Krugman: It's That 30s Show. We Need Another (Bigger) Stimulus.
Krugman was right again. Instead of taking a strong leadership position and insisting on a larger package, Obama played nice with the so-called "moderates" of both parties (i.e. morons who would sell their own mothers to feed their swollen egos). And here we sit, in a stagnating economy that sinks even deeper in recession as jobs are flushed down the drain.
I'm reminded of one of my favorite business books, "Management by Baseball." Author Jeff Angus (who also has a great blog) says one of the most common management mistakes is when a manager assumes a strategy that has been successful for him as a player will apply to all situations when he's a manager. Obama's built his career on being a cautious incrementalist, but what's called for now is bold vision.
So what's Obama going to do about it? Krugman has some suggestions:
So what do we have to counter this scary prospect? We have the Obama stimulus plan, which aims to create 3½ million jobs by late next year. That’s much better than nothing, but it’s not remotely enough. And there doesn’t seem to be much else going on. Do you remember the administration’s plan to sharply reduce the rate of foreclosures, or its plan to get the banks lending again by taking toxic assets off their balance sheets? Neither do I.
All of this is depressingly familiar to anyone who has studied economic policy in the 1930s. Once again a Democratic president has pushed through job-creation policies that will mitigate the slump but aren’t aggressive enough to produce a full recovery. Once again much of the stimulus at the federal level is being undone by budget retrenchment at the state and local level.
So have we failed to learn from history, and are we, therefore, doomed to repeat it? Not necessarily — but it’s up to the president and his economic team to ensure that things are different this time. President Obama and his officials need to ramp up their efforts, starting with a plan to make the stimulus bigger.
Just to be clear, I’m well aware of how difficult it will be to get such a plan enacted.
There won’t be any cooperation from Republican leaders, who have settled on a strategy of total opposition, unconstrained by facts or logic. Indeed, these leaders responded to the latest job numbers by proclaiming the failure of the Obama economic plan. That’s ludicrous, of course. The administration warned from the beginning that it would be several quarters before the plan had any major positive effects. But that didn’t stop the chairman of the Republican Study Committee from issuing a statement demanding: “Where are the jobs?”
It’s also not clear whether the administration will get much help from Senate “centrists,” who partially eviscerated the original stimulus plan by demanding cuts in aid to state and local governments — aid that, as we’re now seeing, was desperately needed. I’d like to think that some of these centrists are feeling remorse, but if they are, I haven’t seen any evidence to that effect.
And as an economist, I’d add that many members of my profession are playing a distinctly unhelpful role.
It has been a rude shock to see so many economists with good reputations recycling old fallacies — like the claim that any rise in government spending automatically displaces an equal amount of private spending, even when there is mass unemployment — and lending their names to grossly exaggerated claims about the evils of short-run budget deficits. (Right now the risks associated with additional debt are much less than the risks associated with failing to give the economy adequate support.)
Also, as in the 1930s, the opponents of action are peddling scare stories about inflation even as deflation looms.
So getting another round of stimulus will be difficult. But it’s essential.
Obama administration economists understand the stakes. Indeed, just a few weeks ago, Christina Romer, the chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisers, published an article on the “lessons of 1937” — the year that F.D.R. gave in to the deficit and inflation hawks, with disastrous consequences both for the economy and for his political agenda.
What I don’t know is whether the administration has faced up to the inadequacy of what it has done so far.
So here’s my message to the president: You need to get both your economic team and your political people working on additional stimulus, now. Because if you don’t, you’ll soon be facing your own personal 1937.



"The Great Unraveling." Time to read it again. The man is brilliant.
another big stimulus with money we do not have (a.k.a. borrowed). Keynesian's are in for such a rude awakening. All we've done is borrowed time, what exactly has been fixed? What price has been paid?
The largest bubble in history right here, the Reserve Bank Credit, and where are they getting the money from?
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/R...
Take long hard look at the chart people, we're debasing our currency and if you are a good Keynesian then you already know he said "By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose."
Yeah you go Krugman on with that stimulus idea of yours, lets stimulate the economy until we are so far in the hole we can't light. China believes in us, o_O! Pay no attention to the fact they are moving away from the dollar.
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
But your viewpoint seems to be what's missing when people criticize the stimulus as too small. A majority of Americans are unhappy with the stimulus and the bailouts in the first place! So it wouldn't have been easy to get a larger stimulus passed; it may have meant that the current stimulus never even went through.
when you are neck deep in debt in which you can barely pay now, you don't go borrow more. We will default on this debt, China knows it, they have been making steady moves away from the dollar since January, the credit card has already been cut up.
The US produces little, and the GDP's measuring stick is laughable. Look at the chart I posted above, that is the FED's chart of what it has borrowed out. That is a parabolic rise and the largest bubble we have seen in modern history. Parabolic rises are almost always followed by a parabolic fall. Give it time, it doesn't matter if you agree with me or not, in a few years, maybe 5, maybe 10, we are in for a brutal lesson.
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
but I'll leave it to others to come up with links. Suffice to say it's far from certain that this increase in the base money supply and debt, which is indeed alarming on the surface, will lead to inflation or hyper-inflation. You can't compare today's monetary situation with that in the 20s-30s.
And, if you think inflation is bad, deflation is much worse, so I suggest a little perspective here.
A nickel went a long way in the depression, I don't think 1919 Germany, Zimbabwe, Argentina, or Hungary's hyperinflation could be thought of as being better than the 1930's deflation. Both suck royally. Counter arguments?! We will get to find out for real soon enough.
What the Keynesian's seem to be missing here is countries like China, Russia, India, and the list is growing are taking active steps to distance themselves from the dollar. There have been a multitude of news stories on this, here just today even.
India Joins Russia, China in Questioning U.S. Dollar Dominance
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206010...
They are waking up to the reality they don't need us as much as they thought. It will take years but eventually the dollars dominance is screwed as are we. We can't pay down our national debt, we will default, and those we owe know it. As for our $60/trillion in social obligations, kiss those goodbye. The US is insolvent and we don't have a productive capacity for exportable goods like we need. That is where our borrowed money should be going now, to increase that, since the government is hell bent on borrowing more.
Everything they are doing now is to make it seem like nothing happened, to keep the cost of goods they same as it was and that borrow bubble just keeps going up. We're not going to slide out of this one, we just bought time and that is it.
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
and any economist will tell you a deflationary spiral is the WORST thing that can happen to an economy because you can tame inflation (not Weimarian or Zimbabwean) but it's 99.9999% impossible to get out of a deflationary debt spiral.
I'm no economist, I doubt you are either, but I suspect we've both suddenly found an interest in it, me because as a small businessman I'm in dire straits right now. In any case, my point is I'm not giving my opinion, but that of the various economists, from Hudson to Roubini to Krugman to Galbraith, that I've been reading.
the deflationary spiral is 1) a theory, or 2) a myth, depending on who you're asking.
it has never been proven.
and no, the great depression is not proof. none of the economic problems of the great depression have been CAUSED by deflation, deflation was a simple consequence. no spiral there.
we'd have serious deflation in this crises as well if we would still be on a gold standard.
Tame inflation? Given where we are at today?! Uh I don't think so. You can't print phantom money out of thin air without devaluing the currency, China and Brazil are already trading in their own currency because they understand this and are worried. The dollar will decline as a result of this, give it any name you like, stimulus, bail-out it matters not. The world is leaving the dollar right now, they are doing it slowly because no one wants to be left holding worthless dollars.
What we will get is a superficial rebound since they are flooding the market with all these dollars, but when you consider 72% of our GDP is based on US consumption. You can't have people borrow more money, banks lend, and have people spend, and regenerate a productive capacity.
Where are we fixing the holes in our economy? We're not, we are setting up a new big shoe drop after some temporary relief. These views are not my views, economists like Gerald C. Celente, and Marc Faber have been saying this for quite some time now and they explain their positions with greater clarity, detail, and back up their facts far better than Krugman does. Keynesian's are in for a very rude awakening.
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
Twenty times more comments about looney Sarah Palin, a future cipher in U.S. history. Krugman has never been wrong about these topics, and our nation (and global economy) are teetering on the brink NOW! If we turn into 1990s Japan, it's all over for us. Folks, keep your eye on the ball. The Republicans and media only talk about fear, blame, the horse race, and irrelevance. Don't become like them. For once in your lives, care about the thing that matter -- saving and creating jobs.
can you point to an incident where he's been right?
and he admitted it in October 26th 2008 blog
and for those who keep pumping that tired argument against those who did see it coming like (Peter Schiff, Marc Faber, Jim Rogers, Robert Kiyosaki, or Gerald Celente) that seeing doesn't equate to having solutions. They have laid down solutions but your not listening because you don't like the answer. If you're going to avoid getting hit by a train you kind of need to see or hear it coming in order to get out of the way. Krugman would have died on the tracks. So by all means go ahead and rest your coat on his Nobel prize.
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
he is partially wrong
we dont need a bigger stimulus package...we need a new wpa
we also need corporations who outsource to be penalized if they dont start returning these jobs to the states
we also need to be looking hard at all our trade agreements to see if the trading partners are living up to their parts of the bargain
if we do not create manufacturing jobs and increase our exports, there will be no recovery
We do need a larger stimulus.
Our infrastructure, grid system, and energy production are strained to the point of braking, and horribly outdated. Everytime America has invested in itself and the people (and not the privatization crony bullshit republicans talk about), we have been rewarded many times over.
But you are absolutely right in the rest of your analysis.
If I were a psychopath, I would join the republican party, and get in on the gravy train taking the Teabircher morons to the cleaners.
a wpa...a full works program
you dont have a job....we give one to you from the new wpa
those jobs can be in infrastructure, in the arts, in sweeping streets....whatever...its a job
and of course i am right about the manufacturing base
the idiots on the right are screaming that cap and trade will send jobs overseas....well, where have they been the past 20 years, when most of our manufacturing has gone overseas or to south america, only to enrich the corporatist pigs
its just so simple....for every job that a corporation sends overseas, you charge them what it would cost to have that job here...for the jobs brought back or created here, you offer tax incentives
and yes, single payer will indeed bring back jobs, as the employer will no longer be responsible for the health care of employees...as they have in other countries
its soooo simple
enough of the passing out of favors to specific congressional districts....bring back the wpa
I think the component of the stimulus for tax relief probably wasn't that effective, because people are free to buy imported products. We stimulated an economy somewhere, at the point of manufacture with those dollars. But, to stimulate our economy, we need to spend the stimulus here.
I agree we have to manufacture more than we consume. We haven't, and made up the difference by borrowing. That points out to where fiscal ideology can be most damaging. We're told that "free trade" is wonderful, and that we should accept it on an ideological basis because the data on the trade deficits shows the policy to be a colossal failure. Similarly, we're being told we need to saddle our employers with health care costs because of the ideological reason that government health care is "socialism". The thing here, of course, is that our competitors have cheaper single payer systems, and I *suspect* that relieving exporters with directly managing health care make them more competitive.
I think with a government of influence peddlers and lobbyist only too happy to pay the requisite bribes, we're up the creek.
what started just 2 years after 1937? Hmmm just in time for 2012, and President Palin.
If the administration says it will take a few quarters for the package to take effect then how does this guy know we need more stimulus??
I have read his articles for years, and his books too! It is amazing to behold how so many of his writings from years ago turned out to be dead-on!
I sold my second property because of what he was writing in 2005-06. Got rid of the house in three weeks. Six months later the bubble burst. If I wasn't listening to Paul and a few other liberals who were debunking the falacy of Bush's great economy, I would have been screwed. I also would have lost about 40 grand.
The first thing I do on Monday and Friday mornings, is read Paul Krugman. It's good for you. Kinda like eating your economic vegetables.
If I were a psychopath, I would join the republican party, and get in on the gravy train taking the Teabircher morons to the cleaners.
Unfortunately team Obama has continued with Paulson's Plunder and we are committed to $12 trillion plus to the Wall Street Mafia.
There is more than a few who should be in jail yet the administration position is that no one did anything wrong. Too bad for us.
And to Uncle Joe I agree about a WPA II.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
the ruling, corporate class. Offshore tax havens? Brilliant! Sending jobs overseas? Bon voyage! Bankrupted your company by felonious greed? No problem--how many trillion do you need? Obama doesn't work for us; he works for them.
but perhaps he's let his fear of another great depression lead him into panic. It's too soon to push for another stimulus, period. The public is numb with sticker shock right now, and talk of 100's of billions of dollars might actually make things worse, not better.
Also, just a question, but what makes anyone think that a bigger stimulus would have passed anyway? Seriously, given the Dems' weak knees and the GOPer's obstructionism, would a bigger package have passed?
There was several hundred BILLION in tax giveaways to the banks hidden in the 'Stimulus' that no on talks about. The section 382 heist as I call it.
Part of Paulson's Plunder and Obama's Blunder.
This amount is not included in the generally recognized $700 billion or $850 billion amount (depending on which count you use).
here
&
here
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
and world economies that Barry and the Dems wouldn't dream of touching--record corporate profits, the profits of corporate manipulation of markets, historically low taxes on corporations and the rich, the US's morbidly obese defense budget, the obscene profits taken by the pharmaceutical and health companies, the estate tax, illegal drug profits (which are in large part keeping a lot of international banks afloat right now)--I could go on and on. The money's there, but Barry and the Dems don't think things are bad enough to take it from its wrongful owners.
krugman doesn't have it quite right;
the original stimulous would have been plenty if obama didn't waste it giving our assets to the asshats who caused the problem in the first place
we need jobs, we don't need to bail out casino's operating under the guise of "banking"
instead of giving our money to banks he needed to make available funds for "loans"
NOT to be touched ACCEPT for the purpose of loans, and at the rate the government set, the bank would be entitled to a SMALL finders fee pre-set
but noooOOOOOooo...instead he simply gave them OUR Money
obama is having a VERY long learning curve and I am SUPREMELY disapointed
The $767 Billion 'Stimulus' does not include money to the banks. As noted above here there was a stealth giveaway to the banks of several hundred billion.
Even those two numbers put together are dwarfed by the Federal Reserve actions.
Here is an good chart in the Atlantic which demonstrates this. The is the parent article is here
Also a good report is from T2 Partners here (a large pdf)
I should clarify the word 'good' because the report shows just how deep the doo doo is and how far from being out of the woods we are.
David Tice on Bloomberg here who also thinks we are headed for deep water. My follow up comment to him, here
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
If one belirves MATT TAIBBI and his latest piece then more "stimlus" money to Wall Street is not what America or the world needs. In fact, Matt would say it would be simply giving Goldman Sachs free access to the next largely still intact money trof - the public purse.
Not good.
Nor does he think the planned carbon "cap and trade" plan is in our best intersts - but rather, ANOTHER give away to Goldman Sach and their ilk. The planned trading of carbon credits as a commodity AND first GVING AWAY 85% of the original credits instead of auctioning them off will - in his mind - lead to the same commodity speculation we see with oil. A straight, up-front carbon tax paid to government would have gone a long way towards financing much public expenditures, like health care. A broad based carbon tax could have, if implemeted properly, largely replaced income tax as the primary means of taxing the populace. Such a system would benefit the majority of people while "Cap and trade" most benefits speculators..like Goldman Sachs.
When he's ranting, his work is next to useless, and ranting is about 50% of his output. His accusation against GS is important enough that I'd like to see it seconded by someone responsible. I'd like to see what William Greider has to say; he's a far better journalist and investigator than Taibbi.
I agree with the gist that we've been in "bubble" economics for several years now. The first was the Nasdaq bubble, where "earnings didn't matter", and once the Nasdaq collapsed, the real estate bubble emerged, facilitated by artificially low interest rates by the Fed, and an abandonment of lending standards because mortgages were no longer held by the mortgage originators but were instead bundled into securities, falsely graded "AAA" and sold for more than they were worth.
I think we're in our last bubble, which is the federal budget deficit borrowing bubble, along with Fed's quantitative easing. So far, due to a perceived "flight to quality", the interest rates at auction haven't been hiked. However, China has pointed out that "it is increasingly disturbed by the Fed's direct purchase of US Treasury bonds."
If that is true, then, the Fed is interfering with the auction markets for Treasuries in order to keep the interest rate on treasuries artificially low. I don't see a bubble beyond this - at some point, potential currency devaluation is going to be priced into the interest rates on treasuries, and the last bubble, the borrowing bubble will burst. I think Obama would have been in a lot better position to stimulate the economy by borrowing had we not doubled the deficit under Bush.
lbj quickly learned, you cannot have a succesful domestic agenda when throwing billions into a war or occupation
its just that simple
Keynesian economics was fully discredited in the 1970's, quite why it's made a comeback is baffling.
One only has to look at what happened in Japan, where in the 90's they massively intervened in the markets and they are still only just recovering from it, they lost an entire decade, and you can go back to the great depression to see evidence that intervening in the markets failed massively, the US didn't get out of the depression until AFTER the war, thats almost 15 years, and it's a myth to say Herbert hoover didn't intervene in the markets, he did, FDR just ramped up his polices, contrast this with the depression of 1921, the federal reserve was in it's infancy and the government didn't intervene, the depression was over within a year because they let the economy shake out on it's own, if Bush and then Obama had stayed out of the market recovery wouldn't be that far off right now, probably another 6 months, but now we're looking at a entire decade of decline.
You also need to put a smack where it hurts behind it. You need to tell the governors of some states like say....Minnesota...that they can't take money away from education and health care because it can be covered by the stimulus package. The strategy being that by doing so the wealthy don't have to pay any more taxes. While the middle class lose their jobs, the children of the state have larger class sizes, many who are in definite need of health care, those with disabilities, are going without care.
And you know what....with this mentality Pawlenty will be running for President. He doesn't give a rip about his constituents making below 300,000. And the poor are invisible folks, unless of course they rise up and make themselves heard. When it gets ugly he scrabbles to put in the fix.
Jeanne
typical keynesian.
do X.
if it doesn't work, do more of X.
if it still doesn't work, blame the (non-existing) free market.
Comments are closed on this entry