Skip to main content

The five most amazing things that Paul Krugman has said lately ...

Counting down (and they are all from ONE op-ed):

Number FIVE:
Nations with responsible governments - that is, governments that are willing to impose modestly higher taxes when the situation warrants it - have historically been able to live with much higher levels of debt than today's conventional wisdom would lead you to believe. Britain, in particular, has had debt exceeding 100 percent of GDP for 81 of the past 170 years. 
Yes, Paul, looking at the last 170 years of the British Empire as it fought multiple disastrous wars, became the British welfare state, and is now berating citizens for not spending their savings fast enough is exactly how we want to model America.

Number FOUR:
If your image is of a nation that's deep in hock to the Chinese, you've been misinformed.
Apparently we were so misinformed by ... Barack Obama:
“It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government’s reckless fiscal policies. Over the past five years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. That is  ‘‘trillion’’ with a ‘‘T.’’ That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers.” 
Number THREE:
Taxes must be levied to pay the interest, and you don't have to be a right-wing ideologue to concede that taxes impose some cost on the economy, if nothing else by causing a diversion of resources away from productive activities into tax avoidance. But these costs are a lot less dramatic than the analogy with an over-indebted family might suggest. 
Nah, the fact that PBS reports that interest on the Federal debt is now
... more than the combined budgets of Commerce, Education, Homeland Security, Interior, Justice, and the federal courts combined ... 
... is not a concern at all.

Number TWO:
This was clearly true of the debt incurred to win World War II. Taxpayers were on the hook for a debt that was significantly bigger, as a percentage of GDP, than debt today; but that debt was also owned by taxpayers, such as all the people who bought savings bonds. So the debt didn't make postwar America poorer. In particular, the debt didn't prevent the postwar generation from experiencing the biggest rise in incomes and living standards in our nation's history. 
As I have pointed out before, the fact that Paul Krugman keeps trotting out this canard is pretty good evidence that he not only isn't a historian, but also that he doesn't know jack about the global economic differences between then and now.

AND ... FINALLY ... the NUMBER ONE most amazing admission by Paul Krugman (this week):
 Families have to pay back their debt. Governments don't.
 Ironically this one's true--as any citizen of Greece can tell you these days.

Which doesn't mean it's a good thing--as Paul Krugman plainly believes it is.

What is amazing about Krugman is not so much that he has prostituted himself to become a liberal Keynesian guru, but that anybody still listens to the man who calls other Nobel Laureate economists racists for not agreeing with him.

Comments

Dana Garrett said…
#5: How is Krugman suggesting that the USA carry a debt that is anything even close to 100% of the GDP as your reply intimates? That seems to be a red herring. How does what is happening now in Britain in any way refute his historical claim? Some have argued that Britain's current problems reflect the extent to which Britain abandoned it's social democratic moorings under Thatcher and Blair, leaving citizens without the capacity to make purchases at previous levels. I see no prime facie reason to believe that historical analysis is wrong and yours is evidently correct.
Dana Garrett said…
#4: Oh, because Obama said it, Krugman has effectively contradicted himself because Krugman always agrees with Obama. Except that he hasn't, often in significant ways.
Dana

Anyone who would use the British Empire since 1853 as a model of debt management is simply ignorant of British history. In the 1880s-1890s Britain involved itself in an economically ruinous dreadnought arms race and over the next forty years consistently subordinated intelligent financial management to a foredoomed attempt to hold onto an empire that oppressed people around the globe. Sound familiar? You can do your Thatcher ranting all you want, but Krugman defined his own terms here--and by the way, where IS his analysis. He doesn't present any.

As for Number 4 my point is pretty simple--it is Krugman, not Obama, not people concerned with a model of unsustainable debt, who is the outlier.

I notice you didn't bother to examine (yet) my earlier explanations of why Krugman simply does not know what he is talking about with regard to the economic forces driving the US economy after World War Two, either.
delacrat said…
"AND ... FINALLY ... the NUMBER ONE most amazing admission by Paul Krugman (this week):
Families have to pay back their debt. Governments don't. Ironically this one's true--as any citizen of Greece can tell you these days."


Greece is a very different situation than the U.S. in that Greece does not control it's own currency and it's government debts are denominated in Euros, not it's own Drachmas. Because U.S. Federal debt government is denominated in an internally created currency, the level of U.S. Federal debt can be managed by "printing", euphemistically called, Quantitative Easing. An option not available to the Greeks. QE has it's own problems, nevertheless, the US and Greece situations are really not comparable.
delacrat said…
Um .... I have, in the past, been called "asshole", and indeed much worse. But never before has anyone ever called me "Jim".
delacrat

Sorry, I have been dealing with a persistent troll here this evening, who is sometimes "Dan Smith" and sometimes Anon and is really named Jim.

It makes no sense to you because I deleted his intervening comments.
Delaware Watch said…
Steve, I didn't examine your earlier points and examples because my phone froze up. I was going in reverse order. Then I got busy with other things. My son is home early from school today, so if I get a chance later tonight, I'll take up where I left off.
Dana,

Don't bother. It's a week old and everybody in my house but me has the flu, so you probably won't get an intelligent response out of me anyway. :)
Dana Garrett said…
Sorry to hear about your family's illnesses. Hope you avoid it. I would like to make a comment on your post about Obama not striking Americans with drones within the US, but I don't see a make a comment option on that post, at least not through my phone.
There isn't a comment option in that post--I had trouble with a really obnoxious troll and had to--reluctantly--shut it down. I would reopen it except that one item within it is so egregious that I needed to keep it around (where I could still access it) in case there eventually needed to be legal action taken.
Anonymous said…
Wow man groovy

Popular posts from this blog

Comment Rescue (?) and child-related gun violence in Delaware

In my post about the idiotic over-reaction to a New Jersey 10-year-old posing with his new squirrel rifle , Dana Garrett left me this response: One waits, apparently in vain, for you to post the annual rates of children who either shoot themselves or someone else with a gun. But then you Libertarians are notoriously ambivalent to and silent about data and facts and would rather talk abstract principles and fear monger (like the government will confiscate your guns). It doesn't require any degree of subtlety to see why you are data and fact adverse. The facts indicate we have a crisis with gun violence and accidents in the USA, and Libertarians offer nothing credible to address it. Lives, even the lives of children, get sacrificed to the fetishism of liberty. That's intellectual cowardice. OK, Dana, let's talk facts. According to the Children's Defense Fund , which is itself only querying the CDCP data base, fewer than 10 children/teens were killed per year in Delaw

With apologies to Hube: dopey WNJ comments of the week

(Well, Hube, at least I'm pulling out Facebook comments and not poaching on your preserve in the Letters.) You will all remember the case this week of the photo of the young man posing with the .22LR squirrel rifle that his Dad got him for his birthday with resulted in Family Services and the local police attempting to search his house.  The story itself is a travesty since neither the father nor the boy had done anything remotely illegal (and check out the picture for how careful the son is being not to have his finger inside the trigger guard when the photo was taken). But the incident is chiefly important for revealing in the Comments Section--within Delaware--the fact that many backers of "common sense gun laws" really do have the elimination of 2nd Amendment rights and eventual outright confiscation of all privately held firearms as their objective: Let's run that by again: Elliot Jacobson says, This instance is not a case of a father bonding with h

The Obligatory Libertarian Tax Day Post

The most disturbing factoid that I learned on Tax Day was that the average American must now spend a full twenty-four hours filling out tax forms. That's three work days. Or, think of it this way: if you had to put in two hours per night after dinner to finish your taxes, that's two weeks (with Sundays off). I saw a talking head economics professor on some Philly TV channel pontificating about how Americans procrastinate. He was laughing. The IRS guy they interviewed actually said, "Tick, tick, tick." You have to wonder if Governor Ruth Ann Minner and her cohorts put in twenty-four hours pondering whether or not to give Kraft Foods $708,000 of our State taxes while demanding that school districts return $8-10 million each?