Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › Krugman vs. Greenspan
- This topic has 90 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 5 months ago by
Zeitgeist.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 20, 2010 at 6:54 PM #568841June 21, 2010 at 4:35 PM #568625
DWCAP
Participant[quote=Eugene]Jp: those are all good arguments, but they are long term arguments, they don’t explain why we should be financially austere NOW NOW NOW as opposed to when unemployment comes down a bit from 10%.
xbox: this is not an ideological question, it’s fundamental macro economics: what happens if we cut govt spending and what happens if we don’t. It seems to me that Krugman’s position is much better defended with numbers.[/quote]What about my post? Does that make an argument to why we cant be financially austere right now? (basically the ‘short term gain for long term pain’ argument.)
If not, then how do we force an economy tooled for government financed expansion back into a private expansion economy without going back into recession?June 21, 2010 at 4:35 PM #568527Participant[quote=Eugene]Jp: those are all good arguments, but they are long term arguments, they don’t explain why we should be financially austere NOW NOW NOW as opposed to when unemployment comes down a bit from 10%.
xbox: this is not an ideological question, it’s fundamental macro economics: what happens if we cut govt spending and what happens if we don’t. It seems to me that Krugman’s position is much better defended with numbers.[/quote]What about my post? Does that make an argument to why we cant be financially austere right now? (basically the ‘short term gain for long term pain’ argument.)
If not, then how do we force an economy tooled for government financed expansion back into a private expansion economy without going back into recession?June 21, 2010 at 4:35 PM #569132Participant[quote=Eugene]Jp: those are all good arguments, but they are long term arguments, they don’t explain why we should be financially austere NOW NOW NOW as opposed to when unemployment comes down a bit from 10%.
xbox: this is not an ideological question, it’s fundamental macro economics: what happens if we cut govt spending and what happens if we don’t. It seems to me that Krugman’s position is much better defended with numbers.[/quote]What about my post? Does that make an argument to why we cant be financially austere right now? (basically the ‘short term gain for long term pain’ argument.)
If not, then how do we force an economy tooled for government financed expansion back into a private expansion economy without going back into recession?June 21, 2010 at 4:35 PM #569521Participant[quote=Eugene]Jp: those are all good arguments, but they are long term arguments, they don’t explain why we should be financially austere NOW NOW NOW as opposed to when unemployment comes down a bit from 10%.
xbox: this is not an ideological question, it’s fundamental macro economics: what happens if we cut govt spending and what happens if we don’t. It seems to me that Krugman’s position is much better defended with numbers.[/quote]What about my post? Does that make an argument to why we cant be financially austere right now? (basically the ‘short term gain for long term pain’ argument.)
If not, then how do we force an economy tooled for government financed expansion back into a private expansion economy without going back into recession?June 21, 2010 at 4:35 PM #569238Participant[quote=Eugene]Jp: those are all good arguments, but they are long term arguments, they don’t explain why we should be financially austere NOW NOW NOW as opposed to when unemployment comes down a bit from 10%.
xbox: this is not an ideological question, it’s fundamental macro economics: what happens if we cut govt spending and what happens if we don’t. It seems to me that Krugman’s position is much better defended with numbers.[/quote]What about my post? Does that make an argument to why we cant be financially austere right now? (basically the ‘short term gain for long term pain’ argument.)
If not, then how do we force an economy tooled for government financed expansion back into a private expansion economy without going back into recession?June 21, 2010 at 5:00 PM #568557Zeitgeist
Participant“The deficit will start rising again, largely because of rising health care costs.”
“At the moment, as you may have noticed, the U.S. government is running a large budget deficit. Much of this deficit, however, is the result of the continuing economic crisis, which has depressed revenue and required extraordinary expenditures to rescue the financial system. As the crisis abates, things will improve. The Congressional Budget Office, in its analysis of President Obama’s budget proposals, predicts that economic recovery will reduce the annual budget deficit from about 10 percent of G.D.P. this year to about 4 percent of G.D.P. in 2014.”
“Unfortunately, that’s not enough. Even if the government’s annual borrowing were to stabilize at 4 percent of G.D.P., its total debt would continue to grow faster than its revenue. Furthermore, the budget office predicts that after bottoming out in 2014, the deficit will start rising again, largely because of rising health care costs.”
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/21/krugman-spend-now-save-later/
June 21, 2010 at 5:00 PM #569551Participant“The deficit will start rising again, largely because of rising health care costs.”
“At the moment, as you may have noticed, the U.S. government is running a large budget deficit. Much of this deficit, however, is the result of the continuing economic crisis, which has depressed revenue and required extraordinary expenditures to rescue the financial system. As the crisis abates, things will improve. The Congressional Budget Office, in its analysis of President Obama’s budget proposals, predicts that economic recovery will reduce the annual budget deficit from about 10 percent of G.D.P. this year to about 4 percent of G.D.P. in 2014.”
“Unfortunately, that’s not enough. Even if the government’s annual borrowing were to stabilize at 4 percent of G.D.P., its total debt would continue to grow faster than its revenue. Furthermore, the budget office predicts that after bottoming out in 2014, the deficit will start rising again, largely because of rising health care costs.”
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/21/krugman-spend-now-save-later/
June 21, 2010 at 5:00 PM #569267Participant“The deficit will start rising again, largely because of rising health care costs.”
“At the moment, as you may have noticed, the U.S. government is running a large budget deficit. Much of this deficit, however, is the result of the continuing economic crisis, which has depressed revenue and required extraordinary expenditures to rescue the financial system. As the crisis abates, things will improve. The Congressional Budget Office, in its analysis of President Obama’s budget proposals, predicts that economic recovery will reduce the annual budget deficit from about 10 percent of G.D.P. this year to about 4 percent of G.D.P. in 2014.”
“Unfortunately, that’s not enough. Even if the government’s annual borrowing were to stabilize at 4 percent of G.D.P., its total debt would continue to grow faster than its revenue. Furthermore, the budget office predicts that after bottoming out in 2014, the deficit will start rising again, largely because of rising health care costs.”
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/21/krugman-spend-now-save-later/
June 21, 2010 at 5:00 PM #569162Participant“The deficit will start rising again, largely because of rising health care costs.”
“At the moment, as you may have noticed, the U.S. government is running a large budget deficit. Much of this deficit, however, is the result of the continuing economic crisis, which has depressed revenue and required extraordinary expenditures to rescue the financial system. As the crisis abates, things will improve. The Congressional Budget Office, in its analysis of President Obama’s budget proposals, predicts that economic recovery will reduce the annual budget deficit from about 10 percent of G.D.P. this year to about 4 percent of G.D.P. in 2014.”
“Unfortunately, that’s not enough. Even if the government’s annual borrowing were to stabilize at 4 percent of G.D.P., its total debt would continue to grow faster than its revenue. Furthermore, the budget office predicts that after bottoming out in 2014, the deficit will start rising again, largely because of rising health care costs.”
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/21/krugman-spend-now-save-later/
June 21, 2010 at 5:00 PM #568653Participant“The deficit will start rising again, largely because of rising health care costs.”
“At the moment, as you may have noticed, the U.S. government is running a large budget deficit. Much of this deficit, however, is the result of the continuing economic crisis, which has depressed revenue and required extraordinary expenditures to rescue the financial system. As the crisis abates, things will improve. The Congressional Budget Office, in its analysis of President Obama’s budget proposals, predicts that economic recovery will reduce the annual budget deficit from about 10 percent of G.D.P. this year to about 4 percent of G.D.P. in 2014.”
“Unfortunately, that’s not enough. Even if the government’s annual borrowing were to stabilize at 4 percent of G.D.P., its total debt would continue to grow faster than its revenue. Furthermore, the budget office predicts that after bottoming out in 2014, the deficit will start rising again, largely because of rising health care costs.”
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/21/krugman-spend-now-save-later/
June 22, 2010 at 12:56 PM #569261ParticipantQuestion: When is less than $1 trillion actually more than $1 trillion?
Answer: When the White House and Congress are estimating health care costs.
It’s no surprise that the Congressional Budget Office now says the 10-year, $938 billion health care bill passed by Democrats and signed by President Obama likely will cost at least $115 billion more. Those are projected future costs that Congress will have to vote on.
Well is anyone really surprised by this?
June 22, 2010 at 12:56 PM #569166ParticipantQuestion: When is less than $1 trillion actually more than $1 trillion?
Answer: When the White House and Congress are estimating health care costs.
It’s no surprise that the Congressional Budget Office now says the 10-year, $938 billion health care bill passed by Democrats and signed by President Obama likely will cost at least $115 billion more. Those are projected future costs that Congress will have to vote on.
Well is anyone really surprised by this?
June 22, 2010 at 12:56 PM #569768ParticipantQuestion: When is less than $1 trillion actually more than $1 trillion?
Answer: When the White House and Congress are estimating health care costs.
It’s no surprise that the Congressional Budget Office now says the 10-year, $938 billion health care bill passed by Democrats and signed by President Obama likely will cost at least $115 billion more. Those are projected future costs that Congress will have to vote on.
Well is anyone really surprised by this?
June 22, 2010 at 12:56 PM #569870ParticipantQuestion: When is less than $1 trillion actually more than $1 trillion?
Answer: When the White House and Congress are estimating health care costs.
It’s no surprise that the Congressional Budget Office now says the 10-year, $938 billion health care bill passed by Democrats and signed by President Obama likely will cost at least $115 billion more. Those are projected future costs that Congress will have to vote on.
Well is anyone really surprised by this?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.