts were enacted in 2001. But from what I have been able to glean, fron January 2001 through March 2004, more than 1.6 million jobs were lost, and more than 2.4 million jobs in the private sector were lost. I assume the difference was in government hiring. Interesting huh?


It means that when the tax cuts were enacted unemployment was at 4.5%. The trouble is that it increased from there and didn't get back to that level for 5 years.
 
Really. I don't know what that means.

The bush tax cuts were enacted in 2001. But from what I have been able to glean, fron January 2001 through March 2004, more than 1.6 million jobs were lost, and more than 2.4 million jobs in the private sector were lost. I assume the difference was in government hiring. Interesting huh?

Yes, jobs were lost due to the Clinton recession, the tech/telecom/internet bubble bursting, 9/11. Tax cuts put the money back in the hands of the people. The people spend far more efficiently than the government in almost every aspect of our daily lives. The first of the two Bush tax cuts was signed into law in June 2001. The 9/11 occurred and the markets employment got jittery. Tech/telecom etc... continued shedding jobs and pulling the market down. Then the recovery began.

Look at it this way... which situation is consumer spending going to improve in...

a) consumer makes $100, governments take 30% (state,local,fed)... consumer has $70

b) consumer makes $100, governments take 20%... consumer has $80
 
Yes, jobs were lost due to the Clinton recession, the tech/telecom/internet bubble bursting, 9/11. Tax cuts put the money back in the hands of the people. The people spend far more efficiently than the government in almost every aspect of our daily lives. The first of the two Bush tax cuts was signed into law in June 2001. The 9/11 occurred and the markets employment got jittery. Tech/telecom etc... continued shedding jobs and pulling the market down. Then the recovery began.

Look at it this way... which situation is consumer spending going to improve in...

a) consumer makes $100, governments take 30% (state,local,fed)... consumer has $70

b) consumer makes $100, governments take 20%... consumer has $80

So when the tax cuts were enacted in 2001, we were at full employment. But after the tax cuts were enacted, we lost millions of jobs because of Bill Clinton?

LOL

I can't believe you call DH a hack.
 
So when the tax cuts were enacted in 2001, we were at full employment. But after the tax cuts were enacted, we lost millions of jobs because of Bill Clinton?

LOL

I can't believe you call DH a hack.

1) When the cuts were signed into law, the unemployment rate was at 4.5% (which is actually below the full employment level of 5%). Now, did the tax cuts magically appear the next day in people's pockets Darla? Because that is what Dung wants you to believe.

2) Yeah, I tossed Clinton in just as a jab at those that continue to pretend that it was Bush that caused everything bad in the past four years.

3) That said, the internet/telecom/tech bubble bursting was the primary cause of the rise in unemployment. It was the primary cause for the recession. 9/11 then exacerbated the situation and prolonged the downturn. But again, do tell me... which of those tax situations allows for more money in the hands of consumers? Consumer spending drives the economy. While people like Dung and Krugman would rather take that money from the people and let the idiots in Washington spend it frivolously... the reality of the matter is that you and I will spend our money far more efficiently than either Bush or Obama or any other dolt in DC.
 
Back
Top