Till Debt Does It Part - from nobel-prize winning economist Paul Krugman

FUCK THE POLICE

911 EVERY DAY
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/opinion/28krugman.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Till Debt Does Its Part

Article Tools Sponsored By
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: August 27, 2009

So new budget projections show a cumulative deficit of $9 trillion over the next decade. According to many commentators, that’s a terrifying number, requiring drastic action — in particular, of course, canceling efforts to boost the economy and calling off health care reform.

The truth is more complicated and less frightening. Right now deficits are actually helping the economy. In fact, deficits here and in other major economies saved the world from a much deeper slump. The longer-term outlook is worrying, but it’s not catastrophic.

The only real reason for concern is political. The United States can deal with its debts if politicians of both parties are, in the end, willing to show at least a bit of maturity. Need I say more?

Let’s start with the effects of this year’s deficit.

There are two main reasons for the surge in red ink. First, the recession has led both to a sharp drop in tax receipts and to increased spending on unemployment insurance and other safety-net programs. Second, there have been large outlays on financial rescues. These are counted as part of the deficit, although the government is acquiring assets in the process and will eventually get at least part of its money back.

What this tells us is that right now it’s good to run a deficit. Consider what would have happened if the U.S. government and its counterparts around the world had tried to balance their budgets as they did in the early 1930s. It’s a scary thought. If governments had raised taxes or slashed spending in the face of the slump, if they had refused to rescue distressed financial institutions, we could all too easily have seen a full replay of the Great Depression.

As I said, deficits saved the world.

In fact, we would be better off if governments were willing to run even larger deficits over the next year or two. The official White House forecast shows a nation stuck in purgatory for a prolonged period, with high unemployment persisting for years. If that’s at all correct — and I fear that it will be — we should be doing more, not less, to support the economy.

But what about all that debt we’re incurring? That’s a bad thing, but it’s important to have some perspective. Economists normally assess the sustainability of debt by looking at the ratio of debt to G.D.P. And while $9 trillion is a huge sum, we also have a huge economy, which means that things aren’t as scary as you might think.

Here’s one way to look at it: We’re looking at a rise in the debt/G.D.P. ratio of about 40 percentage points. The real interest on that additional debt (you want to subtract off inflation) will probably be around 1 percent of G.D.P., or 5 percent of federal revenue. That doesn’t sound like an overwhelming burden.

Now, this assumes that the U.S. government’s credit will remain good so that it’s able to borrow at relatively low interest rates. So far, that’s still true. Despite the prospect of big deficits, the government is able to borrow money long term at an interest rate of less than 3.5 percent, which is low by historical standards. People making bets with real money don’t seem to be worried about U.S. solvency.

The numbers tell you why. According to the White House projections, by 2019, net federal debt will be around 70 percent of G.D.P. That’s not good, but it’s within a range that has historically proved manageable for advanced countries, even those with relatively weak governments. In the early 1990s, Belgium — which is deeply divided along linguistic lines — had a net debt of 118 percent of G.D.P., while Italy — which is, well, Italy — had a net debt of 114 percent of G.D.P. Neither faced a financial crisis.

So is there anything to worry about? Yes, but the dangers are political, not economic.

As I’ve said, those 10-year projections aren’t as bad as you may have heard. Over the really long term, however, the U.S. government will have big problems unless it makes some major changes. In particular, it has to rein in the growth of Medicare and Medicaid spending.

That shouldn’t be hard in the context of overall health care reform. After all, America spends far more on health care than other advanced countries, without better results, so we should be able to make our system more cost-efficient.

But that won’t happen, of course, if even the most modest attempts to improve the system are successfully demagogued — by conservatives! — as efforts to “pull the plug on grandma.”

So don’t fret about this year’s deficit; we actually need to run up federal debt right now and need to keep doing it until the economy is on a solid path to recovery. And the extra debt should be manageable. If we face a potential problem, it’s not because the economy can’t handle the extra debt. Instead, it’s the politics, stupid.
 

You're problem is your brain isn't capable of comprehending complex issues like deficits. Yes, deficits help in the short term. What's what we need right now. Balancing the budget in a time of economic recession would have been exactly what was tried in 1929 and guess what... it failed. And the reasons are pretty well understood by people with brains.
 
You're problem is your brain isn't capable of comprehending complex issues like deficits. Yes, deficits help in the short term. What's what we need right now. Balancing the budget in a time of economic recession would have been exactly what was tried in 1929 and guess what... it failed. And the reasons are pretty well understood by people with brains.

I'm so glad you know all about my brain..and you're all so full of shit, we still hear you all screaming about the Bush deficit that your Dear Leader inherited, yet you are going to try and now tell us this is all ok..
 
Last edited:
I'm so glad you know all about my brain..and you're all so full of shit, we still hear you all screaming about the Bush deficit that your Dear Leader inherited, yet you are going to try and now tell us this is all ok..

It's not Bush's deficit that Obama inherited that destroyed the economy. It makes Bush and the Republicans who voted for him huge tools since all they do is scream about a balanced budget when someone else is in power, but it's not what destroyed the economy.

Why don't you go ahead and tell us how deficit spending in a recession is a terrible thing despite what every economist would tell you?
 
It's not Bush's deficit that Obama inherited that destroyed the economy. It makes Bush and the Republicans who voted for him huge tools since all they do is scream about a balanced budget when someone else is in power, but it's not what destroyed the economy.

Why don't you go ahead and tell us how deficit spending in a recession is a terrible thing despite what every economist would tell you?

why don't you point out all these other economist in the world who is saying what the commie Krugman is saying is the right thing....I'll wait.
 
why don't you point out all these other economist in the world who is saying what the commie Krugman is saying is the right thing....I'll wait.

I'll do better. I'll give you some definitions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product


GDP = gross domestic product = the economy to you

GDP is defined by economists as a function of C + I + G

GDP = C + I + G + (X − M). (X and M stand for exports and imports - it's calculating the trade deficit. Since they are functions of the first two variables, you can ignore them for our purposes)

GDP = C + I + G

C is consumption

I is investment in the economy

G is government spending on goods and services

Now I know you took algebra like 60 years ago, so let me know if I'm moving too fast.

When the economy crashes, you see decreases in consumption (people buying goods and services) and investment (people investing in other people to produce goods and services)

So with both of those variables decreasing, the only remaining variable (and consequently the only variable over which the government has any direct control) is government spending.

The only way to keep the GDP (the total amount of what people produce and consume in the economy) at normal levels and not fall to depression era levels in a recession where people stop consuming and investing is to INCREASE GOVERNMENT SPENDING (variable G).

How does one do that? Well, as Krugman explains, tax revenues fall when there's a downturn in the GDP (caused by falling consumption and investment), so the government has less money to work with. This is where deficit spending comes in. The government has to borrow money to spend it on goods and services to keep the GDP from failing entirely.

That's deficits in a nutshell. In the long term they add to DEBT, which is different. The amount of sustainable debt we can hold down is a function of the total debt vs annual GDP. That's something else entirely.

That's BASIC ECONOMICS. That's what you will read on wikipedia or any economics text book. Look for yourself. It's a simple equation. Government spending/deficits are necessary in a recession to keep the GDP from collapsing.
 
you have got to be fucking kidding...

the government is borrowing this money and it is going to need to be payed back some way...how do you suppose that is going to happen when there is less monies coming into the Guberment grubby little hands??

they will pull the money off the money trees..
 
the government is borrowing this money and it is going to need to be payed back some way...how do you suppose that is going to happen when there is less monies coming into the Guberment coffers??

You pay it off once you've gotten yourself out of recession and revenue is back up, tard.
 
You pay it off once you've gotten yourself out of recession and revenue is back up, tard.

with this much dept...how is it going to be paid off...and don't forget, they also want to now add trillions more with their health care scheme..you little jerk
 
So meme, do you agree that deficits aren't bad? The math tells you that much. The bad part is national DEBT, not short term deficit spending.
 
I'm so glad you know all about my brain..and you're all so full of shit, we still hear you all screaming about the Bush deficit that your Dear Leader inherited, yet you are going to try and now tell us this is all ok..

The difference is the Bush deficit didn't do anything for the average citizen. The outrageous waste of money on the Iraqi war. The lowering of taxes on the highest earning citizens.

Let's use an analogy. A father/mother runs a deficit. In other words they borrow money. In the first case they buy a sports car and take a vacation. In the second case they pay the tuition for their child to attend university. Both scenarios result in a deficit, however, there is a difference.

The average citizen received nothing from the war in Iraq except maybe lost a loved one or had a child severely injured and they are paying for that. Their tax dollars bought either nothing or worse.

Under Obama a citizen will get something for their tax dollars. Medical care.

As the economy picks up and the deficit/debt slowly declines the citizens will become accustomed to their tax dollars going for something that will benefit them: medical coverage.

Remember Cheney saying the war with Iraq was an option and they had the funds? Maybe it's time to remove that incentive. Put medical care at the top of the "must pay for" list and then see if there is enough money to do other things rather than doing other things and then seeing if there is enough money for medical care.

People are not against paying taxes. They're against paying taxes for things that do not benefit them. Rather than saying we have enough money to invade a foreign country but we have to raise taxes for medical care let's switch that around to say we have enough money for medical care but will have to raise taxes to support a war.

Change. A whole new ball game.
 
Har, Krugman is a far-lefty. There are plenty economists who think just the opposite.

...and there are plenty of economists who agree with Krugman; Stiglitz, another nobel-prize winner, is definitely with him on this issue. Despite the fact that economics is generally a conservative profession.
 
Back
Top