Paul Krugman Tell U.S. to Get Off Its Ass and Implement a Decent Stimulus Program

Agreed.

Krugman isn't a socialist like the people at Cato or REASON mag will tell you.

He considers himself a rawlsian(veil of ignorance,etc).

Austerity is ok when growth is good. We need growth back, spend to get the economy going and cut back gradually. Its the debt:GDP ratio that really matters.

Europe can't borrow. America still can.

Oh, and China isn't going to surpsass the American economy for at least 20 years(they're GDP/capita is 1/4 of ours and their population is 4x as ours, and the world economic forum rated (in 2009) our economy as the most competitive.) China's economy is big, but not as sophisticated as other's like Japan.

check that, we're rated 5th. China is ranked 26th.http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GCR_CompetitivenessIndexRanking_2011-12.pdf

fdsf wrote:

and the world economic forum rated (in 2009) our economy as the most competitive.)

Why has Keynsian spending been such a failure in Japan, and why did austerity work so well after the Asian crisis?

fdsf wrote:

Oh, and China isn't going to surpsass the American economy for at least 20 years(they're GDP/capita is 1/4 of ours and their population is 4x as ours, and the world economic forum rated (in 2009) our economy as the most competitive.) China's economy is big, but not as sophisticated as other's like Japan.

Let's see if I got this right. China has a GDP/capita 1/4 that of the US. They also have a population 4 x ours. Let's see, 4 x (1/4) = ...ummm...carry the one... So, China currently has the same GDP as the US?

OK, I'll buy that.

Now China won't surpass the American economy for at least 20 years. So...China's growth will not exceed that of the US for at least 20 years? Am I doing the math right?

This is so confusing.

sold2u wrote:

Why has Keynsian spending been such a failure in Japan, and why did austerity work so well after the Asian crisis?

read up on japan.

fdsf wrote:

sold2u wrote:

Why has Keynsian spending been such a failure in Japan, and why did austerity work so well after the Asian crisis?

read up on japan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/magazine/chairman-bernanke-should-listen-to-professor-bernanke.html?pagewanted=all

With all due respect to Dr Krugman, Japan has been mired in a slow growth period for over 20 years, and in the process has taken their debt to GDP ratio to 2.2x (ours is something like .85x)

Sorry, the "more cowbell" explanation doesn't wash anymore.

Math Counts wrote:

fdsf wrote:

Oh, and China isn't going to surpsass the American economy for at least 20 years(they're GDP/capita is 1/4 of ours and their population is 4x as ours, and the world economic forum rated (in 2009) our economy as the most competitive.) China's economy is big, but not as sophisticated as other's like Japan.

Let's see if I got this right. China has a GDP/capita 1/4 that of the US. They also have a population 4 x ours. Let's see, 4 x (1/4) = ...ummm...carry the one... So, China currently has the same GDP as the US?

OK, I'll buy that.

Now China won't surpass the American economy for at least 20 years. So...China's growth will not exceed that of the US for at least 20 years? Am I doing the math right?

This is so confusing.

USA

GDP (current US$)

$14,586,736,313,339 2010

Population, total

309,349,000 2010

China

GDP (current US$)

$5,926,612,009,750 2010

Population, total

1,338,300,000 2010

!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_kd&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=region:NAC:EAP&ifdim=region&hl=en_US&dl=en_US&ind=false

!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_cd&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:CHN:USA&ifdim=country&hl=en_US&dl=en_US&ind=false

Krugman's wrong. There's no basis in comparison to the patchwork quilt based on the honor code that is "Europe." Bernanke is the frog sitting in the hot water that isn't yet boiling.

http://www.grantspub.com/userfiles/files/g30n06d.pdf

Sagarin wrote:

Krugman's wrong. There's no basis in comparison to the patchwork quilt based on the honor code that is "Europe." Bernanke is the frog sitting in the hot water that isn't yet boiling.

http://www.grantspub.com/userfiles/files/g30n06d.pdf

Not surprised there. Another libertarian loon.

(finance)#cite_note-5

"2012 election

Ron Paul named Grant as his likely candidate for Chairman of the Federal Reserve to replace Ben Bernanke whose term expires in 2014."

Yep, don't take the time to read it, just try to undermine its credibility based on the source. Yet another simpleton. Grant, like Lacy Van Hunt, may, just may, have a point. The Fed has strayed far from its charter. The only thing Paul and Grant have in common is a yearning for a basis in reality, like the gold standard. But, Grant makes a much more scintillating point while appropriately castigating the Fed. Try again.

fdsf wrote:

USA

GDP (current US$)

$14,586,736,313,339 2010

Population, total

309,349,000 2010

China

GDP (current US$)

$5,926,612,009,750 2010

Population, total

1,338,300,000 2010

Ah, I see. So what you meant to say was that China has less than 1/10 of the GDP/capita of the US.

Got it.

Sagarin wrote:

Yep, don't take the time to read it, just try to undermine its credibility based on the source. Yet another simpleton. Grant, like Lacy Van Hunt, may, just may, have a point. The Fed has strayed far from its charter. The only thing Paul and Grant have in common is a yearning for a basis in reality, like the gold standard. But, Grant makes a much more scintillating point while appropriately castigating the Fed. Try again.

NO NO NO. You lose all credibility when you argue for the gold standard, even conservative leaning economists like mankiw think thats total bs.

But I'm impressed you chose not to use a "vote, blah blah blah, 2012" sign off.

Math Counts wrote:

fdsf wrote:

USA

GDP (current US$)

$14,586,736,313,339 2010

Population, total

309,349,000 2010

China

GDP (current US$)

$5,926,612,009,750 2010

Population, total

1,338,300,000 2010

Ah, I see. So what you meant to say was that China has less than 1/10 of the GDP/capita of the US.

Got it.

no, here dummy.

sold2u wrote:

Why has Keynsian spending been such a failure in Japan, and why did austerity work so well after the Asian crisis?

Japan's slow growth has been a symptom of a declining population. GDP per capita has actually increased faster than in the US and Europe. High debt has been a symptom of the slow overall economic growth.

Austerity worked well in the Asian tigers because there were all export economies and benefited from booming economies in the US and China.

fdsf wrote:

Sagarin wrote:

Yep, don't take the time to read it, just try to undermine its credibility based on the source. Yet another simpleton. Grant, like Lacy Van Hunt, may, just may, have a point. The Fed has strayed far from its charter. The only thing Paul and Grant have in common is a yearning for a basis in reality, like the gold standard. But, Grant makes a much more scintillating point while appropriately castigating the Fed. Try again.

NO NO NO. You lose all credibility when you argue for the gold standard, even conservative leaning economists like mankiw think thats total bs.

But I'm impressed you chose not to use a "vote, blah blah blah, 2012" sign off.

I'm not advocating the gold standard. The point is, Grant's remarks aren't any less accurate and compelling. Try reading the article. And correct your link while you're at it.

fdsf wrote:

Math Counts wrote:

Ah, I see. So what you meant to say was that China has less than 1/10 of the GDP/capita of the US.

Got it.

no, here dummy.

http://tinyurl.com/882q3cb

Not really.

Here you go.

Remember that Krugman was an advisor to Enron. You cannot borrow your way out of debt.

Krugman knows he's full of it. He advocates the statist insanity that he does because he despises the egoism and profit motive of capitalism.