Krugman's very very simple solution to end this depression

[Mustang]

Krugman: End This Depression Now

anyone buy it yet?

I put in an order.


dD

Amazon had this tidbit:

Book Description
Publication Date: April 30, 2012

A call-to-arms from Nobel Prize–winning economist and best-selling author Paul Krugman.
The Great Recession is more than four years old—and counting. Yet, as Paul Krugman points out in this powerful volley, "Nations rich in resources, talent, and knowledge—all the ingredients for prosperity and a decent standard of living for all—remain in a state of intense pain."

How bad have things gotten? How did we get stuck in what now can only be called a depression? And above all, how do we free ourselves? Krugman pursues these questions with his characteristic lucidity and insight. He has a powerful message for anyone who has suffered over these past four years—a quick, strong recovery is just one step away, if our leaders can find the "intellectual clarity and political will" to end this depression now.

I read it already.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

LOL

Krugman and lucid in the same sentence

LOL

 

[ilia25]

In 1946 the GDP shrank 12%. In 2008 the GDP shrank 0%.[/I]

The GDP shrank 5% in 12 months following Leman collapse....

No it didn't.

Let's walk though it together; we get the start date from here:

...Lehman Brothers filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on September 15, 2008...

--and we get the GDP from here:

REAL GDP Q4 2008 = 12883.5
REAL GDP Q4 2009 = 12813.5
​

This is how the math goes: 1 - 12883.5 ÷ 12813.5 = -½%

So what are you saying, that we did not have a recession? Real GDP in 2005 dollars:
Q3 2008: 13,186.9
Q2 2009: 12,641.3

 

[CrusaderFrank]

He says very very clearly in his book that the government should spend money exactly like it did when WW II started to end this current depression the way it ended the Great Depression.

Does any liberal dare to think that by producing about 100 million planes tanks ships heavy weapons and tanks that it would help rather than hurt our economy??

I dunno, did it help or hurt last time around?

We need to send every able-bodied Liberal to fight the Vichy French in Africa like we did last time, right?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The GDP shrank 5% in 12 months following Leman collapse....

No it didn't.

Let's walk though it together; we get the start date from here:

...Lehman Brothers filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on September 15, 2008...

--and we get the GDP from here:

REAL GDP Q4 2008 = 12883.5
REAL GDP Q4 2009 = 12813.5
​

This is how the math goes: 1 - 12883.5 ÷ 12813.5 = -½%

So what are you saying, that we did not have a recession? Real GDP in 2005 dollars:
Q3 2008: 13,186.9
Q2 2009: 12,641.3

Where are you getting these numbers from, Rex Nutting?

 

[freedombecki]

Krugman has good and bad going for him.

It's good he won a Nobel Prize. It's bad that he won it after proffering constant political bile and gaining himself ill-gotten fame and high-five camaraderie with the prize committee that has given several undeserved prizes to Hate-America only "thinkers."

It's good that he's written for the New York Times. It's bad that they have lost readership for proffering unparallelled mean lies against conservatives and omissions about far worse deeds of liberals through crude badmouthers like Krugman.

It's good he has won sympathy from foreigners, it's bad he created political false agendas as his tool for getting it.

I don't give a damn what the international does to laud the loudmouth.

He has wronged good and decent men and women with his poison pen, and he enjoyed hurting the people he hated.

His career for America has been one long and infected footshoot. It's too bad he waited till this time to caterwaul the economy. He's only doing it so his political buds will get something out of it.

If he hadn't gone on so long stilting up political lies and intentional omissions to mammoth heights, his paper might still have decent readership.

Instead, he chose the path of character assassination that supported a criminal liar's book, "privileged son." a tome based on four conversations with "insiders" that never took place.

Krugman's the little boy crying "Wolf." he's only turning pointy political heads, not true intellectuals. I bet he has good guys and bad guys lined up inside his little muckrake, and he's not including the worst one of the bunch--himself, for 12 years of listening to lying liars and playing like they're telling the truth.

He's always screaming at conservatives, why read more of his SOaS blathering?

feh!

 

[The Rabbi]

Ilia is totally clueless. A waste of time. Reality is a silent bystander in his mind,.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

He says very very clearly in his book that the government should spend money exactly like it did when WW II started to end this current depression the way it ended the Great Depression.

Does any liberal dare to think that by producing about 100 million planes tanks ships heavy weapons and tanks that it would help rather than hurt our economy??

I dunno, did it help or hurt last time around?

Why is the liberal so afraid to tell us if it helped last time around?

All you have to say is, "yes, I'm an extreme idiot liberal and accordingly I'm sure that building 100 million planes and dumping into the sea ended the Great Depression and would end the current depression."

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

There are lowered levels of spending because prior to the markets attempted correction in 2008, people were borrowing far beyond their means.

Yes, that caused an initial drop in spending. But there is entirely different reason for spending to remain low years after that. And it is simple -- your income is someone else's spending. So if everyone starts spending less, your income drops and your debt problems get worse even as you are cutting your own expenditures.

Now when the unemployment is high, the consumer spending is severely constrained. So although companies and banks sit on tons of cash, they do not spend it on expanding production capacity and they do not hire -- the sales are too low to warrant an expansion.

And the economy can remain that that equilibrium for years -- that is what the depression is about.

People are in serious debt, they are not "parking lots of money" anywhere.

But banks and companies do have a lot of money -- they just not spending it.

Corporations that are receiving excellent care through govt. subsidies and competition destroying regulations are making profits, but they are not re-investing those profits here because the overhead to run a business in the USA

Wrong, they are not doing it because the sales are slow.

so do you build 100 million planes so sales pick up artificially and momentarily or do you fix housing problem so sales can pick up really and sustainably?

 

[ilia25]

There are lowered levels of spending because prior to the markets attempted correction in 2008, people were borrowing far beyond their means.

Yes, that caused an initial drop in spending. But there is entirely different reason for spending to remain low years after that. And it is simple -- your income is someone else's spending. So if everyone starts spending less, your income drops and your debt problems get worse even as you are cutting your own expenditures.

Now when the unemployment is high, the consumer spending is severely constrained. So although companies and banks sit on tons of cash, they do not spend it on expanding production capacity and they do not hire -- the sales are too low to warrant an expansion.

And the economy can remain that that equilibrium for years -- that is what the depression is about.



But banks and companies do have a lot of money -- they just not spending it.

Corporations that are receiving excellent care through govt. subsidies and competition destroying regulations are making profits, but they are not re-investing those profits here because the overhead to run a business in the USA

Wrong, they are not doing it because the sales are slow.

so do you build 100 million planes so sales pick up artificially and momentarily or do you fix housing problem so sales can pick up really and sustainably?

What housing problem? The economy is stuck in a depression and temporary stimulus is what is needed to jolt the economy into its natural state.

There are no structural issues to solve. We just have to kick the economy out of one equilibrium and into another.

 

[Mustang]

Krugman has good and bad going for him.

It's good he won a Nobel Prize. It's bad that he won it after proffering constant political bile and gaining himself ill-gotten fame and high-five camaraderie with the prize committee that has given several undeserved prizes to Hate-America only "thinkers."

It's good that he's written for the New York Times. It's bad that they have lost readership for proffering unparallelled mean lies against conservatives and omissions about far worse deeds of liberals through crude badmouthers like Krugman.

It's good he has won sympathy from foreigners, it's bad he created political false agendas as his tool for getting it.

I don't give a damn what the international does to laud the loudmouth.

He has wronged good and decent men and women with his poison pen, and he enjoyed hurting the people he hated.

His career for America has been one long and infected footshoot. It's too bad he waited till this time to caterwaul the economy. He's only doing it so his political buds will get something out of it.

If he hadn't gone on so long stilting up political lies and intentional omissions to mammoth heights, his paper might still have decent readership.

Instead, he chose the path of character assassination that supported a criminal liar's book, "privileged son." a tome based on four conversations with "insiders" that never took place.

Krugman's the little boy crying "Wolf." he's only turning pointy political heads, not true intellectuals. I bet he has good guys and bad guys lined up inside his little muckrake, and he's not including the worst one of the bunch--himself, for 12 years of listening to lying liars and playing like they're telling the truth.

He's always screaming at conservatives, why read more of his SOaS blathering?

feh!

So, am I right in assuming that you have NOT read the book?

 

[expat_panama]

...So what are you saying, that we did not have a recession?...

Ah yes, the lib merry-go-round ending up with delusions of what they wish they were hearing! It all starts with the leftist saying something stupid--getting caught--changing the subject--getting tripped up again--

...Any cut in goverment spending harms a depressed economy...

...In 1946 the GDP shrank 12%. Far worse than today's performance. That year we cut spending by 40% over the past year and approved a budget cutting it another 40%. The GDP soared bringing in decades of prosperity...

followed by changing the subject with more imaginary numbers--

The GDP shrank 5% in 12 months following Leman collapse....

...This is how the math goes: 1 - 12883.5 ÷ 12813.5 = -½%

OK, game time over and it's time to clean up. What we know for sure is that past massive spending cuts during sever downturns have not --repeat NOT-- worsened the economy, they improved it.

 

[ilia25]

He says very very clearly in his book that the government should spend money exactly like it did when WW II started to end this current depression the way it ended the Great Depression.

Does any liberal dare to think that by producing about 100 million planes tanks ships heavy weapons and tanks that it would help rather than hurt our economy??

I dunno, did it help or hurt last time around?

Why is the liberal so afraid to tell us if it helped last time around?

All you have to say is, "yes, I'm an extreme idiot liberal and accordingly I'm sure that building 100 million planes and dumping into the sea ended the Great Depression and would end the current depression."

You can't get a simple concept: a depressed economy behaves by different rules. A virtue become a vice. A vice becomes a virtue. What is a waste in normal economy, pulls it out of depression.

Crying once again "but this is against common sense" tells a lot about you, and nothing about reality.

 

[ilia25]

...So what are you saying, that we did not have a recession?...

Ah yes, the lib merry-go-round ending up with delusions of what they wish they were hearing! It all starts with the leftist saying something stupid--getting caught--changing the subject--getting tripped up again--

...In 1946 the GDP shrank 12%. Far worse than today's performance. That year we cut spending by 40% over the past year and approved a budget cutting it another 40%. The GDP soared bringing in decades of prosperity...

followed by changing the subject with more imaginary numbers--

The GDP shrank 5% in 12 months following Leman collapse....

...This is how the math goes: 1 - 12883.5 ÷ 12813.5 = -½%

OK, game time over and it's time to clean up. What we know for sure is that past massive spending cuts during sever downturns have not --repeat NOT-- worsened the economy, they improved it.

Like writing your own history would help. In 46 the economy was not depressed -- meaning low unemployment. In 2000s the spending cuts were anything but massive.

If you try spending cuts when unemployment is high, you turn into Greece or Ireland.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What housing problem?

dear, we're in a housing depression , not a popcorn or peanut butter depression


10,000 foreclosures a day that take years to conclude; thats $2 billion a day out of the economy.

Imagine the depression that would be created if it took the auto industry years to make a sale. NOw even a liberal can understand the housing crisis.

 

[ilia25]

What housing problem?

dear, we're in a housing depression , not a popcorn or peanut butter depression

There is no such thing as housing depression. There was a housing crisis, which pushed economy into a depression. But it is not the foreclosures that keep the economy depressed for years.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

But it is not the foreclosures that keep the economy depressed for years.

dear, try to imagine what would happen if it took the auto industry years to complete each sale!!

See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow, very slow??

 

[ilia25]

But it is not the foreclosures that keep the economy depressed for years.

dear, try to imagine what would happen if it took the auto industry years to complete each sale!!

But that is exactly my point -- auto industry is struggling too, as any other sector in the economy.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

But it is not the foreclosures that keep the economy depressed for years.

dear, try to imagine what would happen if it took the auto industry years to complete each sale!!

But that is exactly my point -- auto industry is struggling too, as any other sector in the economy.

too stupid!!!!! the auto industry is struggling because of the liberal housing crisis. Thats why we say it is a housing crisis not an auto crisis.

You don't fix it with another Krigman bubble in the auto industry or in the military, you treat the cause not the symptom.


see why we are 100% a liberal will be slow???

 

[NeoTemplar]

I think it would probably help to actually get people consistently paying jobs so they can get off unemployment and stop draining the already empty federal budget and make local businesses hire locally and go from there up, of course this is just me and economics was never my best subject.