Krugman: U.S. Needs Death Panels, Sales Taxes.

[Goo For You]

Great drama, guys!

then can it also be said that the stimulus infusion made gdp look better that it really was?

Do you think the collapse in GDP numbers made so much real damage that America deserves to be in a Great Depression-esque trough right now? If so, then yes.

[Goo For You]

Amos 9:13 NKJV New King James Version
"Behold, the days are coming," says the Lord, "When the plowman shall overtake the reaper, And the treader of grapes him who sows seed; The mountains shall drip with sweet wine, And all the hills shall flow with it.

I'm not sure I follow this one. The plowman overtaking the reaper has a Marxist ring to it; but if that's what he's going for, why does he consider "the treader of grapes" more virtuous than the dude who sows seed?

EDIT: Ah, if seed is capital, then it makes sense. PS. What a commie! (And the last sentence makes this a decidedly pro-opulence, anti-subsistence statement.)

[I invented that]

Do you think the collapse in GDP numbers made so much real damage that America deserves to be in a Great Depression-esque trough right now? If so, then yes.

so the infusion of stimulus money didn't artificially spike the gdp numbers?

[Goo For You]

so the infusion of stimulus money didn't artificially spike the gdp numbers?

The whole point of stimulus is to "boost" the numbers by allowing debtors not to go bankrupt, by creating expectations of future stability, and so forth. Calling it artificial (i.e. bad) is coherent only insofar as you have a story about how many more people should be bankrupt right now for things to get better (which is, of course, oxymoronic in the view of mainstream macroeconomics).

PS. Maybe this will help: The "bad investments" you're thinking of were liquidated largely in the subprime collapse in 2006-2007; then there was a whole year of really nothing spectacular happening -- no capital flight or anything like that (even after Bear Stearns went under) -- until the government unexpectedly let Lehman Brothers collapse, and the Fed unexpectedly let expectations collapse, which then started to take down "good" investments and economic activity (which the stimuli are now trying to restore).

[Avery]

Considering the minimum wage --> unemployment story is one of the sacred cows of right-wing economics, I thought you'd be defensive about it. That sarcastic comment gained you some nice non-partisan creds. And here's a bonus prize, since you seem to be interested in Japan:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...e-performance/

(Decrease in number of working age adults makes GDP numbers look worse than they really are.)

Yes. Transfer payments (to retirees, or anybody) don't add anything to GDP.

Weird how you feel a need to take a "X" into account with a GDP number. Thought you & Krugs were all about the nominal?

So who cares about 'real' or 'adjusted' numbers?

Speaking of Japan, ¥1,628.4 billion trade deficit. With Abe's easing, how can that be? The UK experienced a 0.01% growth in exports with a 20% easing of their currency. Why would that happen?

Devaluing helps exports, afterall....

[Avery]

.

[Goo For You]

Speaking of Japan, ¥1,628.4 billion trade deficit. With Abe's easing, how can that be?

Firstly, I think we should be looking at absolute export numbers (because more exports leads to more consumption and more imports, and because there's nothing inherently bad or unsustainable about a trade deficit).

Secondly, maybe it's too early to be talking about Abenomics' effect on exports. Here's how things worked out during the Koizumi years (which many people for some reason consider "stagnated"):



That seems like a huge increase thanks to Koizumi's QE:

The UK experienced a 0.01% growth in exports with a 20% easing of their currency. Why would that happen?

I haven't paid much attention to UK. What do they even export? Maybe their exports are becoming wildly uncompetitive (and the easing prevented a giant fall)?

EDIT: If they export mainly to EU then Eurozone demand weakness is probably a big part of the explanation.

[Goo For You]

Weird how you feel a need to take a "X" into account with a GDP number. Thought you & Krugs were all about the nominal?

So who cares about 'real' or 'adjusted' numbers?

Nominal numbers tell us everything we need to know about macroeconomic stability (i.e. the efficacy of fiscal and monetary policy). But we need to look at all other numbers to see if a country is making good use of that stability.

[MatthewT]

I'm not sure I follow this one. The plowman overtaking the reaper has a Marxist ring to it; but if that's what he's going for, why does he consider "the treader of grapes" more virtuous than the dude who sows seed?

EDIT: Ah, if seed is capital, then it makes sense. PS. What a commie! (And the last sentence makes this a decidedly pro-opulence, anti-subsistence statement.)

it's not subsistance at all; it is abundance. the entire world will be as fertile as the Garden of Eden. the harvesters aren't lazy; they're gathering as fast as they can, 'cause they can re-plant non-stop.

agrarian riches used to be, and will be again, real riches; the sheep on a thousand hills; the cattle on a thousand hills; etc.

[Goo For You]

it's not subsistance at all; it is abundance.

Exactly, and therefore there is a tension between Jesus/God wanting a workers' revolution and opulence at the same time. If you can't have both, which one would you say is more important?

(Like I argued before, if you want to eradicate all the Shylocks of the world, you must in the process destroy futures and credit markets and force farmers to live uninsured and precarious lives.)

PS. If you're going to sidestep this argument, why not just admit that your view of Christianity necessitates belief in radical communism?

[MatthewT]

Exactly, and therefore there is a tension between Jesus/God wanting a workers' revolution and opulence at the same time. If you can't have both, which one would you say is more important?

(Like I argued before, if you want to eradicate all the Shylocks of the world, you must in the process destroy futures and credit markets and force farmers to live uninsured and precarious lives.)

PS. If you're going to sidestep this argument, why not just admit that your view of Christianity necessitates belief in radical communism?

um, because it doesn't?

there's Jesus, the King of Kings, and the Lord of Lords

under Him are all of the kings and lords of the earth

under them are all of the little people

God is quite heirarchical when it comes to dealing with angels and humans

[Goo For You]

So God is a tyrant who wants humans to implement communism?

[Goo For You]

Evangelical economic attitudes are anything but unanimous. Though it is fair to characterize the typical evangelical as supportive of capitalism and opposed to communism -- a view that they share with most other Americans -- there is wide variation of thought within the movement's religious and intellectual leadership. At one extreme, Christians Reconstructionists and the so-called New Christian Right enthusiastically embrace freemarkets and decry virtually all forms of government intervention. At the opposite extreme, self-styled "radical evangelicals" brand capitalism as hopelessly decadent and espouse a quasi-Marxist theology of liberation. The majority fall between these extremes, some calling for greater government intervention and larger social welfare programs and others advocating more free enterprise and a smaller government sector.

Ha, MatthewT is not alone!

Live and learn...

[I invented that]

Ha, MatthewT is not alone!

Live and learn...

you and matthew have a lot in common.

[Goo For You]

you and matthew have a lot in common.

Explain.

[MatthewT]

i'm never alone; one of the perks of being a disciple of Jesus Christ

[Goo For You]

you and matthew have a lot in common.

Explain.

You forgot for a moment that I've criticized my "god" in this thread, didn't you?

i'm never alone; one of the perks of being a disciple of Jesus Christ

Do you recognize that your interpretation of the Bible evolves over time? And if so, do you appreciate the moral implications of that?

[stripes]

for the love of dawg, will this crapfest ever end???

[MatthewT]

is it wishful thinking, or are the libs finally starting to see obama for the loser that he is?

[MatthewT]

You forgot for a moment that I've criticized my "god" in this thread, didn't you?



Do you recognize that your interpretation of the Bible evolves over time? And if so, do you appreciate the moral implications of that?

mine does; God's doesn't. and mine is going to be incomplete so long as i'm here on earth.

there's always more. it's always deeper. there's always another layer. it's so fascinating, i can't take the time to read non-God-inspired books that aren't about the bible.