Very Ape Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 Was wondering if Stefan and/or others would be interested in taking on this topic... Paul Krugman has essentially gone "full retard" in this recent NYT op-Ed http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/21/opinion/paul-krugman-debt-is-good-for-the-economy.html?referer=&_r=0 Here's the real gem "Believe it or not, many economists argue that the economy needs a sufficient amount of public debt out there to function well. And how much is sufficient? Maybe more than we currently have. That is, there’s a reasonable argument to be made that part of what ails the world economy right now is that governments aren’t deep enough in debt. I know that may sound crazy. After all, we’ve spent much of the past five or six years in a state of fiscal panic, with all the Very Serious People declaring that we must slash deficits and reduce debt now now now or we’ll turn into Greece, Greece I tell you. But the power of the deficit scolds was always a triumph of ideology over evidence, and a growing number of genuinely serious people — most recently Narayana Kocherlakota, the departing president of the Minneapolis Fed — are making the case that we need more, not less, government debt." I this the peak of Keynesian Hubris or what? After all the debt crisis we've had in the last year I wonder if Krugman actually even believes this or if he writes this kind of thing after, say, going on an all-night bender. I was honestly shocked since you would think he would have gone quiet after Greece and Puerto Rico but at least he has shown his true colours now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan C. Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 Paul Krugman Sticks It To Poor People With $225,000 Salary To Study Income Inequality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaz Lokuciewski Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 Assuming we all did something of common value for x hours / week how many hours / week would we need to work for all to maintain this quality of life? It's a long random idea but I'd go 20 hours / week / 16-65 year old at current global populations (nature provides without work less / head as we get more heads) Then it comes down to the people around you. Around me..if the average person had only 20 hours / week of value to add to have their needs met..they either work an extra 20+ hours and try to claim more stuff OR they start to become bored and destructive. This may well be the result of establishment education , however..establishment education we have..therefore...to control the potential challenging power of over workers and the potential destructive force of underutilized people...debt creates a requirement to get started AND reduces disposable income and time proportional. I'm not a fan of that by the way. I try to enter the mind of the beast I'm facing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Very Ape Posted October 3, 2015 Author Share Posted October 3, 2015 "I know that may sound crazy..." Paul doesn't get his own hints - It sounds crazy because it IS crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts