Krugman: You know what this economy needs? A space alien invasion!

posted at 12:05 pm on August 15, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Patrick Ishmael wrote about this in the Green Room, but why should he have all the fun?  Not too long ago, Dick Durbin lamented the demise of credibility for Keynesian economic proposals, but even I didn’t realize the Keynesians had become quite this desperate.  Fareed Zakaria offers a strange view of economics where government seizes capital to dig ditches, refill them, and then roll around in the taxes paid by the workers who did the work while everyone winds up with nothing.  Paul Krugman then doubles down on this idiocy by explaining that economic growth would be just around the corner — if only Space Invaders came to life:

I love the war analogies. Doesn’t the Left keep blaming our current economic malaise on the two wars that George Bush started? If war was all it took to create economic growth, we’d be peaking now, wouldn’t we? And didn’t Barack Obama start a new war with Libya this year?  How is the economic growth from that conflict working out?

The rest of this is just sheer idiocy. Krugman, who won a Nobel Prize in economics, somehow forgets to tell Zakaria that seizing capital from productive enterprises in taxes (or worse, borrowing against future legitimate production in deficit spending) to fund the “ditch cycle” has opportunity costs — namely, the opportunity to produce something other than pre-filled ditches, which have a real value of zero.  That’s actually a significant part of what’s wrong now.  Government spending doesn’t create economic growth; it takes money from actual production, and so should be used sparingly and only for necessities.

Krugman then takes Zakaria’s reductio ad absurdum and makes it more absurd by postulating that a mistaken alarm of a space invasion would create vast economic growth, which would just remain even after the Emily Litella moment when the space aliens didn’t invade.  Unfortunately, the Nobel Prize-winning economist doesn’t explain what would happen when all of the assets built to meet the threat turn out to be useless and can’t be converted into productive assets for a non-space-war economy. Thanks to the massive seizure of capital it would take to create the defensive and offensive assets to meet that threat, we’d be left with little to power our economy, especially in a highly regulatory (and rationed) total-war economy.

It does explain a lot about Obamanomics, however, which has seized capital to deliver almost no real new valueonly to slightly speed up projects already on the planning board, and slightly speed up car and home sales that would have taken place anyway.  The credibility of Keynesian economics died with Porkulus, and all Krugman and Zakaria do is keep redigging the grave and filling it back up — which is apparently good for their own personal economies.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

So the space cadet wants to have a war with space aliens? I guess he hasn’t figured out that in a war with space aliens, we would probably lose.

dork!

evilned on August 15, 2011 at 12:48 PM

Why does anyone listen to a man that doesn’t completely wipe his a%s because he thinks the smell is attractive…?

Seven Percent Solution on August 15, 2011 at 12:24 PM

ROTFLMFAO

katy the mean old lady on August 15, 2011 at 12:48 PM

OT, but on real life and death of idiocy:

End the delays of Fast and Furious inquiry
White House, Justice should cooperate with congressional probe.

The revelations about Operation Fast and Furious keep getting worse. The Obama administration needs to start showing some accountability and providing answers.

One of the ATF agents in Mexico City called the bungled operation “a perfect storm of idiocy.” The lack of cooperation from the White House and Justice Department are making that perfect storm even worse.

NMRN123 on August 15, 2011 at 12:48 PM

The aliens are already here. The are called democrats, liberals or progressives.

derft on August 15, 2011 at 12:49 PM

Really Right on August 15, 2011 at 12:38 PM

Purchases of US goods recovered because England was borrowing to spend, but that was not a long-term economic plan. Our own borrowing could not be sustained. The “industrial” growth was a temporary (but necessary) facade.

As soon as the spending stopped, the economy tanked (because it was all fake, no real investment, no reliable demand). The post-war economy didn’t take off until Republicans could remove some of the Depression-era regulatory and programmatic hurdles and get spending under control.

mankai on August 15, 2011 at 12:50 PM

This shows why the Nobel Prize is the most useless award on the face of the earth.

flytier on August 15, 2011 at 12:50 PM

OT: Wisconsin Unions Crumbling

kevinbinversie Kevin Binversie
by EWErickson
RT @news3jessica: WEAC confirms they’re laying off 42 people today, which is 48% of their staff. #wiunion

andy85719 on August 15, 2011 at 12:51 PM

Or, we could just build pyramids.

TexasDan on August 15, 2011 at 12:52 PM

Paul’s next book should be entitled To Serve Man.

Christien on August 15, 2011 at 12:52 PM

It’s magical thinking, from the Great Depression. Except that, in recent years, the old theory that WWII ended the GD has been punctured by people actually going and looking back at the period.

FDR messed up the economy and caused the GD the same way Obama is, attacking the business owners with new regulations, taxes, rhetoric, and threats of even more of the same.

WWII distracted FDR, giving the economy an consistent set of rules for a few years. When the war ended, the Republican took over Congress and undid a lot (not all) of the New Deals regulators and regulations.

We’ll get a growing economy back when we likewise flush out Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, and at least put a choker collar on the EPA and the Dept. of Interior. And start actually cleaning up the Housing bubble detritus.

Like I said in the green room, an alien invasion would help, if it took down the District of Columbia first.

LarryD on August 15, 2011 at 12:54 PM

Yeah, the problem with the digging-and-filling idea is that there is no need for the actual work to be done, and therefore the proposition is obviously just a temporary transfer of money from someone productive to someone unproductive.

The left’s priority is to do things that suppress productive economic activity. They can’t overcome that handicap in any way but by having wars become an even higher priority. Kurgman has to posit space invaders, of course, because it would be politically incorrect to imagine a war with any actual nation(s) on earth.

J.E. Dyer on August 15, 2011 at 12:57 PM

Delusion (n)

A delusion is believing in something that most members of an individual’s family or culture regard as irrational or false. One of the words used by ancient Greek writers to identify delusions was phantasia, and this is the root of our word “fantasy”. A delusion may be regarded as a fantasy that is taken to be a reality.

ex. jet powered couch, fantasy economics guru, believe you are smarter than others, believe you can spend the money on a money tree, etc.

faraway on August 15, 2011 at 12:57 PM

Oh God, please don’t let Barry see this video or hear about it. We’ll be hearing of otherworldly threats that he needs to create new government to oversee.

ButterflyDragon on August 15, 2011 at 12:58 PM

Krugman, are you for real? Seriously, an invasion of space aliens would help the economy? Never mind that they would obliterate us and thus our reason for having an economy.

What a loon!

You can’t argue with crazy people. It’ll give you a massive headache failing to follow their illogic.

islandman78 on August 15, 2011 at 12:59 PM

We are ruled over by utter morons (I include the media in this). God save us.

Mojave Mark on August 15, 2011 at 1:02 PM

This shows why the Nobel Prize is the most useless award on the face of the earth.

flytier on August 15, 2011 at 12:50 PM

Strictly speaking what Krugs “won” isn’t a real Nobel Prize, because the award, called the “Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel”, was established 3/4 of a century after Alfred Nobel established the original prizes. To be fair to Krugs, it is the only non-Nobel prize that has ever been associated officially with the Nobel Foundation.

So to sum up, a non-economist won a non-Nobel prize.

Del Dolemonte on August 15, 2011 at 1:03 PM

He’s so mixed up…..when he says “alien invasion” he means he wishes the ORCS would attack the Hobbits.

jeesh, Paul get your SCI-FI Progressive Fantasies straight.

PappyD61 on August 15, 2011 at 1:05 PM

You guys know I trck this stuff. Did you know Youngstown State University has a “Center For Workingclass Studies?”

They report unemployment by their metrics is 29% They seem to have a problem with the weekly labor force reductions arbitrarily performed by the Failbama Nero administration.

Here’s the Site:
http://cwcs.ysu.edu/resources/cwcs-projects/defacto

They use actual data for their report and they produce it quarterly.

and don’t forget shadowstats.com

dogsoldier on August 15, 2011 at 1:05 PM

Did he just admit that Obama’s America is like a Twilight Zone episode in waiting?
-

RalphyBoy on August 15, 2011 at 1:06 PM

Paul’s next book should be entitled To Serve Man.

Christien on August 15, 2011 at 12:52 PM

Hah!

Aardvark on August 15, 2011 at 1:06 PM

PappyD61 on August 15, 2011 at 1:05 PM

They did

Hobbits 1 Orcs 0 as I recall.

dogsoldier on August 15, 2011 at 1:07 PM

I’ve always thought Krugman was a florid case of full-blown psychosis just waiting to become manifest in public. Keep watching — it will get worse — oh, SO much worse.

I wonder at what point in his galloping mental breakdown the MSM sources that give him airtime will finally decide he’s hurting the cause, and give him the hook. They sure won’t ever do it for the poor man’s well-being; No liberal ever cared about things like that.

Dirty Creature on August 15, 2011 at 1:08 PM

I’m not a big fan of Rush, but I like him OK and caught some of his act today. He had a brilliant response! He pointed out that the people like Krugman who say a even a phony war would be good for the economy have been crying about how bad the real wars in AfPak and Iraq have been for the economy.

MJBrutus on August 15, 2011 at 1:08 PM

This guy is certifiable. Anyone who uses him as a source from here on belongs in the nut house with Krugman. Truly insane.

JimP on August 15, 2011 at 1:10 PM

Never ever ever never EVER trust a man who looks like that in a photo.

That pic just screams “Hi there I’m Paul. Do you like turtles? I like turtles.”

Bishop on August 15, 2011 at 12:07 PM

Rush calls him “the ferret-like Paul Krugman”.

slickwillie2001 on August 15, 2011 at 1:11 PM

Speaking of the Nobel Prizes, isn’t it bizarre how the Left adores them, even though they were endowed by a guy whose main claim to fame was an invention that is used to blow up things (and people)?

In fact, guilt about that very thing is what led Alfred to start the awards. He’d read his own obituary, which was mistakenly published after his brother died. This is what got to him:

“Dr. Alfred Nobel, who became rich by finding ways to kill more people faster than ever before, died yesterday.”

Del Dolemonte on August 15, 2011 at 1:11 PM

Or, we could just build pyramids.

TexasDan on August 15, 2011 at 12:52 PM

I like Hayak’s version of this fallacy. When he saw workers using shovels to build the Panama canal he asked why they didn’t use steam shovels and heavy machinery. The answer was thta it was about creating jobs. So Hayak asked, “then why not spoons?”

MJBrutus on August 15, 2011 at 1:12 PM

Look, I’m up for bagging on this useful idiot as much as the next guy, but I think this is unfair.

All he did was lay out some far-fetched scenario that he thought would help the economy. Would it? Who knows but given his track record, probably not.

Just because he used “space aliens” doesn’t make it any less or more valid than if he said “the Chinese.” Does it make it sound sillier – sure – but it doesn’t change his likely misguided point.

He was just giving a scenario and the baddies in it made no difference as to its substance.

These jackasses provide multiple, legit targets daily. Why is attention called to bullshit like this – it makes US look bad to harp on such low hanging fruit when there are bigger battles to win against these idiots.

/rant

RedNewEnglander on August 15, 2011 at 1:12 PM

Rush calls him “the ferret-like Paul Krugman”.

slickwillie2001 on August 15, 2011 at 1:11 PM

Frank Burns could not be reached for comment.

Del Dolemonte on August 15, 2011 at 1:12 PM

Two things. Where does this guy get his drugs? I WANTS SOME!!! Second, when your economic model depends on a alien invasion to work, well…..

Yakko77 on August 15, 2011 at 1:12 PM

We are ruled over by utter morons (I include the media in this). God save us.

Mojave Mark on August 15, 2011 at 1:02 PM

God has no play here. He can save your soul. You have to save your own ass.

BobMbx on August 15, 2011 at 1:13 PM

I always thought Krugman and his fellow liberal followers WERE aliens. I’m still waiting for their mother ship to come and take them back where they belong. Out of sight.

Travis1 on August 15, 2011 at 1:13 PM

Obama’s like a Starman waiting in the sky.

He’d like to come and lead us
But he thinks he’d blow our minds.

Christien on August 15, 2011 at 1:15 PM

Is it just me, or is he looking more and more like the Unnabomber every time I see him?

Lanceman on August 15, 2011 at 1:15 PM

What is the democrat bar for crazy? I really want to know. I hear them say certain people are evil. I hear them say certain people are stupid. But are democrats simply incapable of noticing crazy? That’s a problem for them, I think.

Rational Thought on August 15, 2011 at 1:17 PM

If you want to know why the economy is in such tough shape remember, this is the kind of economist Obama relies on. I still can’t believe this guy won a Nobel Peace price in economics, some of what he says is dumber than a fence post.

bflat879 on August 15, 2011 at 1:17 PM

Wow, he’s lost it.

Ward Cleaver on August 15, 2011 at 1:21 PM

So to sum up, a non-economist won a non-Nobel prize.

Del Dolemonte on August 15, 2011 at 1:03 PM

Kinda like Overbite going to Cornell, huh?

Lanceman on August 15, 2011 at 1:22 PM

Barking mad.

Mason on August 15, 2011 at 1:22 PM

BTW, the WWII analogy is bogus too. There was big time domestic rationing during all the borrowing and spending for war production. People were saving the money they made at the factories because there was not much they could spend it on. Similar to the businesses sitting on all those billions right now. Lots of cash lying around waiting for ‘stablility’ to be re-established. The Depression didn’t actually end until FDR died and people knew the crazy Keynesian economics experimenting was over. I wish I had saved all the links where I have read about all this recently so I could post them for everyone.

JimP on August 15, 2011 at 1:23 PM

What does Krugman and toilet paper have in common? They have circle Uranus looking for Klingons.

MaiDee on August 15, 2011 at 1:25 PM

The Aliens have invaded

http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2011/08/san-franciscos-public-pension-system-drowning-red-ink

Pension payments range widely, from as little as a few hundred dollars a month to as high of about $22,600 a month, which is $271,200 a year. According to July 2010 pension data, 7,266 retirees were receiving monthly checks between $2,000 and $4,999. More than 600 retired workers earned more than $108,000 a year as of July 2010.

William Amos on August 15, 2011 at 1:29 PM

Krugman puts the ACK!ACK! in hack.

Christien on August 15, 2011 at 1:32 PM

Secretary of Energy Steven Chu also has a Nobel Prize.

Not sure why that’s important but it always seems to impress Barry.

pain train on August 15, 2011 at 1:32 PM

And didn’t Barack Obama start a new war with Libya this year?

Hey pal, that’s a ‘kentic military action.’ Apparently, those are not stimulative… /

rcpjr on August 15, 2011 at 1:34 PM

JimP on August 15, 2011 at 1:23 PM

You’ll have to forgive Krugs for his ignorance of WW2, since he wasn’t even hatched until 7+ years after that war ended.

Everything he “knows” about that war comes from what he was “taught” at Yale and M.I.T.

Del Dolemonte on August 15, 2011 at 1:39 PM

He must mean illegal aliens.

MaiDee on August 15, 2011 at 1:40 PM

“One through nine, no maybes, no supposes, no fractions. You can’t travel in space, you can’t go out into space, you know, without, like, you know, uh, with fractions – what are you going to land on – one-quarter, three-eighths? What are you going to do when you go from here to Venus or something? That’s dialectic physics.”

Ted Torgerson on August 15, 2011 at 1:45 PM

Isn’t Keynesian economics like the Mary Kay sales rep buying from herself? The more she buys from herself, the higher her commission. The same is true with the Keynesian model. The government effectively takes tax dollars and gives it to people to dig holes in the ground just to have these same people fill them up again. Then the government pays them a wage using tax dollars then tax that wage, with nothing productive as the result. No wealth is generated just an endless circle jerk of transferring tax dollars to unproductive workers then back to the government again, then back to the unproductive worker then back to … You get the point.

At this rate we’ll all be in Pink Cadillacs in no time.
http://derek-alexander.blogspot.com/

Caro1ina on August 15, 2011 at 1:51 PM

I was just telling my secretary about this. She is NOT VERSED EITHER IN POLITICS OR ECONOMICS. Her reaction was “Maybe he should go hang out with the guy who thinks we are gonna tip over Guam.”

Priceless.

Ignorant Mensan on August 15, 2011 at 1:54 PM

Krugman: You know what this economy needs? A space alien invasion

And he has all the equations to prove it!

Emperor Norton on August 15, 2011 at 2:01 PM

The Aliens have invaded

http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2011/08/san-franciscos-public-pension-system-drowning-red-ink

Pension payments range widely, from as little as a few hundred dollars a month to as high of about $22,600 a month, which is $271,200 a year. According to July 2010 pension data, 7,266 retirees were receiving monthly checks between $2,000 and $4,999. More than 600 retired workers earned more than $108,000 a year as of July 2010.

William Amos on August 15, 2011 at 1:29 PM

I think that the crowning moment of SF public stupidity had to be the incompetent Commissioner of Elections who couldn’t be fired by the city because her life partner was in the middle of a sex change operation funded by the city’s health plan.

teke184 on August 15, 2011 at 2:02 PM

That’s actually a significant part of what’s wrong now. Government spending doesn’t create economic growth; it takes money from actual production, and so should be used sparingly and only for necessities.

Ed, as long as there have been balance sheet recessions, no one has found empirical evidence that any other approach than public spending can fill the void left when households and businesses simply refuse to buy products and services. It’s as simple as that- and this isn’t something that left or right-leaning economists seriously debate. You seem to suggest that if the government does nothing, the economy will magically repair itself. As the US found in 1937 and Japan witnessed during it’s lost decade, the real world is not quite so simple. And there’s no easy way out.

And our current great recession has nothing to do with George Bush’s wars. Anyone who makes that claim is just as misguided.

bayam on August 15, 2011 at 2:07 PM

When are Niall Ferguson and Paul Krugman going to start yelling at each other again? Is it time for their annual debate or is Krugman tired of losing?

Illinidiva on August 15, 2011 at 2:11 PM

the Depression didn’t actually end until FDR died and people knew the crazy Keynesian economics experimenting was over.

Straight from right-wing radio to your brain, but certainly not something that any preeminent economist would ever claim- definitely the exact opposite of how Ken Rogoff, former chief economist for the IMF, would describe the Great Depression.

bayam on August 15, 2011 at 2:15 PM

Krugman = Plan 9 from Outer Space

Dhuka on August 15, 2011 at 2:16 PM

Krugman’s Nobel was for hating George W. Bush. His seminal work in economics had ended almost two decades before his award. Incidentally, Krugman’s field was extremely narrow, involving the relationship between international trade and the business cycle, and requiring no general knowledge of economics to pursue (it was primarily analyzing data).

Zakaria is an Obama favorite because he has always hated America and capitalism and predicted the downfall of both. He’s a stupid little man, one of Jon Meacham’s many stupid hires when he took over Newsweek in the ’90s, and a key player in that magazine’s transformation from center-left news aggregator to far-left fantasy pulp.

If aliens did stop by and we sent Krugman and Zakaria out to greet them, they would quickly conclude there was no intelligent life on the planet.

Adjoran on August 15, 2011 at 2:19 PM

Except for the alien angle, all of this happened in the thirties. The secretary of the treasury (not some dim senator) denounced the essence of Keynesianism, i.e. stimulus spending, in 1937. The WPA removed functioning roads and built duplicate roads on the same site. The road by my grandparents house was rebuilt three times during the six years that I lived nearby.

Obama is a fine student of FDR, but he still has to try other dumb stunts to duplicate all the things the new deal did.

I expect another cycle of, “demise of credibility of Keyensian economic principles,” in the second half of this century.

burt on August 15, 2011 at 2:23 PM

He’s out of his Vulcan mind!

stevezilla on August 15, 2011 at 2:26 PM

Krugman also advised Enron. I would much rather he be labled “Enron Advisor, Paul Krugman” than “Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize for Economics”

instugator on August 15, 2011 at 2:26 PM

Stimulus spending has been such and abysmal failure every time it has been tried that its proponents have to fall back on arguments from authority: “Well serious economists don’t question this is the only solution.” Or that MSNBC bimbo: “Do you have a degree in economics?” Guess what? There have been severe recessions brought on by financial crises since they invented money. Somehow the economy always recovered, even before John Maynard Keynes. Look at the panic of 1873. It was almost identical to the one in 2008. They let the recession run its course, and by 1878 the American economy was booming again. It soon took over the leadership of the world. The government did not print money to solve problems back then. In 1875 they actually went on the gold standard to stabilize the currency and fight inflation.

Ted Torgerson on August 15, 2011 at 2:29 PM

mankai on August 15, 2011 at 12:50 PM

The only country which repaid lend-lease is Finland.

burt on August 15, 2011 at 2:31 PM

Silent Cal Coolidge had a drop in GDP that was sharper then the one Hoover had in 1929. Cal did nothing. Hoover was proactive, he signed Smoot-Haley. Of course doing something is always better than being inactive.

burt on August 15, 2011 at 2:40 PM

He’s just wishing for his family to come back and get him after they dropped him on this planet for being too weird . . .

PastorJon on August 15, 2011 at 3:05 PM

Warning! Warning! Danger Will Robinson, Danger, It’s Mr. Krugman.

dthorny on August 15, 2011 at 3:12 PM

burt on August 15, 2011 at 2:31 PM

Yes, but the demand was there from England. It was temporary demand created by the war which is why wars are not good for long-term growth.

mankai on August 15, 2011 at 3:16 PM

Straight from right-wing radio to your brain, but certainly not something that any preeminent economist would ever claim- definitely the exact opposite of how Ken Rogoff, former chief economist for the IMF, would describe the Great Depression.

bayam on August 15, 2011 at 2:15 PM

No credible economist claims that the New Deal ended teh depression. They all admit it was WWII and its aftermath that ended it.

so stop with your lying. All credible economist this and all credible economist that.

If an actual fact conflicts with your leftist worldview, you pretend it does not exist and say “all credible economists, all credible economists”. I hate to break it to you, but that is not true. You probably consider Krugman a credible economist. He’s not. He once was, but that ship sailed a long, long time ago. Now he’s a predictable left-wing hack.

What’s more, all of your leftist world-view stems from Keynes, but doesn’t even get Keynes remotely correct. Keynes called for low spending during good time and saving money, then spending more during bad times (possibly even deficit spending), but paying off the debt again during good times. Your liberal Keynseyian economists fail to acknowledge more than 1/2 of what their hero calls for, making them nothing but partisan hacks. Conservatives would actually agree w/ most of Keynes if his ideas were implemented in teh way he theorized – low spendind and saving any surplus in good times. What you want is high, deficit spending in good times and bad. That’s ridiculous. No credible person, economist or not, can honestly claim that is a good idea.

Monkeytoe on August 15, 2011 at 3:23 PM

i have only three things to say to that, mr. k

ack….ack, ack!

DrW on August 15, 2011 at 3:37 PM

And our current great recession has nothing to do with George Bush’s wars. Anyone who makes that claim is just as misguided.

bayam on August 15, 2011 at 2:07 PM

Your Democrats signed off on those wars too. The fact you still call them Bush’s Wars shows you’re simply a Leftist Hack who doesn’t know any better.

Now tell us again how two college dropouts named Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are “highly educated”.

Del Dolemonte on August 15, 2011 at 3:38 PM

any preeminent economist

bayam on August 15, 2011 at 2:15 PM

Name some.

Del Dolemonte on August 15, 2011 at 3:39 PM

Krugman = Plan 9 from Outer Space

Dhuka on August 15, 2011 at 2:16 PM

bayam = Plan 10 from Uranus

Del Dolemonte on August 15, 2011 at 3:40 PM

He’s just lookin’ to get probed, if ya ask me…

mojo on August 15, 2011 at 3:50 PM

Monkeytoe on August 15, 2011 at 3:23 PM

Actually, Keynes wasn’t even right about that. When the government increases it’s spending in downturns, it generally worsens the problem by sucking up investment money and doing unproductive things with the resources and efforts it buys, postponing real growth. Likewise, if it saves up in bubble times, it just contributes to those bubbles, bringing about the next crash more rapidly.

Count to 10 on August 15, 2011 at 3:51 PM

Nobel Prize laureate Krugman thinks WWII got us out of the Depression? Seriously??

No, Paul, WWII alleviated our unemployment problem. Our economic problems were alleviated after the war when (a) we were the only economy of note left standing, (b) everybody had the money earned during the war burning holes in their pockets because there had been nothing to spend it on for the previous four years, (c) the American manufacturing infrastructure was fully intact and able to swing back into peace-time production of consumer goods and (d) women who had entered the workplace for the first time willingly–and sometimes not so willingly–returned to their previous positions as homemakers enabling full employment of the returning troops.

I’m no Keynesian, but the poor guy must be spinning in his grave at idiotic suggestions like Zakaria’s that government paying people to uselessly dig and refill holes would be a policy he would advocate. I feel for Prof. Rogoff having to suffer these two fools.

SukieTawdry on August 15, 2011 at 4:17 PM

And then Ron Paul would have more voters…

deedtrader on August 15, 2011 at 4:23 PM

Monkeytoe on August 15, 2011 at 3:23 PM
Actually, Keynes wasn’t even right about that. When the government increases it’s spending in downturns, it generally worsens the problem by sucking up investment money and doing unproductive things with the resources and efforts it buys, postponing real growth. Likewise, if it saves up in bubble times, it just contributes to those bubbles, bringing about the next crash more rapidly.

Count to 10 on August 15, 2011 at 3:51 PM

I’m not sure that is entirely true. If the gov’t is spending mostly from a surplus, rather than deficit spending, then it is not sucking up investment $. And, even if it is deficit spending, if it is truly spending on gov’t functions – building dams, bridges, roads, etc., rather than trying to compete with private enterprise, I don’t see it crowding out other investment (depending on the size of the borrowing). There’s always people investing in gov’t bonds, so I don’t think it is necessarily taking money away from other investments just by virtue of the gov’t borrowing some money.

I think part of the problem w/ Keyneysian theory is that it was developed when you could literally plan and start a project in a matter of months, so the gov’t could decide “we need to increase spending and hire workers to get through this recession” and decide to build bridges, dams, a new park, and repair or build roads that it had been putting off or otherwise wouldn’t do. So, in those days, the gov’t would decided to spend and start hiring (i.e., letting out contracts, etc.) for a project that was actually going to build something of value to the community and hire people. Now, with all of the crazy regulations, unions, and everything else, gov’t simply cannot do that. It has to have years of planning, meetings, hearings, court battles, contract bids, environmental reviews, inspections and everything else.

Gov’t cannot decide to start a new project (build a damn, levy, bridge, road) and have the project actually start within a 2 year period. So it is literally impossible for the gov’t to Keynesian spend anymore in a timely fashion on things that produce any actual value or result in new jobs.

Instead, we have the type of “Keynesian” spending that accomplishes nothing – giving money to the states who use it to pay gov’t workers – which stimulates nothing. It creates no jobs, produces nothing of value and has an actual negative impact on the economy. It simply transfers wealth. I think Keynes envisioned the gov’t spending money on a product (a dam, a bridge) that had some value and created some jobs. Not simply taking money from “A” and transfering it to “B” and calling it “stimulus”.

As to increasing the bubble, I don’t see how gov’t saving money contributes to a real estate bubble or a .com bubble?

I’m not saying I agree 100% w/ Keynes. But, I agree a lot more with Keynes (gov’t should save in good times, spend in bad) than I do with liberal intepretation of Keynes (gov’t should always spend more than it takes in and double down on that deficit spending in bad times).

My point is simply that liberals come on here and argue Keynesian economics, but don’t even get Keynes correct in the first place. They pick and chose what they like from Keynes (spending) and ignore what they don’t like (cutting spending and saving). And, the part they ignore is at least 1/2 of Keynes’ theory. It’s like Obamacare w/o the individual mandate – it falls apart.

Monkeytoe on August 15, 2011 at 4:32 PM

If the gov’t is spending mostly from a surplus, rather than deficit spending, then it is not sucking up investment $.

Minor note, obviously, it is sucking up investment $ to the extent the gov’t took the $ in the first instance. But, I am arguing about after the fact, at the moment of the recession when the gov’t already has the funds saved.

Monkeytoe on August 15, 2011 at 4:35 PM

Why is that all Nobel Laureates are Bat shit Crazy??? Al Gore..Ferret face…

Political Chef on August 15, 2011 at 4:37 PM

How is this Hobbit looking Leftist not called a Tea Party member?

chickasaw42 on August 15, 2011 at 4:44 PM

Krugmoron is truly losing it……not that he had a lot to lose in the first place.

David in ATL on August 15, 2011 at 4:55 PM

Hey guys, if we just spent say 20% of our GDP on stuff we don’t need for a threat we won’t face then we’d have a better economy.

What do you mean “it didn’t work with Global Warming”?

gekkobear on August 15, 2011 at 5:44 PM

All credible economist this and all credible economist that

.

Are you saying that the top economist at the IMF, Ken Rogoff as featured in this video, isn’t one of the most preeminent economists in this country? I’m trying to understand how your right wing talking points have any basis in what’s widely accepted among economists. No answer yet.

What’s more, all of your leftist world-view stems from Keynes, but doesn’t even get Keynes remotely correct. Keynes called for low spending during good time and saving money

Correct, Keynes called for lower spending and higher taxes during an economic boom. These actions prevent boom periods from over-extending or leading to asset bubbles (sound familiar?)

Then spending more during bad times (possibly even deficit spending), but paying off the debt again during good times. Your liberal Keynseyian economists fail to acknowledge more than 1/2 of what their hero calls for, making them nothing but partisan hacks

This mirrors the policies of Clinton and the GOP Congress during the 90′s. In fact, it mirrors the economic policies of almost every US President since the 1950′s. And it’s lead to great prosperity and relatively modest periods of recession, far different from the world’s experience before Keynes emerged.

In fact, before Keyenes, it was widely held economic policy to balance the budget during a recession by raising taxes, based on the false premise that balancing the federal budget would help the economy recover. Anyone who supports NOT raising taxes during a recession is actually placing their trust in key tenet Keynes.

bayam on August 15, 2011 at 5:58 PM

What the Democratic Party espouses is not even Keynesianism. Yes, Keynes wanted demand increased in hard times, but he also wanted demand reduced in good times. His idea was to use government spending or non-spending as a counterweight to the ups and downs of the market. So when was the last time a Democrat insisted that we cut spending in good times? What Obama is pushing is Porkulous. Don’t fancy it up with high sounding terms like Keynesianism, when it’s got more in common with a good old fashion spending spree of a drunken sailor. (Although drunken sailors spend their own money).

Fred 2 on August 15, 2011 at 6:00 PM

Ken Rogoff

bayam on August 15, 2011 at 5:58 PM

Funny how Ken is the one name you mention in almost every post. Did you know that the parallels between Rogoff and Krugman are too scary to believe?

1. They were born within a month of each other in the same year in similarly-sized cities in the same state.

2. They both got their degrees from the very same places, within years of each other.

Now please, put actual identities to some of these other “economists” you keep citing, by name.

Oh, and yes, I know I’m just a dumb pineapple. But at least I know that the “highly educated” founders of Apple and Microsoft are in fact college dropouts.

Del Dolemonte on August 15, 2011 at 6:46 PM

If it means channeling defense spending towards the development of the Vic Viper or the R-9A Arrowhead, I won’t complain.

ZK on August 15, 2011 at 6:58 PM

Can they really get all of those MSNBC hosts to attack us?

Oh, add Jimmy Carter and Dennis Kuchinich.

dthorny on August 15, 2011 at 8:04 PM

Oh, and yes, I know I’m just a dumb pineapple. But at least I know that the “highly educated” founders of Apple and Microsoft are in fact college dropouts.

Del Dolemonte on August 15, 2011 at 6:46 PM

And Einstein failed to graduate high school.

dthorny on August 15, 2011 at 8:07 PM

The broken window fallacy is not an economic plan.

BDavis on August 15, 2011 at 9:12 PM

Go ahead, laugh at Krugman then watch Saint Ronald use the same “aliens” theme IN FRONT OF THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY!

chumpThreads on August 15, 2011 at 9:47 PM

Krugman understands economics. He advocates that which he knows is evil. Why?

proconstitution on August 15, 2011 at 9:57 PM

Alien invasion, huh? Look at that picture. Krugman must be their pathfinder.

PS: Haven’t we had an alien invasion already? After all, Obama’s the president.

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on August 15, 2011 at 10:29 PM

This mirrors the policies of Clinton and the GOP Congress during the 90′s. In fact, it mirrors the economic policies of almost every US President since the 1950′s. And it’s lead to great prosperity and relatively modest periods of recession, far different from the world’s experience before Keynes emerged.

A) Yes, once a balanced budget was forced on him, Clinton accepted it.

B) No, it has not been the policy of most presidents. No president has cut spending ever. We have never had a budget lower from one year to the next. And, the last 12 years it has been out of control (and yes, this includes Bush), but of course, OIdiot doubled down on this and put spending into the stratosphere and still wants to increase spending.

How can you claim that we have ever controlled spending during good times? That’s absolute nonsense. What’s more, if you idiot liberals had your way, we would increase spending even more during good times. So, we would never save a cent for the bad times.

Of course you miss the entire point – which is why you don’t understand Keynes at all and why you misuse him. You don’t even understand the concept of low spending. To you it means instead of increasing spending by 25%, we increase spending by 20%. That is not what Keynes meant.

Which is why you are clearly economically illiterate.

Monkeytoe on August 16, 2011 at 7:52 AM

In fact, before Keyenes, it was widely held economic policy to balance the budget during a recession by raising taxes, based on the false premise that balancing the federal budget would help the economy recover. Anyone who supports NOT raising taxes during a recession is actually placing their trust in key tenet Keynes.

bayam on August 15, 2011 at 5:58 PM

Yes, tax cuts are a form of Keynesian stimulus, but also fit into other economic theories as well. but, just as most evidence tends to not support Keynesian deficit spending, there is no evidnece that balancing a budget does not help an economy.

Despite your widely held echo-chamber beliefs, every stimulus program during a recession has failed. Our current stimulus failed, FDR’s spending failed. There is no solid evidence to support defecit spending as the savior of economies during a recession, and there is a lot of evidence going teh other way.

so, not only do you get Keynes himself wrong, but to the extent you get him correct, the evidence doesn’t support you.

Monkeytoe on August 16, 2011 at 7:56 AM

This guy is the biggest turd burger that I have seen in a long time. On another point I have to take exception with Rush today when he called Krugman ferret face. He must have read one of my posts as I have been using that colloquialism for the last three years when I comment about him. Or maybe the resemblance is so obvious that it is just natural to say that.

jistincase on August 16, 2011 at 9:22 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3